44 mag or 454 Casull

[haymaker]

I'm thinking of getting a Ruger Alaskan. At first I thought I should get a .44mag but since I already have a Blackhawk .45 convertible I'm starting to think maybe I should consider the Alaskan in 454 Casull that will also handle the .45 Colt. One of the reasons I'm considering an Alaskan is I like to hike in the brush land adjacent to my farm. Wolves and cougars have been spotted in the area so I want to carry something that could possibly help in a tough situation.

Right now I rotate with the Blackhawk .45, a P90, and a Security Six in .357 mag. It's been a long time since I've owned a .44mag and I've never shot a .454 Casull. I did shoot a .500 S&W once. That was a bit much. For you guys/gals that have had experience with the larger calibers what do you think?

 

[wizzard]

get the .454, and shoot properly loaded .45lc out of it. That's my .02 anyway...

 

[LaneP]

My vote is for the .454, however, there are a couple of considerations.

As stated in the prior post, you can load .45 Colt ammo for low powered practice in the .454, but when you want to get serious, the .454 will meet any power requirements a handgun would be asked for.

If you are a reloader, you will get the most versatility and flexibility from the .454 chambering.

If you rely primarily on off the shelf ammo, the .44 Magnum will give you the widest range of ammo options.

You won't go wrong with either choice, but the .454 is going to give you about one third more energy than the .44.

Pic of its big brother:

 

[whichwatch]

Personally I think a .44 magnum is plenty. It has cleanly taken every game animal on the planet at one time or another. At one time it was the most powerful handgun there was. Just like the schoolyard bully, something bigger and badder will always come along and everyone thinks they need it. For what you mentioned the .44 should do the job more than adequately. It is actually at the threshold of what most shooters can handle when loaded with full spec ammo. It can be loaded from as they say from "mild to wild". Choose the .454 if you so desire but I really don't think you will accomplish anything with it that the .44 can't do. Dead is dead, regardless of what it was killed with.

 

[BearBio]

I'm just over the hill from you. My "work area" is from Oregon to the Canadian border, from the top of the hill halfway to Idaho.

1. Lions may be an issue. But lions are light-boned and hunters regularly use 22 mag to shoot them. I have stood up to them (i.e. chased them off) while armed with a 22 and a 38 two times. As a biologist, I've seen 6-8 in the wild. Most ran off faster than I could. None stood their ground.

2. I have seen over 2 dozen grizzlies in the wild. None in Washington. Estimates are maybe 5 to 10 in North-central Washington, mostly in the high country in the wilderness areas above Stehekin. Lots of black bears. I've been charged once while doing research. Trust me, you WILL NOT have time to get more than one shot off. Hunters in California regularly use 243's for bears. And the bears there are MUCH larger than here.

3. There are 3 wolf packs in Central Washington. Two might be breeding. One (Methow) has no females left due to ignorant ranchers poaching them. None (Teanaway or Wenatchee) in NCW appear to have taken any stock, so far, although one did feed on a road-killed calf. I have seen exactly two wolves in the wild: one in Yellowstone and one in Alaska.

"Personally I think a .44 magnum is plenty. It has cleanly taken every game animal on the planet at one time or another."

And that proves, WHAT? So has a 22 long rifle. You should use the biggest you are comfortable with. Not what somebody on the 'net suggests. I carry a hot 45 long Colt in a Blackhawk because I've seen it work on over 100 large hogs in Cali. My wife, she carries a 41 mag Blackhawk (a 44 mag scares her and the 41 penetrates better). I'm currently waiting on a 454 Super Black Hawk, with a 5.5"

 

[whichwatch]

"I'm currently waiting on a 454 Super Black Hawk, with a 5.5"

BearBio, is this a custom SBH? If so, who is doing it for you?

 

[BearBio]

Gary Reeder. Halfway there!

 

[whichwatch]

Gary Reeder. Halfway there!

Good choice. I visit his website every day and post often, good group of guys, very knowledgeable and willing to share. Can't say I care for all of his stuff but overall good guns.. He has plenty of hunting experience and cartridge knowledge.

