Ruger "Alaskan" .454 Casull and Cabelas.

[CAMPMEAT]

That's what you call a wrist rocket for sure. I had a Lou Horton special in 44 mag and it hurt like a sumbitch !!! Beautiful bear killer.

[JackOfAllTrades]

The Alaskan is 44oz.   A standard RedHawk is a few more ounces.  A Super Redhawk with shortest barrel is 9oz more than the Alaskan. All the Alaskan is, is the SRH without a barrel. I have had a 5 1/2" Redhawk in 44mag for many years and love it in the woods in a shoulder rig.  But I have eyed the Alaskan since they came out too.  Losing  up to 300fps from a heavy bullet from that shorter barrel as compared to my 5 1/2" Redhawk has kept me from pulling the trigger on one. I would personally rather have a .480 Ruger Alaskan(second addition), over a 454Casull because of less pressure buildup and for a 400gn bullet. I have not shot a 454 Alaskan, but have fired a full size Casull with heavy bullets. Still, I can load either of my 44mags to be painful to shoot. The trick with a short barrel shooting a heavy bullet is to find a powder load that is not too fast, so it has a nasty snapping recoil and fireworks show of muzzle blast, yet not use a slow powder that really needs a longer barrel for burn time to build peak pressure in the last 1/3 of the barrel. The problem is that many of the faster handgun powders are way too fast for the capacity of the 454Casull case, and short barrel Alaskan. These handguns are truly not as effective as they can be, unless you hand load because the ammunition manufactures pretty much offer handgun ammo in the magnums developed for a ~6" barrel.  It will be interesting to see how this veteran reloader, (Biggerhammer), approaches hand loading for the Alaskan and what his results are.
 
-Steve

[Huntbear]

The Alaskan is 44oz.   A standard RedHawk is a few more ounces.  A Super Redhawk with shortest barrel is 9oz more than the Alaskan. All the Alaskan is, is the SRH without a barrel. I have had a 5 1/2" Redhawk in 44mag for many years and love it in the woods in a shoulder rig.  But I have eyed the Alaskan since they came out too.  Losing  up to 300fps from a heavy bullet from that shorter barrel as compared to my 5 1/2" Redhawk has kept me from pulling the trigger on one. I would personally rather have a .480 Ruger Alaskan(second addition), over a 454Casull because of less pressure buildup and for a 400gn bullet. I have not shot a 454 Alaskan, but have fired a full size Casull with heavy bullets. Still, I can load either of my 44mags to be painful to shoot. The trick with a short barrel shooting a heavy bullet is to find a powder load that is not too fast, so it has a nasty snapping recoil and fireworks show of muzzle blast, yet not use a slow powder that really needs a longer barrel for burn time to build peak pressure in the last 1/3 of the barrel. The problem is that many of the faster handgun powders are way too fast for the capacity of the 454Casull case, and short barrel Alaskan. These handguns are truly not as effective as they can be, unless you hand load because the ammunition manufactures pretty much offer handgun ammo in the magnums developed for a ~6" barrel.  It will be interesting to see how this veteran reloader, (Biggerhammer), approaches hand loading for the Alaskan and what his results are.
 
-Steve

Jackelope, I could not agree more.  I have the same RH as you do... and it is a beast with my heavy handloads.  But it took me quite awhile to develop those loads, so I was getting the most out of the powder without leaving a bunch of it in the barrel.  I can not imagine trying to accomplish that with an even shorter barrel.. lot of powder going to be bought and burned or wasted..

[Biggerhammer]

It has yet to be shot, I've been swamped with work. I purchased the first Ruger .454 Super Red Hawk to hit town. When they first came out, I believe that was back in 2000? That was a power house, it torqued quite a bit on recoil. Made my 500 Smith look like a puddy cat, heck a stout handload through a S&W .44 Mag Mountain pistol has more recoil than the 500 Smith. I'll get some time to shoot it over the Holliday.

[mountainman]

It has yet to be shot, I've been swamped with work. I purchased the first Ruger .454 Super Red Hawk to hit town. When they first came out, I believe that was back in 2000? That was a power house, it torqued quite a bit on recoil. Made my 500 Smith look like a puddy cat, heck a stout handload through a S&W .44 Mag Mountain pistol has more recoil than the 500 Smith. I'll get some time to shoot it over the Holliday.

Shoot nothing but hot 300 hardcast at  thru my redhawk. peice of cake, straight recoil,and not anywhere as near as punishing as hot loads in the 500.

[Biggerhammer]

With the weight, barrel length and the porting. The 500 is a disappointment in the recoil department and I know recoil.

[mountainman]

But if a person cant hit what they aim at because of recoil,..?

[JackOfAllTrades]

But if a person cant hit what they aim at because of recoil,..?

Recoil comes after the shot. The 'hit' should be determined by aim and steady, consistent trigger pull.  This misconception that recoil affects the shot at all is bullsnot!  The second shot , maybe... But not the first shot. 
 
-Steve

[fillthefreezer]

Recoil comes after the shot. The 'hit' should be determined by aim and steady, consistent trigger pull.  This misconception that recoil affects the shot at all is bullsnot!  The second shot , maybe... But not the first shot. 
 
-Steve

less youre skeered of it

[mountainman]

Recoil comes after the shot. The 'hit' should be determined by aim and steady, consistent trigger pull.  This misconception that recoil affects the shot at all is bullsnot!  The second shot , maybe... But not the first shot. 
 
-Steve

less youre skeered of it

Copy that freezer filler! Know and have seen tooo many who cannot handle recoil miss those easy shots...many at close range. 

