Ruger Super Blackhawk grip choice and barrel length

As far as the advice of those fellows that have recommended short 3-3/4" barrels goes,..... that may work OK for them,..... but, respectfully, I could not disagree more. As I mentioned previously, I am accustomed to a 4-5/8" barrel. If I were getting another for the trail, I would NOT go shorter. I have to recommend a revolver that you would practice with a lot, and one that's fun to shoot. It's more fun to hit than miss. Keeping in mind that I have perhaps 10,000 or more rounds I've shot through my revolver, and my buddy thinks I'm good with it, I will offer these observations: I can fairly reliably hit a tennis-ball size object at 15 yards, perhaps even smaller. At 25 yards, I can occasionally miss a grapefruit size object, but usually hit it. And this is all standing, unsupported mind you. At 50 yards, honestly, a soccerball size object is going to get lucky at about half the time. I'm actually a better shot than my revolver is. But it's good for what it's good for, and I'm happy with it to 25 yards. If there is a next one some day, it will have a longer barrel.
 
I am thinking the frame is the same as the Blackhawk and it is called a Super Blackhawk simply because it is a 44mag. It also has the fluted cylinder like a Blackhawk.
Click to expand...

For many years after its introduction the Ruger Super Blackhawk only came one way. 7.5" barrel, unfluted cylinder, dragoon style triggerguard. Other differences from the Blackhawk were the grip frame, and the ejector rod housing were steel, not aluminum as they are on the Blackhawk. Also the Super had a grooved trigger (Blackhawk trigger is smooth) and a lower hammer spur with a larger checkered thumb pad. The unfluted cylinder and the use of steel over aluminum was to add a bit of weight to make the recoil of the .44 Mag a little easier.

The Square back Dragoon grip frame IS longer than the one on the Blackhawk. Blawkhawk grips will not fit.

Today (and for the past few years) Ruger offers the Super Blackhawk with different barrel lengths, fluted or non fluted cylinder and round or square back trigger guards. It may be that the round trigger uses the same grip frame as the Blackhawk, I do not know. IF it is, then Blackahwk grips would, obviously fit.

It may also be that the Hogue grip, which uses a slightly different mounting system than other types, might fit both grip frames. Again, I don't know, for certain. I've only had one Hogue grip, the hard plastic gray one, and it used an curious stirrup and screw mechanism for attachment, which looed to me like it would fit several different models of similar guns.
 
There's a couple of great articles on bear protection in the current September/October "Sports Afield" that are well worth reading.

I have a Super Blackhawk 7.5" barrel with the Pachmayer grips. I have shot two deer and one black beer with it and had no issues when I was in college. However, I find as I get older my enjoyment of putting a couple of boxes of full power loads through it has declined somewhat. I personally would not be comfortable hunting with my 44 now until I practiced a lot more with it. I believe that for self defense a certain level of proficiency is also required so practice is also involved especially with a SA revolver.

At the point in which a revolver may be used against a bear, I believe a DA revolver may be more appropriate. However, familiarity/proficiency with whatever you choose is critical.
 
The Firing Line Friends,

Thanks so much for your comments! I started out this post not knowing what to expect, but now I feel I have enough information to make a solid decision. Not going to lie this has me pretty excited, thanks again guys for your help!

Sincerely,

theliberalgunowner
 
I just converted my 5.5" Bisley 45Colt to the SBH frame. I like the size of the Bisley, but it POUNDS my second finger with my preferred load of 285gr RCBS SAA at 1050fps. I've always liked the old "dragoon" grip frame of the SBH. I can shoot a box of full loads of 44 mag with Bear Paw Grips on my SBH. I'm trying the Altamont full finger grips on the Colt. On a regular 45 Colt BH that I gave to my son, I used Hogue Walnut grips. They are both very comfortable.
 
am concerned about the possibility of running into a grizzly or brown bear. Would a .357 be enough against a grizzly?
Click to expand...

The closest brown bear is in Alaska. Inland grizzly are more aggressive and likely to attack than black bear, but are on average less than 100 lbs heavier. And are quite rare in the lower 48, usually only seen in or near Yellowstone NP. The most likely scenario for you is with a 150-250 lb black bear.

