So thinking I need another option in the .44 Magnum carry gun rotation. Currently I have a Smith 629 Mountain Gun and a Smith 329. The 329 is great for it's lightweight but it is rather large especially with the Hogue X-Frame grips on it. It's also ammo sensitive; the Titanium cylinder can present some sticky extraction with certain loads. They're known for this the gun has been sent back to Smith and I've also done a light polishing on the chambers with Flitz.

Then there's the 629 Mountain Gun, love it, but it is a full sized steel N-Frame with a 4" barrel. Conceals a little better than the 329 since if has Hogue round butt grips on it, but it's still big and relatively heavy.

I also have a 3" Ruger GP100 in 10mm that is a great carry gun. But it's 10mm and I keep thinking a 44 Magnum gives a bigger warm and fuzzy feeling.

So been looking at a Smith Model 69 with the 2-3/4" barrel. It really is similar in size and weight to my GP100, it's 44 Magnum but I give up a round. Then there's the Ruger Alaskan. Yes, it's heavy and a full sized frame, but it's got a snobby 2-1/2" barrel to make it easier for carry. I don't think I'd ever have to be concerned with what loads were being used in the Ruger. The Ruger also has kind a beastly beauty to it...

Interested in those who have either one of these and their impressions of them. Please no comments, "If you're worried about bears get a rifle or a shotgun..." Yes, if out in the bush a rifle is at hand. This intent here is mostly for day hikes and road trips while carrying camera gear. Concealability is a plus. Again out in the bush it's not an issue, but around the Nature Center close to the house and some of the other state parks around, some of the progressives get a little uppity at the sight of a firearm.

Picture of the Ruger Alaskan frame.
That's why we bought a 629 that day.
No 460s with 2.75" or 3.5" barrels in stock was the other reason.

Otherwise the Alaskan is a nice looking gun.... in 454, which in a fun conversation with Hornady, they told me the 454 ammo beats the Rugers up a bit too much.

My boy never carries the 629 in populated hiking trails West of Denver. A 10mm or 9mm Glock with proper ammo is easier to conceal.
Even when skiing..... his Grandpa was 10th Mountain in '41.

Attached Images

IMG_1060.jpg (48.6 KB, 114 views)

__________________
Have Fun/Stay Safe

I like the Alaskan a lot, but in my opinion it doesn't really make sense in calibers other than .454 Casull. The S&W 629 UDR is 7.5oz lighter, has a longer barrel, better balance, better ergonomics, better trigger, it's just a superior revolver (with a full grip). The Alaskan's claim to fame is that it is probably the smallest handgun able to give you ~1900 ft⋅lbf levels of power in a gun that is actually still practical and reliable. Having said that, shooting hot .454 Casull from the Alaskan is no fun at all, I'd rather shoot 500 S&W Magnum from the 3.5" PC, but it is doable. You can shoot six reasonably fast, reload and shoot another six without having to get medical attention, and if that didn't safe your life, then other, easier to shoot handguns probably wouldn't have either. So there is a place for the Alaskan, but it's not the 6-shot .44 Magnum market. Lots of better options available there.

I’m not sure what good there is in any .44 Magnum revolver when the barrel gets too short. I guess it is something to sell. IMO, 4-inch is the absolute minimum that makes any sense at all, and 5-inch is a lot better. But that’s just my opinion and all I can say is of the two weapons you mention, I’m pretty sure the Model 69 would be my choice.

I don’t have experience with fighting bears, but I’d think a cool head, good marksmanship, and a sufficient amount of penetration would be more important than incremental amounts of power beyond a certain point, and if raw power is really what is needed, then obviously the longer barrel is the surest way to get it while keeping other factors in balance. It’s a fun topic to consider, until Mr. Bear actually comes along, intent on turning you into a meal.

I have a SRH Alaskan in 480 Ruger and S&W M69s in both 2.75" and 4.25" bbls. The 2.75" M69 is my favorite big bore double action platform. The Alaskan feels like a boat anchor to me and I haven't been able to get used to the double action. This just my personal opinion and other's will rightly disagree. I just passed my mid 70s and tend towards smaller lighter guns
.
A little work with a belt sander, dremel drum sander, knife or combination reduces the bulk of the "Tamers".
.

.
Buffalo Bore, 305 LBT LFN HC rated 1,325 fps
Underwood, 305 LFNGC Plated (HiTech?) rated 1,325 fps
LabRadar muzzle velocity at 33 deg F
S&W M69 2.75" ===> BB 1,195 fps ===> Under 1,147fps
S&W M69 4.25" ===> BB 1,276 fps ===> Under 1,248 fps
Ruger SRH 7.5" ===> BB 1,395 fps ===> Under 1,315 fps
.
Paul

I have two 44 Magnum revolvers, Ruger Alaskan and 629-6 Deluxe 3" bbl.I like the Alaskan for heavy factory loads and when I carry a revolver for a daily carry, I prefer the 629. I have owned both Model 69's and did not like shooting them with magnum loads,44 spl. was fine. I like short bbl. 44 Mag. revolvers and IMHO, they are perfect for short hikes in the National Parks.

