Hi ladies and gents,

So I am in the market for a .44 snub nosed revolver and have narrowed it down to two. I would like to know which one you would choose and why.

Here are my reasons for it. I just love short barrel big bore revolvers.

It's not for bear protection, hunting, backpacking or anything else rather than blowing up water jogs and shooting at steel targets behind our house.

Oh, and it'll shoot .44 Special 90% of the time.

Question:
Which one would you buy?

Choices:
S&W Model 69 2.75" .44 five shot
Ruger RedHawk 2.75" .44 six shot

 

I'd go with the Ruger. So far I haven't broken my vow now to own a Smith with the lock but I was briefly tempted by the 69. Upon a closer look at one the fit and finish were just not simply up to the standard of my other Smiths and the timing was a little scary.

With that description I'll say Ruger. You can thank me for the 10% of the time you shoot magnum ammo.

Yep, love my 2.75 Redhawk. Never an issue....although I must admit that I shoot primarily 44sp thru it. Also despise Smith's continuing use of the Clinton lock.

I had the 2.75" ruger for awhile, it was a cool gun, I should have kept it. I ended up trading it in for the 4.2" Redhawk.

Id also take a long look at the ruger alaskan revolvers, those come in 44mag in addition to 454 and 480.

I have the 454 Alaskan and its a cool gun.

I own a S&W Performance Center 629 w/2.6 in barrel. What a nice trigger, and holds 6 rounds. A real hand canon!

Having said this it is quite big, heavy and is the best part of $900-$1,000.

I know some +P ammo manufacturers don’t recommend SW for hot loads. http://www.garrettcartridges.c...hammerheadplusp.html

quote:

Originally posted by 2000Z-71:
I'd go with the Ruger. So far I haven't broken my vow now to own a Smith with the lock but I was briefly tempted by the 69. Upon a closer look at one the fit and finish were just not simply up to the standard of my other Smiths and the timing was a little scary.

What do you mean regarding the timing?

Also, you know what I hate, is the separate sleeve of the barrel visible on the front end of the 69. So ugly.

Since you have said you will shoot .44 Special most of the time, the Smith may be the better choice.
But the Ruger is the better choice for magnum use.
And now (on Sunday, no less) I will commit a blasphemy:
Look at Taurus .44 DA revolvers. They have an extensive line of 44s and reviews are good. Unbeatable price, too.
There! I said it!

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
Since you have said you will shoot .44 Special most of the time, the Smith may be the better choice.
But the Ruger is the better choice for magnum use.
And now (on Sunday, no less) I will commit a blasphemy:
Look at Taurus .44 DA revolvers. They have an extensive line of 44s and reviews are good. Unbeatable price, too.
There! I said it!

I have had a Taurus 450 (45 Colt) for years. It's a great gun, with some issues over the years. But, I stopped buying second rate guns when I could afford a Smith or Ruger.

Get the Ruger. Everything you need and nothing you don't. And the barrel won't be clocked either. Regards 18DAI

quote:

Originally posted by Angel King:
What do you mean regarding the timing?

The rotation of the cylinder and locking into place before the hammer falls. On the 69's that I have looked at, the timing has been questionable. The possibility of a .44 magnum firing with the chamber not being in alignment with the forcing cone does not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

I own a 2.75” Ruger RH Talo .44 magnum as well as a 4” S&W 629-5. The Ruger is heavy and blocky and I would prefer one of the 4.2” models in .45 Colt/.45 a.c.p. I have it listed on a local forum. If you live near Atlanta you are welcome to shoot my Ruger her before you buy or trade for one.

I for one would go with the 2.5" super redhawk Alaskan

https://www.ruger.com/products...specSheets/5303.html

Back in the 80's Astra made a trio of big bore snubbies in 41 mag, 44 mag, and 45 Colt. They were very nice guns, pinned and recessed, with deep bluing. Always kick myself for not getting one back in the day.

One thing to keep in mind with that 2.75” redhawk is that there isn’t any other grip options for that style of handle, you are stuck with the wood grip panels on that reduced handle. That revolver is meant to be sort of a minimalist 44mag meant to handle heavy rounds for use in beer country, it was never intended to be enjoyed.

For that reason, I’d suggest the super redhawk Alaskan, it is also designed for the same purpose as the redhawk but it has a vogue grip and there are many other grip options since it’s a standard SRH grip and frame.

This is the main reason I switched my 2.75” for the 4.2”, the rounded grip just didn’t work well for me, it is thin and narrow, I wouldn’t care if I was getting charged by a bear but between that revolver, my srh Alaskan 454 and the 4.2” redhawk with the hogue grip there was no question.

Hogue makes stocks for the 2.75” RB Ruger Redhawk, I have a set on mine.

You mean grips??? Are they cushioned well?

quote:

Originally posted by 2000Z-71:

quote:

Originally posted by Angel King:
What do you mean regarding the timing?

The rotation of the cylinder and locking into place before the hammer falls. On the 69's that I have looked at, the timing has been questionable. The possibility of a .44 magnum firing with the chamber not being in alignment with the forcing cone does not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

HOW are You checking the timing?

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
You mean grips??? Are they cushioned well?

Steve Herrett called them stocks. They are adequate with .44 special loads. The heavy Buffalo Bore and Underwood .44 magnum loads tend to hurt after a few cylinders full.