I use a 329pd for carry in bear country (when I'm unlikely to need it, or as a secondary sidearm).

I also have a bisley super blackhawk.

I use a 12 gauge or bring my 45-70 if I actually think I'm going to need it.

I like the Ruger Old Model Blackhawk with a 4 5/8" barrel.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by Outnumbered:
S&W 629-4 with 4" barrel.

This right here. They are expensive nowadays, but they're worth it.

The Ruger will laugh off loads that would disintegrate the Smith and Wesson.

Just a curiosity question...

Why is the 629-4 rated over the 29-2? Collectability aside, is the 29-2 not better? "Pinned and recessed" (pinned barrel? and recessed cylinder?)

I don't know much about wheelie guns, but I've always wanted a "Dirty Harry" gun.

quote:

Originally posted by Outnumbered:
S&W 629-4 with 4" barrel. Why? Because it's damn near if not the best ever. Stainless for durability in the elements, -4 because it's got everything you want and nothing you don't, and 4" because it's long enough to achieve good velocity and aim but short enough to carry easily.

Look for a used S&W 629 5" Classic, it's damn near perfect.

As for the Taurus, there is a reason it's half the cost.

For camping hunting I've always like a good 44 mag around. The funny thing is the barrels have got shorter for me over the years, just find shorter barrel one more handy.
My current one is a Stainless Super Blackhawk Bisley in 3.75 barrel length.

quote:

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

This is exactly right. About 12 years ago when I had one of the best revolver smiths in the country, Alex Hamilton in San Antonio, tune my Ruger, he said to me "you will never shoot a Ruger loose, the others don't even come close to their strength." Not really a big deal what you choose in a .44 when you are shooting standard factory loads, but Ruger, because of the longer cylinder and heavier build, can be loaded with those +P loads.

To me, a .44 is certainly not ideal for protection against a grizzly bear, as opposed to a rifle or shotgun with heavy sabots, but I certainly want the heaviest load possible. I came within about 30 yards of a grizzly on one elk bowhunting trip in Montana just an hour south of Glacier, and I was glad I had 340 gr +Ps loaded in mine. Factory standard 240 grain rounds or even 300 grain rounds don't cut it, other than for hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by enidpd804:

quote:

Originally posted by Outnumbered:
S&W 629-4 with 4" barrel.

This right here. They are expensive nowadays, but they're worth it.

Like how much approx?

quote:

Originally posted by Jelly:
For camping hunting I've always like a good 44 mag around. The funny thing is the barrels have got shorter for me over the years, just find shorter barrel one more handy.
My current one is a Stainless Super Blackhawk Bisley in 3.75 barrel length.

That's very pretty.

quote:

Originally posted by James in Denver:
Just a curiosity question...

Why is the 629-4 rated over the 29-2? Collectability aside, is the 29-2 not better? "Pinned and recessed" (pinned barrel? and recessed cylinder?)

I don't know much about wheelie guns, but I've always wanted a "Dirty Harry" gun.

Outside of collecting, pinned barrels and recessed cylinder have never been proven to be an better. I've never heard of a non pinned S&W barrel coming loose or the cartridge rim of any modern centerfire cartridge bursting.


My vote for a 44 to carried on long hikes is the S&W 69. While I prefer 5" or 6" for general hunting and shooting, the lightweight five shot 4" and 2 3/4" 69's make great packing guns. I have one in both barrel lengths.

Ruger Alaskan for the win

quote:

Originally posted by James in Denver:
Just a curiosity question...

Why is the 629-4 rated over the 29-2? Collectability aside, is the 29-2 not better? "Pinned and recessed" (pinned barrel? and recessed cylinder?)

I don't know much about wheelie guns, but I've always wanted a "Dirty Harry" gun.

The -4 engineering revision includes internal updates known as the Endurance Package (radiused pins, deeper cylinder notches, longer bolt, etc.) that improve the durability of the action under heavy usage of magnum loads.

This

In regards to the different 629 dash revisions, the dash 2E and forward had the endurance package that eliminated issues associated with the oft-repeated Internet folklore of "shooting a Smith 44 loose". That was an occasional issue with VERY high-volume 300gr load shooters.

Pretty much all the revisions are considered true performance/engineering improvements up thru the dash 4, with the exception of going to crush fit barrels and elimination of recessed cylinders; although those changes didn't negatively affect performance, reliability, or longevity.

