Thoughts on 44 Magnum

[Jefferry404]

My 2 cents. Love the 44mag (have 3 FA, 3 Rugers,3 S&W). I tend to shorter barrels for packing. And I also like the 10mm Auto when packing in the spring. So thought to compare them.
A 5" 10mm 1911 ls 8.7" long, weighs 38oz vs a 2.75" Redhawk is 8.25" long, weighs 44oz. and is 0.5" wider.
At maximum pressure for both, using artificial barrel length for the redhawk of 3.25" to match pistol overall length, a 180gn 10mm has muzzle energy of 661 ft-lbs vs the 44mag of 582 ft-lbs (revolver loses energy due to the cylinder gap, 8/1000 for the Ruger) and comparable sectional densities.
For me, 44 mag carry barrel length greater than 4" and go with the 10mm when need more compact.

 

[Ridge Runner]

@Desaad

....... As for one-handed fire, that's difficult to imagine with a gun weighing over 50oz! They're fun to shoot and expensive to feed. Great intimidation value if a bad guy ever DOES get in your house!

I will need to weigh my 44 mag revolvers. However, my 44 mag Taurus and Magnum Research both have short barrels 4-1/2 and 4-5/8 inch barrels respectively. The Taurus is also Mag-na-ported. The Taurus, is a large DA S&W frame, it is especially comfortable to fire one handed with magnum loads. The MR by designed is heavier and made for 2 handed firing, but is relatively just as reasonably comfortable to shoot one handed with heavy reloads. In single action revolvers I much prefer the Ruger Blackhawk and Colt Peace Maker (although a 45 Colt) design.

I will concur, for me personally, that handgun barrels over 6-1/2 inches long are a trifle bit more cumbersome to draw, aim, and fire one handed.

Since I do reload for my 44's, and as with any caliber, it depends on one's costs of reloading components and type loads. Makes the 44 more affordable to shoot.

 

[RedTag]

Here’s my opinion, having carried revolvers in Alaska for many years. I don’t really like the .44 Magnum cartridge because in my opinion it’s not quite enough to reliably hunt anything larger than deer but a bit much for defensive purposes. Tried a couple and moved on. I have taken a moose with a .454 Casull and found that a good match for the task using 300-grain XTP. I carried the same for bear defense while guiding fishing trips and though never had to shoot a bear (yet) felt confident with it. I still wouldn’t recommend the Casull for defense in general as the recoil makes follow up shots difficult for most people. I practiced a lot, at considerable expense. I would say the same for anything above the Casull.
I like the concept of the .41 Magnum but it’s a non starter if you’re not into hand loading handgun cartridges, which I am not. I think a .357 Magnum or a 10mm with full power hard cast loads is actually a better choice for most folks wildlife defense needs as these are about the minimum to reliably ensure penetration but are relatively affordable and easy enough to practice with consistently, as such is needed to make the cns hits required to stop any animal charge.

 

[Jefferry404]

ordered hornady 44 mag new backcountry ammo.
Supposedly deep penetration but not sure bullet integrity against bone vs hardcast?

 

[HankBuck]

Here’s my opinion, having carried revolvers in Alaska for many years. I don’t really like the .44 Magnum cartridge because in my opinion it’s not quite enough to reliably hunt anything larger than deer but a bit much for defensive purposes. Tried a couple and moved on. I have taken a moose with a .454 Casull and found that a good match for the task using 300-grain XTP. I carried the same for bear defense while guiding fishing trips and though never had to shoot a bear (yet) felt confident with it. I still wouldn’t recommend the Casull for defense in general as the recoil makes follow up shots difficult for most people. I practiced a lot, at considerable expense. I would say the same for anything above the Casull.
I like the concept of the .41 Magnum but it’s a non starter if you’re not into hand loading handgun cartridges, which I am not. I think a .357 Magnum or a 10mm with full power hard cast loads is actually a better choice for most folks wildlife defense needs as these are about the minimum to reliably ensure penetration but are relatively affordable and easy enough to practice with consistently, as such is needed to make the cns hits required to stop any animal charge.

@RedTag - I like that you differentiate between the .454 Casull being good for hunting vs self defense - due to excessive recoil. I agree a handgun appropriate for Bear defense vs Bear “hunting” is different. In Bear defense your objective is Not to kill the Bear - the objective is to Save-your-life and Deter an attack…most handguns will do that so select one that you can operate effectively under extreme stress. Some very extensive studies have been done evaluating the effectiveness of handguns during actual Bear “attacks” (I believe nearly 60 attacks evaluated over a 20 year period) and calibers from .22lr & .380, 9mm up to .44 mag & .454 all proved effective “deterring” the attack. If I remember correctly the .44 mag was 100% effective and the 9mm 80% and even the .22lr was 60-80% effective (I wish I could attach the study but that exceeds my computer skills). Point is ANY gun is better then none and most are effective — some much more then others. MY measure of effectiveness would be if I “live to tell the story” and Not a photo of me standing over a Dead Bear.

 

[RedTag]

@RedTag - I like that you differentiate between the .454 Casull being good for hunting vs self defense - due to excessive recoil. I agree a handgun appropriate for Bear defense vs Bear “hunting” is different. In Bear defense your objective is Not to kill the Bear - the objective is to Save-your-life and Deter an attack…most handguns will do that so select one that you can operate effectively under extreme stress. Some very extensive studies have been done evaluating the effectiveness of handguns during actual Bear “attacks” (I believe nearly 60 attacks evaluated over a 20 year period) and calibers from .22lr & .380, 9mm up to .44 mag & .454 all proved effective “deterring” the attack. If I remember correctly the .44 mag was 100% effective and the 9mm 80% and even the .22lr was 60-80% effective (I wish I could attach the study but that exceeds my computer skills). Point is ANY gun is better then none and most are effective — some much more then others. MY measure of effectiveness would be if I “live to tell the story” and Not a photo of me standing over a Dead Bear.

This is true! Hunting big game with a handgun necessitates aiming for the heart/ lung vital area (center of mass) from 25 yards and beyond (possibly even 100 yards or more with a scoped revolver) which is the realm of the .44 Magnum for deer sized game or .454 Casull and up for bigger game. Defense from large animal attacks necessitates aiming for the central nervous system from well within 25 yards, so accurate shooting and speed outweigh power. This is just a lot easier for most people to achieve with a .357 Magnum or a 10mm, with the caveat that both use full power hard cast loads. I learned to shoot the Casull quickly and accurately but it took a lot of very expensive practice. The guns are enormous and heavy too. I would say the same for the .44 Magnum, if one is able to handle it quickly and accurately as their sensible upper limit then it would be a fine choice. For me, the .44 Magnum is simply a case of simultaneously being too much and not enough. Best regards