Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns The best 44 mag revolver ever? ??

I'll stick with the FA premiers, and you can stick with the BFR's or customs:)

My problem with ALL .44 Magnum revolvers is the size of the gun it's self, I do not have large hands and most .44 magnums are just a bit too big to be comfortable for me to carry and shoot.

The N-Frame S&W is just a bit too large for my hands...and even then the N-Frame is a bit small for a steady diet of high-pressure .44 ammo. The K-Frame would be "right" as far as feel....but would definitely be too small for .44 Magnum pressures. The L-Frame would be "OK" for carry, but very marginal as far as proper for the .44 Magnum pressures.

My first .44 Magnum was a Ruger Super Blackhawk which was a great revolver but I quickly realized it was a bit too large for my hand size. I replaced it with an original Ruger Flattop .44 Magnum .

This, to me. is the "perfect" .44 Magnum revolver. It feels right on my hands and is accurate and robust enough for my use. I "know" it is a bit light for extended use with .44 Magnum ammo. But it is a .44 MAGNUM. How many "thousands" of rounds am I likely to shoot with a .44 Magnum? For the 200-500 rounds a year I will likely shoot...it will do just fine and carry so much easier.

The smaller frame .44 Magnums (N-Frame S&W and Blackhawk size Rugers) actually do hold up pretty well for "normal" use and loads.

For shooting 200-400 rounds a year of 250 grain bullets at 1250-1300 fps they will likely last a lifetime. It's when you start shooting thousands of rounds a year or push 300+ grain bullets at 1400+ fps that the smaller frame doesn't hold up as well.

If you want to experiment with truly heavy .44 loads, you need a revolver designed to handle them......and will have to live with the heavier weight and reduced comfort in carry.

CraigC, I actually had to search my notes to refresh my memory.......as I get older my memory isn't as accurate as it once was.

I said (and believed) that the "original" Ruger Flattop was built on the medium frame (same as the original Flattop .357) and in that was only partially correct.

In 1956 Ruger was rushing to get the .44 Flattop into production and produced 3 revolvers on the medium frame Blackhawk (as was the .357) to exhibit for gunwriters.

As soon as Elmer saw the new revolver he told Ruger that they were too small for the .44 magnum in full-power loads. Ruger disagreed, but further testing resulted in at least one of the guns turning loose with full-bore loadings.

Before commercial production began Ruger "stretched" the frame and cylinder to create the large frame version of the Blackhawk that has been used in the Old Model, Super Blackhawk and New Model Blackhawks.

While the "original" Flattop 44 WAS built on the medium frame.....it was never offered to the public in such a configuration.

In my flawed memory, I thought the Super Blackhawk was introduced due to the smaller frame being inadequite.....while in truth the "problem" was the smaller grip frame caused most shooters pain as recoil drove the trigger guard back into their middle finger (never a problem for my smaller hands).

The larger Super Blackhawk's XR-3RED frame increased the distance between the grip and trigger guard to solve this perceived flaw.....which also made it a bit too much for my smaller hands.

The 250 grain bullets at 1200 fps was Elmer's original idea for a heavy 44 loading (and thus WERE really a heavy .44 Special loading). The .44 magnum (as conceived by Remington) at 1500 fps or more was just too much of a good thing for "normal" size revolvers....and heavy bullet loadings are even more hard on these guns.

The N-Frame S&W does do well for medium level 44 loads and will handle even the heaviest loadings in limited amounts. However for a heavy user of top level 44 loads.....a slightly bigger gun is called for to insure it holding up over a long period of time.