We are looking into a new .44 mag. How does the Taurus stack up strength and accuracy wise against the S&W and Ruger? Is one Taurus model stronger than another (as in the M44 and Raging Bull). Are Taurus revolvers strong enough to handle loads that say "safe only in S&W and Ruger revolver." Thanks.

First off, Ruger is the strongest of the three. No debate. I would have to say that the Raging Bull 44 mag by Taurus would be stronger than the standard Taurus Mod 44 mag. As to whether you should attempt to use some of the specialty factory loads recommended for Ruger in a Taurus, I wouldn't do it. I own an SW 629 Classic DX, a Ruger SRH 44, and the standard Taurus 44. The 629 I use mainly with light to medium level target loads and an occasional cylinder full of stout loads, like 240 grainers in the 1200fps range. The SRH is what I use for the really hard kicking silhouette type loads. The Taurus I use pretty much the same stuff I use in the Smith.

Everyone tells me that Ruger is the strongest sixgun but I have not seen any hard testing data to support the notion that Ruger is stronger than Taurus. If you put a 44 Magnum Raging Bull next to a 44 Magnum SBH, then you will see that the Bull has a lot more metal, especially in the cylinder. Unless I have all the material data to do a detail analysis or do some hard testing, I am not buying into this myth. Good luck and have fun! Cheers! Ming

Seamus, I would agree with Daniel on this one. I have owned two of the three you are talking about. The 629 and the Ruger in SBH. In my opinion for what that is worth. I vote that the Ruger is stronger hands down. As I said I have not owned the Taurus. So I can not give you any personal feedback on that pistol. I can understand Ming's comments on not having seen any documentation or testing done on the Taurus. However I also have not seen any reloading manuals that include the Taurus in the same section as the Ruger and T/C's for the hotter loads. I guess until I see that happen I will consider the Taurus to be on the same level as the S&W. A good gun but not suited for the heavy hitting loads. At least not a steady diet of them.

I understand what you are saying Ming. But there is more to a revolver's strength than the amount of steel in the cylinder. You have to take into account also the revolver's lockwork. I don't think anyone has ever blown up a Smith and Wesson by shooting any factory offered 44 magnum load. Nor do I think you would have any cataclysmic failure by firing one of the "Ruger only" Garrett loads in a Smith. You would however do a hell of a lot of damage to the Smith's internals and would most definitely encounter timing problems sooner rather than later. I cannot honestly comment on the SBH, but the SRH I own and others I have handled have all been very tight, and mine has eaten some very stout handloads. The Taurus M44 I have has always had a sloppy action. Now, to be fair, I have not had any timing or accuracy problems with the Taurus, but then again I haven't subjected it to the punishment that I have the Ruger either. The RB may be another matter altogether, I have not shot one of those. They are definitely beefier than the standard Taurus M44. I would love to test one.

Daniel,

I understand where you are coming from and your point is well taken. Have fun! Cheers! Ming

I would agree with Daniel on this one.I have a Taurus 44 Magnum Raging Bull and a Astro 44 and 44 Ruger SBH and 2 44 Ruger SRH and I do not shot the same load in the Taurus or Astro as I do in my Ruger. I had a S&W Mod 29 when they first came out we shot hot load in it for about 6 month before we had problems with it.

The first to get loose on me and also visibly hammered was the S&W then the Taurus RB. The RB now shaves copper from the XTP's at the top and locks the cylinder in one to three shots. It definetly lasted longer than the two Backpacker models of Smiths I HAD did.

The Bisley Vaquaro in 44mag I bought is holding up great so far but have yet to really punnish it long and hard with purely max loads like the others were.

My brothers SRH was reamed out to 475LB and he has literaly had to beat out the cases with a punch after insane loads with 500gr bullets he fired through it. The 400gr XTP's and 365gr hardcasts he shoots are absolutely abusive to say the least, I won't even tell you what the Oehler has recorded with the bunch. This gun is incredibly strong in the lockup area, it just has to be with what he subjects it to.

Have to agree with the consensus of this thread. My SRH has handled some super stout loads over the last 8 years that I have owned which can not be said for my Mod 29. Slim

Steamy loads are neat to shoot,and fun to chat about,,But I myself have never really found a top end load that I could shoot really well in my big bore pistols.My contender in .45 colt is a good example,loading to velocities knocking on the casull's back door,4-6" groups @50yds.Backing the velocity off to 900fps and using a cast bullet,1-2" groups,and the load drops white tails in thier tracks inside of 50yds.My revolver vote goes to ruger.

