Ruger Alaskan

brizbane · Nov 27, 2009

Hello from NJ,

I have a coupla questions for Ruger fans.

Last week I aquired a used Ruger Alaskan on kinda an impulse buy.

For various reasons I was interested in a .45ACP revolver and I had heard from a member on another board that the Alaskan could be "fixed" to accommidate moonclips in this caliber. This intrigued me.

Well, I contacted WildWestGuns in Alaska and they happened to have a used one in stock with the moonclip fix, and an action job to boot. So I grabbed it.

I have never shot a revolver with moonclips. What are your impressions of this style of handgun? Are there differences in brands of clips? Which ones to buy?

I have never shot an Alaskan and was wondering what, those of you with experience with this gun, your general impressions/opinions might be. Accurate? Recoil? Pros? Cons?

Anyway, I won't be able to actually possess my gun until the purchase permit clears, which can be about 4 months so I am very interested in what you all think.

RUT · Nov 27, 2009

>>I won't be able to actually possess my gun until the purchase permit clears, which can be about 4 months<<

You gotta be kidding!!!!

Old Fuff · Nov 27, 2009

The Alaskan was originally purported to be a sidearm to be carried for defending one’s self against hostile bears, and for that purpose it is rather useless.

So I ask a friend in the Ruger Company, “Why…??”

He explained that I had a point, but they were in the business of making and selling guns, and the Alaskan was going out the door like hotcakes on a cold morning. Also they were going to places where the only bears were in zoos. Lots of folks it seems are fascinated with the biggest and most powerful possible snubby, and being practical has nothing too do with popularity.

I don’t believe that the Alaskan was ever offered in .45 ACP, which means the cylinder has longer chambers. The clips are necessary to keep the cartridges from dropping in so far that the firing pin can’t reach them. The outfit that sold you the gun should be able to tell you where to get whatever size fits your converted revolver. Shooting shorter cartridges in longer chambers works, but the combination does nothing useful in the accuracy department.

Given the gargantuan size and weight of the Alaskan, the recoil should be modest.

That said, they are interesting and will almost always attract attention when shown to anyone, or at any shooting range. It should provide you with some fun, and a lot of interesting conversations.

But don’t shoot any bears, cuz’ they might make you eat it.

vwfool · Nov 27, 2009

I've used Cylinder & Slide moon clips from Midway USA in my S&W 1917s for several years and have never had a single problem with them. They are the best "speed loader" you can buy. They don't have a button to push or a knob to turn, etc.; just drop it in and go. A demooner tool is very handy. Wilson Combat makes a very good and very simple one you can also get from Midway USA. It isn't totally necessary, but it sure helps to keep your fingers from getting sore pulling the fired brass out of the moon clip.

You might check with WWG to see if the moon clips for the S&Ws and Colts will fit the Ruger. I'm sure they can point you in the right direction.

brizbane · Nov 28, 2009

Thanks for the info everyone.

Old Fuff, good history lesson and that "bears in the zoos" thing is funny.

I didn't factor in the loss of accuracy issue. I guess that is a downside of an impulse buy.

C and L clips and Wilson demooner are noted, thanks. I will call WWG for advice on the compatable ones.

As far as the purchase permit and the long wait, remember this is New Jersey. Not
exactly known for being a gun friendly state. But it is what is.

Our state motto: "Guns......FORGETABOUTIT!"

Anybody else wanna chime in, go ahead.

Old Bob · Nov 28, 2009

"I have never shot an Alaskan and was wondering what, those of you with experience with this gun, your general impressions/opinions might be. Accurate? Recoil? Pros? Cons?"

Well, I have had my Ruger Alaskan for about 3 years now, and I am quite happy with it. It is reasonably accurate at close range, meaning within about 20 yards. I can hit a beer can more often than not going slow, single action fire within that distance, and get most of my shots within a paper plate when shooting rapid-fire double action. That's with .454 ammo. Shot groups are a bit tighter with .45 Colt ammo.

In terms of recoil, it is quite mild with .45 ammo, even with heavy, .44 mag-level handloads. With .454 ammo, recoil is pretty stout, but not unmanageable if you have some experience with magnum revolvers. Plus, you get used to it the more you shoot the gun.

