375 Ruger Alaskan vs. 1895G Guide Gun

[Gryffydd]

First, I wouldn't consider the Ruger .375. In 5yrs It'll be a footnote in reference books.

While I'm somewhat concerned with brass availability 25+ years from now, I'm not so sure it'll be merely a footnote. I reserve that judgment for rounds like the .30 T/C...

as noted above, the 375's are a specialty piece because the lack of need in most of north america (arguably, all of n.a.)

I would definitely agree, and if I didn't handload I probably wouldn't even consider a .375. However, knowing that I can load it down with lighter loads as well as cast bullet loads--all the way down to the Trailboss variety. Even though I'm likely to never need the top end it'd be nice to know it's there if I want it. The more roles I can cover well with one rifle the better.

I do have to say that I keep thinking about something in .35 Whelen as well. I like the setup of the .375 Alaskan, and I haven't seen any factory .35 Whelen rifles with a similar setup. I'd have to go the custom route I suppose.

 

[Gryffydd]

Actually, what about this?
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/97079

Seems like it could fill pretty much the same shoes, given that the one thing I'm pretty sure of is that I'll never go to Africa. Fairly short, light, iron sights...

I also like the fact that I could load pistol bullets in it for lighter loads.

 

[Maverick223]

However, knowing that I can load it down with lighter loads as well as cast bullet loads--all the way down to the Trailboss variety. Even though I'm likely to never need the top end it'd be nice to know it's there if I want it. The more roles I can cover well with one rifle the better.

Absolutely, the only real disadvantage is the cost of projectiles, which still isn't a deal breaker, at least not for me. The 220-230gr. spitzers are a hoot to shoot, and will drop anything in the ConUS. OTOH a stiff load with a 350gr. solid RN will drop anything on the planet (though I would be hesitant to use one for Elephant). My two "Alaska loads" are a 300gr. A-Frame for the primary shot (chosen for excellent controlled expansion and decent trajectory) and 350gr. Woodleigh solids for subsequent shots that could require greater penetration with minimal deflection (quartering away).

Actually, what about this?

I wouldn't trust a semi-auto for DG, but one of these should be up to the task (in .35Whelen of course). The .35Whelen (or Brown-Whelen) is an excellent choice for another versatile cartridge. Not as good as the .375s, but not too far behind either. The ability to use .357/.38SP/9mm bullets for practice and light tasks is a nice bonus that the .375s don't offer. At some point I will have to fill in the gap between .30-06 and .375H&H with one. You are on the right track with iron sights. I wouldn't own a DG rifle without them (as well as the ability to QD the optics as needed).

 

[Gryffydd]

I wouldn't trust a semi-auto for DG, but one of these should be up to the task (in .35Whelen of course).

Ooh...the pump is a good call there. I'm not too fond of semi autos above intermediate rounds like 5.56/7.62x39 etc.

 

[earlthegoat2]

The Remington designed semi autos have a pretty spotty reputation over the course of many years.

And then add that to the fact that this one is a new gun of which Remington is has a BAD reputation for lately.

 

[KodiakBeer]

To all you folks that have a .350 rem. magnum I hope you carry it a lot and only have to shoot it once in a while.

I carry mine a lot and shoot it a lot. I can't speak for the Model 600, since mine is in a Model 7, but the recoil is far more bearable than my Guide Gun .45/70. Have you tried the .45/70 with full power loads, or only with the mild factory loads?

The .35 Whelen and .350 Rem Mag are ballistic twins. The Whelen requires a standard length action, the .350 fits in a .308 length action.

 

[Grey Morel]

The Ruger Alaskan is Tempting because its an inexpensive gun... But the ammo stinks in price AND availability.

Fork over the money for a quality conventional middle bore rifle in 375 H&H. The CZ, a Ruger M77, or a Kimber Talkeetna.

The .35 Whelen and .350 Rem Mag are ballistic twins.

I see this repeated a lot... but LOOK at the numbers: Even in factory ammo 350 Rem is 100fps and 300ft-lbs greater than a 35 Whelen (Remington Brand). Handload data shows the same thing. The 350 Rem has a bit more operating pressure AND a bit more powder capacity.

Factor in the shorter test barrel lengths for the 350 and in my opinion the winner is clear.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Keep in mind that the load data is all gathered from long barreled rifles while the .350 is generally only found in 20" barreled rifles, so any advantage is theoretical. In reality, the slightly larger case of the .350 is negated by the shorter barrel.

The advantage of the .350 (in my mind) is about the handiness of a short action rifle vs a standard action. Packing that little carbine around steep terrain and thick alders makes it the best choice for me, in my locale. If I lived somewhere else, I might choose something else entirely.

 

[Gryffydd]

Looking at Hodgdon's load data the 35 Whelen has a *slight* velocity advantage over the 350 Rem. Mag with 250 grain bullets--with 2" less barrel. The .350 data is from a 26" barrel wile the 35 is a 24". The velocity difference was around 50fps or so. I'm not sure how much of a difference those 2" make on the end of an already long barrel though...

 

[KodiakBeer]

The .350 has a larger case so can be loaded slightly hotter with the same pressures, but since the whole point is to stuff all that into a carbine length barrel it really makes little difference.
I suspect from your location you fully understand what alders are and why somebody would want the most compact rifle possible.