s&w 29 vs Ruger Redhawk Alaskan

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fat Boy

Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2007
Messages
753
Location
Kansas Plains
This really isn't intended as a stupid question-

I have read about people wanting/owning s&w model 29's with 2.5" or 3" barrels, and other "big-bore" snub-nose guns.

Is there a significant difference in accuracy capability between a S&W as described and that offered by a Ruger Alaskan?

Seems like the Alaskan would offer a stronger package, although it may be bigger overall than a Smith...

Also, and I am not thinking of routine or even normal practices; but in a TEOTWAWKI scenario- would such a short-barrel gun in either configuration be reasonably capable of taking game up to, say deer sized? Given proficiency, close range, etc....
 
First, Let's assume you mean an Alaskan chambered in .44 magnum. It's available in .480 and .454, also. Will a 3" S&W .44 magnum offer a significant accuracy advantage over a 2.5" Ruger in the same caliber? No.

Can a .44 magnum kill a deer? Yes

Is it harder to do so than with a rifle? Oh yes. Can it be done? Yes, of course.
 
I don't understand the snubbie .44 myself. The lightened 4" S&W 629 Mountain Gun makes more sense: better ballistics, better sight radius, and easier to lug around than the beefy Alaskan, since the S&W is skinnier and a tad lighter.

Apparently, though, people buy the Alaskans. They generate a lot of interest in gunshops, from what I've seen. It's smart of Ruger to make them.
 
I agree that the good comparison is between a Mnt. Gun and a SRH Alaskan. I've shot both. The Mnt. Gun has less felt weight and I suspect weighs less than the SRH. It has a longer barrel and handles more like a typical double action revolver. Recoil can get pretty intense with the bear-buster loads.

The Ruger SRH Alaskan is a tank. The shorter barrel does little to reduce weight because the entire massive stump of a base is left unaltered. It goes without saying that it can digest the most intense of .44 Mag loads without trouble as long as your cartridge crimps hold. The sight radius is very short and accuracy difficult. But you can speed fire big hardcasts and it's not going to shoot loose anytime soon. If you drop it off Bird Ridge it's just going to hurt the scree at the bottom.

Due to barrel lengths I wouldn't consider either of them ideal hunting handguns. They're for packing on the trail. And both the SRH and 29 family have long-barreled hunting versions that will work very well.

These short barrel versions are also LOUD as in REALLY LOUD when fired. I would hate to imagine shooting one in a bad situation without ear protection. A nice .22 bolt action like the CZ would be better for TEOTWAKI.
 
Ah ha! In that case I'd get a AK with a Glock or Sig as a BUG... But not to hijack the thread, I REALLY like the looks of that little ruger. I wonder if you could get crimson trace grips for it? That would help some with the short sight radius.
 
The Ruger weighs more, so it will probably beat you up less if you actually shoot it.
Click to expand...

The Ruger Alaskan weighs 2 ozs more than a 3" S&W - 41 oz. (specs from Ruger's website for the .44) vs. 39 ozs (weight of my 3" 629 pictured below). The felt recoil is going to vary more based on the grip type/material and the frame geometry - what Cosmoline was talking about above about the "stump" - technically I think it's called "polar moment of inertia" - but "stump" makes the explanation easier!. Ruger gives the impression of weighing much more because it is much bulkier. This is because it is made from cast steel of lower density than the forged steel of the S&W. The cast needs to be larger just to equal the forged in strength. I am not going to argue about which is stronger - I don't know and no one does. No one has done a head-to-head torture test with a) over-pressure rounds and b) multiple samples of each gun in order to actually give a reasonably accurate answer.

ArmedBear said:
I don't understand the snubbie .44 myself. The lightened 4" S&W 629 Mountain Gun makes more sense: better ballistics, better sight radius, and easier to lug around than the beefy Alaskan
Click to expand...

