I'm looking at a 44mag and considering 4.5" bbl. Is this a mistake In terms of recoil, and loss of velocity and downrange energy?

The biggest I'd consider is 6.5 and usage is simply predator protection.

Nothing at all wrong with a 4.5" barreled 44.

No there is not. Heck, I've shot the 4, 6.5, and 8 3/8ths S&W 29's, owned the 6.5, and have shot the 7.5 Supers, and, now that I think about it, even the 5 inch 629. The only one I've kept is the 4 inch, no dash 29, I bought in 1967.
Why ? Because it shoots. Try all six into 1.5 inches, that's outside spread, of Remington 240 gr. SP ammo at 35 yds. That, and it's the easiest to carry model of them all.
They do kick harder. But they recover faster. But there is a big difference in the felt recoil of an 8 3/8ths inch 29 over a 4 inch. E

Downside is harsher recoil and less sight radius. There will be a slight loss of velocity over the longer barrel. Upside is quicker into action, less to snag up. Lighter. I think I'd rather have the shorter barrel for the use you describe.

And you can load it down a little bit and have an easy to carry, easy to shoot thumper. Nothing says you have to shoot full house loads to kill stuff. My favorite load is a 250 gr. cast bullet at 950 to 1000 fps. It will do anything I need.

I have only owned four inch .44s. The first was bought new in 1966 and I shot it so much it was rebuilt three times. About 1990 a collector offered me so much for it I sold it and replaced it with an original 629 Mountain Revolver.

While the first gun shot mostly 250 grain Keith bullets and maximum loads of 2400 powder, the 629 uses the same bullet and mostly Unique at about 1,000 fps.

I have never noticed that a 4" has harsher recoil many times the longer barrels has more velocity and that can make the difference in recoil.

I've also never found longer barrels to exhibit less recoil and for me, the difference in sight radius is moot. I find the difference in weight to alter the balance but that's about it. That is, comparing 4" 629 to a 6" 29 and a 4 5/8" Bisley Super Blackhawk to a 7�" Bisley Super Blackhawk. I just seem to shoot the short barrels better but own plenty of both and don't find a 7�" on the hip to be objectionable at all.

This is not what I had expected, but good input

Okay, I'll be the odd one out d:^). I like the 5.5" barrels on Blackhawks, they seem to balance better for me and my hands. I've had two Super Blackhawks, both were made with 7.5" barrels and had been cut down to "holster" better. Even with the long grip frame, they carried much lighter than they were. (No, I didn't own them at the same time, nor carry them in a two-gun rig).
I liked the balance better, a LOT better, than the 4 5/8" .45 Blackhawks I had, OR, the 6.5" .41.

If you plan on carrying it in a holster on your belt. Go with the shorter barrel. Even at that it weighs right at 4 lbs and that gets tedious all day ,pulling down one side.
I have the 4&5/8 SBH and had two 6" barrels that went down the road.
I also had the Smith mountain gun, but those N frames are just too big for my hands.

The longest barrel length I've carried in a LOT of years was a 5-1/2" That started life as a 7-1/2" and had the barrel cut down. It was a super Blackhawk. Most of the guns were 4" either 629 or the Ruger Redhawk. As long as it's comfortable and easy to carry you are more likely to have it with you. I haven't noticed barrel length being an issue when it comes to accuracy. Course I don't shoot more than 100 yards. Even then not that often. Usually when I've needed to get it out with either bears or moose it's not like we were talking long shots anyway.

Four pounds???

My 4" 629 weighs 2 lbs. 12 oz.

I have a 6 inch colt and love it. But I sure would like one of those 4 inch 629

Is there any downside to cutting a 7.5 as opposed to starting out with a shorter barrel?

Just the added cost of having the barrel cut down and recrowned.

There are those that believe that on the 7th day, the Lord made the 5" barrel N-frame revolver, and when he looked at what he'd made, he said "it is good" and then he rested......

One last question guys...what about profiting the barrel, any reason not to?

