Ruger Alaskan .454 vs. Taurus .454

I

icedog88

New member
Besides the price difference, pros and cons of each? I am thinking about getting a .454 just because. Doesn't have to be for anything specific really.

As an aside, can you change the silly grip with the ugly orange backstrap and trigger adjustment keyhole on the bottom of the Taurus?
 
The biggest one is that Ruger is six rounds while Taurus Raging Bull is 5 rounds in 454.
Then Taurus is ported which does helps with muzzle flip a lot, but since you talk about Alaskan I assume you compare it to 2.5" barreled Raging Bull - that port takes about 0.75" of bore out of that 2.5" barrel leaving it essentially 1.75" barrel.
Another quite significant difference is that you'll need both hands to unlock cylinder on Taurus - it has two independent latches, one in normal location and one in front of cylinder, kind of like Dan Wesson.
And while Raging Bull line have pretty good reviews (unlike some other Taurus made guns), Ruger is much more robust gun.

And those Taurus grips are probably one of the best grips (in terms of dealing with recoil) I have shot
 
Yes, I am referring to the 2.5. vladan, have you shot either of these in the aforementioned configuration? How does the recoil compare? If it's not that significant, I think the Ruger might just be the way to go as the other features don't matter that much. I just can't get over that racing stripe grip :D.
 
I'll agree that I wish they had chosen a less flashy color on the grip, but I own both Taurus and SW bigbores and Taurus wins the prize for grip design, in terms of diminishing felt recoil. It's not even close.
 
Even though you don't like the red ( not orange) stripe down the back of the grip, it is a little softer than the rest of the grip and is there for comfort. It does make a difference and I have shot both. The grip on the Taurus IMO is more comfortable against recoil. My .44 RB has the same grip and I shoot 500+ rounds quite often out of it at the range and is comfortable to me throughout. As far as the double lockup goes, to me that is a plus on the larger caliber revolvers. And as for the ported barrel, when it comes to felt recoil, it makes a significant difference which makes it quicker to get back on target after firing as well. I see no negatives out of anything in question other than if you don't like the color of the comfort stripe. Also cost a hell of a lot less than the Ruger. I am by no means rich but I could afford either when I bought my .44 RB . But I had already been the S&W route and shot my Stepfather's Ruger .44 plenty throughout the years. After shooting a friends .44 RB and .454 Casull RB it was an easy decision. Besides I already had some other Taurus revolvers that I was perfectly happy with. Don't get me wrong, the Ruger is a fine gun, but I like the Taurus better. And by the way, the grip is changeable and there are other grips available, but I would bet you won't find another as comfortable as the stock one.
 
Lol, slightly color blind I guess. I have no problem with Taurus per se, but just wanted to know if the quality of both guns were on par. Anything I should know before buying one over the other. As I can't test one just, wanted some input in regard's to others preferences.
 
It is hard for me to compare Taurus with anything and with no other reason I choose the Ruger, with no doubt.
 
Look inside

I have thoughts about your choice of caliber involving the volume of the cartridge vs the volume of the barrel not giving a lot of room for acceleration, thus wasting a lot of the cartridge's potential. But I will spare you them. Just go to the web site "Ballistics by the inch" and research.

I have Rugers. I chose them because they are strong. Not only the frames and the cylinders, but the internal parts.

I suggest you take the sideplate off the Taurus and drop the trigger group out of the Ruger, compare the parts and evaluate their strength. Of course, that is not possible, but if you can ask a gunsmith who has worked on both, you might get some good advice.

I believe the Taurus is lighter than the Ruger. If you intend to carry a lot, that might "weigh" in on your decision process.

Unsolicited advice: If I wanted a short-barrelled 454 Casull, I would get a 7.5" Ruger and have it cut back. Magnaporting would then be an option and the ballistically useful barrel length can be selected to your satisfaction. If you ever want to add an optical sight (scope, red dot or whatever) to the gun, the Alaskan does NOT have the scope mount scallops.

If one don't like the red stripe on the Taurus grips, what keeps one from simply (permanently) staining it black?

Lost Sheep
 
Last edited:
I own an Alaskan in .454 Casull. It's a very well made gun, shoots fantastically, and I'd bet my life on it. I wouldn't say any of those things about a Taurus.
 
When it comes to the Raging Bull Series I'd trust my life to one.

Now normally if given the choice between a Ruger and a Taurus I'd choose the Ruger any day hands down. For example - regular Taurus .44 mag revolver vs. a Ruger Blackhawk? Ruger all the way. Hell I chose the Ruger Super Redhawk over a Taurus .44mag. Now had the choice been between a Ruger Super Redhawk and a Taurus Raging Bull .44mag I'd have to think harder.

Taurus really did well with their Raging Bull design. Their grips are hands down the best factory grips that come with any revolver I've shot. Felt recoil is greatly reduced with them over any other factory grips in the same caliber. Their Raging Bull revolvers are over-engineered and purposefully built extra tough. These aren't light revolvers - they're slabs of steel that can also shoot a large caliber bullet. They're tough and reliable. I've never owned one but a buddy of mine has one in .44mag and .454Casulle. He's got thousands of rounds through each of them and he shoots Buffalo Bore and Garrett's Hammerhead ammo through the .44mag constantly. Ammo that's not recommended for your run of the mill S&W or other revolvers. In fact one of the few other revolver models recommended by Garrett is the Ruger Super Redhawk.

