Posted: 5/30/2007 7:52:30 PM EDT
| I am looking for a .44 Magnum revolver to carry for protection while hiking. I am leaning towards a Taurus for the price, but am tempted by the Ruger. I want a double action, stainless steel revolver. Are the Rugers and Smith&Wessons worth the extra price over the Taurus? |
|
Yes, they are worth it. If you plan to shoot heavy factory loads through it by the 1000's get the Ruger, if you handload and plan to shoot nice light loads to plink and then some heavy loads for protection get a Mountain gun 629. The S&W's a re really nice, I have several in 44 Mag. I can't stop myself. |
|
They all have their strong points, eg, Taurus=price point, Ruger=strength, but to me Smith= artistry. S-W costs more, but the way the prices are going on the pre-locks you can probably get your investment back without too much trouble, as long as you can find a reasonble deal to begin with. So, I found one I like a lot: ![]() Bad thing was, I went looking for one and ended up with three You can see the other ones on the revolver pic thread. |
If you want super reliable, sturdy shooter, the Rugers are tops. If you want a shooter and an investment get the S&W. The value in all of my S&W guns have appreciated to the point where I can at least sell them used for what I originally paid NIB. Not bad, kind of like having your cake and eating it too. If you want shooter and money is a concern get the Taurus. Taurus' have a lifetime warranty, so if you break something they should be able to cover it. I don't have any recenty Taurus guns, but I did fire my friends Taurus M66 and PT99, and I don't have problem with either. Remember their original linage is S&W K-frame and Beretta 92. |
GAWD!! That thing has PERFECT lines and balance!! It is truly gorgeous! That is what the S&W has over every other brand. |
I bought my SRH to hunt javalina but it is BIG.