[mountainman]

Anticipation of that recoil I should add..

[JimmyHoffa]

The Alaskan is 44oz.   A standard RedHawk is a few more ounces.  A Super Redhawk with shortest barrel is 9oz more than the Alaskan. All the Alaskan is, is the SRH without a barrel. I have had a 5 1/2" Redhawk in 44mag for many years and love it in the woods in a shoulder rig.  But I have eyed the Alaskan since they came out too.  Losing  up to 300fps from a heavy bullet from that shorter barrel as compared to my 5 1/2" Redhawk has kept me from pulling the trigger on one. I would personally rather have a .480 Ruger Alaskan(second addition), over a 454Casull because of less pressure buildup and for a 400gn bullet. I have not shot a 454 Alaskan, but have fired a full size Casull with heavy bullets. Still, I can load either of my 44mags to be painful to shoot. The trick with a short barrel shooting a heavy bullet is to find a powder load that is not too fast, so it has a nasty snapping recoil and fireworks show of muzzle blast, yet not use a slow powder that really needs a longer barrel for burn time to build peak pressure in the last 1/3 of the barrel. The problem is that many of the faster handgun powders are way too fast for the capacity of the 454Casull case, and short barrel Alaskan. These handguns are truly not as effective as they can be, unless you hand load because the ammunition manufactures pretty much offer handgun ammo in the magnums developed for a ~6" barrel.  It will be interesting to see how this veteran reloader, (Biggerhammer), approaches hand loading for the Alaskan and what his results are.
 
-Steve

Jackelope, I could not agree more.  I have the same RH as you do... and it is a beast with my heavy handloads.  But it took me quite awhile to develop those loads, so I was getting the most out of the powder without leaving a bunch of it in the barrel.  I can not imagine trying to accomplish that with an even shorter barrel.. lot of powder going to be bought and burned or wasted..

The shorter barreled versions of similar weight should produce noticeably less recoil (in theory).  The theoretical recoil (not considering felt--grips/stock-frame design) is mass/velocity of powder expelled and mass/velocity of projectile expelled.  If you up the barrel length with more weight of slow powder, you can really notch up the velocity.  I have the SRH 9", and with 300 grain handloads...after about the 5th shot without a glove it has really dished out some pain.   

[Biggerhammer]

Anticipation of that recoil I should add..

 Got to give it to the "Gun Sales men" types.  They sure can talk allot, guess its all that spare time.  I personally don't need anything from the guy behind the counter other than to take my cash and make the NICS call.

[yorketransport]

All this talk about recoil makes me miss my 45-70 BFR.

Every time I get the urge to buy another heavy hitter handgun, I look at the X-rays of my right hand and wrist after a couple of years of shooting the BFR. The compression fractures have healed, but the damage to my joints will never really go away. Man that gun was fun though!

Andrew

[mountainman]

The Alaskan is 44oz.   A standard RedHawk is a few more ounces.  A Super Redhawk with shortest barrel is 9oz more than the Alaskan. All the Alaskan is, is the SRH without a barrel. I have had a 5 1/2" Redhawk in 44mag for many years and love it in the woods in a shoulder rig.  But I have eyed the Alaskan since they came out too.  Losing  up to 300fps from a heavy bullet from that shorter barrel as compared to my 5 1/2" Redhawk has kept me from pulling the trigger on one. I would personally rather have a .480 Ruger Alaskan(second addition), over a 454Casull because of less pressure buildup and for a 400gn bullet. I have not shot a 454 Alaskan, but have fired a full size Casull with heavy bullets. Still, I can load either of my 44mags to be painful to shoot. The trick with a short barrel shooting a heavy bullet is to find a powder load that is not too fast, so it has a nasty snapping recoil and fireworks show of muzzle blast, yet not use a slow powder that really needs a longer barrel for burn time to build peak pressure in the last 1/3 of the barrel. The problem is that many of the faster handgun powders are way too fast for the capacity of the 454Casull case, and short barrel Alaskan. These handguns are truly not as effective as they can be, unless you hand load because the ammunition manufactures pretty much offer handgun ammo in the magnums developed for a ~6" barrel.  It will be interesting to see how this veteran reloader, (Biggerhammer), approaches hand loading for the Alaskan and what his results are.
 
-Steve

Jackelope, I could not agree more.  I have the same RH as you do... and it is a beast with my heavy handloads.  But it took me quite awhile to develop those loads, so I was getting the most out of the powder without leaving a bunch of it in the barrel.  I can not imagine trying to accomplish that with an even shorter barrel.. lot of powder going to be bought and burned or wasted..

The shorter barreled versions of similar weight should produce noticeably less recoil (in theory).  The theoretical recoil (not considering felt--grips/stock-frame design) is mass/velocity of powder expelled and mass/velocity of projectile expelled.  If you up the barrel length with more weight of slow powder, you can really notch up the velocity.  I have the SRH 9", and with 300 grain handloads...after about the 5th shot without a glove it has really dished out some pain.   

Agreed! and well said!

Anticipation of that recoil I should add..

 Got to give it to the "Gun Sales men" types.  They sure can talk allot, guess its all that spare time.  I personally don't need anything from the guy behind the counter other than to take my cash and make the NICS call.

Generic comment, must have struck a nerve? Didnt mean to offend. Tooo many think they need the most powerfull firearm, wheather handgun or rifle and fail to learn to shoot it proberly, which leads sometimes to recoil flinch. Seen people miss deer at less then 20 feet because of this fear of being"kicked"