What's better in .44 magnum, Ruger or S&W?

Depends, if you want to shoot a steady diet of hot loads than Ruger hands down, although the S&W will come with a better factory trigger. Personally I won't buy any new S&W revolvers until they get rid of the frame mounted lock, for me its a matter of principle.
 
make mine a 6 inch

Everybody is different but I found 8 inch revolvers hard to shoot, the weight is one thing and I find it hard to get good sight alignment with the 8 inch I like 6 myself
bb
 
I agree with Buzzard, 8" barrel revolvers don't balance well for me and you really don't gain much in the performance department. Although if you really want an 8" revolver than go for it.
 
I like the 44 s&w looks over the Rugers. Thats just me. That would be the only time I pick a S&W over a Ruger. I'm a Ruger guy at heart but the 629 is just beautiful!!
 
Cosmetics & trigger- S&W.
Sheer strength & durability- Ruger.

And never an 8-inch barrel!
Denis
 
The reason I asked about 8 inch barrel is because my local FFL has a Ruger Blackhauck and a model 29-3. But they both have the 8+ barrel that I don't particularly like. I don't like anything over 6 but wanted to know if these were popular just in case I was missing out on something worth while.
 
8-inch barrels and longer have never been popular.
Some like 'em, obviously, and some buy 'em, but they have never been mainstream.
Denis
 
I have wanted a Model 29 with the 8 inch barrel after watching Robert De Niro blow that dudes hand apart with one in Taxi Driver.

But, with how Smith and Wesson puts the stupid locks on there guns these days, make mine a Ruger.
 
I inherited a Ruger Redhawk 44mag w/a 7.5" barrel, I'd rather it was 5.5".
My thought is if I need a longer barrel I will use a rifle.
 
Normally I'm a Smith & Wesson guy, and I'll stick with that for this question because I generally think Ruger revolvers are as ugly as a mud fence. Smith & Wesson...with a 4" barrel.

HOWEVER...

There is one exception. The Redhawk...not the Super Redhawk, with a 4-5 barrel, I MIGHT consider, if the price was right. For some reason that one missed a couple of branches on the ugly tree and is almost not bad looking.

I don't care how strong they are. I'm not shooting anything hotter than factory and not many of those really. I'd shoot 44 special level at the range about 95% of the time anyway.
 
I have had S&W 29s and got rid of them. Not as rugged as a Ruger. My first SBH I bought in the late 70's, 7.5" bbl, and had it cut and crowned at 5.5". I have done that to more than one. I like the 7.5" cut down better because I get the non fluted cylinder and the Dragoon grip. Don't know much about the D/A Rugers I just like the single actions better. The 5.5" bbl seems to to have better balance and points so much better.
 
The S&W has been strengthened again and again since my late '70s M29 was made .It's 6'5" barrel makes for easy carrying , well balanced and does the job.

This seems to be something new to shooters but -- Yes you can load the Ruger hotter , but handgun bullets have poor sectional density and poor ballistic coefficient ,That means it starts faster but slows very quickly .You just wear out your gun faster.Use reasonable accurate loads with a good premium bullet like Barnes all copper. and you'll get the deer every time !! :p :p
 
For me the decision is easy: Ruger. Because it is the only one of the two I can actually buy here!!

All the same, as DPris summarised, I personally value the strength and durability of the Ruger to a nicer stock trigger in a S&W. And a better trigger on one doesn't mean the other is a bad trigger.

Cosmetics are very subjective and I personally like the look of Rugers (OK, the full length SRH is a gun only its mother could love, but apart from that). Some S&W are very nice too.
 
I think of the 8 inch barrel as more of a hunting/silhouette target shooting barrel. More of the 100 yard + pistol. I have a Dan Wesson in 44 Mag with both the 8 and 6 inch barrels. The 8 inch is equipped with a 2-6 scope mounted on it, the 6 inch is just iron sights. The longer barrel is harder to learn to shoot but without too much difficulty you can master the 100 yard shot. The 200 yard shots are a little harder but with practice it can be done.

No matter if you get the S&W or the Ruger that is your choice. The barrel length is dependent on the purpose of the pistol. For the range plinker I would think the 6 inch to be more appropriate, for hunting the 8 inch would be my choice. Both are quality pistols, triggers can be worked over to an acceptable level regardless of choice.
 
I have had S&W 29s and got rid of them. Not as rugged as a Ruger. My first SBH I bought in the late 70's, 7.5" bbl, and had it cut and crowned at 5.5". I have done that to more than one. I like the 7.5" cut down better because I get the non fluted cylinder and the Dragoon grip. Don't know much about the D/A Rugers I just like the single actions better. The 5.5" bbl seems to to have better balance and points so much better.
Click to expand...

I to had a SBH for my first 44 mag and shortened it to 5 1/2" but only mine was a 10 1/2" to start out with and had the long ejector housing. But eventually took a liking to the 357 mag and let it go. It was also in the later 70's. I did get back to the 44 in the way of a S&W M29 in a 4 inch barrel but only after I started handloading. I usually load between 1000 and 1200 fps with 180 and 240 grain bullets. A 4" M29 is an awfully nice gun for lighter loads.
 
A 4" or 6" model 29 if I ever get another 44. I don't know if Rugers are more rugged or not, they are thicker, probably to add strength because they are cast instead of forged. Cheaper isn't always better, bigger isn't always stronger.
 
I am a S&W guy. I own a few Rugers, but I prefer the way a Smith feels in my hand.

I don't worry about whether the Smiths won't take as steady a diet of harsh loads as a Ruger as I don't like to punish myself with unnecessary muzzle blast and recoil. Plus, while I can shoot a N frame in .44 mag all day, the Ruger Super Blackhawk remains the only gun I have ever owned that I found to be so uncomfortable to shoot that I got rid of it after firing a mere 50 rounds. To this day I truly hate that gun.

I would pass on the 8" barrel though. 6" is just about right for a .44 mag and unless you are planning to eek out the last possible bit of performance out of whatever load you are shooting, the shorter barrel is a lot handier to shoot.

In fact, these are the only two .44 magnums that I have kept over the years. The bottom one is a 29 no dash that I have had for years and I couldn't even begin to guess how many thousands of rounds have been through it. The 6 1/2" 29-2 is a bit newer and I have to confess it hasn't been shot as much as the old 29

IMG_1853-XL.jpg
 
And never an 8-inch barrel!
Denis
Click to expand...


Never say never. I think it depends on your primary usage. For a long range deer hunting revolver, or as a range toy, where one will use a rest or shooting sticks, I see the longer barrel and sight radius as an advantage. There are many hunting type bandolier holsters that make carrying them in the field easy and painless. If one is looking for a .44 for the backpack, glovebox or to carry on the hip, there are better options. I have shorter barreled .44s, but the one that is most accurate and I use most for hunting deer with is this 7 5/8s incher.

44MAGa.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top