[mebe007]

ok guys im loking for it straight and i know you all are the place to get it. i want a .44mag. was looking at .454 casull but lets face it its overkill in the lower 48, but still cool and i have not ruled it out

i am looking at the taurus raging bull. it comes in both calibers. in both 6.5" barrel and 8 3/8" barrel.
what would be the ideal barrel lenngth say in the .44mag?
what would be the ideal length in the .454 casull?

what would be your preference in caliber?

any thoughts on the taurus raging bull etc?

basically i want to know as much as possible as i can. my birthday is mid next month and that is when i get the go ahead to purchase my new hand cannon.

also primary use will be range and maybe take it hunting as i have never done this. if i want to ccw i have a sig p232 and my commander lightweight 1911


thanks guys

 

[Halwg]

My brother bought the 454 Raging bull when they first came out. He's killed 3 or 4 deer and a bear with his. The thing is a brute. I don't like shooting it with the arthritis I have in my hands. One cylinder is about all I can stand.

When he first got it the recoil destroyed the scope mount and rings. He sent it back to Taurus and they gave him the correct mount, for free, and he hasn't had a bit of trouble with it since. I'm not sure when it first came out, but that's how long he's had his and has shot a lot of rounds through it.

Personally, I'd get a 44 mag, but you can always load the 454 down or shoot 45 long colts through it.

 

[redlegagent]

I've had a Ruger Redhawk in .44 mag for over 20 years. It has a 7.5" barrel. I chose the Ruger over a S&W due to it's heavier frame. Taurus pistols have a mixed review to many. I own 2 Taurus revolvers and 2 semi's. They are basic firearms and would be good for range work but I wouldn't consider them for self defense work. A Taurus revolver with a barrel length around 6" would suffice for range and hunting work.

 

[Gunjunkie]

I prefered the RUGER 7 1/2 to all for accuracy and shooting... the 5's seem to slide more in in hand but are easier for carry.. for mainly hunting I would get the Redhawk.. I had the Super Blackhawk .. specials are more fun to learn control and practice with.. the mags tend to wear out your wrist in a hurry..

 

[VTDW]

44Mag and make it a Ruger. Mine is a Super Blackhawk and digests Ranch Dog 280 gr boolits with a dose of 18 gr of N-110 and at 1,150 fps. With two hands the muzzle flip is only about 4" for a fast follow-up shot if needed. I could sure load em up much stouter but why????


I have the white/original grips back on it now.

Have fun!!!

Dave 8)

 

[mebe007]

i like the smith 629 but it is a bit out of my price range right now. i like the taurus styling especially with the full underlug and the ported barrel. price is good on it as well. i did look at a super redhawk in 480 but again its a bit large for the lower 48. i might scope it eventually. will a scope work well on the 6.5? also would it be better to go with the 8 3/8" to keep velocity up since it is ported? i also handload and will be loading this caliber

 

[IN1894SS]

I still like the Ruger SRH's. I've fired the 7.5" 454 and I didn't think it was all that bad. That's probably the one I'd go with. I don't think the 454 is overkill on medium game, OTOH I'm OK with the 44mag as well.

 

[mebe007]

I still like the Ruger SRH's. I've fired the 7.5" 454 and I didn't think it was all that bad. That's probably the one I'd go with. I don't think the 454 is overkill on medium game, OTOH I'm OK with the 44mag as well.

im just not a fan of the extended frame on the super redhawk. imho i ht ink its tacky. but thats personal prefference

 

[IN1894SS]

Fair enough - go with a proven gun and it's all personal preference from there.

 

[Maudite]

I own both a S&W 629 and a Ruger Redhawk- both 44 mags. The availability of 44 mag ammo is a plus over getting a 454 Casull. And, as you have implied- the 44 mag is sufficient for the "lower 48". I do not have any first hand experience with Taurus revolvers. I have checked them out and just don't have confidence in the quality or design in Taurus. I have not owned one so I don't really know from experience.

My Redhawk is my hunting revolver. I recommend a "Red Dot" sight over a handgun scope for hunting. Light transmission in handgun scopes is an issue. The scopes are just not bright enough in low light hunting situations. Red Dot sights let more light thru and they don't have any issue with eye relief. That's the real challenge with a handgun scope- getting the eye relief right- lined up and right distance- so you can see thru it. I like the Redhawk with the 7 1/2" barrel- balances well with the Red dot on it. Also, I prefer a double action revolver over single action. They feel better in my hand, handle recoil better for me- and are just more versatile.

