Gentlemen,

I am now building up to buy myself a double action revolver. I turn 21 in November, and I thought I wanted a 1911 for my first pistol. But in light of recent bear attacks during a camping trip, I decided that I wanted a packing pistol suitable for defense against a California bear. I looked at S&W but decided they were too rich for my blood. So I am now seriously looking at Ruger.

So my question is, what would you pick? A Ruger Redhawk in .44 Magnum, or a Super Redhawk in .454 Casull?

I've fired 300gr 45 Colt +P before, and it was alright, but I really don't like how expensive the ammunition is. It also takes the guy a month to special hand load it for me. I've never fired a 454 Casull before, but I have shot .44 Magnum and I can learn to become proficient with it with practice. The .44 Mag is also more economical; alot of times they cost even less than 45LC. The 44's recoil is probably on the upper limit of my recoil tolerence. Also, I like the "simple" look of the Redhawk.

Also, I'm leaning more towards the Redhawk because none of the Super Redhawks have barrels shorter than 7.5". The Redhawk I'm looking at has a 5.5" barrel. I don't intend to use it for hunting, so I don't really need the extra length of the 7.5" barrel; a 5.5" barrel would be more packable.

Oh the other hand:

I've heard that the .454 Casull is way more effective on bears than the .44 Magnum. Also, with the rubber recoil absorbing grips on the Super Redhawk, the recoil might not be as bad as those hardwood grips on the Ruger Vaquero I fired that Colt +P from (it felt like someone wacked my hand with a baseball bat). Last, but not least, the .454 Casull is the professionally magnumized version of the .45 Colt, which is, as everyone knows, my favorite pistol cartridge of all time. So that means no more loading 45LC to near dangerous levels.

Also, when I was looking at a picture of the SRH, my younger brother said it "looks like a piece of a battleship", which of course almost made me want to buy it on the spot.

I'm so torn. The Shooters forum never steered me wrong, so what say you guys?

Redhawk in .44 Magnum:
http://ruger.com/Firearms/images/Products/58L.jpg

Super RH in .454 Casull:
http://ruger.com/Firearms/images/Products/55L.jpg

I've never met a bear in California, but I assume we're talking about blackies? The 44 ought to be more than sufficient for black bear. For packing, potency has to be weighed against luggability and controlability. If the thing is too big and heavy, you'll be tempted to leave it at home where it does you no good, or in a backpack where it does you almost no good. The more recoil and muzzle climb there is, the harder it will be to take your second and third shots.

However, if it is brown bear in California, then I would lean toward the 454 Casull.

If you're going to make your choice based on looks (I'm just as guilty), then don't do it from a photograph. Even from a good picture, it is hard to get an accurate sense of what it really looks like. Go see it in 3-D, and better yet, feel it in your hand.

Oh, and if cost is an issue, you should take a look at Taurus's offerings.

I agree. Go with the .44 Magnum. Plenty for black bear. I would pick the Ruger over the Taurus, but if I had the money I would get the Smith. So Smith first choice, then Ruger, then Taurus.

Gentlemen,

I am now building up to buy myself a double action revolver. I turn 21 in November, and I thought I wanted a 1911 for my first pistol. But in light of recent bear attacks during a camping trip, I decided that I wanted a packing pistol suitable for defense against a California bear. I looked at S&W but decided they were too rich for my blood. So I am now seriously looking at Ruger.

So my question is, what would you pick? A Ruger Redhawk in .44 Magnum, or a Super Redhawk in .454 Casull?

I've fired 300gr 45 Colt +P before, and it was alright, but I really don't like how expensive the ammunition is. It also takes the guy a month to special hand load it for me. I've never fired a 454 Casull before, but I have shot .44 Magnum and I can learn to become proficient with it with practice. The .44 Mag is also more economical; alot of times they cost even less than 45LC. The 44's recoil is probably on the upper limit of my recoil tolerence. Also, I like the "simple" look of the Redhawk.

Also, I'm leaning more towards the Redhawk because none of the Super Redhawks have barrels shorter than 7.5". The Redhawk I'm looking at has a 5.5" barrel. I don't intend to use it for hunting, so I don't really need the extra length of the 7.5" barrel; a 5.5" barrel would be more packable.

