Taurus 454 2.5" vs. Redhawk 44 Mag 4" for Bear Defense in the Back Country

[Brudog]

I am looking to pick up another revolver and have been going back and forth between a 454 Casull or a 44 Mag. The gun will be used for carry in the field as backup and for protection against two and four legged threats while in the field. I am planning a trip out west where bear defense is an issue. I currently carry either an SP101 in 357 Mag or an XD45 Compact as my EDC but neither of these pack enough punch for Grizzlies.

I came across a Taurus Raging Bull 454 recently that someone traded after just seven shots for $620. Evidently it was too much for them. I have read a lot of problematic posts online regarding Taurus' but many people love them.

I have also considered waiting out the Ruger order backlog and try to get a Redhawk 44 Mag in a 4" barrel or maybe an Alaskan in 44 Mag which are available.

Things I am thinking about, sight radius, second shot repeatability, controllability etc.

Which way would you go?

[Brudog]

The more research I do the more I think I am leaning toward a Ruger Redhawk or an Alaskan in 44 Mag. The Taurus' just seem like your rolling the dice and that is a lot of money to gamble with let alone it might need the gun to save my life.

The Redhawk new is around $675 and the Alaskan is roughly $760 so I may go with one of these.

Any thoughts?

[Pete D.]

Does the firearm have to be a pistol? There is a continuing discussion on this and many other fora about the effectiveness of any pistol against a large bear, a grizzly.
Better than throwing a rock.....but how much better?
I am in the school of "pack as big a gun as you can carry", a large rifle preferably. Certainly, though, not as convenient as a pistol.
If I had no other options, I would take the longer barreled Ruger before the Taurus snubbie. I like Rugers and longer barrels.
Pete

[Breadman03]

I have an Alaskan 454. The recoil with 250 grain loads isn't bad at all. The 454 Alaskan puts out more energy than a 6" 44 Mag, and shooting 45 Colt through it is just plain nice.

I usually go to the SGL range on 93 and have no problem keeping it on a paper plate at 25 yards. I am using a Simply Rugged for CCW and it works pretty well.

You should be able to find one for about $800-900.

[harold63]

The more research I do the more I think I am leaning toward a Ruger Redhawk or an Alaskan in 44 Mag. The Taurus' just seem like your rolling the dice and that is a lot of money to gamble with let alone it might need the gun to save my life.

The Redhawk new is around $675 and the Alaskan is roughly $760 so I may go with one of these.

Any thoughts?

Taurus is putting out a very good product, nowadays, so I wouldn't let the "I heard Taurus sucks," thing bother you. If you ask everyone who says Taurus sucks, you'll find that a good number of them have never owned or fired a Taurus.

If you can get a Redhawk new for $675, it may be a good way to go, but these are fairly common in the used market and are going in the $450 to $500 range, even if unfired or not fired much. The Redhawk is a brutally built revolver, so a used one with a few rounds through it is the same as new with some other makes.

.44 mag and 454 Casull are plenty big enough for bear. Personally, I feel the .44 is the best route since it can be much easier to reaquire your target out of the right revolver. A Taurus Tracker with a 4" barrel, for example, will not be your speed shooting friend, even with the ported barrel that it has, but the Redhawk with an unported 6.5/7" barrel can off load all six rounds in about three seconds and definitely stay within minute of bear even out to 25 or 30 yards. Also, if you handload your .44 cartridges for the "super" bear, the Redhawk will still have a mild muzzle flip. The weight difference between the Tracker and the Ruger is negligible once you add up everything else you will probably be carrying. The extra barrel length, on the other hand, could be an issue if you don't carry the revolver in a manner that is easy to get to.

My trail gun is a Tracker .44B. It does have a nasty muzzle flip, but I have trained with this gun a fair amount. Which ever revolver you choose, you should shoot it enough to be comfortable with it. Under pressure, it can be a handful to shoot quickly, even if it is a heavy gun like the Redhawk.

[Neko456]

Either one in 6" or more but if it was me I'd pick the Red Hawk over the Taurus 454 especially with a 2.5" barrel defending against Bear. Doesn't they both come in the Casull caliber? 44 mag would do but if I could get bigger I would, if I could shoot it just as good.

RED HAWK ALL THE WAY!

[Valorius]

A .44 mag is considered the bare minimum against big brown bears, from everything i've ever read on the subject.

If you seriously contemplate ever having to shoot at a big bear with this gun, i would go for the .454 Casull.

[harold63]

I came across a Taurus Raging Bull 454 recently that someone traded after just seven shots for $620. Evidently it was too much for them.
Which way would you go?

This revolver, even with the "V-8" ports, is a handful. Yes, it is fun to shoot, but reaquirment with this revolver is on the slower side. Just shooting it is enough to get your adrenaline up if you are not used to the round. If you choose a 454 Casull, you should definitely practice with it with the rounds you intend to carry in it. A lot of people trade out of these because the recoil is heavy. Recoil is fun, but not in a fire or bear fight. The round will obviously be more affective, as long as you can handle the firearm.

[Brudog]

Let me also add this as well. I currently own a S&W 629 Classic in a 6.5 inch version. I have never carried this but it seemed like it would be a large package to carry all day. Sight radius, recoil, ability to handle a few heavy Buffalo Bore 44 mag rounds, everything else would work for this gun except I would hate to get out in the field and realize it is too damn big to haul around.

This is why I was leaning toward a 4 inch or smaller gun. I was thinking about a Bianchi X15 shoulder holster to see if it was something I could live with carrying all day at 49 oz. in a long length. I could get a chest rig as well but that seems like it would be cumbersome. My cheapest route is to simply use this gun even though it is a little long for backpacking. CCW is not a concern as I am legal to open carry everywhere I will be going even in National Park grounds.

The 454 is definitely an attractive option because of the firepower but I am also wondering if it will be a little wild to control on repeated shots and expensive to feed for practicing.

The Taurus I saw is a nice Raging Bull model but I keep backing off when the price difference at $625. To jump to an Alaskan in 454 isn't that much and to stay in a 44 mag 4" Redhawk would be about the same.

The issue with Ruger is simply the fact that they aren't producing anything. None of these Ruger models are available according to the gun shops I have called except for the Alaskan in 44 Mag. If Rugers were available I would snatch one up. Because of the lack of supply I have seen the 454 Alaskans going for up to $1,100 online.

So I need to decide. Either use my S&W, or go with one of the three above.

Everyone's opinion is appreciated as this is a pricey decision for me and one that I might need to defend my life with.

[Brudog]

This revolver, even with the "V-8" ports, is a handful. Yes, it is fun to shoot, but reaquirment with this revolver is on the slower side. Just shooting it is enough to get your adrenaline up if you are not used to the round. If you choose a 454 Casull, you should definitely practice with it with the rounds you intend to carry in it. A lot of people trade out of these because the recoil is heavy. Recoil is fun, but not in a fire or bear fight. The round will obviously be more affective, as long as you can handle the firearm.

Your insight seems right on the money. Most guides I have been talking with in the lower 48 states all carry 44 mag rugers with hot and heavy loads or S&W with moderate loads. Not until you get into Alaska is when the guides jump up to a 454 or a 500 S&W.

I think just for cost to feed, repeatability, overall resale if I ever want to sell it and ammo availability I am leaning toward a 44 mag. Big recoil has never bothered me but I am not sure if that Taurus snub nose might be a bit too much.