Is which one and why? I am not referring to custom guns but generally commercially produced.

The first one.

The 3" nickel S+W 29 I HAD! Miss that baby.

a 4 inch Nickel model 29.

Colt, of course.

I assume you meant 1970's to 80's vintage?

For me a 629. The Ruger might take a bit more, but needs some help to match the Smith. Colt's are rarified air now, in the realm of collectables. Money lost if one really shoots them.

4 inch 629 is a thing of beauty.

Freedom Arms FA-83.

Best of the best would have to be the Mountain Gun.

A 629 Classic. Pre-lock, pre-MIM Upgraded materials and heat treat, CNC precision, but before they started making silly decisions. Pick your favorite barrel length. Mine is 5", though this 6½ isn't going anywhere...



The DX models came with extra accessories, and were hand-selected for accuracy. Factory test target included.

Honorable mention to the original pre-29's, a handful of which were made in a 5" barrel

Its not really difficult to "clean up" an all stainless gun and the very first Smiths are a lot more rarified than the Colt runs.

Personally, I don't find any problem with shooting any of them.

"Best" is subjective.

If I wanted a DA to be shot with controllable (for most) DA loads, it would be a Smith.
If I wanted to load a stomper, it would be a FA or Ruger Redhawk or Bisley.

The one gun that does the best for the "middle ground" I'd pick the Colt. The DA can be tuned very easily to do the light stuff and its built not unlike the Redhawk.

If DA isn't in the equation or long range silhouette is the game, again, entirely subjective...

This un...

Had a Mountain Gun for a while, much prefer this 5"er.

Yep. I am pleased to have one, even a matching Bianchi holster. There were a handful of 5" DX models, which is darn near 629 Nirvana

I've had Super Blackhawks, Redhawks and several Model 29's and a 629 or two. Prettiest was this old 29-2.



Best shooter of the bunch was a Redhawk that had trigger work and an overtravel stop installed.

The Model 629 is the best 44 mag pistol period.

I have more than a few but, for me, this Improved #5 that Bill Grover was commercially building. He built mine for me in 1993 after a visit to his shop.

I'm partial to my 629 4 inch. Love this trusty Smith!

Smith&Wesson 629-3 or 629-4 Classic DX

Full endurance package(take more shooting than earlier Smith .44 mags). Pre lock/pre MIM, Forged parts. Factory accuracy tested and held to higher standard than non DX Classics or standard 629's. Stainless to stay looking better with use.

The 5" was very limited but nothing wrong with the 6.5 or 8 3/8" depending on your need/use.

Ruger Redhawk, although if I'd owned and shot a .44 Anaconda it might best it. The only Anaconda I can remember owning was in 45 Colt, so no direct experience.

I think Ed makes a pretty good case for a specific model 629, but taken as a whole, the 629's just aren't as robust.

Dan Wesson made a good one, but they are not commonly encountered. I owned one for awhile but don't remember enough about it to put it in the running.

I'd throw out all single actions because everything considered, double action is better.

Yes. Mine would have been an 80's Model.

As produced by the Great Western Arms Company? My research indicates that Great Western actually beat Smith & Wesson and Ruger to market with a .44 Mag. Granted, it wasn't by much, but bragging rights being what they are.

For me, the S&W 29/629.

I've had about 30 different ones over the years and the only one I have left is a...Mountain Gun. But it isn't something I would want to run full bore ammo in either.

To me the classiest .44 ever made was the 5" pre-29 that were produced for H. H. Harris Company of Chicago in the late 1950s...but those now bring over $3K when you can even find them....

Bob

Wrong

That's interesting. How did you find that out? John Lachuck made some claims in the 90's about the first 44 Mags...how they were developed, etc. It didn't all coincide with Keith's memories or campfire lore.

All of them are good, but for me and what I want to use one for, my Stainless SBH Bisley Hunter is about as good as it gets!

I have researched it thoroughly, have written and published my findings as well. There's still some debate whether Great Western or Smith actually shipped first, but it is intriguing. I actually believe Smith was first, but GW was nipping at their heals. Ruger made a rather heroic effort considering they had a lot less development time than Smith & Wesson and despite their efforts, shipped after Smith and GW. Industrial espionage was alive and well!

