Bear guns and current scarcity of Rugers

[Cosmoline]

There are a lot of Ruger Alaskans and SRH's around here, along with a wide array of .44 Magnums. They're very very common. It's much easier to get a nice .44 Mag bear revolver than it is to find reasonably priced ammo for it.

But I found my SRH .44 to be too brickish and slow. It carried heavy and drew heavy. You'd need to put some long hours into practicing before getting good with those ergonomics, particularly with the oddly short and thick barrel. A Redhawk is better IMHO.

Smith and wesson 629pd. 44 magnum, scandium frame, 25ish oz.

25 oz scandium for BEAR loads? Ouch!

The one all-important rule about handguns for bears is you MUST practice practice practice, then practice some more. You have to be a very good shot with your revolver firing full powered hardcast slugs. That means you must practice with those loads over and over again. Just throwing some light thing in the bag assuming you'll suddenly be a marksman with it when the time comes is not a plan for success. You truly would be much better off with only bear spray in that situation. Local bear encounter reports around here are full of incidents where hikers or fishermen armed with big magnums draw fast and hit nothing. Thankfully they don't usually get mauled, but if the bear had wanted to it could certainly have done so.

Personally the only handgun I carry is the Security Six loaded with 180 or 200 grainers. I've put many thousands of rounds downrange with that revolver and tens of thousands with similar Sixes. So in a pinch I have confidence I could at least hit something. Though my first choice is the .450 Marlin, assuming I can't exit stage right.

 

[USSR]

S&W N-frames are too big for my hands...

Funny, I thought the same thing. Then, I ordered a set of unfinished grips, and with judicious sanding, brought them down to a size that fits my hand perfectly.



I feel confident my S&W 25-5 with 280gr SWC's at 1000+ fps would be more than a match for any black bear I should ever come across.

Don

 

[duns]

I think the Alaskan Super Redhawk .454 Casull is pretty near optimum for its purpose. It's portable and the round is powerful enough that the energy is enough even out of a 2" barrel. There are some typical data here http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-SRHAlaskan454.htm; with suitable ammo you can get upwards of 745 ft lbf at the muzzle.

When I couldn't find one at a reasonable price, I thought about other options. I thought about the S&W 329PD and 629 but the Smiths can't take the really hot .44 mag loads and I wouldn't expect the muzzle energy from the 329PD or the 2"-4" versions of the 629 to be much more than I can get from my 1911 with a hot round. There's some good information on the effect of barrel length on muzzle velocity (hence energy) for various rounds at http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/44mag.html.

So how about a Ruger Redhawk with a 4.2" or 5.5" barrel in .44 mag? -- now we are talking serious energy levels when used with hot rounds but somehow I couldn't get enthusiastic about the power/size/weight trade off. I finally decided to buy a S&W 500 mag with 4" barrel. I felt it would not be much harder to carry than a Redhawk and if it's too much gun for me in full house loads, then there are relatively mild loads available that I suspect won't make it much more difficult to shoot than the SRH Alaskan Casull and still with similar or better power. If I'm wrong then maybe I'll have to sell it and buy something else but that's my decision for now. I have ordered it from Buds ($1030).

 

[dprice3844444]

try cdnnsports.com

 

[dprice3844444]

http://www.magnumresearch.com/news_detail.asp?story=shoottimes03.asp

magnum research bfr 45/70 can also be ordered with the 450 marlin cylinder 7 1/2 barrell,but you coulsd ask the factory to shorten it

 

[Prosser]

More practical, and pretty near what I'd carry:
http://www.magnumresearch.com/Expand.asp?ProductCode=BFR480-475

But, I'd rather be carrying one of these, as well:



600 grain Barnes copper solid, .510" caliber, at 2150 fps. BREAKS everything, and goes end to end, leaving a 2-3" wound channel.
Kicks like a mule:


When it hit the water jug, it slaughtered it, sideways, like nothing I've seen.

