.44 Special GP

[paul105]

I am betting that for the same barrel length, the 69 will be trimmer and lighter than the GP, so I do not expect a size or weight penalty for the added .44 magnum capability of the 69. I guess that is an interesting question for those solely thinking of self-defense: if the 69 and the GP were both offered in the same 3" barrel length and offered comparable configurations (sights, barrel profile, etc) but the 69 were lighter and trimmer than the GP, would you still prefer the GP over the 69?

Regarding intended use, they both will serve admirably in self-defense roles against humans, so there is no knock on the 69 there. However, the 69 will serve pretty well against anything in North America, regardless of leg-count. Again, can't see it as a detriment.

I am also guessing a lot of people talking about the recoil of .44 magnum in the L-frame and GP package have not shot a 69 or similar package. It is a handful, but it isn't probably as bad as one might imagine. It isn't a 329PD. It is also interesting how the smaller frame handles recoil compared to a N-frame with less muzzle rise and more of an into-the-palm recoil. I'd recommend trying one before writing it off. I also have a 5-shot Freedom Arms 97 in .45 Colt with a similar weight and same barrel length, and with similar .44-mag-like performing loads, the 69 is much more comfortable than the FA which really surprises me because I prefer a Bisley over a 29. With a 300gr load, I don't even want anything to do with the FA, but with the 69, surprisingly not that bad.

Just some observations based on actual experience shooting the smaller 5-shot mags.

Having shot over 7,000 rnds thru 2 M69s and 25,000+ two FA97 .45 Colts (a 3 1/2" and 4 1/4"FA97), my experiences are the same as those of eldon519. I had a S&W 696. It was replaced with the M69 with no regrets.

I understand personal preferences and if yours is the new GP 44 special, then go for it and enjoy.

FWIW,

Paul

 

[CraigC]

If the Ruger is more durable, why not rate it for .44 mag?

I understand the desirability of the .44 special, but you can just shoot .44 special in a .44 magnum if you like and you have the assurance that it can handle the hot stuff via the .44 mag designation.

I don't care about the process used to make rifling unless one is more accurate / fouls less / etc. Please explain why one process is better than the other.

Without counting, i'd guess I have roughly the same number of Rugers and Smiths so obviously a fan of both. Just trying to understand the GP 100 .44 situation better. I may need one, but I'm just not getting the benefit of a GP100 .44 spec over a SW69 .44 mag. Hopefully, you can help me understand.

As a handloader, they are all but interchangeable. I don't run my N-frame .44's hotter than 250s at 1200fps, be they Specials or Magnums. So I'm certainly not going to exceed that with an L-frame. The model 69's cylinder is not long enough for heavyweight LBT's so really, all they'd be good for is a 250gr at 1200fps. Which can easily be done in a five-shot .44Spl GP-100. Knowing what I know, I have more confidence in the GP surviving a lifetime of 250's at 1200fps than the S&W, regardless of the caliber designation. If I 'need' a .44Mag, I need a bigger gun than either.

That said, I'd prefer a 4-5" barrel on my .44 GP, thank you very much.

 

[CraigC]

Shoulda been a .45acp

Not enough real estate for a .45.

 

[Merle1]

If the Ruger is more durable, why not rate it for .44 mag?

I understand the desirability of the .44 special, but you can just shoot .44 special in a .44 magnum if you like and you have the assurance that it can handle the hot stuff via the .44 mag designation.

I don't care about the process used to make rifling unless one is more accurate / fouls less / etc. Please explain why one process is better than the other.

Without counting, i'd guess I have roughly the same number of Rugers and Smiths so obviously a fan of both. Just trying to understand the GP 100 .44 situation better. I may need one, but I'm just not getting the benefit of a GP100 .44 spec over a SW69 .44 mag. Hopefully, you can help me understand.

How many rounds does a M69 hold?
How many rounds will a GP hold?
Not familiar with either, so.....

 

[Merle1]

The 696 does have a great DA, but when slicked up the Security Six and the Redhawk have very nice ones. IMHO of course. I would think the GP-100 would slick up nice as well.

HMMM, just how important is smooth DA in a 44 mag?

 

[Zaydok Allen]

The

HMMM, just how important is smooth DA in a 44 mag?

The 696 is a 44 spl, and is designed for self defense (3" barrel, round butt frame, relatively compact grips). So a smooth DA is extremely important, as would be the case with a 44 spl GP100.

 

[Merle1]

The

The 696 is a 44 spl, and is designed for self defense (3" barrel, round butt frame, relatively compact grips). So a smooth DA is extremely important, as would be the case with a 44 spl GP100.

OK, thanks. I thought it was a 44 mag.

 

[eldon519]

The 69 is a .44 magnum, but it is basically the twin to the 696. Same frame size. Similarly though, the 69 is probably best used as a defensive piece, whether for 2 or 4 legged creatures, and DA is similarly important. Both the GP and the 69 are 5-shots in .44 format.

 

[Merle1]

The 69 is a .44 magnum, but it is basically the twin to the 696. Same frame size. Similarly though, the 69 is probably best used as a defensive piece, whether for 2 or 4 legged creatures, and DA is similarly important. Both the GP and the 69 are 5-shots in .44 format.

OK, thanks for the clarification.

 

[Sam1911]

HMMM, just how important is smooth DA in a 44 mag

Seriously? Hugely important.
I don't shoot any single action with my 629. All DA and it is so smooth I've had guys call it "cheating!"

