Help me decide which .44mag should be my next

[TheGerk]

Gerk

The Alaskan in .454 is an intriguing package and offers obvious versatility to a reloader.

I know it's a difficult question to answer especially since how each individual handles recoil is somewhat subjective, but how would you compare the handling characteristics of a 4" 629 running a 300 grain bullet at 1000-1100 fps to an Alaskan running the 300 grainer at 1300?

Is it huge? Like a night verses day type of thing? What about flash, especially in a low light situation?

Any insight you can provide would be appreciated.

JB, the first thing I want to say is I handloaded the 454 for 6” and 8” guns for more than 15 years before I bought the 454 Alaskan.
In short, the “felt” recoil is the same or less than with the larger guns.
(Other folks who Handload for 454 Alaskan have also made this distinction)
Much of this is due to the advanced Hogue grip on the gun.
But then again the 454 has more of a “hard push” in “felt” recoil impulse to me than the typical “stinging snap” feeling I get shooting any of my 44’s with full power loads.
The feeling that the skin is going to get ripped from your hand is much less with the 454 to me.
Much of this difference is due to the Ballistic characteristics of shooting the larger diameter (.452”) bullet vs. the (.430”) diameter of the 44 in these similar sized guns.
And Handloading allows you to use powders and loadings that benefit both calibers to better manage this.

As far as flash goes I have never been inclined to test for flash
During daylight hunting and firing I have never noticed a negative effect.
At the range testing loads I can tell there is a large muzzle blast, but I have never been bothered by it.
As you know, things happen in a hurry with a hunting shot.
(I just never notice, with a rifle or a handgun)
I can tell you that just about any powder used for full house loadings is going to generate muzzle flash on the larger scale; there is no free lunch here.
Some powders like V-V N110, AA 1680 and IMR 4227 may be a “bit” easier on flash, but anytime you are loading 25 to ~ 35+ grains of any power into a case, you’re going to get flash.
Here is a photo of my Alaskan
It must be fairly appreciated as I see on my photobucket account it gets hit on, "every single day"
Amazing
Good Luck

 

[TheGerk]

You are absolutely correct about the cartridge choice. You are kind of correct about weight management. And I mean this in the kindest possible way Since you are spot-on about the cartridge rationale, I'll focus on the weight management.

The Alaskan is physically large and it is heavy (43oz empty). The 2.5" barrel is short, but everything else about the revolver is S&W N-Frame on steroids. It is a big freaking revolver.

I can push a 300gr pill to 1100fps (800ft/lbs) from my 329pd without much effort. You can push a 300gr pill to 1300fps (1100ft/lbs) with your Alaskan. What does that 200fps mean? We both know that 1100 ft/lbs doesn't mean squat, since a lowly 30-30 will deliver 1700 ft/lbs, or a 12ga 1oz slug @1600fps will get us 2500 ft/lbs.

The reality is that handguns are woefully under-powered and should be viewed as "better than a sharp stick" because they are with you and not back home in the safe. But given the loaded weight difference (32oz versus 49oz), my bet is that the 329pd is much nicer to have "with you".

Violent Bear encounters are very rare, but eating and sleeping are not. How much weight should somebody sacrifice in the common areas for the statistically insignificant chance of a violent bear encounter? When you are on the trail, the miles force people to examine what they are carrying and why. And to be honest, very few people live & play next to coastal Alaskan bears.

Regarding recoil: A 300gr @1100fps in the 329pd generates 29ft/lbs of recoil versus 28ft/lbs for the Alaskan pushing a 300gr to 1300fps.

I think the Alaskan is the best packing solution that Ruger has, but I solidly believe that the 329pd is the best packing solution overall.

You are absolutely correct about the cartridge choice. You are kind of correct about weight management. And I mean this in the kindest possible way Since you are spot-on about the cartridge rationale, I'll focus on the weight management.

Thanx d, I appreciate the kindness and understanding.
I will try and reciprocate.

The Alaskan is physically large and it is heavy (43oz empty). The 2.5" barrel is short, but everything else about the revolver is S&W N-Frame on steroids. It is a big freaking revolver.

