I recently got a Ruger Alaskan to play with. It has a 2 3/4 inch barrel. I really like the gun. Tough to shoot much of anything beyond 25 yards (factory only so far), but a pretty comfortable gun to shoot.

I know a lot you think these kinds of guns have way too much recoil, but my .416 is much more uncomfortable to shoot.

I do like the use of .45 Colt loads as well. A pussycat when stuffed with those.

I sent mine off to Gemini custom to have the hammer bobbed, action tuned, night sights, dehorned, Birdsong Black T coated, etc. I'll post how it turns out -- I've been happy w. my sp101 from Gemini, so hopefully this one should work as well.

I will never understand how they can build velocity with that short of a barrel. I would like to see a test with factory loads between the short one and the 7-1/2". There must be some kind of flame out front.

From the results Jeff Quinn obtained when reviewing the Ruger, it appears that the velocity loss is quite significant.

http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-SRHAlaskan454.htm

quote:

From the results Jeff Quinn obtained when reviewing the Ruger, it appears that the velocity loss is quite significant.

If you look closely at the chrono data something weird was going on with the Grizzly ammo. Where the Buffalobore, Cor-Bon, and one of the Grizzly loads gave up around 200 fps, two of the Grizzly loads gave up 500 fps (the 335 was 125 fps slower than Buffalobore's 45 Colt load). According to Hodgdon's online 454 data Quinn's handloads ran from 2 to 8 grains shy of maximum charges for H110. Anyway, giving up 200 fps for five inches of barrel is not a bad trade, especially when the 360 @ 1200 you have left over has more punch that anything else in the size/weight envelope. For more convenience you have to go to the 44 magnum 629/329 (and accept a little less performance and much more discomfort) or get Wild West Guns original Wolverine SRH conversion, with all the lightening cuts (and much greater expense).

Sounds like ruger finally figured out what an Alaskan handgun should be:
http://www.shootinggallery.tv/articles/publish/article_90.shtml

4" is as short as practical, and if they chamber this in 480, I'll have to get one. The snubby was silly at best.

Ooh Aah... What a fine idea, a four inch Redhawk. Suppose I'd like it a little better in 45 Colt but 44 magnum will be more popular with more people. That No.1 in 450/400 three inch is quite the neat looking rifle as well (and immediately obsoletes any aspirations to a Ruger single-shot in 405 Winchester). And an M77 all weather in 358 Winchester. Christmas comes early! Why, the only fly in this year's frosting is the silk purse they keep trying to make out of the sow's ear called the Mini-14 (they know how to fix it; I wish they just would). Thanks for sharing, Paul.

Paul,

The 4" model is a Redhawk rather than a Super Redhawk so it will not be coming out in a .480. The Redhawk does not have enough meat in the cylinder for either the 454 or the 480, which is why they came out with the Super Redhawk. Shoot a heavy load of 454 in the Redhawk and the cylinder will be in pieces because it can't handle the pressure and the cylinder just isn't large enough for the 480. Now if you change it over to a 5 shot cylinder it would work but I doubt Ruger will go that far, or they would have already done it.

Woody

Rats, wishful thinking on my part. I zoned in on the Hogue grips and after glancing through the article and seeing Alaskan and 454, I made the hasty conclusion they'd done the right thing on the SRH.

I'll read more carefully next time. That said it isn't any wizardry to cut down a 480, which I still plan to do.

quote:

Originally posted by Woodrow S:
Paul,

The 4" model is a Redhawk rather than a Super Redhawk so it will not be coming out in a .480. The Redhawk does not have enough meat in the cylinder for either the 454 or the 480, which is why they came out with the Super Redhawk. Shoot a heavy load of 454 in the Redhawk and the cylinder will be in pieces because it can't handle the pressure and the cylinder just isn't large enough for the 480. Now if you change it over to a 5 shot cylinder it would work but I doubt Ruger will go that far, or they would have already done it.

Woody

The Redhawk chambered to 454 works and the cylender does not fly into pieces when fired with factory loads. Several gunsmiths have chambered the Redhawks to 454 uesing the factory 6 shot cylender. I had one for quite a while and they work just fine

quote:

Several gunsmiths have chambered the Redhawks to 454 uesing the factory 6 shot cylender. I had one for quite a while and they work just fine

Who did your work? Who are the others who will do this rechambering?

Gentelmen, if I may:
The Redhawk and Super Redhawk have the same cylinder dimensions. The differance is the stainless used in the construction. The Redhawk uses 420 stainless while the Super uses 460 stainless. The PSI yeild strength on the 460 is MUCH higher than the 420.
jwp475,
Shooting .454's in the Redhawk could destroy it. You got lucky. Even Ruger looses a few of the .454 cylinders in proofing if there is a flaw in the material. The .454 cylinders are proofed seperatly from the frame because of this. The .45 Redhawks are proofed at standard SAAMI .45 Colt proof pressures (around 36Ksi) The .454 are proofed at 75-80Ksi.
Hey, good luck, and keep your hands clear of the cylinder, somday she's gonna cut loose like a grenade.

Give me a 4 5/8" or 5 1/2" 45 Colt Blackhawk and I am fine. Easy on the hip, easy on the wallet, plenty accurate and plenty of power.