Awwheck:
Here's my bear revolver, among others:
.500 Linebaugh Maximum: 525 Grain bullets at 1350 fps:


It weighs 3.6 pounds. My FA 83's weigh 3.2.

 

[Rexster]

Funny, I thought the same thing. Then, I ordered a set of unfinished grips, and with judicious sanding, brought them down to a size that fits my hand perfectly.


Don

I love those Ahrends grips!

I don't want to do any judicious grinding of the frame, however, and that is what it would take. Judiciously grinding the trigger, which my one N-frame does have, can only go so far. Add a pair of even quite thin gloves to the equation, and the hand is far enough from the trigger face that I must
use what I have seen termed the "H" method* of gripping, which is fine for .22LR- level recoil, but
is otherwise merciless to the base joint of the thumb. I am still paying for what I did to my right
hand in the early-mid 1980's with a Model 629 and 657, which had the mid-width trigger. My right base thumb joint aches most of the time.

I have seen customized Ruger Redhawks, with quite a bit of the grip frame ground away. That would be a solution, but at a custom pistolsmith's hourly rate, not inexpensive. As the Original GP100 grip is so good for my hands, it is the practical solution for now.

My hands fit size L gloves, but my short, skinny fingers do not match my hand size. the perfect weapon for me, without gloves, or with very thin gloves, is the GP100, with the original factory grip. One of these grip assemblies is now mounted on my SRH Alaskan. With thicker gloves, the SP 101 becomes a better fit, or, a single action sixgun can be used to stay with a big bore.


*The H-grip is how folks with smaller hands and/or short trigger fingers grip a vertical-grip firearm, to get enough finger onto the trigger. Some weapons, notably the Glock, are very forgiving of this method of holding the weapon, due to light recoil and the recoil-mitigating effects of polymer.

 

[Mick_W]

I was rather put off the .460 and .500 with stories of crimp jump and cylinders rotating the wrong way under recoil but feel I might now have to look into them in more detail.

Is the .500 have the leaf spring like the 629? if so it could be someone messed with the adjustment on it or it just needs slight adjusting. With heavy loads in my 629 I was getting the barrel rotating the wrong way, pulled the grips off adjusted it a bit and now it doesn't do it anymore.

 

[Rexster]

Cosmoline is very right about practice! Whether the adversary is human or ursine, one must have trained enough to be one with the gun; unconsciously competent. In my case, the SRH Alaskan, with an original-style GP100 grip installed, matches the feel of the one handgun I would want in my hands if I knew a deadly fight was about to happen, and I could not lay hands on a long gun. In spite of it's short barrel, the massiveness of the Alaskan makes it balance more like a longer-barreled weapon than a snubby, at least in my hands. Therefore, rather than having to put thousands of rounds through a totally unfamiliar weapon, it is like shaking hands with an old friend, my countless of rounds through GP100 sixguns already counting toward anything I may have to do with the Alaskan.

 

[Cosmoline]

I finally decided to buy a S&W 500 mag with 4" barrel. I felt it would not be much harder to carry than a Redhawk and if it's too much gun for me in full house loads, then there are relatively mild loads available that I suspect won't make it much more difficult to shoot than the SRH Alaskan Casull and still with similar or better power. I

Ah, you may be in for a surprise. The X-Frames are gigantic and not as packable as a Redhawk at all. Recoil isn't so much the issue as the fact that you're toting a handgun that's the size of a carbine and with far worse ergonomics. But the recoil is also brutal.

Still, if you are up to carrying that much iron as a handgun and can actually practice with the thing to get good enough with it, it will do the trick. I've never had one, but I've seen a great many for sale of the "shot once or twice" variety.

 

[Lost Sheep]

(edited for brevity)
GUNS, also get you a nice proctology exam by F&G when they go over why you SHOULDN'T have shot the bear.

True. There is no more certain way to ruin a good hike or fishing trip than to shoot a bear in self-defense. Report (to Fish & Game/Division of Natural Resources or State Troopers) go through the investigation, and then you have to preserve the skull and hide, which YOU HAVE TO TURN OVER TO THE STATE.

