Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Just bought a Ruger Alaskan .44mag

  1. #1

    Default Just bought a Ruger Alaskan .44mag

    Iv fished alaska every summer sense i was 10. I was taught to always have bear protection which was always a mossberg 590 . I recently moved to florida and i wanted a .44mag that wasnt huge. So i bought the srh alaskan.
    I like that its built like a tank,i can handle the .44
    My question is, in the small chance id have to use it, is the 2.5 inch barrel still going to be accurate enough given i do my part.
    Can anyone recommend a good gunbelt, i planto wear it over my pants as in not my reg belt. And just so you know i dont mean like a wild west belt. Iv also considered a chest rig

  2. #2
    Sponsor ADfields's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Missing Palmer AK in Phonix AZ.
    Posts
    6,416

    Default

    Chest rig there is just none better than the Guides Choice, expensive but money very well spent!
    http://www.diamonddcustomleather.com/Chest_Holsters.php

    Belt, if you go that way Simply Rugged will make anything.
    http://shop.simplyrugged.com/ecommerce/Belts.cfm;jsessionid=8030e723d0ecb9216d7e707733203 4648514?cat_id=670


    Yes the Alaskan should be very accurate, but short barrels have short sight radius that are hard to shoot accurately. Shoot it a lot, get to know it well and your own abilities with it. Use hot hard cast lead ammo in the bear woods but down there when itís on the nightstand get something more frangible so you donít shoot through your house into the house next door. Congrats on the new gun!!
    Andy
    On the web= C-lazy-F.co
    Email= Andy@C-lazy-F.co
    Call/Text 602-315-2406
    Phoenix Arizona

  3. #3

    Default

    If i decide to go with a chest rig it would be the dimond d. And i was planing to spend a decent amount anyway i just dont want anything that shouts greenhorn.

  4. #4
    New member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,416

    Default

    No doubt the Diamond D is a nice setup. But, consider the Simply Rugged Pancake holster with a Chesty Puller rig. The Pancake allows strongside, crossdraw and with the Chesty Puller harness you've got a chest rig. Simply Rugged belt or any other of hundreds of gun belts on the market.

    I carry my 4" Redhawk strongside in a Pancake on my pants belt. My buddy carries his shortened SBH in a pancake crossdraw on a separate, Simply Rugged belt. Versatile setup.

    one more thing, if you go with the pancake and chestypuller, get the retention strap on the holster. It's not needed strongside carry.
    A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and donít have one, youíll probably never need one again

  5. #5

    Default

    Picked it up today after the wait period man this thing is a beast. It seems pretty smooth out of the box. I looked at it first in a diffrent store and passed on it because it had a grip that felt like a marshmello, the one i bought has hrd grips ans has the blue gel strip in the back strap.
    I will be buying the double d guide holster and a bob mernickle belt holster.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    466

    Default

    Diamond D, Simpky Rugged and Mernickle all good names.

    Like Snyd I carry a 4" Redhawk on my pant's belt in a Simply Rugged pancake, but using proper double thickness gunbelt.

    I have yet to read a negative anything about Diamond D except the purchase price, usually a very very good sign of quality goods.

    Mernickle is not a name I had seen on this forum before, but I have been reading up for a new gun belt for a while and ordered a Mernickle belt - and a holster for my New Vaquero- about a week ago, mine is due in mid-December.

    http://www.mernickleholsters.com/bm_belts.html

    My second choice for new gunbelt was El Paso saddlery- but I liked the reviews on Mernickles vaquero holster better. http://www.epsaddlery.com/c-28-belts.aspx

    Enjoy your new toy. Accuracy is going to be similar to any other snub nose. The point is to have a lot of power for short range point black type defense - which you got in spades; and not have some full length shotgun interfering with your fishing pole. Go shoot it. You wont wear it out and 1,000 dry fires will smooth up the trigger pull noticeably.

  7. #7
    Member ergoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    166

    Default

    Diamond D x2.




    Quote Originally Posted by swmn View Post
    Diamond D, Simpky Rugged and Mernickle all good names.

    Like Snyd I carry a 4" Redhawk on my pant's belt in a Simply Rugged pancake, but using proper double thickness gunbelt.

    I have yet to read a negative anything about Diamond D except the purchase price, usually a very very good sign of quality goods.

    Mernickle is not a name I had seen on this forum before, but I have been reading up for a new gun belt for a while and ordered a Mernickle belt - and a holster for my New Vaquero- about a week ago, mine is due in mid-December.

    http://www.mernickleholsters.com/bm_belts.html

    My second choice for new gunbelt was El Paso saddlery- but I liked the reviews on Mernickles vaquero holster better. http://www.epsaddlery.com/c-28-belts.aspx

    Enjoy your new toy. Accuracy is going to be similar to any other snub nose. The point is to have a lot of power for short range point black type defense - which you got in spades; and not have some full length shotgun interfering with your fishing pole. Go shoot it. You wont wear it out and 1,000 dry fires will smooth up the trigger pull noticeably.