IME the ports don't reduce felt recoil with heavy bullets enough to justify the cost. A good set of grips that properly fit your hand reduces felt recoil more IME.

Add a holster and 6 rounds to a 4" 629 and I bet you get past 3Lbs. My 4&5/8" Ruger SBH weighs 3 pounds, 10 ounces fully loaded in a hunter holster. A 6" is going to add that other 6 ounces.

I won't quibble about ounces. There are ther lighter handguns, I want a Ruger SBH if I am shooting a 44 mag.

I cut my SBH from 7.5 to 4 5/8 many years ago and have never regretted it. It shoots just as well and easier to carry on the belt.

Yep, mine looks the same, except it is SS. It's a lot more comfortable while in the saddle, set up as a cross draw

And the Lord said:

Hey Mackay, go forth and spread thy word, for you are a True disciple of 5" N frame goodness!

A holster and belt are going to weigh about the same regardless of what is in it.

You do understand that there's a big difference between 3lbs and 4lbs, right? As one who has carried everything up to a 4.2lb Colt Dragoon, you will feel the difference. However, a good holster and belt go a long way towards carrying comfort and I must say that if you can't spend all day carrying a short Super Blackhawk or 4" N-frame, you either need a better belt and holster or just stay home.

When I wanted the ultimate "Compromise" between packability and shootability, in regards to a big bore, all around outdoorsman's sidearm, I chose the 5" N frame.

Packs easy in proper leather, with the ability to deliver minute of Jackrabbit accuracy at extended ranges.

A while back I had an 8&3/8ths" Model 29-2 cut back to 5"s and set up with interchangeable front sights. It is as ideal as one could ever hope for.

The regulars who hang out in this section have heard it all before....

I prefer a 6.5" for strictly hunting, as it is super easy to shoot well. The 4" is perfect for a belt gun. But for the "one to rule them all", it is the 5" N frame.

Here are pics of me and RJM last summer, busting rocks at extended ranges.

I will note that if RJM is shooting at you with his 4" 41 mag at anything under 500 yards, you are in serious danger of developing a leak.

Bob ringing steel off the porch:

Mac...I wish you wouldn't post those pics...it makes me want to hook up the trailer, go pickup the KLR650 and head for "home" today...but July is coming...

When it comes to .41s I do prefer the 4" but in .44 for whatever reason the 5" Classic is as short as I would want to go. Had a real nice 60s vintage 4" back in the 1970s that I carried on duty before it was stolen in a burglary....and never missed it a day. And yet at the time I had a 6" 29-2 that had close to 10K rounds through it and loved shooting it with the same 1250 fps load that I hated to shoot in the 4".

Went through another .44 "phase" about 6 years ago and ended up keeping just one...a 1999 vintage Mountain Gun. That gun I just love shooting the 200 grain Speer Gold Dot Short Barrel loads in.

The finest shooting .44 I have ever shot or owned was a 629 that a friend had had S&W replace the original 6" barrel with a leftover 5" Classic that was a dealer special and was Mag-Na-Ported. After my friend died I sold it to his nephew, a fine young man who we had just stared hunting with when my friend died. The nephew now always carries the 629 while hunting. And because it is a 629 not a -1 it is the only P&R Classic one probably will ever see.









Even with full loads that gun is nice to shoot...


Bob

At some point, I'm going to have to just get mad at myself and set out on a mission to find a nice 5" 29 Classic. Been lusting after them ever since S&W started making them in the late `80's or early `90's.

Mac, you've sure got some beautiful country up there to shoot in!

I only use "short" barrel revolvers anymore. So much better feeling. I currently carry a 4.5" 454 freedom and a 43/4" 45 colt. Both are as accurate as any I have shot. Neither one recoils any worse than a longer barrel gun. Velocity loss isn't enough to make a difference and sometimes the shorter barrel is faster anyway. All depends on the gun. I just had my 454 freedom at the range this morning and it is one of the most accurate guns I have owned. Recoil is not bad and I'm getting low 1300's with 335 CP and a snort of h110.

