New Ruger Alaskan .44
- Thread starter Hawkman
- Start date
BusGunner007
New member
Pix or links to this new gun?
( I wish they'd make it in blued steel with a 4" and/or 6" bbl. )
( I wish they'd make it in blued steel with a 4" and/or 6" bbl. )
BusGunner007
New member
BusGunner007
New member
Yeah, I'll guess.
It's gonna be NICER! Especially when you can pull the trigger 'time after time' and get a shot off because your arm isn't pointing straight up!
I lobbied hard and fast on the RugerForum.com about getting a Ruger ALASKAN in BLUED STEEL with that bbl. extension 'extended' to house the longer bbl. in 4" or 6" or even FIVE inches ( just to be different! ).
I even had a name like 'Alaskan Night' for it...
BUT, I'd settle for the new .44 in stainless.
Last year, I had a 7.5" bbl. SuperRedhawk/.44 specially refinished before I shot it.
My pictures aren't very good, but you can see how a DARK finish looks on the SRH ( save for the triggerguard, which I opted to leave polished because it has such a nice contour ).
I'll be back to edit the post...
It's gonna be NICER! Especially when you can pull the trigger 'time after time' and get a shot off because your arm isn't pointing straight up!
I lobbied hard and fast on the RugerForum.com about getting a Ruger ALASKAN in BLUED STEEL with that bbl. extension 'extended' to house the longer bbl. in 4" or 6" or even FIVE inches ( just to be different! ).
I even had a name like 'Alaskan Night' for it...
BUT, I'd settle for the new .44 in stainless.
Last year, I had a 7.5" bbl. SuperRedhawk/.44 specially refinished before I shot it.
My pictures aren't very good, but you can see how a DARK finish looks on the SRH ( save for the triggerguard, which I opted to leave polished because it has such a nice contour ).
I'll be back to edit the post...
Last edited:
BusGunner007
New member
Well, I'll just do a new post.
You can see how the dark gun would look.
I think it would cost less to have a blued gun, and a scope would not be an option. It'd be strictly an open-sight carry gun.
The 5-inch bbl. would be a good choice in blue for the .44 now that the stainless snubby is on the market.
5-inch would accomodate either hip or shoulder carry without being obtrusive in either location.
REMEMBER --- MY IDEA IS TO EXTEND THE EXTENSION, WITH THE BBL. ENCLOSED. A 'LONG SNUBBY' LOOK, IF YOU WILL.
Anyway, that's my last rant on that note!
Here's the pix.
And, my OTHER .44...
You can see how the dark gun would look.
I think it would cost less to have a blued gun, and a scope would not be an option. It'd be strictly an open-sight carry gun.
The 5-inch bbl. would be a good choice in blue for the .44 now that the stainless snubby is on the market.
5-inch would accomodate either hip or shoulder carry without being obtrusive in either location.
REMEMBER --- MY IDEA IS TO EXTEND THE EXTENSION, WITH THE BBL. ENCLOSED. A 'LONG SNUBBY' LOOK, IF YOU WILL.
Anyway, that's my last rant on that note!
Here's the pix.
And, my OTHER .44...
Earnest T. Bass
Moderator
Awwww, man! You went and posted a picture of it. Now I want one! I hate it when that happens!
BusGunner007
New member
The extended 'nose' idea:
One of the guys on the Ruger Forum did this photoshop of my idea.
It resembles a GP-100 in profile, except the bbl. isn't separate.
A 'blued' SRH with extended bbl. shroud.
If the bluing was done right, ( I can't remember the name of the deep royal blue I'm thinking of... ) The gun would have an exceptional look to it.
As a packing gun, the 4" bbl. would probably be the best choice for weight and portability.
Now that we've seen a stainless snubby in .44 --- maybe RUGER will look at other options.
Hope it catches on!
One of the guys on the Ruger Forum did this photoshop of my idea.
It resembles a GP-100 in profile, except the bbl. isn't separate.
A 'blued' SRH with extended bbl. shroud.
If the bluing was done right, ( I can't remember the name of the deep royal blue I'm thinking of... ) The gun would have an exceptional look to it.
As a packing gun, the 4" bbl. would probably be the best choice for weight and portability.
Now that we've seen a stainless snubby in .44 --- maybe RUGER will look at other options.
Hope it catches on!
BusGunner007
New member
Now I remember: NITRE BLUE
Kind of expensive, I think, but beautiful.
