SRH Barrel Cutdown?

[off road]

Never understood why Ruger does not make an intermediate length SRH barrel (4-5"). I find the 7.5" to be pretty much useless for my application, which is dangerous game defense (not hunting). The Alaskans are superb, but I have to worry about velocity loss from the ultra short barrel.

So, from time to time we see cutdown SRH's posted. My question is, is there a reliable/reputable gunsmith I can send my guns to, that does cutdowns on a regular basis?

 

[EarlFH]

Magna-Port does these as a regular conversion, with 4.8" barrel.

 

[Silent Sam]

I wouldn't worry TOO much about velocity loss with the 454 Alaskan. Can't help you with the 44 Mag version. Here are my test results...

Speer Gold Dot load:
300gr GDHP, 7.5" Barrel, Muzzle Velocity: 1625 fps. Muzzle Energy: 1759 ft lbs.
Alaskan 1330 fps, chronograph at 12-15'

Buffalo Bore loads:
454 Casull Ammo - 360 gr. L.B.T. - L.W.N. (rated @ 1,425 fps/M.E. 1,623 ft. lbs.) ran 1230fps.

Heavy 45 Colt +P Ammo - 325 gr. L.B.T.-L.F.N. (rated @ 1,325 fps/M.E. 1,267 ft. lbs.) ran 1110fps.

Check Gunblast and you'll find similar results.
Plenty of remaining velocity for the intended purpose I think.

 

[dougader]

I had the same concern. I sold my Alaskan and am looking to have my SRH cut down as well. I think the Alaskan is just too short. I think a good 4 or 4.5 or 5" barreled model would be perfect.

I guess it depends on how you look at it. IMO, that's still quite a bit of loss. I shot my handload over the chrony, too:

SRH, 7.5", 335 WLNGC @ 1428 fps
SRH Alaskan = 1174 fps

I'd like to see that slug @ 1250 - 1300 fps. I load my 454 down so I can handle the recoil, and get back on target faster. Loading hotter to get to 1200 fps just defeats my original goal.

 

[EarlFH]

One thing to keep in mind, is that different States, have different laws on barrel length, for handgun hunting. If you only hunt in one State, then it's easy, but if you hunt in different States, I wouldn't go less than 6". I know that some of them require at least 6".

EarlFH

 

[chris_]

If you reload, you can mitigate the loss in the Alaskans until it is almost negligible. They work well for what they were designed for.

 

[DPris]

I had Bowen do a four-incher on my Super.
Great hostile critter gun.
Denis

 

[Silent Sam]

I don't see the Alaskan as a "hunting" gun. I don't know what a 45 caliber 300+ grain slug at 1300 fps will do that it won't do at 1100 fps. The only thing you'll gain is range which is not what the Alaskan is about. I would bet with some judicious loading you could get to your goal with those 335s. I just don't see the need. That weight slug at anything over 1000 fps is going penetrate any critter. It may even perform better at 1100 than it does at 1300. For the application, shooting the heavier slugs are the ticket vice more velocity. The 360gr load listed is the easiest 454 load to shoot for me. It may seem counter-intuitive but that's the way it is. The easiest route is to go with a 45 Colt Redhawk if you want that power level with a bit more barrel. Not trying to dissuade you. Build/buy what makes you happy. Two or three more inches of barrel will get you some more velocity with perhaps a bit less powder and mathematic recoil but I would bet it will increase muzzle flip and it will be a bit heavier and less handy to use for it's design purpose. I think Ruger got the 454 Alaskan right and the 480 is even more right to my way of thinking. It's about big deep holes, not raw velocity.

 

[RalphS]

I don't know what a 45 caliber 300+ grain slug at 1300 fps will do that it won't do at 1100 fps.

This is the big question for me. I've read lots of comments on multiple gun forums that say that 1000 or 1100 fps will penetrate any animal in North America end to end. But what does it mean? Will it smash through shoulder bones and then penetrate end to end and smash through hip or leg bones?

