ruger Super redhawk in .454 casull v.s. Alaskan in .454 casull

Status
Not open for further replies.

rhatimi

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2008
Messages
16
Location
indiana
What are some opinions that you guys have of the SRH in .454 v.s. the Alaskan in .454. I am not looking for a particular purpose, but just wanted to know which one you guys like better. Also what do think of the Target Gray finish on the longer barreled versions.
All comments are appreciated thanks. :)
 
welcome to the forum rhatimi.

the only comment i can offer is the shorter barrel gun will definitely twist your wrist more!!!
i shoot 44s & thats enuff punishment for me.

GP100man
 
I have two super redhawks, one in 44, and 454. I have had the 44, for at least 22 years. Both are great guns. These type of guns take a bit of getting use to, when you pull the trigger. That Alaskan has to be an experience.

After looking at how I use these guns, I realized that I never use them in double action. I feel that these guns are uncontrolable in DA. For that reasason, I have stepped up to the BFRs.

Before you make a purchace, look at the sa, and da revolvers, and think about how you are going to use them.;)
 
I've had one for years. I eventually put Hogue rubber grips on it and it's much nicer to shoot. As to length, I wish Ruger would also have offered the SRH in 4-5 inch barrels. The Alaskan seems a bit short.

DSC00242.jpg
 
I've handled them in gun shops, but never shot one... my impression is that they're pretty much the same gun, but they're built for different purposes: the long barrel & scope mounts of the SRH make it into a nice hunting gun, while the snub barrel of the Alaskan makes it a good defensive sidearm for hiking in places with dangerous animals.

I've thought either could make a decent house gun if you load them up with .45 long colt. I think they even work with speedloaders.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top