Ruger SRH Alaskan .454 Casull -OR- S&W 625-5 .45 Colt......Which one to keep?

S

Southern Shooter

New member
I own both of the guns listed in the title. They are awesome guns and in beautiful condition. The S&W is a 1989 pre-lock production. Niether of them are for hunting but rather for woods/mountain defense. The Alaskan has a 2.58" barrel and the S&W has a 4" barrel.

Because I hand load, I can do everything and more with the Alaskan that can be done with the S&W 625. So, my question is:

Is there any real need or reason to keep both of these gun? Opinions?

Thanks
 
I readily agree there is a lot of overlap in what those two guns can do.

For the lower 48 doing much of anything, I would personally keep the S&W.

I find the Alaskan to be quite heavy for what it does, IIRC it is only two ounces lighter than a 4" bbl Redhawk.

I can think of two really good reasons to keep the Alaskan:

1. Salmon fishing on the Alaskan coast where your probability of meeting a hungry bear is relatively high. The 2" barrel will do well in a chest/ shoudler rig while you are handling fish and fishing gear, and the .454 is a good choice for point blank defense.

2. If you have a 4" redhawk in .45Colt, the .454 cylinder from the Alaskan is supposed to drop right in. I have seen and shot a few of them, and reading the parts list from ruger it looks like a go. I have never actually done it myself.

3. I thought of a third. The Alaskan is very popular with hikers who aren't gun people. Takes up less space in their back packs, and that demographic seldom practices at ranges beyond 7 yards or so.

For me personally dipnetting for salmon is three or four field days annually, my 4" redhawk does fine under hip waders in a chest rig. If I had the money I can think of several other things I would spend it on before springing for a 2" Alaskan- mostly because I already own a stout 45 with a 4" barrel.
 
Poindexter

Poindexter,
Now that you bring it up, I had bought the Alaskan for the purpose of backcountry protection in the Wyoming, Idaho, Montana area. And, with the hopes of someday soon spending extended time in the backcountry of Alaska. I have the Guide's Choice chest rig made by Diamond D Custom Leather. Very nice setup.
 
It's definitely a very nice setup. I decided to stick with the 4", gosh about a year ago. What happened to me was I started doing failure drills (aka stop drills) with my field gun.

I owned a 4" Xframe SW in .500magnum, up against the clock my time to draw and deliver a controlled pair to the chest followed by an aimed shot to the orbital socket at 5 yards was really slow. I could start with a folded knife in my pocket and deliver a single stab wound faster.

So I needed a smaller lighter gun and spent some time looking at whether a 2" or 4" bbl would fit my needs better.

My biggest single influence was this one:

http://www.customsixguns.com/writings.htm , he has some really nice things to say about the 4" bbl SW in 45 Colt. I would be comfortable with his elk camp load anywhere I go.
 
Poindexter

Poindexter,
A few years ago, I had the chance to talk several times on the phone with Mr. Linebaugh. I was inquiring about which big bore caliber to invest in for the purposes I had in mind. I was sold on the .45 Colt. By the way, he is a very nice person.

I purchased a 4" Ruger Redhawk. However, there was a concern with the shroud/barrel and frame alignment. Ruger wanted it back and after inspecting it decided to "chop it". They had no other .45 Colt Redhawks available as a replacement...NONE!!! I could not believe it and was a bit upset. Ruger offered to replace it with something else of equal or slightly more value, or give me my money back. I wanted a GUN...not money. They had one SRH Alaskan left in their inventory so I took it.

As bulky as the Alaskan seems, it is quite easy to handle. And, the Diamond D Custom Leather Guide's Holster makes it a breeze to carry and easy to draw. That with being able to accurately push a 265 grain hard cast RFN bullet slightly more than 1,200 FPS from such a short barrel is not a bad deal.
SANY0982.jpg
 
Last edited:
Tough choice

The S&W is a work of art and in 45 Colt (can you imagine how it galled the S&W executives to engrave the name of their chief competitor onto the barrel of their guns?) is by its very nature a collectori-in-waiting. The action of the Smith is a wonder to feel.

But the Redhawk in 45 Colt or your gun, 454 Casull is a utilitarian's wet dream. 50% to 75% more power than the Smith can handle. 45 Colt in a Super Redhawk or Redhawk will still handle more power than the Smith. Important for defense against furry, toothy threats.

I would keep the Smith, sell the Ruger Alaskan and buy a Super Redhawk in 454 Casull and have it cut back to 4", keeping the scope ring scallops and the interchangeable front sights.

To me, it never made sense to have a barrel barely longer than the cartridge to which it was mated. Ballistically inefficient. Get an expansion ration of at least 3:1 is my advice.

Personally, I carry a 7.5" 454 Casull in the woods. I don't mind the extra length for the extra velocity and control it gives me.

Lost Sheep
 
Alaska? I'd keep the .454 Casull and like you do, handload for it. Use enough gun.

Where I'm at in So. Colorado? I'd keep the S&W.
 
Alasakan .454 Casull Target at 20 Yards

As you can tell, I am NOT a great shot. But, at 20 yards the 2.5" barrel Alaskan is not difficult to hit a target with. This was shot at a 6 O'clock position, 274 gr RFN cast bullet averaging 1,235 FPS, standing non-support, double-action (09-13-2013).

Alaskan 274 gr, standing, free-hand, 20 yards and Bullet.jpg

Also, right after shooting the Alaskan, I spent some time with the S&W 625. Was shooting 250 grain RFN over 7.5 grains of Green Dot. Talk about an easy shooter in comparison to the Casull.

Selling either one is starting to be more difficult to think about.:o
 
Last edited:
Ruger SRH Alaskan .454 Casull -OR- S&W 625-5 .45 Colt......Which one to keep?

Easy..

attachment.php


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