Why do you love/hate the .44 magnum?

I fired the .454 once: 1 full cylinder worth.

I'll stick to .44mag.

I was accurate enough. In fact, the owner jokingly complained that I made him look bad.;)

However, I didn't care for the amount of recoil, and realized I'd rather fire 25 or 50 rounds of .44mag than 6 of .454.

I don't handgun hunt, so their efficiency on anything other than a thin-skinned intrusive bipedal animal is not that relevant to me. Well, Ursine threats while hiking also- but only the black ones down here as there are no brown, griz or Kodiak to fear.
 
From what I understand, the 460s are on much heavier and recoil resistant platform, and have less recoil than my 454. They are also a lot more gun to carry in the field.
Click to expand...
Agree on both counts. As I don't hunt and have no plans to, the .460 Mag is merely a fun gun for me and I won't have to tote it around outdoors.

But I can tell you that if someone is a .454 Casull gun owner and shooter and he finds the recoil of his handgun to be at or beyond his limits, and ONLY puts up with it because he loves the gun, or it gets the job done or he can comfortably tote it while outdoors...

...I think if that guy sends a handful of .460 Magnum down range from a S&W X-frame, he's going to be WIDE-EYED and he's going to start interviewing options in an X-frame. The way these guns handle the extreme recoil is phenomenal.
 
The only reason I own a .44 Magnum handgun,,,

The only reason I own a .44 Magnum handgun,,,
Is because I received it as a gift.

When the father of a dear friend passed away,,,
I helped her to catalog, clean, and price over 80 rifles and handguns.

When we were finished after a long three day weekend,,,
I had purchased several of the handguns.

When she dropped me off at my apartment,,,
She handed me a blue Smith & Wesson pistol box.

Inside it was a 6" Model 629 (no-dash) revolver,,,
She said it was her gift to me for all the help I gave her.

She also gave me 300 rounds of .44 Magnum ammunition,,,
I still have well over 200 of those rounds left,,,
That was about 6-7 years ago.

I don't love the pistol at all,,,
But I do love owning it.

It's one of the guns I never choose to shoot,,,
But it goes to the range every time I take a newbie,,,
Everybody wants to shoot at least one round of that big girl.

When my nephew wanted to take a deer with a handgun,,,
I offered to loan him any of my handguns.

After firing it a few times,,,
He opted for the 6" Model 686 instead.

It's like that hot-rod in your garage,,,
Not practical to drive to work,,,
But fun as heck to cruise in.

It did prompt me to assemble The Harem,,,
Four stainless revolvers,,,
Four frame sizes,,,
Four cartridges.

01-harem.jpg


Aarond

.
 
Take these comments as from someone whose only 44 Mag revolver is a Ruger Alaskan with the factory Hogue rubber grips: I like 44 Magnum because it seems like the largest caliber I can shoot enough of on a regular basis to develop some sort of proficiency/familiarity with my revolver.

I can go to the range and shoot a hundred rounds of factory ammo (I've never tried the extremely powerful stuff- yet) no prob. My hands might slightly tremor later in the day, but it is doable. I don't own one, but it seems like you can't do that with a .500 S&W gun.
 
Last edited:
What many don't seem to realize is that recoil tolerance is not born, it's made. One must develop the skill, like any other.


Do all of them have loose chambers?
Click to expand...
Uh no, only the .45 Colt guns.


I didn't see how 44 Special was pertinent in that context and then associated that list of guns with 45 Colt.
Click to expand...
It's been mentioned several times in this thread and by the same people I quoted who think the .44's never should've existed. As if the strong .45's would even exist had Keith not done his work with the .44 Special, which led to the .44 Magnum, which led to stronger .45 Colt's.


For those who think the .44 Mag is now obsolescent because there are bigger and more powerful rounds on the market, show me one in the same size & weight packages as a .44Mag. (seriously, not a taunt, I am not well versed in what monster magnums are available).
Click to expand...
We now have Rugers in .454 and .480 that are identical to their .44 Magnum guns. However, one does not always need more cartridge than the .44. Or a 6lb X frame. Or the 200yd range of the .460.
 
I really like the 44 magnum because you can load it down to be gentle as a 44 special, or up to some real power, based on your need.
 
Hello j102,,,

Nice collection! What calibers/guns are they?
Click to expand...

Jezebel: N-frame Model 629 in .44 Magnum.
Bridgid: L-Frame Model 686 in .357 Magnum.
Morgana: K-frame Model 67 in .38 Special.
Lilith: J-frame Model 63 in .22 LR.

