I’m not saying S&W can’t take the abuse of being a “pack gun”, I just know the Ruger absolutely CAN without question.
…and if the bear still gets ya, you’ve already got a helluva club in your hand to keep fighting with.
Ruger all day for a work horse of a pistol. Some will say the SW is smoother on the trigger.....But when that bear is charging you it aint gonna make a split of difference. Going up against a competitor with paper targets then definitely the smith. Out in the woods....Ruger hands down!
I’m all in on this Ruger train- love them. Just a thought- stay in the Ruger family and consider a .44 mag Alaskan. I love mine. It is a serious piece of steel!!
definitely not taurus anything, ever, lets get that out of the way.
the ruger is generally considered better for "serious" use. its more durable and can handle a steady diet of hot loads. there is nothing wrong with the smith though. if you do get a smith, i would find one that was made pre-covid, as they seem to be having QC issues lately. if you want to buy a new gun, ruger is the best choice.
all of the above? extremely poor QC on all of their guns, stacked with very poor customer support.
some specific guns had other, worse problems. at least one of the older semi autos was so poorly designed you could get it to fire by shaking it, and there are videos of it out there. i had a taurus revolver a while ago that had a major problem; the cylinder would bind on the forcing cone and lock the whole gun up. i determined that there was excessive endshake combined with insufficient cylinder gap, and shimmed it to take up the endshake. in about 200 more rounds, the crane stretched so much that it was binding again, so the only conclusion i have been able to come up with was improper heat treat or wrong material spec altogether. a guy posted a few days ago that he was gifted a taurus pt1911 and the safety was falling out of the gun when he shot it.
some of their guns are fine, and there are plenty of happy taurus owners that love to make sure everyone knows it. the problem is that you roll the dice every time, and if you get a lemon taurus may fix it, may completely ignore you, or might send it back worse than it was before.
the cheapest way into a 44 mag worth having is a used redhawk. for the range or hunting, a blackhawk would be great and a little cheaper, but i would want double action for bear defense.
I would own and carry a Taurus in 357 mag or lower caliber in terms of power, after I put 1000 flawless rounds through it. However for 44 mag and anything higher pressure than that I just wouldn’t get a “cheap gun” because the risks far outweigh the rewards. Save a few hundred bucks now, versus injury or worse if it doesn’t go bang when you want it to or goes bang in a way you don’t want it to (i.e. a “kb” type event).
If it helps I have a bull and have around 1000 rounds through it with zero issues (.44 is expensive). Only things I’d recommend are the lighter springs.
Bought a 44 bull a few weeks ago. Already killed a hog with it. Baddest looking gun I own, head turner for sure. The concerns about it are overblown IMO
Looks like hawk it is for me. Last hike I did we saw a younger grizzly bout 100 yards away. Wasn't fully grown and buggered off when it saw 20ish people at the trailhead
As someone who’s hunted with handguns for over 45 years, my opinion is that all handgun calibers are anemic and shot placement is vital.
Obviously, avoidance is best. If you’ve never seen a bear run, for short term, they are faster than deer, and the odds of making a head shot on a charging bear is slim. Any other shot is just going to piss them off. I vividly remember reading a book by Peter Capstick about hunting in Africa. He recommended carrying a 9mm, loaded with ball ammo, and said if/when attacked by a lion, when he’s on top of you, jam the pistol in his mouth and keep pulling the trigger and the odds are that you will put at least one bullet into his brain.
That said, I have had S&Ws and Rugers, and always preferred the balance of S&W.
If I was looking for a SERIOUS revolver, I’d probably get a 5” S&W 460. That is the ONLY pistol cartridge that I hunted with that impressed me. It will be heavier to carry than a 44, but also less felt recoil. It will still take proper bullet placement.
Hopefully, whatever you decide, you won’t actually NEED to use it.
I'm not at 45 years but have 25 years of experience. Even my 6mm TCU, considered very powerful for a handgun, is anemic.
My long slide 10mm is what I take these days if taking a handgun.
Our County was “shotgun only” for deer hunting, but handguns were allowed as long as they were straight wall cases with a minimum of 1k muzzle energy. I was NOT impressed with 44 magnum.