Considering that the .44 Mag was proprietary -- between S&W and Remington, there must have been some major leaks considering it turned into an arms race.

Hey guys, On a different note how strong is a Colt anaconda compared to a 629 or redhawk or dan wesson?

yes they are

Schitt...I like 'em all. Probably my 8 3/8 629 Classic DX is my favorite deer rifle...awfully tempted to say the best .44 magnum is one of my 657's....just sayin'...

Yea, I know it shoots a little low and to the right.

It was a Uberti prototype, serial number 62-17845, made in the summer of 1995. It was hand crafted by a carefully selected team of the finest and most experienced gunsmiths from FN Belgium, Beretta and a few other small custom shops in Italy. It had a super extra special match grade barrel and all dimensions were checked and rechecked to be within 1/100000" (one one hundred thousandth of an inch) of specifications.

It was The Best 44 Magnum Revolver ever made.

S&W's are great but their hamstrung due to S&W simply adapting an existing design to too much cartridge. I have S&W .44's and they are wonderful but they're unable to withstand the cartridge loaded to its potential. I treat them like slightly stronger .44Spl's. For that reason alone, I consider the Ruger single action "better".





That's a matter of opinion and highly debatable.

Best ever?

>>> http://f.tqn.com/y/hunting/1/S/n/V/dan-wesson-model-44-11w.jpg <<<

Dan Wesson is certainly one of.

You realize that you contradicted yourself here?

As to industrial espionage, if I remember the story right, supposedly Ruger scored some spent casings from the trash at either Remington or Smith and Wesson and crafted their first revolvers around them.

IMO, about the same if you're talking current 629's. You can throw the 629's without the endurance package out as being weaker. Endurance enhancements are found generally on -4 or newer guns. Some -3's...

Of double action .44 Mag's in the brands mentioned, the Super Redhawk would be strongest, followed by the others with insignificant differences in strength amongst current offerings.

And FWIW, when I made my first post I meant the Redhawk and not the Super Redhawk. The Super Redhawk is significantly stronger while not nearly as practical IMO. I would take the Redhawk any day over the Super Redhawk.

Pre-lock, Pre-MIM S&W M629

Yes I do. Just stirring the pot a bit. It was an interesting era with lots of intrigue. The legend goes that in the winter of 1955/56 with a Ruger employee giving William B. Ruger a number of once-fired, unmarked cases, claiming to have found them in the dumpster of a local scrap yard. Bill Ruger’s curiosity was aroused enough to delve into a little detective work. His investigation wound him up in the office of Remington’s Dewey Godfrey, where with a little prodding he learned of the super-secret new project they were conducting in conjunction with Smith & Wesson. Bill Ruger was obviously a persuasive fellow as he left Godfrey’s office with enough specifications and technical details to start Ruger’s ball rolling in the new realm of super revolvers.

The Super is no stronger than the regular Redhawk. They are dimensionally the same save for the frame extension. The grip frame and action are significantly better on the Super. I know lots of folks can't get past the aesthetics.

To those who say the 629 is not as strong as some others. I say the pistol will outlast me.
I use H108 and a Lyman 429421 with Lino type weighing 252 grs. This chronographed at 1200 fps.
from a 4" barrel.
That load gives me tremendous confidence because it is accurate and powerful enough to do what I want it to do.
If I need more I have a few rifles.
whelennut

The one in the roof of the bears mouth.

I get amused with those who seem so obsessed with the relative strength of various .44 magnum revolvers. To paraphrase some of the wild-eyed statements we've seen in the past around here, "Rugers will handle loads that will turn a S&W into shrapnel!!!!" Most of us know that's ridiculous and that if there's any significant difference in "strength" it has to do with endurance and with which will hold up longer under the repeated firing of heavy loads.

For my part, I'm sure my 629's will hold up for as long as anything under the stresses of .44 magnum loads that will do anything any sane person wishes to accomplish with a .44 magnum revolver. This is not 1916. There is no sense in seeing how much performance you can get out of a particular revolver and cartridge. If you really need more performance, we have available to us both factory and custom revolvers that are at about the limit of what a normal human being can handle when the hammer falls.

