.44 Magnum VS .44 Magnum

[Southern Shooter]

If you had to choose a gun for general protection in the backcountry of Wyoming, Montana, or Idaho...strictly sticking to the two listed here...which would you choose and why??

1)
Ruger Redhawk, .44 Magnum, Double-Action, 4" barrel

2)
Ruger Super Blackhawk, .44 Magnum, Single-Action, 7 1/2" barrel

 

[SPW1]

The redhawk. Shorter barrel and I just prefer the redhawk to the blackhawk. The 7 1/2 in. barrel on the blackhawk would be a little long for a packing gun in the minds of most, but what ever works for you.

 

[pbearperry]

Neither,it would prob be a S&W 4 " MOd 29.

 

[oasis618]

If I were using it for protection in the woods, then I'd have to go with a double action over a single action. If something attacks, you probably aren't going to have much warning and being able to repeatedly pull the trigger would be much better than having to cock the hammer for every shot; especially if one of your hands is incapacitated...like maybe in the mouth of a bear...

 

[SPW1]

Realistically we know the chances of a bear attack are very slim anywhere so I doubt double action vs. single action is a big concern. Your much more likely to use a packing gun to shoot a unwary coyote etc.

 

[Leanwolf]

As I've owned and carried my S.B.H. .44 Magnum, 7 1/2" barrel, for quite a few years in the boonies, I'm used to it, so have no problem with it.

I think, however, if I were worried about being chewed on by a Grizzly, and if I were starting over, I'd go for the d.a. Redhawk.

If you practice with a s.a. -- as you should with either d.a. or s.a. -- you won't have any trouble in the outdoors, in my opinion.

Practice is the key.

L.W.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

Whichever one I shot the best.

 

[leathermanwave]

If you are just using it for general protection, carry the redhawk. If you are hiking in hunting season and want to take a deer with a handgun, bring the blackhawk.

 

[palabman]

.454 Casull

 

[wideym]

Between the two, I would go with the Redhawk, although I would choose a S&W 29 with a 4" barrel over either of them.

 

[WTBguns10kOK]

1 for protection
2 for handgun hunting

Pretty clear their areas of best use.

 

[Idano]

Which ever you are the better shot with the one you need to take. I took my black bear at 30 yds with my Colt Python during archery season in Island Park, Idaho. I had just given a calf call when I caught him coming in on a dead run straight to me. I still cocked the gun before I fired so I don't think single versus double is all that important. Take what you are the most comfortable with and practice is the best advise I can give you.

 

[mbt2001]

redhawk...

Never choose a barrel over 5.5" for "protection".

 

[chas08]

Of your two choices, the RedHawk. But I too would personally prefer a S&W Model 29 /4"

 

[MCgunner]

Too big for back packing, just go unarmed. I've hiked around the west unarmed and never got ate. I was usually in a national park and carry was illegal. Now, you can conceal carry in a NP, but try concealing a Redhawk or 7" super blackhawk. I much more worry about walking around Houston than remote mountains.

I much prefer single actions, but a 7" barrel? I'd carry a medium frame .357 if you have one. You don't need no stinkin' .44. Too big, too heavy. I do have a .45 Colt 4 5/8" Blackhawk that's lighter and easier to carry than those cannons, though, and it's just as powerful with the right loads. But, really, how many hikers get ate in Wyoming? Just take something light to use on humans if you're accosted, a nice SP101 or something. Go ahead and load it with heavy 180s, though, since you never know and the 180s will stop a man and overpenetration in the wilderness is not an issue.

 

[hardluk1]

I to would pick the redhawk and with this gun you can shoot the heavies and hotest loads unlike s&w.

 

[CoRoMo]

I'd rather have the 4" barrel than the 7.5" barrel, and I'd also rather have the single action than the double action.

 

[ALP1]

I have the Red Hawk 44 in a 5 1/2" barrel, used to have a 7 1/2" Super Blackhawk, sold it to get the Red Hawk.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Even though we are limited to just those two, I wouldn't choose either one of them.

The Redhawk doesn't fit well in my medium sized hands. The Blackhawk has too long a barrel. They're both in the wrong caliber.

If you want a moderately priced revolver for that kind of use, you'd be better off in .45 Colt. I'd go with a Ruger Bisley in .45 Colt with a 5.5 inch barrel. In fact, after years of kicking around the same issue and owning (and selling off) several big bore revolvers, that's what I finally chose as a "keeper". I didn't want to spend $1500 for some of the high end pieces. I didn't like the muzzle flip on the traditional plow handled pieces like the Blackhawk.

Sorry for going outside the parameters, but that's my take.

 

[ArmedBear]

Neither,it would prob be a S&W 4 " MOd 29.

Ditto. 4" Mountain Gun here, and my use for it is precisely what you wrote.

I checked out the RH, SRH, and 629; I already have a SBH.

The Redhawk is too bulky and heavy for what it is. The SRH is downright silly, being equally heavy with a short barrel that doesn't perform too well with a packed load of slow magnum powder. Either way, I can do without the back problems of an excessively asymmetrical load.

I have a SBH. A long barrel and a single action with very long hammer travel are fine for hunting, target shooting, and general messing around. I shoot mine at 100 yards for fun and practice, with irons. But if I ever actually need a big bore for self-defense, i.e. FAST, it's an unwieldy gun.

 

[Sunray]

"...for general protection..." Protection from what? Bears? Ever been attacked by a black bear or 'gator in Louisiana?
In any case, pick the one that fits your hand best and you can shoot the best with the ammo you intend using. A 4.2" .44 Mag Redhawk weighs 47 ounces. Nearly 3 lbs. A 7.5" SuperBlackhawk weighs 48 Oz. 3 lbs. The holster and belt you use matters. Moreso the belt.

 

[R.Clem]

I would prefer an old Ruger SBH before the transfer bar, custom barrel length of 5" (that was the first .44 Magnum I owned) and shoot 300 grain hard cast, gas check bullets. Reason, no broken transfer bar, to date I have replaced 3 transfer bars on different Ruger's. Ruger replaced them no questions asked, but turn around was almost 6 weeks in all cases, I can't hold off a bear with my bare hands that long. But other than that, a Super Redhawk with a 5.5", (Ruger made a few of these, but I haven't looked to see if it is still offered) then a Redhawk with a 5.5". In all cases I would shoot the above mentioned bullets as hard as I could drive them.
The biggest thing you need to know is what feels best in your hand, and how much are you willing to spend to save your life. At bear attack distances, single action probably isn't the best choice, just pulling the trigger is much less time consuming and more natural than single action. This is where barrel length comes into play, 7.5" is tough to swing in brush and you don't need accuracy now, 4" would be better than anything else, but the muzzle jump isn't going to be conducive to a second shot, 5" to 5.5" isn't much help, but the 5.5" can be had with a ported barrel and you will still get that extra 50 to 150 fps of velocity that you loose with the 4".
These are just some of my thoughts. My best suggestion would be a cannon, .454 to .500 S&W, they aren't that much more of anything other than money, then we get back to "what is your life worth".

Ray

 

[OYE]

I carry a 7 1/2 in. Super blackhawk 44 mag in the Idaho- Montana backcountry (for the last 25 years).
A pair of the military load bearing suspenders on the gunbelt is worth the investment.

Would recommend reading " Bear Attacks " , by Stephen Herrero, a Canadian biologist.
He's documented and interviewed survivors ( when there were any ) of all the known Grizzly
and black bear attacks in North America in recent times. Recommends types of firearms as well. ( Whatever edition is the most current ).