Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 3/19/2002 7:43:10 PM EDT
Howdy!

I'm looking at purchasing a .44 magnum with a 6" - 8" barrel. I want something that's going to hold up in outdoor use. It needs to take sand/dust blowing, dampness, etc. (Yes, I'll be cleaning it out often.) Stainless is a definite.

In other words, I want reliability in and unfriendly weather situations. Freezing up or malfunctioning due to dust and sand is not an option.

Here are the contenders I've found thus far:

Colt
Anaconda

Ruger
Redhawk
Super Redhawk

S&W
629
629 Classic
629 Classic DX

Taurus
Model 44
Raging Bull

Any advice? Additions? Subtractions?
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 7:46:51 PM EDT
My opinion, given your criteria I would go with the Super Redhawk on price point alone not to mention it's accurate, dependable and built like a tank. I have a super redhawk and couldn't be happier with it.
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 7:56:01 PM EDT
I prefer the Smith, and the Anaconda looks cool (although it is not as Pythonlike as it looks) but the Ruger is unbeatable for bombproof construction.
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 8:16:02 PM EDT
Ruger Redhawk KRH-44R+.

Stainless .44 7.5" bbl. with rings for scope mounting.
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 8:22:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2002 8:22:43 PM EDT by jtw2]

Originally Posted By BusMaster007:
Ruger Redhawk KRH-44R+.

Stainless .44 7.5" bbl. with rings for scope mounting.



oh yeah, forgot that point. The Ruger comes with rings. That's worth another $50 bucks.

BTW the Anaconda is a POS. Nothing at all like the Python.
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 9:58:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 1:20:52 AM EDT
Prebans:

Good luck, I've been trying to decide what I want in 44. mag. for over a year, yeah it takes me forever to make a decision. Chances are you aren't going to find an Anaconda unless you pay out the nose. Or unless you pay out the ass. I wonder if one is worse than the other? Oops. I'm leaning toward the Redhawk,(bombproof) but like the looks of the 629, and like the price of Taurus. I think that any and all will do the intended Job.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 1:37:18 AM EDT
Raging Bull
you just cant beat it for the price. it is perfect for those of us on a limited fire arms budget. I use mine for hunting, it gets wet, it gets muddy, it fires every time. the compensated barrel helps keep it on target shot after shot.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 3:34:39 AM EDT
Go to your favorite gun shop, try the triggers- You will find the triggers on all the guns will require adjusting to feel really right. All except the Smith's that is. Right out of the box they feel like they have already had a trigger job. Smooth-smooth-smooth. Just my humble opinion
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 4:14:09 AM EDT
You didn't mention the Desert Eagle. Of course, its big enough you may want a sling for it, or possible a wheeled mount. The Desert Eagle will do what you want, and if you decide you need something more powerful, you can upgrade.

If you don't hotrod the .44, the Smith and Wesson is a wonderful gun. The Rugers are much stronger than the Smith. I prefer the Redhawk over the Super Redhawk; the Super Redhawk is the ugliest gun designed for one hand use.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 4:43:52 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 4:55:15 AM EDT
If you're going to be staying in a muddy, sandy, or otherwise messy environment where foreign matter might get inside your revolver, the Rugers have the advantage of being much easier to field strip than the other makes.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 6:03:37 AM EDT
No consideration for Dan Wesson?


www.danwessonfirearms.com
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 7:04:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Renamed:
If you're going to be staying in a muddy, sandy, or otherwise messy environment where foreign matter might get inside your revolver, the Rugers have the advantage of being much easier to field strip than the other makes.



This is true.
Also, before trying the out of the box 'trigger of triggers' on that S&W, take the side plate off (Rugers do not have this weakness) and see if there's any leftover grit and metal flakes inside the gun before grinding it in...
Then, check the reload manuals for hot and heavy 'Ruger Only' loads...
The S&W is a good gun, it's just not as strongly engineered as the Ruger, nor is it as easy to disassemble.
I like the 'because I can' ability of the Ruger design, and that's why I put that model designator up. It is strong and easy to care for, plus, you can scope it.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 8:11:06 AM EDT
Just remember to keep an eye out at local gunshops for used guns. I picked up a 7 1/2" Ruger Redhawk 44 Mag for $279 that was basically unfired. A classic case, most likely, of somebody buying a 44 Magnum, firing a couple of full-house rounds, hating it, and trading it in cheap for something else.