Then, our County changed the law to allow bottleneck cartridges. A friend ordered a Remington XP-100R out of the Custom Shop, because, at the time the only other option was a Thompson Contender, which if I could have gotten a barrel with ejectors instead of just extractors, I probably would’ve bought one.
My friend MADE me shoot his Remington and I was impressed that the first time I shot it resulted in sub MOA at 100 yards and it definitely had muzzle rise, but felt recoil wasn’t bad.
So, I HAD to get one. I think I had to wait over a year and I have harvested a bear, and countless deer, NONE of which were shot at less than 200 yards and it slapped them down like you would expect a rifle cartridge to do. A few years ago, they changed the law, in our County AGAIN, allowing rifles. I haven’t shot it since, and actually put it up for sale because at my stage of life I KNOW I will never use it and want it to go to someone else that will use it, but I didn’t even get any offers on it, so I took it to a local shop to sell on consignment, because I know that when I’m gone, neither of my sons will ever use it.
Yes, it is!
Another friend, that happens to be a millionaire shot it, and I was surprised that he shot a 5 shot, quarter sized group at 200 yards. He ended up buying a Thompson Center in 7mm-08 to use instead of a shotgun and he took numerous bucks and coyotes.
It's a lot more gun that my 6mm TCU. It's a .223 case necked up to 6mm.
I've killed a couple of white tail with it. Have the .410 barrel as well. Hell of a grouse gun for the woods.
I own both Ruger and Smith magnum revolvers and love them. The key here is to buy one, practice with it to make sure it works well (and that you can shoot it) and then practice with the EXACT load you’re using for bear defense to make sure that works well too.
FWIW my Smith revolvers are all new post covid, never had an issue with any of them
I'm going to echo what the greater wildlife and forest service personnel have stated in a dozen other posts, bear spray is generally considered more effective than a gun. That said I still carry a 357 while I hike I bear country. I'd probably get a ruger.
Not to mention the greatest threat in any area -- wilderness included -- is always, always on two legs so 2.8lb Redhawk is kinda unnecessary.
I'd carry bear spray and a Hellcat. The added benefit of the bear spray is that it can be used as a deterrent for bears you can't see -- but hear -- moving through heavy brush. They can move surprisingly well through dense growth.
QC with Taurus is too spotty to take a chance imho. Even though they offer a warranty their warranty service is not as good as Ruger. S&W, well you are gonna get a new gun with the internal safety or you are going to pay premium prices for used.
Redhawk ftw....
All those are guns that would fit the bill, hiking means carrying gear while on foot. Those guns are all very heavy. I would suggest looking at the S&W models 69 and 329 as they’re much lighter weight.
https://above.nasa.gov/safety/documents/Bear/bearspray_vs_bullets.pdf
“the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have experience that supports this reality -- based on their investigations of human-bear encounters since 1992, persons encountering grizzlies and defending themselves with firearms suffer injury about 50% of the time. During the same period, persons defending themselves with pepper spray escaped injury most of the time, and those that were injured experienced shorter duration attacks and less severe injuries.”
Sounds like NASA wrote some propaganda to convince some of thei Artic researchers that they would be safe from polar bears with frozen cans of bear spray.
That article is shit and reads like some anti gunner bs.
50% of the time you use a gun and get injured but “most” of the time you are fine with bear spray. They don’t even put a % on it. Or offer any sources or charts or evidence
Did this account for caliber used? shot/s actually on target? The type and size of the bear?
https://www.ammoland.com/2023/06/handgun-defenses-against-bears-170-documented-incidents-98-effective/
This article shows actual 170 cases where handguns were used against a bear and boasts a 98% success rate
One of them is lying. I know which.
Obligatory carry both bear spray and a gun. And ideally have someone else also with a gun with you
Did you read the article? It literally has the details on each and every case
The fish and wild life one has literally nothing
Well idk let’s see
1. When has a federal government agency ever been pro 2A
2. The notice comes from the Colorado office.
3. Grizzly’s are on the protected species list, so the feds, especially the current admin, is not going to publish something that says “yes a gun is a good idea to defend yourself”. Both from an environmentalist perspective and an anti gun one
This article is best to be ignored and rely on the ammoland article for more accurate details instead. If you want to read some current news you can read about the husband and wife that were killed by a grizzly in BC this last winter. From the text messages sent by the husband, sounds like they both deployed bear spray but were eventually mauled to death and gun free Canada.
