TexasCHLforum.com

Geister wrote: Does anyone on here carry a 4" revolver IWB? I know that Tucker makes a holster for them, does anyone else?

Occasionally, but not often. The only reason I don't is because I don't have a good quality IWB rig at this time. When looking for an IWB rig for a revolver, look for one that has belt loops in front of the holster and in back of the holster, you don't want the style with the metal belt clip right there with the cylinder...that's the kind I have and can tell you it doesn't work out well.


I recommend you stay away from one like this, it's the one I have that doesn't see any service...

http://www.donhume.com/Products/Product ... rtNumber=1

Here's the one I'm going to purchase for 4" IWB carry soon...

http://www.concealco.com/front_beltloop_info.html

...the AKL Concealco pictured is made for revolvers, but the revolver page does not show the front belt loop, however it is included on all AKJ IWB revolver holsters.

JLaw

I do sometimes.

I have a Lew Horton S&W 629.

I chose Grizzly Cartridge for the load, a .44 Spl 260 WNFP moving at 950fps. Sort of the old .45 Colt load on steroids.

You frequently hear that .44 mag use can be portrayed badly by a prosecutor. But my loads are just the lowly .44 Spl.

If the shooting is justified to begin with, I don't think it would really matter what the prosecutor says.

Now see, that's a good load, Mike; it's about 520 ft/lbs of muzzle energy. For target practice and CCW carry, I would load a light .44 Magnum load around that and then for hunting I could always use some hotter loads.

The more and more I think about it the more and more I like the idea. I really don't want it ported but that appears to be all that Taurus has and Taurus is what I want. I'm sure eventually I can get a P-11 as a backup and use it in situations that call for it.

JLaw, thanks. You think it would be better to get an IWB holster with the straps to the side of the holster? It would seem like that would be thinner.

Geister wrote:If the shooting is justified to begin with, I don't think it would really matter what the prosecutor says.

Now see, that's a good load, Mike; it's about 520 ft/lbs of muzzle energy. For target practice and CCW carry, I would load a light .44 Magnum load around that and then for hunting I could always use some hotter loads.

The more and more I think about it the more and more I like the idea. I really don't want it ported but that appears to be all that Taurus has and Taurus is what I want. I'm sure eventually I can get a P-11 as a backup and use it in situations that call for it.

JLaw, thanks. You think it would be better to get an IWB holster with the straps to the side of the holster? It would seem like that would be thinner.

Do you intend on carrying solid slugs instead of JHPs? If so why would this be a good idea?

Geister wrote:If the shooting is justified to begin with, I don't think it would really matter what the prosecutor says.

.

Actually a prosecutor can assert that you were "looking for trouble" and were being a "Dirty Harry" by carrying a .44 magnum, but a god defense attorney could handle that.

Just have an articuable reason for carrying that caliber and you should be fine.

My one concern here, you are talking about reloading. Reloads are great for the range or hunting but not for carry. I dont know much about a .44 mag, but can you get light loads that are not reloads?

I have a question for you, Geister.
Why would you want a different load for hunting, than you would for defensive purposes. I would think that the goal is similar in those two instances.
just curious.
Other than that, I think your reasoning for using a .44 Mag is great, more power to ya (pun intended).

txinvestigator wrote: Actually a prosecutor can assert that you were "looking for trouble" and were being a "Dirty Harry" by carrying a .44 magnum, but a god defense attorney could handle that.

Just have an articuable reason for carrying that caliber and you should be fine.

Is this just speculation or do you have any particular cases in the state of Texas to cite about this?

If I am, by the state law, justified to shoot someone in defense of my own life, I really doubt that there's any difference as to what round is used as far as the law is concerned. I can just as easily kill someone with a .45 ACP in the same situation. Hell, at a reduced load, a .44 Magnum is more or less in the ballpark with the .45 ACP.

When it comes to the law, the only thing I can do is read the law and make sure I'm within the law and not in any grey area. There is no way for me to know how any prosecutor would assert. Since I haven't read anything in the law books that specifically state the .44 Magnum is a no-no, I don't see any reason not to.

But anyway, Liberty, I plan on using factory JHP loads for carry, and lead loads for plinking. I'm still looking around for some reduced factory .44 Magnum loads for carry. In the meantime I might have to use .44 Special.

casselthief, when hunting I'm probably going to be taking shots anywhere from 10 yards to 50 yards, so I can use a little more power in my loads. In a self-defense situation, under 21 feet, there's no need for that much power.

Ruger has come out with a New RedHawk with a 4" BBL for carrying I believe. I've got the 5.5" BBL on mine and it is a little large to carry concealed. I've also got a Dan Wesson and a Colt Trooper in 357 with 4" BBL and they both carry very well in my DiSantis holster. The new Ruger might be something for you to look into.

Quote/Question: "Why would you want a different load for hunting, than you would for defensive purposes."

Most handgun hunters go with heavier bullets for very deep penetration capability - all the way through even ("two holes leave a better blood trail than one").

Also, Greybeard, when I'm deer hunting I won't worry up follow-up shots as much as I would in a defense situation. Thus the rounds for the latter need not be so hot.

That 4" Redhawk must be pretty new, slow944, because I can't find much information on it. Which DiSantis holster do you use? Is it pretty comfortable? My Dan Wesson is 6" tall.

Do you think a full six-shot .44 cylinder would be too wide for CCW?

Geister wrote:Do you think a full six-shot .44 cylinder would be too wide for CCW?

It's pretty fat, for sure. But a cylinder bulge takes up fewer cubic inches that a fat & flat Glock of similar caliber.

Kevin

Very good point, KBCraig. I never thought of that. On my Dan Wesson .357, besides the cylinder, the widest part is the barrel, which is 3/4" wide. The frame behind the cylinder is around 0.625" wide.

"Porting" only works to noticeably reduce recoil if a) the powder charge is relatively large, which generally results in b) the pressure at the ports is still substantial.

You'll get a little reduction in recoil even with light loads, but most people won't even notice it.

From a purely ballistic standpoint, I can't fault a somewhat-reduced .44 Magnum load for defense - something along the lines of a .44 Special "+P" or "+P+" if there were such a thing. The only thing against carrying a .44 mag you can shoot well would be weight and bulk.

Doesn't S&W make an L-frame, 5-shot .44 Special? This should be a very nice gun . . . but knowing S&W, they probably ruined it with a floating firing pin, MIM parts, and The Lock.

HankB wrote:Doesn't S&W make an L-frame, 5-shot .44 Special? This should be a very nice gun . . . but knowing S&W, they probably ruined it with a floating firing pin, MIM parts, and The Lock.

I found a 296Ti, alloy frame with titanium cylinder, beginning in 1999. I don't see it on the S&W site. Weight is given as 18.9oz and it is apparently limited to 200gr or less bullets. It is a five shot, so cylinder would be a little smaller than an N frame..