The .44 Special threads reminded me...

Status
Not open for further replies.
CraigC said:
I'm kinda waiting for Brian Pearce to weigh in on the .44Spl GP issue. The limitation is going to be the forcing cone but custom versions have been built for years and they are rated for use with the Keith load. Personally, I like the 950fps Skeeter load for just about everything in the .44Spl.
Click to expand...

It is worth mentioning here that Ruger did not respond to my inquiry about the maximum pressure limits (in PSI) established for the GP100 .44 Special. It's been a week since I asked. I am no longer expecting a response.
 
I also wrote to Ruger sometime ago and no response, so I called and the answer was any standard manufactured ammo would be fine. Obviously the insurance co. and the lawyers dictate what they say.
 
Gary W. Strange said:
At the distance you will be shooting, 1000fps would be fine and be a lot easer on you and the gun. I would suggest you give the 255 grain gas check Buffalo Bore is making a try before you go to a full 1200fps.
Click to expand...

Actually I was thinking a 240 WFNGC between 1000-1100 should be sufficient. Just wondering if the GP100 could take it.
 
Here is what David Clements stated in the past when he was doing .44 SP GP100 conversions:

http://www.clementscustomguns.com/rugerdarevolvers.html

When the GP in .44 SP first came out American Rifleman tested the Buffalo Bore
255 gr SWC "Keith" load and got 934 fps in a 3" bbl. See:

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=89

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2016/12/19/tested-ruger-gp100-44-special-revolver/

The question is whether the Buffalo Bore load is up at the 26000 psi range or lower.
 
Last edited:
Bones741 said:
If your worried about the 950fps Skeeter load not being enough,or even curious to a slower load that's easier on the gun,than this is a good read. The charts paint a really good picture of how effective a slow heavy flatnose hardcast bullet is.

http://www.beartoothbullets.com/tech_notes/archive_tech_notes.htm/61
Click to expand...

I agree with your opinion here on the performance of the Skeeter load with a heavy, flatnose bullet. But, I guess I'd like a little room above that 950 velocity for load development. Also, the GP100 is a special case in that its strength isn't established although it is assumed to be a weaker gun than the blackhawk.

If Ruger won't get behind the GP in .44 with some pressure data I probably won't be the guy who tests out the limits of the GP. It would always be in the back of my mind as another variable I hadn't locked down. I guess one could say that I like revolvers for their durability and simplicity. Take away either of those characteristics and a given revolver loses its appeal. And if Ruger won't affirm durability here, I'm going to watch and wait about ten years before I decide.
 
Last edited:
"If Ruger won't get behind the GP in .44 with some pressure data I probably won't be the guy who tests out the limits of the GP. It would always be in the back of my mind as another variable I hadn't locked down. "

I guess in the interim one could use what others have found to work in 696's. Some have claimed what did in the forcing cones on those were not the hotter loads per se but the use of jacketed bullets instead of lead.
 
Mixed Nuts said:
I agree with your opinion here on the performance of the Skeeter load with a heavy, flatnose bullet. But, I guess I'd like a little room above that 950 velocity for load development. Also, the GP100 is a special case in that its strength isn't established although it is assumed to be a weaker gun than the blackhawk.

If Ruger won't get behind the GP in .44 with some pressure data I probably won't be the guy who tests out the limits of the GP. It would always be in the back of my mind as another variable I hadn't locked down. I guess one could say that I like revolvers for their durability and simplicity. Take away either of those characteristics and a given revolver loses its appeal. And if Ruger won't affirm durability here, I'm going to watch and wait about ten years before I decide.
Click to expand...

Ruger will never tell you it's OK to shoot anything but SAAMI level loads in said revolver. So, do you have a set of calipers with which you can measure the thickness of the cylinder walls, then subtract the depth of the bolt notch? If so, you can compare these measurements to those from Flat Top Blackhawk's or Uberti's, all of which we know the strength and the loads their capable of handling.
That said, one can propel a 250 gr cast bullet close to 1000 fps and still be within SAAMI pressure recommendations.

35W
 
35 Whelen said:
Ruger will never tell you it's OK to shoot anything but SAAMI level loads in said revolver. So, do you have a set of calipers with which you can measure the thickness of the cylinder walls, then subtract the depth of the bolt notch? If so, you can compare these measurements to those from Flat Top Blackhawk's or Uberti's, all of which we know the strength and the loads their capable of handling.
That said, one can propel a 250 gr cast bullet close to 1000 fps and still be within SAAMI pressure recommendations.

35W
Click to expand...

As a few have stated in this thread it seems to be less that the cylinder is being questioned ,but the forcing cone being thinner and more questionable. I haven't handled one yet, so idk. However if say someone with much better knowledge than myself such as CraigC says they're not so sure about it,than i may question it myself. I for one never even thought about forcing cone thickness ,I too was thinking it would be more of a cylinder issue,but I'm wrong as usual lol.