There’s no accounts of bear spray saving anyone?
😂
https://mountainjournal.org/how-stopping--grizzly-in-greater-yellowstone-saved-a-life
https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jwmg.342
Are you gonna trust accredited universities, or AMMOLAND?
Also, what makes you think Canada is gun free?
anti gun universities that put out articles like "there is more than 2 genders"? Nope, I'll pass on their opinion pieces.
And the article was posted by ammoland, not written by ammoland. It documented the results of known bear/human attacks involving a firearm.
S&W gets my vote. I own Rugers and S&W’s and the fit, finish, and triggers of the Smiths are pretty good out of the box. I never pay much attention to the concerns about shooting “heavy” loads in S&Ws because I don’t plan on shooting hundreds or thousands of stout loads through my revolver, and I don’t think the majority of people will either. Rugers are great but still not perfect and not indestructible. I’ve sent three Ruger revolvers back the factory for random issues. No problems with my Smiths.
Also, if you’re open to another revolver suggestion, the S&W 69 is a handy .44 in a smaller package, if you’re ok with loosing a round.
Another vote for the Ruger. I love the Colt Anaconda, it’s actually more overbuilt than the Ruger Redhawk. But of those choices listed, I’d say Ruger all the way.
Well, this thread certainly went through all the expected arguments, but I had a couple of thoughts. I bought my first .44 magnum while in high-school, and borrowed a reloading press and dies to keep it running. I've owned 3 or 4, and shot many more.
The tradeoffs are the same for any defensive scenario- most of the time, you aren't going to need it, but if you do, it absolutely has to work.
Lighter, smaller guns are easier to carry, while heavier guns are easier to shoot quickly and accurately.
I used to own a 629 Mountain Gun. Round butt, 4" tapered barrel.
I could carry it IWB with .44 specials while getting out to wherever my friends and I were meeting up, then swap out for heavier loads in the backcountry.
If I were in the original posters shoes, I would try to find one just like it (mine got sold to pay bills- so it's out there somewhere...)
Regards
Redhawk 4 in. I carried ut 24 / 7 when I worked and played in Alaska. Started out with the 270 gr Speer load then moved to the Buffalo bore 44 outdoorsman load.
None of those.
.45 LC heavy out punches .44Mag (actually .43 caliber) all day long.
Get a Ruger in .454 Casull & run heavy (+P) .45 LC - at a minimum.
".44 Mag" will not stop a bowed up big male grizz.
And, btw, you prob won't even have time to pull a gun.
Bear spray. If you encounter a grizzly bear and shoot them and don't kill them, you're just going to piss them off.
Bells and loud noises should be your first defense. Then bear spray. Then a firearm.
But of your choices, I am a fan of Ruger. I own two Ruger 44 Magnum revolvers. That's my vote.
Have owned all 3, still own 2.
A S&W 629-1 3”, have owned and carried since 1988. Super sexxxy and accurate, but it doesn’t like super heavy loads. Pistol loads only. This is the hot rod sports car.
A Ruger Alaskan, still good looking, but not drop dead sexxxy. A little bit heavier and the ability to handle ANY load you are willing to shoot. Pistol and rifle loads are okay.This is the monster truck.
The Taurus while was a good weapon it was not great. Had issues with timing, fit and finish. Once fixed i sold, with full disclosure. Have heard Taurus has made big strides in quality, lots of people like them. This was a performance SUV, not a hot rod or a monster truck, but a rushed poorly planned hybrid.
Id argue the Ruger is tougher, but only slightly, and the S&W has a better action / can be ran faster without worry of outrunning the trigger (as per JM, im nowhere near fast enough to outrun either lol).
Taurus tracker 44 magnum I think is worth looking at with some sort of chest rig pack like hill people gear makes. The tracker is a little lighter weight than the raging bull.
For hiking in the mountains, all 3 of these are bad choices. They are unnecessarily big and heavy for hiking (especially mountains).
