need help deciding....


PDA






capitolpeak
September 4, 2007, 01:30 AM
I want an alaskan but cant decide between the .480 ruger or the .454 cassull.

not to sound stuck up but I know everything(pros and cons) about both thru massive research. .454= more velocity,energy and felt recoil / .480= heavier and larger projectile which thru my research delivers comparable penetration due to greater inertia, and with less recoil means faster follow up shots.

I'm sure there are some that will argue this but its common sense really. It takes much less velocity to push a heavy object thru something than a light one and theres nearly 50 grains difference between the two. The 480 can effectively use up to around a 420 gr. hardcast while the 454 is limited to about a 365 gr. plus the .480 will leave a bigger hole (not much but everything counts).

The application is for woods protection. Yes I know....its been covered over and over and over but its always either 44 mag or the cassul. Ppl sign off on the 480 because they read the stats and on paper it doesnt match the cassul.

But one thing to remember is that as mr. Linebaugh so nicely stated "velocity is a constantly changing variable, while bullet weight remains the same". Therefore....in the real world where penetration in bone and thick tissue is a must, the order of importance is bullet weight first and velocity second.

Dont get me wrong.. the cassul is incredible and as a perk can shoot .45 colts. I love the versatility of it and the cassul ammo is considerably cheaper. This is my delema....

454 pros: max power
2 cartridge versatility

454 cons: full house loads punishing


480 pros: larger bullet
less recoil
still very powerful

480 cons: only one cartidge


neither of these cons are really applicable but i had to find something. :banghead:

If you enjoyed reading about "need help deciding...." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
PotatoJudge
September 4, 2007, 01:43 AM
Do you reload?

Jim March
September 4, 2007, 02:06 AM
Ruger no longer sells 480 guns.

timothy75
September 4, 2007, 03:00 AM
Dont compare the calibers using full size barrel data. From what I've read the 480 slows way down in that barrel to velocities that would be best served with a hardcast bullet. The casuall however can still achieve velocities that would insure expansion making off the shelf ammo slection a viable option. I've shot more 480ruger than most and I can tell you you'll need to start reloading if you choose that caliber. Components are a hassel to find and expensive when you do. And ignore the saying that it has managable recoil, it kicks like a damn bull in my 7.5. Good luck

Jim March
September 4, 2007, 03:16 AM
The 454 guns can also eat 45LC and 45LC+P ammo.

campbell
September 4, 2007, 03:20 AM
the cassul is incredible and as a perk can shoot .45 colts. I love the versatility of it

Versatility, and cost. For example, check out Starline's prices (http://www.starlinebrass.com/pricelist.html). .480 brass is literally over twice the cost of .45 Colt. I've got a 7.5'' Super Red, and I've never put a .454 throught it. All .45 Colt handloads. Because frankly, why bother? A hardcast Keith or WFN .45 in the 300-360 grain range moving at 1200 fps will take anything in North America. Even if you don't reload, cowboy target loads in .45 Colt are easy to come by, and for woods protection you can order something from Grizzly, Doubletap, or BuffaloBore.

ArchAngelCD
September 4, 2007, 04:07 AM
Are you buying a used .480 Ruger or did you find a show with a left over because like Jim March said, Ruger no longer sells revolvers chambered in .480.

capitolpeak
September 4, 2007, 07:46 PM
how can they not sell it anymore? they helped develop it with hornady! Its called a 480 "RUGER" for goodness sake! Ah this is terrible news:cuss::banghead:

two reasons this is bad: 1- now i really want one and 2- what am i to do until i can afford it with out any question as to which one? lol

the velocity does suffer but a 410gr hc in 480 from the alaskan was still at 1160fps so no biggy. thanx guys ......:)

MCgunner
September 4, 2007, 07:52 PM
The 454 is established, the 480 fast disappearing. No contest. Besides, the 454 can shoot 45 colt.

Snapping Twig
September 4, 2007, 08:15 PM
Grab a Casull. Down the road, get a Linebaugh converted Ruger - they're sweet.

ArchAngelCD
September 5, 2007, 02:17 AM
capitolpeak,
If the .454 Casull is "too small" for you and you really want a round that is very heavy like the .480 Ruger why not look at the 2 3/4" S&W .460 XVR. You can fire a projectile as large as you can with a .480 but at a higher velocity. The added bonus, with the S&W 460 you can not only shoot the .460 S&W Magnum but the .454 Casull and .45 Colt too. That might be a solution to your problem.

22-rimfire
September 5, 2007, 09:20 AM
The 480 Alaskan is very hard to find. This revolver was first introduced in this caliber and then the 454 Casul offering followed. I like the 480 Ruger. I read that it has managable recoil when it was first introduced and have in fact printed a number of reference articles on the subject. Well, I believe the recoil is substantial and if the 454 is even more, then I want no part of the 454 in a Ruger SRH or Ruger "anything". I don't want to shoot 45LC in a 454. I'll buy a 45 revolver for that.

My deer hunting revolver is a 9.5" SRH and I can only shoot about 20 rounds, 10-12 is more comfortable, before I can't shoot any more and hit anything. Mine is scoped. Ruger apparantly dropped manufacture of the 480 revolvers much to my dismay. My hope is that they bring it back. Clearly folks looking for a revolver with this kind of power lean toward the 454, but I have no idea why. (Guess they have visions of 200 yd shots with their revolver on some beastie.) You can still find the 7.5" and 9.5" SRH in 480. But the guns may be a bit on the cumbersome side for a backup. A short barreled Freedom Arms revolver would be more appropriate at this point.

