.44 Magnum for concealed carry?

[kaia]

I called the gun store the other day and mentioned getting a .44 magnum for a concealed carry gun. The guy thought I was crazy. He said that the weapon would be too bulky and heavy to carry comfortably. Also, he said that the .44 magnum was major overkill on a human target. He said that there would be danger of too much penetration. Instead of a .44 magnum, I was thinking about getting a .357 magnum. That way, I can shoot .38 specials for target practice, and use .357 bullets for self-defense. What would you recommend for a .357 magnum? (As far as barrel length. brand, frame size)

Would you agree with that guy's advice concerning a .44 magnum as a concealed carry gun?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[adroitus]

For the most part the guy was right. Most .44 Magnum revolvers are pretty bulky and heavy. I know that Taurus and Smith & Wesson make revolvers that are bulky but not so heavy because they are made with aluminum alloy frames. You could conceivably carry one of these guns, but it would be a challenge because of the girth of the cylinder and the size of the grip.

As far as the cartridge itself goes, over-penetration would be a problem with hunting or target loads, but there are personal defense loadings for the .44 Magnum that would be acceptable. You can also shoot .44 Special loads in a Magnum that would be good for personal defense.

Overall, I agree with your gun store employee, it would be a challenge to carry a .44 Magnum for personal defense.

In a .357 Magnum you can also get alloy-framed revolvers that aren't too heavy, and the cylinder is smaller. A four inch barrel is the longest you would probably want to deal with, but a three or two inch would be better.

[dnowell]

The fact is that no huge caliber is 100% effective -- you still have to hit the guy, and you still have to hit the guy somewhere important. In most situations where a gun comes into play even something like a .32 or a 380 auto ends up being enough.

The improved ability of a 44 magnum to protect you is fairly small compared to even a 38, a 9mm, or a 45, all of which will be enormously easier to conceal. What it won't do is provide that ego boost of having a cannon under your coat -- which is very real but is entirely separate from real self defense needs.

Me - I always *want* to carry a cannon for the feel - but don't because it won't actually benefit me enough to make up for the huge hassle.

[adroitus]

I noticed your location is shown as the UK, and the Stab Proof Vest advert in your sig is consistent with that. Are you currently living in the UK?

[paul1968mcr]

I'd suggest reading Massad Ayoobs Combat Handgunnery.

Personally I'm gonna go with a 9mm because the price of the ammo at
$10-14/50 aint gonna keep me away from the range and all that very valuble practice like $35/50 for .44 mag would.

But if ya go for a .357, just stick .38+p hollowpoint semi wadcutters in it.

[ppkheat]

I have a S&W .44 mag, I haven't even considered carrying it concealed. The gun store guy is right, it is bulky and an "overkill", there are better choices out there that are more practical.

BTW some people do/have carried them, and I suppose if I didn't have any other choice I would figure out some way to carry mine concealed. Otherwise it's staying at home.

[Rugergirl]

I owned a Ruger Super Redhawk .44 Mag some years back, and while I really liked it, at 5'4" and 120 pounds it would have been very hard to conceal. The body tilt alone carrying it at the waist would have been a dead give-away.
Look into a .357 Magnum like the Ruger SP101 or even a GP100 with a 4 inch or shorter barrel. If I could easily conceal my 6" GP100 it would be my carry gun, hands down.