If 1100 fps is enough, why do people recommend 454 for Alaskan bears, even though a 454 shoots the same bullets as a 45, just faster?

What I really don't understand - if 1100 fps is enough, why do people carry 45-70 lever guns for defense? Why do they want 1500-1800 fps?

I'm beginning to believe that more fps is better, which means at least 1300 from a handgun with 300 grain bullets and up. If I get charged by a griz in Yellowstone, I don't wanna find out that 1100 fps is not enough.

A 5" SRH 454 should be able to shoot a 360 gr hardcast at 1300 fps which sounds pretty good to me.

 

[Morgoth]

I'm having Bowen do my .44 SRH Alaskan up as a 4" with a new barrel. Personally I think you're better off with a "build up" rather than a "cut down" barrel on the SRH.

 

[Morgoth]

 

[chris_]

I don't know what a 45 caliber 300+ grain slug at 1300 fps will do that it won't do at 1100 fps.

This is the big question for me. I've read lots of comments on multiple gun forums that say that 1000 or 1100 fps will penetrate any animal in North America end to end. But what does it mean? Will it smash through shoulder bones and then penetrate end to end and smash through hip or leg bones?

If 1100 fps is enough, why do people recommend 454 for Alaskan bears, even though a 454 shoots the same bullets as a 45, just faster?

What I really don't understand - if 1100 fps is enough, why do people carry 45-70 lever guns for defense? Why do they want 1500-1800 fps?

I'm beginning to believe that more fps is better, which means at least 1300 from a handgun with 300 grain bullets and up. If I get charged by a griz in Yellowstone, I don't wanna find out that 1100 fps is not enough.

A 5" SRH 454 should be able to shoot a 360 gr hardcast at 1300 fps which sounds pretty good to me.

An Alaskan will shoot a 360 at 1300 with no problem.

 

[Rev60]

I guess I can see some appeal in the Alaskan, but I would think most users would indeed be better served by a 4.5-5" barrel. One reason why is consider the size of the overall package. How much does it really shrink when lopping off one more inch of barrel?

A parallel for me is the N-frame S&W. Lately it seems there is a trend toward the 3" barrels being in demand - prices are high and supply is tight. What do they really buy you over a 4" mountain gun? The butt is the same. The bulk of the frame and cylinder are exactly the same. Even the first three inches of the tapered barrel are the same. Only the last inch of most tapered barrel is saved. What do you get? Yes, a shorter barrel; hardly any weight savings. Much does not change one way or the other. What do you give up? Either velocity or by pumping up pressures in the 3", more blast at the same muzzle velocity.

I'm no Alaskan guide and if they would prefer one fine. What I am is a regular guy (hunter, shooter, in the lower states) and I suspect regular guys are buying the bulk of these. I really don't see how I wouldn't be better off with a little more barrel on the SRH.

 

[Silent Sam]

I think the discussion is blurring the distinction between hunting and defense. Go with whatever suits you. Determine your own tipping point on velocity/ bullet weight/ barrel length/ handiness etc. I had the Alaskan elk hunting in country where the bears are the top of the food chain and felt it was worth carrying with 360gr flatpoints @ 1200fps. A couple more inches of barrel wouldn't have made me feel any safer or made it easier to pack or potentially use. That's as much or more power than many gun/cartridge combinations that are used for hunting bears. I wasn't hunting with it. I could have carried a longer barreled 45 or 454 and had more velocity available but I really wasn't concerned with having adequate penetration or making hits at 100yds. What impact velocity at what range are you looking for? That's where the bullet does it's work. I could have strapped a 45-70 guide gun on my torso also in addition to my hunting rifle and kept it on when I didn't have my hunting rifle in my hands. The only time you'll be sure you made the "right" choice is after you survive a real encounter.

 

[tek4260]

What is the load for 360 at 1300? Dad has an Alaskan and I have a chrony. I gotta see it.

