Quantcast

Ruger Redhawk...or Alaskan

Discussion in 'Handguns: Revolvers' started by boomstik45, Nov 16, 2007.

?

Which one is the better buy in the long run?

  1. Ruger Alaskan 2.5" barrel

    14 vote(s)
    20.6%
  2. Ruger Redhawk 4" barrel

    54 vote(s)
    79.4%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. boomstik45

    boomstik45 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Messages:
    400
    Location:
    southeast georgia
    Finally going to get myself a .44 magnum. The last one I had was a Ruger Super Redhawk with a 9.5 inch barrel. Since I don't hunt with handguns, it was kind of pointless for me to have it (I bought it on a whim because it was big, stainless, and fun to shoot-and got it for less than $400).

    I've been wanting a much "smaller" and more usable model. I like the Smiths too, but can't find one for a price I'd like to pay. I finally settled back on a Ruger. But, I am having a rough time deciding whether I want the 2.5" barreled chunk of steel known as the Ruger Alaskan or the 4" Ruger Redhawk. Whichever I get, it will be used for home defense, vehicle defense, and for 4-footed critters whenever I'm in areas that may require such. Of course, I plan to use .44 special loads for the home and vehicle defense. The magnum would do the job, but might be a bit much for the application. In the woods, however....it'll be the magnum round for certain. I like the idea of 4" barrel (6" is too long for what I want) and wonder about the 2.5" barrel of the Alaskan. Both are nice looking guns. I don't know if I should be worried about the difference in barrel lengths, but it has crossed my mind. The thing is, I don't want to be in a situation where I've bought one and wished I got the other. So I guess I'm also asking is it better to get the gun with the greater barrel length....or not? I'd hate to be sitting there wishing I'd gone with greater barrel length....

    What do y'all think?
     
  2. boomstik45

    boomstik45 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Messages:
    400
    Location:
    southeast georgia
    Aw geez, I just saw where someone asked the same dang question already. Guess I won't be getting too many replies....
     
  3. 19-3Ben

    19-3Ben Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,148
    Location:
    CT
    The redhawk will point better, probably provide more sight radius/accuracy, more bullet velocity, and is IMHO, a much better looking gun. Why are you considering the Alaskan? Is there a specific reason? What can it do that the Redhawk couldn't do better?

    Edit to add:
    The redhawk weighs 6oz. more than the Alaskan. Honestly, on a gun that already weighs more than 40oz, the difference is negligible.
     
  4. boomstik45

    boomstik45 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Messages:
    400
    Location:
    southeast georgia
    The more I think about it....nothing really.
     
  5. Stainz

    Stainz Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Messages:
    3,118
    Location:
    Pinson, AL
    I had a .454 SRH for years - and a .45 Colt RH for several overlapping years. The SRH has a far better trigger - and never produced a ftf, where the RH did. I would go with a 4" SRH, if available... or the 2.5" SRH (Alaskan). No, I am not a RH fan!

    Of course, a used 4" 629 or 629MG would be a much better choice, in my book. I've had a 629 Mountain Gun (39.5oz) - now have a standard 4" 629 (41.5 oz), which I like even more. I highly recommend them - the latter is particularly nice. Fitted with the X-frame Hogue .500 Magnum grips ($35 from S&W.), real .44 Magnum recoil is tamed. They are worth the extra wait to obtain the extra moola for their purchase. You never know when a 'deal' on a 4" 629 - MG or regular - will pop up!

    Stainz

    PS My first S&W was a .45 Colt 625MG... I liked it so much, I traded for a second one some years later.
     
  6. Lloyd Smale

    Lloyd Smale Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,991
    Location:
    Munising MI
    for an all around woods bumming gun id go with the 4 inch redhawk. Ive got a alaskan in 454 and with that short barrel it can be a challange to shoot real well off hand.
     
  7. bigmike45

    bigmike45 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,021
    Location:
    Texas
    boomstik45,

    I had an Alaskan in 44mag and it was ok to shoot but I decided to take one of my 5.5" Redhawks and cut it down to a more manageable 4". It is a .41mag and was done about a year before the 4" Redhawk in 44mag was out. It is a great carry piece, extremely accurate and I like it better that the Ruger version.

    4inchRight.jpg
    4inchLeft.jpg
     
  8. Flfiremedic

    Flfiremedic Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    447
    Personally I'm in love with the 4 in Redhawk...love my Taurus, but eventually it will be banished to the Jeep console in favor of a Redhawk. Just my .02 cents.
     
  9. CAnnoneer

    CAnnoneer Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,838
    Location:
    Los Angeles County, CA
    Redhawk with .44spl, or better yet, GP100 in .357. I will need my wrists and elbows for many more decades, thank you. :neener:

    I don't get the point of the Alaskan, other than some silly macho crap. If you want more power than .357, buy a rifle.
     
  10. Chuck Perry

    Chuck Perry Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    895
    Location:
    Pittsburgh,PA
    The big difference between the two platforms are the actions, specifically the trigger. The SRH, while possibly not significantly better out of the box, can be re-worked into a far superior trigger than can the standard Redhawk. At least, that's what the experts say. I have a SRH that was worked over by Weigand Combat and it has a fantastic trigger! That being said, the new 4" Redhawks are getting good reviews in the trigger department. Not sure what Ruger changed, but it seems like they were aware of a problem and corrected it.
    How are you going to carry the piece? The snub is 6 ozs lighter and has a shorter OAL. These attributes are handy for concealed carry, but other than that I can't see any benefit. The shorter bbl will give you more difficulty on shots over 10 yards, due to the shorter sight radius. Won't make those shots impossible, you're just going to have to practice more to get consistent hits at distance. The shorter bbl will cost you some FPS. How much will depend on the load. Loads with light bullets and fast burning powders will give up less than heavy bullets with slow burning powders. Finally, the shorter bbl, coupled with the lighter weight, will also give you more muzzle flip. This will make follow up shots slower. These are all negatives that most of us knowlingly accept when it comes to concealed carry gun. If you're not considering concealed carry as the primary function of this piece, I would definitely go with the 4" gun. This is not saying to rule out concealed carry altogether for the 4". With the right holster, you should be able to conceal it fine. But, it's probably not the gun you're going to want to try to conceal every single day.
    Get the 4". Worst case, you can always get the barrel trimmed!:neener:
     
  11. boomstik45

    boomstik45 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Messages:
    400
    Location:
    southeast georgia
    I ended up going with the 4" Redhawk. It's a brand new gun, so it must be one of the newer versions. As for the trigger, I don't see what the big hullabaloo is. It's smoother than several semi-automatics I've shot. I like the look of the gun and will probably LOVE the way it shoots. I picked up two boxes of ammo when I bought it: One was a 50rd box of CCI Blazer gold dot hollow point 200gr. .44 specials. The other was Corbon's DPX 225 grain .44 magnum rounds (20 in the box). I think the .44 specials will do just fine for defense, although I haven't "tested" them. Gold dots are historically good bullets....

    BigMike, mine looks just like that, minus the grips. Are those Pachmayr? I want a set of new Pachmayr grips. The Hogue (it has to be hogue, I recognize the design) versions this gun came with are okay, but leave just a bit to be desired, particularly because of the exposed backstrap of the grip, and the place where the pinky finger goes (a tad too short). That's one pretty "big stick" there, 'pard!!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice