I have been really wanting to pick up a .44mag Raging Bull, in the 8" barrel length. However, I want to make sure the recoi won't cause me to develop a flinch. The most unpleasant gun I've ever shot was actually my KelTec PF9, even with basic ammo. It isn't terrible, but I usually can only shoot 2 or 3 mags in succession without starting to flinch (at which point I just put a few through my other guns and go back to it). It is just very snappy, like slapping a baseball bat into your palm. I have shot a G20 with 180gr handloads coming out at 1400fps, and it actually wasn't as bad as my PF9. The same guy also had reportedly hotter handloads out of some 4" S&W.41mag revolver, but I don't remember their specifics and it didn't seem any worse than the pistol (probably offset by the heavier firearm). In any case, I shot those guns better than their owner did. I have read all over that the heavier weight and ported barrel of the longer Raging Bulls really tame the recoil of even hotter .44mag loads, turning it into more of a "shove" than a "snap." But, I am just curious how the standard loads of 240gr@1400fps from a 4+lb Bull would compare to those hot 10mm and .41mag loads from those obviously smaller guns? Do you guys think I'd have a problem with these .44 loads? *edit* And I wanted to say I was just figuring the 10mm loads could make for a decent comparison because they come out with 75% the momentum (180gr vs 240gr at the same velocity), but from a pistol with half the barrel length (i.e. a stouter charge to get the bullet out that fast), without muzzle compensation, and about 55% the weight of the Bull in question. Those recoil calculators on the web say both setups would produce the same amount of recoil energy, though the G20 would have a higher recoil velocity over a shorter time which would logicaly be interpreted as having a "snappier" recoil rather than the oft-described "push" of the Bulls. Is this assessment accurate?