44 Or 454?

B

bk83gold

New member
I need some help in deciding between a 44 mag and a 454.

I like that the 44 mag ammo is readily available. I also like it for plinking I can shoot 44 special and for hunting I can hand load a hot load. I really like the ruger super redhawk but I do not care for the barrel lengths it comes in. I am looking for a shorter 5" or even 4" barrel.


The 454 in no doubt way more gun. I like the New Ruger Alaskan. I can shoot 454, 45 long colt, and 45 long colt +P (which is more like the 44 mag power) I also like the size of the new Ruger Alaskan the best for carry in the field. I don't like how much the ammo costs for the 454 and I don't like how it is not as readily available.

I go prospecting in Alaska once a year and this would be the main reason for considering the 454. I am a little worried about a 44 mag on my hip in Alaska even though they say it will kill a grizzle. The 454 with the short barrel makes the draw quicker and the power is just fine with me. So what do you guys think, for the once a year I go to Alaska is the 44 mag OK.

Thanks Brandon
 
You can get some really hot .44 loads like Garret, Buffalo Bore and others. You can get the Ruger Redhawk instead of the Super Redhawk, it is available with a 5.5 inch barrel and looks nicer than the super. Shot placement is the most important factor with any handgun. I wonder how much energy is lost with the .454 Alaskan? It only has a 2.5 inch barrel. It may end up being close to a .44 Mag with that short barrel.
 
IMO, the .44 Magnum, in a 5-6" barrel, is a better choice. Ammo is more common, has more variety, and is less expensive. As Deerslayer points out, the .44 Magnum has some very serious loads available for it - the hot, nonexpanding hardcast loads can go right through a grizzly. Finally, a decent size barrel should help you to actually connect should you ever have to shoot a grizzly in self-defense. It's unlikely you'll ever actually need to use it, but if you do, you won't have all day to miss the thing before he gets you. You want to hit vitals on the first shot, and every shot you manage to get off.

For example, S&W has this 6" half-lug available in their 629 series:
163606_item.jpg

Has a nice long sight radius to help you hit what you want to, 6" of barrel to provide oomph and tame flip, and 45oz of heft to soak up discharges to help you get off followup shots.

Some Bear-y Nice Factory .44 Loads:
  • Federal's 300gr hardcast @ 1250fps
  • Buffalo Bore's 305gr hardcast @ 1325fps
  • Grizzly's 300gr hardcast @ 1325fps
  • Grizzly's 320gr hardcast @ 1300fps
  • Corbon's 320gr hardcast @ 1270fps
  • Garrett's 310gr hardcast @ 1325fps
 
Last edited:
I wonder how much energy is lost with the .454 Alaskan?
Click to expand...

I have always wondered about the practicality of this particular handgun. Not only would you lose a bunch of energy due to the short barrel, but the muzzle flash and recoil from .454casull and hot .45Colt loads would be horrendous.
 
I also have the 5.5 inch Redhawk in .44 mag...for my once a year Alaskan trip, I would take the Garrett loads with the heaviest bullet available. However if I did not have the Redhawk, I would get the .454 Alaskan even with the short barrel. Or maybe even the S&W 500 with the short barrel.
 
I am a long-time .44 mag shooter and advocate, but your specific use says ".454 all the way". In your shoes, I'd go the full monty and get the Alaskan in .480 Ruger.

Take the most power you can handle. You're going to have to shoot any of them pretty well to save your hide. I have it on pretty good authority that bears don't read ballistics tables.
 
Picture is worth a 1000 words

MVC-020F.jpg

MVC-021F.jpg

... Jeff Quinn of Gunblast.com, seasoned big bore shooter, shooting the Ruger Alaskan. Lucky if you could even hit a charging bear with what is a virtual snubnose on the first shot, and no way are you getting in a second aimed shot, unless it's from your back.
 
.44 = enough gun?

From the FAQ at Garrett cartridges:
Are our 44 Magnum loads really capable of handling grizzly? The answer is yes, in the hands of a reliable shot. From a comparative point of view, our 44 Magnum Hammerheads provide far more penetration than the 300-grain NosIer Partition fired from the 375 Holland & Holland. Also, both bullets present an extremely blunt front end (meplat). Our 44 bullets also offer far greater security from bullet fracture or deflection than any expanding bullet. Since beginning production in 1988 we have had many customers defend themselves from grizzlies, and always our 44 Magnum ammo has provided super-deep penetration, generally to the hips on a frontally shot bear (even when the skull is engaged.)
Click to expand...
 
.45 Colt +P every bit superior to .44 Mag. IMHO. A little less pressure and larger diameter = less blast and less snappy recoil.Get a Redhawk or Super Redhawk.
 
IMO, the .44 Magnum, in a 5-6" barrel, is a better choice. Ammo is more common, has more variety, and is less expensive.
Click to expand...

Amen! IMHO, anything more is just bling.

For reloaders the heavyweight Garrett loads are real easy to duplicate or surpass and at no more thab 5 bucks per box of 50 too (at least for me, who casts his own Lyman 429650 gc bullets) (320g Keith)
 
I believe the article at gunblast.com where those pics came from will have the numbers of the alskan barrel vs a normal super redhawk barrel.