 

[greenmtnguy]

If you reload, I'd stick with the 454 and load it up anyway I wanted with 45 Colt stuff, from SAAMI to Ruger-Only loads and not look back.
If you don't reload, I'd say get the 44 Mag as ammo for it is more easily found and a broader selection, and you coud load it with 44 Specials if you were only likely to encounter wolves or mountain lions.
If I was taking it up to Alaska with the big bears on the water, I'd go with the 454.

 

[BearBio]

If you reload, I'd stick with the 454 and load it up anyway I wanted with 45 Colt stuff, from SAAMI to Ruger-Only loads and not look back.
If you don't reload, I'd say get the 44 Mag as ammo for it is more easily found and a broader selection, and you coud load it with 44 Specials if you were only likely to encounter wolves or mountain lions.
If I was taking it up to Alaska with the big bears on the water, I'd go with the 454.

Can't fault the reasoning there!

 

[Jim Puke]

I have a 454 and it is a lot of handgun...but that is what it is supposed to be. It is pretty versatile if you reload and like has been said, you always have the colt option.

If I were buying for your stated purpose and did not reload...I would definitely go with the 44mag...matter of fact, I would probably buy the 44 anyway...a lot easier to hit with in that short gun.

 

[Chuck 100 yd]

.44 Mag. is all you need.

 

[AJGUNNER]

3. There are 3 wolf packs in Central Washington. Two might be breeding. One (Methow) has no females left due to ignorant ranchers poaching them.

You might think differently if they were eating your paycheck and retirement. :wink:

 

[brushunter]

I have no personal experience in the wild with anything charging me ...that said , I have owned a 454 ( 7 1/2 ) Ruger SRH ... with full house loads , it was a handfull ! With the Alaskan, considering the short barrel ...not for me. I have three 44 mags, one being a four inch 44 Redhawk...It shoots full house 44s very well ...though it does recoil it is easy to control. And as has been stated the 44 , properly loaded, will bring down anything short of the BIG bears. OMO :D

regards , brushunter

 

[dlhredfoxx]

.44 mag. Frankly the .45 colt is a good option too. I'm Not a fan of the .454 it's just too much recoil for what you get down range. Too much bark for the bite. I'd frankly move up to the 475 or 500 Linebaughs and skip the 454... More energy and less felt recoil IMO.

 

[BearBio]

3. There are 3 wolf packs in Central Washington. Two might be breeding. One (Methow) has no females left due to ignorant ranchers poaching them.

You might think differently if they were eating your paycheck and retirement. :wink:

You got proof of that?
1. The Methow Pack was never shown to have predated on livestock. Other packs have but not the NCW packs. I know those in the Blues have (at least supposedly) eaten livestock.
2. The "rancher" (small time, at best) was convicted of poaching in state court. He even plead guilty. The judge refused to accept the plea bargain because it was too lenient.
3. The culprit was convicted of poaching in 3 states (on other charges) and running an illegal trapline. Also, poaching in Canada.
4. The culprit posted pictures on-line of him with another wolf he and his son had shot (That sounds pretty ignorant, to me).
5. His "paycheck" and "retirement" largely consisted of state disability and "Rural welfare" (government subsidies)
6. He got caught because he tried to ship a bloody package through FedEx (as in the package was dripping blood onto the counter==WDFW identified the blood as wolf, and from the Methow pack.) The shipper (his son's wife) was pictured by the security camera loading the bleeding package into her car (complete with license number).

That sounds pretty "ignorant" to me (Actually, I'd go further and say it was pretty darned "stupid" the way he got caught). Convicted (by his own admission) of poaching bobcat, elk, deer and others.

Really want to go on record as being supportive of him?

