.44 mag Alaskan=silly

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kind of funny… the person that began this post (with what I'd call an inflammatory title) has not bothered to follow/chime in on his own post.

*Has made very few posts on the Forum.
*Those he has made are pretty ridiculous. (check out his comments on his so-called reloading…etc).

Anyone else smell a troll?

Bob
 
"Do you have proof that a 10mm would be effective against polar or kodiak bear, the kinds of bears you might find in Alaska?"
http://www.specialoperations.com/Foreign/Denmark/
Scroll down to 'Sledgepatrol Sirius'

"The standard SIG210 Neuhausen sidearm was recently replaced by the 10mm Glock 20, as the stopping power of multiple 9mm rounds proved to be insufficient against a polar bear."
 
Good counter-point there, Cosmoline. Point well taken. However, as a rather weak counter-counter-point, let me say (not quite as loudly as my last point:eek: ) that, while I don't have the fortitude to send hundreds of rounds down range with either the .500 or the Alaskan, I can consistently hit my target with both to the point that I feel very comfortable with my ability, and the ability\accuracy of both guns. The .500 is not practical for me to drag around in the field, but the Alaskan obviously is much easier to carry. But that being said, I don't live in Griz country, I only have to concern myself with California black bears and those sons a bitchin' mountain lions. I use a rifle for blackies, with a .357 or .44 as back up. At close quarters (that would most likely be the scenario) during a cat attack, I would be confident with the Alaskan. Notice I didn't say comfortable :D.

You are right, though. There's no way I'm shooting anywhere near the amount of ammo through a wrist breaker that I put through any other hand gun I shoot. But I do practice to the limits I can, and am happy with the results. Again, your point is well taken.

Peace and God bless, Wolfsong.
 
Kind of funny… the person that began this post (with what I'd call an inflammatory title) has not bothered to follow/chime in on his own post.

*Has made very few posts on the Forum.
*Those he has made are pretty ridiculous. (check out his comments on his so-called reloading…etc).

Anyone else smell a troll?
Click to expand...

Well, his choice of wording is kinda inflamatory, I gotta admit. Hey, if ya don't like the gun, o.k., don't buy it. But ".44s are for kids"? Wonder if he can afford the 8 to 9 bills that the Alaskan is going for in these parts. Maybe he can, maybe not. Doesn't much matter to me, as long as he isn't a member of the local gun club I belong to. I'd hate to have him in a shooting lane next to me. Might hurt his ears.

Peace and God bless, Wolfsong.

Edited to add: Now that I've read a couple of his posts regarding reloading for and shooting his .460, I'm CERTAINLY, DEFINITELY, POSITIVELY glad that he doesn't belong to my gun club! :rolleyes: Somebody's going to get hurt, and that ain't cool...
 
Ive seen the Alaskan and to me it seems like a good idea, but a little unwieldly. Having said that i didnt get a chance to hold it.

As for the "44mags are for wimps" thing frankly in a handgun i have no use for anything over 45colt+p's and heavy 44mags. If i need more power im going to go with a 12 gauge or a a 45-70. The 500, 460 and 454 are all nice powerful rounds but all are severally outclassed compared to the aforementioned rounds as are all handgun rounds.

I dont live in alaska though either.
 
I think in those sorts of areas I'd carry a powerful handgun. It would probably be a 44Mag Smithor Ruger or a heavily loaded 45Colt in a BH. This would allow me to be armed while I made a grab for my even more powerful rifle which I would never stray far from.
 
Still, the idea of reaching into a tacklebox and pulling out a 3-inch .44 mag isn't my idea of how to use our superior brainpower.
Click to expand...

Nor mine, either. But as Phil Shoemaker (who has been in on the kill of many a girzzley and who lives in grizzley country) points out, the great advantage to having a gun is the effect it has on you. If you are armed and confident, the bear will sense that -- and it will give you the fortitude to behave confidently in the face of danger.
 
Well....

