quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:
Does anybody know if the Dan Wesson revolvers were built strong enough to handle the heavier .44Mag loads?

I shot full Desert Eagle loads in one I swapped the barrel on for a guy and it handled them with no problem.

However, it rattled ME clean back to my childhood.

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:
Does anybody know if the Dan Wesson revolvers were built strong enough to handle the heavier .44Mag loads?

I shot full Desert Eagle loads in one I swapped the barrel on for a guy and it handled them with no problem.

However, it rattled ME clean back to my childhood.

Thanks Mars. I have two DW 44's - one with a fixed 2.5" barrel and one changeable that's one of those Samsonite kits with the multiple barrels and such. The 8" barrel might be the one to use with the really heavy loads, I think.

To the OP's question - If you're looking at older S&W's, maybe take a look at the Dan Wesson revolvers. Good guns and having the ability to change barrels is unique. On the current Dan Wesson website I'm seeing that only the 715 model (.357Mag) is offered, so a DW in .44Mag would have to be a used one.

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.

Thanks for all the replies.
There is a Ruger Alaskan on my local classifieds that I might go for.

Thanks again.

Hard to beat these Ruger Super Blackhawks.

quote:

Originally posted by Cobra21:
Hard to beat these Ruger Super Blackhawks.

Maybe it is an unjustified prejudice, but I don't like the "cowboy" style grip that is rounded-over at the top-rear. I like something that gives more resistance to the top of the thumb-finger web of the hand, like on the S&W and the Redhawks.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
There is nothing wrong with a Blackhawk or a Freedom Arms, but they are SA, and less fast to deploy.

Practice makes perfect

Long ago my only handgun was my OM Single Six. Buddy and I used to go camping in a state forest. He had one-or-another S&W auto-loader. We used to occasionally take a tin can from dinner the night before and play a shootin' form of kick-the-can. (Was very sandy soil, to ricochets were not a concern.)

Funny thing was: Despite the fact you couldn't tell for sure where the can would jump when you hit it, the one who got control of the can was more likely to keep it than the other guy steal it back. I held my own quite nicely with my SA revolver against his bottom-feeder (He'd load only six to make it fair.)

If I was in the woods and worried about bears (especially brown bears)...



http://www.ruger.com/products/...specSheets/5301.html

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
Dont overlook a stout .45 Colt in a ruger built to handle the load.

Careful with that. I recently found out, much to my surprise, that, starting a few years ago, Ruger changed the NM Blackhawk Flattops in .45 Colt to the medium frame. They won't handle so-called "Blackhawk" pressures.

quote:

Originally posted by Crom:

quote:

Originally posted by Cobra21:
Hard to beat these Ruger Super Blackhawks.

Maybe it is an unjustified prejudice, but I don't like the "cowboy" style grip that is rounded-over at the top-rear. I like something that gives more resistance to the top of the thumb-finger web of the hand, like on the S&W and the Redhawks.

If you've been hankering after a 629, a Blackhawk isn't going to scratch that itch. The heart wants what the heart wants.

I've never shot a 629, but the 10.5" Super Blackhawk I inherited from my old man soaks up recoil nicely and tends to roll in the hand more than kick back. My New Vaquero in .357 vs a Colt Python is probably a fair comparison, neither recoils hard, but the way they do it is different, a lot of that thanks to the shape of the frame and grip.

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:
Does anybody know if the Dan Wesson revolvers were built strong enough to handle the heavier .44Mag loads?

The Dan Wesson large frame revolvers will handle anything you put in them. The frame also is used on the Supermag version, the 445 SuperMag.
I believe the 445 will shoot 44mag. or 445 Supermag cartridges.
Put a 4" or 6" barrel on for packing, put a 8"or 10" on for hunting. A very accurate gun.

My favorite is a pre-lock, pre-Saf-T-Hammer, 629 in 4" bbl.

quote:

Originally posted by Z06:
My favorite is a pre-lock, pre-Saf-T-Hammer, 629 in 4" bbl.

Gad! There just aren't enough e's in the word SHWEEEEEEEEEEET!

My favorite 629 is the V-Comp. 4" barrel with a removable compensator. Great trigger and smooth action. Compact for a .44 Mag and the compensator is effective without overdoing it.

https://www.smith-wesson.com/f...ter-model-629-v-comp

I have a 4.2" Redhawk that I put some Pachymars on and it's great!

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 Mars_Attacks:

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:
Does anybody know if the Dan Wesson revolvers were built strong enough to handle the heavier .44Mag loads?

I shot full Desert Eagle loads in one I swapped the barrel on for a guy and it handled them with no problem.

However, it rattled ME clean back to my childhood.

I used to shoot the original Dan Wesson .44 in Hunter class silhouette competition. With it's two-piece barrel system it proved to be amazingly accurate! Could it have stood up to countless full-bore .44 mag loads? IDK, but then, how many revolvers have EVER been destruction tested to see at what "round count" the gun fell apart? FEW if any I am sure.

The Dan Wesson with it's front lockup and thick frame certainly seemed impressive at the time and I would suspect they hold up to considerable full-power loads, but let's ask this question: How many .44 Magnum revolvers EVER see even 500 rounds of full-powered ammo?

How many see 1,000 rounds of full-powered ammo?

Not many...I suspect a lot fewer than the various "internet experts" would have everyone believe.

But let's go beyond that foolishness...who in their right mind would deliberately work to destroy something that cost them money? I mean, unless I'm being PAID to shoot a gun until it falls apart, why would I do so? Additionally, WHERE exactly are all the S&W .44 Magnum revolvers that have been "shot to pieces" with full-power loads? Where?

Unfortunately, THIS is the reality of the INTERNET where EVERYBODY can pretend to know something without producing a SCINTILLA of EVIDENCE! Some clown can simply make the CLAIM and suddenly it's valid. Add in a photo...and even if the photo is FAKE, it takes on a life of it's own!

But even with all this, WHY has there not been to THIS DATE, documented PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence of S&W .44 Magnum revolvers blow to pieces by standard SAAMI loads? Can it BE that it's because such evidence does not exist? Certainly seems so.

Sorry, I can't focus on anything anymore. I am still drooling over Z06's photo.


Does "pre safe-T-Hammer" mean "-4" ?

Maybe the reason Ruger has not produced a .500 gun is that the 44 / 454 guns are what many big bore shooters consider to be the limit in a gun that is tolerably comfortable to shoot enough to become at least halfway proficient with? I have shot the .500 and it was clearly not for me. Ditto the .454! I would guess the .460 and 480 are too much for me as well.
Also, I recently compared ammo costs of all the super performing big bore revolvers. One seller was offering 12 rounds of Federal Premium .500 for 65 bucks. So maybe Ruger feels that if they produce a .500 gun, few will buy it due to ammo cost. I think Ruger could easily produce a .500 gun if the market would support it.
Pure speculation on my part.
And I have no doubts about the durability of the S&W 29. Its a fine revolver.

I've shot 454 in a Super red hawk and the 500 in a 8" S&W and the 500 was a pussycat, and the 454 was the most unpleasant handgun I've ever shot other than a snub nose 357.

Love love love my 6.5" 629 classic DX .44mag.