Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 3/5/2006 6:17:02 PM EST
When I was in Alaska last year, there were .480 Ruger versions in several gunshops, but I never saw a .454/.45 - I kept getting told either that A) the .454 was more popular, and therefore always sold out; or B) Ruger wants to push the .480 Ruger, so is making far fewer .454's.

Now, 90% of the time I was happy carrying my 7.5-in .44 Super Blackhawk in a cross-draw holster, but it did get in the way while fly-fishing, and is difficult to wear with a backpack.

Thinking about heading back to Alaska next year for some more serious backcountry fishing than what we did last year, and I'm thinking that the Ruger Alaskan in .454/.45 would be a great, quickly-deployable sidearm for bear country.

Anyone own/shot one? Thoughts/opinions?

Link Posted: 3/5/2006 8:37:08 PM EST
It looks like Ruger just restarted production on the 454 Alaskans because I've been seeing some pop up on gunbroker.com in the last couple of weeks. There are a couple of good reviews on both the 480 and 454 versions at gunblast.com
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:05:07 PM EST
I just bought one yesterday at a show. Haven
I think it would be perfect for the role you describe.
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 10:10:04 PM EST
I don't know if I would trust a 454 or 480 to stop a big bear, especially out a short barrel. It might kill the bear but will it kill it fast enough so it does not kill you before it wonders off and dies??? I'd opt for a 45-70 or larger in big bear country.
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 8:18:50 PM EST
A 4 5/8 Blackhawk chambered for the 45 Colt can match the Alaskan and a 5.5 will humiliate it. (at less than 1/2 the price.)
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 2:28:53 PM EST
Ive shot the 480. Nice gun pretty accurate and not nearly as bad on the recoil as I was expecting.

Top Top