Ruger Alaskan 4" - Would you buy this?

Here is a SRH that has the barrel lug milled down and a classic RH barrel installed. It also looks fantastic. Sadly you have to find a redhawk donor for the barrel.

The_Real_Super_Redhawk.jpg
 
omg really?!

Dpris you own that?! I've loved that gun since I first saw it. Such a cool idea was it yours? want me to take the picture down?
 
Venom,
I do own it.
Had it up the hill taking photos of a new chest rig for it made by Galco this afternoon, in fact.

Bowen & I discussed the package jointly, but the credit is his.
I was looking for another 4-inch Ruger bigbore project in the .44 Mag (before Ruger offered barrels that short), and he'd been wanting to build a hybrid modifying the then-new Alaskan (no sight base cutouts in the top of the frame) into more of his Alpine format.

We agreed on his rear & the Weigand front sights & a couple other minor details like the rounded & polished trigger.
I supplied a brand new Alaskan in .454, he scraped up a standard Redhawk barrel & .44 Mag cylinder.
Since he hadn't done it before, getting the snub barrel off was a female dog, but he did it. Cut off the frame extension at the front, cut the Red barrel back, removed the barrel warning (after some persuasion :) ), installed the front sight, installed the barrel, installed his sight & so on, and shipped it back to me.

Sighted in for heavy Garrett 44s, it's my on-body bear repellent in country where serious artillery may be needed, and I doubt a .454 would do much of a better job.
Denis
 
I still want a 454 SRH with a 7.5" barrel but there are some modifications I would love to see Ruger make.

First off I'd want it made with the Alaskan frame. I don't want or need to scope it so don't send me rings and don't mill unsightly scope ring cuts in the frame. They should still make revolvers with the scope mounts for those that do want to scope it, but make it an option.

Secondly, put a rib on the barrel like the Redhawk's to fill in the space between the frame and the front sight. The extended frame is fine and not a bad idea for high powered cartridges but that tube that's just sticking out of it is jarring to look at.

Next, make it with a fluted cylinder that is chambered for 45 Colt with proper throat dimensions. I don't want or need to shoot the 454 Casull and if I bought a SRH so chambered I would only use it for 45 Colt. Stout Ruger-only 45 Colt to be sure but no 454. They should still offer the gun in 454, 44 Magnum and 480 Ruger and with more barrel length options but make mine a 7.5" 45 Colt. With proper throat dimensions!

A combination of the style of the Redhawk with the action and grip of the SRH would be my ideal big-bore DA revolver. I just wish Ruger would make it so I could buy it off the shelf. I don't have Bowen Classic money.

If Ruger would build a stylish and tough-as-nails big-bore DA they would sell a lot more guns than they do now. How many times have we read on one of these gun forums about someone singing the praises of the SRH's strength and accuracy but saying they would never buy one because they can't get past the godawful looks? I'm quite certain that every gun owner that bought the SRH in spite of its looks would still pony up cash if it were good looking too.
 
Last edited:
I've fired exactly three .454 Casull rounds out of a Freedom Arms revolver. I'll never fire another.

I've tried to become proficient with a .44 Mag. No dice. Too much horsepower in a six inch package.

For me, at best, AT BEST, big handgun cartridges reduce a revolver to a single shot. Hitting anything after the first shot would be far more luck than anything.

I know my limitations. A 4" heavy frame .357 Mag revolver is as big as it gets for me. I don't much like shooting +P rounds out of a "J" frame.
 
Besides I have my Redhawk where I like it now.
Click to expand...

Have you polished it up? And what has happened to the front sight?

And finally, what caliber is that?

It looks a lot like my .44. Aside from the grip, front sight and shiny finish, that is...
 
Have you polished it up? And what has happened to the front sight?

And finally, what caliber is that?
Click to expand...

It's a 44 and here's the before pic

Front sight just got hidden by fold in blanket
Here's an older pic of front sight it now has XS regular dot and you can see the rounded butt better with the factory grip.
 
I wouldn't. If a 4" Smith 44 mag isn't enough gun, I'd just as soon carry a rifle as a handgun that big.
 
The main reason I haven't considered a Super Redhawk is that they are just so darn ugly. They look like a poorly designed gun of the future from a science fiction movie made in the past, minus the charm.

I think Venom1956's first picture is a great starting point for future development. I'm partial to fluted cylinders but this is may be on top of the "tank vs. beauty" curve. If they made it, I just might buy it...
 
I think an Alaska with a 4" full lug barrel in 44mag would be perfect. The 2.5" barrel is not enough for a woods/mountain gun. Really don't need any more gun to defend against anything in North America. More options for ammo too with better availability and I can always shoot 44spl in it as an added bonus.
 
Venom, yes, that's it!! (except in .454 C. or .480 ruger)... either a regular Redhawk style bbl like that or just take the Alaskan one and stretch it out.

He's using the alaskan as an example he likes the aesthetics of that model vs the regular style of the SRH with the exposed smooth barrel. He's saying if they made a SRH with the style i.e. appearance of the Alaskan would you be more interested in it?
Click to expand...

Yes, thank you. Didn't describe it very well I spose.
 
4 inch Redhawk in .44 mag with full underlug? Sure. I'd give it shot. Although, that SRH pictured on the first page is speaking to me.
 
Absolutely. The SRH looks like some goober stuck a barrel extension on a snub nosed revolver in his garage. Love the gun, despise the looks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top