Many things done at dash 5 on were production cost decisions, like MIM parts vs forged, etc. I hope it's OK to paste this here from elsewhere, rather than laboriously re-wording it.

Engineering and production changes:
• 629 1979 Introduction at N748564 - 1981 Introduce 4” and 8-3/8” barrels
• 629-1 1982 Eliminate cylinder counterbore and pinned barrel. Slight change in cylinder length to 1.69”
• 629-1 1986-87 8,000 manufactured. with round butt and 3” barrel, distributed by Lew Horton and S&W
• 629-2 1988 New yoke retention system/ Radius stud package/ floating hand, integral scope mounts available on 8-3/8” barrels
• 629-2E 1989 Endurance Package, Transitional changes, hardened yoke/frame
• 629-3 1989 Longer stop notch, bolt block added, fixed hand
• 629-4 1993 Change rear sight leaf, drill and tap frame, change extractor, Hogue grips introduced - 1996 Round butt Production only/ shipments in blue plastic 1997 Change Thumbpiece/ master trigger locks shipped
• 629-5 1997 Change frame design to eliminate cylinder stop stud - eliminate serrated tangs/change to MIM hammer with floating firing pin/ change to MIM trigger/change internal lockwork
• 629-6 2001 Introduce Internal Key Lock System
• 629-7 2005 New Two Piece barrel design
• 629-8 2006 Slabside Barrel



Regarding current Taurus guns, in my opinion, they're hit or miss like all production guns anymore, but historically have missed at a noticeably higher percentage than other major manufacturers. If you get a good one, you're thrilled with the performance to value ratio. If you get a turd like many people (myself included) have, it's much easier to get away with maligning them.

Ruger definitely offers a very rugged gun at a great value, albeit not as svelte as a S&W. If they're any more durable than a Smith, myself and 99.999% of shooters will never run enough ammo thru them to find out.

For the above reasons, I chose to sell my Rugers and Taurii to fund only Smith wheels. I believe them to be the apex of reliability, style, and value. YMMV

Another vote for the 629-4 with 4" barrel, carry it every hunting, primarily to deal with feral hogs.

Does anybody know if the Dan Wesson revolvers were built strong enough to handle the heavier .44Mag loads?

A lot of guides prefer Vaqueros in .44. I like the Super blackhawk, and on my .44 Vaquero, I use the super blackhawk hammer.

A gunfight with a bear is a poor idea, especially close. However, as a last-ditch tool against poor planning, poor practices, and bad luck, it will have to do.

I'm partial to the Redhawk. Not graceful, not as light as the 629 (or 69). Dependable and solid, however, and never a poor choice. I've never had a ruger revolver fail, though I've had a few Smith's do so.

I'm expecting delivery of a new 4" Redhawk in .41 when I get home this fall. It's my self-congratulations for surviving another go-around. I hope to see it get some good holster wear. I love single action revolvers, and someone who knows how to handle them can be pretty damn fast. There's very little to get in the way with a double action revolver pull, however. No small motor skils to miss, nothing but point and shoot then shoot again until empty.

Dont overlook a stout .45 Colt in a ruger built to handle the load.

Crom-

I say go with the 629 or the Redhawk. Don't go with the Taurus. Taurus CAN be a good gun IF you get one that was made on a good quality control day. But the opposite can also be true.

I've got a 29 classic with the 6.5 inch barrel. It's my favorite gun. It comes to the range with me every time I go. I can nail bowling pins at 60 yards double action.

I had a Redhawk but sold it. It had the 7.5 inch barrel and was nose heavy. In my opinion, it was not as well balanced as the Smith. The double action trigger wasn't my favorite either. It was heavy and springy. That said, if you want to shoot .44 Magnum that borders on .454 Cassul, the Redhawk is your gun. I once heard a story of a guy that was shooting hand loads. The gun went bang, bang, BOOM! It recoiled up and hit him in the forehead. When he collected himself and tried to eject the case, it wouldn't come out. He has to use a steel rod and a sledge hammer to beat the case out of the cylinder. He said, after all that, the gun functioned fine. It turned out that he double charged a couple rounds accidentally. Something like that would have certainly blown a Smith to pieces.

So, in sum, If you want finesse, go Smith. If you want a gun that doubles as a cudgel, go Ruger.