Oh the other hand:

I've heard that the .454 Casull is way more effective on bears than the .44 Magnum. Also, with the rubber recoil absorbing grips on the Super Redhawk, the recoil might not be as bad as those hardwood grips on the Ruger Vaquero I fired that Colt +P from (it felt like someone wacked my hand with a baseball bat). Last, but not least, the .454 Casull is the professionally magnumized version of the .45 Colt, which is, as everyone knows, my favorite pistol cartridge of all time. So that means no more loading 45LC to near dangerous levels.

Also, when I was looking at a picture of the SRH, my younger brother said it "looks like a piece of a battleship", which of course almost made me want to buy it on the spot.

I'm so torn. The Shooters forum never steered me wrong, so what say you guys?

Redhawk in .44 Magnum:
http://ruger.com/Firearms/images/Products/58L.jpg

Super RH in .454 Casull:
http://ruger.com/Firearms/images/Products/55L.jpgPurchase a Lee Loader from Midwayusa
http://www.midwayusa.com and load your own 45lc ammo I've been reloading all of my ammo for 36 yrs and I can do it cheaper than buying it and so can you.Buy jacketed & cast performance bullets from midway,your brass,powder,primers and loading scale plus dies.

Army GI,
I have or have had both chambers you mention. I had a 7 1/2" Ruger Redhawk in 44 Mag. I currently have a 44 mag and a 454 Casull in an Encore frame. I will suggest that if you are to be shooting factory loads you will not like the control you may have with the Casull. My Ruger had quite a bit of muzzle flip with the 44 Mag, it will only increase dramatically with the Casull.

I would also suggest you checkout the Taurus Tracker serious before deciding. I recently picked up a 4" Tracker in .44 Mag. It is ported, it is loud, but it is a jewel to shoot! Also, this model would suit you a little better for camping, backpacking because of its smaller frame. The grips are also very comfortable and functional, as opposed to the Redhawk. Don't get me wrong, I have always been and still am a Ruger fan. But I am quickly becoming a fan of the Taurus brand as well.

.454 will be very effective, at denting your forehead :eek:

While it's a great and useful thing in it's own right.... it probably isn't something to step up to, from a .45 ACP. Bit of a learing curve there!

The .44 mag is going to be your most economical solution. I like the 5.5" Redhawk, myself, and have one in that chambering.

Get a box of the Federal CastCore 300gr. bullets, and don't worry too much about it. They'll run through many feet of Mr. Bear, and after 6 of them go downrange, a Redhawk still makes a pretty decent club :D

I do like the lightweight Taurus Ti revolvers, and carry one in .357 Mag every day. But recoil is, well, brutal.....

Also, I'm leaning more towards the Redhawk because none of the Super Redhawks have barrels shorter than 7.5".
See: Super Redhawk Alaskan http://ruger.com/Firearms/FAProdResults?function=famid&famid=7&variation=Alaskan%99&bct=Yes&type=Revolver

I'm a 45 Colt guy. I'm also a single action guy. After reading your post, I'd say the 44 mag instead of the 454 that I voted for. (I voted 454 because I would make it 45 Colt)

I would like to point out that shooting proper single action style will always be more pleastant then double action. I don't enjoy shooting moderate loads with a Redhawk in 44 Mag, however, I haven't shot a load in my Ruger Bisley that I didn't think to myself "Geez, I thought this was a hot round!" (335gr. @ 1250 FPS... need more!) The double action revolver sends force through you, as opposed to the gun taking recoil (pivoting the gun in your hand) and the rest absorbed by the motion of your forearm pivoting back on your elbow. I shot 20 rounds of the above load and was looking for some more (of course I didn't have any more) because they were all gone in like 10 minutes.

But anyways, If all you want is cheap ammo, go 44 mag, but if you want a gun, gor for the 454. :P

Yeah, I'm a 45 Colt guy too, but apparently there's a huge difference between a 44 Mag and 454. I really enjoy the fact that the 454 is the modern ancestor of the 45 Colt but alas, I can find no 454 casull revolvers that suit my taste.

How well do the ported barrels help control recoil?

How well do the ported barrels help control recoil?

About as well as they'll make you deaf!!

I am a firm believer that any hand gun that will be used in emergency self defense should not be ported.. besides the noise, if the ports are too close to your face or something, it will be blasted with the port flash.. also, if this event should happen and night/dusk/low light you will not have to worry about a second shot, and the upward port directed muzzle flash will have killed your night vision...