35 Whelen said:
THANK YOU for posting that link! That is the most common sense handgun hunting information I've read in a long time. I've book marked it.

35W
Click to expand...

Anytime I came across it the other day and bookmarked it myself. Very informative,and as you said common sense based.
 
Bones741 said:
I for one never even thought about forcing cone thickness ,I too was thinking it would be more of a cylinder issue,but I'm wrong as usual lol.
Click to expand...

My first revolver was a used M19 I picked up almost a decade ago. A cursory search showed forcing cones were an issue potentially.

And I remember hearing a few things about an earlier 44spcl L frame having issues as well.

I walked into the gunstore looking for a 5" half lug, but would settle for the full lug. They had both! And a couple 3" ones too! And I had enough gift cards to cover it! This was gonna be my day! All the stars alinged! Then I got it out of the case, looked finely finished, trigger was as good a one I've felt on a Ruger. Then I saw the forcing cone and all those stories of busted M19's and 696's came flooding back. I hemmed and hawed for a looooong time at the counter. Guy probably thought I was nuts. I finally decided since this might very well be my last nice, new gun for awhile I'd let someone else field test it a little more than the 50 round courses of fire I've seen in reviews. I wanted someone to say theirs lasted a thousand rounds of not wimpy loads first. I'm hopeful, but I'm holding out a little longer till I can see some substantial arguments that it can withstand more than a 240gr@750 fps long term.

Ideally a 240gr around 1050-1100 fps is what I'd like to shoot from it. I want to be a little more confident it can handle it.
 
Wouldn't a damaged forcing cone be covered by the factory? Are forcing cones being damaged REALLY that prevalent AND documented or is it another internet drama-fest?

35W
 
35 Whelen said:
Wouldn't a damaged forcing cone be covered by the factory? Are forcing cones being damaged REALLY that prevalent AND documented or is it another internet drama-fest?

35W
Click to expand...

Not exactly an apples to apples comparison, but it's possible that Ruger may pull a similar move to what it did with the 357Max Blackhawks. Not only will they NOT repair them, if they get their hands on it for something like a spring or trigger that they very well could fix, they'll keep the gun and not return it to the owner.

If it turns out to be a problem and came to that and I owned one, it'd probably get sold to a collector at that point like I suspect most 357Max Blackhawks were.

It's not a problem with the M19, because I want to shoot sub-max 158gr ammo in it. If I can't shoot the load I want it's not worth much to me.
 
The 357 Maximum, if I'm not mistaken, used heavy charges of ball powder which caused the damage. I suspect the same was the case with the .44 Magnums. I'd be surprised if one could enough powider of this type in a Special to cause any damage.

35W
 
35 Whelen said:
Wouldn't a damaged forcing cone be covered by the factory? Are forcing cones being damaged REALLY that prevalent AND documented or is it another internet drama-fest?

35W
Click to expand...

Very possible it's a drama fest, but the gp44 specials haven't been out too long so who knows what the long run would be like. I would think they would be repaired as Ruger has great customer service. However gotboostvr brought up a valid point with the Ruger maximums. First time I have heard that story, learn something new every day. But my adventure into pistols is rather recent. But one would think after that .357 maximum story ,Ruger would have learned from their past experience and wouldn't put out a marginal product like that again.o_O
 
The problem with the Maximums, as I recall, wasn't the forcing cone, but was the top strap being cut when gasses escaped the BC gap. Again, lots of ball powder producing lots of gas was the core issue.

35W
 
35 Whelen said:
The problem with the Maximums, as I recall, wasn't the forcing cone, but was the top strap being cut when gasses escaped the BC gap. Again, lots of ball powder producing lots of gas was the core issue.

35W
Click to expand...
Thats good to know. Seems like a better longevity test should have been preformed before the got reeleased. Again one would think they would learn from that and test future products more thouroughly ,rather than just doing proof loads and shipping them off.

Regardless,it really suprised me that Ruger wasn't repairing them. I can see if it's a loss cause/nautre ofothe beast and it would just do it all over again after the repair,but at that point they should have credited or offered a different gun to those customers (maybe they did?).
 
Shouldn't be an issue at all with standard loads or even the Skeeter load. Where it 'might' be an issue is with extensive use of the Keith load. Surely it would take thousands and thousands of rounds to become a problem though. Personally, I'm happy with the Skeeter load in these guns.
 
Bones741 said:
Regardless,it really suprised me that Ruger wasn't repairing them. I can see if it's a loss cause/nautre ofothe beast and it would just do it all over again after the repair,but at that point they should have credited or offered a different gun to those customers (maybe they did?).
Click to expand...