Be sure to try out a number of guns before you buy. If you're looking at used guns take your time and check out the timing and lock up on each cylinder. Look them over closely- take your time and enjoy the process.

Good luck.

M

 

[mebe007]

i am kinda set on a .44mag but for some reason the .454 has a kind of siren song haha

 

[mebe007]

ok so the super red hawk actually looks good. i was mistaken , it is the single action blackhawk that i am not a fan of. so now my decision just got harder. 7.5" stainless super redhawk in .44mag looks gorgeous. i dont know that i would want it in a .454 though

 

[mebe007]

but now i think i am in love and have made my mind up. if i can find a deal on one, i want the S&W 629 classic. what do you guys think, the 5" or the 6.5" barrel?

 

[Tele-Caster]

I don't really see the point in combining double-action capability with the managable but still stout recoil of the .44 Magnum round. But on the other hand, the typical single action "Peacemaker style" single action seems brutal on the wrists under recoil, where the double action that puts the bore closer to the web of the hand isn't so "snappy" for lack of a better word.

I don't care much for the standard Ruger Super Blackhawk and find them uncomfortable to shoot. Ah, but the BISLEY version is big bore handgun Nirvana to me. Accurate. Ergonomic. Hell for stout, with a long service life. And comfortable to shoot, even with full-power loads.

The Bisley grip frame gives you more to hold on to and it seems to place the bore lower in relationship to the web of the hand, like it is on a D.A. like a Redhawk or M-29 Smith and Wesson. The lower hammer spur is right there where you can quickly thumb it for as fast a controlled, aimed follow-up as you're likely to get with the .44 Mag in a revolver. The curved trigger blade is easier to reach, too.


T-C

 

[NailShooter]

I'd go S&W or Ruger, or even a Dan Wesson if you can find one (I have all three). I'd avoid a Taurus as I view these as a "second tier" firearm--it is said that they have a "lifetime warranty" and it's a good thing as you likely will need it. Regards,

Nail

 

[mebe007]

I think.I have set my mind on.the 629 classic with 6.5" barrel. The 5 looks good but I figure the 6.5 would be better for hunting

 

[Barenjager]

but now i think i am in love and have made my mind up. if i can find a deal on one, i want the S&W 629 classic. what do you guys think, the 5" or the 6.5" barrel?

Hard not to be enamored with an N-frame Smith, especially one chambered in .44 Magnum. They are quite seductive, and a 629 Classic is one of the strongest aphrodisiacs there is...

The balance of the five inch underlugged barrel is legend, a nearly perfect combination of portability and recoil absorbing muzzel heaviness. Mine has been a fine companion, either as an open-sighted hunting handgun, or as bit of hip mounted insurance when woods-wandering.

As much as I like the 5" Classic, if you're plan is to scope the revolver, I would recommend the 6.5" barrel length. Most scope mounts for the S&W place the scope squarely over the frame and cylinder and the little extra muzzel weight of the 6.5" barrel will balance better with a scope attached.

The Classic series, with those full underlugs, began in 1990 as part of the 629-3 engineering change, often called the "endurance package". Between 1988 and 1990, S&W phased in a number of changes to beef up the N-frames to better handle frequent use with heavy loads, culminating in the 629-3. All Classics you may encounter will have these upgrades and will handle any reasonable .44 Magnum loads.

There are plenty of good used 629 Classics around that can be uncovered with a little searching. The S&W's may cost a bit more than a Taurus, but with just a modicum of care, you'll never lose money on a handgun with the quality and desirability of these big Smiths.

Roe

 

[mebe007]

Yeah I have been thinkin of scoping whatever I get but not sure yet. The 5" looks a little better. But I figured the 6.5 would be better if I did use a scope, perhaps be better for recoil, give a little more velocity.


But I am dead set on the 629 classic. Now just to.make up my mind on barrel length. I was looking at a new 629 classic 6.5 for $786. Thought it was a good deal considering most used ones I find around around 600

Both of those prices would still need ffl transfer fee added

 

[Charlie98]

I had a 6.5" Smith 657-2 Classic (the first of the Classics, 1/2000 built in 1991 as I have recently found out...) and it's one of the few firearms I really do regret selling. It was a bit nose-heavy with all that weight out front, though, but with a scope it doesn't really matter.

It's a fine pistol, but it's a LOT of pistol!

 

[mebe007]

Most likely it will not stay scoped at all times.