All,

Ok, I was at my LGS the other day because I'm looking for a .44 with a shorter barrel than what I currently have. They had the Ruger Super Red Hawk Alaskan and there was a Smith with a 3" barrel.

I noticed that the frame on the Alaskan had quite a bit more metal on it than the Smith and looked stronger. The guy behind the counter said that this isn't necessarily so and continued on to say that the Ruger frame is investment cast and then machined whereas the Smith and Wesson is forged then machined. He said the forging is stronger than cast and so even though it looks like less metal, they are pretty close in strength.

Does anyone know if what he says is true? The Ruger sure looks solid. I know they both have good warranties, but I'm using handloads (below maximum in the Speer book) which may void it. Would you have any reservations buying the Ruger vs. the Smith? ......TIA.....

The clerk is taking his spiel from Ruger/S&W ads of the 1970's, and from less-than-knowlegeable people who don't know there's more than one way to skin a cat.

The Redhawk is a massive revolver, overbuilt and much stronger than the S&W, investment castings or not. If my main concern is light weight for comfortable carry, I'll take the S&W; if its brute strength, it's the Ruger every time.

__________________
Pisgah

X2

My Super Redhawk is a beast. Wouldn't hesitate to put really, really heavy loads though it. It's build like a tank, looks like a tank and weighs just a little less than a tank

Nothing looks like a M29 IMHO, pure poetry in my eyes. I stick to 180 and 240gr loading in them. Not that I go over the max limits for those loadings either. No real need for a range gun.

The Ruger is stronger. If you are going to shoot a lot of hot ammo, or even a small amount of uber-super-duper-hot ammo (IE ruger only loads, guess why they got that name) The Ruger is the only game in town.

If however you plan on shooting standard stuff and occasionally something a little extra warm, the S&W will do fine. It will also make a nicer carry gun.

__________________
Formerly know as Lucky Derby

Actually the Ruger does not come with a warranty. They just take care of their customers. Here is the statement that comes with Ruger firearms:

WHY NO WARRANTY CARD HAS BEEN PACKED WITH THIS NEW RUGER FIREARM

The Magnuson-Moss Act (Public Law 93-637) does not require any seller or manufacturer of a consumer product to give a written warranty. It does provide that if a written warranty is given, it must be designated as “limited” or as “full” and sets minimum standards for a “full” warranty. Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. has elected not to provide any written warranty, either “limited” or “full”, rather than to attempt to comply with the provisions of the Magnuson-Moss Act and the regulations issued thereunder. There are certain implied warranties under state law with respect to sales of consumer goods. As the extent and interpretation of these implied warranties varies from state to state, you should refer to your state statutes. Sturm, Ruger & Company wishes to assure its customers of its continued interest in providing service to owners of Ruger firearms.

I own both, so nobody can accuse me of any brand loyalty nonsense. For hard shooting and a high round count, I'll take the Rugers all day long.

Hard to believe a lot of stuff you hear in a gun store.

I looked for a S&W 629 with a 2 1/2" or 3" barrel for a long time. The only one's I could find were overpriced I thought as they are a rarer item. One day I went to the LGS and there layed an Alaskan. It was beautiful and quite a bit less than any 629 I had found so I bought it. Haven't looked back. It is a great shooter and handles well. The score, S&W 10, Ruger 1!

i would take the S&W any day of the week...i have a 44&41 mag.in 3"barrel and they both shoot great...if you want some super hot load...jump up to the 460 or 500 mag.

__________________
SWCA#2208
KK4EMO

one's a dump truck, the other is a refined, sexy sports car.

as this is a S&W forum, I'll let you guess which

i have both the 4" 29 and the .44 alaskan.
the ruger is way stronger just like everyone said. it also just has that look that did it for me the first time i saw one. think it is the massive polished muzzle crown that sucked me in.
the thing shoots very accurately for being such a short sight radius, and soaks up recoil well because of the weight.
thought the hearing aid cases were an apt base for the first photo.