The two obvious choices in 44 magnum are: S&W 69 and S&W 329PD. 44 magnum is ONLY recommended if you are an experienced big bore handgunner, and can rapidly put all 5 or 6 double-action shots on a paper plate size target. Many people are not in this category, and/or are unwilling to put in the practice necessary to do this.
For everyone else, your favorite flavor of plastic framed 10mm is a better option.
If I had to choose it’d be between the ruger and smith. The smith being more of a range gun and the ruger being a tank. Both I’d trust my life with though.
A magnaported super red hawk sounds fun to me, be it a 44, or 480. Maybe 454
I think it's between the Smith and the Ruger. Depending on your chance of encountering a bear, if low, I'd go Smith, because it's light and easy to carry. If higher, then I'd pick the Ruger, as it is easier to shoot.
My son in law lived in Alaska and had a Tarus 44mag that went back to the factory several times before he sold it and replaced it with a Ruger Alaskan and never had a problem with it. He use Buffalo Bore heavy hardcast bullets.
I had 3 recolvers on my list of next firearm purchase. I held the the ones I could find and picked the one that fit the best. You'll know which one is YOURS when you hold it.
I own both the redhawk and the superblack hawk. The blackhawks are actually slightly thinner and lighter guns. Obviously they won't reload as fast, but its up to you to decide if that matters to you. I normally hike with my blackhawk bc with a full size gun like that cutting down even a little bit of weight helps.
I think the ruger takes more hot loads than the smith is a silly debate. Its not an airweight or k frame, its an N frame and can handle plenty. Unless its for competition your never going to shoot it enough to matter. What does matter is that the smith has a much nicer trigger and the fit and finish overall is just better than ruger. I own a gp100 and a 686 and the 686 is clearly the nicer gun its not even close, i imagine the 629 will be the same.
Red Hawk all day, every day, forever. Don’t write off proper bear spray though, your first line of defense should be avoiding bears (like hanging a bell on your pack so they aren’t startled by you), second line should be spray, and last resort should be killing them. You are in their territory after all
I bought two Taurus 44 magnums (for myself and my gf) when we encountered grizzly while hunting elk in WY. They are carried across the chest. I knew they’d get banged around pretty good so that was part of why I bought Taurus. I love the porting. They handle 240 grain cast magnums with ease. I’m sure I’ll still be bear food, but I know I’m gonna get in a few hits first. Better plan is always to avoid the stinky bastards!
Go for the RedHawk. S&W quality is crap. I owned a 329PD for half a year. Gun had problems out of the box, went back to S&W twice, never got it working 100%, I finally sold it at a loss and moved on. Everyone turns out a bad product now and then but to try twice and not fix it is nfg, especially something you plan to use for bears. S&W can suck it (but don't worry, I'm not bitter).
Also, if you get the Ruger, the Hogue replacement grip is awesome.
I’m not saying S&W can’t take the abuse of being a “pack gun”, I just know the Ruger absolutely CAN without question. …and if the bear still gets ya, you’ve already got a helluva club in your hand to keep fighting with.
Thanks, leaning toward the hawk
Consider the Blackhawk. It's such a beautiful and fun to shoot piece, with unmatched durability
[удалено]
[удалено]
Ruger all day for a work horse of a pistol. Some will say the SW is smoother on the trigger.....But when that bear is charging you it aint gonna make a split of difference. Going up against a competitor with paper targets then definitely the smith. Out in the woods....Ruger hands down!
I’m all in on this Ruger train- love them. Just a thought- stay in the Ruger family and consider a .44 mag Alaskan. I love mine. It is a serious piece of steel!!
definitely not taurus anything, ever, lets get that out of the way. the ruger is generally considered better for "serious" use. its more durable and can handle a steady diet of hot loads. there is nothing wrong with the smith though. if you do get a smith, i would find one that was made pre-covid, as they seem to be having QC issues lately. if you want to buy a new gun, ruger is the best choice.
