That I'm not sure. If your looking get a .454 casull. It shoots .454 and .45LC. Then if you want to get crazy get the cylinder cut for moon clips and you can shoot 45 ACP
I think all are very capable especially if you reload. Be aware some rifles don't have a fast enough twist rate to stabilize the heavier for caliber bullets. I have the Henry 44mag rifle and it has a ridiculously slow 1:38 inch twist rate and will not stabilize bullets over 240gr.
I think your comment was meant for me and that is the reason why I went with ruger in the first place. While there are a couple of smiths I would like my ruger is the one on my side in the outdoors.
No it was for koolaidnd. I know in the past he said a few tigers fell apart on him. I'm not knocking Smiths by any means. They are great firearms. They are just not built for the same pressures as Ruger/Dan Wesson/TC/ and freedom arms.
I like the Redhawk always have, much prefer the S&W29/629 for handling and carrying. *For Me* and what *I* see as the use of a large calibre handgun in the field the S&W with suitable 240gn loads can easily accomplish it. If I wanted to go BIG it too would be a FA in 454...
Agree with that. The 240 grain is the bread and butter. Any firearm chambered in .44 should be able to handle that. Also agree with you on carrying. I have a Smith 66-2 4 inch I carry on occasion. Its lighter, easier to point, and does have a better trigger than most GP-100's I've shot. Generally shoot 10% under max loads and it loves it. My GP-100 laughs at those loads.
Smith used to make this gun in .357. Wish I would of picked one up. .44 would be ok. Be a good backcountry gun. https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearms/model-329pd
L Frame S&Ws are a better comparison to the GP100 than the K frame. All three are fine handguns as long as you know their limitations. I have a pair of 686s (4 and 6 inch) that I just love !