So I got to thinking...what's the point of a short barrel .44 mag?

[shibumiseeker]

Nothing whatsoever. Anyone who backpacks any serious distance will avoid extra weight like the plague.

Meh, depends on philosophy. I usually put at least a couple hundred trail miles a year in including a bunch out west and I've carried anywhere from my LCP .380 to my Glock 20 while on multi-day trips with major elevation gain-loss and 20-25 miles a day. I figure if that extra couple of pounds is going to make that much difference then it's worth a little more effort to take it off my body. Every hiker has a different set of priorities though. I won't pay double or triple the price on gear to save 10% of the weight, but many will. If I were through-hiking the AT or PCT or planned on being on trail for a month at a time then my priorities may be different and I might be cutting the handle off my toothbrush.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Keep thinking that and you may well get your face chewed off.

Of the encounters with griz I have had, both of which caused me to damn near crap my shorts but luckily left my face and other parts intact, I was not aware of their presence until I was about 30-40' away from them. ...

So...further than face chewing distance. The statement I was replying to was that the short barrel was better due to close proximity, which is questionable anyway that a 4" barrel would be too unwieldy for a contact shot.

My sample size of humans shot with short barreled .44 sucks, but it's been underwhelming as far as penetration. My sample size with long barreled .44 also sucks, but penetration has been "all of it" wherever it hit the human body. While a hand full of cases isn't definitive, it's certainly leading.

If I were to actually be concerned about bears: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll--DXOWPyA

 

[shibumiseeker]

So...further than face chewing distance.

Indeed, but close enough that it wouldn't really matter because had they chosen to attack me straight on instead of bluff charging as griz often does, it wouldn't have mattered what I was carrying because I would not have had time to deploy it.

But I wouldn't carry a snub nosed .44mag unless I was intending to barbecue whatever I was shooting as well. At 2-3"bbl lengths my G20 ballistics are much better, and it isn't until we move beyond a 4"bbl that the .44mag starts to improve.

About the only advantage in contact shooting would be the increase gas volume in the wound entrance, but it's arguing which song to play on the Titanic as it is sinking.

 

[451_Detonics]

I figure it's all a weight issue thing, my 629-4 which I had fitted with a titanium cylinder is a lightweight package and with CorBon 260gr BCHP at about 1400fps it isn't pleasant to shoot but recoil is the least of my worries when something is trying to eat me.

View attachment 41348

 

[Hohn]

Again, just my opinions. Depending on ammo, the muzzle velocity of .44 is greater than .357 (using .357 due to other comments). I think .44 is a great caliber for backpacking. Powerful enough for most critters. Versatile enough with different loads and . 44 special.

You're missing the point. When you are specifically discussion very short barrel .44s, much of the ballistic advantage goes away, and the Mag becomes a Special for all practical purposes.

I'm a fan of .44 for a packing gun, most definitely. But I insist that the barrel be 4" or greater. The weight saving of an inch or two of barrel compared to the loss of internal ballistic performance is a very poor tradeoff, imo.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You're missing the point. When you are specifically discussion very short barrel .44s, much of the ballistic advantage goes away, and the Mag becomes a Special for all practical purposes.

I'm a fan of .44 for a packing gun, most definitely. But I insist that the barrel be 4" or greater. The weight saving of an inch or two of barrel compared to the loss of internal ballistic performance is a very poor tradeoff, imo.

 

[Twangbanger]

Yep.....My "uncomfortable" died January 8th...

Can't go wrong with a model 25 brother....One of my customers "Trip" is a retired Colonel and puts in one or two days a week as our resident Motorcycle Cop...He picked up a Model 25 (in .45 ACP) that someone had cut the barrel down to 4 inches (very well done I might add) and had the front sight pinned back on (also well done...It really looks factory) that he picked up on gunbroker a couple of years ago for under $500...Every now and again he gets his old N frame Don Hume rig out and packs that as his sidearm...I have to say it's kind of surreal seeing him climb off of that old Harley with Clarksville PD's old insignia on the gas tank and that big ol' honkin' N frame strapped to his side....It went for such a good price (I assume) because the collector value was not there but he says it's a heck of a shooter...Might keep your eye out for one of those...