I think the handguns deserve some credit as having effective firepower. In review .500 rounds deliver more energy than any 2 3/4 12ga slug I found...not to say that I exhausted the list! Some of the most wicked 3 inch mags slugs were SLIGHTLY better...That being said I think a 660 grain hardcast slug is going going to do something that a .50 500grain may not, even at lower energy, BUT with many 500 loads close to 3000lb at close range to say that handguns are not a formidable weapon does not seem accurate.

I think I can draw and fire my 500 faster than I could get off a shot with my 870 slung over my shoulder. I like to have my hands free.
 
Hey guys,

I was looking at the guns at the local hardware store a few days ago, and I thought they had --at first glance--a really big, bad-ass revolver. It's a stainless Ruger .44 mag Alaskan gun. The frame is huge, almost like the S&W X-frame, and it's billed as 'Alaskan', with about 3" of barrel.

Why make such a pop-gun?

Like someone else here said, .44 Mags are for kids.
Click to expand...

RUGERALASKAN.jpg


A pic of my Alaskan in 454/45LC. I pack this gun as a woods gun although the grizzly "problem" here in Oregon is pretty much solved. Actually, I have shot this with 260 grain 454 ammo and the recoil is nowhere near as bad as I thought it might be. The 45LC capability tipped the scales for me. I handload this round which has IMHO the absolute best range of choice of any of the big bore rounds. I can load stuff that is for Cowboy Action which is really, really mild and I can load stuff that will outperform any 44 magnum.

Why make this "pop gun"? First, for the just plain fun of it. But, it is a very, very flexible gun - particularly with the short barrel - which lends itself to a lot of uses and does so quite well indeed.:)
 
I would rather go w/ something w/ a bit more barrel (4" or 5" would work) & a slightly more compact frame. The Alaskan just looks like it needs to be a single shot wheelgun because for me, I would either be looking around the woods to find where it flew off to or would have such a flinch a second shot would be pointless :eek: :scrutiny: :neener:
 
I was not going to chime in because I thought the thread was a set up, but! I am with Cosmoline on this one. I am by no means a bear or ballistic expert but I have fended off a bear attack. Does not matter to me if you pick a .460, .454, .50, .44 or a .357 you just better be comfortable with it to the point that it is second nature. The only way for a gun to become second nature is practice. If it hurts to shoot what is the point. Bill
 
The beat up old three screw .44 blackhawk that you've fired twenty thousand rounds out of and can hit a butterfly at fifty yards with is going to be a much better bear gun than the snubbie mega cannon you've fired a few dozen times.
Click to expand...

Now THAT makes a lot of sense, but I still do not understand why some folks assert that a .44 mag is not the right weapon in the field.

I guess I just am responding to troll bait.

I WOULD like to try shooting one of those snub-nose .44s sometime. :D
 
I was not going to chime in because I thought the thread was a set up, but! I am with Cosmoline on this one. I am by no means a bear or ballistic expert but I have fended off a bear attack. Does not matter to me if you pick a .460, .454, .50, .44 or a .357 you just better be comfortable with it to the point that it is second nature. The only way for a gun to become second nature is practice. If it hurts to shoot what is the point. Bill

Sorry for the double post!
 
I actually have to agree somewhat with the original post. I have shot the .454 & .480 Alaskans. Hot rounds in both could cause a fire problem... more so with the .454. You don't want to upset Smokie the Bear by destroying his habitat. For the ultimate in protection, I want the .480 - big, heavy, and a bit slower rounds should do nicely for woods protection. For .44 Magnum, I'll just take my standard 4" 629 - at only a half ounce more than the Alaskan, or, if you can find one, a 629MG weighs in at an ounce and a half less than the Alaskan. Sporting the X-frame .500 Magnum Hogue grips for recoil management, either would be a great trail companion.

Presently, my 'woods' protection is a 625MG in .45 Colt, loaded with 250gr GD's and 255 gr LSWC's - both at just over 900 fps. Of course, other than a few black bears in the Smokies, the only bears I am likely to see and shoot are in the zoo... and, after multiple 'hits' with my camera, we can both walk away! Still, if I ever see an affordable .480 Alaskan... yeah, I need another oddball round to load!

Stainz
 
Just a few points.

