Ruger Redhawk vs S&W Mountain Gun

[Half Moon]

I'll be the wimp in the thread. You may want to try a rental before buying. I've shot .44 Magnum in Smith's, Rugers, and Dan Wessons. Even in the DW, at a full 48 ounces unloaded, full house magnums fired double action are downright unpleasant. Single actions, like the Super Blackhawk, are a lot more manageable, Figure a combination of a grip that plunges down in recoil combined with less muscles in motion at ignition. A thumb buster might be the best choice if a big bore revolver is the goal. Too, short of grizzly, there are also quite a few cartridges that have a good record of self- defense against North American dangerous game. YMMV of course...

[Lester Polfus]

S&W 625jm with 240gr SWCs at 950fps.

Chris

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner

I'm firmly in the camp that for large predator defense, we're better off with hardcast, WFN or SWC .44/.45 bullets that weigh 230 to 250 grains in the 1000 to 1100 fps range rather than nuclear-level loads. I won't argue with 240 at 950 FPS.

The penetration of those loads will be measured in feet, rather than inches, and will likely pop a bear skull. They are also reasonable enough to shoot out of a 4" revolver that a person will be able to do some meaningful practice.

If you want a revolver solely for large predator defense, buy a .44 or .45 Moutain Gun and stoke it with 230 to 250 grain hard cast bullets going 1000 to 1100 FPS.

If you want to HUNT large animals at extended ranges with a .44 or .45 caliber revolver, then the rhino-roller loads are more appropriate, in my opinion. Then you probably want a Redhawk.

If were seriously get into big bore guns, I'd have a Mountain Gun as the woodsbumming gun, and a Super Redhawk or Blackhawk as the dedicated hunting gun.

[Bruce Cartwright]

Little Lebowski:

My suggestion between those two guns would be to pick a S&W Mountain Gun in 44 magnum. I would further suggest moderate magnum loads, say a 250 Keith bullet at 1,000 to 1,100 feet per second ("FPS") or a 300 grain LBT style bullet at 900+/- FPS. Ounces equal pounds and pounds equal pain when doing any kind of hiking/hunting/camping etc. I find folks tend to stop carrying truly heavy guns like the Redhawk after a while.

Ken Hackathorn ran a drill for folks carrying guns in grizzly country. The drill had a pepper popper at 15 yards, a pepper popper at 10 yards and a clay bird at 5 yards. Starting with the gun at high ready, the shooter had 3.5 seconds to hit all three targets starting with the farthest popper. I ran this drill with a 4 inch S&W 629 using my hunting loads (a 250 Keith on top of 21 grains of 2400 powder-1,250 fps). Despite having shot magnum handguns all my life, I could not clean the drill. I can clean it with a variety of other guns. I watched a bunch of folks run this drill and very few people were able to do well using monster magnum loads. I also suggest reaching out for Lost River and picking up some of his hard cast ammo.

Shooting Ken's drill was an eye opener. As much as I love my S&W N Frames, when I recreate in my beloved Montana, I pack a 1911 with bonded or hard cast loads. Having a gun, I can deliver multiple hits with on a moving target makes a bunch more sense to me. Your mileage may vary and all that. This is my two cents from living in grizzly country. Of course, if I actually going to do battle with a griz, I'd prefer a 12 gauge with Brenneke slugs.

Hope that helps.

Bruce

[358156hp]

I've had a number of both. If I were going to do a lot of carrying, I'd do it with a Mountain Gun, although with lighter loads as we're seeing trending here so far. My Mountain Gun (Mountain Revolver to be accurate) was lighter and had a better trigger, but it was terrible to shoot with full power "Keith" level loads. It worked best for me at hot 44 Spl level loads, which required handloading which is no big deal for me. Factory ammo in those days seemed to have been developed for maximum recoil and noise. My loads were basically std pressure 45 Colt loads in 44 mag brass.

I've also had std Redhawks in 41 & 44 mag, and also one of the very early 45 Colt guns. I felt the Redhawk was too heavy in 41 mag although recoil was very comfortable. I had a little lack of self control with the 45 Colt gun, shooting basically the same loads developed by others for use in 5 shot custom revolver such as Linebaugh and Bowen. It was cool, but I ended up selling the gun because I essentially seemed to be on the fast track to disaster. Fortunately the gun was unharmed at that point and I traded it off, leaving me with 44 mags. BTW, everything that was said about Lil Gun eroding forcing cones was true, at least in my experience. I stopped using it before it became a major issue.

Redhawks are heavy, and I don't enjoy them with 7-1/2 in. barrels, that big old truck axle hanging off the front of the gun gets very tiring to handle, especially if I was already tired to start with. 4 in. or 5-1/2 in. barrels are all that appeal to me. I still have one 7-1/2 incher and am pretty certain it will end up a four inch this winter. I have never found grips for the std Redhawk that I like more than the original factory grips, and I have tried everything except the afore mentioned Nill Griffe grips since I couldn't afford them. Second place goes to wooden Hogue grips with either a single finger groove, or no finger grooves at all. This is especially amusing since I favor wooden Hogue fingergroove grips for everything else including Super Redhawks.

I honestly don't believe either my 629 or Redhawk was significantly more accurate than the other. The Redhawk is by far the more reliable gun of the two for long-term ownership. I've always had to fuss with N frames, especially if higher power ammo is on the menu. I got pretty good at fitting hands and bolt stops in mine and kept spares for it. No tears were shed when somebody wanted it more than I did and had cash. I believe the old girl did go to a good home though.

[GJM]

Perfect 329 or Mountain Gun field load:

https://www.garrettcartridges.com/44defendertech.html

I shot a wounded mule deer up the butt at 42 yards with this load and it penetrated the length of the deer and exited.

[okie john]

I'd decline both of the original choices in favor of a standard 4" Model 629. It has all the benefits of the S&W N-frame, plus a bit of extra weight in exactly the right place.

I second the recommendations for a 250-grain bullet around 1,100 fps.


Okie John

[Hambo]

Any Taurus tracker experience?

No, but I wouldn't bet my life on one. I've looked at several Taurus revolvers because of their involvement on this forum, and too many of them showed problems without shooting them. One large caliber Taurus would barely lock up.

I'd go with a 4" S&W in .44 or .45, loaded with WFN 240/250gr, carried in a Kramer belt scabbard.

[Oldherkpilot]

When my arthritis was at it's worst, I sold all my .44s except my 629 Mountain Gun. I shoot Russians and Specials in it mostly now, but its still the belle of the ball.

[Bigghoss]

Still kicking myself for not buying the .45 Colt Mountain gun for $800 a few years ago.

I have an irrational fondness for revolvers that shoot rimless cartridges like .45 ACP so the Redhawk is on my want list for sure.

[mtnbkr]

When my arthritis was at it's worst, I sold all my .44s except my 629 Mountain Gun. I shoot Russians and Specials in it mostly now, but its still the belle of the ball.

That's kind of why I got out of the 44mag game entirely. It was rough on my elbows and if I'm going to download to near 44special ranges, I can just duplicate that in my 625 with less powder. I don't have to maintain a whole platform and reloading/casting set up.

I don't miss them at all.

Chris