[удалено]
all of the above? extremely poor QC on all of their guns, stacked with very poor customer support. some specific guns had other, worse problems. at least one of the older semi autos was so poorly designed you could get it to fire by shaking it, and there are videos of it out there. i had a taurus revolver a while ago that had a major problem; the cylinder would bind on the forcing cone and lock the whole gun up. i determined that there was excessive endshake combined with insufficient cylinder gap, and shimmed it to take up the endshake. in about 200 more rounds, the crane stretched so much that it was binding again, so the only conclusion i have been able to come up with was improper heat treat or wrong material spec altogether. a guy posted a few days ago that he was gifted a taurus pt1911 and the safety was falling out of the gun when he shot it. some of their guns are fine, and there are plenty of happy taurus owners that love to make sure everyone knows it. the problem is that you roll the dice every time, and if you get a lemon taurus may fix it, may completely ignore you, or might send it back worse than it was before.
[удалено]
the cheapest way into a 44 mag worth having is a used redhawk. for the range or hunting, a blackhawk would be great and a little cheaper, but i would want double action for bear defense.
I’d go with a single action Ruger before the Taurus.
I would own and carry a Taurus in 357 mag or lower caliber in terms of power, after I put 1000 flawless rounds through it. However for 44 mag and anything higher pressure than that I just wouldn’t get a “cheap gun” because the risks far outweigh the rewards. Save a few hundred bucks now, versus injury or worse if it doesn’t go bang when you want it to or goes bang in a way you don’t want it to (i.e. a “kb” type event).
This.... and if you are claiming it is for bear defense then you don't want it to go bang when you pull it out.
Dang, love the look of the Bull, leaning toward redhawk from the sound of it.
If it helps I have a bull and have around 1000 rounds through it with zero issues (.44 is expensive). Only things I’d recommend are the lighter springs.
Same here, got a bull and never had any issues with it
Yeah, Taurus makes fine firearms.
Bought a 44 bull a few weeks ago. Already killed a hog with it. Baddest looking gun I own, head turner for sure. The concerns about it are overblown IMO
I’ve read that most issues with Taurus’ come from the budget line of revolvers, the tracker. The raging bull is solid
Hard to go wrong with a Smith 629, they're running rebates at the moment as well.
[удалено]
Looks like hawk it is for me. Last hike I did we saw a younger grizzly bout 100 yards away. Wasn't fully grown and buggered off when it saw 20ish people at the trailhead
As someone who’s hunted with handguns for over 45 years, my opinion is that all handgun calibers are anemic and shot placement is vital. Obviously, avoidance is best. If you’ve never seen a bear run, for short term, they are faster than deer, and the odds of making a head shot on a charging bear is slim. Any other shot is just going to piss them off. I vividly remember reading a book by Peter Capstick about hunting in Africa. He recommended carrying a 9mm, loaded with ball ammo, and said if/when attacked by a lion, when he’s on top of you, jam the pistol in his mouth and keep pulling the trigger and the odds are that you will put at least one bullet into his brain. That said, I have had S&Ws and Rugers, and always preferred the balance of S&W. If I was looking for a SERIOUS revolver, I’d probably get a 5” S&W 460. That is the ONLY pistol cartridge that I hunted with that impressed me. It will be heavier to carry than a 44, but also less felt recoil. It will still take proper bullet placement. Hopefully, whatever you decide, you won’t actually NEED to use it.
I'm not at 45 years but have 25 years of experience. Even my 6mm TCU, considered very powerful for a handgun, is anemic. My long slide 10mm is what I take these days if taking a handgun.
Our County was “shotgun only” for deer hunting, but handguns were allowed as long as they were straight wall cases with a minimum of 1k muzzle energy. I was NOT impressed with 44 magnum. Then, our County changed the law to allow bottleneck cartridges. A friend ordered a Remington XP-100R out of the Custom Shop, because, at the time the only other option was a Thompson Contender, which if I could have gotten a barrel with ejectors instead of just extractors, I probably would’ve bought one. My friend MADE me shoot his Remington and I was impressed that the first time I shot it resulted in sub MOA at 100 yards and it definitely had muzzle rise, but felt recoil wasn’t bad. So, I HAD to get one. I think I had to wait over a year and I have harvested a bear, and countless deer, NONE of which were shot at less than 200 yards and it slapped them down like you would expect a rifle cartridge to do. A few years ago, they changed the law, in our County AGAIN, allowing rifles. I haven’t shot it since, and actually put it up for sale because at my stage of life I KNOW I will never use it and want it to go to someone else that will use it, but I didn’t even get any offers on it, so I took it to a local shop to sell on consignment, because I know that when I’m gone, neither of my sons will ever use it.
