Critter Country Monster Loads...

Status
Not open for further replies.
So a Grizzly gun we can safetly rest on a 45-70 w/ decent loads? It is just difficult for me to rationalize that as it is ballistically inferior to a 300 mag. And I probably would think that a 300mag is a bit small to use as an Alaskan Grizzly firearm. But then again I wouldnt say that the .300 mag wouldnt handle a Grizzly either :D Its just alot of meat and muscle to push through with a few bones here and there.
 
So a Grizzly gun we can safetly rest on a 45-70 w/ decent loads? It is just difficult for me to rationalize that as it is ballistically inferior to a 300 mag

Muzzle energy is not a good predictor of penetration. Strong 45-70 loads with heavy hardcasts will far out penetrate a .300 mag.
 
.45-70

Not to mention that they're just fine looking rifles.

Here's a Marlin 1895 with barrel (digitally) cut down to 19".
Put on a set of ghost rings, and call it good.

attachment.php
 
Yo Nem, the "levers" room is up the hall... ;)
Seriously, I've only wandered through a handful of shops up here so far, but everyone I've seen yet has between one and a dozen variations on that rifle right there. Matte stainless in the 18-20 inch seem the most stocked. I don't think you'll have a problem finding one when you do show up. :)

As to handguns -

So um.. what's the closest in size and action I can get to an old single action army that'd handle something adequate? A Vaquero or Blackhawk? A Virginian?
I'm afraid I don't have the scratch for a Freedom Arms 97, but I sure like the idea of a 5-shot cylinder in an otherwise SAA sized piece.. but it'd still need to be bigger in circumference as well?

Bother.

-K

Yeah, I know the "what if they're on top of you" thing, but to be honest, given my experience with both single and double action revolvers to date (I inherited grandad's single six pretty early on) -- I'm much more comfortable with the latter. I might not be as quick on the second shot, but I've much less chance of putting the first one in the dirt. :)
 
You know...some people are tweaking the Ruger New Vaquero in 357 or it's adjustable-sight cousin the 50th Anniversary 357 Blackhawk into 41Magnum successfully. Both are SAA-sized guns. I understand that the 357 is pretty light (although once you get into a 170 hardcast @ 1,400fps...) but the 41Mag seems like a possibility if you don't want to hit 44Mag sizes.
 
The new Marlin Guide Guns are not ported. You can buy a 1895 Pistol Grip stock for $55 or $97. They sell two, I'm not sure what the difference is, I think one is shinier than the other. Anyway, that would probably be cheaper than getting one and cutting down the barrel and having the sight re-installed.

I personally love the porting and love the straight stock though.
 
Yo Nem, the "levers" room is up the hall...
Oh, you mean ...

Ack. I was attracted in here by all this beer and king crab,
heard someone talking about monster loads,
and assumed it was a big bore lever discussion.

My bad.

:p

Keep us posted about what revolver you end up with, Ms. K.

I've looked longingly and lustingly at the Ruger Alaskan in .454C/.45 Colt,
but know in reality it's probably more hand gun than I want to deal with
'specially with them thar Casull loads. :scrutiny:

So I'll watch your lead.

Nem

PS: you still need a big bore lever gun eventually, regardless of what big bang handgun you carry. ;)
 
Kaylee,
I'm afraid that for the big bad bears you will find up in Alaska a .357 just won't cut it. In the lower 48 a hot loaded .357 Mag with a heavy bullet will probably do well but not on those monsters up North. If you don't want to carry a Shotgun or Carbine then you will probably have to stick with at least a .44 Magnum. You have the right idea going with a large SA model to cht down on the recoil and provide a longer sight picture but I haven't shot any of the SA revolvers in .44 Mag so I can't suggest one for you. I do like the looks of the Ruger New Vaquero revolvers but I'm thinking the New Model Blackhawk revolvers will probably serve your needs better because they are heavier and probably built better. If it were me I would probably buy either a 5.5" DA Redhawk in .44 Magnum http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=5004&return=Y or the just re-released 4" S&W Model 29 Mountain Gun also in .44 Magnum. http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...angId=-1&parent_category_rn=15706&isFirearm=Y

Good luck in finding something that will keep you safe in Big Bear Country.
 