Aarond

.
 
I came into a fair amount of 44 mag ammo in a trade that I cringe to think about shooting out of a revolver. Yesterday I traded into a Henry 44 mag rifle I will actually enjoy shooting it with.
 
Never owned one, shot several. Don't love it or hate it as there is no reason for either emotion towards a tool.

I do prefer .41 Magnum and I enjoy shooting my S&W 657 Mountain Gun. I enjoy reloading for it as well as my .414 SuperMag.
 
Never owned one, shot several. Don't love it or hate it as there is no reason for either emotion towards a tool.

I do prefer .41 Magnum and I enjoy shooting my S&W 657 Mountain Gun. I enjoy reloading for it as well as my .414 SuperMag.
Click to expand...

What do you call the attachment I feel toward my toys?

Thanks for stopping by re a different caliber.:cool:
 
You can like objects, but objects can not be truly loved or hated. The dictionary definition that includes "a strong liking of something" was only added recently.

Things do add to enjoyment for sure, but I have always been careful with words as they have meaning. I'll go way off topic here if I dissect the historical definitions of the words love and hate. But since many liberals "hate" guns, I will continue to not "love" my guns but the freedom that allow us to possess them. I will never be willing to die for a specific gun, but I am willing to risk that for the freedoms (which I do love) they protect and therefor would refuse to hand them over to those who would disarm Americans.
 
I personaly don't care for "tools", they are usually rude and get on my nerves!

If someone says they love this or that who am I to tell them they don't, I don't live inside their brain.

kcub, the 44 mag is an excellent rifle cartridge. Not quite the beast it is in a hand gun.
 
I don't mind the drift and I enjoy the comversation but I can't quite figure out or accept why you cannot love an object (in this example, a gun) but then you can love a "freedom and right" to own them.

I'll also agree with Guv that while words do have meaning, I can't speak for others and the precedent for "loving" STUFF was set long, long, LONG ago.

I also cannot accept the dictionary being the final judgement for what is and what is not -- this same dictionary adds nonsensical pop-culture idiocy annually. It usually makes a small headline when that happens.
 
"Love" of things is something that has been added to the dictionary, and literature in the last 70 years or so. The term used to be held for an emotional feeling towards familial, brotherly, theistic and sexual love of another being. We have 6000 to 7000 years of literature, so only changed in the last 1% of literary time. Yes, much of that was driven by religious texts.

At its core, love has historically, through all languages, been used to describe a feeling of caring more about another person that ones self. It described a sacrificial and unfettered desire or loyalty to another being. That just can not, in the historical sense of the word, be placed upon an inanimate object by a rationale person.

A free man can love and think as they wish, a bonded or enslaved or subjugate man can not. He is controlled. Therefore, to give up freedom is to give up the ability to love naturally.

This is certainly nothing new. Classical writings that describe and discuss love, whether in the form of description of the human condition or art, have expressed these definitions of love for the vast majority of recorded history. American language has followed the culture, devaluing love in action and verbiage. In the wide historical view, the precedent of not loving stuff was set well before any of us were around and loving a thing was generally seen as wrong to boot (granted, again the religious influence).
 
Owned a S&W model 29 many years ago. Shot it once. One round. That was enough for me. Sold it to a friend. It was a pretty gun, though. 1979, beautiful deep blue finish, 6.5" barrel, target stocks.

Just not practical for my needs, then or now.
 
I also cannot accept the dictionary being the final judgement for what is and what is not
Click to expand...

I agree with that, and so do the dictionaries, if you read them carefully, (usually in the preface) they will tell you that the definitions are those "in popular use".

And we all know how much of a difference there can be between the actual definition of something and what it is "in popular use".
:rolleyes:

LOVE is ...a many splendored thing. Also a word with many degrees of definition. I love my wife. I love my children. I love my cat. I even love my wife's dog, sometimes. Also love my guns, chocolate milk, and a good spaghetti dinner, all in different ways, and for different reasons.
 
Owned a S&W model 29 many years ago. Shot it once. One round. That was enough for me. Sold it to a friend. It was a pretty gun, though. 1979, beautiful deep blue finish, 6.5" barrel, target stocks.

Just not practical for my needs, then or now.
Click to expand...

Yep. It has the same problem every 44 has. It could have been a .41. That reloading argument about loading it up, down, sideways to do anything you want applies to the .41 with the advantage that factory loads are shootable, fun, and useful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top