Which gun would be better for outdoors protection?

R

rambutan316

Inactive
For protection against big wildlife in the outdoors (bears, mountain lions, boars, wolves, alligators, coyotes, etc.) as well as personal defense against two-legged foes, which gun would be better: Ruger Redhawk Alaskan in 454 Casull or Ruger Blackhawk in 45 Colt. I'm really attracted to the 45 Colt cartridge and want to try handloading. Both guns seem to be really nice, I'm just not sure which one to go with. I have small hands, by the way. I'm only 5'4" and 130 pounds, but I heard the Alaskan is really ergonomic despite its large frame. Thanks!
 
45 colt will be a handful but easier to handle than the .454. Hits count misses do not so the largest gun you can shoot accurately is your criteria not what is the most powerful gun on the planet. You might try the .357 mag in various loadings along with 45 colt with both heavy and light bullets to see what you shoot best. Unless you are planning on irritating a lot of grizzly bears either gun will be more than sufficient.
 
i am 6'3" and over 250# and i don't like the 357 mag, at least in a trail type pistol. i prefer a 45lc or a 44mag, i find them less harsh to shoot then a 357 mag. i really don't know why so many people go to 454's, 460's 500's and such when a 44 mag will do the job with less recoil and less expense.
 
Does action type figure into the question?

Dick Casull developed the 454 Casull using 45 Colt brass.

Go to the web site "Ballistics by the inch" and figure out how much velocity you lose in the Alaskan 454 short barrel vs the Blackhawk's longer barrel even thought the max 45 Colt load out of the Blackhawk has less charge.

It would take some load development to figure out the maximum power levels you could get out of each with each's barrel length, but I suspect H110 out of the Blackhawk would deliver decent velocity where H110 out of the Alaskan would waste a lot of H110's power and a faster powder might do better. But that is a discussion for another forum.

For self-defense against an attacking large bear, unless I were well-practiced with the single action, the double action would get my vote. In a firefight, the quick reload factor of the double action would be the deciding factor.

Between a hot 45 Colt and the 454 Casull, it is pretty much a toss-up, ballistically. The 45 Colt may deliver the same bullet as the 454 Casull at a somewhat lower velocity still has enough energy/momentum to do the job. That is, while internal and external ballistics favor the Casull, terminal ballistics (what the bullet does to the animal) are a closer call.

A Redhawk in 44 Magnum or 45 Colt with a 5.5" barrel would probably be a better choice than either. In my opinion.

Lost Sheep

p.s. All the foregoing applies only if you can handle the round. If you can't hit what you are aiming at (and fast) a 22 rimfire will do just as well.
 
I am thinking the one that fits your mitt the best. I find the big DA Rugers a bit hard to get a good purchase on. The SAs fit me much better.

mike
 
Auction_Arms.gif

This is my choice. S&W 329 Alaska Backpacker 44mag/44spl, I own a S&W Mod 60 in 357mag and the 44 mag is more pleasant to shoot.
 
My choice : Ruger Blackhawk in 45 Colt . Perfect. Handle your mild to wild loads and perfect for packing. Ross Seyfried didn't need a .454 while in Africa ... so sure don't need one here in the lower 48 :) .
 
Which do you shoot better?....

I would probably pick the Alaskan just for its flexibility. It will handle everything from .45C shotshells to thermonuclear .454C loads. And, with a set of stubby GP-100 grips, you can even carry it concealed.
 
Considering the threat from 2 legged varmints today, you might consider something like one of the G20 10mm Glocks. Enough power for Denmark to use them to arm their Sirius Patrols in Greenland with to defend against polar bears but also a practical fighting weapon as opposed to doing it cowboy style.

My choice anyway...with full power loads.
 
Well think about it. Check the weight of the 454 vs 45. Then figure you're not going hunting so you are probably only need to worry about an attack within 20 to 30'. Load up your choice with whatever you can handle and make a decision. I use my Governor loaded with 410 #6 up front and 255 hardcast as followups. I shoot to blind or hit the snout within 10' with the shot, and followup with the hardcast. But I'm not the norm, so hear out everyone and go where you feel comfortable.
 
I'd go with the 45 Colt. Of course, getting a 454 Casull will give you the option of bear too and you can still go with 45 Colt.
 
Pick the one that fits your hand the best.

FWIW I have an old model Ruger Vaquero in the 45colt. If I ever go to Alaska, this will be the gun I will carry. One of the biggest reasons is because of fixed sights. I have had the little blades on the other Ruger revolvers (blackhawk,GP100, and SP101) break leaving me with no rear sight.
 
Have you considered a .44magnum just in case you don't want to reload almost all your non-practice ammo?

Most commercial .45LC except for Buffalo Bore (who make great stuff) and few others are "cowboy loads." The .454Casull is a not easy to find commercially most of the time.

Between the two I would go with the Blackhawk because I find the any nose Alaskan in .454 a bit too stout in recoil for my taste. (I chose a Redhawk 5.5" in .44mag about 2 years ago to fill the niche you described. I am very happy with the choice.)
 
Thanks for the help everyone! It looks like I'll probably end up going with the Blackhawk. It'll probably fit my hand a little better, plus it's a lot cheaper too. I haven't held the Alaskan yet, though, so I'll try to before I make my final decision.

On the other hand, how about the SP101, particularly the 4 inch version? Recoil is probably going to be a lot more harsh, but it seems like the perfect do-everything versatile gun. I rented one before and it fit my hands like a glove.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top