I know they are available in a 3" barrel but that's not what Kaylee is looking for. I was hesitant about mentioning the 4" model but it's such a nice revolver I thought it was worth a mention.
 
For really heavy game, think about it, the .460 puts up some unGODly energy levels. Haven't really looked at it, but it's rifle like. Yes, kenetic energy kills. Even the Facklerites back down from rifle ballistics saying "apples and oranges". They admit rifle energy produces tissue destroying shock. I've seen it dramatically in a 7mm Remington Magnum. Energy is less factor at pistol energies, the Facklerites say no factor, I say there's some, but I know it's less important than getting enough penetration. You don't have to worry about penetration even on big bad game with the big boomers using heavy cast flat point bullets.

That said, I have absolutely no use in Texas for anything bigger than my .45 colt. I'm not one of those boomer guys, but I'd love to have a Freedom Arms in .454, fantastic quality gun and not as HUGE as those X frame Smiths. Carrying one of those things, you might as well be totin' a TC Encore, lighter, more accurate, and can get it in longer range, more powerful rifle calibers. My main hunting gun is a .30-30 Contender. I never need more'n one shot and it kills quite quick at least to 90 yards (my longest shot). If you like revolvers, deer hunting, a .44 mag is plenty to the ranges I tend to shoot. Practically speaking, I can't shoot accurately enough off most field rests past 100 yards to take a shot. Lots of range work has convinced me of this, so I like to limit my shots inside 100 yards with even the contender, even though off the bench it's 1.5 MOA and can kill to 200 yards. It's harder to steady a pistol for a shot like that in the field than a rifle, that's the challenge of pistol hunting as I see it. For revolver guys that hunt deer/hog/black bear, there's really no need to use anything bigger than the .44 magnum. Those big boomers are an answer to a question I never asked. They're probably great for guys looking to try brown bear or African game with a revolver, but how big a market is there for THAT? Most guys that buy the things have that Tim Taylor macho thing going on. IMHO, .460, .480, 500 is pretty useless in the lower 48.
 
I've looked longingly and lustingly at the Ruger Alaskan in .454C/.45 Colt,
but know in reality it's probably more hand gun than I want to deal with
'specially with them thar Casull loads.

Give it a try, it surprise you. Super Reds are very soft shooting.
 
You know...some people are tweaking the Ruger New Vaquero in 357 or it's adjustable-sight cousin the 50th Anniversary 357 Blackhawk into 41Magnum successfully. Both are SAA-sized guns. I understand that the 357 is pretty light (although once you get into a 170 hardcast @ 1,400fps...) but the 41Mag seems like a possibility if you don't want to hit 44Mag sizes.

I'm pretty happy with my blackhawk in .357 pushing a 180 grain Hornady XTP to 1450 fps. Seems like enough. I've killed two deer from it with less. I have hogs on my place, though. I do have a .45 Colt Blackhawk, too, with a shorter 4 5/8" barrel. The .357 is a 6.5". But, the .41 can push levels of the .44 mag and it's an under appreciated round IMHO.
 
A buddy of mine has guided fishermen in Alaska for several years, and tried about everything under the sun. He carried a Mossburg SS for a couple of years before finding and falling in love with one of the older model Ruger .44 Mag carbines. It goes about 6 1/2 lbs loaded, and can pour out 6 hot .44 mag rounds VERY quickly in a pinch up close, or shoot easy 4-5" groups at 100 yds. He says it's the best "carying because you have to" gun he's found. He does prefer the old style over the new "Deerfield" though because of the closed top receiver not picking up crud.
 
One of the first issues of the SRH casulls nearly broke my middle finger!

Heh, really? Granted, the .454's are pretty punishing regardless of platform. I run .45 Colt handloads in mine, and my experience with it has been similar to Taffin's review. Comfortable shooting, and more accurate than I am.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top