1. I do smell troll on the original post, but the post has taken a positive direction since.

2. I have collected quite a few news stories where handguns have stopped grizzly attacks, and others where they have not. For instance a full mag of 9mm was enough to turn stop sow (it must also be noted that in this instance there was a group of people present, which could have influenced the outcome of the situation), but unfortunately the same round resulted in a near fatal mauling in another instance on a lone fisherman. The big S&W X frames seem good at turning an attack at close range in the couple instances I have seen reported.

3. The 500S&W is very close ballistically to the 2 3/4" Brenekke 12ga slug as Shawn said. That is using a 8" barrel for the 500. I doubt if the 2 1/2" barrel 500 is nearly as close ballistically. On big caliber guns (44mag included), I carry a 4" or 5" ported barrel for dangerous game protection when needed. It has a much better sight radius, better recoil management for followup shots (almost always needed), and slightly better ballisitics.

4. As far as practicing with full loads, I think it would be unwise to practice with 100's of rounds of full power loads on guns at the limits of physical endurance. I know of a professional hunter in Africa that uses a 458 Lott for protection against all dangerous game on hunts with his clients. I addition to practicing with his 375 H&H and 30-06, he practices this way with the 458 Lott. He shoots about 50-60 reduced loads in the 458 before the season. Maybe 10 per shooting session. As the season nears, he shoots about 10 or 20 full power rounds over a few sessions. After that, he never shoots the 458 again except in the line of duty, which is about 20 to 30 time a season. 100's of rounds from full bore 458 Lott will cause brain trauma and detached retinas.

He has many many years of service as a professional hunter and has always been able to defend his clients with the massive caliber after the afore mentioned practice routine which he repeats each year. Practicing with lighter calibers in similar actions also helps develope good habits. Practicing with lighter loads helps develope good habits with THAT gun. Use the lighter stuff to build good habits and muscle memory ("second nature" handling habits), and fire enough full bore rounds to make sure those habits transfer without destroying the good habits.

Just a thought,

Roll Tide
 
Keep in mind, though, there's a big difference between long guns and short. For most of us, it takes less practice to be able to hit a fast moving target at 20 or 15 yards with a safari rifle than it does with revolver. Esp. a snub nose.

There was something I was reading recently along these lines I'll have to try to remember. Something about a rule for handgun hunting that you should practice with x number of shots for every foot of distance you might have to shoot your game at.

Edit--it's PACO'S RULE:

You want to become a long range rifle or handgun shooter and hunter... then do this...

One practice round for every yard you think you may shoot at game, out to the furthest you think you might attempt a shot.

If that is 150 yards, then the minimum is 150 rounds at various ranges, per practice session. Usually I take a 5 gallon white plastic type bucket out with me, and lots of paper patching material. When I am consistently hitting that bucket at all ranges out to the furthest I will attempt a shot... with that gun and load. Then I know I’m ready to hunt with it. I don’t like terms like middle magnum, or the 44 magnum’s little brother and such in describing the 41 magnum. It is it’s own magnum, and it is it’s own caliber with plenty of power. And the handgunner that gets to know his gun and load with this caliber, is well armed and ready to hunt.
Click to expand...

http://www.lasc.us/TaylorPACO41Mag.htm

What applies to being ready to hunt applies doubly so to being ready to draw and fire on a charging bruin. The point of Paco's drill is to practice for the most difficult potential shot, and then practice some more. Until you reach a level where the shot in the field will be far easier than ones you make at the range. Having someone run a bear Tueller drill (roaring optional) while you're trying to hit the target at fifty yards is a good one. If you can hit a stationary bullseye under pressure at that range, you should be OK for hitting the same size target moving much faster at closer range. I just can't see any normal mortal doing this amount of regular shooting with powerhouse casulls or .500's. There are I'm sure big guys with wrists like treetrunks who can do it. But I ain't one of them! My fingers ache just thinking about it.
 
I think that most men on the stronger side would be able to handle a lightweight 44mag like a Taurus. I haven't had the chance to shoot the Alaskan but I wonder how it would compare to the ultra-light Taurus in recoil. I have shot the Taurus and you better get a good grip but if I had a grizz coming at me I don't think holding on tight would be an issue!