These are just my opinions.. Would love to find a non ported 4 inch 41 or 44 for woods packin...

best o luck

nate

Taurus makes a nonported 44 mag with a 4" barrel.

Go with the Redhawk .44 mag. I have a 7.5 inch redhawk and it is a great revolver. most loads of The .44 mag should be enough for black bears. The 5.5 inch should be great for what you want. The only gun I like better and only by a slight margin is my Colt Anaconda with an 8 inch barrel. With what Colt is getting for Anacondas today I could opt for the Ruger with out any hesitastion. when you start getting into the really heavy duty loads of the .44 mag such as garrets or corbon (Those over 300 grains) it will tend to stop being fun shooting the .44 mag as these round can cause the front sight to lodge itself into your forehead. The .454 will be even worse at this type of thing.

... I've never fired a 454 Casull before, but I have shot .44 Magnum and I can learn to become proficient with it with practice. The .44 Mag is also more economical; alot of times they cost even less than 45LC. The 44's recoil is probably on the upper limit of my recoil tolerence...




I think you've answered your own question about what caliber to choose. There is a big difference between the two. I think anyone can learn to shoot a .454 well, but it isn't the place to start. I would recommend that you get a .44 Mag, and learn to shoot it well. Once you get to the point that you really enjoy shooting a .44, particularly with hot loads, then you'll be ready to move up another step, whether that's a .454, 500 S&W, or whatever.

Ruger makes a decent gun for the money. Don't buy one, however, until you've checked out the Taurus revolvers. I think they're every bit as good as the Rugers. Another possibility would be to try to find a gently used Smith & Wesson, or Dan Wesson revolver. Check them all out, and then decide.

IMO a barrel of less than six inches on a 44 mag is TOO short. With manly loads it can be brutal. I've packed my 7 1/2 inch Redhawk a lot of miles on my hip and in an Uncle Mike's shoulder rig.

The shoulder rig works well because it helps hold up the fanny pack PLUS my pants. I can shuck it pretty quick out of the shoulder rig but the holster is a full flap, which doesn't make for a speedy draw.

I'd go with the Redhawk, but opt for the longer barrel. I've also put a set of Pachmeyer grips on mine. The factory grips are a tad small for my mitts. The grips on the SRH are pretty good but still small for my tastes.

Here's a picture of the old girl, still dirty from an afternoon of shooting.


http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h191/recoil_junky/IMG_0960.jpg

Let us know what you decide.

RJ

The reason the alaskan is so short is because the ability to draw quickly, and to use it if you are already being taken down. IMHO 6" is the max length any woods gun should be. After that, you run into the bbl catching on things, draw times increasing and insufficiant room to remove the muzzle in tight spots. I might also add it weighs more. During the event of a bear attack, unless you have practiced and made your movements AUTOMATIC, you will have a high probability of uncoordination and chances of messing something up. Try to reduce that chance as much as possible. If I get a double action revolver, it will be an Alaskan. Other than that, I'll stick with what I'm good and quick with: Single Action revolvers.

My vote is also for Taurus I plan on purchasing the new or relatively new 444 Ultralight in 44 Magnum you might also consider the 5 inch 454 Casull. Heck Taurus even has a 2 1/4" S&W 500 but it's a bit pricey. My favorite is a Smith I have two but just can't afford them right now. Taurus makes a fine gun.

This is directly from Taurus..
"This Ultra-Ultra light .44 Magnum revolver is built on a Raging Bull style frame and easily handles the .44 Magnum. The light weight makes this the perfect pack gun or sidearm for the hunter. With 6 rounds of .44 Magnum and Taurus reliability, there is no better firearm for the guide or hunter. The Model 444 UltraLite carries the Taurus Security System and our Unlimited LIfetime Repair Policy"

Cj

http://www.taurususa.com/products/product-details.cfm?model=444MULTI&category=Revolver

http://www.taurususa.com/products/product-details.cfm?model=454SS5M&category=Revolver

http://www.taurususa.com/products/product-details.cfm?model=500MSS2&category=Revolver

Well, If I were to reload I would take the 454. For cost of plinking and reloading availibility, 45 cal bullets are everywhere in all shapes and sizes. You can load a 45 Long Colt to above 44 mag standards in a Super RedHawk. When your just plinking 45 Colt rounds are cheap, but when you are packing for bear just load up with the 454 rounds. In the heat of the moment you wont be able to tell the difference. Or skip both and get a 4" 500 S&W. They are more manageable than the 454 and pack better than the 6" barrel guns. Also Cor-Bon makes a 500 Special for the reduced loads.