I vote to use moderate loads in the Taurus. I had a 629-3. It was the worst example of assembly I have seen in a double action. Had gaps where it should be metal to metal. Traded that turkey off fast. Shot a friend's Raging Bull but it looked no stouter than the 629. As it was a borrowed gun I didn't feel like using the Ruger hot loads in it. Owned a blued Redhawk in .44 and a Super Redhawk in .44. Both are the proverbial brick outhouse in construction. They needed trigger jobs and sights to fit my preference and nothing else. Both shot a lost count of hot loads and even more plinking loads. The SRH is still my choice in heavy loaded .44s. Pack

freedom arms are the only way to go if strenght is your goal you look a round you can find a used one for $800-900

If you are wanting a strong 44 mag I would purchase a Ruger Super Redhawk as I don't think there is a stronger 44 out there other than maybe a single shot Encore. The SRH is about as bullet proof as you can get.

Daniel, You mentioned loads in one post and I see that you had 240 grain bullets at 1200fps. Is that a light load? or a factory equal load?

I pack that identical load in my S&W mountian gun with 240 XTP bullets. I have killed every big animal I have tried to with that combination. Never a problem and no real tracking. This total is well in excess of 100 big game animals.

I have also used the Hardcast bullets up to 310 grains at 1350fps in a SRH and the Garret loads. Most game ran quite a distance with those loads. It seems to me poking a hole through the chest with the big solid bullets just lets the game take off as if it were shot with a field tip arrow. That is unless you disrupt the CNS or crush the leg bones or pelvis.

I personally would not use the big heavy solid bullets in anything under 400 pounds except for maybe wild hogs with their thick Gristle plate to get through. The 300 grain XTP really causes a lot of damage on those wild hogs.

I have also managed to just absolutley crush the leg bones of big antelope in Africa and elk in the USA with the 300 grain hardcast bullets but they always whistle right through when bone is not hit.

As you might imagine I have tinkered with countless loads in my .44 mags but as it stands now the 1200-1250fps with a 240 grain hollow point will do about all I hope for within the distances I would use it(under 65 yards). Changing this to a 240 grain hardcast will make bullet recoverey nearly impossible in broadside game shots. That also allows two bullets with identical POI to switch between, based on the game hunted.

Much of this is similiar to shooting a deer through the chest with a 300 grain soild from a 375HH magnum or a 130 grain ballistic tip from a 270. The smaller rifle and lighter bullet will drop the deer much faster every time. I only point this out to those who are loading the biggest heaviest loads into their guns for full time use and they are actually making it less effective on game under 400 pounds!

[ 10-20-2002, 18:45: Message edited by: JJHACK ]

I have no experience with the Tauras, but I do have extensive experience with the S&W 29/629, Ruger Super Blakhawk, Redhawk and Super Redhawk. In terms of strength and durability with hot loads the Rugers win hands down over the Smith. I haven't looked at any recently manufactured S&Ws, but the guns that company produced in the early to mid 1990s were of exceptional quality. They wouldn't stand up to a continued diet of heavy loads, but with moderate loads they did fine. And they were some of the finest revolvers for the price ever made--especially the DX models. But in my experience, the Smiths will usually only stand up to 3,000 or 4,000 heavy loads (300 grain bullets at 1300+ or 240 grain at 1400+). After about 3,000 rounds of this type of ammunition, they start coming unlocked under recoil, which causes the gun to skip cylinders. I have had many Super Blackhawks and one of the first Super Redhawks. My early Super Redhawk had about 8,000 to 10,000 rounds loaded up to absolute maximum before it started to have such problems. And if anything the Super Blackhawks may have required more than that. My opinion is that if you want the best in regards to durability and quality go with a Freedom Arms. Those guns are incredible. I have seen some FAs that would shoot with a scoped contender.

As far as bullet performance, I believe JJHack is correct. The hard cast shoot through smaller animals without doing much damage. I have seen several 500 pound boars ruquire 5 or 6 good hits with the hard cast bullets to get them stopped. I once saw a large boar have both shoulders broken by a 340 WFN at 1550 fps (similar load to what Seyfried used on cape buff in a 45 Colt). Without much use from its front legs, the boar was still able to muster a charge and absorb several more rounds of ammunition. The expanding bullets should work well at close range, but a low-velocity handgun bullet is trying to drop back to below the speed of sound and will quickly do so. This limits your expansion. I think JJHack's rule of 65 yards is good with these bullets. My theory is that with the hardcast you need to go with heavy 475- or 50-caliber guns and shoot them around the speed of sound. The larger bullet should make a little better wound channel. I haven't tested this theory yet, but hopefully I will soon.

I have not played with handguns since about 1996, so my information may be a little outdated. And much of it is subjective, so take it for what its worth.

The issue with Smith's 'unlocking under recoil' was taken care of years ago with an upgrade to the lockworks which addressed this. N-frame maggies with a '-4', or later, after the model number stamp have the new internals.