Back to the topic, wolves are not a danger in NCW, neither are grizzlies, so anything more than a 44 mag really isn't needed. I like the 45 Colt and 454, so I'll go with those (although I have 4 44 mags)

 

[whichwatch]

I have no personal experience in the wild with anything charging me ...that said , I have owned a 454 ( 7 1/2 ) Ruger SRH ... with full house loads , it was a handfull ! With the Alaskan, considering the short barrel ...not for me. I have three 44 mags, one being a four inch 44 Redhawk...It shoots full house 44s very well ...though it does recoil it is easy to control. And as has been stated the 44 , properly loaded, will bring down anything short of the BIG bears. OMO :D

regards , brushunter

Properly loaded and in the hands of the right person a .44 magnum can, and will bring down the big bears. May not be a sensible first choice but it will get it done.

 

[contender]

You have gotten many comments by folks who have shown their preferences. But in your original post, you mentioned you had never shot a 454. You also stated you have shot a 44 mag, but it has been a while.
May I suggest you try & find someone who has what you are considering & try out their guns to see if you like or dislike them?
From a logical standpoint, a 454 has the capability of dual purpose. From mild 45 Colt ammo, to full powerhouse 454 ammo. By the same logic, the 44 mag has from 44 spl. to 44 mag.
Your primary concerns are lions & wolves, while the slight possibility of a bear could be thrown in.
Any normal 44 mag, or Ruger & T/C loads in 45 Colt, or most 454 loads will handle the chore you are asking for.
My thoughts go toward the use of ammo vs caliber here. Any of the 3 mentioned above, if you use a good quality cast wide nosed slug, traveling around 1100 to 1200 fps, all will do the job.
So, I go back to my original thought. Find someone & try out the different guns to see what YOU prefer. then you can make the decision.

 

[BearBio]

You have gotten many comments by folks who have shown their preferences. But in your original post, you mentioned you had never shot a 454. You also stated you have shot a 44 mag, but it has been a while.
May I suggest you try & find someone who has what you are considering & try out their guns to see if you like or dislike them?
From a logical standpoint, a 454 has the capability of dual purpose. From mild 45 Colt ammo, to full powerhouse 454 ammo. By the same logic, the 44 mag has from 44 spl. to 44 mag.
Your primary concerns are lions & wolves, while the slight possibility of a bear could be thrown in.
Any normal 44 mag, or Ruger & T/C loads in 45 Colt, or most 454 loads will handle the chore you are asking for.
My thoughts go toward the use of ammo vs caliber here. Any of the 3 mentioned above, if you use a good quality cast wide nosed slug, traveling around 1100 to 1200 fps, all will do the job.
So, I go back to my original thought. Find someone & try out the different guns to see what YOU prefer. then you can make the decision.

Excellent point. You wanta come over to the "dry side"==(A Washington joke), I have a 44 "flattop" Blackhawk OM, a NM Super Blackhawk, OM Blackhawk in 45 Colt (with "manly loads"), and Taurus in 454. I'll even throw in an OM 41 Blackhawk for you to try out. If you can't make it until summer, I might have a 5.5" 454, ported by Gary Reeder finished by then. Can't ask for a better side-by-side comparison.

 

[P89DC]

If grizzly, brown or polar bears are out of the picture, why not consider a 3" SP101 in 357? Almost half the weight and size makes it much easier to carry.

 

[WESHOOT2]

Because blackies prefer being shot with a cartridge that starts with ".4""?

 

[Bear Paw Jack]

For 33 years in Alaska I carried a 44 for the most part, sometimes for a change it was a 45 Colt. Did I not have a 454 for those big horrible bears. Actually yes I did. Personally I felt I wanted a less recoiling hangun so that I could get off more than one shot. Over the years I know a lot of folks who have had to shoot a bear IDLP, And yes MOST got off more than one shot. The important thing is you do want the first one to be good. Use a good bullet. You can penetrate a bear with less than a 454. I know a guy who shot one in his yard with a 30-30 and still got off more than one shot. Are there people who are totally surprised and don't get off a shot. Yes there are. Same as on the street with someone getting the edge on you, you can get too close to a bear in thick cover and not get a chance to get to your gun. It happens. Be proficient with your weapon. Be able to access it. Don't carry your rifle over your shoulder, don't carry your handgun in your pack. Think it through.

