Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Alaska Pros and Cons regarding Ruger Alaskan and/or S&W Backpacker

I would like some information, basically pros and cons, on the Ruger Alaskan and/or S&W Backpacker in 44 mag.

My wife and I are headed up for a hunt and I need another big handgun for backup.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated and most helpful!

Thanks

Archery black bear?

i hunt all over this place wit bow...never needed a back up.

Me neither and certainly not when rifle hunting.

I'd suggest shooting both before deciding. I'd lean towards the Ruger because accurately placing your shots becomes much more difficult as the barrel gets shorter than 4". Also the Ruger is built like a brick sheethouse and you won't be able to wear it out. You will need to do a fair bit of practicing to master the gun.

In simple terms, the smith would win for what's better to pack because it's lighter and smaller, the ruger would win for whats better to shoot.

Oh, and a big bore handgun is seldom needed as a backup, but having an excuse to buy another one is never a bad thing.

Oops, I realized I misread your post, you were talking about the 2 1/2" SRH Alaskan, I thought you were talking about the 4" redhawk.



As much as I really, really like the SRH, I'd never get one as a snubbie. If you want the super, get a 7 1/2" super and have it cut to 5", perfection in a packable big bore.



But ditch the factory grips and go with the hogue.

OP
Since you'll never use it, pick the lightest.

I generally leave the pistol in camp until I kill game. Then I wear the pistol when I'm packing game and heads back to camp. Makes hauling a whole lot easier.

I use a .44 Magnum, because at the range it's plenty.

Dennis

It is acutually a moose hunt. I will have a .338 win and the wife will have a 300 SAUM.

I have a plenty of gun experience but have never owned a short barrel large frame revolver outsided of the Taurus Ultralite that I will be replacing with the new one.

I do have experience with Ruger revolvers but not much with the Smith.

It could be as much an excuse as a necessity but that is probably for another thread. And of course there is never a problem with buying a gun for any reason the I can come up with which seems quite often.

I am just wondering if anyone that has experience or thoughts as to which way to go may chime in to help me make an informed decision.

Is a Smith that much lighter? I can't seem to find the weight on the web. Also I have heard the Ruger has a longer cylinder which helps with 300+ grain loads?

Muledeer that is kinda my plan but also I will have my 4 kid's mother with me and I want to make sure that I do everything to return her the way that she left. Or somehting like that???

Sounds (reads) like with the two high-powered rifles you're plenty "gunned". Of course, if by chance a black bear or another species of bear was able to get past the melee of rifle fire, you could always pull the revolver and finish yourself off instead of enduring the pain of being mauled.

Seriously, you have plenty of fire-power between the two of you with those super-duper magnums. Packing a pistol in your luggage is just one more thing to try to keep track of and to keep dry and it's something you won't even need, actually.

It's easier to wield a revolver in a tent then a rifle, which would be about the only reason to take one on a rifle hunt.imo

I'm flying out on Aug. 23rd for a bear hunt and my sidearm will be a .22 for camp meat.

After carefully reading the original reporter, I have concluded that most of the other readers are misreading his comments. The question isn't "Should I pick a revolver?"; it's "Which of these two should I select?" Two wholly differed approaches.

You may think he is being foolish (I don't, for the reason given earlier.), but the fact is he isn't asking the question most people seem wanting to anwer. Being a good Alaskan American, I'm not interested in insulting them.

Dennis

Back on topic: the Ruger is a beefier gun and will weigh you/her down over time and the miles carried. It will be easier for either one of you to shoot for sighting/testing loads without as much pain in the process. You can't kill a Ruger with heavy loads, IMO, and the gun is a decent club if all else fails.

The S&W BP is fine gun as well, great for carry and even better in the 329PD version. It's a lighter gun, built for back-country carry, and will get your attention with heavy bullet loads.

Odds are that you won't shoot either gun a lot, but if you expect the wife to touch one off, she's probably going to be less happy with the BP over the Ruger, JMO.

Muledeer,

Well said. I am not trying to start a debate as to whether to have a backup or not. Although I can see that as a thread that could be a lot of fun.

I just want to know which of these two revolvers would fit the bill the best.

Quite frankly this will be my weapon of choice whenever in bear country hunting or not. I just felt the Alaskan thread would provide those with the most experience in this matter.

Sorry for any confusion.

I would shoot both guns before purchasing either. My personaly opinion is that there is a balance point in which you give up shootability for packability. I personally won't pack a gun I can't shoot accurately, and IMHO going shorter than 4" in a revolver is a mistake. Or more correctly, I don't want to allow something that is threatening me to get close enough to where the barrel length does not make a difference.

I carry a big bore revolver quite a bit, and shoot them as well, as well as a snubbie revolver and autoloading pistols. Neither of the original options would be my choice based on my experience.

That's just the way you roll!

The Ruger has a longer cylinder and can therefore handle some of the heavier loads by Garrett Cartridges.

B/G bear?

Well, he didn't ask my opinion on barrel length either, but I can't imagine a reason for going less than 4".

I've shot the Ruger Alaskan in 454 Casull with the snubby 2 1/2" barrel and it's about zero on the fun meter. A 44 Mag with a 4" barrel would be so much nicer to shoot.