A 357 mag or 10mm loaded with 180-200 gr hardcast bullets are more than adequate. Phil Shoemaker, a noted brown bear guide in Alaska has done a lot of testing and is quite comfortable with 357 mag on even the largest brown bear. In fact in August he killed a large male brown bear that attacked a fishing client he was guiding with 147gr hard cast 9mm bullets.

I carry a G29 loaded with 200 gr DoubleTap ammo in black bear country. I've carried the same combo camping in Yellowstone and slept as well as I would with any other handgun.

I have 3" and 4" Smith 629's that stay home. Even the 3" gun is over a pound heavier, and almost 2" longer than the G29. With G20 mags I have an additional 10 rounds of ammo.

If I were handgun hunting then a 6" 44 magnum makes sense. The longer barrel, better sights and trigger mean more bullet velocity and accuracy. But carrying one around for personal protection none of those matter when lighter more compact weapons are available.
 
The closest brown bear is in Alaska. Inland grizzly are more aggressive and likely to attack than black bear, but are on average less than 100 lbs heavier. And are quite rare in the lower 48, usually only seen in or near Yellowstone NP. The most likely scenario for you is with a 150-250 lb black bear.
Click to expand...
Rare, yes.
Black bears are more likely, for sure.
But 'brownies' are not non-existent. ('Brown bear' covers both Kodiaks and Grizzlies.)

There are grizzlies still ranging into Washington state.
If the liberal gun owner ventures north in his state, then grizzly is a valid consideration - just as it is if I travel just a couple hours north into central Idaho (not Yellowstone).
 
I'd agree with those that recommend bear spray versus a handgun for bear defense. That said, if you really want a handgun for defense, against bears, then you will need the biggest caliber you can handle and shoot effectively for any chance of success. And DA is what you want for any chance of a follow up shot.

A .44 Magnum would be a minimum in my opinion and with full house loads as well. While I've carried, and still own several Ruger single actions in .44 Magnum, and three Smith Model 29's (one is actually a 629), I recently bought and have been carrying a Smith Model 69 here on our farm in KY.

The Model 69 is a 5-shot "L" frame Smith, weighs 37.5 oz's. empty, and is chambered for the .44 Magnum. The weight should indicate severe (some would opine "heroic" recoil), but in point of fact, it's not all that bad. The gun does come back fast in the hand on firing, but Smith's factory rubber grips tame all that. Too, the front part of the grip extends low on the rear of the trigger guard, eliminating that 2nd finger crunch. It's downright comfortable to shoot, and those grips are the only ones I've ever come across that handle truly heavy recoil effectively.

Accuracy in this new revolver, is superb...well below 2" with my handloads at full velocity, and nearly as good with factory fodder. Too, it's stainless construction makes it ideal for back country use where the lack of a daily cleaning regimen will make short, rusty work of a blued steel gun.

The 69 is innovative on several points: SS construction, sleeved barrel, light weight, "L" frame for comfort in medium sized hands...among others. And yes, it does have that cursed internal lock...tho in all honesty, it's not been a problem whatsoever on several of my more current Smiths.

Compared to the "N" frame Smith's, the 69 is lighter, fits my hands better than the "N" frame, but does so by giving up that 6th shot.

Here's the weight comparison, S&W M69 vs. M629, obviously both in .44 Magnum as shown on my wife's postal scale.
M69: Empty: 37.5 oz. Loaded: 41.6 oz.
M629: Empty: 45.5 oz. Loaded: 50.4 oz.
​
Here's a pic of my 629 (5" bbl.) with the Model 69 & its 4.25" bbl. below it. Note the grip differences. BTW, that 629 has a similar rubber grip as bought, but I find it not as comfortable in the hand as the M69. YMMV. The 2nd shows what the "L" frame 69 is capable of with good loads...a mild one in this case, (~1100 fps).

HTH's Rod



 
Last edited:
Standard

I have a Ruger Super Blackhawk. I have really big ex boxer hands and I recently bought a Ruger Super Blackhawk .44 magnum. I find it a joy to shoot with the factory grips.
 
if you really want a handgun for defense, against bears, then you will need the biggest caliber you can handle and shoot effectively for any chance of success.
Click to expand...

A .44 Magnum would be a minimum in my opinion and with full house loads as well.
Click to expand...

These two things can be at odds for many people. I agree with the first part, less so with the second, because there are many people who simply cannot shoot a .44 Magnum that well. For them, a lighter caliber, one that they can use accurately, effectively and repeatedly is a better choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top