 

[RalphS]

I'd like to see that load for 360 at 1300 fps too. BuffaloBore sells a 360 gr. LFN round which does 1219 fps in an Alaskan according to Jeff Quinn of Gunblast.com.

Buffalbores' website claims that they don't load 454 to max because of problems with the bullets jumping crimp, so maybe it's possible but would cause crimp jumping problems.

 

[5of7]

I have a 7-1/2" SRH in 480 Ruger and I cannot see myself getting it into action fast enough to do me much good....unless I carried it around in my hands instead of in a holster.

I also have a 4.2" Redhawk in .45 Long Colt that I can see myself getting it into action a lot faster.

I don't happen to own an Alaskan model, so I don't know how much handier it is over the 4.2" RH, but I am inclined to believe that there is a point where the shorter barrels are harder to control in rapid follow up shots.

 

[dougader]

This is what I'm talking about. Why doesn't Ruger just make it?

I bought an Alaskan with the intent of having Bowen do this work for me, but money being what it is, I just can't come up with that much dough. So I sold the Alaskan so I could get the 7.5" SRH cut down instead. It's a poorman's Bowen GP44.

I hear y'all when you talk about the difference between 1100 fps vs. 1300 fps, and I'm all over that when we're talking about hunting deer or elk. But SD from a charging freight train with claws and teeth gets me all nervous about the proposition.

If we step up to a larger caliber, 480 Ruger, 475L, or 500L, I still want a 4"-5" barrel.

 

[RalphS]

My understanding of the way the Bowen conversions work is that you have to supply the SRH Alaskan and the RH barrel since Ruger will not sell barrels. So, you have to buy two guns and pay Bowen at least $800 on top of that to get one nice 4" SRH.

So. we're talking around $2400 for this gun, right?

 

[DPris]

That's my GP44 pictured.
I supplied the Alaskan in .454, Bowen provided the barrel & cylinder.
Five or six years ago I believe the cost was something like $2000 all in. Dunno about now. Dunno if he has barrels & cylinders.
Mine was the first conversion, took him a lot of work to do, but he did it perfectly.

I can say it's worth every penny I spent on it, for my purposes.
With Garrett's bear busters, I feel very well protected in large animal territory.
Denis

 

[MMichaelAK]

One of the Moderators over on Shooter's Forum took an American Buffalo with a Ruger Only .45 Colt load in a Blackhawk. In through a rib, through and through and out the other side leaving thumb sized holes in and out. As I recall, it wasn't super hot rodded.

I carry my NM Blackhawk 4 5/8ths" blued or Redhawk 5.5" .45 Colts loaded with a Cast Performance 300 grain WFNGC over 20 grains of H-110 in Starline cases. Its about 1100 fps in both guns give or take 40 fps for barrel length. That's my bear gun and bear load for up here in Alaska. I've got a 7.5" SRH in .454. That's a hunting gun in my mind, not for bear defense as recoil and size are not optimal for that use.

 

[TheDude]

Double Tap lists the following:

.44 Magnum 320gr WFN ~ 1125fps from a 2.5" Ruger Alaskan

If you cant get it done with that, heavier bullets going faster wont help you.

Redhawks come in 4" and 5.5", either would be a great choice as would an Alaskan in any caliber. I currently have an Alaskan 44mag and a 5.5" Redhawk and would easily take along either and not worry at all. I also would "only" load 240swc to 1200-1300 fps and sleep worry free.

Good luck,

Josh

 

[dougader]

A few years ago an Alaskan guide went after a big brown bear that his client had hit with a 300 Win Mag. The guide shot it hard with his 416 mag and then the bear steamrolled him, bit on him for awhile, walked around groaning, came back and bit on the guide some more, then walked over, groaned, sat down and died.

This is the kind of stuff I would like to avoid. So yeah, I sleep fine in my bed here in Oregon. Fishing on an Alaskan river with browns is another story. Last trip we saw no bear, which was perfectly fine with me.

