S&W 500 or Ruger alaskan 454

[lindcase]

Hi all,
I just picked up some reloaded 45lc and while there I asked the owner if I could purchase 1 round of 500 S&W MAG. What a big ass bullet! I already use 45lc and was thinking maybe the Ruger Alaskan in .454 would be best for me since I can shoot 45lc through her. Anyone have or shot both? Any thoughts?
Thanks
Cliff

 

[MachIVshooter]

For all intensive purposes, the standard Ruger Super Redhawk .454 is a better bet than the Alaskan. It will lend itself to better accuracy, and will be more pleasant to shoot extensively. You also will sacrifice a ton of energy in the Alaskan's short tube. Just my $0.02

 

[eastwood44mag]

For all intensive purposes, the standard Ruger Super Redhawk .454 is a better bet than the Alaskan. It will lend itself to better accuracy, and will be more pleasant to shoot extensively. You also will sacrifice a ton of energy in the Alaskan's short tube. Just my $0.02

Shameless plug

One for sale on this site. Buy it before I do (please)

 

[rick_reno]

Haven't shot the .500 - I've got 600-700 rounds thru my .454 Alaskan. Shoots really good, able to ring a steel gong at 50 yds consistently. I spent a lot of time looking at both before buying, the 500 - even with it's shortest barrel - was just too much gun for me to carry comfortably - the weight and size are more than I want to lug around. The little Ruger carries better than my 5.5 inch Redhawk, I don't even know it's there. I'd get whichever one you're more comfortable with, they're both nice guns. I think I read that Taurus is building small (2 inch?) .500. That'd be a nice handgun.

 

[tc300mag1]

I dont have the alaskan but a SRH 7.5 redhawk on 454 and a 500 smith in 4" ..


The 500 is easyer shooting on you at least it is on me 454 has a lot worse felt recoil the muzzle brake really works on the 500

 

[Skyviking]

If you plan on packing it around in the bush, then I'd go for the S&W 329. Light on the hip, Heavy on the hand. I really love mine.

Regards,
Andy

 

[only1asterisk]

lindcase,

It just depends on what you want to do with the revolver. What is that, by the way?

David

 

[Stainz]

A great woods/urban carry gun with a wide energy range is once again available from S&W as a 'Stocking Dealer' goodie - the 629 Mountain Gun. With it's 4" tapered tube, it is 2" overall length longer than the Alaskan - but weighs in at 3 oz less. Mine was bought for .44 Russians and Specials - but graduated to Magnums with a grip swap to the excellent S&W/Hogue .500 Magnum backstrap-enclosing grips. Mine sees mainly a range gun's life here, just like my other firearms.

Of course, I think my homebrew 300gr LSWC's at 920+ fps from that 4" gun, admittedly a tad wimpy, are good woods protection - and the Speer #4427 200gr Gold Dot JHP, whether loaded as Blazers or GA Arm's loads, offer great urban protection. Don't get me wrong, I loved my .454 SRH - and still love my myriad of .45 Colts (Including a 625MG so chambered.) - that 629MG seems to just offer a wider range of abilities - especially for those without reloading possibilities.

Additionally, try to find the Alaskans now... the supply seems to have at least temporarily dried up. The 629MG may just be the least expensive... but don't forget those .500 Magnum grips ($35 from S&W Accessories.). Besides, if I were to get the best short range really big and mean beastie stopper, I think I'd go for the 3" .500 Magnum first - the .480 Ruger Alaskan second - and followed up by the .454 Alaskan and then the 629MG in .44 Magnum. Of course, try to find ammo for them outside of a well-stocked gunstore... the 629 MG wins here - you can buy .44 Magnums from Wally World on Sunday.

What function did you want it to serve?

Stainz

 

[rick_reno]

Additionally, try to find the Alaskans now... the supply seems to have at least temporarily dried up.

Alaskan 480's are around in abundance, the early .454's have dried up.

 

[biere]

I don't know how you define a ton of energy but gunblast has an article on the alaskan with chrono work and while the short barrel gives up some speed it does not really make the 454 casull a neutered round or anything.

I compare the loss in speed to the short barrel 308 rounds. You lose some speed, but you are still a big step above most of the common competitive rounds.

I mostly want a 45 colt double action revolver that can shoot +p loads and not have any problems. The alaskan will do everything I want and more so I am leaning in that direction.

I do wish ruger left 2 more inches on the barrel. My wish is not strong enough to make me get a wild west guns custom super redhawk wolverine, but it is close.

