Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

.44 mag Alaskan=silly

Discussion in 'Handguns: Revolvers' started by Lichen, Mar 10, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Lichen

    Lichen Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    19
    Hey guys,

    I was looking at the guns at the local hardware store a few days ago, and I thought they had --at first glance--a really big, bad-ass revolver. It's a stainless Ruger .44 mag Alaskan gun. The frame is huge, almost like the S&W X-frame, and it's billed as 'Alaskan', with about 3" of barrel.

    Why make such a pop-gun?

    Like someone else here said, .44 Mags are for kids.
     
  2. dbarale

    dbarale Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    365
    Location:
    Asheville, NC
    If you like it better they also make a .454 and even a .480...
     
  3. Richard.Howe

    Richard.Howe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2003
    Messages:
    887
    It's not silly -- it's a darn fine firearm for close-in problems.

    My preference is for the .454 variety, but not everyone loves broken wrist bones the way I do. :D
     
  4. Derby FALs

    Derby FALs Member In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    978
    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    It looks like it would make a fine boat anchor in the .44 Mag.
     
  5. hagar

    hagar member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    Messages:
    374
    Location:
    Columbia, SC
    Give me a 10mm Glock with 15 round magazine any day for bear protection. A lot easier to shoot accurate and fast, and enough to stop any bear. These super magnum revolvers are fine for hunting, soothing inflated egos, and about nothing else.
     
  6. Revolver Ocelot

    Revolver Ocelot Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    1,470
    it truly is a damn fine firearm for defense in the woods in those instances where a rifle isn't the best option and someone once said to me anything thats not detered by a 44 deserves to eat you, a 44 is hardly a childs toy.
     
  7. Derby FALs

    Derby FALs Member In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    978
    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    The S&W Mountain Revolver packs well and is strong enough for the .44 Mag. I would hold the two in my hands first before making a decision to buy.
     
  8. strat81

    strat81 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    3,912
    Location:
    Nebraska
    Handgun + bear = silly

    Do you have proof that a 10mm would be effective against polar or kodiak bear, the kinds of bears you might find in Alaska? From what I've read, most in the Alaskan Wilderness prefer rifles and/or shotguns for bear attacks. I've never been attacked by any bear, so I can't speak from experience. A Glock 20 or Ruger Alaskan is probably better protection from other people you encounter in Alaska, rather than animals.

    The 10mm is a damn fine round for many other types of two- and four-legged predators.

    Some Kodiak bear facts: http://www.wc.adfg.state.ak.us/index.cfm?adfg=bears.trivia
    And some polar bear info:
    http://www.fws.gov/species/species_accounts/bio_pola.html
     
  9. Greg8098

    Greg8098 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Messages:
    300
    Location:
    Bossier City, Louisiana
    Good luck finding any of those Alaskans :rolleyes: . IMHO they are all silly, if you can never find one to buy.
     
  10. ReadyontheRight

    ReadyontheRight Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    4,335
    Location:
    Minnesota - nine months of ice and snow...three mo
    Well...some people would say that any handgun in the woods is silly. Others say that any gun is silly. And more others say that going into the woods is silly - while they slobber over every new Anna Nicole Smith update.

    Good thing it takes all kinds of people to make up this great world. And that many of us like to protect our rights go into the woods carrying whtever we like, and we couldn't care less what others like or don't like.

    I don't mean this as a flame, and maybe I am missing the point, but why are ".44 mags for kids" and why is it not a good gun for carrying on your hip in the woods while you are fishing, hiking or doing other non-hunting activities? Works for me, and also works for deer hunting.
     
  11. Confederate

    Confederate Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,192
    Location:
    Arlington, VA
    I saw a documentary on bears which featured an incident where a fellow, using only a locking knife, drove off a black bear that had attacked his wife or girlfriend. He literally stepped in between them and was able to inflict enough painful wounds on the bear that it retreated.

    Given this guy also got mauled and given he also was highly motivated, still, it highlighted the fact that man, as he came into this world, came into it with no built in weapons except his own intelligence. It also showed that given the proper motivation and even a rudimentary weapon, a man is a formidible adversary.

