Back county pistol, what do you guys think?

[Argonaut]

Ummm Rugers are "crude"??

Yes........have you ever been near a Python, an old Smith or even a Trooper MKlll? Rugers are very crude. I think it helps to keep the cost down from the investment cast Parts they are made with.

 

[Pete F]

My Ruger Redhawk 7.5" is one of the best looking revolvers made. Not quite a Python, but who can afford those anymore. It also can handle any commercial .44 Mg load made (for revolvers). Smiths wilt at some of the Buffalo Bore loads. My Security Six is a smaller version, but just as nice. If you want ugly, look at some of the Smith and Wesson Performance series. The 460VXR comes to mind.

 

[Argonaut]

The only thing attractive about a Red Hawk is the part they plagiarized from Colt and Smith. Off course....it is strong but weighs 6 oz more than a M29 too. That is how junk investment cast parts are made strong. Is there anything uglier than a Super Redhawk?......and you need a dedicated gun bearer to carry it.

 

[Argonaut]

My Ruger Redhawk 7.5" is one of the best looking revolvers made. Not quite a Python, but who can afford those anymore. It also can handle any commercial .44 Mg load made (for revolvers). Smiths wilt at some of the Buffalo Bore loads. My Security Six is a smaller version, but just as nice. If you want ugly, look at some of the Smith and Wesson Performance series. The 460VXR comes to mind.

My brother, 3 of my buddies and I all have Pythons. Not that tough to afford.

 

[orygun]

Yes........have you ever been near a Python, an old Smith or even a Trooper MKlll? Rugers are very crude. I think it helps to keep the cost down from the investment cast Parts they are made with.

Yes. I've handled a decent sampling of Pythons and have owned pre WWII Colts, Pre model number Smiths and even a good old Trooper III. (The Trooper is one that I miss...)

To say Rugers are crude shows a definite bias and is not true. Ruger firearms are some of the best engineered firearms ever. Many of Bill Sr's designs are remarkable and his manufacturing methods were/are state of the art.

Rugers aren't finished as nicely as some other firearms. If you compare a new GP100 to a S&W 686 you'll notice the difference. This was one of the reasons I bought the Smith, and I'm a Ruger fan. (I may have been swayed the other direction if Ruger made a 7 shot GP100 in 357) Not to mention that even an old Smith has a very hard time comparing to a Python for finish quality.

But, there is nothing that S&W or Colt has ever offered that compares to the strength to a Ruger revolver in any given caliber. This is due, in part, the inherent strength because of the grain structure of these investment cast parts.

 

[Argonaut]

I never said that Rugers are bad......or weak, just crude, heavy and cheep. Like a Russian tank.

 

[Pete F]

Ruger does make an 8 shot Redhawk in .357. Good looking and as many rounds as a 1911. The 686 is a nice looking well made revolver.

 

[Pete F]

View attachment 395728 The only thing attractive about a Red Hawk is the part they plagiarized from Colt and Smith. Off course....it is strong but weighs 6 oz more than a M29 too. That is how junk investment cast parts are made strong. Is there anything uglier than a Super Redhawk?......and you need a dedicated gun bearer to carry it.

Need I go on, all smith and wessons. Do you think that the Super Redhawk (not my favorite, but looks good with a scope attached) is uglier than any of these. I would rather have a Taurus.

 

[KKG]

My choice of Backcountry hardware is Smith and Wessons: a 6-1/2" Pre 29(.44 Magnum) and a "6 M-35(.22 Rimfire). The .44 can do too much damage depending on what you use it on while the M-35 is just right for many tasks. The .44 rides in a Hoyt Front Break while the M-35 carries nicely in a Bianchi X-15 Shoulder Rig.

I carried the .44 for years as a LEO and find I still like it for the Warm & Fuzzy factor.

 

[Argonaut]

The gun that is most often close to me every day is my 4" 629. I find the longer barrels unwieldy in a belt holster. I did some training with the LAPD when I first got out of the service....Played a bad guy in there basic training school. I remember an old Sargent telling me they were much more afraid of a bad guy with a revolver than a semi auto. He said, a hood with a semi auto would spray the neighborhood and just as likely hit a bystander, a revolver shooter will take aim and kill you.

