| | ![]() |
Just my two cents but both are nice guns. I personally like the .44mag to have a 4" barrel since I don't necessarily hunt with it but as a back up when near bear. I like the feel of the 629 in my hand and the heft of the Redhawk. Both guns are in my family but I recently picked up a Taurus M-44s/s which is growing to be my favorite. I know Taurus gets a lot of bad reviews but I own two (.44mag and Judge Public Defender) and both revolvers work flawlessly. I couldn't be happier with them. My father and brother who own S&W and Ruger seem to be shooting my Taurus more often. All great guns, maybe I lucked out with decent weapons. The Taurus is also ported and very heavy which I find a great combo for shooting hot handloads. Furthermore the Taurus new was only $460, over 1,000 magnum rounds through it without any issues.
The Ruger will hold up better with heavy loads.
[QUOTE=The_Outlaw;259523]This poor guy sure could have used a 44 magnum if not something bigger...Very scary stuff.
That was kinda scary. I might have nightmares about that----falallalallallalafalallafalala
"Those who would trade liberty for security, deserves neither liberty nor security."
"The original point and click interface was a Smith & Wesson".
Rugers are more rugged and I believe less expensive than S&W plus S&W jumped in bed with the antigun crowd back in the Clinton era not to mention some other shortcomings. They may have changed lately but I still prefer Ruger or another before S&W.
The Dark Side of Smith & Wesson
SMITH & WESSON BETRAYAL
"Those who would trade liberty for security, deserves neither liberty nor security."
"The original point and click interface was a Smith & Wesson".