Anyone own/shoot .44 Mag in 2 or 4 inch barrel?

[omgur2]

I have a S&W 329 Night Guard with a 2 1/2" barrel and love it! I have put about 400 rounds of PMC 180 grain JHP through it and it is very accurate. I get 2" groups at 45 feet. I have not shot any normal 240 grain loads through it yet but will try them if I ever carry it in the woods. For CCW it is light and the 180s would be plenty of punch for a man and the gun only weighs 29 OZs unloaded. It has more punch but less flip than my 342 airlite in 38 special. I have been looking to purchase a 329PD which has a 4" barrel and the titanium cylinder, also at 29 OZs for fun. Stay away from the all steel guns for carrying unless you have a full cowboy rig. I bought mine for a backpacking trip in Glacier national park that never happened. It seemed like the best comprimise for Grizzly power and light weight. Good Luck.

[D10]

I shoot a Charter Arms 44 short barrel and like others said....it is manageable. I shoot 240gr through mine and have to say it packs a punch but that is what makes it so much fun to shoot. It is not a gun where you put 100 rounds through at the range though.

240gr is enough to even stop a car

[Brudog]

I just went through this long drawn out decision. I attached a link to a previous post where I discussed a lot of the pros and cons of short barreled revolvers based on ballistic figures I was able to gather. Page 11 of the post shows a ballistics table that basically shows that for every two inches of barrel length you lose you also lose about 30% of your energy.

Alaskan 454: 2.5" - 1219fps/1151ft-lbs (Buffalo Bore 360gr. LBT-LWN) 44oz gun
Redhawk 44: 5.5" - 1331fps/1145ft-lbs (Buffalo Bore 305gr. LBT-LFN) 49 oz gun
Redhawk 44: 4" - 1100fps/approx 900ft-lbs (Grizzly 320gr. WLNGC) 47 oz gun
1275fps/1200ft-lbs (Garrett Cartridges 330gr. 44 Mag+P Hammerhead)
1020fps/716ft-lbs (Garrett Cartridges 310gr. Defender Hammerhead) (Recommended for bear defense)

As I stated in the post I am not a ballistics expert but I am technical enough to do a thorough analysis. After I compared, ease of carry, ammo availability, holster selection, accuracy/repeatability of rapid rounds, cost of the gun and availability of the gun I settled on a 4 inch Redhawk.

Feel free to search my posts over the last few months I have quite a few discussing this topic.

http://forum.pafoa.org/pistols-41/15...k-country.html

Also this one:

http://forum.pafoa.org/pistols-41/16...ods-carry.html

Good Luck!!

[Pistol Packin Preacher]

I have really been watching what you guys have been saying.

That is good stuff.

I originally wanted a 2+ inch barrel for carry purposes but I think I have modified that to a 4 inch barrel.

One gunshop employee said he felt the .41 Mag had has much knock down as the .44 mag but with a little less recoil.

What are your thoughts on this?

I do not know if a DA .41 is out there to be had.

I have been looking at the Ruger Redhawk .44 Mag in 4 inch, the Taurus .44 Mag in 4 inch, and the S&W 329 .44 Mag.

Thanks again for all the input.

God bless!!

PPP

[lemko]

I have a S&W 629 with a 4" barrel. It can kick like a mule, but I wouldn't say it's uncontrollable. I rarely carry it as it's not the most practical firearm for that purpose nor do I shoot it much because the ammo is so costly. Last time I bought Winchester white box, it was $35 at Wal~Mart and that was a while ago.

[Kramer]

I have a S&W 629 "mountain gun" with the lightweight 4" barrel. Yeah it can kick a bit, but with practice it's tolerable.

[Brudog]

Because of the recoil and my need to shoot heavy loads for bear protection when traveling out west I went with the heavier Redhawk in 4 inch. There is a reason why certain loads are for Ruger only. If I had to choose it would be a S&W for everyday loads, range shooting and self protection or a Redhawk if you want to run heavy loads with less perceived recoil to use on big, big game for grizzly defense.

In my opinion the order of durability goes Redhawk, S&W and Taurus. I own a S&W 6.5 inch and I would not want to beat it up with heavy loads as I have seen some shoot themselves loose after a while. I have never seen a Ruger go that way. I have had a few shops and some owners complain about Taurus revolvers coming apart. They are warrantied for life but it sucks to have one fail.

Its similar to a Cadillac and a Ford Truck. The Smith has an AWESOME trigger and feels more comfortable because it is slim and is often just plain beautiful. The Redhawk is a little tougher on the trigger is built like a tank and is pretty but not gorgeous. The Smith is for the pistolero aficionado and the Ruger is a get 'er done work gun.

For use anywhere other than grizzly country I would opt for a 357 magnum. Easier to handle, cheaper to shoot and is more versatile in my opinion. I love my Ruger GP-100.

[chez323]

I've got a S&W 629 with a 3" barrel and while it's recoil is slightly more than my Ruger Blackhawk (4 5/8" barrel) it is manageable. Also, in my opinion the recoil from my 686 (357 magnum) which also has a 3" barrel is harsher than on the 629. I've not shot anything less than a 3" barrel....... so take my 2 cents worth with a grain of salt.

[Steve_NEPhila]

Conclusions like "removing x amount of barrel length will reduce the velocity by y..." is never precise nor accurate. Sure, when comparing a 2 to a 4 inch barrel in a handgun loading that is mostly loaded with slower burning powder that may be true for that specific instance. It is not a general rule nor is it a constant. A fine example would be a 7mm-08 rifle I own. My rifle has a 16.5 inch barrel and "loses" only about 5% of the velocity from the "better" 22 inch barrels. 95% of the performance for 5.5 inches less of metal tube... not too bad.

There is no rule as to how much velocity is gained or lost from what barrel length. Powders have varying burn rates, which impact this outcome.

BTW, Smith and Wesson makes a number of double action .41 magnum revolvers. Models 57 and 657 come to mid first, there is also a fixed sight version which is the 58/658 I believe.

I am not a fan of the .41 Magnum, this is most likely because I am not a handloader. Whatever the .41 can do, the .44 can do and do it a little bit faster. There is no major trajectory difference between these two cartridges.

[brian]

One gunshop employee said he felt the .41 Mag had has much knock down as the .44 mag but with a little less recoil.

What are your thoughts on this?

I do not know if a DA .41 is out there to be had.


PPP

i have a mountain gun in 44 mag, with the 4" tube. it was my first 44mag.
with full house loads, it is a handful. and loud, almost thunderous....very much a good time.
smith is making new .41magnums everyday. in models 58(4" w/service sights) and 57(4 or 6" w/adjustable sights)...i have the 6" m57.
the 41mag was intended to improve upon the 357mag, not the 44mag.
so it offers "power" close to the 44mag, but recoil close to that of the 357mag.
my suggestion is to get at least one of each.