Well actually the Alaskans weigh 44oz. in 454 and 45oz. in 44 Magnum.
While I would agree the cast frame Ruger is larger than the lean and mean forged N-frame gun, I have several N-frame guns and have compared the two.
In real life side by side comparisons the dimensional difference is “actually” minimal.

I can push a 300gr pill to 1100fps (800ft/lbs) from my 329pd without much effort. You can push a 300gr pill to 1300fps (1100ft/lbs) with your Alaskan. What does that 200fps mean?

I believe the numbers indicate over a 300 ft-lb. of energy advantage, no?
Having 30 to 40% additional power available with similar recoil levels.
In my world this is referred to as a “bargain”

Additionally for the uninitiated, as someone who has Handloaded the 44 REM Mag for 35 years, I would caution anyone that while possible, firing loadings of 300 grainers in excess of a 1000 fps in an “alloy framed” gun is not in the long term “interest” of the firearm.

1100 fps velocities is more than likely “at” or “above” the 40,000 CUP (MAP) rating of the cartridge.
Something around 900 – 1000 fps is more reasonable for the alloy framed guns.
These type of loadings can be brutal to alloy framed guns and will even use up the youth of a steel framed N-frame gun if used enough.
I’m not saying the gun will just “blow up” someday, it won’t be that dramatic.
What will happen is all the “sweet” shooting attributes will leave the gun in short order with a diet of these type of loadings.
There is no reason to pound the goodness out of these guns.
If I had a nice alloy framed Smith, regardless of bullets weight.
I would keep the pressures down around the 35,000 CUP mark to keep all the nice operating features of the gun intact.
Once this is lost in the alloy frame, its gone for good.

We both know that 1100 ft/lbs doesn't mean squat, since a lowly 30-30 will deliver 1700 ft/lbs, or a 12ga 1oz slug @1600fps will get us 2500 ft/lbs.

Yes d, but we are not comparing rifles and shotguns, we are comparing handguns.
So this does mean squat in the platforms and applications being applied in this discussion.

The reality is that handguns are woefully under-powered and should be viewed as "better than a sharp stick" because they are with you and not back home in the safe. But given the loaded weight difference (32oz versus 49oz), my bet is that the 329pd is much nicer to have "with you".

I can’t agree that ALL handguns are “woefully” underpowered.
As someone who has carried his 4” and 8” 500 Magnum in the field all day, you’ll just have to trust me on this…”adequate” power is more than available if desired Brother.

Violent Bear encounters are very rare, but eating and sleeping are not. How much weight should somebody sacrifice in the common areas for the statistically insignificant chance of a violent bear encounter? When you are on the trail, the miles force people to examine what they are carrying and why. And to be honest, very few people live & play next to coastal Alaskan bears.

No argument here Brother, but the OP indicates he may be in areas where big bear encounters can occur, this is his concern.

Regarding recoil: A 300gr @1100fps in the 329pd generates 29ft/lbs of recoil versus 28ft/lbs for the Alaskan pushing a 300gr to 1300fps.

My calculations are ~30 for the Alaskan and 29 for the Smith, nevertheless, if you are going to carry, and you are going to be dealing with heavy recoil.
Why carry the same recoil but with markedly less power?
I would choose the power, others may choose differently.

I think the Alaskan is the best packing solution that Ruger has, but I solidly believe that the 329pd is the best packing solution overall.

I have no dog in the hunt, my suggestion was just that, a suggestion..he can take it or leave it.
If the OP feels the lightweight 329 or similar is the best option I’m sure he will take it.
Just as if the increased power capability is attractive to him he may go in that direction.
Many times it’s the choosing that determines how wise we were.
Good Luck

 

[Maximumbob54]

I have become very anti-alloy and even more so in the magnum frames. So no 3XX choice from me. I would have chosen the 29-6 but I can't swear that doesn't have the new non-lead bullet rifling. The bulk of the reason I like big bore guns is to cast my own bullets and most of them are not cast from high antimony alloy. I have been tempted over and over to sell off my 629 since it has the jacketed bullet rifling and will lead like crazy with most of my cast bullets. I chose the Alaskan purely on the facts that Ruger still builds a beast of a magnum revolver and it's very cast lead bullet friendly. I little polishing to a few key points and it can be very smooth in double action. But she will always be the "more of her to love" choice between the N frame and the SRH...

