Having never found a reason to tote a big bore revolver, I got along just fine with a rifle. There have been a few incidents over the years, where a revolver would have been handy to have. One of them was during inter-tidal zone research where I'm collecting data. When you're in the intertidal zone slogging around in the salt water, it's kind of hard to carry a rifle. I also got charged by a bull moose last October(fended him off with a 22 magnum revolver). Forum member hippie also told me a story of when mama bear exploded into the river on one of his rafting trips. You wouldn't be doing much with a hunting rifle slung across your back in a situation like that (I travel with an unloaded chamber).
Occasionally I've hiked to my remote property when I had a Sig Saur all stainless 45 acp, so I'm used to the weight of a handgun around 40 oz.
It'd have to be a real desperate moment if I were to reach for a revolver, honestly. Both pistols were amazing to say the least (same exact heeavy price too). The Super Redhawk Alaskan had the smoother double action pull. Weight was a non-issue as neither of them were heavy at all. The Ruger grips were a bit bulky, but the Smith wood grips were lower profile and seemed to have allowed me to get on target quicker and the orange front sight was a nice touch. The Super Redhawk Alaskan would've been better suited to the 454 Casull IMO. I don't think I have any business (as a bigbore revolver newby) starting out with the 454 Casull. Anyhow, both dang nice pistols and it seemed to have come down to personal preference, I ended up with the Smith. Might have been my little Taurus 22 mag. grips feeling very similar to the Smith Grips, just dunno. I'm not too thrilled with how expensive the two revolvers were, it's kind of ridiculous considering it's only a sidearm. They were never that expensive a few years ago.