  8. #8

    Default

    El paso makes great stuff, I still plan to carry the 12gauge but now i wont feel so un easy about leaveing it on shore well im in the river. What is a good distance to sight the pistol in at. The guy at the store said they come sighted in at 50yds which i cant believe.

  9. #9
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,599

    Default

    You can get better sights from Ruger,dot front and v rear make for quicker sighting. In 454 that soft grip is nice. I use the simply rugged and Chesty Puller.

    Now left only to be a turd in the forrest and the circle will be complete.Use me as I have used you

  10. #10

    Default

    I have looked at some sights, i dont really like the fiber optics. I wish they had the front with the Orange. I bought orange bright sights paint for my 22 buckmark and did not care for it. I may just use some orange nail polish
    Quote Originally Posted by Amigo Will View Post
    You can get better sights from Ruger,dot front and v rear make for quicker sighting. In 454 that soft grip is nice. I use the simply rugged and Chesty Puller.


  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SwampView AK, Overlooking Mt. Mckinley and Points Beyond.
    Posts
    8,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ADfields View Post
    Yes the Alaskan should be very accurate, but short barrels have short sight radius that are hard to shoot accurately. Shoot it a lot, get to know it well and your own abilities with it. Use hot hard cast lead ammo in the bear woods but down there when itís on the nightstand get something more frangible so you donít shoot through your house into the house next door. Congrats on the new gun!!
    If it's harder to shoot accurately, then it is EFFECTIVELY less accurate because of the short barrel. And, I would add, the increased muzzle blast, from the shorter barrel.

    There would be a loss of velocity too, close to 300 fps less than what you'd get from a 6" barrel. Might be lucky to get 1000 fps out of a 240 grain bullet.

    Not to degrade, the OPer or anyone else, but that revolver seems like a poor choice for a defensive weapon, or for any other use.

    Many folks like to poo-poo the velocity loss in short revolver barrels, chambered for beeg bore cartridges, but it is a FACT. And, it's considerable, and more so as the barrel gets shorter.

    Check out the site below. There are some actualls there.

    http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/44mag.html

    When I set out to choose a 44 Mag. I was looking for LONGER than 4", and ended up with 6". I've no reason to be disappointed in the longer barrel. None at all.

    The shooting is more managable. I don't have to load to Max to get enough power, and I don't find it difficult to carry in the chest, or hip holsters I have.

    I lucked out, I reckon.

    Smitty of the North
    Walk Slow, and Drink a Lotta Water.
    Has it ever occurred to you, that Nothing ever occurs to God? Adrien Rodgers.
    You can't out-give God.

  12. #12
    Member mainer_in_ak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Delta Junction
    Posts
    4,078

    Default

    back when I carried a 3" barreled 44 mag for the 2012 season, the 320 grain double tap always hit where I aimed, it finished off two animals. Like wise, the velocity was chronied at 1,180 fps. I found this to be perfectly acceptable velocity. The 320 grainer went completely through a 55" racked bull moose's neck. your pistol choice will be fine.

    The new owner of the pistol showed me a 25 yd target, the dang bullet took out the center of a bulls eye. The sight radius of that revolver will do it's job, and do it quick. might not be able to knock a wood tick off a squirrels a s s, but you'll certainly be able to knock a .429" hole through a bear within 25 yds.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SwampView AK, Overlooking Mt. Mckinley and Points Beyond.
    Posts
    8,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mainer_in_ak View Post
    back when I carried a 3" barreled 44 mag for the 2012 season, the 320 grain double tap always hit where I aimed, it finished off two animals. Like wise, the velocity was chronied at 1,180 fps. I found this to be perfectly acceptable velocity. The 320 grainer went completely through a 55" racked bull moose's neck. your pistol choice will be fine.

    The new owner of the pistol showed me a 25 yd target, the dang bullet took out the center of a bulls eye. The sight radius of that revolver will do it's job, and do it quick. might not be able to knock a wood tick off a squirrels a s s, but you'll certainly be able to knock a .429" hole through a bear within 25 yds.
    I see.

    What was your reason for choosing the short barrel? And since you found it so satisfactory, why do you no longer have it? Did you buy a BEEGER gun, with perhaps an even SHORTER barrel?

    That Double Tap load is a Hot one. The velocity you posted is IMO, satisfactory, and it's in keeping with what Double Tap CLAIMS for that load. They say 1125 fps in a 2.5 inch barrel, a loss of only 140 fps, from a 6" barrrel, IIRC. (With the 320 grain bullet.)