The bargains are out there.

Link Posted: 3/20/2002 4:40:25 PM EDT
Hello, all!

Thank you very much for your advice and help. I know little to nothing aabout revolvers and reliability; this is a GREAT help.

I've replied individually where possible. I decided to pull the Colt from the lineup due to cost issues. (Wow; what are they now-- collector items??!) The S&W guns may go soon as well; I'd rather not spend so much on something that may not be as reliable as the others.

Thanks again!

Mike
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 4:44:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HBAR:
Prebans:

Good luck, I've been trying to decide what I want in 44. mag. for over a year, yeah it takes me forever to make a decision. Chances are you aren't going to find an Anaconda unless you pay out the nose. Or unless you pay out the ass. I wonder if one is worse than the other? Oops. I'm leaning toward the Redhawk,(bombproof) but like the looks of the 629, and like the price of Taurus. I think that any and all will do the intended Job.



Thus far, I tend to agree. I love the looks of the S&W; no doubt they have it for appearance. But, this ain't no beauty contest. I want something that works and I don't want to pay out the nose for it.

Personally, I like the looks of the Super Redhawk. (Yeah, I'm weird.) And, it felt soooooo solid in my hands. The price isn't too bad, either... As for the Taurus, it seems just as expensive. I also know Ruger better than Taurus... Then again, who knows? I'm probably going to have to root around to find someone with these guns and beg a testfire.

Thanks!

Mike
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 4:46:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By huntclubsec:
Raging Bull
you just cant beat it for the price. it is perfect for those of us on a limited fire arms budget. I use mine for hunting, it gets wet, it gets muddy, it fires every time. the compensated barrel helps keep it on target shot after shot.



I don't deny the benefits of a ported/compensated barrel; it's nice to not have the damn thing flying all over creation if you do a quick second shot for whatever reason. As the same time, I also wonder if those extra holes would add to the amount of general dirt, crap, garbage, etc., that gets inside the barrel.

Thoughts on porting and compensating?

Thanks,

Mike
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 4:52:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tinker:
You didn't mention the Desert Eagle. Of course, its big enough you may want a sling for it, or possible a wheeled mount. The Desert Eagle will do what you want, and if you decide you need something more powerful, you can upgrade.

If you don't hotrod the .44, the Smith and Wesson is a wonderful gun. The Rugers are much stronger than the Smith. I prefer the Redhawk over the Super Redhawk; the Super Redhawk is the ugliest gun designed for one hand use.



I purposely left out the Desert Eagle because it's a semiauto. Don't get me wrong-- I love semis. But, revolvers have less than can go wrong, jam MUCH less, and are generally more reliable/whatever-proof. Thus, it was off the list. Plus, a stainless Eagle isn't cheap...

No hotrodding here; it'll be left "stock" and scopeless. Thus, the S&W/Ruger argument over customization is moot.

Call me weird, but the looks of the Super Redhawk kick serious tail in my eyes. Guess I'm the odd one...

Thanks for the advice!

Mike
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 4:54:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wadman:
No consideration for Dan Wesson?


www.danwessonfirearms.com


I'm unfamiliar with Dan Wesson products. From the site, it appears that they're a little more pricey than some of the guns that I listed.

How's the quality?
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 4:57:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BusMaster007:

Originally Posted By Renamed:
If you're going to be staying in a muddy, sandy, or otherwise messy environment where foreign matter might get inside your revolver, the Rugers have the advantage of being much easier to field strip than the other makes.



This is true.
Also, before trying the out of the box 'trigger of triggers' on that S&W, take the side plate off (Rugers do not have this weakness) and see if there's any leftover grit and metal flakes inside the gun before grinding it in...
Then, check the reload manuals for hot and heavy 'Ruger Only' loads...
The S&W is a good gun, it's just not as strongly engineered as the Ruger, nor is it as easy to disassemble.
I like the 'because I can' ability of the Ruger design, and that's why I put that model designator up. It is strong and easy to care for, plus, you can scope it.



