Ruger Alaskan 4" - Would you buy this?

[Cosmodragoon]

I hope the marketing department at Ruger reads this forum...

 

[Super Sneaky Steve]

Ruger doesn't even have any Redhawks on their website anymore.

I'd give anything for a 4" .45 Colt, but one of those 4" 454's would be acceptable too.

 

[BusGunner007]

Someone made this pic, on one of the Ruger Forums...

I LIKE IT!!!

If it could be 'nitre blued' for a magnificent blue-hue...oh, my!
I prefer the full underlug look, for sure.

I think 4" would be optimum.

 

[Micahweeks]

Oooh..I like that picture. I'll take mine in the "Royal Phoenix" finish.

 

[DPris]

Ruger says Reds will be back.
Denis

 

[Unlicensed Dremel]

I hope the marketing department at Ruger reads this forum..

Amen and hear hear!

Busgunner, yep, that's it!! Venom's had the porting, yours doesn't - that's whatI'mtalkinbout.

Although this:

No.

4.2" Redhawk stoked with heavy 45 Colt loads would be more than enough.

Is another valid way to look at it I suppose. But I'm thinking a 5-shot instead of 6-shot, 4" Super RH in .454 casull or .480 ruger (sans goofy martian-raygun barrel) would leave plenty of room for error with hot loads - can't mess around with 60K psi loads (.454).

I've actually considered taking a 6.5" Taurus RB and lopping off the first 1.2" with the ports/expansion chamber (see user name), and resetting the front sight back. I despise "loudeners" on my guns. If they're needed, they'll be needed without hearing protection on. Then I'd have a rockin 5.3" .454 casull. But the problem with that is, then the left side of my revolver would read in nice large lettering: "GING BULL"... not sure I want that, and quite sure I don't know what a Ging Bull is. Or if I left it on the long side, it will be an "Aging Bull" gun, lol.

I've had both the 5.0" and the 6.5" RBs in .454 (which are really only 4.0" and 5.5" without the silly porting/expansion chamber), and ended up selling both- just don't like that porting - wasted length and weight, to my way of thinking.

 

[Real Gun]

Question: If Ruger make a SRH Alaskan in .454 casull with a 4" or 4.5" barrel, but a *full-lug* or "full-shroud" 4 inch bbl, not a ridiculous-looking "stepped-down" barrel, would you jump on it?

I know I would. The 2" bbl is just too short.

This reminds me of my 5" barrel Smith 629.

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[Real Gun]

Here's my answer to the Alaskan. The Buffalo Bore I sampled through this .45 Colt Redhawk 4" is an experience I won't forget soon. I don't believe I need a different short cannon.

[/URL][/IMG]