I’d go with the Ruger over the 69. They are built like a tank and will handle just about any load you can stuff in them. Another option to consider is a 3” 629, which is what I carry. A good high ride belt holster conceals decently under an untucked button-down shirt or a jacket. That’s what I carry loaded with the Buffalo Bore 255 grain hard cast “Lower Recoil” loads. They are still pretty stout at 1,350fps but according to Tim Sundles are safe in any revolver.

Attached Images

DFB8793C-C247-4829-8851-997F1286A522_1_201_a.jpg (121.3 KB, 48 views)

I have an Alaskan and Mod 69. Both are great guns. The Alaskan can handle the hottest of loads. The 69 carries better. Both have been very accurate in my hands.

If I were doing something more stationary like fly fishing I'd opt for the Alaskan. If I were on a serious hiking/camping trip I'd take the 69 because ounces become pounds on the trail and I'd rather have less weight and bulk to carry.

In short, if you're going to be away from civilization for a spell I'd go for the 69. If you're likely to be in and out of your vehicle on the same day doing whatever activity the Alaskan will be fine.

In reference to the model 69. It's a much easier carry than my 3" 629. I also like what Paul105 did with his 69 grips. I may consider that.

I have the snubbie 69, which I like. I didn't like the factory grips as they made too much bulk and IMHO defeated the reason to make the rest of the gun that small. If just weight and not size is the issue the factory grips are fine I suppose.

I put Hogue Bantam checkered wood grips on it. They are sized appropriately to the gun and do offer good grip and enable rapid follow up shots. (No pinkie!) However, with hot loads they are fairly brutal.

I did our Florida HR218 qualification with it using my fairly hot hand loads. Not crazy hot but honest magnums. The course of fire is only 40 rounds no farther than 15 yrds.

(FDLE Law Enforcement officer Firearms Qualification Standard)

The accuracy and and speed possible with the gun made the course of fire
easy. (Well the course is easy.) However, there was blood on the grips by the time I'd finished. I didn't notice any structural pain as in orthopedic type but my skin sure took damage. Of course in a life or death situation some blood on the grips is a non-issue. I don't know how many rounds it took to hit blood. More than 5 I'm fairly sure.

I'm no bear expert (understatement) but I believe, if I thought big brown or white bears were very likely, I'd want a bigger gun. At least my ported 629 Trail Boss but probably bigger. Maybe an AR carbine in 450 Bushmaster? Of course the only bears I've ever seen were little black bears raiding trash.

Everything is a compromise.

My experience FWIW. I had the S&W 69 with 4.25 barrel. Easy to carry, 5 rounds but difficult to get back on target with magnum loads.

Spent a day with a Ruger Alaskan. It shot good with the extra weight. Maybe just this particular gun but it had alot of tool marks and not a great finish overall. Trigger action not smooth to me.

Have a 629 5” Classic. Shoots accurately, OK with magnum loads but wanted something shorter.

Have a Taurus M44 6 rounds 4” with ports and gas expansion chamber and 45oz. Quick to get back on target with magnum loads and fairly short barrel.

Like woman, pick a gun you feel comfortable with.

Attached Images

6E118A59-F05B-4067-BA69-2D3A2F77D287.jpg (57.9 KB, 33 views)

If you want to shoot the Buffalo Bore Heavy .44 Magnum +P+ (SKU: 4D/20) cartridge, you don't have the OP's stated choice. Only the Ruger Alaskan (among a very few other wheel guns) is approved by the ammo maker for shooting that load. There are no S&W revolvers strong built enough to make the list. And I don't care about concealment in the bear/moose woods; in fact, I want the potential two-legged adversaries to be quite aware of the hand cannon in my Kenai chest rig. And that holster makes weight differences between large bore revolvers nearly irrelevant. The weight difference between my Alaskan and a Mod 69 would be only a minor component of my total backpack/gear weight, and my shoulders and hips can't tell the difference (though after a long day my legs definitely remind me to reduce overall pack weight whenever practical to do so).

Why not a regular Redhawk with a 3 inch barrel? I have one that is gentle with 44 specials and handles Buffalo Bore just fine. Yes it kicks a bit but probably no more than the 629 and disappears in a Tom Threepersons OWB. Throwing another monkey wrench at the machine!

I have a 4.25" M69, it has been back to the S&W Performance Center for their action job. Unlike most others here, I've opted for a much more sedate load. 280-300gr hard cast or XTP bullets at 1000-1050 fps. Plenty of penetration and quick follow up shots. I just shoot the L frames better than anything else, so it's just personal preference.

I've killed one charging black bear (coming into the cook tent at contact distance) with a 444 Marlin rifle. The 300gr XTP's dropped it like a sack of potatoes. But then as close as he was, a much lighter bullet would have done the job.

Based on field reports of actual bear attacks, good hits with pretty much any deep penetrating bullet will do the trick. But bigger, faster, and more is always better.