Alaska is pretty understanding in DLP shootings, but there WILL be an investigation. And AK is not understanding of unjustified shootings.

Spray has a proven track record of a lower incidence of human injuries than firearms (that's on a per-use basis) and lesser injuries, when there are any, to boot. Spray is lighter, easier to hit with than a handgun, cheaper, too. Problem is, you can't reload for the hike back to the trailhead. And it doesn't make noise or have that viscerally satisfying recoil.

So, I carry both, and if only one, the spray.

Spray is not a reportable incident (as far as I know, but it would be a good idea to report a troublesome bear even if you didn't have to take any action at all).

(edited for brevity)Bear spray, use it and MOVE, the whole 'bears love pepper spray' IS TRUE, once it has AGED
hence the LEAVE THE AREA, on the label and instructions.

If you are hiking along and smell pepper spray, whether it is recent and strong or old and weaker. Do not hang around there. I am told (have not verified for myself) that it is an attractant for many animals and that bears are known to even roll in it. But I have not witnessed this or hear first-hand testimony of this. I would not put it past a dog, though.

Lost Sheep

 

[Lost Sheep]

Almost all of the cases of FAILS with bear spray can be racked up to two things

Spray has a lot of advantages - cheap, doesn't require a high level of marksmanship skill, you can use it freely on bears w/o legal consequences, and so on.

OTOH, have you ever tried using it in a 10 MPH breeze? The brands REI carries aren't useful past a 5 MPH breeze (unless the bear is downwind, but that's the least likely situation to surprise a bear, because the bear will have smelled you long before you get there). If your encounters are all going to be in streamside alder thickets, fine. But in, say, the Wind River Range, you can spend weeks above treeline, and almost never see a wind as low as 10 MPH.

And it bears mentioning - in much of Grizzly country, encounters are rare. Lawd knows I have spent enough time there before backpackable 44's and spray were available.

All that said, IMHO 'backpackable' means lightweight. The 329PD sort of owns that class. It's not fun to shoot, but 44 oz 454s aren't fun to carry . Garrett makes a load specifically for it. If 'packable' means horse packing or an afternoon's fishing, get an all steel something.

Then REI is carrying the wrong brands. The proper ones deliver a stream (not a fog) at well over 60 mph, reach out past 30 feet and contain 8oz of 10% oleoresin capsicum. Anything weaker or lesser, might be good for black bear, dogs, people, but I would not carry that on Kodiak.

Correction: You can't spray a bear anymore just on speculation. That qualifies as harrassing wildlife. You do have to feel more threatened than just suspicious.

Lost Sheep

 

[DammitBoy]

IIRC the SRH Alaskan in .454casull has been dropped from the catalog.

Ruger states that "the SRH Alaskan is not discontinued, but not in production at this time."

 

[bigedp51]

 

[4v50 Gary]

I fired the .454 Casull. My wrists felt limp afterward. I prefer something I can handle with confidence and will stick with the 44 Mag.

 

[pintler]

I wouldn't expect the muzzle energy from the 329PD

Garrett's load for the 329 is 310@1020. It's worth mentioning that bullet construction is important - you want penetration.

Then REI is carrying the wrong brands. The proper ones deliver a stream (not a fog) at well over 60 mph, reach out past 30 feet

Care to mention any suitable brand names? The stuff we have is 'Counter Assault'. Their web site says it sprays 30 feet. When I have tried it (in still air), you get what might be a 30 foot cloud of spray with the consistency of cigarette smoke. It moves down wind with the slightest air movement. I can't imagine it spraying upwind to any degree (but I haven't been brave enough to try spraying it upwind, for obvious reasons).

I have seen people sprays that do come out as a focused stream. Of course, that presents the problem of accuracy.

FWIW, http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/bearspraytranscript.htm says:
"Certain weather and habitat conditions may effect the use of bear pepper spray. With wind there are two concerns: speed and direction. A strong side wind will blow the mist of spray to the side. A strong head wind will blow the spray back at you. Even a mild head wind may eventually expose you to spray if you do not leave the area. Rain may dilute some of the spray on wet bear fur. A heavy rain may wash out some of the mist from the air. Extreme heat or cold may reduce effectiveness."