Any extra edge I have in order to break bone and penetrate like heck is very much welcome. John Linebaugh and friends did several years worth of penetration tests with all kinds of heavy rounds. I wish I could locate that again.

 

[TheDude]

http://www.handloads.com/misc/linebaugh.penetration.tests.asp

 

[TheDude]

There is a world of difference between a cornered, wounded trophy Brown Bear in AK and a Grizzly in Yellowstone. I lived in AK for a while. I fished on the Kenai quite a bit. I saw a few bears but never had any problems luckily, although it does happen for sure.
I carried a SRH in 480 Ruger (cut down to 4.80") or an Alaskan in 454. Most every guy from there that I fished with carried nothing.

If your going to be in Alaska hangin' around the big brownies, you bet....load up the biggest baddest round you can shoot accurately and rapidly for peace of mind. Then go out and have fun and don't worry about it.

In other words, prepare yourself the best you can and go have at it, everyone's comfort levels are different. Sometimes people just plain get carried away reading stories on the internet. In the end its your time, money and energy....use it how you please. My recommendation stands...240-255 grain lswc going 1200-1300 fps is all you'll ever need and then some down here in the lower 48 and and most other places too.

Regards,

Josh

 

[off road]

http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/powder-keg/58175-barrel-length-muzzle-velocity.html

As you can see from this data, the relationship between barrel length and velocity if graphed is not 'linear'. At the shorter barrel lengths, a small increase in length will net you a much greater increase in velocity, than the same amount of barrel length increase at a longer barrel length.

For example, going from a 1" to a 2" barrel will net you a significant increase of 193 fps. On the other hand, going from 17" to 18", will only net you a paltry 11 fps. I guess the ideal thing is to find that 'sweet spot', where you have a barrel that is short enough to be very handy, but yet you have not given up so much velocity that you have 'neutered' the round.

 

[Denny]

I have a Wild West Wolverine it looks weird but is compact I like Bowen version better

 

[5of7]

This is what I'm talking about. Why doesn't Ruger just make it?

I bought an Alaskan with the intent of having Bowen do this work for me, but money being what it is, I just can't come up with that much dough. So I sold the Alaskan so I could get the 7.5" SRH cut down instead. It's a poorman's Bowen GP44.

I hear y'all when you talk about the difference between 1100 fps vs. 1300 fps, and I'm all over that when we're talking about hunting deer or elk. But SD from a charging freight train with claws and teeth gets me all nervous about the proposition.

If we step up to a larger caliber, 480 Ruger, 475L, or 500L, I still want a 4"-5" barrel.

In practical terms, how is the above gun.....sweet as it is.....any better than just shortening the barrel of a 7-1/2" SRH to 4" and letting it go at that?

Now I am not talking about the other details of this gun that were doubtless done, but don't show in the picture, but a 4" barrel is a 4" barrel, no?

 

[Silent Sam]

"What is the load for 360 at 1300?"
"I'd like to see that load for 360 at 1300 fps too."

You'll have to find someone that thinks that extra 100fps really matters or better yet work it up in your gun which you should be doing anyway if that is your target. I'm confident it could be done in the Alaskan but have no motivation to do so "just because". If Buffalo Bore can load it to 1200 and sell it off the shelf I would bet there is a little wiggle room left. I used the Buffalo Bore load at 1200 because I didn't have time to load a similar weight bullet closer to 1000 - 1100fps. What's makes 1300fps the 'magic' number?

 

[off road]

The .454 doesn't suffer as badly from short barrel velocity loss, as does the .44. So for black bears, the simple and logical solution if one is not satisfied with the .44 Alaskan, is to up gun to the .454 rather than try to wring something unusual out of the .44.

But, when one is dealing with the really huge bears, the velocity loss from the .454 might also become problematic. The next logical step up for me then, seems to be the 4" S&W .500.