If you think you'll need more than one shot get the 44, as already stated the 454 will be planted in your forhead or some where, about ten feet behind you!
My brother has a Taurus Raging bull in 454 Casull, it is more than a hand full! I can only imagine the smaller framed RedHawk is a nighmare!

I think ultra-light revolvers in large calibers is moronic. I think it is bad enough shooting a full house 357 in a titanium frame short bbl. I can't imagine shooting a bear load or even a light load of large caliber out of one.

If you go single ation, you will be able to control the gun regardless the caliber (until you go up to 500 Linebaugh or something, then you may have problems if you inexperienced). But for DA, I'd go with the 44 magnum because I hate shooting DA revolvers, and 44 mag would keep me from shooting it because I don't reload 44 (I don't own any!).

Now I'm really going to screw things up. If you really want a 45 auto get it. Bear attacks are so rare in calif it should be the least of your worries, usually it is caused by some one wanting to pet the cute little baby cubs and the momma don't understand, or some one got between the bear and a garbage can. In the back country, your biggest threat walks on two legs, so the 45 would be a good choice. Another would be a 357. You want something you can practice with a lot, and both of these are not cost prohibitive. My personal choices are a ruger 22 for plinking and adding meat to the pot, and a 45 LC blackhawk when cuttig firewood during deer season. Whatever you choose practice alot and learn to reload. It may not save you any monry, but you can shoot a lot more for the same money, and it's a useful hobby. DM

Get a Blackhawk in 45LC with a 4 5/8" barrel. Start reloading for it. A 280 gr Beartooth hard cast loaded to 1100-1200 fps should be all you need for any bear you will likely run into. That load will leave a 1" wound channel through the bear. Or hog. Or deer. It will be easy to tote and easy to shoot. Just have a smith check the chamber throats and if undersized have them reamed to 0.4525. Lead bullets won't shoot worth squat if the chamber throats are undersized. Reaming them won't cost more than $50. You don't need a 454 for what you want. Read this over a few times before making your choice.
http://www.beartoothbullets.com/tech_notes/index.htm

Get the 1911. Pack it for bear too. If you are fortunate enough to ever need to use it against a bear, get as many shots in the rascal as you can. The big thing is shoot and shoot more often. I am serious. forget the < 1% chance you will get attacked by a bear and get the gun you want to shoot.

With the info you gave us, I would recommend you get the Redhawk in .44 magnum, swap out the factory hardwood grips for Pachmyr Decellerators and then practice. Start with 100 rounds a week. You dont have to do it all in a day, but you need to practice.

If you plan to load and shoot heavy and hot, I would go Ruger first. Taurus makes good guns and I say that even owning them, but I don't load them hot.

I like the SRH and I want one in .454, I just want it in a 6 inch barrel, not the 7 1/2.

WrenchMan, I have a buddy who I shoot with a lot and he has a RB in 454 Casull 5" if I remember right. It shoots nicely, even with heavy cast bear loads. Yep, it recoils, but it doesn't flip with the ported barrel so follow ups arent bad at all. REAL FUN for shooting steel plates with. He doesn't care for the bear loads, but he's more of a .40 S&W guy anyway. :)

I've got a Ruger Alaskan in 454 as well as the 7.5 incher. I really like them both, and usually load them to hot 45 velocities for plinking. However I am a reloader, so I'll recommend that you get yourself a currently uncataloged Ruger Super Redhawk Alaskan in 44 mag. Saw one the other day. Should be a big seller. You loose velocity, but they are oh- so easy to shoot and carry.

The recoil is not bad at all, and the accuracy supurb. Even with the snub nose, I can hit a 6 inch steel plate at 50 yards over and over. These guns are built like a tank and give me a feeling like they won't ever break down. Can't say that for my Smiths. The grips are far superior to the current grip in the Redhawk and regular Super Redhawk. I changed the grip on my regular Super to the grip of the Alaskan.