You can't spray a bear anymore just on speculation. That qualifies as harrassing wildlife.

You can get in trouble for spraying a bear at 30 feet? Wow. Is there a distance at which it is presumptively acceptable? 21 feet? 10 feet?

 

[Shadow 7D]

You have to look at the spray
there are two basic types, stream, which is what MOST human pepperspray is, think supersoaker.

the other is a fog or cone, which delivers a MIST, and is designed to attack the lungs and eyes.

There is varying degrees from stream to mist, that different manufactures make, the stream gives you longer range, and MORE pepperspray on the bear when you hit (IF...) the bear.
BUT you need less of the fog/mist type, and it is more effective close in on a bear. Think of the mist type as something used at 'social' range. The Idea is to deploy a cone of pain that the bear decides to leave. Not soak the poor critter till he's red.

pintler, I have seen some up here in Alaska that will reach 70-100 feet, as for harassing a bear, if the bear is 30 feet from you minding his own business, then yes, the F&G (the old guy fishing two down) will write you a ticket.

 

[duns]

I was rather put off the .460 and .500 with stories of crimp jump and cylinders rotating the wrong way under recoil but feel I might now have to look into them in more detail.

Is the .500 have the leaf spring like the 629? if so it could be someone messed with the adjustment on it or it just needs slight adjusting. With heavy loads in my 629 I was getting the barrel rotating the wrong way, pulled the grips off adjusted it a bit and now it doesn't do it anymore.

That's me that made the remark quoted by Mick_W. While I was initially put off my those stories, I ended up (as mentioned earlier) buying a S&W .500 anyway. My concern was allayed by the following further information that came to light:

Crimp creep (crimp jump) tests on the SRH Alaskan .454 Casull are reported here http://www.scopedin.com/articles/equipment-tests/454-casull-cartridge-crimp-creep/ and on the S&W 329PD .44 mag here http://www.scopedin.com/articles/equipment-tests/44-magnum-cartridge-crimp-creep/. These tests make it clear that crimp creep is to be expected with any big bore revolver even with the most reputable commercial ammo brands. The last round in the cylinder to be fired will generally show the most creep. The tests showed that creep results in a slight loss of velocity and can lock the cylinder if the bullet creeps far enough to protrude out the front of the cylinder. The risk can be mitigated by testing one's own ammo supplies by firing all but the last round and removing the last round to inspect it.

The cylinder unlocking problem (cylinder unlatches and rotates wrong way under recoil) appears to be associated with faulty grip technique. I'm expecting (hoping anyway) that my grip technique will be OK. Also, I haven't seen any recent reports of it so it's possible S&W might have made a fix to make their big guns more tolerant of poor grip technique.

 

[pintler]

there are two basic types, stream...the other is a fog or cone,
... I have seen some up here in Alaska that will reach 70-100 feet,

I'm familiar with different spray patterns, but a few minutes googling doesn't find any brands claiming more than 30 feet (and that one is the brand I have). Do you happen to remember the brands of the long range stuff?

 

[Deaf Smith]

They make specific 12 gauge slugs just for bear now days.

Brenneke makes some like K.O. and Black Magic.

We are talking about 600 grain slugs at 1500 fps (yes OUCH!) 3000+ ft/lb of energy.

And since bear defense by definition is close range, then the bear will take the full power of the slug.

So if you want a long gun, a simple 12 gauge shotgun would be a good idea. Add the pepper spray or a hogleg if you want.

Keep in mind though you my have to defend SOMEONE ELSE from a bit of a distance. Pepper spray will not do well. A handgun might also not do so hot on running shots (say at 20 yards.) But a 12 gauge shottie ought to do fine with such slugs.

