I just picked up the Redhawk in 45 colt with 4.2" barrel. So far I like it a lot, think you would be well serpby the similar version in .44.

I find the .44 Rem Mag 5.5" Ruger Redhawk perfect for me. It's a great compromise between the 4" and 7.5" inch that's pretty easy to carry, doesn't have the muzzle blast of the 4", and has a long enough barrel for accurate shooting at distance.

Here's mine, which I've carried in grizzly country while bowhunting in Montana and also use for whitetail deer hunting. I bought it about 11 years ago when I was in San Antonio and had it tuned up by Alex Hamilton. The DA trigger is smooth at 9.5 lbs., and the SA trigger breaks like glass at 4.25 lbs.

I have both a Ruger Super Redhawk and a Smith and Wesson. When at the range I shoot 44 specials, the 44 mag maybe 20 rounds. I find the Ruger more pleasant to shoot, even though I changed out the original grips on my Smith to a more cushioned grip. The Ruger is built like a tank. Both very reliable.

Ok I'm thinking that sticking with ruger is probably the right choice at this point. I hope I can handle a 4.2 and a 5.5 side by side to see which I like better.

Thanks for all the advice and pics everybody!

For the "Experts" out here, that know all about "loosened up" Smith & Wesson's....Show me a modern S&W .44 magnum revolver that has become unusable due to use. By "modern" , I mean manufactured in the last twenty years.

quote:

Originally posted by FN in MT:
For the "Experts" out here, that know all about "loosened up" Smith & Wesson's....Show me a modern S&W .44 magnum revolver that has become unusable due to use. By "modern" , I mean manufactured in the last twenty years.

I'm wondering about this too, I've read it on the net but never seen it. All of my dads older SWs are 38spcl or 357mag. He dosent have an older 44 for me to see, both of his are relatively new.

quote:

Originally posted by FN in MT:
For the "Experts" out here, that know all about "loosened up" Smith & Wesson's....Show me a modern S&W .44 magnum revolver that has become unusable due to use. By "modern" , I mean manufactured in the last twenty years.

Presumably since I brought it up, you're speaking to me.

I said nothing of expertise. Speak the truth.

I said nothing about being unusable. Speak the truth.

You said these things.

That smiths loosen with shooting is not news, and that they're not close to the strength of a ruger is beyond contest.

Lots of carrying, not a high volume of rounds, smile=Smith and Wesson


Lots of carrying, high volume shooting, high power loads, big grin= Ruger

Both are great guns but big bore hot stuff and your choices, ...... RUGER!!

I have been using long barrel 44 magnums for some time now. I preferred Rugers because of durability. My last purchase was a 4inch S&W model 629. The S&W triggers are, IMHO, much better than Rugers. I do worry about the durability of the N frame S&W (hickock45 had to send his M29 in after it loosened up) but I'll cross that bridge if I come to it.

NewMexican: I have carried S & W 44 magnums extensively in Alaska. The main purpose is for bear and wildlife protection. Generally a 4" for around town everyday carry. Specifically in the field, a 6" carried in a quality chest holster rig. Advantage of DA over SA is the speed in which you would need to get rounds off. Again considering the threat level minimum round count of 6 is better than 5. The S & W has been capable of handling the bear loads in 44 magnum. Stainless is a plus for the damp climate however I have had no problems with blue S & Ws. Good luck and enjoy the last frontier!

quote:

Originally posted by 10round:
I do worry about the durability of the N frame S&W (hickock45 had to send his M29 in after it loosened up) but I'll cross that bridge if I come to it.

You are forgetting that Hickok has over 60,000 rounds through that M29. I don't know of many guns that have that kind of round count that DON'T need some work. He also doesn't shoot a great deal of full house magnum loads through it. Although, since he's had it since about 1970, I'm sure he has more than 5 or 6 full-power rounds down the tube.

Thanks for the advice everybody.

I ended up ordering both, Ill keep the one I like and the other will be a gift tommy father....or I'll keep both.

I'm looking forward to shooting them
Both side by side and comparing them side by side as well.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by FN in MT:
For the "Experts" out here, that know all about "loosened up" Smith & Wesson's....Show me a modern S&W .44 magnum revolver that has become unusable due to use. By "modern" , I mean manufactured in the last twenty years.

Presumably since I brought it up, you're speaking to me.

I said nothing of expertise. Speak the truth.

I said nothing about being unusable. Speak the truth.

You said these things.

That smiths loosen with shooting is not news, and that they're not close to the strength of a ruger is beyond contest.

\

Not aimed specifically at You. I have not seen a modern N frame loosen up in twenty years, since they introduced the Endurance Package mods. Maybe its possible with several thousands of mag loads....but few shoot anything that much.

No denying the modern Ruger DA's are STRONG, same for the Super Blackhawks. I was not denying Ruger strength. Simply defending S&W.

People denigrate Smith revolvers as not being strong enough...in normal use that's simply not true.

I had an 8 3/8 Taurus raging bull that was actually fun to shoot. That full length lug helps. That said, I'm currently sporting a 6 inch 629 during deer season. I don't honestly think you'd go wrong with Smith, Ruger, or Taurus.

quote:

Originally posted by FN in MT:

People denigrate Smith revolvers as not being strong enough...in normal use that's simply not true.

The first firearm I ever got paid to carry was a smith revolver, as was the first handgun I owned.

Smith revolvers have been the only ones to ever break or fail on me, too.

I frequently carry one in the pocket, but just a 642.

If you ever want to shoot the really hot loads like Garrett Cartridges's bear loads, you will need the Ruger as the S&Ws aren't strong enough. http://www.garrettcartridges.c...hammerheadplusp.html

Also, I highly recommend Underwood +P+ .44 Mag ammo at 2/3 the price of Garrett.

https://underwoodammo.com/shop...flat-nose-gas-check/

I know you already ordered them both - actually a pretty good idea! - but I wanted to toss in that it seems S&W is now getting their 2.5" M69s out to the shelves. I'll be taking a hard look at those myself. I've varied what I take out in to the woods over the years, but that package seems like a nice "compromise".

Owning prelock S&W 44 magnums from 3" RB through Dirty Harry's 6.5" 29-2, I can safely say that grip fit is the #1 issue and after that, any barrel length is OK.

That said, I am not a fan of the new MIM/lock S&W's, not at all.

Ruger offers a shorty 3" Redhawk, looking pretty good to me.

Only issue with Ruger is the trigger feel. If you can find a good gunsmith to make it right, you're golden.

quote:

Originally posted by Snapping Twig:
Owning prelock S&W 44 magnums from 3" RB through Dirty Harry's 6.5" 29-2, I can safely say that grip fit is the #1 issue and after that, any barrel length is OK.

That said, I am not a fan of the new MIM/lock S&W's, not at all.

Ruger offers a shorty 3" Redhawk, looking pretty good to me.

Only issue with Ruger is the trigger feel. If you can find a good gunsmith to make it right, you're golden.

I'm not a fan of the lock either, not much to be done about it I guess unless you want to buy an older one. The redhawk you're talking about is 2.75" and I have it already. It's a cool gun but the rounded handle with no other gripnoptions (no hogue) pretty much make it a backup/carry only gun.