To my knowledge they'd replace it with a new Blackhawk in your choice of caliber, finish and barrel length (on hand) or give you the option of a Redhawk for a small upcharge.

Like I said, it's not an apples to apples comparison. It'll be a non issue entirely if the new GP's are as sturdy as I hope.

The issue with the Max's was the use of light for caliber bullets. It's designed for 200+gr bullets going pretty fast. Ruger made the cylinder too short for those loads though so people started shooting 110-125gr bullets REALLY fast and the extra flash was causing the erosion to my knowledge.
 
gotboostvr said:
To my knowledge they'd replace it with a new Blackhawk in your choice of caliber, finish and barrel length (on hand) or give you the option of a Redhawk for a small upcharge.

Like I said, it's not an apples to apples comparison. It'll be a non issue entirely if the new GP's are as sturdy as I hope.

The issue with the Max's was the use of light for caliber bullets. It's designed for 200+gr bullets going pretty fast. Ruger made the cylinder too short for those loads though so people started shooting 110-125gr bullets REALLY fast and the extra flash was causing the erosion to my knowledge.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification.
 
35 Whelen said:
Ruger will never tell you it's OK to shoot anything but SAAMI level loads in said revolver. So, do you have a set of calipers with which you can measure the thickness of the cylinder walls, then subtract the depth of the bolt notch? If so, you can compare these measurements to those from Flat Top Blackhawk's or Uberti's, all of which we know the strength and the loads their capable of handling.
That said, one can propel a 250 gr cast bullet close to 1000 fps and still be within SAAMI pressure recommendations.

35W
Click to expand...

I hear your words. I'm not sure I'd trust a relative comparison of frame or cylinder measurements as a method of establishing the strength of one revolver vs. another in the same caliber. The metallurgy thing is well beyond me. When I look at the cylinder (chamber) walls on some of the new 7 and 8 shot .357s they look super thin to me - yet they must work. When I look at the same spacing on a full size blackhawk .357 it looks ridiculously thick. My only point here is that I don't know the why and how of some of this stuff.

I can see that Ruger didn't flute the cylinder on the GP. 44. Why? Was it a pressure issue? A production cost issue? There seems to be very gentle fluting on the S&W 69 - but it's a magnum. And so on... I just don't know. And the longer I look at the GP .44 the more I feel like there are too many questions that I can't answer, at least in regard to how I would use it.

I remain interested in the .44 special and loadings of that cartridge in the 950-1100fps range. Seems fun and hard hitting - a great combination. But if I gin up the momentum to buy one it will probably be a tried and true singe action gun.

You mention that a 250 grain bullet can be launched near to 1000fps without exceeding the SAAMI specs for .44 Special. If I could do that the GP might be back on the table. But where is that load data found? I'll recheck my data, Lyman and Lee, but I think these sources are well below 900fps for 250 grainers.
 
Mixed Nuts said:
I can see that Ruger didn't flute the cylinder on the GP. 44. Why? Was it a pressure issue? A production cost issue? There seems to be very gentle fluting on the S&W 69 - but it's a magnum. And so on... I just don't know. And the longer I look at the GP .44 the more I feel like there are too many questions that I can't answer, at least in regard to how I would use it.

I remain interested in the .44 special and loadings of that cartridge in the 950-1100fps range. Seems fun and hard hitting - a great combination. But if I gin up the momentum to buy one it will probably be a tried and true singe action gun.

You mention that a 250 grain bullet can be launched near to 1000fps without exceeding the SAAMI specs for .44 Special. If I could do that the GP might be back on the table. But where is that load data found? I'll recheck my data, Lyman and Lee, but I think these sources are well below 900fps for 250 grainers.
Click to expand...

The non-fluted cylinder thing bothers me because I see two things to which it contributes 1. It makes the revolver heavier than it needs to be and serves no real purpose and 2. It's a production step that is omitted, saving the manufacturer money.

www.loaddata.com has a plethora of load data. 8.0 grs. of Power Pistol or 13.0 grs. of 2400 are going to get you really close to 1,000 fps with a 250 gr. cast bullet.

35W
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

evan price
  • Locked
Heavy 44 Special loads- Was Elmer Keith crazy or genius?
2 3
Replies
58
Views
11K
Bull Nutria
Bull Nutria
A
  • Locked
.44 Specials from a Blackhawk .44 mag?
Replies
9
Views
5K
BCRider
BCRider
B
  • Locked
44 Special Ammo Suggestions
Replies
17
Views
3K
Drail
D
T
  • Locked
New Ruger Flat-top .44 Special strength...You decide.
Replies
15
Views
5K
BlkHawk73
B
M
  • Locked
Anyone use .44 Special for home defense?
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
littlebrowndaug
L
Back
Top