Deaf

 

[RalphS]

I have a Redhawk 45lc 4 inch model. In my opinion, this is a packable gun (47 oz with heavy Pachmayr grips) when carried in a good leather holster (I have a DeSantis, but simplyrugged pancake holsters are also very good) and it shoots a Buffalo Bore 325 grain 45LC hardcast bullet at 1275 fps. That load is as much as I can handle and shoot (somewhat) accurately out of a handgun and it will kill anything in North America. That load is beyond what a S&W can handle unless you get into the X frame 460 revolvers which are gigantic.

I'd like to see Ruger offer the SRH Alaskan with a 4 inch barrel but, realistically, pushing a 325 grain bullet any faster out of a handgun isn't going to make me any safer in the mountains.

I also carry bear spray but it has limitations. I also agree that a shotgun with Brennekes is the best but we are talking about carrying handguns here, right?

 

[Norrick]

S&W 329 PD has a scandium frame and a titanium cylinder to save weight. It has a 4 inch barrel. It only weighs 25 ounces. That would be ideal for a gun that is carried alot and shot a little.

It is 44 magnum, not 454 casull but I would bet the difference in energy when compared to the Rugers 2.5 inch barrel would be negligable (it might even turn out to be more in the 4 inch 44 mag). I never actually chrono'd my Alaskan before selling, but I will tell you it was not an easy gun to shoot accurately due to short sight radius and heavy recoil.

There are a couple used 329PD's on gunbroker in the 800 dollar range.

There is also a shorter barrel version, but then you are going to be seeing a bigger muzzle energy difference when compared to the 454.

 

[deacon8]

Ok, I just need to do this--I need to "nitpick." If you are looking for a bear gun, you better start looking at some large, centerfire rifles, because no pistol is a bear gun. No pistol is going to be great for bear. Sure, it's a helluva lot better than nothing, and it's better than bear spray (I don't care what anyone says), but no pistol is going to be as good as a proper rifle for bear. If you really want a "bear gun," for big Alaskan bears, I would be thinking along the lines of a .358 Norma, .338 Win., or maybe even a .375 H&H.

Sorry, I had to throw that out there. Many people think that pistols are adequate for defense against bears, while they don't even compare to large rifles. And I don't want to hear anything about 45-70's and slugs either (other common internet choices for bear). For serious dangerous game work, nothing beats a large, centerfire rifle.

I lived Alaska for over 25 years and carried a .44 mag (Model 29 6"), or .41 mag (Model 57 6") whenever I carried a pistol. That wasn't ideal, but sometimes a pistol is all that is practical. The second best choice for me was a 870 Marine (short barrel, large capacity, stainless, you know the one), loaded with 00 Buck, but that wasn't always practical nor ideal. However, I did shoot, and kill, a fairly large bear with that gun. The bear was maybe 10 yards away and it only took one shot (I'm going to save the story for another time). I will say that I was not out hunting and it was very close to my home (we didn't live in a town, but fairly close to Chugiak). Nonetheless, when I did hunt for bear, my choice was a .358 Norma Mag and I truly feel that it is a "bear gun." Pepper spray, haha, what a joke. Let's just say there's a lot of jokes in Alaska about pepper spray for bears...

Sorry, I had to get that out of my system. Hope I didn't distract too much from the original topic...Also, I only read the first page of posts, so if I veered away too far, I appologize and please disregard this post.

 

[duns]

If you are looking for a bear gun, you better start looking at some large, centerfire rifles, because no pistol is a bear gun.

Probably I should not have mentioned "bear" in my opening post. I wasn't looking for advice on what gun for bear, or advice on guns vs pepper spray, but simply for ideas for powerful revolvers that are practical to take hiking and which are currently available on the market at reasonable price. Anyway, as mentioned earlier, when I couldn't find an Alaskan Casull at reasonable price right now, I settled on a S&W .500 Magnum with 4" barrel.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I carry a S&W 460V. 5" bbl loaded with HSM "Bear Loads" 325 grain hard cast gas checked lead flat nose bullets. Supposed to do over 2400 ft of kinetic energy. Probably around 2100 or 2200 out of my shorter bbl. I love that gun.