.44mag 4" S&W 329 OR .454/.480 2.5" Ruger Alaskan for trail gun

[Jhaislet]

.44 Magnum 4" S&W 329 (27oz)
.454 Casull 2.5" Ruger Alaskan (41oz)
.480 Ruger 2.5" Ruger Alaskan (41oz)

I had all but decided to get the S&W 329 for some backpacking in Montana/Wyoming and later Alaska, but now I'm wondering if an extra 14oz would be worth moving up to a bigger & faster caliber, but with a shorter barrel.

Due to the 2.5" barrels on both Ruger Alaskan models, would I really be getting a lot more power out of these rounds when compared to a decent .44mag hardcast out of a 4" barrel?
Would the difference be worth it or does the short 2.5" barrel basically make it a wash when compared to a longer barreled .44Mag?

I assume recoil will probably be rather similar between all three given the Ruger's increased weight.

 

[umc180gr]

329

I'll vote for the 329, I love mine. The weight is so light you will thank yourself and be more likely to always take it with you. The 329 is great with .44 mags but even better with 44 specials. I still have the wood grips on mine just because I like the look. Its in my bag today for opening day of deer season, just in case.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I think the 329 is good enough for a trail gun but if you are considering a Ruger 454 or 480 you might want to take a look at S&W's 460ES. It's barrel is 2.75" and will not only foire the intended .460 S&W Mag rounds but will also fire .454 Casull and .45 Colt rounds too. Proble is, even that short barrel ES Model weighs 54.8 oz.

 

[Stainz]

If you are buying used, consider the 4" 629 Mountain Gun - at 39 oz. It is all SS - much easier to clean than the Ti cylinder - and the mass helps with recoil. While wood looks great, the Hogue .500 Magnum backstrap-enclosing grips are great for taming recoil - but expect a muzzle rise with hot loads. If you are buying new, just get a 42 oz standard 4" 629 - SKU 163603 - you can spend the money saved over that 329PD purchase on a decent holster, ammo, and those grips. A 300gr LSWC at 900+ fps should offer decent protection for most woods situations.

Stainz

 

[double0757]

decisions, decisions!!!

Hey Jhailet: All things being equal the 454 casull have as many or more option than the 44 mag (as far as bullet weight and velocity). I don't know about the .480 caliber.

To help you brainstorm;
First identify the primary target. Let say Brown bears.

Second, identify an effective revolver round (for portability and accuracy). Shot placement being equal, the .460 in 7" is a very effective round. The
.454 casull in 7" is a versatile and effective round, the .500 in 8" is another very very effective round. The 44 mag would be my last choice just because the bullet have to be pushed to the max of the pistol max pressure to be effective (in my opinion).

Third weight convenience versus risk. If I was going to do what grizzly-man did I would carry a rifle like 45-70. If I'm going to be avoiding bears instead of looking for them then a revolver round mention above would do for me. I'm no expert in ballistic but I know that shot placement is more important than the actual caliber.

I chose the 44mag 329 for me. I have 44 mag 629 in 6 1/2" and had it long enough to know that 6" or more is a great length for hunting but when you're fishing & hiking the 6" gets in the way of other things. For any long distance hiker weight is very important, that is why I chose the scandium model. The length of 4" give a good sight radius for quick aim under duress and fair performance over a shorter barrel. Also to keep things simple, one caliber on all my large frame revolvers (44mag). And the confidence that with the right cartridge ( like the Garrett 310gr superhardcast) I can do the job.

To answer your question I don't know the performance on those cartridges and barrel length. I know that when you finish with your research you'll come up with the best choice for you. After you do, practice until confident. Good luck; Double O

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Slightly OT....

Am I wrong in believing my 4" .357 Mag will do a good job of protection while fishing in the back country loaded with 158 gr or even 180 gr rounds??? Both Remington and Winchester put out a 180 gr .357 hunting round I was going to buy for next season's fishing trips.

 

[Glamdring]

Phil Shoemaker stopped a bear with a 4" 357 & 180 FMJ bullets. He lives in Alaska and both he and his kids work as guides. He gave his daughter the 357 when she turned 16 and went to a Mt Lt 44 with 250 grain hardcast bullets IIRC.

I know I saw a study somewhere by an Alaskan LE org (State Troopers?) were they tested their service rounds on bear skulls and concluded their standard loads would work fine. You just had to shoot lower down on the skull than most people tend to aim on bears, most people tended to shoot to high and because of the angle and shape of the skull the bullets would skid off or not get inside skull. They suggested aiming for the nose.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Thank you!!

 

[Jhaislet]

I've done some more research on the .454 Casull & .480 Ruger and have tentatively ruled out the .454 Casull due to it's sharp recoil.
The .480 Ruger's recoil seems (from what I've read) to be slightly less sharp, and more of a really strong push. In addition, with a 2.5" barrel, the .480 Ruger seems to perform a little better than the .454 Casull. (Eg heavier & slower rounds work better in shorter barrels than lighter & faster rounds).