Whatever you get you have got a free transfer down here if you so desire....You know...Spend $60 on gas to save $20 on a transfer...

You know, I have to say, I saw a motorcycle cop on I-70 going through downtown a couple weeks ago, with a big, wooden Smith revolver grip sticking out of his holster - and it did give me a grin. It was like being back in the old days again. I liked it. (I won't say it made me feel younger...but for a minute, I thought I heard Disco music in the background, and for a moment it looked like there may have even been a "CHP" insignia on that bike).

But I digress, back to the OP's subject - yes, I agree, not enough people are aware of how much short barrels affect velocity. It amazes me how much people will spend on guns, reloading equipment, etc...but not spend $100 on a chronograph to actually check the performance of what they're putting into play. (If you read enough USPSA threads in the competition section, you'll see people with $1,500 in their gun asking somebody else if they're bringing a chrono to a match so they can check their loads. Wha?)

It's like the people in a gun store wanting to have a scope "bore-sighted" for them. I met at least one who was headed out West on a hunting trip, and wanted the bore-sighting because he didn't intend to actually check the zero with real ammo before heading out. Wow. The lesson is, shoot your guns people, and _know_ what they're actually doing, with paper and chrono.

 

[EthanR9]

Unless the bear is also a ninja, I figure I'd be aware of his presence prior to face chewing. I might want a little more distance for my first shot than contact shooting, but each to their own. I can make a 50y shot just fine with a 4" revolver. Sights matter if you train to use them. While not a bear, I've shot an attacking dog after it bit me and was circling for an opening to attack again and I saw and used my sights. Recoil matters in terms of follow up shots, regardless of "shock".

I carry a full size pistol daily, so I don't have to consider the trade offs of crappy sights and marginal calibers. Can you win with one? Sure. People win gun fights by noise alone sometimes, they fire and their opponent forfeits and exits the field. However people also lose because they missed or because they just wounded the guy, even fatally, but left him enough time to continue the attack.

Most bear encounters are from hikers/hunters walking right up on them. Unless you're hunting a bear you wont be taking any kind of shots at it unless it's charging you. Can't just shoot a bear because you saw it in the woods.

 

[EthanR9]

You're missing the point. When you are specifically discussion very short barrel .44s, much of the ballistic advantage goes away, and the Mag becomes a Special for all practical purposes.

I'm a fan of .44 for a packing gun, most definitely. But I insist that the barrel be 4" or greater. The weight saving of an inch or two of barrel compared to the loss of internal ballistic performance is a very poor tradeoff, imo.

So even looking at it your way. The gun is far from worthless like a lot of these comments are basically saying it is. It still could and will save your life if need be. If/when you need it, balistics wont be what you're thinking about. Which is my whole point that you're missing.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

I bought my Ruger sp101 snubby in .357 magnum. That is almost as ridiculous as a snub nose 44 mag. My thinking was this; I will have a super durable and versatile .38 snubby. It will shoot any bullet that fits the chamber no matter how long it is. I can buy bullets for every occasion.

The increased power of .38 long over .38 special over .357 magnum wasn't at issue. When I went to buy my .38 snub nose revolver I simply chose the highest versatility for a very small increase in price.

I would carry the hell out of a .44 special snubby...... Of course the .44 magnum is just a few dollars more, so that's what I would buy. I could shoot rat loads to bear loads, whatever I feel like. Not a power trip, but a versatility trip

 

[EthanR9]

I bought my Ruger sp101 snubby in .357 magnum. That is almost as ridiculous as a snub nose 44 mag. My thinking was this; I will have a super durable and versatile .38 snubby. It will shoot any bullet that fits the chamber no matter how long it is. I can buy bullets for every occasion.

The increased power of .38 long over .38 special over .357 magnum wasn't at issue. When I went to buy my .38 snub nose revolver I simply chose the highest versatility for a very small increase in price.

I would carry the hell out of a .44 special snubby...... Of course the .44 magnum is just a few dollars more, so that's what I would buy. I could shoot rat loads to bear loads, whatever I feel like. Not a power trip, but a versatility trip

I agree and .357 is my favorite caliber. My SP101 is the 3 inch and is still a handful depending on the .357 I shoot. I'm almost always only shooting .38 special out of it just because of how much cheaper it is and a lot less recoil. I've been meaning to get some .38+P to try in it and probably switch to carrying the +P in it instead of .357 mag.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So even looking at it your way. The gun is far from worthless like a lot of these comments are basically saying it is. It still could and will save your life if need be. If/when you need it, balistics wont be what you're thinking about. Which is my whole point that you're missing.