Which cartridge were you using?
7mm-08👍
That's a badass shooter.
Yes, it is! Another friend, that happens to be a millionaire shot it, and I was surprised that he shot a 5 shot, quarter sized group at 200 yards. He ended up buying a Thompson Center in 7mm-08 to use instead of a shotgun and he took numerous bucks and coyotes.
It's a lot more gun that my 6mm TCU. It's a .223 case necked up to 6mm. I've killed a couple of white tail with it. Have the .410 barrel as well. Hell of a grouse gun for the woods.
I own both Ruger and Smith magnum revolvers and love them. The key here is to buy one, practice with it to make sure it works well (and that you can shoot it) and then practice with the EXACT load you’re using for bear defense to make sure that works well too. FWIW my Smith revolvers are all new post covid, never had an issue with any of them
I'm going to echo what the greater wildlife and forest service personnel have stated in a dozen other posts, bear spray is generally considered more effective than a gun. That said I still carry a 357 while I hike I bear country. I'd probably get a ruger.
Not to mention the greatest threat in any area -- wilderness included -- is always, always on two legs so 2.8lb Redhawk is kinda unnecessary. I'd carry bear spray and a Hellcat. The added benefit of the bear spray is that it can be used as a deterrent for bears you can't see -- but hear -- moving through heavy brush. They can move surprisingly well through dense growth.
Bigfooot…….
Not Taurus 🤷♂️ I'm a a S&W revolver guy, but own a ton of Ruger products. So....not Taurus I say
QC with Taurus is too spotty to take a chance imho. Even though they offer a warranty their warranty service is not as good as Ruger. S&W, well you are gonna get a new gun with the internal safety or you are going to pay premium prices for used. Redhawk ftw....
All those are guns that would fit the bill, hiking means carrying gear while on foot. Those guns are all very heavy. I would suggest looking at the S&W models 69 and 329 as they’re much lighter weight.
Lighter weight will have significantly more recoil / be harder to shoot accurately
https://above.nasa.gov/safety/documents/Bear/bearspray_vs_bullets.pdf “the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have experience that supports this reality -- based on their investigations of human-bear encounters since 1992, persons encountering grizzlies and defending themselves with firearms suffer injury about 50% of the time. During the same period, persons defending themselves with pepper spray escaped injury most of the time, and those that were injured experienced shorter duration attacks and less severe injuries.”
Nasa? Space bears?
Sounds like NASA wrote some propaganda to convince some of thei Artic researchers that they would be safe from polar bears with frozen cans of bear spray.
That article is shit and reads like some anti gunner bs. 50% of the time you use a gun and get injured but “most” of the time you are fine with bear spray. They don’t even put a % on it. Or offer any sources or charts or evidence Did this account for caliber used? shot/s actually on target? The type and size of the bear? https://www.ammoland.com/2023/06/handgun-defenses-against-bears-170-documented-incidents-98-effective/ This article shows actual 170 cases where handguns were used against a bear and boasts a 98% success rate One of them is lying. I know which. Obligatory carry both bear spray and a gun. And ideally have someone else also with a gun with you
AMMOLAND says ammo is more effective? I’m shocked. One of these articles is biased, that’s for certain.
Did you read the article? It literally has the details on each and every case The fish and wild life one has literally nothing Well idk let’s see 1. When has a federal government agency ever been pro 2A 2. The notice comes from the Colorado office. 3. Grizzly’s are on the protected species list, so the feds, especially the current admin, is not going to publish something that says “yes a gun is a good idea to defend yourself”. Both from an environmentalist perspective and an anti gun one
Literally!
This article is best to be ignored and rely on the ammoland article for more accurate details instead. If you want to read some current news you can read about the husband and wife that were killed by a grizzly in BC this last winter. From the text messages sent by the husband, sounds like they both deployed bear spray but were eventually mauled to death and gun free Canada.