 

[whichwatch]

For 33 years in Alaska I carried a 44 for the most part, sometimes for a change it was a 45 Colt. Did I not have a 454 for those big horrible bears. Actually yes I did. Personally I felt I wanted a less recoiling hangun so that I could get off more than one shot. Over the years I know a lot of folks who have had to shoot a bear IDLP, And yes MOST got off more than one shot. The important thing is you do want the first one to be good. Use a good bullet. You can penetrate a bear with less than a 454. I know a guy who shot one in his yard with a 30-30 and still got off more than one shot. Are there people who are totally surprised and don't get off a shot. Yes there are. Same as on the street with someone getting the edge on you, you can get too close to a bear in thick cover and not get a chance to get to your gun. It happens. Be proficient with your weapon. Be able to access it. Don't carry your rifle over your shoulder, don't carry your handgun in your pack. Think it through.

Does that mean we should walk down the sidewalk with a gun in our hand??

 

[haymaker]

Thanks for all the great responses. For those of you that live in WA I live near Moses Lake, almost dead center in the middle of the state. I'm 61 years old and have lived on this farm for 58 years. 2 of the duck hunters that hunt on my farm have spotted a wolf in the area and we know there are cougars in the area. I like getting out in the brush hiking with my dogs and I just feel better packing something. That being said, I have a Ruger P90 that I assume is built to handle heavy .45+p loads from Buffalo Bore or Double Tap. I also have a Blackhawk .45 convertible that I can load hot .45 Colt loads in. I also have a Security Six that I can load hot for my little walks. The Ruger Alaskan has always intrigued me and I'm also interested in the Glock 20 or some other 10mm that can handle hot loads. In other words, I have enough guns to do the job but I'm always looking for something new to experiment with.

I really enjoy all of your opinions and I take them all into consideration.

 

[Rclark]

...but I'm always looking for something new to experiment with.

In that case ... just get one (or all) that you'd like to try and have fun. Sounds like you already have your SD bases covered :) . As said above 1100-1200fps with a heavy bullet will do the job. That is one reason I probably will never own a .454 as my .45 Colt revolvers will be up to the task for anything I might run into around here .... even for that swell, wonderful puppy like, so loveable friendly wolf doggy that East Coast, West Coast city people seem to love so much :roll: . Anyway ... your choice :) .

 

[dickydalton]

Forget the pop-gun and buy a 460XVR. Then you can use the 454s just like 22 shorts for plinking! :P

 

[powder smoke]

Most important thing when considering options for a carry gun & protection is a hand gun that you shoot really well! A 44 would be better if you are not proficient with a 454. Just my 2 cents. ps

 

[WESHOOT2]

You are correct; the P90 was originally intended and designed for the 10mm.

BuffaloBore is the real deal.

 

[ECVMatt]

I took my Glock 20 to Alaska and thought it worked pretty well up there. I feel that it was slightly underpowered, felt it might be difficult to operate one-handed, and the slide could become jammed if I had to use it inside the tent or close to body. Now I am getting ready to go back on another hunt and have settled on the SRH Alaskan. I went with the .44 after watching some videos online and shooting one at the range. Like other have stated, I felt being able to shoot more than once was of greater importance than the power advantage of the .454. I reload and am setting up a 330 grain hardcast bullet to travel about 1000 to 1100 fps. While no slouch, it should be much more controllable and still have enough penetration for my needs. I shoot a similar load in my Bisley and have been very impressed when shooting hogs. I also picked the SRH Alaskan over my Ruger SA's to have the ability to use the double action feature. Most of our bear encounters were at night and started when we were in the tent. It is not beyond reason that a bad incident could involve shooting quickly from inside the tent. As much as I love and trust my Bisley's, I wanted to be able to quickly fire w/o having to pull the hammer back first.

Of course camping clean, storing meat properly, and being aware greatly reduce the chance of a bear problem, but being properly prepared is also required as well.

All though you have a good selection already, adding an Alaskan seems like it would both fit your needs and be a fun addition.

 

[Rabon]

In the short barreled Alaskan how much difference in performance would there actually be ?