A sharp stick isn't worthless, but it's also not the best choice if there are other choices. I don't think anyone has said it's worthless. What we've said is it fails to take advantage of the cartridge, there are better options, and there is no trade off to having one of those better options that's worthy of consideration.

Ballistics may not be what you're thinking about, but they are going to have a big impact (heh) on the outcome if you ever need to use it.

 

[CampingJosh]

Meh, depends on philosophy. I usually put at least a couple hundred trail miles a year in including a bunch out west and I've carried anywhere from my LCP .380 to my Glock 20 while on multi-day trips with major elevation gain-loss and 20-25 miles a day. I figure if that extra couple of pounds is going to make that much difference then it's worth a little more effort to take it off my body. Every hiker has a different set of priorities though. I won't pay double or triple the price on gear to save 10% of the weight, but many will. If I were through-hiking the AT or PCT or planned on being on trail for a month at a time then my priorities may be different and I might be cutting the handle off my toothbrush.

We're on the same page here. I could replace my pack and save 8 oz, but I don't think that's worth it. My belly is the first place that I need to cut weight.

But we're talking about a 2" .44 from Ruger that's the same price as a 4" .44 from Smith (329PD), and the Smith is 20 ounces lighter. For the same money, that's a no-brainer to me.

 

[EthanR9]

We're on the same page here. I could replace my pack and save 8 oz, but I don't think that's worth it. My belly is the first place that I need to cut weight.

But we're talking about a 2" .44 from Ruger that's the same price as a 4" .44 from Smith (329PD), and the Smith is 20 ounces lighter. For the same money, that's a no-brainer to me.

I have known about the 329PD for a while and actually just looked at one at Cabelas this weekend. If you watch some of the videos on youtube (not that I suggest most youtubers know what they're doing) people can hardly handle shooting it. In one video the full grown man is using low recoil loads and wimps out of it. I've also heard the brass cases get stuck in those cylinders almost everytime and you can see it in most videos.

Not saying it's a bad gun. Not saying it's a better or worse choice than the Ruger. Just my opinion. I love their PD models. I've wanted a 340PD for quite a while, but the recoil on that line of revolvers is insane.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So recoil matters again?

Eh, anyway, I'll just leave this here:

I think I'd stick with a 629 or Redhawk for something I wanted to shoot much or wanted to use with heavy loads.

 

[Hohn]

So recoil matters again?

Eh, anyway, I'll just leave this here:

I think I'd stick with a 629 or Redhawk for something I wanted to shoot much or wanted to use with heavy loads.

Cool! A takedown version-- even better for backpacking.

Anyway, we are talking matters of degree, not kind. I'm guessing that a snub .44 with full house hard cast magnums is probably about the same in terminal performance as .44spl with full wadcutters. Recoil, probably less similar.

 

[EthanR9]

So recoil matters again?

Eh, anyway, I'll just leave this here:

I think I'd stick with a 629 or Redhawk for something I wanted to shoot much or wanted to use with heavy loads.

With a scandium frame... I'd say recoil matters. And yeah the Ruger we're talking about is a Super Redhawk.

 

[EthanR9]

Also, if grizzlies are your worries while backpacking and you are carrying a .44 for self defense, the best ammo to use would be something that can break bones and whatnot. So hollow points are a no. And high velocity will have too much energy and will ricochet off of bones instead of braking them. So a dense, heavy load with lower velocity would be the ideal ammo.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

And high velocity will have too much energy and will ricochet off of bones instead of braking them.

That has not been my experience.

 

[EthanR9]

That has not been my experience.

You have experience with charging Grizzlies and killing them with a .44?! That's impressive! There are a lot of articles about using ammo like that as a better way of stopping a large animal in a defensive situation. What situation have you been in and what gun/ammo were you using? I have no experience with having to kill anything before it killed me so I'm very interested in insight from someone who has been put in that position. And I mean that sincerely, not being a jerk at all.