A holster and belt are going to weigh about the same regardless of what is in it.

You do understand that there's a big difference between 3lbs and 4lbs, right? As one who has carried everything up to a 4.2lb Colt Dragoon, you will feel the difference. However, a good holster and belt go a long way towards carrying comfort and I must say that if you can't spend all day carrying a short Super Blackhawk or 4" N-frame, you either need a better belt and holster or just stay home. [/quote]

Jesus. What of part of 3#-10 ounces don't you understand. Yes all belts and holsters weigh about the same, but you do add them to the weight of the gun. Everyone that packs a handgun is not a Marlboro Man. I guess the rest of us have to let you macho types have all the fun and we ,as you put it need to stay home.

People with a little bit of back problem will incur some pretty good discomfort when the unbalance a load on one side of 3-4#s.

People like you who post such thoughts on a thread, do not add anything to the conversation.

Neither do those who whine about carrying a 4" revolver.

I'm also partial to 5" full lug guns. To me they are about as small as I want to go with full house loads. The 4" Smiths, regular and Mountain Guns handle nicely, but I load them down.

The 4 inch is my first choice in a 44 mag Smith or Ruger

And the Lord said unto Mackay, "Go forth and find new disciples to further the word of the 5" N frame"....

i have a 4" s&w 29-8 mountain gun. i routinely shoot 240 JHP 1250 fps loads out of it. with the wooden factory grips it was a bit punchy but with the rubber hogues it is not bad at all. IMO the 4" 44 is ideal. rides nice in a chest holster and can be shot one handed quite accurately. the 6.5" seems too long to me.

My Vote, looks I am a minority

I'm in love with my Ruger Super Redhawk 44 with 7.5" barrel. Max load 300grn Hornady XTP.

I made a bad start, I guess, my first .44 mag was an old Herter's revolver I got used - with a 4" barrel. Recoil was very "Sporty" - the cylinder rod would shoot out a lot, in fact, and all the screws needed to be tightened regularly. Next was a Contender with a 10" barrel, and it seemed to kick more than the old revolver - but was more control-able. I still prefer a longer barrel than 4" in a .44 mag, and have a 6" barrel on my SBH. I shoot a 14" Contender with a suppressor on a shoulder stock with sub sonic loads and 300gr+ bullets, and it kicks enough that you know you are shooting it!

4-1/2 inches is fine.

I like .44 magnums. I've had something over 30 of them. The two I carry now are a 4-5/8" barreled Super Blackhawk and a 4" barreled S&W 329PD. I would be just as happy with the 5.5" barreled Super.

Downrange performance? Just how much "downrange" are you talking about for predator protection? I mean .. seriously, if you're protecting yourself from predators, it won't be "downrange", you'll be powder-burning their hair.

Tom

Setch:

I have a 4" 29 and a 6" 629. Velocity difference with my handloads runs about 80-90 fps.

Re: packability, my 6" 629 is just about the same overall length as my 5.5" Ruger Bisley in .44 magnum, and I've never heard anyone complain that a 5.5" Ruger single action was too long to comfortably carry holstered.

the 44 mag silhouette with adjustable front site and 10 5/8" barrel has been my choice since the early 1980s

YES IT REQUIRES a shoulder holster to use comfortably , but it allows accurate shots with easily controlled recoil
Ive loaded a hard cast 300-310 grain lyman or LEE gas check bullet over 20-21 grains of H110 powder in my 44 mag for decades and theres been more deer and hogs than i can remember that have been cut and wrapped in freezer paper as a result

Can't argue with that.

So much better with a nice post front sight.

Man that's nice!


All else being equal save for barrel length, I have found that the longer barrel will typically produce heavier recoil due to the higher velocity. Shorter barrels may seem like they recoil heavier, but typically they are louder and create more blast perhaps giving the illusion of more recoil.