    Any gun, even a snubby .357, can take out a bear if it's pointed in the right direction. Even such a gun used as a club can save a person's life.

    Snubby magnums make a great deal of noise, plus they produce a prodigious blast and fireball, neither of which man or beast want to be on the wrong side of. And ain't it interesting that whatever weapon man develops, other men want to take it away from him.

    I just heard on the radio that the mayor of D.C. is furious, FURIOUS!, that six people are challenging the city's gun prohibition. He's intent, he said, on fighting it all the way to the Supreme Court. And what makes him angriest is that only six men are driving this...in HIS city.

    If you see this guy, smack him upside the head for me.

    [​IMG]

    Smith & Wesson's bear kit includes
    a book, video, gun and several other items
    one might need in the wilds.
     
  12. Derby FALs

    Derby FALs Member In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    978
    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    I would feel more trusting with my Marlin Guide Gun but the weight of my Mountain Revolver would be comforting. Need something to shoot the hares, right?:evil:
     
  13. wad

    wad Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    162
    Location:
    The Lone Star State
    NBC News and news services
    Updated: 6:32 p.m. CT March 9, 2007

    WASHINGTON - In the most important ruling on gun control in 70 years, a federal appeals court Friday for the first time used the Second Amendment to strike down a gun law.

    In a 2-1 decision, the court overturned the District of Columbia’s long-standing handgun ban, rejecting the city’s argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.

    The majority held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment “are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent” on enrollment in a militia.

    The ruling is a victory for Tom Palmer, a Washington resident who was once assaulted and wants a gun in the house for self-defense.

    "The fact is that the criminals don't obey the law and they do have guns," he said. "It's the law-abiding citizens who are disarmed by this law."

    He was one of six who went to court to challenge the city's gun law, passed as an anti-crime measure 30 years ago. It outlaws handguns or rifles except for residents with permits, mainly police or security guards.

    Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty said the ruling could put more guns in the hands of young people. "I am personally deeply disappointed and quite frankly outraged by today's decision," he said. "Today's decision flies in the face of laws that have helped decrease gun violence in the District of Columbia."

    Rival judicial views
    The ruling revives a long fight over the 27 words of the Second Amendment: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    Gun control advocates argue that the phrase "well-regulated militia" means that owning a gun is a group right, subject to restriction.

    But the court essentially said the right to bear arms is an individual right for private activities, including self-defense.

    “The district’s definition of the militia is just too narrow,” Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for the majority. “There are too many instances of ‘bear arms’ indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense.”

    That's precisely the view that the National Rifle Association has advocated for decades.

    Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president, said the decision gives the district “a crack in the door to join the rest of the country in full constitutional freedom.”

    Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state.

    Silberman wrote that the Second Amendment is still “subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment.”

    Such restrictions might include gun registration, firearms testing to promote public safety or restrictions on gun ownership for criminals or those deemed mentally ill.

    Time for Supreme Court?
    The city says it will appeal, to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

    The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.

    “I think this is well positioned for review of the Supreme Court,” said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University. He said the D.C. circuit is historically influential with the Supreme Court because it often deals with constitutional questions.

    “You also have a very well-reasoned opinion, both in the majority and the dissent,” Turley said.

    If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the Second Amendment’s scope.

    Legal experts say Friday's ruling launches a huge battle.

    "This is a monumental case that sets up the biggest fight over gun rights in the modern history of the United States," said expert Tom Goldstein.

    I guess by Judge Henderson's logic, the residents of the District of Columbia are not protected by any constitutional rights:cuss: .
     
  14. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,679
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    That's the problem with all these "delightful-to-carry-but-hell-to-shoot" guns. If you practice with them, you develop bad habits. If you don't, you have little skill with them.

    Either way, when the chips are down, you lose.
     
  15. Walkalong

    Walkalong Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    48,380
    Location:
    Alabama
    I'll tell you what. Y'all shoot em and tell me what it was like. I flinch in my dreams from the last time I shot a lightwieght .44 Mag.... OUCH.:)
     
  16. plexreticle

    plexreticle Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    Messages:
    1,240
    Do you really need a special bear protection gun in Alaska? Are bears especially agressive up there or something?