I also have a .44 magnum Redhawk. It's a cool revolver. It's also butt-ugly in my opinion. I shoot 300 grain bullets out of it using loads from a Brian Pierce article several years ago on +p .44 magnum loads. (Why? Just because it makes a good splash off the old concrete silo about a hundred yards from the barn.) After a certain amount of time with mildly insane revolver stuff, the Redhawk with those "+p" loads seems like a pussycat. I have to wonder what all the excitement is about.

The Super Redhawks, to my mind, look like something that's crossed the line from firearms to some kind of weird piece of construction equipment or agricultural tool...or maybe something built by a mad genius in one of those post-apocalypse science-fiction movies. Something conceived in a time-warp between Victorian England and 2096 Australia.

Just my opinion, and to each his own.

Dan Wesson Pistol Pack! 2,4,6,and 8 in barrels especially for those who can't pick a favorite length. Never heard of a Dan Wesson described as weak. Very good out of box trigger and good accuracy reputation.

Nor light....

I hunt with my revolvers and the loads I shoot will pound a 29 into oblivion. I've shot them loose in the past, but for 300 + grain bullets, the Smith is not the wise choice. Nothing wrong with them, they were simply never meant for a cartridge as raucous as the .44 Mag and the Endurance Package while helpful, doesn't change the fact that it is a bit delicate. And yes, I do and have owned a number of Model 29s and will continue to do so, but they don't do much heavy lifting for me.

The Colt is a good bit stronger than the S&W, being a better platform for the .44mag and safe for Ruger only loads inthe .45Colt version. The Redhawk/Super Redhawk are siginficantly stronger than both. The .45 Redhawk being safe for 50-55,000psi loads.

As stated, there is no strength, size or weight difference between the two big Ruger DA's.

My 7½" .480 SRH weighs a whopping 5oz more than my 6" model 29. Small difference in weight, huge difference in capability.

It's a big deal when the S&W does not allow the cartridge to flourish at its full potential. It matters to those who do a lot more shooting than the average bloke, who only unlimbers their .44 to make noise at the range once in a blue moon. It matters to those who have managed to shoot S&W's loose. It matter to those who need more than a 240gr at 1200fps.



You think a S&W will stand up to a steady diet of 330's at 1300fps? No but a Ruger will do it with ease. It's not about getting anything more out of the cartridge than what one can do at standard pressures. It's about standing up to a lifetime of full power loads.

Absolutely forgot about that one!

I would buy one yesterday!

A lot of good ones out there. The best looking is a subjective question. The most precisely manufactured? The Smith 29/629 line, bar none. The best to just shoot the hell out of is without a doubt the RedHawk line. They were designed from the ground up for the 44 magnum and I am very fond of the ones I have. Having said that, of all the 44's that I have owned and still own; the one that I will never get rid of until I have gone down range permanently, is my four inch barreled 629-3. So for me.....it is the best!

Decent SA trigger, garbage DA. Of course it was basically designed to have the SA function with the locktime of a DA, so that's what it is.

The weak link is in the bolting mechanism. When you see how brutish the entire gun is and see what makes the bolt actuate, it stands out as pretty cheesy compared to the rest of the entire gun. And yes, they easily break.

And yet another diamond comes from your safe. Dayam.
I'm wantin first dibs on all those jewels, you know..

The Anaconda will handle the Redhawk +P loads; not only is it about the possibility about battering parts, but mostly of cylinder length.
Specialized use, but then the guises of 44 mags are all about specialty.

I've noticed no one has mentioned the 69, or any 8/10 inch guns?

I'll just nominate the S&W N-frame and leave it at that - pick your configuration.

For my uses all the dinking around with hot loads had some appeal and even made a little sense when the .44 Mag and .45 Colt were vying for King of the Hill. Not so much nowadays since both of them are blown away by a horde of other cartridges. I'll leave the dinking around to others and just use a bigger gun as needed.

The thing is, it turns out a 0.429" 240-ish grain bullet at 1,300-ish fps is flat useful, and for that load make mine an N-frame.

Nothing wrong with the 69. I had one for about a year and then got rid of it because I decided it was redundant for me. To me the OP was asking about a general purpose 44 Mag. You start talking about Mountain Guns, 329PD's and the like and as you're saying, "specialized use".

The Anaconda and Redhawk are general purpose guns capable of hotter loads, day-to-day than many of the Smiths. That's what my post aimed for.