__________________
Captain Dave Funk

I would say that is true about everything! (too much is never enough!)



I'm getting old and feeble and still like my 629-10 PC 2 5/8". Great trigger! but I would have rounded and fluted the cylinder. I found 12 hours in DeSantis OWB to be very tolerable but was getting pretty old at 16 hours!

Ivan

Almost 10 years ago I fired my first .460 Rowland - a Glock 20 fitted with long slide and 6.61" barrel plus brake. It was long, but only weighed 34 ounces. Underwood 255 grain hard cast clocked 1,385fps/1,086fpe which easily exceeds the floor of true magnum power - one kilojoule at 1,300fps.
Underwood 230gr. XTP clocked 1,522fps/1,184fp. I came home and sold off my Desert Eagle - 72 ounce boat anchor and never looked back. I've never again carried a 10mm or .44 magnum in the field. That big Glock pointed like the finger of destiny, cycled so gently I had to double-check to remember the power of what was coming out the front end, and I could easily ring the 12" steel gong on the range located 126 yards out.

Not long after I had to try the 1911 platform so I converted one using the Clark Custom kit, followed in time by Rowland's tougher buffer system, and to make a long story short, most recently, Rowland's V2 recoil damper with 11 pound recoil spring. The 1911 - though only 5.4" barrel, is the better all-around choice. 10 rounds using CMC mags, 240gr hard cast TC at 1,400+fps, best trigger in the world, and astoundingly little "kick" - the V2 system must be experienced to believe! I can shoot any power loads from 230gr. ball, performance loads, +P, even .45 super - extremely versatile without changing springs.
For me the 1911 grip, trigger, and compactness wins out over the Glock, and the V2 damper isn't available for Glocks.

Today the only gun I carry out in the field is my SA Mil-spec fitted with Wilson Combat BT GS. It weighs just an ounce more than my M69 4.25" barrel and holds twice as many shots, and unlike the brutal kick of the revolver, the Rowland can easily be accurately rapid-fired delivering almost 1.4 kilojoules per shot and 14 kilojoules total energy, compared to the revolver at half that.

Of course I still own my various revolvers and admire them each and every one, and enjoy shooting them, but there's just no reason to carry one. The only Revolver I might choose to carry would be my 500 four inch for the ultimate energy delivery per shot, but there's really no animal that needs such power. When a given load is capable of shattering a bear's skull and penetrating through several feet of bear - which both .44 magnum and .460 Rowland are - and .454 Casull, and on up, the next consideration is platform - and a 10 shot 1911 platform beats all the revolvers hands down. Same logic applies to the 10mm which doesn't quite make the one-kilojoule floor, but when you have a gun carrying 16 rounds of 200gr. hardcast making 850 joules per shot, that's 13.6 kilojoules total energy. Either auto choice completely eclipses any revolver choice, with the .460R shading the 10mm due to it's more massive slug and per shot energy capability.

It kind of became a moot point tonight. Went out to the range to try out Grizzly Ammunition's 260gr WFNGC load in the 329. Good accuracy and absolutely no problems with ejection.

Part of the joy of living in Alaska, Midway, Natchez, etc. won't ship ammo here. So we're kind of dependent on what shops stock. Underwood was providing sticky extraction in the 329 which I wasn't comfortable with. Buffalo Bore I've had bad luck with in the past with blown out primers. I'm just happy I've got another alternative for a dedicated bear load that functions in my 329.

I get the Buffalo Bore 255 grain Keith semi-wadcutter loads at Northern Security. No problems with blown primers or sticky extraction, and no leading either.

Thanks I'll have to go check them out.

First let me say that I've trained for years via Youtube videos and watching Kung Fu movies and don't need to rely on any firearm to defend myself from bears. I've become a lethal weapon right from the comfort of my recliner.

But for you untrained folks, I think the short barreled 69 would be perfect for the job. It will be more comfortable (and maybe more likely to be carried) than bulkier and heavier handguns. I wouldn't worry about the 69 holding up to hot loads. You're not going to be shooting hundreds of rounds a day through it at prairie dogs. You're going to shoot it a few times to adjust your sights and then for practice every once in a while.

Interesting article today at AmmoLand.com on bear stops with handguns, more than 98% effective:

Handgun Defenses Against Bears - 170 Documented Incidents, 98% Effective

__________________
Captain Dave Funk

How about get the Ruger Alaskan in .454 and lighten it?

That is, look at the frame. What can be lightened?
-Flute the barrel like a S&W 640 Pro?
-Some cuts in the grip frame?
-Make the hammer DAO?
-Can the .454 cylinder be fluted and not reduce strength?

I bet a custom maker like Gemini can be contacted and maybe do such to it.

I notice the 454 Alaskan weighs 44 oz unloaded. Maybe bring that down to 39 oz or less. S&W 69 weighs 37.4 oz.

Attached Images

naked Alaskan.jpg (53.3 KB, 8 views)

__________________
Deaf