I've lived there and after spending a long day slogging up hill and down hill fly fishing, through heavy brush and rushing streams, you would be glad you didn't tote the 870. It is times like this that the Alaskan could shine. I would love to have one for carry up there.
 
Sorry, I'm not trolling, just wanted to point out the Ruger Alaskan .44 Mag looks pretty silly as a bear-stopper. When the barrel of such a gun is shortened, the ballistics suffer, and the one I am talking about only has a 3" barrel or less, so I'm sure the gun isn't pushing a 240gr bullet much more than 1,000fps...which just isn't enough for an angry grizzly bear. IMHO. Of course, I have never shot a grizzly, so who am I?

Alongside the S&W 500Mag Survival gun, which looks very similar, it's just an overbuilt, over-estimated firearm that is being billed as 'Alaskan', and I think Ruger made a mistake with it because it's only .44 magnum and I think .454 Casull is the minimum caliber for the purpose. If the same gun was a Casull, it would be a marvel, but it's a .44 Mag. As such, it is underpowered for shooting a big brown bear.

You wouldn't choose a .44 mag if you were going out to hunt a big brown bear; it would be silly. You would choose a weapon that you could be confident with as a weapon capable of stopping that man-killer in his tracks, boom, dead, just like that. You don't want to take the chance that you will wound that dangerous animal and then have it come after you. Clearly, the .44 Mag is not that gun. Every established Alaskan guide and experienced Alaskan hunter with whom I have spoken or read material from has said and maintain that the big bears are heavy, dangerous animals, and the 375 H&H is seen as the minimum sensible acceptable caliber for hunting them. So why would you deliberately take a .44 magnum to protect against the big brown bears? It's stupid, and I think the Alaskan .44 is a mistake for Ruger. I think time will tell in terms of sales for this gun, and I doubt you'll see very many of them in Alaska.

But I could be wrong. I just wanted to see what kind of thoughts you folks had on the subject, and I'm not particularly interested in trolling for flames. That's a very unfortunate development for the Internet, and a sensible person tries to avoid it IMHO.

Furthermore, the number of posts I have contributed is irrelevant. I don't have a lot of time to spend doing this. I'd rather be out there in the great outdoors shooting my guns or my bow and seeing the direct results than sitting here speculating until I have callused fingretips from typing, sorry, just kidding about the callused fingertips, not trying to provoke anyone here. It's demeaning and insulting to suggest since I have relatively few posts on your forum that somehow I should be belittled or that I can be disregarded as some kind of foolish child, which I am not.

I am a grown man who happens to always push the equipment past what it's rated for. I put five-ton boulders in the back of a 3/4-ton pickup because I can. I have put 25grains of Unique in a 45Colt case, because I can. I was experimenting, that's all. Thanks to the members of this forum (knowledgeable men who have given me sound advice, which is what I was looking for, and roundly chastised me, which I wasn't really looking for) thanks to you guys, I have now finally realised maybe I need to exercise caution, for I have no desire to have my 460 Mag hammer driven through my face because I loaded my reloads too hot by far.

Most men like to engage in a little pissing contest...my gun is bigger than yours, kind of thing. Sorry I took it too far....no need to shoot a herd of screaming beercans here.
 
I think it is another case of giving folks what they want rather than what really be useful. Happens quite often with fireams.
 
Curious what your response is gonna be when you find out the Alaskan originated as a 454/480 and the 44 was a recent after thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
I want a Alaskan!
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
KINGMAX
K
P
  • Locked
Shooting Times Reviews the Ruger .454 Alaskan SRH
Replies
4
Views
2K
41mag
4
9
  • Locked
Ruger Super Redhawk Alaskan .44 magnum
Replies
6
Views
870
9mm+
9
A
  • Locked
Colt Anaconda .44 mag
Replies
12
Views
17K
Pete68
P
4
  • Locked
Why doesn't Ruger make a 44 mag with a 4" barrel?
Replies
8
Views
892
.45&TKD
4
Back
Top