The Gentleman that did the work on my Ruger SRH is: George Roghaar in Boca Raton, FL
http://www.gunblue.homestead.com/
Imagine an entire revolver done in this shade of blue ( probably similar to old Colt and S&W finishes )
Kind of expensive, I think, but beautiful.
The Gentleman that did the work on my Ruger SRH is: George Roghaar in Boca Raton, FL
http://www.gunblue.homestead.com/
Imagine an entire revolver done in this shade of blue ( probably similar to old Colt and S&W finishes )
BusGunner007
New member
Wouldn't it be nice if we could custom order factory guns...?
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Here are a couple recent threads that may be of great interest to you as a new Alaskan owner.
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226574
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=229714
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226574
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=229714
Alaskan in .44
"Considering buying it, Has anyone out there shot it?"
I recently got my Ruger .44 magnum Alaskan. Here’s my $.02, after only one hour and 15 minutes on the range. - First off, I have small to medium sized hands, weigh about 170 lbs., and had no prior experience with a .44 magnum… so I wasn’t sure what to expect in terms of perceived recoil. I do not like shooting .357 mags from my S&W 686P (7-shot 4” barrel, wt. 38 oz). IMO, .357 magnum loads are harsh, hot, and just plain unpleasant to shoot. So why did I buy the .44 magnum Alaskan? First, I like the look of the gun. (Hey… admit it: some guns are sexy looking.) Second, I thought it would make a great weapon for home defense using .44 Special loads. While I love semi-autos for many reasons – especially my Les Baer .45 – I prefer the simplicity of wheel guns when my life depends on it.
The Alaskan (2.5” barrel, 41 oz.) chambered in .44 magnum is a fairly new model, and most of what I read about the gun pertained to the Alaskan chambered in .454 Casull. I knew the .44 magnum would be considerably easier to shoot than a .454, but I’d be lying if I said that I eagerly looked forward to pulling the trigger with a 240 gr., .44 magnum in the cylinder.
Man, was I surprised! The perceived recoil was less than it is with my S&W 686P when shooting 357 magnum loads. I attribute that to the fact that on the S&W, the Hogue rubber grips do not cover the steel back strap of the 686P’s frame. The back strap is totally exposed and abuts the palm of the hand. So there is nothing to soften the recoil. On the Ruger Alaskan, the Hogue rubber grip completely covers the back strap with fairly soft, recoil absorbing rubber material. It is very effective in softening the recoil.
The 240 gr. Magnum bullets I used have a rated muzzle velocity of approximately 1180 ft./sec. in a gun with a 4 inch barrel. After popping off 6 rounds without a problem, and with no discomfort at all, I switched to 180 gr. .44 magnum loads (rated at 1610 ft./sec at the muzzle of a gun with a 4" barrel). The blast was nearly double that of the heavier bullet and the recoil was decidedly unpleasant… controllable, but not fun to shoot. I’ll reserve that combo to take down Al Qaeda in an armored vehicle.
Both 240 gr. and 200 grain .44 Special loads were down right fun to shoot. With .44 Specials in the cylinder, my Ruger Alaskan will make a great home defense gun; and one that my wife can handle, as well.
I’ve only fired 164 rounds so far. Accuracy at 15 yards is impressive, regardless of what I fired. The 240 gr. Magnum loads were better than the .44 Specials – but not by much. The mags consistently hit within a 3 inch circle at 15 yards (with gun hand held, and without a rest of any sort). Muzzel flip was not bad at all. I did not try to "double tap." One well placed round with his baby and it's not likely that a rapid follow-up shot will be needed. But it is something I will try next time.
I encountered only one problem: the cylinder gap is very tight. After about 100 rounds, there was enough carbon build up on the forcing cone end of the barrel and on the forward edge of the cylinder to “choke” cylinder rotation. At first I thought that the trigger mechanism was freezing, because it became difficult to pull the trigger for double action shots. But when I also had difficulty cocking the hammer for single action shots, I realized that the cylinder was not rotating with the same ease that occurred earlier. (The instruction manual cautions about this phenomenon… but I forgot all about it; after all, I read the manual a whole day earlier.) A couple of wipes with a lightly oiled rag removed the carbon and solved the “trigger” problem.
Maybe I'm just lucky. I read about poor triggers on stock Rugers, but the trigger on my Alaskan is absolutely perfect right out of the box. It has a smooth trigger pull, with a crisp let off, and no stacking. I have no means of measuring the trigger pull on the Alaskan, but subjectively, the DA pull is about the same as my DAO SIG 239, which is about 7 lbs. It's certainly less than the DAO pull of my S&W 640 snubbie.