I don't have a Redhawk, I've got a Mountain Gun and a Flattop Blackhawk. Not THE best but the best for me. If I could have only one it would be a pre-lock blued 29 with 6 or 6 1/2" barrel. I just like the look better than a Redhawk, but IMO the Redhawk is the better gun overall.

Nobody mentioned an RG either.

So the Dan wessons break easily? They are not a strong design?

I thought they were tanks!

I do have an '80's era 29-2 that is a real work of art. The amount of effort that went into detailing those revolvers was amazing.

It is a bit of a tank though and I have a tendency not to pack it around. Thought of getting a mountain gun as well as the 329PD but instead I opted for a bit of a compromise between the two and picked up one of the new 5 shot 69's on the L frame.

With the 4.25" barrel it is a bit of a handful although not so snappy as the lighter 329PD. You can push 300 grain LBT style WFN's to about 1200 fps using a charge of LilGun or H110 that is a grain or so under max but the point of impact really starts to climb above my 1100 fps Keith style 265 grain practice rounds. Backing down to 280 or even 260 WFN's at 1200 fps probably makes sense and would be easier on both gun and shooter. Still, being heavier than the PD the Model 69 is easier for me to control and hit with and since it is lighter and more compact than the full size 29 or Mountain Gun, it is more likely to be carried.

Not the revolver I would chose over a full size revolver to hunt with but for general packing around or as a trail gun I think the 69 makes sense.

Best is very subjective.

For me, a nicely blued Model 29, with a 5" barrel, endurance package, interchangable front sight,pre-lock sample, such as the incredibly awesome 5" Classic/Classic DX is as close to a factory issued "Best" as I am likely to encounter.








For pure Classic, a pinned and recessed 5" Model 29, like the ones shipped to Chicago back in the day, and more or less re-created here is an excpetional piece as well, without the full underlug barrel:

Middle gun:




If a Redhawk could be built with a 5" barrel, and an action as light and smooth as a S&W, then that would probably take top shelf. It just has not happened yet.

i'm a big fan of the mountain gun. mine is a later 29-8 with the lock, etc but it really shoots and handles like a dream. and i can pack it all day in a chest holster and barely know its there.

A pic of the 29.

http://rs19.pbsrc.com/albums/b184/DWCalls/100_0439.jpg?w=480&h=480&fit=clip

Mackay, that middle gun is sweet.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I had a 329PD for backpack carry but changed to a Mountain Gun because the recoil on the 329PD hurt. Love to shoot and carry the Mountain Gun!

+1

The best ever? This one -- okay, it's a custom, but it's my favorite .44 Mag.

DROOOOLLLLLLL!

One measly part breaks/malfunctions easily when subjected to 445 recoil. The gun was repaired by CZ, but its a real crappy design with that large of a cylinder bolt.

The entire rest of the gun is a tank.

Wow, that's nice! How heavy are those slugs?

Thanks!

They are 340 grains -- Buffalo Bore's +P+ offerings.

That's a 29-2 that was an 8&3/8ths" gun, which is perfect gunsmithing material. Narrowed and smoothed target trigger, and interchangeable front sight.

It is the gun that Smith probably could have sold a boatload of, if they wanted to.

It makes me happy just fondling it!

Again, talking personal preferences here, but for my needs, this is the most consistently accurate .44 mag I have ever had. Not much worried about its strength, either.

Am I allowed to opine here despite my low post count?

Well, here it goes:

That is a great revolver! Lot's of bang for the buck. I have a Bisley Hunter as well in .44 Mag that is very accurate that has accounted for a few animals. You can do a lot worse!

Actually, that just INCREASED your all-important post count!

Bought the Bisley "used" from a guy who said the guy he got it from said it kicked harder than any hand gun he'd ever shot. Don't think my seller even fired it. Doesn't seem to kick any more than any other .44 in it's weight and barrel length class to me, although I admit to not being experienced enough (or having enough posts) to see any appreciable difference with the Bisley grip?

Awesome piece!!

Any revolver with the name Freedom Arms engraved on the side. There are Rugers or BFR's that sometimes are "just as accurate. But none can match the build quality or accuracy (on average) built into every Freedom Arms. The quality of the actions are second to none.
Expensive yes, but quality always is.

