Ruger Alaskan vs. Taurus Tracker in .44mag

[tully_mars]

Which one of these would you all think is a better shooter? Would the Alaskan recoil be the same, worse, or better than the Tracker? Would the 2" barrel difference greatly reduce the power of the .44mag for a woods revolver?

Lots of questions, really hoping you 44mag guys have some opinions. Thanks!

TM

 

[FirstFreedom]

I wouldn't shoot anything but fairly mild .44 mag loads in a frame as small as the tracker. But I would shoot full house stuff in a SRH frame. The more appropriate comparison would be the Taurus large frame vs. alaskan, or raging bull (large frame with 2 lockups) vs. alaskan. So kinda apples & oranges.

 

[Action_Can_Do]

Yes, a 2 inch barrel will cost you power in a magnum load. 4 inches is really the shortest you should go if you really want 44 mag power and even then, 6-8 inches is the ideal. The tracker has a small frame and with a 4 inch barrel is nice and light. The Alaskan is quite a bit stronger however.

 

[tully_mars]

Well, got out and shot both this weekend (via some friends). The Alaskan is way better on recoil. Maybe because of grip, but it actually might be a little heavier too.

TM

 

[ShipWreck]

Get the Ruger - Taurus quality can be spotty.

I actually like those Alaskans. U can practice w/ cheaper 44 special rounds...