    But not what one might expect from the figures on the website I posted. The loss should be much greater than that.

    My point is that one can have a more managable/accurate handgun and more velocity, without loading to the maximum, which adds to the problem with just a couple 3 or 4 inches of barrel.

    Did you find that less barrel length was a real advantage?

    Thanks
    Smitty of the North
    Walk Slow, and Drink a Lotta Water.
    Has it ever occurred to you, that Nothing ever occurs to God? Adrien Rodgers.
    You can't out-give God.

  14. #14
    Member mainer_in_ak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Delta Junction
    Posts
    4,078

    Default

    no smitty,

    I haven't replaced it, and do miss it very much. I had to sell it due to an auto accident. Dropped down to liability insurance since I had paid my vehicle loan off back in 2010. Was gonna use the money toward body repair, but just got a different vehicle instead.

    I went with the 3" barrel because of my desire to have a chest holster. I do a lot of paddling, cutting wood, and poling a canoe during hunting season, so the 3" barrel didn't catch the inside of my arm at the end of my left-side paddling stroke, or when I was crouched down cutting firewood with a handsaw(I'm a lefty that shoots righty).

    Elmer liked a 4" barreled 44 mag, so figured the 3-incher wasn't too far off.

  15. #15
    Moderator Paul H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    5,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Smitty of the North View Post
    (snip)
    There would be a loss of velocity too, close to 300 fps less than what you'd get from a 6" barrel. Might be lucky to get 1000 fps out of a 240 grain bullet.

    (snip)

    Smitty of the North
    Is that your experience with chronographed loads? I've done a fair bit of chronoing 44's of various barrel lengths and would be HIGHLY suprised to find the velocity loss much more than 100 fps between the Alaskan and a 6" barrel.

    Should be no problem to drive 300's 1100-1200 fps from the short tube.

    Here's some data from a test of a 3 3/4" bisly 44 mag. The Alaskan shouldn't be much more than 50 fps slower.

    Ammunition Bullet Weight Velocity
    Buffalo Bore LBT 340 1231
    Buffalo Bore LBT 305 1288
    Buffalo Bore JFN 300 1257
    Buffalo Bore Lead Free 225 1407
    Buffalo Bore Lead Free 200 1480
    Buffalo Bore JFN 270 1393
    Buffalo Bore LWC 200 1219
    Buffalo Bore LHP 180 1381
    Cor-Bon LBT 320 1246
    Cor-Bon JSP 300 1236
    Cor-Bon JHP 165 1343
    Those that are successful in Alaska are those who are flexible, and allow the reality of life in Alaska to shape their dreams, vs. trying to force their dreams on the reality of Alaska.

    If you have a tenuous grasp of reality, Alaska is not for you.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SwampView AK, Overlooking Mt. Mckinley and Points Beyond.
    Posts
    8,805

    Default

    PaulH:
    I'm going only by what I've read. I've not chronoed loads from Long and Short barrels personally.

    Just looking at figures, I've seen, I would expect that the loss could easily be over 100 fps, PER INCH.

    I gather the loss is greater, per inch, as the barrel gets shorter.

    Granted there would be a lot of variance, with the different cartridges, different loads, etc. It's a guessing game even if you have the actuals, from a particular gun and load. I'm just looking at what one might EXPECT.

    I have no doubt one can get adequate velocity from a 2.5 inch barrel. Alls you gotta do is put in more powder. Which of course ups the pressure, and makes an already hard to control/shoot gun even worse. (I personally, don't handle recoil that well, and that certainly effects my perspective.)

    I don't see ANY advantage to a 2.5 inch barrel, over a 4,5,6 incher. Velocity loss is IMO, a real issue with a handgun when you don't have a lot to start with. Also, recoil and it's effects, on comfort and shooting.

    That's my thinking, whether it's absolutely correct or not. I put it out there, not to be an AH, but as a warning, or at least, a consideration.

    Thanks
    Smitty of the North
    Walk Slow, and Drink a Lotta Water.
    Has it ever occurred to you, that Nothing ever occurs to God? Adrien Rodgers.
    You can't out-give God.

  17. #17
    Moderator Paul H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    5,594

    Default

    I don't know what you've been reading, but I'd recomend getting a chronograph and actually measuring velocities through various guns.

    I have chronographed a variety of revolvers and running the same exact ammo through various barrel lengths you can expect to gain/loose 25-30 fps/inch. You might loose a bit more when getting shorter than 4", but at most 50 fps/inch. I also did load work with a 4 5/8" super blackhawk with several 300-330 gr cast bullets and with a book max charge of H-110 they go over the screens right at 1200 fps, add another grain of H-110 and they go 1300 fps.