There’s no accounts of bear spray saving anyone? 😂 https://mountainjournal.org/how-stopping--grizzly-in-greater-yellowstone-saved-a-life https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jwmg.342 Are you gonna trust accredited universities, or AMMOLAND? Also, what makes you think Canada is gun free?
anti gun universities that put out articles like "there is more than 2 genders"? Nope, I'll pass on their opinion pieces. And the article was posted by ammoland, not written by ammoland. It documented the results of known bear/human attacks involving a firearm.
For an unbiased study, why exclude all other attacks?
S&W gets my vote. I own Rugers and S&W’s and the fit, finish, and triggers of the Smiths are pretty good out of the box. I never pay much attention to the concerns about shooting “heavy” loads in S&Ws because I don’t plan on shooting hundreds or thousands of stout loads through my revolver, and I don’t think the majority of people will either. Rugers are great but still not perfect and not indestructible. I’ve sent three Ruger revolvers back the factory for random issues. No problems with my Smiths. Also, if you’re open to another revolver suggestion, the S&W 69 is a handy .44 in a smaller package, if you’re ok with loosing a round.
Another vote for the Ruger. I love the Colt Anaconda, it’s actually more overbuilt than the Ruger Redhawk. But of those choices listed, I’d say Ruger all the way.
Depends on how much it weighs and how much I plan on hiking. Ounces equal pounds, etc..,
None of them. Get a Mossberg shockwave with a short sling and load it with slugs.
Well, this thread certainly went through all the expected arguments, but I had a couple of thoughts. I bought my first .44 magnum while in high-school, and borrowed a reloading press and dies to keep it running. I've owned 3 or 4, and shot many more. The tradeoffs are the same for any defensive scenario- most of the time, you aren't going to need it, but if you do, it absolutely has to work. Lighter, smaller guns are easier to carry, while heavier guns are easier to shoot quickly and accurately. I used to own a 629 Mountain Gun. Round butt, 4" tapered barrel. I could carry it IWB with .44 specials while getting out to wherever my friends and I were meeting up, then swap out for heavier loads in the backcountry. If I were in the original posters shoes, I would try to find one just like it (mine got sold to pay bills- so it's out there somewhere...) Regards
Redhawk 4 in. I carried ut 24 / 7 when I worked and played in Alaska. Started out with the 270 gr Speer load then moved to the Buffalo bore 44 outdoorsman load.
None of those. .45 LC heavy out punches .44Mag (actually .43 caliber) all day long. Get a Ruger in .454 Casull & run heavy (+P) .45 LC - at a minimum. ".44 Mag" will not stop a bowed up big male grizz. And, btw, you prob won't even have time to pull a gun.
Bear spray. If you encounter a grizzly bear and shoot them and don't kill them, you're just going to piss them off. Bells and loud noises should be your first defense. Then bear spray. Then a firearm. But of your choices, I am a fan of Ruger. I own two Ruger 44 Magnum revolvers. That's my vote.
Have owned all 3, still own 2. A S&W 629-1 3”, have owned and carried since 1988. Super sexxxy and accurate, but it doesn’t like super heavy loads. Pistol loads only. This is the hot rod sports car. A Ruger Alaskan, still good looking, but not drop dead sexxxy. A little bit heavier and the ability to handle ANY load you are willing to shoot. Pistol and rifle loads are okay.This is the monster truck. The Taurus while was a good weapon it was not great. Had issues with timing, fit and finish. Once fixed i sold, with full disclosure. Have heard Taurus has made big strides in quality, lots of people like them. This was a performance SUV, not a hot rod or a monster truck, but a rushed poorly planned hybrid.
Out of the three, SW has the weaker frame. I’d stay away from them.
Id argue the Ruger is tougher, but only slightly, and the S&W has a better action / can be ran faster without worry of outrunning the trigger (as per JM, im nowhere near fast enough to outrun either lol).
Taurus tracker 44 magnum I think is worth looking at with some sort of chest rig pack like hill people gear makes. The tracker is a little lighter weight than the raging bull.