I have some other 3.5" and 4" N frames. The round-butt 3" just packs easier and sacrifices little in accuracy or ballistics to the 4". When I carry another, the square butt or longer barrel always manages to poke me somewhere - hip, shoulder, spleen, when you get to work riding or hiking. While the modern "Mountain Guns" have a round butt, most of them have round-to-square grips on them which defeat the round butt virtues. You could fix this, but then the longer barrel is going to poke my hip or waist depending upon how I carry it. The rounded/shorter nature of the 3", or the Alaskan, just flat "packs" easier on the body.

I went through this decision a few years ago and compared the 4", 3" S&Ws and the 2.5" .44 Alaskan. I paid a little more for the 3" S&W (and particularly this variant) because I liked it and the feel/handling as well as looks. A 4" Mtn. gun would have been an option, too.

A Mtn Gun, an Alaskan, or a 3" would all be good choices. Just get what fits your tastes and budget.

IMGP5381.jpg
 
Last edited:
First let me clear something up. (I see the brightness of the flames already) Ruger revolvers seem to be "built like a tank" because of the way they are made. The investment casting manufacturing process of poring the metal requires the larger size to equal the strength of forged steel used in S&W, Colt and other similar quality revolvers. I'm not bashing Ruger because I like their revolvers, I'm only stating a fact.

Secondly, if you are looking for a dooms day revolver IMO it surely shouldn't be a short barrel .44 Magnum. If you are looking to use it for hunting something with a 6" barrel (or at least a 4" barrel) will probably keep you from starving better then a 2.5" barrel revolver. (don't forget the .22LR like said above) Carry a short barrel .357 Magnum for protection and the larger gun for hunting, again, IMO.

Oro,
Very nice revolver you have there...
 
"... isn't intended as a stupid question..." No such thing except the question not asked.
"..."big-bore" snub-nose guns..." Bullet firing flame throwers, but barrel length has little to do with accuracy. Short barrels lose velocity and significantly increase the muzzle flash, blast and noise, but they're just as accurate, with good ammo, as any other revolver.
 
I'd buy the Ruger Alaskan in .454 because it also shoots .45 LC. And, you can load a .45 LC to about the same pressures as a .44 Mag (so I've been told.).

5301.jpg

However, I like the regular Redhawk with a 5.5" barrel better...

5004.jpg
 
And, you can load a .45 LC to about the same pressures as a .44 Mag (so I've been told.).
Click to expand...
Not exactly. You can load it to the same performance, but not the same pressure. The 45 Colt will duplicate the 44 mag with roughly 30% less pressure. Most people place the limit for Ruger only 45 Colt loads at about 28-30k psi.
 
Ruger dropped their .480 Ruger offerings in the SRH, long and short barrel, several years back. There was talk of a 5-shot cylinder Alaskan coming out, but that, too, evaporated. I shot a 6-shot .480 Ruger, aka '.475 Linebaugh-Lite', Alaskan along with a pair of .454 Alaskans - it was much more friendly - and a far better, IMHO, big animal defender than the .454 version. The .500 Magnum S&W 'snubbies' trump both now.

The question was .44 Magnum - I'd go with a standard production 4" 629, SKU #163603, they are nearly always in-production and widely available. The MGs are in and out - variable availability. Besides, having owned both and now having the production version, I can speak of it's plusses. It weighs 2 oz more - that's a whopping 5% - at 41.5 oz - and that's mostly the non-tapered barrel - helps keep the muzzle down. It has an orange ramp front and white outline rear sight - easier to pickup quickly than the black/black of the MGs. It has both a larger hammer and trigger, too. Either can sport the Hogue .460/.500 Magnum monogrips - which pad that backstrap - great accessory. A 629 will handle a lifetime of SAAMI-spec'd .44 Magnums. Mine - and it's 6" sibling - will really last - they see mainly my .44 Russians/Specials/wimpy Magnums.