Army GI
Either one would be enough for Cali Black bears!
I voted for 454 SRH both are great guns and either would do the work you want done. If your not reloading the 44 Mag gives you more off the shelf ammo possibilties. If you get into reloading then the 454 is the way to go. Then you got from nice light cowboy 45LC's to wrist breaking 454's :)

I voted .44 Mag. I love my 5" 629 Classic. With the quick-change front sight, I have a shorter Trijicon equipped front sight for around the house with Cor-Bon 165 gr. .44 Spl JHPs @ 1150 fps. Those loads feel like a .22.

A quick front sight change[5 seconds], and I'm good for magnum loads. I usually carry mine stoked with 210 grain Silvertips for the two legged predators, and I carry a speedloader of WW 250 gr. Partition Golds for bear.

If I'm out in the woods further away from home, the gun is loaded with the PGs backed up by Federal 300 gr. Cast Cores.

My point - versatility. From easy to control .44 Spls to 300 gr. Cast Cores.

With proper practice, and a proper physiological shooting stance - an aggressive isoceles or weaver, you can accurately empty a cylinder full of Cast Cores.

Gentlemen,

I am now building up to buy myself a double action revolver. I turn 21 in November, and I thought I wanted a 1911 for my first pistol. But in light of recent bear attacks during a camping trip, I decided that I wanted a packing pistol suitable for defense against a California bear. I looked at S&W but decided they were too rich for my blood. So I am now seriously looking at Ruger.

So my question is, what would you pick? A Ruger Redhawk in .44 Magnum, or a Super Redhawk in .454 Casull?

I've fired 300gr 45 Colt +P before, and it was alright, but I really don't like how expensive the ammunition is. It also takes the guy a month to special hand load it for me. I've never fired a 454 Casull before, but I have shot .44 Magnum and I can learn to become proficient with it with practice. The .44 Mag is also more economical; alot of times they cost even less than 45LC. The 44's recoil is probably on the upper limit of my recoil tolerence. Also, I like the "simple" look of the Redhawk.

Also, I'm leaning more towards the Redhawk because none of the Super Redhawks have barrels shorter than 7.5". The Redhawk I'm looking at has a 5.5" barrel. I don't intend to use it for hunting, so I don't really need the extra length of the 7.5" barrel; a 5.5" barrel would be more packable.

Oh the other hand:

I've heard that the .454 Casull is way more effective on bears than the .44 Magnum. Also, with the rubber recoil absorbing grips on the Super Redhawk, the recoil might not be as bad as those hardwood grips on the Ruger Vaquero I fired that Colt +P from (it felt like someone wacked my hand with a baseball bat). Last, but not least, the .454 Casull is the professionally magnumized version of the .45 Colt, which is, as everyone knows, my favorite pistol cartridge of all time. So that means no more loading 45LC to near dangerous levels.

Also, when I was looking at a picture of the SRH, my younger brother said it "looks like a piece of a battleship", which of course almost made me want to buy it on the spot.

I'm so torn. The Shooters forum never steered me wrong, so what say you guys?

Redhawk in .44 Magnum:
http://ruger.com/Firearms/images/Products/58L.jpg

Super RH in .454 Casull:
http://ruger.com/Firearms/images/Products/55L.jpg
If you are really hung up on the 1911, Check out the 460 Rowland. It has virtually the same ballistics as the .44 mag.
If you already have a 1911, you can buy the conversion and have the .45 acp for cheap practice, plus the Rowland conversion for field carry.
Presonally, I have both the .44mag and 454 Casull in the SRH. For hunting, the 454 Cas is my choice, bur for bear defense, I would take the .44 mag with 300-320 grain hardcast. At about 1200 fps, they will go through a bear end-to-end, plus you can get back on target faster for the second shot. (Remember an enraged bear is coming at you at about 44-50 feet per SECOND) What more do you want? Dead is dead.

PS; I have some .405 gr Beartooth bullets for the 454 Cas.
When hunting, I will use 340 gr hardcast for my hunting load, but will use the 405's at 1100-1200 for camp defense rounds. Marshall Stanton recomreends 1400 fps to stabilize the bullet for accuracy, but I am not going to shoot a bear in self defense over ten yards or so. Lower recoil, back on target sooner.

