What about these short barrel 44's

[TinyDee]

I like the looks of the Ruger Alaskan and looked at a Smith short barrel too. Anone care to comment on these as far as use? Do I like ti because it looks neat or is there more with these?

 

[TinyDee]

Maybe an additional question is which is the best, The Ruger Alaskan or Smith Backpacker?

 

[tulsamal]

I really like the look of the Alaskan. But I figured a super short barrel like that cried out for a cartridge with more bullet weight and wider diameter. Then it wouldn't need as much velocity. So my Alaskan is a .480. Love the revolver and the cartridge both. Recently had a visitor that wanted to shoot some of my guns and the .480 Alaskan ended up being his favorite.

Gregg

 

[batmann]

I have an Alaskan in .44M and it has been great carry piece in cooler weather in a Simply Rugged pancake. It alternates with my Smith 629 Mountain Gun, also in a Simply Rugged. I can't speak on a Backpacker, but IMHO, an Alaskan 'snubby' is probably better overall.

 

[totaldla]

I think anything shorter than 4" in 44 mag negates the value of the 44mag cartridge over a 357Mag. Just can't burn much powder in those tiny barrels.

As far as steel versus Titanium, it depends on what you are going to do with the revolver. If your goal is to actually carry it, then the S&W329pd is hands down the best. If you just want to pull it out of the safe and fondle it once in awhile, (what most Ruger owners do), then I guess the Alaskan is as good as anything.

 

[woody wood]

i like my alaskan-it shoots hot loads with no problem and recoil is about the same as my super redhawk 7.5. accuracy seems close to the same in a short range,but powder is still burning(h110) going out the barrel.big flames!!
glad i have it! with more than 1,000 round in it,it seems to still be as tight as when it was new.big and heavy.with hot loads,most people think im shooting a 500.i have a galco holster that i have used very little,because it is heavy.but if i need it its there.
side note--the belt i use is a 5.11 from midway that is great for any holster.
it has a plastic internal in leather.i wear them all the time even with out holster.its the only belt that last more than a year for all around use.i have two sizes-one for iwb and one for outerwear holster use.

 

[Webleymkv]

Looking at Ballistics by the Inch, I note that the Federal 240grn Hydra-Shok was doing 1120fps from a S&W 629 with a 3" barrel for 668ft. lbs. While certainly not up to par with a .44 Magnum from a longer barrel, that's still more power than what you'd get from a comparable .357 Magnum loading out of anything but a 6" or longer barrel. Federal Hydra-Shoks are not a particularly hot loading in .44 Magnum and I suspect that something like Speer's 240grn Gold Dot would give substantially more oomph.

As far as my choice of a .44 Magnum, I'm partial to a S&W M29 or 629 with a 4" heavy barrel. Regardless of the weight, an N-Frame is just too big to be a pocket gun and, since I've yet to find anything that is remotely comfortable for me to carry IWB, that relegates it to a belt gun anyway. A 4" barrel is small enough that I can carry it without undue discomfort under a light jacket but I've still got a longer sight radius and higher velocities than what a shorter barrel can offer. I like the weight of an N-Frame with a 4" heavy barrel because it's light enough to be carried all day with a good holster and belt (I use a Kramer horsehide scabbard and a 1 3/4" wide Bullhide belt) but has enough weight to get through a 50 round practice session without becoming unpleasant.

 

[natman]

I think anything shorter than 4" in 44 mag negates the value of the 44mag cartridge over AND a 357Mag. Just can't burn much powder in those tiny barrels.

Let me fix that. A short barrel takes away a lot of performance from both the 44 and the 357 magnums. But even with a short barrel the 44 bullet is still heavier and bigger than a 357.

 

[drail]

In .44 caliber most of the performance advantage of the .44 Magnum is lost in a snub. With most .44 Magnum loads you only going to generate a huge fireball after the bullet has left the muzzle of a 2 or 3 in. tube, so even though you're launching a heavy bullet there is only so much dwell time in a short barrel to get it moving. If you want to launch a heavy bullet (and you do) the .44 Spl. makes more sense. Unfortunately there aren't a lot of choices for snubbie .44 Spl. revolvers out there. The S&W 696 was a great idea for a carry revolver but the lack of factory ammo at the time of it's production cut it's production short. You can still find .44 Spl. Taurus, Rossi and Charter Arms around but their quality is not quite as good as S&W and an awful lot of the ones I have seen were abused by people trying to turn it into a .44 Mag. It is really a handloader's cartridge but the Speer Gold Dot load does very well in a short barrel. The .44 Magnum is not going to give much advantage unless you have 5 in. or more of barrel.

 

[Magnum Wheel Man]

I have a S&W Air Lite 44 special ( the model with a hammer ) as well as a custom Dan Wesson snubbie in 44 Magnum, & a Ruger Alaskan in 454 Casull...

they are all awesome guns that I love to shoot... the Dan Wesson has a comp nut built on it & currently wears an expirimental flash hider comp nut... the gun ( most similar to a steel S&W ) it pretty tough to shoot without the comp... my Air Lite in 44 special is quite shootable but would probably be a handfull in 44 magnum...

BTW... I really like shooting my Alaskan... I'd think one in 44 Magnum would be very shootable... mine in 454 Casull is suprisingly nice to shoot

 

[Hook686]

I'd stay away from them ... too much bang for your buck is my thinking.