I have a friend that has a Ruger Alaskan and it is an impressive piece. However, while I lived in Alaska for many years I always carried my Model 29 four inch but he thinks the Ruger is better, does not have a lock to fool with and is really a prize. I know S&W made some 44's in a short barrel but the lock is another topic I guess. Thoughts?

Both are great guns but the main attraction of the Ruger to me is stainless steel. Now if you run out and buy a 629.....I'd take the 629 hands down. Objectively I'm not sure without a lot of ammo and damaged nerves in your hands, wrists and arms that you can make a wrong choice.

Does either of you pass a hearing test, Huh, Huh, HUH????, after a 5 round simulated survival gun fight with a paper plate target at 25 feet?

__________________
S&WHF 366

I've read and heard that after a close up fight for your life, the shooter never feels the recoil or cares about ringing in his ears for a day or so. I'm going to guess its right. On the other hand, firing my 329 with 240 grain full house loads isn't a lot of fun, and that with hearing protection. But it just doesn't matter if you die because the bear has you for breakfast. And if you live and he dies, you'll get over it.

__________________
Dick Burg

I've got the Alaskan.

If I had to do it over, I'd get a 629 with 4 or 5 inch barrel...probably 5. From a cross-draw holster or chest rig, it wouldn't be much extra to carry, and it would be a LOT more fun for target shooting and plinking. And a bit easier to hit a charging bear with...

I too have an Alaskan and I am very happy with it. I carry it more than my Smith MG, but I don't live where big Bears are.

I've had two Alaskans. One in .44 Mag and one in .454 Casull. While fun to play around with they were both pretty darned brutal to shoot. Currently, I have a 629 PC 3". It's marginally easier on my "dish water soft" hands.

Ugh...I read these threads and I'm like what have I done? I won't be able to shoot my .44 mag mountain gun for another week, and have ordered some Buffalo Bore 270 soft points and 225 DPX's and just wondering what it will be like.

The nastiest thing I've ever shot is a 11 oz titanium smith snub at the range with BuffBore 158 lead HP's +Ps designed to pull 1,000 fps +/- and 350+ lbs of energy out of a 2 inch barrel.

That was brutal. I stopped after the 4rth shot-was like why was I doing this to myself. Monster of a self defense load though-I'm not a recoil shy person either-

Guns and Ammo TV show had a preview of the Alaskan in .454 Casull. The guy shooting it after the second shot looked at the weapon with hesitation to fire a third. The recoil looked like it would be easy to plant the front sight in his forehead. Lucky for him it went over his left shoulder and missed. Brutal is an understatement, I take the recoil and balance of the 629 any day over the Ruger Alaskan, it doesn't feel good to me.

Tough question as they are both great guns and either will do the job. it all comes down to which one fits you better. I'd probably sell the Model 29 and buy a 4 inch Model 629 pre lock but that's just me.

Smithslap,

Shooting those 270s out of your Mountain Gun is going to be eye-opening to the extreme. Work up to it with a few rounds of stock 240s first. Oh wow!

I've got a .44 Alaskan and a 3 inch 629 Trail Boss. The Trail Boss recoils worse than the Alaskan. No doubt this is because the Alaskan is quite a bit heavier.

__________________
Ron
NRA Life Member

If I were getting a Ruger, and I am not saying I would, a "standard" Redhawk with the 5.5" bbl would be my choice. Grip is well designed (I am talking the service woodies here) and the barrel length is a decent compromize between noisy, fiery snub, and pure, long barrelled hunter.
But that may be dodging the question posted.

I tend to agree with Anton. If I were buying another Redhawk it would in the 5" .45 LC. Accuracy on the Alaskan wasn't bad at all for a snub nose revolver, but recoil was enough to keep me from shooting it a lot. Having said that, the recoil of the Alaskan in either .44 Mag or .454 Casull was no less punishing than an airweight J frame snubby. Talk about a brutal gun to shoot!

I recently took my Model 60 with service stock grips out and shot 357 loads. With Pachmayr grips, it shoots fine, but the little service grips? It hurt more than the Alaskan does with 300 grain bullets.

I said and still believe that for the shooting I do, I would have been better off buying a 629, but the Alaskan puts the bullets where the sights are and is built heavy enough to take most anything. I've tried several different grips on it, and just got a set of Eagle grips that fit my hand like a glove, so I need to go shooting and find out how well they work on recoil.

And I put the Pachmayr grips back on the model 60. Not as concealable, but it won't help to have a gun I can't hit anything with because I'm crying with fear every time I pull the trigger...

But if I were buying an Alaskan again, I'd go with the 45 version. More power when you really want it, and a very versatile round for daily use.

I have both the mountain gun and just traded for an alaskan 454 casull. Alaskan hands down favorite gun, too me there is no comparison, I might even consider selling the mountain gun.

I realize our bears in WV are not nearly as large as the bears in AK. But I prefer the S&W's. I have a short barrel 629 that I bought back in the late 80's. And it is a handful to shoot.

However I bought a 329PD. And I prefer it over any other revolver when it comes to carrying in areas where you think you might need it.

I shoot mine a god bit with 44 Special power loads. Not the full power 44 magnums. But I load it with good heavy loads when I am carrying it.

Personally for me, the carrying part of a heavy revolver is the real problem. And when carrying the 329PD you do not even know it is there. So I always carry it because it is so easy to carry.

And personally I do not think the weight would be any problem at all if and when I needed to use it. Just an opinion. Tom.

Thoughts, eh? I have never figured what a really short-barrelled 44 Magnum is good for, regardless of manufacturer. Even when I was younger, a 4-inch gun was no fun, and now, much less so. Mountain Gun, 329 PD - more of the same, just worse.

I don't live and hike around in big bear territory but I know a bit about the guns mentioned. I would prefer the standard 4-inch S&W, and really, no more bother than a 6-inch gun is to carry when walking, I would probably prefer it.

Hamilton Bowen once showed me a very nice Model 629 with the "Classic" (i.e., Python-type) barrel contour that he had chopped down to 4-inches. Having seen that one, I think if I planned to carry a 4-inch S&W 44 Magnum and thought there was any chance I would have to shoot it quickly/repeatedly, I would be sending one of those guns his way for appropriate modification.