    I'm more worried about humans than bears.
     
  17. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,679
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    Yes. Grizzlies are far more aggressive than blackies.
     
  18. plexreticle

    plexreticle Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    Messages:
    1,240
    I want an anti-killer whale gun then. Just in case.

    Whale guns
     
  19. Confederate

    Confederate Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,192
    Location:
    Arlington, VA
    That's because they're so used to not having any natural enemies. They're not used to losing fights, especially to smelly hairless primates wearing tacky red plaid shirts and sporting backpacks.

    Still, the idea of reaching into a tacklebox and pulling out a 3-inch .44 mag isn't my idea of how to use our superior brainpower.
     
  20. SnWnMe

    SnWnMe Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,099
    Location:
    Inland Empire
    It's never about practicality. It's about keeping interest in the industry to alive to sustain it.

    I held one in San Diego a few weeks ago. Not bad for a snub nose.
     
  21. ReadyontheRight

    ReadyontheRight Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    4,335
    Location:
    Minnesota - nine months of ice and snow...three mo
    What is?
     
  22. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    For .454's I found even a full size SRH too little gun. Out of a snub I would expect the blast and recoil to be unworldly. More than enough to burst eardrums if you fire six off with no protection. In .44 it's a little more sane, but then again while you have bulk you're giving up barrel length. The Alaskan weighs 41 oz. and has a wee 2 1/2" barrel, compared with a long 7 1/2" barreled SBH at 49 oz or an old model at a notch less than that. I've never understood this notion people have that they don't have to practice with the full power loads, either. Shooting a bunch of cowboy colt loads out of the thing is not going to do ANYTHING to prepare you for shooting full bore .454's out of it. Other than give you a false sense of confidence.

    It seems to me that the size of firearm allegedly needed to down a bear increases the further away from bear country you get. It's some sort of weird inverse ratio.
     
  23. Wolfsong

    Wolfsong Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    29
    Sorry, but I have to disagree with your premise. That's like saying if you play the banjo, you pick up bad habits for playing the guitar. I shoot just fine with both my Smith .500 And my Ruger Alaskan .44 with the 2 1\2 in. barrel. And I shoot my other various hand guns quite well, at least to my expectations, thank you very much.

    I happen to enjoy shooting the larger caliber handguns, and I actually find that the opposite of what you are saying to be true. My accuracy with my .45, .40, .357, and full size .44 is better AFTER I shoot a few rounds through my .500 and\or Alaskan. 5 through each is usually my limit, and then I move on to the "smaller" calibers. I shoot without a glove, and I shoot mid to high range rounds through the smaller calibers.

    If I have bad habits, then I have bad habits shooting all of my calibers. I still can hit my target well enough to stop a paper target threat, or a bowling pin. How I would do against live threats is something I hope I'll never find out, but I'm as confident as I can be in my marksmanship, regardless of the caliber.

    Maybe you don't enjoy shooting "hand cannons, maybe you do, but to assert that one cannot shoot them effectively and still be proficient with a smaller caliber is utter nonsense, in my experience and opinion.

    So take it back, or I'll, I'll, uh, I'll tell mom on you!:D Peace and God bless, Wolfsong.
     
  24. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    I'm happy you enjoy your firearms, but this remark is I think instructive:

    That's *NO* reflection on your shooting skills. It was about my limit, too. But in order to be good enough with a particular handgun to be able to defend against a bear attack, you would need to practice with full power ammo vastly more than that. Practice until it becomes second nature. With a rifle you can get away with firing a few hundred rounds out of it and it will still serve well as a bear gun, but a handgun is so much harder to aim with precision you have to be that much better with it. This is one of the main reasons I would suggest that as a bear gun, the "Alaskan" is pretty goofy.

    Let me put it this way. The beat up old three screw .44 blackhawk that you've fired twenty thousand rounds out of and can hit a butterfly at fifty yards with is going to be a much better bear gun than the snubbie mega cannon you've fired a few dozen times.
     
  25. Derby FALs

    Derby FALs Member In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    978
    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    I used to love shooting my hand cannons but it helped wear out my wrist, elbow and shoulder.:what:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page