gutterman
Member
Ok--- I have a craving for a snubby 44 and am looking at a Kodiak backpacker. I will carry it when hiking in Texas and Colorado. Is there anyone out there that will talk me out of this model?
ruger 2 1/2" Kodiak backpacker
- Thread starter gutterman
- Start date
- Status
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
Ummmmm........ nope.
Though for an open carry gun in big critter country, I would want a longer barrel. That's why I carry a 5" 460 mag on my hip in those situations.
Though for an open carry gun in big critter country, I would want a longer barrel. That's why I carry a 5" 460 mag on my hip in those situations.
From a barrel that short 1000 fps from 240 gr bullets is optimistic. But you'll still get the same recoil and a lot more blast compared to longer barrels. Not trying to talk you out of it, just want you to understand what you are getting. I have a 3" S&W 629. I like it well enough, but it doesn't get carried a lot.
gutterman
Member
Thanks for the comments. If I do pick it up I'll probably conceal carry it as well since I have good leather for it.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
The 4" version would be better and no more difficult to carry.
Heavier bullets are going to be more effective and more efficient.
Heavier bullets are going to be more effective and more efficient.
Deaf Smith
Member
Ruger Toklat... Ruger Toklat... your eyes are getting sleepy... Ruger Toklat... sleepy... Ruger Toklat... sleepy...
Dream Toklat dreams..
Deaf
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
I'm with Deaf on this. You can toss some hot 45 Colts even if you don't feel like loading Casulls. The Toklat is s good choice.
But, the OP said he may conceal it also, so the 44 may work better for that.
Deaf Smith
Member
I've got a Toklat and, trust me, it will kill anything on this planet except maybe the largest whales.
And yes, you can shoot .45 Colts. They kick like .38 wadcutters.
Concealment? Get wood grips (I got mine from Thailand via Ebay) and a pancake holster.
And cause it has such a BIG holes in the barrel and cylinder, it's only a few ounces heavier.
Deaf
And yes, you can shoot .45 Colts. They kick like .38 wadcutters.
Concealment? Get wood grips (I got mine from Thailand via Ebay) and a pancake holster.
And cause it has such a BIG holes in the barrel and cylinder, it's only a few ounces heavier.
Deaf
My only quibble with the Kodiak Backpacker is it's not available in .45 Colt. As to lack of velocity in the short barrel, chronographed results in the Gun Blast review show that there's no cause for concern.
http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-RedhawkTALO.htm
http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-RedhawkTALO.htm
Ed Ames
Member
I wish it wasn't so honkin ugly. I might trade my Alaskan for one. Then again i've never liked the "pipe sticking out the nose" SRH look.
It's a good gun. As far as talking you out of it, no, though I'll point out it is a crowded field.
Personally, I would short list the smith 329pd. It has a 4" barrel but weighs less due to the alloy frame.
I would also look at the Smith PC 2.x" barrel 629s.
Or the S&W Backpacker...
In a perfect world where every manufacturer made top notch products I would add the Taurus 444 to that list, but...ymmv.
If you aren't committed to .44 magnum I would add the .45c/45acp Ruger Redhawk as a heavy but viable alternative. If you like clown shoes I would add the S&W Governor to the list of viable alternatives for the described use.
If you are set on Ruger, I'd look at the Alaskan. The SRH grip is a lot more comfortable than the Redhawk grip on my opinion. If you are not set on Ruger, have a look at an S&W 69. It is a pretty slim and trim gun compared to a Ruger. I've got the SW500 X-frame Hogue grip on mine, and I love it. Actually even been considering selling my Alaskan lately because of it.
Last edited:
Deaf Smith
Member
Say, isn't that Taurus 444 a Dan Wesson ripoff?
Deaf
Deaf
codefour
Member
As a owner of both the 4.2 and 2.75 inch Redhawk, the round butt 2.75 is easier to pack and carry. The SRH Alaskan is big and does not seem to carry as well. I preferred the 2.75 inch standard Redhawk. They weigh about the same. I always preferred the RH frame to the SRH anyway.
I live in Northern California. The only predators are black bears and mountain lions. Oh, and the two-legged predators. Although I have never seen an aggressive black bear here.
In Wyoming in Griz country I have carried the 4.2 but I got the 2.75 after my hunt there last year. Buffalo bore 340 grain +P are a bit much for some but shoot able in the 2.75. I should run the Buffalo bore 340 over a chrono from the snubby.
I am not a big fan of the 29/N-frame 44's.
I live in Northern California. The only predators are black bears and mountain lions. Oh, and the two-legged predators. Although I have never seen an aggressive black bear here.