    I personally prefer revolvers with 4-5" barrels at the shortest due to shootability, but I won't begrudge anyone who choosese a shorter barrel. The velocity loss would never be a concern for me, 300 gf @ 1100 fps is still some serious medicine.

    I can appreciate knowing one's recoil limits. As much as I'd like a 475 or 500 linebaugh, I've had the opportunity to shoot about 1/2 dozen different guns in those chamberings and I personally can't handle that level of recoil. I can handle a 480 ruger and consider a 400 gr @ 1200 fps a reasonable powerful load that is just as importantly shootable. I'm also going to be getting another SRH and cutting it to 5" for packability, but no shorter due to shootability.
    Those that are successful in Alaska are those who are flexible, and allow the reality of life in Alaska to shape their dreams, vs. trying to force their dreams on the reality of Alaska.

    If you have a tenuous grasp of reality, Alaska is not for you.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SwampView AK, Overlooking Mt. Mckinley and Points Beyond.
    Posts
    8,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul H View Post
    I don't know what you've been reading, but I'd recomend getting a chronograph and actually measuring velocities through various guns.

    I have chronographed a variety of revolvers and running the same exact ammo through various barrel lengths you can expect to gain/loose 25-30 fps/inch. You might loose a bit more when getting shorter than 4", but at most 50 fps/inch. I also did load work with a 4 5/8" super blackhawk with several 300-330 gr cast bullets and with a book max charge of H-110 they go over the screens right at 1200 fps, add another grain of H-110 and they go 1300 fps.

    I personally prefer revolvers with 4-5" barrels at the shortest due to shootability, but I won't begrudge anyone who choosese a shorter barrel. The velocity loss would never be a concern for me, 300 gf @ 1100 fps is still some serious medicine.

    I can appreciate knowing one's recoil limits. As much as I'd like a 475 or 500 linebaugh, I've had the opportunity to shoot about 1/2 dozen different guns in those chamberings and I personally can't handle that level of recoil. I can handle a 480 ruger and consider a 400 gr @ 1200 fps a reasonable powerful load that is just as importantly shootable. I'm also going to be getting another SRH and cutting it to 5" for packability, but no shorter due to shootability.
    That you donít know what Iíve been reading is apparent.

    I recommend you do some research on the Internet.

    Even Doubletap figures a loss of 40 fps or more per inch of barrel, in the 44 Mag. loads Iíve checked on, and that is probably optimistic. You can check their website, and get an idea for yourself. They even have loads using WFN cast bullets.

    www.Ballisticsbytheinch.com might interest you.

    I find it impractical to chrono velocities of various guns. I own only one 357 and one 44 Mag. And, Iím not gonna buy a buncha guns to prove a point with you. Such information is available, elsewhere, and itís cheap.

    What others have discovered, means, at least, as much to me as your findings, and your conclusions.

    In your research you will find that Information is not exhaustive, and there are variables. You might see trends and you might not, depending on the amount of testing that is considered.

    One thing that seems to be clear, is that velocity loss from barrel length is greater in a handgun than with a rifle, and it can be more depending on the particular cartridge.

    If you wanna read articles, like anything else, you can find something to support most any way you want to jump.

    Iím not begrudging anybody anything. Iím just trying to make them aware of all the issues. (Yeah, itís from MY perspective.)

    When you purchase a gun, have you ever discovered something that you wish you had known about beforehand? I certainly have.

    Smitty of the North
    Walk Slow, and Drink a Lotta Water.
    Has it ever occurred to you, that Nothing ever occurs to God? Adrien Rodgers.
    You can't out-give God.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    591

    Default

    Here a couple loads I shot through my chrono.

    250grlead, 23gr IMR 4227....7.5" = 1260fps....4" = 1114 fps...avg 6 shots each.....41.7fps per in. loss

    240gr XTP, 20.5 gr. VV n-110.....7.5" = 1375fps.....4" = 1156fps......avg 6 shots....62.5fps per in loss.

    240gr XTP, 21.3 gr VV n-110......7.5" = 1425fps.......4" = 1190fps....avg 6 shots....67.1fps per in loss.

    For what it's worth......Don't know if this really tells much, because 2 different guns.........

    And...... NO...I'm not going to cut my 7.5" barrel down in 1" wacks, to make a better test......The GUN Guys in the mags have already done that.

    Looks like to me the mo faster the mo loss....................
    "The older I get, the better I was."

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SwampView AK, Overlooking Mt. Mckinley and Points Beyond.
    Posts
    8,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by travelers View Post
    For what it's worth......Don't know if this really tells much, because 2 different guns........
    Nonetheless, it's useful information as to what one MIGHT expect goin from 7.5" to 4".

    Smitty of the North
    Walk Slow, and Drink a Lotta Water.
    Has it ever occurred to you, that Nothing ever occurs to God? Adrien Rodgers.
    You can't out-give God.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •