Recommendations for .44 Magnum Revolver

[Nanuk]

S&W should also kick out a 2.5" or 3" M69 also.

https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearm...-combat-magnum

[Hal]

Thank you sir!!!

I'm behind the times on that one for sure.

I'll have to check the local stores to see if they have one.

[Nanuk]

I have the 4.25" I really want the short barrel. They will rebarrel mine for $250.........

[rodfac]

Go try a few on for size. Probably no other cartridge requires as good a fit or has as many different sized revolvers.

More good advice. And I'd add, in spite of love for my "L" frame Smith M69, if you REALLY ARE going to be firing lots of full house .44 Magnum loads, you owe your wrists, elbows, and ears, a good heavy revolver and superb hearing protection. BTW, I wear BOTH plugs and muffs.

Nanuk, thanks for the link.....OOOOOOU that's nice; I"m thinking: Skeeter load and a speed loader!
https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearm...-combat-magnum

Best Regards, Rod

[Hal]

$250 for a new barrel is awful tempting.
On one hand, it's less than a new gun.
On the other, there's no guarantee that once it's done, that's what you'll want.

Personally, I'd probably just get a whole new gun and see how I liked them both before making a decision.

[CDR_Glock]

Here is my Smith And Wesson Performance Center 629 Hunter with a ported 7.5" barrel. On top is an Aimpoint H1. Recoil is not bad.

Below it is my Ruger Super Redhawk 7.5" 454 Casull. It has a scope on top. I'm not a fan of scopes and I'll be replacing it once I install my Weigand Rail for it. Recoil is not bad at all, either. I was using very hot loads for it going 1900 fps.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FairWarning]

If you're going to have a .44, you should have at least one Inspector Callahan model.

It's on my bucket list along with a Bisely Super Blackhawk 7.5".

[dubsRedhawk]

Wolff spring made a huge difference.

[BlackLabsMatter]

Don't expect an older 29(the "Dirty Harry" revolver) to hold up to true magnums like a Ruger or the newer Smiths do. Learned the hard way when my 29-3 frame stretched(so much for "they don't make them like they used to"). I suppose since you've already got 44s, you needn't put that much wear on it.

It sounds to me that a regular Redhawk would fit you perfectly. But since you already have DAs, why not give a SA a try?

[Real Gun]

Legionnaire has a good thought with his 5.5" Redhawk (not Super). I would be okay with it too but would want the open backstrap rubber grip borrowed from the 45 Colt 4 5/8'. Here is what it would look like based on my 45 Colt model which is discontinued at this length:

[Armybrat]

[Real Gun]

It sounds like you need a 4.2" Redhawk , but I would hold one first it has a very fat grip .

I have tried different grips on the Redhawk and came back to the stock rubber. It fills the hand but is deceptive, since this gun has such a oddly long trigger reach due to its grip frame. I wear size Small in gloves, so if I like this grip, I wouldn't say it is overly large. Truth is, nothing feels quite right with this strange gun.

[Wheelie_Fan]

I'l give another nod to the S&W M69

I've had mine for a while now and really find it to be an excellent handgun and totally agree that, if you're firing full house magnums a lot, it may be a handful - but for occasional use along with a regular diet of 44 Spec or milder magnum loads, it is an excellent revolver.

Good luck with whatever you decide!

[KEYBEAR]

[TX_Pipeliner]

I have two .44's. One is an old Interarms Virginian Dragoon sinle action.
The other one is my S&W 629. I love both of these revolvers, but I shoot a lot more .44 Spl than Magnums, just because my arthritic wrists and hands just can't take the recoil lie they could 10 years ago, but I still love shooting the full magnum loads on accasion.

20160808_155751 (640x360).jpg

Hawgleg_2.jpg

[Deaf Smith]

I go with style.



629-1 .44 magnum.

Deaf

[lefteye]

No photos - sorry. I've got a 629 w/ 8 3/8ths barrel. Awesome! I've taken it deer hunting but never got a shot. I also have a Ruger Original Vaquero .44 mag. Big & heavy but nice and accurate. Neither gets shot vey often, but if I had to recommend one it would be the S&W 629.

[44 AMP]

Don't expect an older 29(the "Dirty Harry" revolver) to hold up to true magnums like a Ruger or the newer Smiths do. Learned the hard way when my 29-3 frame stretched(so much for "they don't make them like they used to").

Just curious, but what do you consider "true magnums" and how much of what did you shoot through your 29-3 before the problem happened???

We hear all the time how the older 29s "won't hold up" but almost never hear what it actually took to "break" one.

A friend had a 629 (made in the "banger puta") years, one made after they stopped pinning the barrel. The barrel unscrewed. Very noticeable tilt, that wasn't there when the gun was bought, showed up a few hundred rounds later... He sent the gun back, and it came back with the barrel straight, and S&W saying "nothing wrong". He then sold it.

This was obviously a QC issue, not something caused by too heavy loads, or extreme use wearing it out.

The old 29s aren't tanks, by today's standards, but they aren't eggshells, either.

So, what did you DO to your 29-3 to stretch the frame??? Inquiring minds want to know..

[CDR_Glock]

This is my S&W 629 Performance Center with an Aimpoint. It is resting on my S&W 500 Magnum with a Primary Arms Advanced Microdot.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BlackLabsMatter]

@44AMP

That 29-3 saw less than 1000 180gr and 240gr factory-spec loads. I certainly wasn't pushing the envelope in loads. I bought it used, since it was manufactured around the time I was born. In sure it saw plenty of rounds before I bought it(but the bluing was at least 80%)

I've had bad luck with older Smiths. I used to love Smiths until their ages started to show. Maybe I am somehow rougher on them than most but my Rugers never seemed to notice. I'd bet that newer Smiths are tougher than their predecessors too.

I will say that those old Smiths were very accurate and had wonderful actions. Their ability as target pistols was phenomenal.