I want to say the short barrel loses 250fps but I forget what it sort of averaged out too.

As others have said, the 454 casull seems to be what you want.

I have nothing against the 44 mag but I seem to heading towards 454 casull simply because I can load 45 long colt for plinking and load 454 casull for more serious stuff.
 
Ive got the SRH 454...if your not affraid of a little recoil i would go with the SRH if the length is too much for you wild wes guns makes a cool 5 1/2" ported 454 from a SRH which is really sweet...and the 45 LC are really mild in the big framed SRH and can comfortably plink all day long and still have ALOT of power...

Osirus 101
 
if you like the way the gun looks....

I would get the 44 because of well.... everything. I am sure you can load the 44 up to anything you want. :D :) :)
 
With out sounding stupid what is the difference between the Redhawk and the Super Redhawk? I know barrel length is one of the things. To me it looks like the handle is different also.

I found out tonight that my Grandpa just purchased the 454 Alaskan so he said I can shoot if before I decide. I also priced out the ammo You guys are right way more expensive.

I think one of the biggest factors for me is the size. The shorter the barrel the quicker the draw. It will also be easier to carry around than a longer barrel. I metal detect and I wear 50+ lbs or gear and head phones. So by the time I figure out a bear is charging I am only going to have a point and shoot situation. I may now be leaning twards the 44 because 364 days out of the year I will need to buy ammo for plinking. :eek:

I have heard Taurus makes a airlight 44 mag with a 4" barrel. I know Taurus has not had the best rep in the past but I heard that they are coming up and that they too have a lifetime guarantee.

Brandon
 
Lots of advice...

Brandon, what's the largest caliber handgun you've ever fired?

The Redhawk is a fairly conventional handgun.

The Super has a frame projection out the front that the barrel screws into. That allows easier scope mounting in that both mount points are on the frame. It also doesn't have a conventional grip frame. The frame projection for the grip is simply a bar that protrudes downward. That allows a very wide latitude in the design of the grip, or, looking at it another way, allows for a lot of cushion between the shooter and metal if a rubber grip is used.
 
You can get short barreled .44s too - at least down to 3"... and it's true what you say that you will finish your draw faster if the barrel is shorter.

However, you will place your bullet(s) more accurately and manage followup shots more effectively with more barrel (plus get some extra power from your gunpowder).

A lighter/smaller S&W is their pretty 629 "Mountain Gun":
163653_item.jpg

...tapered 4" barrel and 39.5oz.

Even lighter is their Scandium 329PD (4", 26oz)... but that thing is not supposed to be real controllable. If you're target shooting, followup shots don't exist, so you can get away with one of these popgun sized cannons... but with a big grizzly, they are likely to be needed, and both fast and accurate - IMO, that means a reasonable sized gun.
 
Just to toss this in....our shop foreman, an experienced and fanatic hunter/fisherman carries a 10mm Glock (as actually do a lot of folks)...his rationale...firepower in CONTROLLABLE package...

Our fearsome leader ( a registered guide none the less) packs a 45 auto converted to 460 rowland...rationale...firepower in a CONTROLLABLE package

Yours truly, a city boy that ventures into the wild once in a while...44 mag mountain gun stoked last year with 300 grainers, but this year with 240 grainers...rationale CONTROLLABLE...if the Glock 10mm had a smaller frame I would carry one of them.

I have my finger on the shooting pulse of many folks who LIVE here....you would be suprised at the haNguns they carry in the fieled...but a daresay that most of them ARE Not 454S and virtually none are stoked with Garrets...

Working out in remote area? 12 gauge

WildsameoldthreadAlaska
 
The super redhawk apparently will take the grips from a gp100 revolver, I read this on another post but have never seen it done.

The redhawk was impossable for me to find a comfortable grip since the big metal outline of the grip has to be wrapped around with rubber. It just got too big and the factory wood grips were not comfortable for me when shooting mild 44 mag loads.

I would run some searches on the light weight 44s since I know the smith and wesson version seems to have a rep for losing its barrels. Plus it is interesting to read about the recoil folks talk about, I thought I wanted one but lots of reading has me sort of thinking otherwise.

Overall I think you are wanting to mess with some rounds that will recoil in the packages you are considering so I think I would skip the lightweight versions.

But then again I think tamara was one of the first to wonder when someone would want a riboflavin 454 or something.
 
The biggest caliber handgun I have shot was a 454 casull with a 7 1/2" barrel. It kicked pretty good but I was 18 at the time. I also own one of those Smith and Wesson 386 scandium and titanium guns and when I load that up with 357 it is not so fun to shoot as a target gun so forget the 44 in that light weight stuff. I am not going to bash Smith as I own them and think that they are wonderful guns, however is it true that when loading hot loads the Rugers can handle them more consistently because they are built a little stronger???? Like I said I am not starting a Ruger Smith fight I have heard that from a number of gun stores where I live. Also when I look at them side-by-side the Ruger’s look stronger. I know looks can be deceiving that is why I am asking.

Brandon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top