Is the .44 Magnum Alaskan worthy???

Status
Not open for further replies.

Greg8098

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Messages
300
Location
Bossier City, Louisiana
After my long, exhausting and futile search for the .454 Alaskan, I have been looking at the .44 Magnum version lately. I cannot determine which one I should get next. My choices are the .44 Alaskan or the new .44 4 inch Redhawk. Which would be the better choice for carry??? I don't know if the short barrel of the Alaskan would give up a whole lot ballistically or not. I think both of these revolvers are very, very nice, just can't determine which one to get. Fellow THR members please chime in.
 
for the woods or for protection against human?

I'm guessing its for the woods since that's what Alaskan is made for. I would guess that most people who carry the Alaskan in the wood carry it as a back up gun in case anything happen to their main gun. With that said the short barrel Alaskan will not get in the way as much as the longer redhawk.

1.5 inch would not be a huge difference in ballistic. I would want something longer than 4 inches if it will be the only gun for me in the woods.
 
I have done a lot of research on this topic and I have been told repeatedly that the .44 Alaskan is fine as a survival gun in the wilderness, but perhaps not the best to go seek and destroy (or is it sweep and clear?) Grizzly Bears with.

If you want to reach out and touch something, Id go with the Redhawk. If you want a carry piece for a worse-case scenario, I'd go with the Alaskan.

TRL
 
Prolly

with 300 grain Buffalo Bores or hot hand loads you can get adequate performance out of the shorter barrel.
Good luck.
 
If you are going to AK where you might need it for brown bear protection, get a 460 or a 500. For anything else, get the 4" Ruger. Longer sight radius, more controlable recoil with heavy loads, more fun to shoot at the range (read less likely to cause a flinch), and no more trouble to carry in the field unless you are extremely small and the weight of any gun is a borderline problem due to weight anyway.

Here is what I carry. The extra weight helps me shoot them a LOT better than a Mod 29 S&W with full bore loads.

dw44a.JPG


or this

dw4in445a.JPG
 
Is the 44 Magnum Alaska Worthy? YES

Read the following. Seems even the 357 Magnum worked great.

http://hunting.about.com/od/guns/l/aasthandguncara.htm

And where did the Magnum come from? Again, it was Doug Wesson who made the call. The Major was a renowned connoisseur of fine champagne, and in the vintner’s world the term “magnum” refers to a slightly larger than standard bottle. When Wesson went out to dine, he never ordered anything less than a magnum bottle, and it seemed to him a natural extension of the term to the slightly larger than standard case of the new cartridge. And so was coined one of the most enduring—and misunderstood—labels in firearms and ammunition history.

The .357 Magnum cartridge (and S&W gun) was an instant runaway success. S&W had originally conceived a very limited demand, with individual registered revolvers being individually built to individual customer’s specifications. That lasted for only about two years. Not only did every cop in the nation want one, but Major Wesson also made the new revolver a sportsman’s choice by setting out on a highly publicized hunting trip to take nearly every major species of big game in North America with an eight-inch version of the new revolver. And he did it. For the next 20 years, until Elmer Keith’s heavy-loaded .44 Specials became the second ammo recipe to be poured from a magnum bottle, the .357 was the cartridge that every serious handgun shooter had to have. Even today, nearly three generations later, the .357 Magnum remains second to none in popularity for general-purpose sport, hunting, and law enforcement/personal-defense use in a revolver.
 
I sold mine

I loved the .44! However, I would carry it on my hip as a backup while bowhunting. I have to admit after carrying a 41 oz gun that was even heavier with Corbon 305 hcfn bullets, that thing became very heavy after just a few miles up and down hill.

In addition, in a bear situation, I found the snubnose a little hard to place at 7-10 yards in rapid fire mode. If I was to do a short walk in the woods, I would probably purchase the new 4 inch redhawk. It weighs more, it is longer and I would assume it would be a more viable option. Long walks, go with a lkighter option if a revolver is all you can carry. Maybe a .41 in Alaska? I wouldn't go any lower than that.

After much practice, I am much more proficient with 180-200 grain .357 than I could ever become in a rapid fire situation with a .44. I carry that in a either my sp101 or my GP100 (The Gp is the same at 41.oz, but comes out a little lighter with 6 200's rather than 6 300's in the cylinder).

If it were me, I would get a nickel plated shotgun for carry or a 18 inch 45-70from Marlin for Alaska. I'm okay witheh the .357 here in Utah, but Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Eastern Wa, and Alaska---I'd be carrying more than a handgun.

Just my .02

Porter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top