I guess all I need to do now is decide between the 41oz .480 Ruger Alaskan and the 27oz .44Mag S&W 329.

BTW, I've already got two lightweight backpacking sidearms for jaunts in "non-bear" country:

24oz 3" Springfield Micro-Compact 1911 in .45ACP
12oz 1.75" S&W 340 in .357Mag (it can be a slight handful with .357 loads, but is manageable!)

 

[GunNut]

The lighter the gun the more likely you are to have it with you.

Go for the 329, practice with .44 special powered loads and then load it up with medium to stomped(depending on what you can handle)240gr SWC loads and you will be fine.

Steve

 

[CSA 357]

I would go with the 329, should be a great gun to carry, i would practice with full power 240 jsp magnums, why practice with specials them use magnums? you will need to feal sure you can place your shots, and you should also know where to place them if the need should arise, i think if i need any thing bigger than 44 mag it will have a stock on it! im glad we dont have them big bears here! csa

 

[Ranger 40]

In most cases where there is a Bear man conflict its very close. The bear is a better faster killing machine he will be on top of you before you know it. After he knocks you rolling a couple of times, he may close for the kill. If you can think to unsnap your holster, many times you cannot. The pistol is most often pressed agansit the critter and fired, no target shooting here. Thats why the short barreled big bores are used. More times than not after a few days hiking at high altitude people will put the big guns away. You need a gun that is always at hand. You are not hunting bear with a handgun, you are going to use it with that little bit of life you have left. Get a good tight form fit holster, straps and snaps can be that lost second you need.

 

[big44]

I would consider the new Ruger Alaskan in 44 Magnum. I know it wasn't one of your choices but it is a great gun. I've got one and love it. It carries well and is rugged as a tank. The gun has very good balance so even the hottest 44 loads are managable.

The S&W 329 seems like a good gun but I don't think I would like shooting magnum loads out of a lightweight. However, pick one that you will always have with you.

 

[Ranger 40]

Big .44 I think the Ruger would be fine. I could not name all the fine handguns that would work for a trail gun. For years one of many I used was a 3 screw Ruger BH 45/8s with bone cracking handloads in .45 Colt Cal. These old Rugers
with an action job are rugged, they make a good trail gun. I have seen many
guns made by cutting off Ruger .44 BH to 5" . My most favored handgun over the years, has been a S&W 29-2 4". It was with me every day this fall in the High Uintas hunting moose, as it has in many seasons.
Another thing to consider is Cal. many western states have laws on which Cals. are legal for shooting big game. You must follow these laws when shooting big game, regardless of why you shot.

 

[Piedmont Plinker]

Depends where the trail is. The .44 should be fine for most things on the American continent, e.g. black bear, cougar, wolf. If wou plan on running into stuff like grizzlies or (unlikely) polar bears, then the .454 would be a good choice. The Redhawk Alaskan was made as a bear defense gun. I probably would'nt feel unergunned with a 329, some bear spray, and a large hunting knife though.
Considered something from Taurus?
Remeber, for nasty critters a rifle or a shotgun is always better.

 

[Ben Shepherd]

One thing not yet mentioned:

The ruger is much easier to field strip should an unfortunate incident befall you.

 

[Stainz]

The Ruger Alaskan's, thankfully, are Super Redhawks, rather than Redhawks. That is important when you consider the smoother and less finicky lockwork of the GP-100/SRH vs the Redhawk/Security Six's 'single spring' design. Believe me, my .454 SRH had a smooth - and 100% reliable - trigger, neither are true for my 5.5" SS .45 Redhawk. I would still opt for a .480 Ruger Alaskan, if I wanted the best of that series for wood's protection. It would be the lightest, unloaded, of the three Alaskans at 41 oz, with the .44 Magnum probably around 43+ oz.

I agree that standard SAAMI spec'd .44 Magnums would probably be all one would need for 99.9% of beastie encounters - and that training and practice are more important than ultimate power. Reaction time is critical in many such encounters. The availability of the .480/.454 Alaskans now is poor - the ammo is also a bit hard to find. The .44 Magnum could be fed by a trip to Wally World or Academy Sports/Outdoors. But - it is also as dear in cost as it's siblings - and Ruger's QC hasn't been inspiring. The dependability of a 629 is as legendary as it's trigger - pretty much trumping the ease of 'field stripping' a SRH. I would opt for either a standard 4" 629 - at 41 oz - or it's trimmed 4" sibling, the 629 Mountain Gun, at 39.5 oz. Both would be right at 2" longer overall than the Alaskan sporting the reccomended Hogue made-for-S&W backstrap-enclosing .500 Magnum grips - great recoil absorbers. You could even choose one of the 3" 629's... but I just don't care for Ti in my revolvers, due to it's finicky operation/cleaning requirements, so the 329 would not be a consideration for me. More of my ramblings...

Stainz