The .44 Alaskan weighs 41 oz - a whopping .5 oz less! I'd go with a 4" - then you are 'legal' to hunt with it in many states. Me, in a 'fecal matter impacting the air movement device' scenario, I think I'd want something fed with moonclips - and lots of full moonclips. Heck, maybe even a 4" 617 (.22) and a couple of bricks... you'd need a couple of ammo bearers to follow you with your ammo to have that ammo count in a cf caliber. You may as well have something crew-served...

Stainz
 
Thanks for all the good comments!

As far as muzzle blast, noise, etc...I understand the concept, having shot a few snub-nose revolvers. Nothing in caliber approaching .44 mag; I can easily understand the increase in noise, blast level, etc over a j-frame S&W in .38 spec.

So, another question; again, I am probably trying for the impossible but I am angling towards a "one gun for everything" scenario, including potentially concealed carry, home defense, hunting, etc...wouldn't the muzzle blast of ANY short barrel handgun be significant inside a residence or other building? Especially at night---- What improvement would a longer barrel make in that department? Maybe I am still looking at a multi-gun requirement?
 
wouldn't the muzzle blast of ANY short barrel handgun be significant inside a residence or other building? Especially at night---- What improvement would a longer barrel make in that department? Maybe I am still looking at a multi-gun requirement?
Click to expand...
Many, myself included who own a .357 Magnum load it with .38 Special +P ammo for Home Defense duty. The noise and flash are considerably less with the .38 round that with the Magnum round especially in a enclosed dark room. If you can buy only 1 gun you might want to do the same and load your .44 Magnum with .44 Special ammo for HD.
 
If you plan to shoot it a lot, the grip design of the Ruger will probably be easier on your hand.
 
I like the Smith better than any other DA wheelguns, so I'd be buying a nice, pre-lock Smith.

Then again, I'd prefer just to stick to the 6" M29-5 that rides on my hip anyway in the field . . . loaded with its usual 300 grain, hardcast flat nose lead bullet.

Yep . . . I'd love to find a companion to my 6" M29-5 with an unfluted cylinder, but in a 3" version! That would part me from my money faster than the charge of a pizzzed off mama Grizzly bear!

T.
 
If you plan to shoot it a lot, the grip design of the Ruger will probably be [strike]easier[/strike] pretty much the same on your hand.
Click to expand...

Since 1994, the S&Ws have shipped with the same rubber monogrip as comes on the Alaskan. The Ruger's would have a teensy bit more torque to it because of the higher bore axis despite 2oz of more weight. All in all, it's a wash in that regard. You can buy a wide variety of grips for either model to suit your tastes.
 
The Alaskan's have a stud gripframe - anything, OEM or aftermarket, you put on that will pad the 'backstrap' of the Alaskan, making recoil less severe. 29/629s are still delivered with Hogue open back rubber monogrips. Believe me, that open backstrap's steel gripframe is much more memorable slapping your palm bare than padded. Now, the Hogue X-frame grips which S&W supplies on their .460 & .500 Magnum, which universally fit K, L, & N frames, too, really makes a difference in recoil in my 4" & 6" 629s. The typical new 29/629 rubber monogrip has one main thing in common with the Alaskan... they both are made of a kind of rubber!

Stainz
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
.44mag 4" S&W 329 OR .454/.480 2.5" Ruger Alaskan for trail gun
Replies
16
Views
2K
Stainz
S
V
  • Locked
Ruger Redhawk vs. SRH Question
Replies
7
Views
881
vynx
V
P
  • Locked
Shooting Times Reviews the Ruger .454 Alaskan SRH
Replies
4
Views
2K
41mag
4
9
  • Locked
Ruger Super Redhawk Alaskan .44 magnum
Replies
6
Views
875
9mm+
9
M
  • Locked
  • Poll
BFR 45-70 or Super Redhawk Alaskan in 4-80 Ruger ???
Replies
8
Views
1K
grizz
G
Back
Top