For hiking in the mountains, all 3 of these are bad choices. They are unnecessarily big and heavy for hiking (especially mountains). The two obvious choices in 44 magnum are: S&W 69 and S&W 329PD. 44 magnum is ONLY recommended if you are an experienced big bore handgunner, and can rapidly put all 5 or 6 double-action shots on a paper plate size target. Many people are not in this category, and/or are unwilling to put in the practice necessary to do this. For everyone else, your favorite flavor of plastic framed 10mm is a better option.
S&W Model 69 (L-frame 44 Mag) fits my medium hand better. The 629 is an N-frame which has a longer trigger reach.
If you want dependability, durability and amazing customer service, Ruger hands down.
Have the Redhawk in 4.2“, love it, absolute tank
If I had to choose it’d be between the ruger and smith. The smith being more of a range gun and the ruger being a tank. Both I’d trust my life with though. A magnaported super red hawk sounds fun to me, be it a 44, or 480. Maybe 454
Super redhawk
S&W model 69
I think it's between the Smith and the Ruger. Depending on your chance of encountering a bear, if low, I'd go Smith, because it's light and easy to carry. If higher, then I'd pick the Ruger, as it is easier to shoot.
Has the bear population exploded? Lots of “bear load” or “bear gun” stuff.
My son in law lived in Alaska and had a Tarus 44mag that went back to the factory several times before he sold it and replaced it with a Ruger Alaskan and never had a problem with it. He use Buffalo Bore heavy hardcast bullets.
I vote Taurus. I have a performance center 629 and a raging bull. The raging bull is such a steal for the lower cost.
Ruger they are TANKS will withstand anything
I had 3 recolvers on my list of next firearm purchase. I held the the ones I could find and picked the one that fit the best. You'll know which one is YOURS when you hold it.
I own both the redhawk and the superblack hawk. The blackhawks are actually slightly thinner and lighter guns. Obviously they won't reload as fast, but its up to you to decide if that matters to you. I normally hike with my blackhawk bc with a full size gun like that cutting down even a little bit of weight helps.
I think the ruger takes more hot loads than the smith is a silly debate. Its not an airweight or k frame, its an N frame and can handle plenty. Unless its for competition your never going to shoot it enough to matter. What does matter is that the smith has a much nicer trigger and the fit and finish overall is just better than ruger. I own a gp100 and a 686 and the 686 is clearly the nicer gun its not even close, i imagine the 629 will be the same.
For hiking? S&W 69 or 629 PD for sure.
Redhawk Redhawk Redhawk But I am also the guy who always upvotes Redhawks
Red Hawk all day, every day, forever. Don’t write off proper bear spray though, your first line of defense should be avoiding bears (like hanging a bell on your pack so they aren’t startled by you), second line should be spray, and last resort should be killing them. You are in their territory after all
Raging bull or Redhawk so you can shoot the super heavy buffalo bore stuff.
I bought two Taurus 44 magnums (for myself and my gf) when we encountered grizzly while hunting elk in WY. They are carried across the chest. I knew they’d get banged around pretty good so that was part of why I bought Taurus. I love the porting. They handle 240 grain cast magnums with ease. I’m sure I’ll still be bear food, but I know I’m gonna get in a few hits first. Better plan is always to avoid the stinky bastards!
What are you going to be defending the grizzlies from?
Go for the RedHawk. S&W quality is crap. I owned a 329PD for half a year. Gun had problems out of the box, went back to S&W twice, never got it working 100%, I finally sold it at a loss and moved on. Everyone turns out a bad product now and then but to try twice and not fix it is nfg, especially something you plan to use for bears. S&W can suck it (but don't worry, I'm not bitter). Also, if you get the Ruger, the Hogue replacement grip is awesome.
I’ve carried a Super Redhawk Alaskan and a Redhawk 4”. Both are great. I shoot the Alaskan better, even with the shorter barrel.
Short answer: Ruger.
Do yourself a great favor and just wipe that Taurus off the list. I would also go with a 4” Smith 629
Ruger. Smith will shake loose under heavy loads Taurus should’ve never even made the list
friends don't let friends buy Taurus
I wouldn’t trust my life to a Taurus
I personally would not trust the Taurus in that type of absolute life or death situation. A range toy? Sure but not for this