PS; I have some .405 gr Beartooth bullets for the 454 Cas.
When hunting, I will use 340 gr hardcast for my hunting load, but will use the 405's at 1100-1200 for camp defense rounds. Marshall Stanton recomreends 1400 fps to stabilize the bullet for accuracy, but I am not going to shoot a bear in self defense over ten yards or so. Lower recoil, back on target sooner.

Personally, I think you are using too much case for bullet and not enough case for powder. I'd try something in the 360-380 grain area, which will buy you a lot of veliocity vs bullet weight. Have you done any testing into that arena with the 454? I did with 45 Colt and the happy spot is about 360 grains, plus or minus 10 grains. You don't drop off on velocity yet, but you still get the heavy bullet. Since I haven't reloaded 454, I don't know what the happy spot is.

I own 3 .454 revolvers and 5 .44 magnums. I've been shooting heavy loads in handguns for 35 years, and there is a lot of wear and tear caused by this, both to my hands and hearing. I use protection on both, but the big guys still do damage after 50 or 60 thousand rounds.

I've had a few encounters with black bears over the years, but the bear was always more afraid of me than I was of him. Truth be known, he'd have to be within 10 yards before I'd start shooting with a handgun of any description.

The .454 Casull is without a doubt superior in power to any .44 magnum, but I doubt that a black bear requires that additional power. If you're wandering around Alaska, that's a different story.

In my opinion, it's easier to load a .454 downwards than a .44 magnum upwards. The Ruger SBH in .454 costs around $100 more than the Ruger RH, and I own both by the way. .454 Casull brass lasts 10 to 15 loadings, so a handloader could buy 500 pieces and be shooting for a long time. Last time I checked, Starline .454 brass for the .454 was $120 for 500 rounds. If you were using full house .454 ammo, the additional powder cost amounts to about 10% over the .44 magnum. If you don't cast your own as I do, the projectiles are what get expensive, but excellent cast bullets are available commercially. The bottom line is that a handloader can own a .454 Ruger SRH and feed it for about 15% more money than a .44 magnum. Mastering either one of these calibers requires a lot of practice, I don't see it happening without handloading.

My vote went to the 44 mag.

Primary reason...its a "Wal-Mart caliber"....you can find the stuff just about anywhere...454 Casull is another story...

Elmer Keith proved that the 44 mag was a VERY worthy caliber to go hunting with...Just as Dick Casull did with his namesake caliber.

On the benefits of having a 454 Casull...you can shoot ANY 45 Colt loads out of it...just as you can shoot 44 Special loads out of a 44 Mag...

Some say bring more than what you need...

Some would say that all you really need is a well loaded 357 Mag...and therefore put the 44 Mag into overkill position...I haven't even brought up the 475 Linebaugh or the 480 Ruger...two other calibers you might want to think about...

My choice, as you have asked...44 Mag with a speed loader in a belt pouch...have the 44's loaded up with some Hornady 240 gr. XTP's or some Sierra Gamekings...powder of your choice.

MTCW
D

Yeah, I'm pretty much set on getting a .44 Magnum.

Now the only dilemna is choosing between a 7.5" and a 5.5" barrel. I actually find that the 7.5" bbl isn't as unweildy as people make it out to be. Also, the extra ballistic potential of the longer barrel is nice.

On the other hand, would there be any practical difference in performance if I went with the 2" shorter 5.5"bbl?

Way less muzzle flip for one, which would get you back on target quicker. Longer sight radius for another. You'd also get a tad more velocity too.

RJ

I have the 5.5. Longer sight radius is the only advantage for me. I don't know if the extra length even helps me there. I have a single six in 22 that I do not shoot much better.

Well, I've heard that for revolver cartridge (both magnum and standard pressure) that 4" is really all you need in a handgun, and 16" is all you need in a levergun. Anything longer than that has to do with the better shooting qualities of a longer barrel, ie the sight radius.

There is no 'need' with handgun barrel lengths, only 'wants' and practical considerations.

Not everyone does better with longer barrels, although that is pretty true, generally. It will depend on the individual's eyesight, shooting experience, etc.

Shorter = lighter, and easier to carry. Generally more muzzle flip / recoil.

Longer = heavier, a bit more cumbersome to carry (and draw in a hurry), less muzzle flip (generally), more velocity at least through carbine-length barrels, and possibly more accurate for the individual.

