44 magnum, what barrel length?

I think you've made a good choice. I feel that a 4-5 inch barrel is best for a sidearm, 6-6-1/2 inch best "all-'round", and 7-10 inch barrel the most practical for a dedicated "primary" hunting handgun.

With the 6" 629 you can do everything with only moderate tradeoffs.

629-4bullets.jpg~original
 
6" M629 is a good choice. A lot depends on presonal preference. In your shoes, I probably would have made the same decision/choice.
 
Velocity loss is there. Most published 44 mag ballistics are from barrels ~8" long. Shooting them from 6" barrels is about the equivalent of a rifle from an 18" barrrel.

But you buy a handgun to have something small so I'll live with some loss of velocity. It won't lose 300 fps at 6" though. Going down under 4" will cost you that much, or more. Personally if I needed anything longer than 6", I'd rather carry a carbine. I wouldn't want one shorter than 4" either.
 
The difference between 6 and 8 inches in velocity is actually worth noting.
A federal 240 grain hydrashock JHP will be around 1380fps through a 6 inch barrel. at 8 inches it right around 1497fps. Over 100fps gain in 2 inches. 9'' brings it up to 1535.

A longer barreled gun will tend to be slightly heavier than the same model with a shorter barrel. If you hate weight this could be a negative, but a heavier pistol will also have less felt recoil. And of course the longer barrel has a longer sight radius.
 
I feel that if it were a dedicated hunting pistol and I were already rather good with a 44 then I'd go for the longer barrel but since it might or might not go hunting I think 6 inches is plenty. The gun will almost certainly be just a range toy and a "just in caser" while bow hunting, HD would be terrible. But thankyou for all the help.
 
I own a colt 44 anaconda with 8" barrel and red dot .......have no problem hitting 12" plate at 100 yards .......love shooting plate !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D
 
different

Pick what you want, its your money. For me though, I don't want any handgun I intend to walk any distance with to have a tube much longer than 4-5/8"-5", autos included.

I had a wonderful M29 and a M27, both 6" guns, and traded both away 'cause I found both to be just to clunk when walking any distance.

My Dad had a Ruger Super-B with the 10-1/4 or whatever tube and it shot like a carbine, but was very awkward to get carry anywhere, and a carbine seemed nearly as convenient, and easier to shoot.

Shorter barrels for me
 
I can't imagine anyone having an issue getting around with a 6" N-frame on the hip. We're only talking a couple ounces difference. My 6½" 24-3 weighs only 2oz more than my 4" 629MG. That 6½" N-frame .44Spl weighs only 3oz more than a 4¾" USFA SAA replica in the same chambering. Imperceptible on the hip. Assuming, of course, that you have proper gunleather.
 
NewFrontier, when I was younger, I carried a 6" python on my belt (primarily in the woods) in a good leather holster and as the day wore on, I grew tired of the barrel length versus a 4". So I can see why some people would not like to carry a 6" revolver on their belt.

I carried it because it was fun and a bit of a novelty to carry a handgun at the time. It wasn't so much the weight as it was the length of the holster for me. Years later, I don't have a huge issue with a 6" revolver on my belt.
 
not weight, length

Its not so much the weight as the length/dimensions. And target grips. Awkward in and out of a vehicle (why LE almost universally went to 4" guns in the long run, and once the short comings of the swivel holster were recognized) ATV, mtn bike, through the woods, my 6" guns just seemed cumbersome.

Years ago, plenty healthy and able bodied, I took a long hard walk over a ridge near Crystal Springs AR, down to Lake Ouachita and return. My pet M29/6'' seemed in the way of everything. Hung on my pack, wacked my staff, seemed to catch every sapling I walked past. I kinda swore off toting 6 inchers after that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top