I love Freedoms as much as the next guy, but I will put BFRs up against them any and every day of the week with regards to accuracy. They build 'em well with match-grade barrels. Fit and finish and aesthetics it's no contest as FA hands-down wins, but accuracy...... Have some box-stock Rugers that will get it done on the range as well as any higher end guns. Times have changed IMHO.

Grew up shooting Ruger SA.
Have had a few SBH and a couple of 3 screws (one was crazy accurate but looked pretty rough).
Had Smith 629's............4" reg probably the most fun, but for general usage the 6" the better choice. Prefer -3 and older, but keep bullets to 240 gr and lighter (180's kill deer fine).
Don't care for DW or Anacondas.

So an older Smith, or wait for it..........a Ruger SRH.

Hate the grip on a SRH, and they seem rather crude, but dang in a 9.5" do they shoot (at least the one I had). Not a fan of scoped rigs (but my eyes may mandate it very soon).

I used one iron sighted one season. Wouldn't mind getting another and trying to refine it..........but haven't come across anything at a decent price.

Thought about a Redhawk with Anaconda bbl on it.....handled a new RH and about puked. Hate the lockwork, feel/leverage......just not my thing.

Dunno if I can stomach another SRH.......after having shot Smith for a few years.

Only thing I did to my Smiths was smooth the edge of the factory triggers.

Tried 300 grainers in my first one, a 4" -1. Got it used. 2 cylinders and the pivot broke. Smith fixed it rather quickly, cost me $5 to ship back then. Great customer service, and only time I needed it. My 8 3/8" and couple 6" never had a prob (240 gr and lighter only).

Have not tried a Freedom Arms. LGS has one,but it's .454

Never ran over 265's in SBH.
Prefer the Dragoon frame.
Never liked the Bisley frames, look or feel.
Shot one when they first came out.
Didnt hurt, just felt funky.
I get kinda low on the frame, the gun doesn't slide. So I can shoot right, thumb left and get a few shots off before the gun does move in the hand.
Another reason to not shoot 300's.
That grip would probably have me rather purpled.

Did shoot some warm stuff from a Smith 329PD a guy had.
Hated the sights.
Factory wood grips weren't bad.
They were cast bullets of 255gr IIRC.

For a side arm, not a primary hunter........change the sights and that might be dandy.

A buddy had a pair of redhawks worked over by Magnaport. I'd put a redhawk with a good action job up against any S&W. With the street price of a 5 1/2" redhawk ~$200 less than a 629, you pretty much cover the cost of an action job.

Now if the barrel just has to be 5", starting with a 7 1/2 and wacking it down will kill the price differential

I have to second this.

My own Redhawk (5.5" barrel) has an amazing trigger. I bought it used and suspect the previous owner had some work done to it since it is unlike the previous Redhawk I had. It is on par with a lot of older Smiths that I have handled and shot and better than several of them.

My Smith M69 however has an absolutely atrocious trigger. Heavy with a lot of creep. SA is good...but still not as crisp as my Redhawk.

5" 629 Classic DX

I would be in that group. But I do like the Redhawks.

That's the story I remember as well. I believe it was out of Remingtons trash. Someone found them and took them to Bill Ruger.

I've had a fair number of 44's over the years mostly Ruger but I do like Smiths as well. First 44 I brought to Alaska was a model 29 nickel, which was sweet. Back then the 629's were harder to find then hens teeth and when you did you paid a kings ransom for them. My first one I was shooting 328 grain HC made by a guy named Ace Dube. Good load only about 21 grains of W296 but it didn't hold up. Went to the Ruger Super Blackhawk 7-1/2" which was too long to carry so had it cut down to 5-1/2". I've had that one the longest. It just flat points well for me and in Alaska the first shot can be important. I've had several 629's over the years after they added the endurance package. But the Redhawk is my next favorite. Even have a BFR in 44 Mag. Nice gun too.

When / where is the first shot NOT important?

Just target practice.

Nothing meaningful to add, just padding my post count to get some arr-eee-ess-pee-eee-cee-tee.