Pros are a lot of power in a small package. Cons are that the heavy recoil with .454 loads may be a bit much for some shooters to handle. The 2 1/2" barrel makes the gun more packable, but somewhat reduces your accuracy and muzzle velocity, so that's both a pro and a con. But if you think about the gun's purpose, which is to be able to hit and incapacitate a bear-sized target at point-blank range, the pros seem to outweigh the cons IMHO.

Old Bob · Nov 28, 2009

"The Alaskan was originally purported to be a sidearm to be carried for defending one’s self against hostile bears, and for that purpose it is rather useless."

Useless? Really? So why would an Alaskan guide purchase and carry a "useless" gun? For the bears in the zoo? :scrutiny:

Good thing he did, it seems to have saved his life this past August...

http://www.peninsulaclarion.com/stories/080709/out_478669517.shtml

Old Fuff · Nov 28, 2009

Bob;

On rare occasions a bear has been put down with a .22 Long Rifle, but I wouldn't like to try it - especially close up.

When you lengthen the barrel to 4 inches or better you get more performance, and less muzzle blast - and when it comes to an upset bear having an emotional moment you need all of the performance you can get.

Now if this particular guide wants to stake his life (and maybe his clients) on an overgrown snubby that's his business - but I don't think it's a common practice.

I did read the article you posted a link for. Regarding the revolver the guide used, all it says is:

In addition to his canine companion, Brush also decided to take a handgun -- a Ruger .454.

No mention concerning an exact model or barrel length. In any case I think he was a very lucky man.

harmonic · Nov 28, 2009

The 2 1/2" barrel makes the gun more packable

A mere 1 1/2 inches is negligible. A four inch barrel weighs no more and is much more accurate and powerful.

The Alaskan is a novelty. I wish I had one, but would feel better with a four inch barrel.

Chuck Perry · Nov 28, 2009

One cool thing that you can do with a moon clipped Alaskan is use 45 Winchester Magnums. Wish I could run those in my 625!

Old Bob · Nov 28, 2009

"On rare occasions a bear has been put down with a .22 Long Rifle, but I wouldn't like to try it - especially close up."

So, you are comparing the .454 Casull to a .22 LR? Wow...

And as far as barrel length goes, yes you get a little extra velocity with a longer barrel. Do you really think a big bear is going to notice the difference between a 300 grain slug moving at 1700 fps vs one moving at 1500 fps? I doubt it...

But I will agree with you that the Alaskan is not the most common choice among Alaskan guides. The .44 magnum is a more popular sidearm here than the .454, probably at least in part because the ammo is easier to find. Need I point out that even a snubby .454 has more muzzle energy than even a long-barrelled .44?

And yes, Greg Brush was using the Alaskan model. Attached a photo of him with it.

Old Bob · Nov 28, 2009

"A four inch barrel weighs no more and is much more accurate and powerful"

Change the word "much" to "somewhat" and I can agree with that statement. As I said before, I dont think a 300 grain bullet moving at 1700 fps is "much" more powerful than the same bullet moving at 1500 fps, but that's me. I think the Alaskan is good for its intended purpose.

Of course, there would be advantages to having a 4 inch Ruger SRH over the 2 1/2 Alaskan as a general-purpose revolver. However, 1) based on my 3 years of shooting mine, I don't think the advantages of an extra 1.5 inches of barrel are all that great, and 2) Ruger doesn't make the SRH with a 4 inch barrel, so if you want one, you'll have to wait till Ruger produces it. Or else pay a gunsmith for a custom chop job. Or you could just get the Alaskan, which is just a little shorter and good for the purpose it was intended for.

In any case, my intent is not to start a long argument about this. Old Fuff gave his opinion that the Alaskan is "useless" for bear defense. I think the photo and story I posted makes a good case to the contrary. And that's really all I'm trying to say: not that the Alaskan is the ideal all-around revolver, because it's not. Just that it's a good choice for it's intended purpose.

DC3-CVN-72 · Nov 28, 2009

Or u could get a Redhawk with a 4 in. bbl. in .44 mag. or .45Colt.

Old Fuff · Nov 28, 2009

The Alaskan is a novelty.

Which is the way the maker sees it, but it has proven to be a profitable one.

The bear in question just had a bad hair day... :uhoh:

Wolfeye · Nov 28, 2009

"The Alaskan was originally purported to be a sidearm to be carried for defending one’s self against hostile bears, and for that purpose it is rather useless."