Since we are carrying a handgun because it is a heck of a lot more convenient than having a full-power rifle in our hands at all times, my initial vote goes to what is handy and convenient to carry. Perceived deficiences of any handgun barrel length can be somewhat remedied by bore size, bullet/ammo choice, gun options to reduce recoil, (like porting), and different options with sights.

If that all sounds rather vague, well, it is.... and I would rather the forum members give it as much thought as possible, rather than relying on generic advice.

To wit, a few personal choices -

Carry for defense in town - snubbie .357.

Hunting revolvers, for critters up through hogs - full-sized .357 revolvers, full-sized .45 autos, and big-bore revolvers with barrel lengths from 5.5" to 7.5". The 5.5's are much handier to carry, by the way.

I don't have any revolvers with 4" barrels but I wouldn't hesitate to carry one in the field, if I get to choose the chambering and ammo.

Revolvers for truly mean things that bite..... well, I do have a .454 Casull, and a .500 JRH. Those hardly ever get shot with full-power loads, however.

The last time I deliberately went after a critter that looked like it could cause serious trouble, I took my .458 Win Mag :D

I would go with a 44 if you're worried about black bears. I just bought a 44 mag super redhawk and the extra weight and length over the redhawk makes more fun to shoot. I have shot the 454 and liked it but not the price of ammo. YOu can't go wrong either way.

Between those two. . . . go with the .44 mag! I've had two Freedom Arms Casulls; both had problems. They are too tight to be reliable truth is ( know I will get flack for that statement) also, both suffered broken internal springs which are a %#@!* to replace, got a small piece of debris in between cylinder and frame which locked it up tight. ( Rugers are much looser which helps reliability.) My real preference is a heavily loaded Ruger Bisley Vaquaro in .45 Colt, ( no adjustable sights to get knocked out of kilter) loaded with 20.0 grains Hodgdon Lil gun powder behind a 300 grain LBT WFN hard cast bullet at about 1,200 FPS. Very accurate, durable, reliable, and penetrates forever. Also found any added velocity from the .454 became uncontrollable to shoot more than once with any degree of accuracy in a pinch. The Rugers need to have the cylinders honed out to .452 from the .450 they seem to be coming out with to shoot cast bullets well, but that's pretty easy and takes about 15 minutes. I will say the Freedom arms are amazingly accurate with 340 grain LBTs out at 200 yards, a real work of art in a handgun, just to finiky for this ol' boy. There are several things you can do to a Ruger to make it a really nice, smooth, accurate shooter, but that's for another article. ( Get Veral Smiths book; jacketed performance with cast bullets!) Good shootin!

Well, what I really want is a double action revolver that's strong enough to handle .45 Colt +P.

I know the .45 Colt +P is a powerful round that usually equals or beats out the .44 Magnum. But I can only find single action long barreled target revolvers.

Army GI, you are right back at the Ruger Super Redhawk 454 Casull. Ruger doesn't make the Redhawk in .45 Colt anymore.

Army GI
Yep the only way to shoot 45's is get the SRH 454! Unless you can find someone that wants to sell a RH in 45LC. Good luck! Or maybe covert a 44 Mag RH to 45LC?

Army GI
Yep the only way to shoot 45's is get the SRH 454! Unless you can find someone that wants to sell a RH in 45LC. Good luck! Or maybe covert a 44 Mag RH to 45LC?

I believe S&W made a run of Mountain Guns in 45LC.

My dad has the stainless Taurus Raging Bull in .454 Casull at 5.5" (+ brake) with Hogue rubber grips and a stainless Ruger Super Redhawk in .44 mag with a Bushnell 2-6 scope and 9.5" barrel.

The Ruger is nice to shoot, with not too much recoil. The Taurus by comparison will blister your hands in 6 shots with those grippy Hogue rubber grips. It hits real hard.

I know you said that pricing was an issue, so from your two picks, I'd say go with the .44mag. If it were my LIFE and bear was the target, I'd be packing a .50AE Desert Eagle. My buddy had one in Montana for our excursions up there, and it's quite controlable, has more shots and plenty of knockdown power...but it's likely more spendy that the pistols you mentioned.

BTW, his Ruger is for sale. If you are interested, send me a PM.