Attached Images

	alaskan and 29.JPG (96.4 KB, 1904 views)
	ruger alaskan 1.JPG (71.1 KB, 1480 views)

Heavier construction means heavier on the belt. The main purpose for a short-barreled magnum is for self-defense in the woods (or evil streets), not blasting paper on the range. A Smith N frame is more than capable of handling the hottest factory loads.

A Ruger is heavier mainly because the founder's stated goal was to keep machining costs to the minimum. This means practically nothing is removed from surfaces whose main purpose is cosmetic. This is on top of the fact that forgings are inherently stronger than castings, and can be machined to lighter cross sections.

I doubt that I will ever wear out my 40 oz "Mountain Gun", and if I do, it would require enough ammunition to pay for it three times over. In the mean time, the weight savings might add up to a lot of pound-miles.

Sadly, Pisgah is a bit off plumb here. The question was about the 'Alaskan', which is a nearly barrel-less Super Redhawk - not a Redhawk. Actually, the Super Redhawk came about as an attempt to convince shooters that Ruger had a viable .44 Magnum revolver, early .44 Magnum Redhawks having suffered from a frame/barrel threading problem which would occasionally 'launch' a barrel downrange. The single spring lockwork of the Redhawk had it's problems, too, and the separate hammer & trigger return of the Super Redhawk is a great step forward there. If you want Ruger's best .44 Magnum, choose the SRH - not the RH. It also has a grip stud in place of the RH's large grip frame, meaning the SRH can sport different grips.

The SRH also benefited by a higher technology SS, as used in the .454 Casull and .480 Ruger SRH's. My .454 SRH was my all-time favorite Ruger; my .45 Colt RH was tied for least favorite! It - and it's bottom dweller sibling, an SP101, drove me away from my all-Ruger revolver collection to a much happier 'all-S&W' collection today. I have the opinion that if a given SAAMI spec'd caliber isn't enough for me, I'll go to a 'hotter' caliber rather than a '+P+' load in an existing caliber.

The hot Alaskan was the .480 Ruger caliber, only made for one run - the whole .480 Ruger, a .475 Linebaugh 'Special' loading, eventually being totally dropped by Ruger. I've shot them all - and was 'impressed' most by the .454 Alaskan. With it's barrel nub in that large snout, it produced a fireball with real .454 Casull rounds. My favorite round in my 7.5" .454 SRH was the Hornady 240gr XTP - 2,000 fps (2,130 ft-lb!). From the Alaskan - fireball! The .44 Magnum Alaskan seems unnecessary - plenty of good short barrel 629/329/29 variants exist. IMHO, of course.

If you need more oomph than a .44 Magnum... consider a .500 S&W Magnum!

Stainz

And....the Alaskans can be had in .454! To make the jump to a S&W X-frame, you have to go to a huge gun that isn't exactly easily packable.

I own a Ruger Alaskan 454 Casull short barrel and a 629. The 629 is tough to control but trust me the Ruger 454 will almost rip your hand off.

__________________
NRA Bene Life, SWCA 2372

I own a 29-2 and am looking for a 3" or 4" stainless .44 to carry on a backpacking trip in Alaska. I tried out the 4" 629 and the Ruger Super Alaskan and the Super Alaskan had a much nicer trigger pull than the 629. When I get ready to buy, I'll go for the RSA, no question about it...

My hiking/backpacking/riding gun for black bear country is the 329NG. Here weight and compactness maters, and the Smith is a full pound lighter than the Ruger. I only shoot 'standard' power loads, like Hornady factory 240 gr XTP in this light frame gun. Anywhere else where weight doesn't matter, such as car camping or camping off the ATV's, I prefer the Ruger because it just shoots better than the Smith. Here the hotter loads are usual.

For really big bear/moose/bison country, my 'light' hiking gun is the Ruger Alaskan .454.

Got to say that the steel frame .44 Smiths just don't have a niche anywhere in my arsenal. They are to heavy for backpacking in black bear country, and to underpowered for grizzly country.

Thanks for your opinions folks.

