YOUR ADVICE: S&W 325 NIGHT GUARD 45 ACP or RUGER ALASKAN 44 MAG

B

Biff Tannen

New member
Looking for a "heavy duty" revolver.
I'm a big guy so concealability is not an issue.
Help me decide!
Ruger Super Redhawk Alaskan 44 Mag
http://www.ruger.com/products/superRedhawkAlaskan/specSheets/5303.html
OR
S&W 325 NIGHT GUARD 45 ACP
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_765946_-1_757767_757751_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

BEFORE YOU ANSWER, look at the Ballistics By The Inch results... It doesn't look like there is much of an FPS difference between the two callibers out of a snubbie...
Ballistics By The Inch 44 MAG results:
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/44mag.html
Ballistics By The Inch 45 ACP results:
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/45auto.html

Thanks!!!
 
At first glance it seems like the big difference between the two may simply be the weight. I suppose if you plan to carry it a lot and shoot very little get the S&W if you plan to shoot a lot get the Ruger. Also, you might want to consider dealing with moon clips which I assume the S&W requires. Regardless they are both nice guns and we would love pictures and a range report when you decide.
 
Depends on whether you intend to use heavy ammo or light. The .44 is the winner (by ~100ft/lbs energy) with 225 and 240 grain ammo while the .45 wins slightly with the 165-200 grain +P ammo (and loses horribly with all non +P).

That being said, I wouldn't call either of those heavy duty considering how anemic all rounds are out of less than 3 inch barrels.

How about something more like this since concealability isn't an issue:

http://www.ruger.com/products/redhawk/specSheets/5026.html
 
If its primarily for carry, I'd go w/ the S&W due to weight (as mentioned above).

Also, as mentioned above, I might walk away w/the .45 but I would definitely consider a .357 as well.
 
It doesn't look like there is much of an FPS difference between the two callibers out of a snubbie
Click to expand...

Good observation, the power of the .44 mag isn't really a factor until you get to longer barrels.

So in addition to a lighter weight gun with the .45ACP you selected, you also get the advantages of moon clip carry/reloading speed and cheaper ammo.

If you ever have to shoot the gun without ear protection, you are going to really appreciate the lower pressure of the .45 as compared to either the .44 mag or a .357 mag.
 
I agree with some of the others. I've shot both, and I own a Model 325NG.

For carrying, the 325NG has it all over an all-steel model. The .44 Magnum will get heavy in a hurry.

The recoil, even in the alloy-framed revolver, is very mild. Mine has a bit more kick, because I use 250gr LSWC .45 Colt bullets in it. Even the heavier bullets are relatively mild. I replaced the standard S&W stocks with a set of Ahrends Retro Combat stocks (with finger grooves).

If you wanted to go head-to-head, think about the 329NG. Just a thought.
 
If you can pack the ruger I say go for it. Big if there as it is not small or light. But in your post you suggest it's a non issue so go for it.

Not a fan of the smith alloy frames for a number of reasons, in 45 acp should hold up ok. Dislike locks as well.
 
My vote would be for the 325 between the two choices listed. If you're using it for CC, you may as well get all the bells and whistles that the S&W provides (night sights, lightweight, etc.). I've been looking around for a 386NG myself though. However, if you need to be loaded for bear, the Ruger would be a good choice.
 
Redhawk = 45 oz.

325 Nightguard = 28 oz.

To me, for every day carry, weight is a HUGE issue. As a non-LEO living in an ordinary city, the probability that I will EVER have to actually fire my gun in an SD scenario is very very small. So, to me, the power advantage of the Redhawk (which is - don't get me wrong - a great gun) is far "outweighed" by the reality of lugging that beast around all the time.

I'd be finished with that idea after one day if I didn't already know better.

By far, I'd opt for the 28 oz. Nightguard.

BTW, I'm kinda wondering why you haven't mentioned the .44 mag version of the NightGuard (329).
 
Last edited:
I'm with Super Sneaky Steve:

Get the .454 Alaskan and walk around like a boss.

It has proven to stop bears and you have the .45 Colt option for smaller booms.
Click to expand...

Plus, from an aesthetics standpoint, the unfluted cylinder is way cool. Seriously, though, aren't there more viable carry options in big boomer snubbies? The Smith kills it on weight and I'm sure S&W makes a decent .44 Mag snubby that'd work. I am a huge Ruger fan but, damn, man, how big are you? Gonna' carry that fat Alaskan around all day? IWB, OWB, shoulder holster!?
 
Last edited:
Well, I made my decision and I am really happy with it.
Had a Smith 629 in .44 mag.
Eventually thru a couple of trades ended up with my Ruger Alaskan .454.

This is the perfect big bore CCW. Since I can shoot everything from mild to hotter than I can handle, it suits my purposes for CCW and Woods carry perfectly. Is it too big for CCW? Definitely not.
Is it too heavy. The same weight as the 629 and there are plenty out there carry N frames. The cylinder is a bit larger, but with the right chose carry, it will hide fine, and the weight is not that big a deal.

Right after I got it, I carry OWB and IWB around my ranch for a week continuously to see how hard it was going to be. No problem. Wore it around friends to see if I could easily conceal it. No problem.

It's not my every every day carry, but will work perfectly into the routine if need be.

But now I am considering the Smith NG 327 as a mate!

And one more thing I really like about the .454 is how mild the .45 colt defensive rounds seemed out of it. Nothing as sharp a bark as the .357 or the .44. Big heavy slugs moving at a slower rate. Now that is the ticket!
 
I see a lot of your OP's closed. Your question seems a little, Hmmmmm?

I almost want to call up flag's.

TBS, that's apples and oranges on that question.
 
Last edited:
Walklightly wrote:
I almost want to call up flag's.
TBS, that's apples and oranges on that question.
Click to expand...

Please lighten up, friend, I was just asking advice for opinions on two short barrel handguns with very similar firepower. It's hardly apples and oranges. Adivce from fellow gun owners, and sharing knowledge, that's one of the prime functions of this forum. :)
God bless the U.S. and our freedom of speech.
Respectfully,
Biff Tannen
 
I'll vote for the Ruger, along with the admission of my extreme bias in that direction [as if my TFL name doesn't give that away]. Meanwhile, a brief aside: TFL has a membership consisting primarily of good, polite folks who share a common interest. Obviously, there are exceptions to every rule. In other words, don't let the occasional ill-mannered individual get your goat... I've learned that they're best dealt with by ignoring them. ;)
 
Single Six:
Thanks for both points on your advice!
BTW: I have a service six and Security six, both 4" and 6"! Don't think that adding to my Ruger collection hasn't affected my judgement on this decision! hahah!!
Thanks again!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top