Guns are very personal. Will you like the Ruger Alaskan in .44 Mag.? I couldn’t begin to guess. I sure do like mine, though… and that’s all I can attest to.
"Considering buying it, Has anyone out there shot it?"
I recently got my Ruger .44 magnum Alaskan. Here’s my $.02, after only one hour and 15 minutes on the range. - First off, I have small to medium sized hands, weigh about 170 lbs., and had no prior experience with a .44 magnum… so I wasn’t sure what to expect in terms of perceived recoil. I do not like shooting .357 mags from my S&W 686P (7-shot 4” barrel, wt. 38 oz). IMO, .357 magnum loads are harsh, hot, and just plain unpleasant to shoot. So why did I buy the .44 magnum Alaskan? First, I like the look of the gun. (Hey… admit it: some guns are sexy looking.) Second, I thought it would make a great weapon for home defense using .44 Special loads. While I love semi-autos for many reasons – especially my Les Baer .45 – I prefer the simplicity of wheel guns when my life depends on it.
The Alaskan (2.5” barrel, 41 oz.) chambered in .44 magnum is a fairly new model, and most of what I read about the gun pertained to the Alaskan chambered in .454 Casull. I knew the .44 magnum would be considerably easier to shoot than a .454, but I’d be lying if I said that I eagerly looked forward to pulling the trigger with a 240 gr., .44 magnum in the cylinder.
Man, was I surprised! The perceived recoil was less than it is with my S&W 686P when shooting 357 magnum loads. I attribute that to the fact that on the S&W, the Hogue rubber grips do not cover the steel back strap of the 686P’s frame. The back strap is totally exposed and abuts the palm of the hand. So there is nothing to soften the recoil. On the Ruger Alaskan, the Hogue rubber grip completely covers the back strap with fairly soft, recoil absorbing rubber material. It is very effective in softening the recoil.
The 240 gr. Magnum bullets I used have a rated muzzle velocity of approximately 1180 ft./sec. in a gun with a 4 inch barrel. After popping off 6 rounds without a problem, and with no discomfort at all, I switched to 180 gr. .44 magnum loads (rated at 1610 ft./sec at the muzzle of a gun with a 4" barrel). The blast was nearly double that of the heavier bullet and the recoil was decidedly unpleasant… controllable, but not fun to shoot. I’ll reserve that combo to take down Al Qaeda in an armored vehicle.
Both 240 gr. and 200 grain .44 Special loads were down right fun to shoot. With .44 Specials in the cylinder, my Ruger Alaskan will make a great home defense gun; and one that my wife can handle, as well.
I’ve only fired 164 rounds so far. Accuracy at 15 yards is impressive, regardless of what I fired. The 240 gr. Magnum loads were better than the .44 Specials – but not by much. The mags consistently hit within a 3 inch circle at 15 yards (with gun hand held, and without a rest of any sort). Muzzel flip was not bad at all. I did not try to "double tap." One well placed round with his baby and it's not likely that a rapid follow-up shot will be needed. But it is something I will try next time.
I encountered only one problem: the cylinder gap is very tight. After about 100 rounds, there was enough carbon build up on the forcing cone end of the barrel and on the forward edge of the cylinder to “choke” cylinder rotation. At first I thought that the trigger mechanism was freezing, because it became difficult to pull the trigger for double action shots. But when I also had difficulty cocking the hammer for single action shots, I realized that the cylinder was not rotating with the same ease that occurred earlier. (The instruction manual cautions about this phenomenon… but I forgot all about it; after all, I read the manual a whole day earlier.) A couple of wipes with a lightly oiled rag removed the carbon and solved the “trigger” problem.
Maybe I'm just lucky. I read about poor triggers on stock Rugers, but the trigger on my Alaskan is absolutely perfect right out of the box. It has a smooth trigger pull, with a crisp let off, and no stacking. I have no means of measuring the trigger pull on the Alaskan, but subjectively, the DA pull is about the same as my DAO SIG 239, which is about 7 lbs. It's certainly less than the DAO pull of my S&W 640 snubbie.
Guns are very personal. Will you like the Ruger Alaskan in .44 Mag.? I couldn’t begin to guess. I sure do like mine, though… and that’s all I can attest to.