I checked out this gun and it seemed so light that I felt that it would be too painful to shoot in .44 Mag. It sure is light for carrying though. I guess that if you really needed to use it, you wouldn't mind the recoil!

If I need something more powerful than a 44 Magnum I'll get a S&W X-frame in 460 or 500. Someone else can have my share of Rugers.

Yeah....but you are also having to go to a MONSTER gun. I want guns that carry and pack easily. I do have a 4" .500, but I would only carry it if I was in very high risk grizzly or brown bear country (stream fishing SE Alaska for example). The Ruger .454 is a nice intermediate, carries way better, and it will do the job! http://www.takdriver.com/showthread.php?t=723

I know this is a Smith & Wesson forum but my opinion is this:

EVERYONE needs a 454 Alaskan in their collection. That is one bad mother!

Its the only revolver that I enjoy shooting Casulls through.Admittedly heavy, a little unwieldy but quite accurate with the short barrel. And the grips are a delight. If I had to face a charging grizzly on a narrow trail I would feel capable af taking care of business. You can,t compare this gun to a Smith in any caliber. My favorite Alaskan hunter is a 475 Wildey, big unwiedldy and can serve as a club like the Ruger.

NRA Benefactor

Thanks again for the replies everyone, and I enjoyed reading about the .454 Alaskan and I'd love to try it out, but the local range that I go to does not allow anything above the .44 mag.

I could of course buy a .454 Alaskan but I'd only get to shoot it if I went and found another range that would allow it, or went out to the desert to shoot it (the peoples republic of southern california!). I don't believe it's because they feel it's unsafe for their backstop, but rather because of the muzzle blast from the larger calibers might be disturbing to your fellow nearby shooters. I already almost always get some kind of comment about loudness or muzzle blast even when shooting my current .44 revolver in an automatic world.

I currently own a Performance Center Stealth Hunter (my only handgun at the moment, returning to handguns after a long dormant period) and if you're not familiar with this model, It's a huge, heavy N frame with a 7+ inch barrel. On top of that, the barrel is thick and there's a Weaver scope rail molded in too. It's great for target shooting and is very accurate with a great trigger that is way superior to either the Ruger or the 629 that I held, but I wanted something smaller and lighter, and something that I could holster if necessary for my next centerfire handgun. I just wanted to find out if the guy behind the counter was pulling my leg about the Ruger being cast then machined, with the implication being that it was inferior to the forged Smith. Both of these guns are way lighter than my current Stealth Hunter.

Sounds like the Ruger is plenty strong alright! It sounds like it's stronger than the Smith in many peoples opinion, and can handle even hotter handloads.

I realize "buy both" is overly simplistic, but if possible i would. They are both sensational firearms. Best of luck deciding which one.

I've been pondering the dilemma of what firearm to pack on me, in a holster, while hiking or hunting for 2 and 4-legged critter control. For years I’ve carried a Glock 20 with a 6” barrel and a 6” slide, stoked full of the original Norma 10mm loading of 200 grain semi-jacketed hollow points at 1200 fps. I can control it and empty the pistol very quickly into a 6” circle at 15 yards. Every round carried 700+ f/lbs of K.E. Multiply that times 16 and that’s a lot of trauma to soak up, even for a bear. But I still felt under gunned. So, I found what I think is the perfect solution; a S&W 500 Magnum 6.5” Hunter with the full rib and full lug, and a compensator. I just got done installing The Plug into it, so I’m going to load some ‘warm’ rounds and see what I’ve got myself in to.

__________________
Ralph J.

I would like to jump in on the CAST VS FORGED thing.
Given the unknowing of who did either, I would generally pick forged.
In the case of Ruger I would believe that they would use only first class Castings.
All forged is not the same either--S&W uses good forgeings.
I have a Norinco 1911 that is forged and is better, harder and stronger steel than either Ruger or S&W use and it is Chinese.
Depends on who does the work.
I certainly would not scoff at a good cast frame/slide pistol or revolver.
Ruger makes a stronger weapon as a general rule---that said--I don't think the Smith puts together a weak handgun.
Blessings

__________________
TEXAS, by GOD

I'm not sure how the .454 compares but I've had someone in the next lane over at my indoor range shooting off a S&W .500 and it really was intense Even with ear plugs under my ear muffs I could feel the concussion blast from each shot! My .44 mag was a pea shooter by comparison and I did find it quite challenging to shoot accurately with that going on.

