I'll be very UpFront, and as BRAVE as I can be, by stating at the outset that I have an intense dislike for short barreled revolvers. In fact, I consider it an insult that Ruger has named a 2.5" barrel, 44 Mag. revolver "The Alaskan". In my perhaps, crazy way of thinking, that is like saying "Alaskans" are all stoopit.
Surely, we can recognize the downsides of such a contraption if we just think about it, beyond what Looks Kool, as it must look to some folks.
Comparing the (mis-named?) Ruger Alaskan model to their standard offering, with a 4" or 4.2" barrel we find a difference of only 1.5" or 1.7", AND, the difference in weight, is only 3 oz.
I know that it is difficult to pin down the velocity differences because of the different loadings, but the figures, I've seen have convinced me that it is considerable. Isn't a little bit of difference a LOT of difference at the low velocity ranges we get from a 44 Mag. revolver?
As to the difference in handling, something also important to the reasons we pack around a 44 Mag. revolver, IME, (howbeit, somewhat limited) what has been called "barrel flip", is increased considerably with the shorter barrel.
And, there certainly will be additional Muzzle Blast from the short barrel also.
The velocity loss may induce the desire to load hotter, which exaserbates the above, "downsides"?
Then there is "Porting" which helps with barrel flip, but may increase Muzzle Blast. ???
So, those of you who are owners, or even fans of the Ruger Alaskan, or can see, at least some positive attributes of them, why would you choose a Snubby 44 Mag?
I'm not mad at anybody. I don't want to take away your freedom to own or like any firearm you choose. I'm not Almighty Smitty, nor do I wanna be.
I just wanna know what the "Beeg Boys" say, about the Ruger Alaskan and other similar.
How sound is my reasoning? How correct are my conclusions? How important are they?
Thanks for your indulgence.
Smitty of the North