To Renamed and BusMaster007:

Thank you for that bit of information on field stripping and Ruger. I did not know that there was that much of a difference in the ability to clean any of those guns. Thank you also for the information on "Ruger only" loads-- I think it's telling when a gun, otherwise identical to others in terms of caliber, is able to handle hotter rounds than the rest. That really says something about quality.

Hmm. Looks like I may be able to narrow this down even further. Thank you both.

Mike
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 5:00:55 PM EDT
I'm a ruger fan. So obviously, I'm going to recommend the redhawk (although my SS 4 5/8 Vaquero is my favorite revolver). BTW, I've owned 4 Tauri and loved them all, but the price on the bull isn't as attractive as many of their other firearms, ZT
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 5:06:26 PM EDT
If you plan to carry this weapon on your hip, I recommend a 6 inch barrel - you might even consider a 4 inch barrel; any longer gets to be a hassle on a long hike.

Also consider a ported barrel.

My Anaconda and 629 are both astonishingly accurate. I haven't shot a Redhawk, but if its as good as my wife's GP100, then it's very good.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 5:20:08 PM EDT
Of the handguns listed I would pick the Ruger Super Redhawk, or the Smith&Wesson if I could find a used one. Have you considered that for your intended use you may not need a double action? The Ruger Super Blackhawk is almost bulletproof, accurate, affordable, and able to handle any reasonable 44 mag. load, factory or handloaded. It is my alltime favorite handgun for woods carry, hunting, or target shooting.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 5:25:53 PM EDT
I'm not a big fan of colts. They are too pricey IMHO. Smiths are nice... A little too nice to use as beaters. Your best bet would probably be a taurus or ruger. They are sturdy and inexpensive so you can abuse them without guilt. My suggestion would be to hit the gunstores and see which feels best in your hand.

If I reloaded, I'd probably go with something in 45 colt. With the right brass and revolver it can be loaded to abover 44 mag performance with a larger diameter bullet to boot! You can make it a teddy bear or a lion! Ofcourse you can tailor you 44 mag loads too...
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 6:40:57 PM EDT
I have a Smith 629 with a 4 inch barrell and I love it. Most accurate handgun I own. Never had a problem either. I wouldn't worry about it failing.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 6:49:41 PM EDT
I have a S&W 29 (blued) and its an accurate revolver. But for use in the field under nasty conditions as described I'd probably go with a Ruger.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 7:41:10 PM EDT
go with the ruger and add a houge monogrip,you will be pleased
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 10:13:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By prebans:
I'm unfamiliar with Dan Wesson products. From the site, it appears that they're a little more pricey than some of the guns that I listed.

How's the quality?



The latest revolvers from Dan Wesson are beautiful. They've long since been known for spectacular accuracy and durability. The accuracy is attributed to the removable/changeable barrel design. It's been described as being in traction. DW revolvers are big, beefy, and come chambered in some really potent calibers.
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 10:25:42 AM EDT
I had a ruger super redhawk in 44 mag with a Nikon pistol scope. Didn't have it long as the accuracy was terrible. I purchased a 6" Colt Anaconda and love it. I opinion is that ruger is crap accuracy wise. Get the Colt or maybe a Contender, I won't buy S&W so can't help you there.
Bill3508
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 11:07:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 03shooter:
Of the handguns listed I would pick the Ruger Super Redhawk, or the Smith&Wesson if I could find a used one. Have you considered that for your intended use you may not need a double action? The Ruger Super Blackhawk is almost bulletproof, accurate, affordable, and able to handle any reasonable 44 mag. load, factory or handloaded. It is my alltime favorite handgun for woods carry, hunting, or target shooting.



My vote goes for the Super Blackhawk too! I like the shorter ones the best - 4 5/8" and 5 1/2" barrels.
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 2:30:47 PM EDT
Another vote for the Super Blackhawk, this SA revolver is awesome. I have a 7.5" Stainless gun. The thing is a tank. I run all kinds of loads through it, light, medium, and heavy and it just keeps running. I carry mine in the field in a Andrews custom leather crossdraw holster.
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 2:56:19 PM EDT
I own a S&W 629 w/ 8 3/8" barrel. I bought it when I was 20 years old ( My father helped me ). After the Gulf War I started hunting with my brother-in-law. But I was looking for something different. I didnt want to carry a rifle trudging around the woods.

So I decided to try my pistol. I scoped it with a Burris 3-9x and later even added a folding bi-pod for ground blind hunting.

The stainless steel is almost trouble free. I love it. I do not reload so all I have ever put through it is factory loads.

I hunted with Federal Hydra-Shok 240 grains


A friend of mine at the deer cabin was impressed after i killed my first deer on opening weekend. He then bought a Ruger Super Blackhawk 44 Mag.

I have to admit that the Ruger is built alot beefer than my S&W. But unless you plan on shoooting really "hot" loads then it is all a waste of extra metal.

My S&W seemed alot smoother than his Ruger and as far as "I can do it" ability. I have dissasembled my S&W MANY times and never had a problem. I just took out the guts while paying close attention to where everything went.

When done it all goes back in... no prob.

Spending hours stalking deer in the woods the weight of the pistol does becaome a factor.

The Ruger is significantly heavier due to its beefier build.

As far as nasty conditions... I have seen em all and my S&W functioned flawlessly.


What exactly are you wanting to use the pistol for ?

USMC_LB
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 4:10:24 PM EDT
Who ever claimed we only knew about AR-15's at this site?! Wow, now THIS is information!

Thank you again. In light of these recommendations, I'm going to drop the Colt and Taurus. While they're both great firearm manufacturers, the price is too much for the gun. (True, Taurus is quality. But, the Ruger seems to be more well-known as well as tried-and-true.) I also decided not to consider the Dan Wesson; they look too nice (I'd cry over scratching one of those) and they're more than I want to pay.

It's now between the S&W's and the Rugers. I'll have to take a close look at the 629's and the Redhawk families. (While the Blackhawks look promising, I'm specifically looking for a double-action.)

Thanks again! I've replied individually where necessary.

Mike
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 4:20:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sk8brdnick:
I'm not a big fan of colts. They are too pricey IMHO. Smiths are nice... A little too nice to use as beaters. Your best bet would probably be a taurus or ruger. They are sturdy and inexpensive so you can abuse them without guilt. My suggestion would be to hit the gunstores and see which feels best in your hand.

If I reloaded, I'd probably go with something in 45 colt. With the right brass and revolver it can be loaded to abover 44 mag performance with a larger diameter bullet to boot! You can make it a teddy bear or a lion! Ofcourse you can tailor you 44 mag loads too...



It's down to the S&W or Ruger. The Colts are DEFINITELY too pricey and I feel better with the Ruger over the Taurus. (Just me, I guess...) Thus far, Ruger is a bit ahead in the price department. BUT, the S&W trigger isn't easy to give up. On the other hand, abusing a Smith..... Uggh.

On the topic of calibers... I was considering the .44 magnum, .45LC, .454, and .480. Only the .44 magnum survived. Yes, the other three are much more powerful and all. I actually prefer the .454. BUT, they failed my personal caliber test. I want availability of ammunition. First, I gave the calibers the "gun shop test." Could the caliber be found at MOST gun stores? All passed. Next, the "sporting goods" test-- can they be found at most sporting goods stores? Out went the .480 and .45LC. Finally came the dreaded "Wally World" test. The .454 dropped out at this point.

I'm still of two minds concerning the .454, but I'm definitely not getting the .480 and .45LC. They're just not around enough and I don't want to have to go searching for ammunition. (I don't always want to have to log into whatever web site or search for a good gun store to buy ammo.)

Doh! Oh, well... The .44 magnum should be enough for most uses in hunting and definitely in self-protection. (Bear..?)

Mike
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 4:25:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bill3508:
I had a ruger super redhawk in 44 mag with a Nikon pistol scope. Didn't have it long as the accuracy was terrible. I purchased a 6" Colt Anaconda and love it. I opinion is that ruger is crap accuracy wise. Get the Colt or maybe a Contender, I won't buy S&W so can't help you there.
Bill3508



A question concerning accuracy:

When you say that the Ruger Super Redhawk was inaccurate, what do you mean? I intend to use its stock iron sights and my LONGEST shots would be 50' away. Do you think that the accuracy like you're describing (scoped at ??? distance) will be as much of a factor for me? Or, was the gun that inaccurate that you wouldn't be able to keep it on the paper at 100'?

Mike
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 4:33:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By USMC_LB:
I own a S&W 629 w/ 8 3/8" barrel. I bought it when I was 20 years old ( My father helped me ). After the Gulf War I started hunting with my brother-in-law. But I was looking for something different. I didnt want to carry a rifle trudging around the woods.

So I decided to try my pistol. I scoped it with a Burris 3-9x and later even added a folding bi-pod for ground blind hunting.

The stainless steel is almost trouble free. I love it. I do not reload so all I have ever put through it is factory loads.

I hunted with Federal Hydra-Shok 240 grains


A friend of mine at the deer cabin was impressed after i killed my first deer on opening weekend. He then bought a Ruger Super Blackhawk 44 Mag.

I have to admit that the Ruger is built alot beefer than my S&W. But unless you plan on shoooting really "hot" loads then it is all a waste of extra metal.

My S&W seemed alot smoother than his Ruger and as far as "I can do it" ability. I have dissasembled my S&W MANY times and never had a problem. I just took out the guts while paying close attention to where everything went.

When done it all goes back in... no prob.

Spending hours stalking deer in the woods the weight of the pistol does becaome a factor.

The Ruger is significantly heavier due to its beefier build.

As far as nasty conditions... I have seen em all and my S&W functioned flawlessly.


What exactly are you wanting to use the pistol for ?

USMC_LB



I've shot a S&W .357 and liked it. The trigger is sweet and the gun is accurate. In terms of breaking it down, didn't get that chance. But, the gun should be simple to do...

The weight is indeeed a factor. This would be used in the desert, out hunting, plinking, etc. I may also end up using it here in the Wisconsin woods. Thus, everything from desert and sand to rain and wind. If I'm carrying it around until kingdom comes, it may be better to have a lighter gun. Then again, I don't want to sacrifice sturdyness for reliability.

Hrmm. Just thought of this... Does the S&W or the Ruger have good holsters and moon clips available?

Mike
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 4:59:11 PM EDT
The only difference I have noticed between my Desert Eagle and Anaconda is I can shoot 44 specials in my Colt. The De has been flawless. Single action trigger has a lot ot be said about presision. I can actually shoot the DE better with out a rest.
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 5:13:25 PM EDT
For carrying and all around toughness I would go with the Ruger Super Blackhawk. Not much that can go wrong with it. I have not seen too many people shoot their 44 mags double action. I have enough trouble with my 357 doing that. I guess that would be another reason I like the SB
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 5:48:09 PM EDT
The Rugers (Super Redhawks and Super Blackhawks) are accurate shooting. If someone got one that didn't shoot well they were the exception - not the rule! And I wouldn't get too worried about the trigger on a Super Redhawk. The GP-100 and Super Redhawk triggers feel MUCH better with a Wolff spring kit installed. It ain't like the S&W factory trigger is THAT good!!
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 6:43:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/22/2002 4:12:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By prebans:

Originally Posted By bill3508:
I had a ruger super redhawk in 44 mag with a Nikon pistol scope. Didn't have it long as the accuracy was terrible. I purchased a 6" Colt Anaconda and love it. I opinion is that ruger is crap accuracy wise. Get the Colt or maybe a Contender, I won't buy S&W so can't help you there.
Bill3508



A question concerning accuracy:

When you say that the Ruger Super Redhawk was inaccurate, what do you mean? I intend to use its stock iron sights and my LONGEST shots would be 50' away. Do you think that the accuracy like you're describing (scoped at ??? distance) will be as much of a factor for me? Or, was the gun that inaccurate that you wouldn't be able to keep it on the paper at 100'?

Mike


I wonder if the accuracy problems Bill3508 had were scope-related. If the scope isn't mounted securely, it will shift a bit from shot to shot and cause the point of impact to move.

Just a thought...
Link Posted: 3/22/2002 8:15:28 AM EDT
don't know why some people say rugers aren't accurate,my redhawk 44 with 5 1/2 barrel was dead on out of the box,same with superblackhawk in 44,vaquero in 45 ,although i did have to adjust the sights on my mini 14,but less adjustment was needed than my colt ar.
Link Posted: 3/22/2002 6:14:43 PM EDT
Ruger Super Redhawk!!
Top Top