In Wyoming in Griz country I have carried the 4.2 but I got the 2.75 after my hunt there last year. Buffalo bore 340 grain +P are a bit much for some but shoot able in the 2.75. I should run the Buffalo bore 340 over a chrono from the snubby.
I am not a big fan of the 29/N-frame 44's.
bannockburn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,307
I have to go along with Ed Ames; that is one cosmetically challenged revolver! It looks like a couple of big bore revolvers got together at the Ruger factory one night and this is their Red-Hawked love child who's in desperate need of a nose job.
BSA1
member
It's too big.
The cylinder is to fat.
The barrel length is to short.
.
Muzzle blast is awesome.
Velocity suffers to much from short barrel.
It is expensive.
So why do I want one also?
The cylinder is to fat.
The barrel length is to short.
.
Muzzle blast is awesome.
Velocity suffers to much from short barrel.
It is expensive.
So why do I want one also?
I think the 4.2" barrel is probably a better choice for most tasks. I have no experience with the Kodiak backpacker, but I have shot the Alaskan in .44 and .454 and didn't care for the short barrel.
I carry a 4.2" Redhawk in .45 Colt as my primary woods revolver and it's about perfect for me. I prefer shooting my 5.5" in .44 Magnum but it doesn't pack quite as well.
I can conceal the 4.2" Redhawk when necessary, but I think any Redhawk, regardless of barrel length, is sub-optimal when concealment is the primary concern. You'd' be better off with a .357 in those situations.
I carry a 4.2" Redhawk in .45 Colt as my primary woods revolver and it's about perfect for me. I prefer shooting my 5.5" in .44 Magnum but it doesn't pack quite as well.
I can conceal the 4.2" Redhawk when necessary, but I think any Redhawk, regardless of barrel length, is sub-optimal when concealment is the primary concern. You'd' be better off with a .357 in those situations.
The Kodiak, even with short barrel, packs more punch than a standard .45 Colt, with equal bullet weights.
It may lose some velocity compared to a four-incher, but it's no slouch in energy figures.
It carries more compactly & it can use a speedloader.
With a Tyler T-Grip, I like it.
Denis
It may lose some velocity compared to a four-incher, but it's no slouch in energy figures.
It carries more compactly & it can use a speedloader.
With a Tyler T-Grip, I like it.
Denis
DPris said:
I have no doubt that you are correct, but why limit yourself standard .45 Colt loads in a Redhawk if you are trying to get .44 Magnum performance?
I don't enjoy shooting, and thus don't carry, the max loads that are out there. For me, the upper end of performance in both .44 Magnum and .45 Colt +P are more than I need or want. I've found the Cor-Bon 335 grain +P (published velocity is 1050 FPS in a 7.5" barrel) load to work quite well with a .45 Colt Redhawk, and I trust it to handle anything out there for which a handgun is adequate.
Last edited:
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
Did you mean you don't enjoy shooting hot rounds, or magnums? Or you just don't enjoy shooting at all, because that would be the first time I've heard that on THR.
I know to some folks shooting is just a skill, and not a source of enjoyment. Not judging........ Just wondering.
A couple of commas would have made that sentence more clear. I will edit for the sake of clarity.
Perhaps I should have said:
I shoot as much as I can afford and accumulate revolvers at a pace faster than I can afford.
Perhaps I should have said:
I shoot as much as I can afford and accumulate revolvers at a pace faster than I can afford.
Last edited:
GBExpat
Member
Now that ... is a true snubnose.
Mr.Revolverguy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,882
I have not done scientific studies but after my limited testing I am less worried about velocity in short barrel 44mags. In my testing where I captured/recorded barrel length and cylinder gap I had a 3inch ported 44Mag turn in better velocity than a 6inch. As we know each revolver even if made on the same day will be different. I was testing with 7 revolvers and it was a little different in every scenario. What was more interesting is that the cylinder gap was larger on 6inch performance center revolver than the 3inch. I think with my testing I raised more questions than answers
With a 3inch ported barrel 18.5gr of 2400 turns in an average velocity of 1279fps. Getting 1000fps out of a 2inch would be no big deal with some factory or mildly loaded reloads. It would surely get the job done for what you are describing unless you plan on running into a T-Rex.
Here is the data if anyone cares.
http://www.dayattherange.com/?p=2925
With a 3inch ported barrel 18.5gr of 2400 turns in an average velocity of 1279fps. Getting 1000fps out of a 2inch would be no big deal with some factory or mildly loaded reloads. It would surely get the job done for what you are describing unless you plan on running into a T-Rex.
Here is the data if anyone cares.
http://www.dayattherange.com/?p=2925
Ed Ames
Member
Well said. I've handled (but not shot) one and they seem to be very nice "little full sized" revolvers.
- Status
