Ruger SRH Alaskan .454 Casull -OR- S&W 625-5 .45 Colt......Which one to keep?

[Southern Shooter]

I own both of the guns listed in the title. They are awesome guns and in beautiful condition. The S&W is a 1989 pre-lock production. Niether of them are for hunting but rather for woods/mountain defense. The Alaskan has a 2.58" barrel and the S&W has a 4" barrel.

Because I hand load, I can do everything and more with the Alaskan that can be done with the S&W 625. So, my question is:

Is there any real need or reason to keep both of these gun? Opinions?

Thanks

[HATCH]

Nope. I think you need to sell me the 45 colt smith.

[Southern Shooter]

Ha ha...Hatch, that revolver seems to generate the same response from folks in my local area. Not sure if it is the gun, the caliber, or a combination of the two that peak peoples' interest. Anyway, I will keep you in mind if I finally decide to part with it.

[scattershot]

The Casull with a 2 1/2" barrel couldn't be much fun to shoot exceptwithreduced loads, and then its just a 45, basically. I'd keep the Smith.

[bhn22]

The Alaskan is the more versatile of the two, and the most durable, if you find yourself using higher powered loads. The 625 isn't the weakling many make it out to be, but it will need more care and consideration if used heavily over an extended period of time. I have a similar quandary with a 7-1/2 Redhawk and a first edition 629 Mountain Revolver, the predecessor of the Mountain Gun. The 629s an emotional favorite, but mine is a fussy little thing, requiring .434 cast bullets, and the recoil can be objectionable. My most practical advice to you would be to locate a 4 in or 5-1/2 in Redhawk in 45 Colt and trade whichever revolver you decide to part with, then decide the fate of the second gun. It sounds like your needs could be handled by a solid 4-5 in revolver in 45 Colt, or even 44 magnum.

[rintinglen]

I prefer the 4 inch barrel over the snubby. I find the extra barrel length easier to hit what I aim at with, and you'll get a smidge more velocity, all other things being equal.

[Southern Shooter]

rintinglen,

As you can tell, I am NOT a great shot. But, at 20 yards the 2.5" barrel Alaskan is not difficult to hit a target with. This was shot at a 6 O'clock position, 274 gr RFN cast bullet averaging 1,235 FPS, standing non-support, double-action (09-13-2013).
81805

[fivegunner]

Keep them both,

[btroj]

I am not a Smith guy but I would keep the Smith.

A 454 with a 2.5 inch barrel? Bet that gets your attention with full loads. Concussion alone would be invigorating.

[franksr]

keep the Ruger I'll take the Smith

[Love Life]

I'll offer $1.00 more than Hatch!!

[ElDorado]

I'd keep the Smith & Wesson. They still make the Alaskan and you can always get another if you feel the need (or urge).

[Lonegun1894]

A friend has the .454 Alaskan, and the recoil is nothing to worry about to me at least--and I'm not into pain. Accuracy is very good for a snubbie too with his Alaskan, and I can shoot his almost as well as I can my Ruger SP101 .357 or my mom's old Taurus 85 .38spl--but I have put a lot more rounds through my SP101 than I have put through his Alaskan, so I would expect them to be equal with equal trigger time. I would say keep both, since if you're having to ask, you probably like both and would regret the sale no matter which one you sold off. If you absolutely have to sell one, which do you shoot better? Which feels better? All things being equal, I would keep the Ruger, but then again I have always had a strong preference for Ruger revolvers, so maybe I'm not the best person to be answering this.

[Southern Shooter]

Lonegun1894,
Yes, I like both of these guns. That is most likely my dilemma. The S&W is a jewel and shooting 250 grain boolits at 900-950 FPS is easy going.

But, at heart I am a utilitarian kind of guy. What I buy from footwear to the vehicle I drive are classed as "workhorses". I rarely buy for "beauty". And, guns fall into that category...especially my 16 Ruger handguns and longguns. Yea...I am kind of biased, too...which does not help out here. Many of these guns were already 20-30 years old and well used when I bought them. Yet, they are mechanically sound as the day they were manufactured.

*************************************************
btroj,
Firing the Alaskan with full loads gets EVERYONE's attention.:bigsmyl2: Anytime I want some personal space at the range I load up my 360 grain over 24 grains of W296 and like magic...the lanes on either side of me are suddenly empty. Never had a complaint. Just a lot of curious folks.

[Lonegun1894]

I'm honestly somewhat surprised how many people get intimidated by a .454 or the .500 S&W for that matter. I have never been able to explain it, but I shoot a lot of Ruger-level .45 Colt, and these last few years .44 Mag, and have shot quite a bit of .454 and .500 S&W out of a couple friends guns, and for some reason the .44 Mag seems to be the snappiest out of that bunch, while the others, while not .22s by any means, just aren't anywhere near uncomfortable. Now the .44 Mag still gets my attention on occasion depending on the weapon it's fired from.