Thinking about a Ruger Alaskan 480

I'm throwing the idea around of picking up a Ruger Alaskan in 480. I found one used for a good price but my research so far on available ammo hasn't turned up too much. Every website seems to only stock two loads available from hornady. Are these the only two loads available?
If ammo ends up being this limited I may hold out for one chambered in 454 to come along.

Anyone own or shoot the 480? what is your opinion on it?
thanks

You have AT LEAST Hornady, Buffalo Bore, and Grizzly Ammo produced. Maybe more. I would anticipate that number will grow. I have a Ruger Alaskan and a Ruger Bisley in 480. Prefer that to the 454 (which I own as well) frankly.

I have two 480s, the Alaskan and he SRH with 7-1/2" bbl.

The only factory loads that I ever fired were 1 box of Hornady ammo. The rest of my shooting was with my own handloads.

This is a fine cartridge with plenty of power and seems to be very accurate to boot. 8)

I bought one last summer when there was a glut of them on the market. I sold it on this forum a few months later. It was an OK revolver, but I preferred the longer barrel on my other 480. I probably wouldn't be interested in another one unless they brought back the 5-shot version.

Thanks guys I didn't think to look at Buffalo Bore ammo and I haven't even heard of Grizzly. I will check them out.
Recoil wise how does the 480 compare to the 454. I have shot a few 454's but have never used a 480.

cmonti77 said:

I bought one last summer when there was a glut of them on the market. I sold it on this forum a few months later. It was an OK revolver, but I preferred the longer barrel on my other 480. I probably wouldn't be interested in another one unless they brought back the 5-shot version.

Click to expand...

Why does it have to be a five-shot, if you don't mind me asking?

In terms of sheer power I don't know that there is a telltale difference, I think what one does the other will do as far as a hunting revolver.

MaxP said:

cmonti77 said:

Why does it have to be a five-shot, if you don't mind me asking?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

It would just be a little more interesting I guess. Also, five shots would make it seem more compact, despite being dimensionally the same as the six-shot. Chances are pretty slim that we'll ever see them again, though.

Vortex said:

Thanks guys I didn't think to look at Buffalo Bore ammo and I haven't even heard of Grizzly. I will check them out.
Recoil wise how does the 480 compare to the 454. I have shot a few 454's but have never used a 480.

Click to expand...

I have never shot a .454. I do shoot .44 mags double, and single action without problems. I shot an SRH in .480 double action at the East coast gathering two years ago. It was very easy to clear the metal plates off the table. I still have a smile on my face when I think of it. Not much more than a .44 mag. IMO
gramps

cmonti77 said:

MaxP said:

cmonti77 said:

Why does it have to be a five-shot, if you don't mind me asking?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

It would just be a little more interesting I guess. Also, five shots would make it seem more compact, despite being dimensionally the same as the six-shot. Chances are pretty slim that we'll ever see them again, though.

Click to expand...

You do realize that the five-shot will actually weigh more than the six shot. More material, more weight. There is nothing wrong with the six-shot configuration. The .480 Alaskan I had shot really well at every distance I tested it with a number of loads up to and including Buffalo Bore's 410 grain loads.

MaxP said:

You do realize that the five-shot will actually weigh more than the six shot. More material, more weight.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. One loaded 480 ruger cartridge weighs more than the combined weight of the additional steel in between the chambers on the 5 shot cylinder.

cmonti77 said:

MaxP said:

You do realize that the five-shot will actually weigh more than the six shot. More material, more weight.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. One loaded 480 ruger cartridge weighs more than the combined weight of the additional steel in between the chambers on the 5 shot cylinder.

Click to expand...

I'd take that bet. There is extra material between all of the holes and the five-shot definitely outweighs the six-shot (I had one - a custom but the cylinder dimensions were the same). A chamber dimension slug in 17-4 or 465 will outweigh any cartridge.

Recoil wise how does the 480 compare to the 454.

Click to expand...

No comparison. The 480 doesn't kick much more than the 44.

I'd not have considered one yrs ago, but with a 480 BSBH here now, it's starting to call my name. I do think that in the short barreled Alaskan, the nod would go to the 480, for efficiency.

I have two .480 Rugers. The Alaskan and the newer Bisley. Like them both. Really enjoy shooting the Alaskan and recommend it.

But with two .480's... I've never owned a single factory round of .480. Why would I? Big magnum factory ammo is always expensive but it is dirt simple to reload. Buy some Starline brass, dies, bullets... don't worry about where you can buy ammo or how much it costs.

Just to reiterate and sorry about the thread hijacking. Here is a picture that shows just how much more material is in a 5-shot cylinder versus a 6-shot cylinder of the same diameter. It's a different cylinder type but it clearly shows how much more material there is.

It's not conclusive proof unless you take two .480 Alaskans, one 5-shot version and one 6-shot version, and load them both with the same ammo and weigh them side by side. I contend that the 5-shot version will be lighter.

cmonti77 said:

It's not conclusive proof unless you take two .480 Alaskans, one 5-shot version and one 6-shot version, and load them both with the same ammo and weigh them side by side. I contend that the 5-shot version will be lighter.

Click to expand...

Sounds to me like you just like to argue.

Bear Paw Jack said:

Sounds to me like you just like to argue.

Click to expand...

I'm not the one who derailed the thread.

Seems to me it would be easy enough to figure out the difference. Weigh both cylinders and a loaded cartridge and do the math ;-)

I would think that the weight of a full length chamber of solid steel would be heavier than a cartridge.