 

[dla]

Additionally for the uninitiated, as someone who has Handloaded the 44 REM Mag for 35 years, I would caution anyone that while possible, firing loadings of 300 grainers in excess of a 1000 fps in an “alloy framed” gun is not in the long term “interest” of the firearm.

1100 fps velocities is more than likely “at” or “above” the 40,000 CUP (MAP) rating of the cartridge.

18.5 grs Enforcer, CP 300gr WFNGC, a little over 1100fps and 33K psi.

As to longevity, I can't answer that as I've never seen or heard of a 329pd wearing out. But S&W's lifetime warranty is pretty nice.

 

[Jitterbug]

I'm in a similar situation as the OP, living in Black bear and lion country and have to contend with an ever increasing Moose population, but spend some time hiking and fishing the areas around Yellowstone, Glacier and points in between as well as the Panhandle.

Recently seeing a huge Grizz in the wild that was pushing 1000 pounds was an epiphany moment for me, making me realize I need all that a handgun could possibly offer if ever needed. Even though most of the Grizz I’ve seen are more in the 500 pound range, it’s an extremely humbling and life changing experience to see one that large and knowing your walking the same woods with it.

Right now I'm running a 280 gr. WFNGC at 1130 fps from my new 4” 629-6 and I want to be able to shoot it at least 12-24 rounds a month for obvious reasons and practice much more with milder loads so I don't beat me or the gun up any more then necessary.

The recoil with this load is not bad at all and with 20.0 grains of H110, I’m fairly certain it’s just below SAMMI max. How long the 629-6 will take it I have no clue. I have about 250 “heavy” loads through the gun now and it seems to have loosened up just a slight bit.

I don’t think I’d gain much by going with a 300 gr. at 1000-1100 fps, so I chose the above as a compromise trading a bit of weight for a bit of velocity. I’ve been running a 260 gr. WFNGC in the 1225 fps range too with 20.5 gr. of 2400 and haven’t really chosen either, both are accurate, but I’m leaning more towards the heavier bullet while in big bear country.

This has been a new project for me and as usual I’m second guessing my setup and have been considering a 5.5” Redhawk in .45 Colt to get that 25% more or less approximate more power with a heavier, faster bullet, even at the expense of carryability.

Since I do spend more time in Black bear, Moose and Lion country the 329 has quite a bit of appeal too, lighter is almost always better when it comes to a carry gun, and for these potential threats a lighter load would probably suffice, a 250/260 gr. in the 1100-1200 fps range comes to mind.

One solution for me might be to have the 329/629 combo for the central Rockies and the Alaskan for up North.

So for me Alaskan is intriguing and worthy of consideration, something to ponder over the winter, I think I’d rather load the .454 Alaskan down and be more comfortable with it pressure wise from a long term wear and tear standpoint then load the 329/629-6 up to max pressures.

I don’t see the Alaskan weighing much more then the 4” 629, the 329 would be a hands down winner for me where I’m more comfortable with the lighter loads. (Places without 1000 pound Grizz)

I did some “Google” on the .454 Alaskan and Jeff Quinn wrote up an article about it along with some photos of the gun in a full recoil cycle with heavy/hot loads and even though he doesn’t specify the load, nevertheless very intimidating photos.

Hindsight being what it is and not knowing more details, and since the OP stated he’d be going into big bear country, I’m going to give the Alaskan my vote.

D. Interesting load you just listed.

 

[TheGerk]

18.5 grs Enforcer, CP 300gr WFNGC, a little over 1100fps and 33K psi.

As to longevity, I can't answer that as I've never seen or heard of a 329pd wearing out. But S&W's lifetime warranty is pretty nice.

10-4 d
The Ramshot data is in psi.
As a reference for those interested, the 44 REM Mag SAAMI (MAP) max is 36,000 in PSI

Sounds like a very nice load d
Should be a dream to shoot in the 25oz. 329

Longevity is not my primary concern as they all “last”
I am more concerned about retaining the “sweetness” of the gun and action
Many times this cannot be restored, regardless of warranty coverage.
Good Luck