In this case though I'd go with the Ruger - longer effective barrel means you're eeking out a little more muzzle velocity...
 
I've got an Alaskan in .454. It's been shot a lot with some stout .454 loads and is still as tight as it was in 08. I won't ever be attacked by a bear in East Texas but I know the Ruger will be up to whatever task or load I ask of it.

If your hand or wallet can handle it so can the gun.
 
The Taurus WILL handle anything the Ruger will and just as good, but a little more comfortable to shoot. Make all the arguments you will, but the Taurus Raging Bull line is built just as good as any and better than some. I to have shot numerous rounds of the 340 gr lfn +P+ Buffalo Bore loads, and never had a problem. Couldn't even shoot them in the Smith I had, well at least it was not recommended. If you like the looks and the feel of the RB and your only quam is the red stripe (which you can change or as someone suggested maybe stain it black), I say go with the Raging Bull. It's more comfartable to shoot, just as reliable and a lot less denero! Why pay more if you like the looks of the Taurus as good or better. Because it will perform just as good but with less felt recoil. I guess some people just have to be able to say " I own a Ruger" or "I own a Smith". My Stepfather used to be one of those people, but after I had some of my Tauri for a few years and he was able to shoot them often, he started to sway. Then upon me purchasing my Raging Bull .44 Mag and him shooting it against his Super Black Hawk, he was sold. He now owns the .44 Mag and the Judge both in the Raging series along with some other Taurus revolvers not of the Raging series. All of which he is perfectly happy with!
 
Raging Bull 44Magnum

I too is thinking of getting a big caliber gun. I'm leaning towards the RB 44magnum with 8" barrel or maybe a 6.5". I mainly like the looks of the Raging Bull, it's just so awesome!
 
But when it's all said and done, after the thrill of the initial purchase has wore off and after the money saved has long since been forgot about, well, it's still just a Taurus.
 
Thats funny! After the new has worn off and the money saved............... Thats right, it's still a Taurus Raging bull! And I will pit my Raging bull against any of your S&W's and Rugers or whatever and I will guarantee you unless you can just outshoot me, you will do no better, and I will also guarantee you that my Raging bull will shoot just as dependable as any of the others. The bashing just never quits and for no good reason. Like has been said before many times, most of the bashers have never even shot , much less owned a Taurus. It's always second and third hand accounts, I have a friend that has a brother that knows this guy who said his gunsmith saw.......Whatever! It never ends. I tell you whats funny, to see my neighbor spend $1000 for his Smith and Weson .44 Mag ( cause he's got to keep up with the Jones's) and shoot my $600 Raging Bull .44 Mag at the range and say he screwed up. Said he liked the Bull better. Was more comfortable to shoot with less recoil and seemed to him to be balanced better. He wishes now he would have told the Jones's to get lost and saved that extra $400+! It's also funny that when we go to the range together, he burns up about 70% of his amo through mine. Last time we went together I told him he just needed to sell his S&W and get his own RB so we could make our trips a little bit shorter. I sure as hell aint fixing to shoot my ammo through his, I bought the Taurus and sold my S&W cause I liked it better! So why waste my ammo?
 
I also find it amusing how people bash Taurus. Now I'm no fanboy and I've personally experienced Taurus' "sensational" (sarcasm) customer service but the quality of their revolvers has never been in doubt in my mind.

I've owned several Taurus revolvers in the past and would purchase them again. As for Taurus semi-autos I'm leery about it now. I've never had a Taurus revolver break down on me and honestly they're finished just as well as any Ruger and even some S&W. For the money a Taurus revolver is a great buy and a reliable gun. Sadly I'm not sure I can say the same about their autoloaders and I definitely can't say the same about their customer service.

If both guns had the same barrel length and the same ammo capacity in the same caliber I'd go with the Taurus and save money. I know the Taurus will be just as tough as the Ruger and be just as reliable. In regards to this thread and the OP though I'd go with the Ruger because of the 6 in cylinder vs. 5 and the ported barrel of the Taurus (meaning less actual usable barrel) makes me decide to go with the Ruger. If those things didn't matter to you though I'd suggest the Taurus and save the money for ammo... .454Casulle isn't cheap.
 
Taurus Raging Bull is still the big Caliber gun I am going to get. I don't hunt at all... I just want to shoot a 44 mag period and maybe if I can find a good left hand leather shoulder hoslter I may just conceal carry it. I don't like a bandoleer holster though.

Anyone bought a gun from "impact guns"? I'm thinking of ordering my RB from them.. Is there any difference between a 6.5" and the 8" in accuracy? Sorry, OP, I didn't meant to hi jack.... Thanks guys...
 
Ruger- a fine revolver that you can take a lot of pride in, will handle any 454 ammo and holds 6 rounds.

Taurus- a good reliable tool, that cost hundreds less, will handle loads hotter than you will want to shoot and holds 5 shots.

I'm not bashing Taurus but I'd rather spend $1000 on a ruger than $700 on a Taurus.
 
I think the Ruger is far heavier built. However be advised that a 454 Alaskan is hard to come by. A quick glance at Gunbroker shows exactly zero 454 Alaskans for sale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top