RKRCPA
Member
A five shot 41 mag GP100 would be a dandy! And there is nothing in the market to compare to.
Will Ruger ever step it up and make a 5 shot Big Bore to compete with the Smith 69?
- Thread starter 98s1lightning
- Start date
- Status
I think you're at least 10X too low. When I was talking to a Ruger engineer about making the PCC in 45 ACP he told me that Ruger had looked at it but it didn't pencil out. He said basic engineering work would be north of $10 million.
OP
OP
98s1lightning
Member
Taurus made the Tracker too. But I don't want a Taurus, I want a Ruger.....with the push button cylinder latch, GP100/Super Redhawk Hogue Grip, plunger front sight, 5" full lug or something very similar balance and looks wise. Ruger strength is very important to me also. I load 357 right up hot and don't worry. But you probably wouldn't need a 41 mag to be hot. I like the top of the GP100 barrel on the full lug guns too. Stainless.
I wonder if the ruger engineering dept could do a 1.25x ish scale of the SP101' s "overall design" from the barrel back, and add the GP100 style barrel and sights front and rear.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,883
It was still just a standard SRH frame and standard SRH cylinderstock, and standard lockwork. They released the 480 as a 6 shot, had issues, punted the 5 shot out as a filler, discontinued the entire thing for a year, then rereleased the 6 shot. The hand, the cylinder reaming, and the barrel stock were the only changes compared to their standard SRH at the time, and they had already invested into the development, tooling, and marketing - so there was greater cost in giving up than in following through.
"OP wants a gun that smaller and lighter than a BH, but has the same power like S&W's Combat Magnum."
- TTv2
There is a niche for a medium frame .44 mag which may not be very large. I see the gun as something that is easier to carry and more likely to have on person than a large frame. The primary purpose would be defense as opposed to hunting say for a person out hiking in bear country and for defense
against other large animals encountered unexpectedly. I believe a forum member (Paul105?) claimed that the 69 had a lower bore axis than the N frames
and he found it easier to shoot with various loads. I think he also ran some 300 gr+ loads through the 69.
- TTv2
There is a niche for a medium frame .44 mag which may not be very large. I see the gun as something that is easier to carry and more likely to have on person than a large frame. The primary purpose would be defense as opposed to hunting say for a person out hiking in bear country and for defense
against other large animals encountered unexpectedly. I believe a forum member (Paul105?) claimed that the 69 had a lower bore axis than the N frames
and he found it easier to shoot with various loads. I think he also ran some 300 gr+ loads through the 69.
Sneakshot92
Member
Just to toss out there. A 5 shot K frame in 10mm auto. Not sure if anyone is making something similar in these crazy times. I know there are 6 shot 10mms on GP100/S&W L frames
TTv2
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 4,987
Yeah, you're one of the three"I think me and three other people are down for a properly sized 5 shot .32 revolver in .32 ACP or S&W."
Me too!
TTv2
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 4,987
Pretty sure that's why the .44 Special GP100 got pulled. I can only imagine how many cracked forcing cones they were having to deal with.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
As I already said, it would require exactly what the S&W required, a larger barrel shank to increase forcing cone thickness.
Long before Ruger made them, custom gunsmiths were building them and rating them for the 1200fps Keith load.
Where does this information come from? The .44Spl was not "pulled". They were distributor exclusives, not standard catalog items. I doubt they've had to deal with as many as S&W did with the 696. They could eliminate the issue altogether by shortening the barrel shank.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Ruger doesn't seem to have ever worried about that.
I still have not seen the limits pushed, beyond a .32 single six. Even a 10mm Vaquero is hard to find. Not many .454, or even 44 mag in a frame size appropriate to the caliber.
TTv2
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 4,987
I'll admit I'm projecting with the cracked forcing cones because I'm thinking there are people out there running hot .44 handloads thru the gun thinking because it's a Ruger that it's "built like a tank" and can take low end .44 Mag loads.
Being a distributor exclusive means nothing, there are lots of less popular revolvers that are "distributor exclusive" still being made. The .44 was pulled, I've heard from numerous people on forums that there was a problem with the cylinder throats being way oversize. Add to that people running hot ammo thru them (you know it's happening) Ruger likely decided it wasn't worth the headache and decided it wasn't worth doing anymore.
Blue Brick
Member
Charter has a 5 shot 41 magnum.
Blue Brick
Member
They stopped making them?
TTv2
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 4,987
They stopped making any that were standard catalogue items, but they are still making some distributor exclusive GP's in .44 Spl, but they'll cost more because they'll cost more.
OrangePwrx9
Member
Recently took delivery of a new 69 short barrel. Haven't shot it yet though I've reloaded for it: 44 Spcl loads in magnum brass.
Honestly, mine may never see true magnum loads. I see it as Smith's answer to the Charter Arms Bulldog. Don't know why anyone would want to shoot magnums in that gun, but I do appreciate being able to download 44 mag brass to Spcl levels. Let's a handloader who's set up for 44 magnum shoot 44 Spcl without buying the Spcl brass while enjoying a big margin of safety. Definitely a niche market.
Consequently, i feel Ruger would be nuts to undertake the engineering necessary to make a 44 magnum GP100. We need Ruger to make good business decisions and stay in business.
Honestly, mine may never see true magnum loads. I see it as Smith's answer to the Charter Arms Bulldog. Don't know why anyone would want to shoot magnums in that gun, but I do appreciate being able to download 44 mag brass to Spcl levels. Let's a handloader who's set up for 44 magnum shoot 44 Spcl without buying the Spcl brass while enjoying a big margin of safety. Definitely a niche market.
Consequently, i feel Ruger would be nuts to undertake the engineering necessary to make a 44 magnum GP100. We need Ruger to make good business decisions and stay in business.
Last edited:
OP
OP
98s1lightning
Member
Like one member said. It's a packability woods defense gun. The medium frame gun is way more likely to be on you then the large frame.
RKRCPA
Member
IMO, there is no comparison between a GP100 and anything Charter has ever built.
This is one I’ve never heard....
My research indicates that only 23 examples made it out the door.
Charlie Martinez
Member
I have always expected Charter Arms to come up with a new compact 5-shot 44 Magnum revolver but a Ruger-tough version would be great.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Being a distributor special means everything. If the distributor orders no more, Ruger makes no more. That simple. Your comment that they were "pulled" has no merit whatsoever. I don't know what people are doing and neither do you.
- Status