480 ammo runs around $1.00 per round. I believe it will be going up in price and I have been buying a few boxes most every time I see it at $20 or less per box at shops. Hunting... took me one shot. Even one box of ammo lasts a while but of course you do have to practice a little to maintain some basic proficiency or a lot to be very good.

Some of the "Big bore experts" say that Ruger screwed up again with the cartridge just like Smith screwed up with the 41 magnum. Both should have been chambered in a 5-shot normal (but beefed up) single action and we probably would not be talking about Ruger stopping production on the guns.

My solution to this problem is to buy a 41 magnum. Plenty of medicine for most tasks and probably go with the Smith 357PD if it truly is a backup gun. My choice would be the Model 57 Mountain Gun if you can find one or plain 4" Model 57. Get some 250 gr solids and you have all you need. The 357PD revolver will NOT be fun to shoot.

campbell
September 5, 2007, 11:33 AM
Clearly folks looking for a revolver with this kind of power lean toward the 454, but I have no idea why. (Guess they have visions of 200 yd shots with their revolver on some beastie.)

Start handloading, and it'll become clear pretty quick. Price and availability of components is a big deal.

It's not that Ruger screwed up so much as there's not the demand for that cartridge that Ruger is looking for.

then I want no part of the 454 in a Ruger SRH or Ruger "anything". I don't want to shoot 45LC in a 454. I'll buy a 45 revolver for that.

And how many production DA .45 Colt revolvers will take the the 30,000 CUP loads? If you want six rounds in .45 that will take those loads, the Ruger is it. The Taurus and Smith's that'll take those loads are 5 shooters. The Taurus has that god awful factory porting, and the X frames are about as packable as a boat anchor.

BlindJustice
September 5, 2007, 02:55 PM
Just to ask an uninformed question....

Is the ALaskan a Ruger Model? If so, what
is it? Bolt? Single No. 1 variant ? or ?

Jim March
September 5, 2007, 02:59 PM
BJ: I kid you not, we're talking about a SNUB NOSE REVOLVER!

:)

http://images.google.com/images?q=Ruger+Alaskan&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi

It's a factory chop-job on a SuperRedHawk.

BlindJustice
September 5, 2007, 04:07 PM
Thanks, forgot which subj. area I was in.... fwiw it seems
absurd to name a snubbie of any make or kind
as an Alaskan <shrug>

Elm Creek Smith
September 5, 2007, 06:28 PM
The problem with the .41 Magnum is that no one ever loaded a .41 Special or .41 Special +P and the full-house magnum loads were almost as intense as the .44 Magnum. A 210 grain .41 LSWHP at 900-950 fps would have been a much better choice than what they loaded the cartridge with.

ECS

campbell
September 5, 2007, 07:33 PM
The problem with the .41 Magnum is that no one ever loaded a .41 Special or .41 Special +P and the full-house magnum loads were almost as intense as the .44 Magnum. A 210 grain .41 LSWHP at 900-950 fps would have been a much better choice than what they loaded the cartridge with.


Colt developed a .41 Special in the 1930's with ballistics just as you describe, but never mass produced it. Taffin's article on the .41 Special (http://www.sixguns.com/tests/tt41spec.htm).

ArchAngelCD
September 6, 2007, 01:20 AM
fwiw it seems absurd to name a snubbie of any make or kind as an Alaskan <shrug>
They are using the name Alaskan because they are marketing it as a SD revolver which can protect you against almost any animal, including the big bears you have in Alaska.

I wouldn't trust my life to a 5 shot 2.5" .454 Casull. I would want a shotgun loaded with Slugs or a lever gun chambered in .450 Marlin.

Jim March
September 6, 2007, 01:39 AM
It's a six-shot :). But yeah, it's still a bit silly...

ArchAngelCD
September 6, 2007, 01:44 AM
It's a six-shot . But yeah, it's still a bit silly...
I thought they were 5 shot revolvers but you're right, they are 6. I guess I was thinking about the S&W 460 and 500 revolvers.

campbell
September 6, 2007, 03:09 AM
A very old debate, but IME flyfishing and camping in grizz country it's not hard to see how one could get surprised in heavy cover and knocked down before you can get a shot off, or in a moment when you've set your long gun down because you need both hands, etc. A revolver in a cross draw rig is something you can always have on you. In Jeff Quinn's review (http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-SRHAlaskan454.htm) he put a few loads over the chrony. Check out that first BuffaloBore load. 360 grain LBT at 1200+ fps. Sure, in a perfect world I'd always have a short barreled Marlin with Garrett Hammerheads in my hands, but that's not reality. A 40 oz revo capable of the above ballistics is a convenient way to always have that last resort.

capitolpeak
September 6, 2007, 09:25 AM
thanks for all the info friends!:) I didnt know the .460sw could eat cassul and colt rounds....very interesting. Problem is its like 11oz heavier than the alaskan. hmmm well the decision is much easier without the .480 available.

I dont think its an absurd notion to use this for woods protection. Were talking 15 yds here not 150. With heavy solids it will go right through just like a big rifle will (at least through enough to matter)so at that range wouldnt one want the more compact option?

lol I told myself this wouldnt turn into a "best woods gun" topic:banghead:

Cassul is the one, in the long run I could care less about recoil. I only care about a devastating first shot;)

If you enjoyed reading about "need help deciding...." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!