The smith and wesson mountain gun or lightweight 44 mag are perhaps worth considering but if the wish is for a major round the smith and wesson does not get there in the mountain gun.

Overall, it depends on what you want the gun to do.

 

[P. Plainsman]

For a portable DA revolver in the handcannon class, the .454 Alaskan would offer a great deal. I've handled one, and it's surprisingly handy -- much more so than the short-barrel .500 S&W. Like other Super Redhawks, it will probably come with a decent DA trigger. It has great cushiony grips. It'll shoot everything from whomping Casulls and uber-.45 Colt +P stuff from Buff Bore and Cor-Bon, to warmish .45 Colt defense ammo, to cowboy plinking rounds.

Gunblast's article (and Taffin's piece in Guns) suggest that .454 out of the Alaskan's short barrel is comparable in energy to heavy .44 Magnum out of a regular barrel. Plus you get a wider bullet.

I think it one of Ruger's better recent ideas.

The S&W 629 Mountain Gun is another versatile recommendation, if you can be happy with a .429 caliber bullet instead of .454 or .500.

 

[wickedsprint]

For all intensive purposes, the standard Ruger Super Redhawk .454 is a better bet than the Alaskan. It will lend itself to better accuracy, and will be more pleasant to shoot extensively. You also will sacrifice a ton of energy in the Alaskan's short tube. Just my $0.02

This has been proven untrue, one can expect less than 15% in velocity loss compared to a 7.5" .454, the point of the alaskan is not to exploit the best performance of a .454, but rather to have over 50% more power than a 7.5" .44 magnum from a 2.75" barrel that is easier to carry. Here is a recent article discussing the loss at the bottom, very minimal actually.

http://www.shootingtimes.com/handgun_reviews/rgrRH/

 

[MCgunner]

I like my .45 colt blackhawk, super accurate. I find no real reason to own anything more powerful. It is in .44 mag territory with hot handloads and packs light, is a strong gun. It'd be fun to own one of those cannons just because, don't know what I'd do with it, though. Got a friend with a Desert Eagle .50AE that just got it "because". For practical purposes, that thing is as heavy as a friggin' carbine.

If I were to be in brown bear country with it, though, I'd do as advised and save the last round for myself. I would feel a LOT safer in BIG bear country with a slug gun slung over my back. Better yet, a Browning BAR in .338 Win mag. Or, a good choice is the little Marlin Guide Gun in .45-70 or other thumper calibers with HOT loads.

My .45 Blackhawk:

 

[AgentOrange]

"For all intensive purposes"

EASTWOOD44MAG
just so you know, its not supposed to be "intensive purposes", but "intents and purposes"

 

[Boats]

Actually, using such a phrase at all is little more than filler and can be cut from one's writing without pain.

The standard Ruger Super Redhawk in .454 is a better bet than is the Alaskan. No filler and it's your unvarnished opinion.

My other "favorite" filler is the use of "In my opinion. . ." If it weren't your opinion in the first place, whether original or adopted from someone else, you wouldn't be expressing it.

 

[goodtime]

Here's some more figures on Alaskan 454 velocities
http://gunblast.com/Ruger-SRHAlaskan454.htm

 

[Nero_Atrum]

You could get a S&W .460 and shoot .454 or .45 LC through it.


Woah! I just noticed when this thread was started...

 

[Mainsail]

No thread is much good without pictures. This is the .44 Alaskan

 

[rogertc1]

Both great guns..My Alaskan .454 feels like more recoil than my M500 (sharper). Ruger has advantage not only smaller but takes 45C.

 

[stalkingbear]

I've shot both & own both and really see no reason for the .500S&W except ego. If my .454 Casull don't do it with hardcast, I'm a goner anyway.

 

[Redhawk1]

I have both and I do see a place for the 500 Mag. If I had to choose just one, my 4 inch 500 Mag would be it. The 2 1/2 inch 454 Casull is not a match for the 500 Mag.

 

[GoodKat]

I shot the 500 once, and only once. I one hand overloaded 44 mags with no problem, and I could still barely control that 500, I doubt I could hit anything with it.

 

[Redhawk1]

It's not that bad, if you can shot hot loaded 44 Mag, the 500 mag is not much difference in my opinion.

I have been shooting the 500 mag for over 5 years with no Ill effect at all.

 

[wyocarp]

Since we haven't heard back as to the intended purpose, the only useful response has been from Mainsail.

Mainsail, thanks for the picture and a nice one at that. I was thinking the same when I came to your post.