so called "mountain guns"

Mountain guns are artillery pieces designed for use in mountain warfare and areas where usual wheeled transport is not possible. They are similar to infantry support guns, and are generally capable of being broken down into smaller loads (for transport)

I owned a .45 Colt Mountain Gun. I regret selling it but when I read this thread I remembered why I sold it. I did not feel it would hold up to the heavy .45 Colt loads I wanted to use. It has been replaced by a 4 5/8 Blackhawk.
 
Mountain guns are artillery pieces designed for use in mountain warfare and areas where usual wheeled transport is not possible. They are similar to infantry support guns, and are generally capable of being broken down into smaller loads (for transport)

I owned a .45 Colt Mountain Gun. I regret selling it but when I read this thread I remembered why I sold it. I did not feel it would hold up to the heavy .45 Colt loads I wanted to use. It has been replaced by a 4 5/8 Blackhawk.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...you traded the opportunity to have grips that helped control the gun for a pressure level that would rarely be used. I would think a Mountain Gun would do its job at intermediate, low 20ks pressure level in 45 Colt. The gun's real forte is 44 Magnum, so you could have gone in that direction instead, giving you thicker cylinder walls and forcing cone.

The real Mountain Gun, i.e. bear gun, in today' terms and from Smith is the 460 S&W. It can shoot 45 Colt, most likely at any published load level.
 
Last edited:
I control my Blackhawk just fine. As far as the .45 Colt playing second fiddle to the .44 mag. The .45 Colt will do anything the .44 Mag will do and with lower pressure levels.

"In a technical sense the .45 Colt is a big caliber, large capacity case that must operate at low chamber pressure compared to many magnum rounds. The fact that it has more capacity allows this to happen. In general loadings the .45 Colt will do anything the .44 magnum will do with about 6000 to 10,000 CUP less chamber pressure, depending on the load and bullet weight used."

Gun Notes: The .45 Colt - Dissolving the Myth, Discovering the Legend
by John Linebaugh

My concern was the action loosening up over time not the gun blowing up. The double action swing out cylinder Smiths and the single action revolvers are apples and oranges. I guess I am just a orange kind of guy.
 
Last edited:
I control my Blackhawk just fine.
Click to expand...

Of course that would be your comeback, but it has been an issue reported by many, and there are special grips to help with controlling powerful single actions.

If one really intends to shoot 45 Colt to its full capability, then a Ruger Blackhawk would be a good choice in a more manageable size gun. The double action alternative would be in a gun of extreme size. The 44 Magnum though could be had in the next size smaller gun, the Smith N-frame, a type and size where Ruger is not a player.
 
Your Model 624, Mr. Johnson, was exactly the same as mine, including the grips. The grips were a little difficult to find. S&W used to have similar grips for round-butt guns, I believe. Although it is true that the so-called target grips may make the gun easier to control, they also seemed to make the gun twice as large. The old-style grips on an N-frame with a six or six and a half-inch barrel made it seem no larger than a Model 19. It wasn't, of course, but it did seem smaller. Other replacement grips were different, so you always had lots of choices.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the .45 Colt was a good as a .44 magnum, but I'm only referring to factory loads. Oddly enough, Elmer Keith felt the factory .44 magnum loads were too hot. But there wasn't a lot of different loads available at first. Personally, I feel the .357 is perfectly adequate for just about anything I can think of in the lower 48. To be frank, however, the blast is practically as bad as larger calibers. Not the recoil--the blast.
 
Years and years ago, I bought a used Model 29 with a 4" barrel to carry while hiking in the area behind my house. It was about 5000 acres and was filled with wild pigs and few mountain lions. After my second encounter with a lion, I decided that I needed something with a significant punch if I ran into one that didn't want to leave me alone.

Somehow I have gotten along all these years without noticing the extra ounce or so of extra weight and I like the way it handles. I think that if a standard profile barrel is too much for you to carry, perhaps you should look into some conditioning exercises or maybe take shorter hikes.

Still going strong after 35 years:
IMG_1890-XL.jpg
 
Oddly enough, Elmer Keith felt the factory .44 magnum loads were too hot.
Click to expand...

That's because he was right. It's just no fun to shoot. The magnums are too much, the specials are too little.

The .41 is better but alas, Dirty Harry (reportedly) used a .44.
 
Oddly enough, Elmer Keith felt the factory .44 magnum loads were too hot.
Click to expand...

That's because he was right. It's just no fun to shoot. The magnums are too much, the specials are too little.

