.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.
.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.