 

[orygun]

The gun that is most often close to me every day is my 4" 629. I find the longer barrels unwieldy in a belt holster.

I agree. I'll give up a little velocity for the "handiness" of the 4".

 

[Hamilton Felix]

But you're not at all opinionated, Argonaut, right? Actually, I have a 4" Mountain Gun .44 mag, and I'd make it about first pick for a woods gun where duty ranges from protection from bear to potting a grouse, but not exactly for the reason you do. I agree the X frames are too big, so the .500 S&W and .460 XVR hand cannons are too much to carry easily (though I still daydream about a 5" John Ross edition of the .500), and I only love autos where I am NOT planning on carrying different loads with me. A Mountain gun is a good compromise. If we leave the big brown bear out of the picture, we're back to a K frame sized .357 which is even easier to carry. Let me remind you there is one "normal sized" gun amongst the "super magnums." The Freedom Arms .454 can safely develop twice the energy of the .44 magnum, yet it is not a giant. It's a five shooter, but it's a standard full sized single action, no larger than a Vaquero or Colt SAA. So if you like single action, it's worth considering in brown bear country.

I don't turn up my nose at Ruger, their durability is legendary. But they do tend to be heavier. While I think the older K frame Smiths had the best action ever (I have a 1952 vintage pre-Model 15 and my Dad's 1952 K-38 Masterpiece), when I was thinking about "forever guns" a couple of decades back, I had to admit a stainless Security Six was my pick for a gun to use when society falls apart and there are no gunsmiths handy, and still count on passing it to my grandkids. It fits the K frame holster, has more beef in the frame, but just does not feel as fine as the S&W.

I've owned a Wildey, shot a .44 Desert Eagle, and of course, daydreamed of an Automag. I wear a 1911 far more than anything else, and a 1911 is not bad to carry. But in the woods you want to be able to change up, go from full power loads to a light load or even a shot load. Revolvers are versatile that way. I still have a 6" 10mm on my wish list, though...

 

[Certaindeaf]

View attachment 395728 The only thing attractive about a Red Hawk is the part they plagiarized from Colt and Smith. Off course....it is strong but weighs 6 oz more than a M29 too. That is how junk investment cast parts are made strong. Is there anything uglier than a Super Redhawk?......and you need a dedicated gun bearer to carry it.

What, the cylinder part with holes drilled in it? lol
I won't even consider owning a Smith .44 magnum anymore.. sheared off one too many frame studs in those hunks a crap.
Yea, that Ruger might weigh a tiny bit more but hey, it's a lifetime gun that won't break.

 

[DunRanull]

Yes........have you ever been near a Python, an old Smith or even a Trooper MKlll? Rugers are very crude. I think it helps to keep the cost down from the investment cast Parts they are made with.

I have a Python, a Smith 28, several Colt autos etc etc. Rugers are investment cast as I understand it, and Bill Ruger perfected the process. Less expensive yes. "Crude"? wahttayou smokin? LOL The perfecting of investment casting is putting the forged firearms out of the market. The use of stainless steel is rendering the old blued guns too fragile and rust-prone to carry in the woods. Just sayin.

 

[Certaindeaf]

My woods/back country gun is and always has been a forged Belgian Hi-Power that I Keith load for.. since the git go (warm+ "heavy" SWC's). I've worn out a few. I gather the Mk III's are cast and "better" but hey, I like those particular olde tyme guns the best.

 

[Hamilton Felix]

It's not construction technique that determines whether it is a good piece. Forging, investment casting, Metal Injection Molding, even stamping, can all be used to create both high quality weapons and lousy ones. That being said, I do miss the craftsmanship of the old Smiths, Classic Pythons, etc.

We live in a high tech and competitive age. We'll never see the labor intensive guns of the past. But if it's well made we'll enjoy it.

For a back country pistol, it does not have to be the ultimate in longevity, just easy to carry and reliable when needed. Carry the piece in which you have the most confidence.

 

[Porter]

For me I currently have a Glock 20/21 for the backwoods. But having said that I do need to get a big bore revolver and I don't have one.

 

[Hamilton Felix]

That is reason enough!

 

[Captain O]

You are absolutely right!