My main concerns about a BFR's is the action and plow grip. By the time you get the grip modified, custom grips added, and then have a gunsmith go over the action you are close to what you could of bought a Freedom Arms for in the first place.
Both are nice in their own right but the FA would tend to hold a higher % of resale value.

The first time I shot a SRH I got over the aesthetic issue. Having a revolver that was mechanically extremely accurate and just as importantly one I could shoot to it's accuracy potential is all I care about, i.e. the aesthetics of a small group.

Also the SRH is lighter than the std Redhawk.

"Ace Dube"...tff

"You can't find that here." Kenny Chesney

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.

I have found that FAs do not actually hold their value. They can found on the used market for around $1,200.00 give or take and in fact I have never paid more than that for any of mine, and for the initial expenditure they need a trigger job as well. BFRs on the other hand are hit or miss on the trigger. Some are quite good out of the factory, and in fact every one that I have owned has been good. The guns can be had new for less than $1,000.00 and $325.00 will get you a modified grip frame and a custom set of grips made for your hand. Have you checked Premier Grade prices lately? They're nearly $2,800.00. Not a real bargain IMO, as I can have a full-blown custom built for just about that much. Again, JMHO.

The BEST commercially produced 44 magnum revolver ever? I know of nothing that compares to the Freedom Arms M83 Premier Grade revolvers. There are several 44 revolvers that are a better value out of the box, but none that equal the M83PG.

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

Some joint blew BFR's out for $700 two or three years ago.

I believe that was when CDNN got rid of a bunch of BFR's in 500 JRH. One heck of a deal for those that bought them.

I will! I will also continue to own all three and enjoy all three. However, this costs about as much as an FA 83 Premier Grade......

Cabelas in Anchorage has or at least had a few weeks ago, a stack of 44 BFRs for around $750-$800. Thought about one for a minute and them remembered I have two Bisleys at home that fill the same role.

The new model 69 is an L frame (5 shot). Time will tell but I suspect it will hold up just fine.

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.

I suspect the 5-shot L-frame revolvers will also do just fine as long as you don't push things too hard.

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.

The Super Blackhawk will eat a heavy diet of loads for a lifetime. Not even in the same league as the N-frame. You're not talking about the mid-frame Rugers are you?

It is a myth that the original .44 flat-top is a smaller frame than the later Super Blackhawk. They are the same size and strength. The only significant difference is the grip frame. They are much stronger and more durable than an N-frame.



A 250gr at 1200fps is not a .44Mag load. It is a heavy .44Spl load. I agree that an N-frame will do just fine with those loads. Full pressure .44Mag pushes a 355gr at 1200fps.



A 6" model 29 is an ounce or two heavier than a Ruger single action of similar length.

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.

1200 fps with a 250 grain Lino type bullet is plenty for me. You guys carry on with your heavy loads.

All true! My mind is not the steel trap it once was either.

Except that the XR3-RED was the standard Blackhawk grip frame from 1962-present. Just like the XR3 but with more room behind the triggerguard. Not the Super.

Didn't mean to imply the XR3-Red wasn't the standard grip frame after 1962....it was...on all Blackhawk pistols!

I was speaking specifically about the .44 Magnum Rugers (Super Blackhawk). I hated the change personally, but apparently I was in the minority judging by the success of the Blackhawk line. I liked it little that I've spent the money to retro-fit the XR3 grip frame to Old Model Blackhawks.

One thing always puzzled me though. If damage to the shooters hand was a problem.....just why was it thought that a flat backed trigger guard (as on the Super Blackhawk) with a sharp corner at the bottom was thought better than a rounded trigger guard??

Must have been the right choice judging by the success Super Blackhawk....quite probably because most shooters aren't as "perfect" as I am and can't appreciate the difference.

I don't care for the change either and have a big preference for the XR3. I change them on my post `62 guns as well. I think the RED and Super grip frames adversely affect handling. Changes the balance point, moving it forward.

Wouldn't it be great if we were as good as we remember......or at least remember exactly how good we were.

Agree totally about the XR3 over the XR3-Red frame feel. If you want GREAT try an 1851 Navy frame on a Blackhawk.

Maybe I'm not the only one who is close to "perfect".]

A grip frame adds nothing (nor takes away nothing) as far as "strength".....only something to hold on to as we unleash the thunder and lightning. "Feel" is all that matters.