Super Redhawk Alaskan

Help Support Ruger Forum:

oldsoldier77845

Bearcat
Joined
May 25, 2022
Messages
9
Location
College Station 77845
I just got one of these in 44 Mag, 2.5" bbl. Figured it would be a neat CC piece. After picking it up and feeling the weight, I think maybe I was a little optimistic about my ability to handle this. Have not shot it yet. Does anyone have any experience with this revolver in this configuration. Is the recoil manageable for weekend shooters?
 

arcticruger

Red Eagle
Joined
Nov 30, 2008
Messages
473
Location
Northland
I had one in my hand just yesterday. They are heavy. I assume this takes up a lot of the recoil.

As much as I would like to have one for the Alaskan reference, I just can’t bring myself to buy one... yet. ;)

Now if they would have only made the Alaskan with a 4” bbl and full lug…
 

hittman

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
10,807
Location
Illinois
For me, far too big for carry.
Not uncomfortable to shoot but it’s new wore off pretty quick with me. Mine went down the road in favor of something else.

For me, a 4-inch Redhawk would have been more practical.
 

frogbern

Bearcat
Joined
Jun 24, 2022
Messages
5
Location
Boca Raton
I just got one of these in 44 Mag, 2.5" bbl. Figured it would be a neat CC piece. After picking it up and feeling the weight, I think maybe I was a little optimistic about my ability to handle this. Have not shot it yet. Does anyone have any experience with this revolver in this configuration. Is the recoil manageable for weekend shooters?
I was concerned with recoil also, but was pleasantly surprised after shooting 50, 44 mag I am very happy with its handling.
 

Hastings

Single-Sixer
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
280
Location
New Hampshire
My brother owned a 454 Alaskan, and I’ve owned 4” 44mag and 45 colt RedHawks. I also owned a custom 4” 454 Casull RedHawk I bought from a forum member. Shot a 44mag Alaskan a co-worker owns.

The Alaskan soaks up recoil, but the weight seems unnecessary to me. The 4” RedHawk suited me better because of the lesser muzzle blast. The only thing I would want the extra weight and strength of the Alaskan for would be for handling “nuclear” level loads, but the shorter barrel detracts from velocity and you end up with more drama than benefit in my book.

After shooting all the revolvers listed above, I settled on a S&W model 69 with 2-3/4” barrel for daily carry. Weighs 10 ounces less than the 44 Alaskan and is more slender and easier to conceal. Only 5 round capacity, but the reduced weight and bulk are worth the loss of the extra, round in my book.

The 69 obviously jumps more than an Alaskan, but I don’t plink with it. Practice enough to be proficient with it, but shoot my 44mag Vaquero or 4” Redhawk for fun. The 69 is a carry piece more often stoked with 44special, but quite capable of handling bear loads.

I love my Rugers , but not for daily carry - unless it’s open carry in the woods.
 

Hastings

Single-Sixer
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
280
Location
New Hampshire
Sorry. Didn't mean to offend. Just thought I'd offer my perspective on recreational shooters vs cc since the OP said he initially picked it up for cc.
Weekend shooter - fantastic gun and very fun but I'd still prefer a longer barrel for recreational shooting.

Thanks.
 

Bear Paw Jack

Hawkeye
Joined
Dec 19, 2001
Messages
9,593
Location
Alaska, Idaho USA
I've owned all three calibers, but when I moved back to Idaho decided I didn't need them. Getting ready to move back and wish I'd kept one of them at least. Recoil is absolutely not a problem. My "theory" is that the barrel is so short the bullet doesn't travel a long enough distance to build up to the great speed they would in even a 5.5" barrel. If a person has wrist problems they do have some torque when you shoot them, but there are hotter and lighter loads so shoot what you are comfortable with. I didn't shoot 454's in my 454, I shot very hot 45 Colt loads from Buffalo bore and thought they were just fine. The angle of the grip is excellent, the length of the grip allows you to get a good hand hold. Not sure I'd consider one for concealed carry but for the bush, in a Diamond D Guides choice chest holster they are excellent. I'll be keeping my eye out for another one when I get back there.
*********************************************************************
Quote from an article written by John Linebaugh


"I have seen my wife shoot two or three mule deer and about eight antelope now with a .45 Colt. The load she has used almost exclusively for seven years now is a 260 Keith slug at 900 fps out of a 4 3/4" Seville revolver. This will consistently shoot length ways and exit on mule deer and antelope at 100 yards.

It kills in my estimation better than a .270 or .30-06 class rifle as it acts a lot like an arrow and doesn't excite the animal. No whistles or bells, just honest consistent performance.

I have used this load on two antelope with exacting results. In my early hunting years I used the same 260 gr Keith at 1,400 fps. out of a dozen antelope and one mule deer I have personally taken I can't see that it stops them one bit better than the 900 fps load. Why, well history will tell us, as Elmer said. Once you shoot completely through your intended target you've done all you can do
."



Hard to argue with that.
 
Last edited:

seasterl

Single-Sixer
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
308
Location
FL
OldSoldier: That revolver in 44Mag would be fine for the weekends without excessive recoil due to its weight, as mentioned. However, the shorter sight radius coupled with the moderate recoil might make it frustrating at first until you get used to it. In my opinion, the Super Redhawk is ideally suited to fire the 454 Casull for hunting. Moving to the standard Redhawk with a slightly longer barrel would be a better choice for 44Mag, and the longer sight radius would inspire confidence.
 

oldsoldier77845

Bearcat
Joined
May 25, 2022
Messages
9
Location
College Station 77845
You Guys shooting the 454 are tough. I have a Freedom Arms 83 with 4 cylinders. 454,45LC, 45 Win Mag and 45ACP together with a Browning 1885 in 454. So far, they are just for looking at. I shot a Rossi 92 in 454 and decided it was too much for me. I like The Super Redhawk a lot as far as feel is concerned. Have in the past carried a Redhawk and a S&W 629. The Super seems much handier for use in my ground blind in the event I have a hog problem. Saw a 45 hog sounder last year when I was out, and renter killed over300 earlier in the year.
 

seasterl

Single-Sixer
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
308
Location
FL
The 454 (as well as all these big boomers) are better enjoyed when hand loading. Load to suit individual taste, load for accuracy, load for hunting, load for wife, etc. IME, some are not as accurate when loading down too much. One thing I think the Super Redhawk has over the Redhawk is better grip options. Your FA83 with four cylinders is great. I’ve owned several, but found they tended to be more accurate when pushed to high velocities… at least that’s what FA told me when they settled on twist rates. My FA 454 shot more accurate at high pressure (never got good accuracy at soft loads). (Sorry about the tangential comments.)
 

Biggfoot44

Blackhawk
Joined
Sep 6, 2009
Messages
821
Heavy enough to soak up recoil .

BUT ... It's still a big heavy gun . And major velocity loss with 2.5 inch bbl .

If you're going to carry a frame and cylinder that big , might as well go the cpl oz more for a 4in , and at least get decent velocity/ power .
 

Latest posts

Top