Ruger 2.5" Alaskan or S&W 3" in .44 mag??

[breakingbad]

Which is better -

the Ruger 2.5 inch Alaskan or the S&W 629 3 inch?

I have the big Smith 3" and like that, of course. It is a 2007 Emergency Survival Kit gun. But I've always like the beautiful look and feel of the Ruger Alaskan in .44 mag, but not a fan of typical Ruger DA feel.

However, I dry fired the Ruger and the SA/DA felt very good, especially the DA. Wow.

So, let's hear from you all!

 

[Warren Sear]

...
However, I dry fired the Ruger and the SA/DA felt very good, especially the DA. Wow.

So, let's hear from you all!

OK. Bill Ruger sucks:


In his letter to members of the House and Senate on 30 March 1989, Bill
Ruger stated in that which has come to be known as "The Ruger Letter":

"The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to
outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms
(which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to
prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete,
and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of
defining "assault rifles" and "semi-automatic rifles" is eliminated. The
large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes
the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could
prohibit their possession or sale and would effectively implement these
objectives."

In addition to the furor amongst hunters, sportsmen and shooters caused by
"The Ruger Letter", Mr. Ruger made additional comments during an interview
with NBCs Tom Brokaw that angered 2nd Amendment proponents even further, by
saying that "no honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun…" and "I
never meant for simple civilians to have my 20 and 30 round magazines…"

 

[scattershot]

OK. Bill Ruger sucks:


In his letter to members of the House and Senate on 30 March 1989, Bill
Ruger stated in that which has come to be known as "The Ruger Letter":

"The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to
outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms
(which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to
prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete,
and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of
defining "assault rifles" and "semi-automatic rifles" is eliminated. The
large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes
the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could
prohibit their possession or sale and would effectively implement these
objectives."

In addition to the furor amongst hunters, sportsmen and shooters caused by
"The Ruger Letter", Mr. Ruger made additional comments during an interview
with NBCs Tom Brokaw that angered 2nd Amendment proponents even further, by
saying that "no honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun…" and "I
never meant for simple civilians to have my 20 and 30 round magazines…"

.?????????????

 

[Charlie Foxtrott]

Well, thankfully Bill Ruger is long dead. Aside from that I have two of the three inch model 29s. They shoot really well. I have never been a big fan of Ruger firearms with the exception of their single shot rifles. At any rate I do not think that a .44 magnum revolver with a barrel any shorter than three inches is going to be any real improvement.

My two cents.

 

[DesertFox]

That Ruger Alaskan will handle some hot loads that would bring most others to their knees.

That being said, the trigger ain't great and it is one big heavy mo fo. Prolly weighs more than my 12 gauge.

I carry a 629PC loaded with 325gr SP over 19gr H-110 and just hope I don't have to use it!

 

[breakingbad]

yes it is big and heavy ......... like my GF Mable

 

[DAinTX]

Ask the same question on the Ruger forum. (Just kidding...sort of). The Ruger is a rugged, heavy duty gun but the S&W is more refined, IMO. Personally, I'd take the Smith as 1st choice, but I'd darned sure take the Ruger without kickin' up much of a fuss : ).

 

[bsms]

Well, I owned both an Alaskan & a Model 29. I kept the 4" 29, but that was because I didn't like how the Alaskan's cylinder stuck out. The balance was off for me. The hammer also seemed to have a longer throw than I was used to, and that felt weird to me.

However, while my Alaskan looked like it had been finished by an Afghan goat herder using rocks, the DA & SA trigger on it was better than my S&W. And I put a compact grip meant for the 3" GP100 on it, and that part fit my hand fine.

So it depends. Both are excellent guns. I kept the M29, but I can understand someone who chose an Alaskan instead. The guy who bought mine got an excellent gun, IMHO.

 

[kennyb]

i would take the smith...every time...i have the 3"M29-3 as well as the 460 mag.snub and carry every day a 657 3"
S&W big bores are top shelf

 

[BobR1]

As you do not live in Alaska, or other areas where you might end up being Bear Scat, I would say stay with the S&W you already have. It is better looking, lighter in weight, easier to find a holster for, etc.

On the other hand if you do go to Bear Country, the Ruger would get the nod. It will handle 310 grain Hammer Head loads that will not chamber in a S&W. No such thing as too much handgun, or too powerful a load for Bear Protection. It will also handle Heavy recoil much better than the S&W with the Hogue "Tamer" grips that come on the Alaskan Model. Then we have the heavy duty angle to consider. You won't hurt a SRH shooting lots of Heavy Recoiling Hunting ammo.

I like my Smith & Wesson J, K, L, and N Frames. My hunting handguns however are 480 Ruger Super RedHawks. I like the Super RedHawk much better than an X Frame for a serious hunting revolver.

Bob

 

[mc5aw]

Which is better -

the Ruger 2.5 inch Alaskan or the S&W 629 3 inch?

I have the big Smith 3" and like that, of course. It is a 2007 Emergency Survival Kit gun. But I've always like the beautiful look and feel of the Ruger Alaskan in .44 mag, but not a fan of typical Ruger DA feel.

However, I dry fired the Ruger and the SA/DA felt very good, especially the DA. Wow.

So, let's hear from you all!

You already own the 629. Take the $ you would spend on a Ruger Alaskan and use it on ammo for the 629.

 

[Cocked & Locked]

Which is better -

the Ruger 2.5 inch Alaskan or the S&W 629 3 inch?

Hey! Why not the S&W 629 2.5 inch?

629-5

 

[Realzebub45]

629-5

[/QUOTE]

I love seeing pics of this gun, C&L. Thanks again.

 

[M3Stuart]

They're both fine.

Hey, where's the crowd that always says; "buy both"?

Oh yea, it's a Ruger...

 

[Pisgah]

Define "better". The Ruger will survive loads that would border on insane in the S&W. The S&W will handle any SAAMI-spec .44 Mag. load without blinking an eye, though, and is considerably less bulky and somewhat lighter. I would call the Ruger more durable, but it is a matter of small degrees, not a major difference.

For dire emergencies requiring a .44 Magnum, I wouldn't hesitate to use whichever struck my fancy.

 

[CWH44300]

Which is better -

the Ruger 2.5 inch Alaskan or the S&W 629 3 inch?

I have the big Smith 3" and like that, of course. It is a 2007 Emergency Survival Kit gun. But I've always like the beautiful look and feel of the Ruger Alaskan in .44 mag, but not a fan of typical Ruger DA feel.

However, I dry fired the Ruger and the SA/DA felt very good, especially the DA. Wow.

So, let's hear from you all!

The best one is the one you shoot the best

 

[KLYDE]

Both guns are fine specimens in their own right. If you plan on using the gun for bear country using heavy magnum loads I'd opt for the Ruger. The massive forged frame and barrel of the SRH tend to give a little peace of mind.

 

[stmry]

I wouldn't buy both, but I would consider getting the Alaskan in 454 casull.

 

[Bruce002]

I say neither.....go with the 2 1/2" 329 I have the Backpacker IV with Ahrends boot grips more concealable and lighter to tote around!