And my favorite range toys btw are my .44 mags, the SRH Alaskan and Desert Eagle. I did have a .480 Alaskan as well but it just didn't seem as fun to shoot as the 44.

Well, I was considering the 629 Backpacker but could find it no where...there were several Ruger Alaskans out there in LGS all in 44Mag. I did pick one up for under $900 today and am very happy with the purchase. It will be my Pennsylvania hiking carry, watch out momma bear. Will be using 44 special for some target practice and moving up to 44mag soft point for target/training purposes. I will eventually work up to some buffalo bore solid cast anti bear ammo. This gun will function fine for me, I anticipate picking up an alaskan guide rig for chest carry (accessories make the outfit an'all).

Next on my list is for my bucket list Alaskan hike...for Gris I'm thinking the Ruger Toklat in .454 Casull should be the ticket. I'd go S&W but so far the Toklat (a Super Redhawk 5 inch barrel) is the best choice. I don't want to go to 460 or 480 or 500...since S&W doesn't make anything less that shoots 454 Casull I am stuck with the Ruger. But that's ok, life is too short to only have one brand...or one caliber...or one any one flavor. Although, admittedly, I do prefer vanilla over most other flavors

flyerdoc: I came across your post when I saw the 629/Alaskan comparison in the title. A search on this Forum will turn up 2-3 VERY interesting threads about the SRH Alaskan in 2015. You might want to look into them. Seems there is a dedicated cadre of Alaskan chauvinists on this forum, of which I am one! The wonderful DA pull of the Alaskan is a strong selling point, plus, some of us love snubs, no matter what frame size or composition. Best wishes and good shooting!

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

S&W 44 or Ruger Alaskan ? Kinda like asking, Jenifer Lopez or Rosie Odonnel?

When you like to shoot the heavy hitters, you WANT Rosie

But, as I said, there were no Jenifer Lopez types to be had, whats a feller ta do???

A 6.5" 500 magnum sure seem like a lot of gun to lug around all day, and it needs to be "on you" should the need ever arise to put it to use. Granted, I'm not a big guy but an
8 3/8" M29 was too much for me to carry, the barrel length being the main culprit and I traded it off as I probably would not have used it again, I figured I may as well have something I want and will carry/shoot more often.

If I remember correctly the S&W .460 will also shoot .454 Casull.

Boy do I agree with the above. Shot my brothers Ruger American 454 Casull. 2 shots was enough for me and I shoot hot loads (not max) in my 29-2.

The 454 Alaskan is snappy and hard to control. That's why I like it though. It's a challenge. I think if you work up to it, and have a good grip on it, it's fun to shoot. Then again, 45LC out of the same gun is fun too, and real easy to shoot.

My 629-5 Lew Horton is all I can handle with Baffalo Bore 305gr Hardcast whew, 454 is a beast hurts my wrist.

Attached Images

20160226_095948.jpg (44.4 KB, 101 views)

__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

The barrel on the Alaskan is too short.

The 4" Redhawk would be my choice if the standard 629 in 4" did not exist.

The 629 will stand up to all the shooting you will want to endure and be just fine with up to 300 grain hard cast at 1200 FPS.

Here are two points I feel need to be made.

1. I would gladly pay for two 629's for a lifetime of shooting (if necessary) than use/carry a Ruger DA .44 mag.

2 If I truly needed more energy/penetration than what I could achieve in the 629 I would carry a compact rifle in a large caliber (or shotgun). I for one do not see the point or have any need for the .454 or 500 etc. IF there is a chance of a tango with a large bear one would be a fool to rely on a handgun.