The .41 is better but alas, Dirty Harry (reportedly) used a .44.
Click to expand...

With more than one 44 Magnum, I find that the more powerful loads need a certain size gun to be manageable enough to call shooting them "fun". The main problem is with the SAA. The 5" and 6" Smith 629s eat them up. I project enough problems with anything smaller to be uninterested in trying them.
 
Remember, Elmer Keith probably said that over 50 years ago. And when he said "hot," he didn't mean too powerful, just too hot, with faster burning powders than he would have used. At least that's my interpretation. Also, originally, the .44 magnum was only available with, I think, plain lead bullets, as was the .357 thirty years earlier. Leading was a problem. I believe he used, oh, whatever they're called, hard metal bases to overcome the leading problem somewhat but he probably preferred hard cast lead. "Two powerful" probably wasn't in his vocabulary.

You might note also that some of his earlier favorite revolvers were .44 specials, which of course had light barrels. The 1950 model S&W revolvers in .45 ACP and .45 Colt had heavy barrels and the 1917 was still theoretically available into the 1950s, which did not have an under-lug barrel. I say theoretically because Skeeter Skelton mentioned in an article about all of those large frame revolvers from S&W being discontinued, that he never saw any of them in a store. But they were being made late enough for them to receive model numbers in the new series. Correct me if I'm wrong (I often am) but they were the Models 20, 21 and 22. It's doubtful that large numbers of the Models 24 and 25 were made relative to other models. The Model 19 was the one to have then.
 
Seeing an aweful lot of proof here that it's more than just a marketing gimmick. ;):D

Nice 29 Highpower3006! I have a 4" 29-2 circa 1980. Love that one!


Pardon the lousy pic..

 
My powerful compact handgun is a Taurus® TRACKER™ SS 4" barrel 5 shot chambered in 41 Remington Magnum. The gun weighs 34oz unloaded and is a joy to carry all day. The gun is ported which helps to reduce muzzle flip and recoil. I'm in love with the gun AND the caliber.....

 
Last edited:
The 29 is a pig if that's what you mean. Keith developed the hot 44 special in Colt single action army and did plenty long range shooting with it. Read Sixguns written in 1936.
 
The 29 is a pig if that's what you mean. Keith developed the hot 44 special in Colt single action army and did plenty long range shooting with it. Read Sixguns written in 1936.
Click to expand...

But that's maybe a different thread, this versus that.
 
You can have a Colt Single action army in 44 special with a 4 and 5/8" barrel which qualifies by my OP criteria. Loaded with hot 44 special ammo such as what Keith concocted would be more fun to shoot than a short model 29 with factory 44 mag ammo. Rolls up in your hand nicely to manage recoil. That's my point, so yeah, it belongs in this thread.

In my opinion if you want a fair amount but not too much power in a short barrel revolver a single action is the best way to go for recoil control. It could be 357, 41, 44-40, hot 44 spl., light 44 mag, or 45 Colt. Any more than that is too much to be fun for me and I think many folks.

I have a 5" Magnum Research BFR 44 mag that seems beefy enough to handle the recoil of full power 44 mag ammo. I've only fired it with the factory rubber grips which suck. It's on its way to Jack Huntington for grip modification and grips.
 
Is there any allowance for those who like their big bores with barrels under 6" and double action? It seems to me that the concept is for something powerful yet short enough to carry high and strong side.
 
Last edited:
MG in 44 Mag

I have a stainless Mountain Gun in 44 magnum. With full house magnum loads the recoil is too much for my undersize hands for a man of my size and the factory rubber grips. I carry 44 Specials in it, on the warm side, and find that is a satisfying compromise. I have a 6" 629 with which I can shoot the heavier magnum loads all day with no problem. I carry both guns in Galco holsters.

The longer, heavier barreled 629 points and shoots better for me.
 
Is there any allowance for those who like their big bores with barrels under 6" and double action? It seems to me that the concept is for something powerful yet short enough to carry high and strong side.
Click to expand...

In my opinion the best was the Dan Wesson 445 Supermag which could be had with a less than 6" barrel, you'd have to find a used one on gunbroker. You could reload for it or simply use 44 mag or special. It has a longer cylinder but isn't an ugly monstrosity like the Taurus judge or similar s&w ugly 410/45 Colt.

The extra cylinder ballast does the same thing as a long barrel but you don't have so much overall length.

They also made a Dan Wesson 357 Maximum which could also handle 357 mag and 38 special. Great guns, I wish they still made these DW revolvers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top