quote:

Originally posted by arfmel:
If it has a Ti cylinder you aren't supposed to use a metal brush or aggressive solvents for cleaning it. And the recoil is pretty unpleasant. I'd prefer a 629 Mountain Gun.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
You might also consider the Mountain Gun variant. 4" barrel in .44 and it is a lot lighter which is welcome when packing the thing around all day. It's a great little revolver and I've carried mine for a long time while in the woods. So much so that I haven't even shot my 6" in close to 10 years.

You might also consider a G20. I'd put 16 rounds (with a quick reload of 15 more) of 10mm up against 6 rounds of .44 any day. In a chest holster it's quite comfortable to carry all day as well.

No revolver is perfect for this use, however. If you want to feel comfortable, a 45-70 or a shotgun will be your best friend.

quote:

Originally posted by Hansgruber:

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:
The Ruger will laugh off loads that would disintegrate the Smith and Wesson.

Uh...while it's always fun to denegrate the maker of whatever one does not own, consider this. S&W's .44 Magnum revolvers are also smaller, slimmer, lighter, and generally considered more ergonomic.
Having said that, a S&W .44 is NOT going to disintegrate shooting ANY SAAMI spec load...period. All wishful thinking aside. Perhaps it might experience functional issues down the road after having fired a substantial number, but just BLOW UP? Not even hardly! Also, there is a difference in recent production S&W's versus the older models.

But most importantly I'd like to point out, S&W introduced and still to this day makes a 56 ounce, .500 magnum in 4" that is an amazingly powerful backwoods gun. People are always shooting overly heavy bullets in them, and pushing them to the limit....that "limit" being rated for a monster cartridge rated to 60,000 psi. The .500 magnum makes the .454 Casull look like a BB gun...and the underpowered, yet "big nameed" .480 Ruger is meaningless in the S&W's shadow. Even the short barrel .500 is capable of pushing over 2,000 lb-ft of KE with 350-440 grain slugs....! A 440 grain slug is MORE than one ounce...and clearly far more potent than even the mighty 12 gauge! What's that? What did you say RUGER has to counter this? Nothing? EXACTLY!

So tell me...in all the years SINCE 1993 when S&W introduced the M500...why hasn't RUGER followed suit? Why hasn't RUGER introduced yet ANOTHER 50 pound boat anchor that users can claim will handle hotter loads and by that metric ALONE, makes it better? Hmmm?

Because as it stands, the Ruger Redhawk weighs almost exactly the same as the 4" M500 Smith. WHO in their right mind would chose the paltry performance of ANY .44 magnum load over the monstrous blast of the .500? Also factor in that the .500 comes factory stock with a truly functional muzzle brake that DOES make it one-handed, human-shootable.

Where is Ruger on this?

In fact, where is Ruger on the .460 S&W Magnum? The "best" Ruger has been courageous enough to build is the .454 and .480, both of which the .460 Smith leaves in the dust. And in FACT, WHY would anyone with a functioning brain pan buy a Ruger in .454" when they could have the .460 S&W which can shoot the LOWER POWERED .454 Casull all day long from it's MUCH LONGER, built to handle the MUCH MORE POWERFUL, .460 S&W MAGNUM chambers? The .454 is like what? 1.3" long case? The .460 S&W is 1.84" LONG! On top of all this it's RATE...that means SAAMI rated to 65,000 psi! I own a .460XVR gain twist 8.5" that can push 3,000 lb-ft of KE....something NOTHING Ruger builds in the HANDGUN market can even HOPE to reach!

So why all the junk-yard dog barking about Ruger? Until Ruger is willing to PUT UP OR SHUT UP, the pure facts are, S&W builds a FAR more potent revolver, and yet it's STILL built in a manner that makes it belt carriable!

RUGER does NOT make a .460 3"
RUGER does NOT make a .460 5"
RUGER does NOT make a .460 ANYTHING

RUGER does NOT make a .500 4"
RUGER does NOT make a .500 6.5"
RUGER does NOT make a .500 ANYTHING

And the Ruger .480 is ballistically only about a bigger bullet moving relatively slowly...not even worthy to be listed in the same post with the big S&W rounds!

I'm just sayin'...before you start pulling Ruger's zipper down to boast...consider that S&W left them in the dust over 20 years ago.


ADDITIONALLY:

Apparently Ruger cannot produce a .500 of their own because they'd have to make it weigh 12 pounds in order to compete with the superior technology of S&W.

S&W makes an all steel, 37 ounce, .44 Magnum revolver that CAN handle any load wimpy Buffalo-Bore has ever developed...RUGER on the other hand can't even figure out HOW to build a .44 that weighs less than a small SUV! OF COURSE if all you build are 10 pounds boat anchors it's EASY to say they'll stand up to the recoil of a given caliber....but it's all a lie that simply plays well with the anti-S&W crowd.

I've owned quite a few Rugers over the years...still do. But across the caliber spectrum, EVERYTHING Ruger builds, S&W builds something that LOOKS better, IS LIGHTER, IS MORE COMPACT, and of late, IS LESS EXPENSIVE! I own several S&W 642's that tip the scales at 14 ounces....a weight RUGER can only dream of even using the most repulsive polymer frame ever seen on Earth! By contrast the S&W is sleek, handsome, all aluminum, and cost less!

Ruger worship has gotten to the point where the followers need to go on over to the 7.62 Tokarev line and que up!!!

Sorry for the "rant," but how about checking FACTS before you start seeing how far you can urinate up a rope.

quote:

Originally posted by 1lowlife:
I owned a S&W Model 29 for about a year.

quote:

Originally posted by 1lowlife:
I owned a S&W Model 29 for about a year.
Not problems with a variety of ammo.
But I sold it when the novelty wore off.
Another firearm (and caliber) that I bought I didn't really need.





It was a hoot at the range.
Quite the attention getter..