I've learned from knowledgeable gunsmiths: Strength of the revolver is the limit the steel (cylinder and top strap) will withstand before a catastrophic failure. The durability refers to how many rounds (within saami specs) the revolver will take before the lock work and yoke-tube needs maintenance work.

The weak point on a DA revolver is the yoke tube. Excessive endshake is the enemy of a revolver's ability to function. When a round is fired, the cylinder slams back and forth in it's window, which batters the end of the yoke tube. The yoke tube will eventually start to peen and shorten, which causes endshake to increase. This is bad, and if left unchecked, will destroy the revolver.

Ruger revolvers have much thicker yoke tubes, with more surface area on the mating part. They can therefore take many more rounds than S&W revolvers before endshake becomes excessive.

Smith & Wesson revolvers have tighter specifications to work within before they are in need of repair, and they have skinnier yoke tubes. Therefore, compared to Rugers, S&W's need to be repaired more often, given the same round count and pressures.

My personal opinion: I like S&W revolvers for shooting non-magnum rounds. 38 and 44 specials are great, and these guns are very well made. If I want to shoot lots of magnums, it's the Ruger for me. GP100, or the SuperRedhawk.

If you are going to load ammo that will substantially damage or stretch the S&W's frame, you are likely to give out before the gun does. I have a Redhawk and a 629. I have both because I like big bore revolvers. I load my own ammo except for that used in my carry guns. I live on the coast of Virgnia in the burbs (yuck) and there are no griz around here and I dont need a handgun to avoid the Hugh Glass Experience. If I felt a need to carry a .44 Mag or .454 with ammo loaded to frame stretching levels, it's time for a heavy rifle like my Ruger Number One Tropical in .458 Win Mag (no griz around here but an enraged jumbo might escape from the circus)...In my younger days of deer hunting in the mountains, I usually carried my old Security Six with some stout handloads...I find the idea of shooting full power .454 from a short barrelled revolver unappealing and really don't see the point except as a stunt maybe...At my age, I don't like pain and don't want to make my arthritic hands and wrists hurt more and my eyebrows have more hair than my head so I wanna keep em!

Well pardner, if it t'were me against a griz, I'd rather have Rosie O'Donnel to throw at it than Jennifer Lopez.....jest sayin......
If I'm in the lower 48, then Jennifer Lopez will do quite nicely

__________________
Forum consigliere

I don't think you could throw Rosie.
Mark

I gotta say, with all this talk about pushing a revolver to it's maximum limit, perhaps just a bigger gun-designed for the intended power-is needed? Lots of ammo manufacturers load great bullets with moderate or even reduced loads of 454 or 480. Even better if you hand load.

And really, many a wise handgun hunters of bear will tell you that moderate speed is best. Big heavy bullet, yes; max powder underneath, nope. The thing about snubs though, is in order to get a moderate speed, you've got to use a max load. I guess you know where I stand on snubs. But you do you.

and .45 colt

I've got a Ruger Alaskan .454
Not much use around here, other than fun.


Powerhouse Handloads ::: 360-grain Cast WNFPGC with 22-grains Lil' Gun. Bear Stoppers. Head Turners. And a big Grin!

Pop Loads: 255-grain lead over Trailboss in the .454 case.

__________________
John

Have a Redhawk 44 magnum with the 6" barrel. used to love to shoot it and once had a chance to shoot exactly 2 rounds of 454 Casul in a Super Redhawk. Well two rounds was quite plenty thank you very much. Unloaded the revolver and handed it back to it's owner. As I get older I find I have enough aches and pains so why should I get any more. 44 Special to the rescue. All the fun I used to have and no pain. Still have the 44 magnum Redhawk and she gets shot about once a year. Frank

"Buy a shotgun... buy a shotgun!" - Joe Biden

I own a shorty Ruger SR Alaskan in .44 mag.

In car comparisons, it is a 1970 Charger 440 with a blower sticking out of the hood - a real beast. The S&W is more like a corvette. All depends on what you want to do with it.