Keep in mind that a snub .454 casull will throw a bigger bullet at a higher velocity than a long-barreled .44 magnum. I think the Alaskan is meant for people such as hikers & archers who may find a larger handgun or a rifle more trouble to carry than they're worth. It's an emergency gun meant to be used at defensive distances - think of it as middle ground between Smith & Wesson's model 329 and 4" model 500, both of which seem to be designed to fill the same niche. None of these guns are particularly practical, but they all have a following.

Brizbane: I don't know about you, but I find the Alaskan's grips to be a tad too large for my hands. They're designed to manage the harsh recoil generated by .454 ammunition, but because you seem mainly interested in shooting .45 ACP, you could get away with thinner grips if need be.

NMGonzo · Nov 28, 2009

hopefully the alaskan fad will go away ...

so i can get one for cheaper soon!

brizbane · Nov 28, 2009

Wow, good info everybody! More and better then I expected.

Though I did not purchase the Alaskan for bears, we just so happen to have an over abundance of them here. Several a week travel across my property and those are the ones that are noticed. These Black Bears are relatively and usually not aggressive towards people but they do take down goats and dogs, and the occasional llama. Now that I think about it, I just may have to get a chest type rig for toting this baby.

Wolfeye, being that this was an impulsive buy, I did not even handle said revolver yet. It was shipped from Alaska and just did arrive at the sporting goods store that will handle the FFL transfer. So as far as the grips go, I have no idea. I talked with the sports store when it arrived a few days ago and the manager said "real nice gun".

Also, the four month wait is now a bit longer, as the State Police returned my paperwork today stating that I erroneously used the old forms and the application requires that I use the new updated forms. So, back to the SP on Monday.

Old Bob · Nov 28, 2009

Brizbane, grats on your new Alaskan, I hope you get as much enjoyment from it as I have from mine! Sorry to hear about the paperwork snafu, but rest assured the Alaskan is a sweet lil' piece, and worth the wait, if wait you must.

Anyway, Ruger sells a shoulder rig for the Alaskan on their website, don't remember seeing any cross-chest rigs though. I usually associate those with the S&W X-frames, which are more massive and heavy. I myself use Ruger's canvas belt holster, and find it to be quite comfortable. But, get whichever you think will be most comfortable for you, of course

MrFox · Nov 28, 2009

Check out Simply Rugged for a chest rig. You'll have to buy the holster and then buy the chest rig. I have nothing but good things to say about my holster from Simply Rugged.

Also, if you are going to carry on the belt, make sure you have a good one.

brizbane · Nov 29, 2009

Thanks Old Bob, I am looking forward to getting it in my hands. Will check out Rugers holsters, too.

MrFox, I did check out Simply Rugged. Their holsters appear well made but look a little bit unfinished, but this could be due to the photographs. What do you think about 'em?

I did find these 2 others that look pretty good. http://diamonddholsters.com/

and http://www.lawmanleathergoods.com/index.html

rogertc1 · Nov 29, 2009

The Ruger Alaskan came out in a time when there was a lot of Custom .454 short barreled SA and DA revolvers for Big buck$. The Ruger Alaskan is affordable and well made. Never have sent mine off to get machined for moon clips. Thought of it.

RugerDoug · Nov 29, 2009

I have 2 GP 100's and a Blackhawk all 357 magnum. I wanted only one 44 magnum revolver to round my needs. I picked the Alaskan because my primary outdoor activity is hiking. I do not hunt. The Alaskan handles all loads of 44 magnum ( I do not handload). It's short barrel is a preference I was looking for in a hiking sidearm. I use either a Simply Rugged or Galco DAO holster.

MrFox · Nov 29, 2009

I don't think Simply Rugged holsters are unfinished. You can get it made with fancy stamping and carving if you want. The leather is nicely dyed, the fit is fantastic, and they are way thicker and stiffer than I would have thought. They are all business without being showy.

I would be ordering one right now but I can't decide on what I want for my single six.

harmonic · Nov 29, 2009

rogertc1 · Nov 29, 2009

Simply Rugged rules!!!

Made in Alaska for Alaskans
http://www.simplyrugged.com/
Right

Ruger Alaskan

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

Attachments

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

member

member

Similar threads