 

[Walkalong]

HMMM, just how important is smooth DA in a 44 mag?

It depends on the use, and some people like to shoot DA vs SA either way. No way I am going to use SA for self defense (No matter how many morons in the movies do.), and I practice DA for that.

 

[RealGun]

Ruger's advantage over the 69 may be in possibly offering a 3" barrel, highly valued as a concealed carry length. The Smith 69 shows as only in a 4.25" barrel. But then the short Ruger GP becomes better suited to 44 Special only, never mind the magnum, in which powder does not have enough time to burn in a short barrel and in which the resulting fireball is too much drama. Let's not talk about tailoring the ammo, since off the shelf ammo is a primary argument in favor of 44 Magnum over uncommon or reloader-only alternatives.

 

[Merle1]

It depends on the use, and some people like to shoot DA vs SA either way. No way I am going to use SA for self defense (No matter how many morons in the movies do.), and I practice DA for that.

True enough, but if I'm loaded up with mag loads, it won't be for self defense - at least not against humans.

 

[Sam1911]

True enough, but if I'm loaded up with mag loads, it won't be for self defense - at least not against humans.

I've never noticed the trigger pull change on my 629 when I switched from .44 SPC. to .44 Mag loads so I'd like to have that revolver have a nice smooth DA pull regardless of which load I choose to put in it that day.

But I would shoot a bear in self defense by thumb cocking to make an SA shot either...

 

[huntsman]

Not enough real estate for a .45.

Bummer how about .40S&W?

 

[eldon519]

Ruger's advantage over the 69 may be in possibly offering a 3" barrel, highly valued as a concealed carry length. The Smith 69 shows as only in a 4.25" barrel. But then the short Ruger GP becomes better suited to 44 Special only, never mind the magnum, in which powder does not have enough time to burn in a short barrel and in which the resulting fireball is too much drama.

You are weighing an unsupported guess that the yet-to-be announced .44 Special GP100 will come in a 3" barrel against an announced 2.75" S&W 69. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Here is the 2.75" 69:
https://lanbosarmory.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=24_27_45&products_id=36998

There is no doubt that these .44s make fine self-defense guns; however, it is debatable if they are really better SD weapons than their smaller-bore counterparts. A .44 GP gives up 1 round to a .357 GP while a 69 gives up 2 rounds to a 686+ in .357 magnum. While I love my big bores, a strong argument can be made that a 6 or 7 shot .38+P or .357 magnum loaded with today's modern, mild SD loads would be a better tool strictly for 2-legged SD. Where these guns really shine is when defense against larger 4-legged creatures is on the table. No doubt about the advantage of a .44 magnum there. Also, the bigger the animal, the heavier the bullet, and luckily for these shorter-barreled guns, heavy bullet magnum loads still tend to perform relatively well due to the increased dwell time allowed to burn the comparatively smaller powder charge of the heavy-bullet loads. As noted, the 69 cylinder is not as long as some others, but it is still long enough to accommodate 325gr bullets which ought to be enough for most North American pursuits.

Let's not talk about tailoring the ammo, since off the shelf ammo is a primary argument in favor of 44 Magnum over uncommon or reloader-only alternatives.

That would be convenient for the sake of your argument, but it is not reflective of the reality of the situation. These are not mutually exclusive realities, and therefore both are valid pros of the .44 magnum option. Having a .44 mag chambered gun really is a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too situation. Ammo will always be more available because you can feed it all of the .44 Special ammo that a Special-only gun can eat, plus all the more-commonly-available magnum ammo out there. And you can also tailor the loads from mild to wild. Yes, hard to believe but both of these things are true. I have heard the complaints about the extra cleaning of shooting .44 Specials in a magnum chamber, but that is a fairly weak argument to make with a straight face, especially with how little .44 magnum ammo everyone seems to anticipate shooting. Shouldn't come up very often if that is the case, and in my experience, we are vastly overstating the difficulty of cleaning the chamber after shooting specials.

 

[Walkalong]

No one will ever "win" this discussion/debate. It's just differences of opinions and wants. Both are, will be, fine, useful firearms.

 

[mongoslow]

the most important question to me is when can I buy it ?

 

[heyjoe]

on another forum its reported Jeff Quinn has leaked that its a 3" barrel with adjustable sights

 

[ECVMatt]

3" Adjustable sights would work for me...1/2 lug would be even better! I hope this is released soon...too much tension here.

 

[Shane in MT]

 

[ECVMatt]

Shane just beat me to it, but mark one sold to me! That's a great looking revolver...and I have a ton of .44 SPL components ready to go.

 

[joneb]

"would you still prefer the GP over the 69?"
I am not fond of S&W revolvers made after 1999. So I would have a bias towards a Ruger.

 

[Kookla]

hubba, hubba that looks nice...

 

[RealGun]

You are weighing an unsupported guess that the yet-to-be announced .44 Special GP100 will come in a 3" barrel against an announced 2.75" S&W 69. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Here is the 2.75" 69:
https://lanbosarmory.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=24_27_45&products_id=36998

There is no doubt that these .44s make fine self-defense guns; however, it is debatable if they are really better SD weapons than their smaller-bore counterparts. A .44 GP gives up 1 round to a .357 GP while a 69 gives up 2 rounds to a 686+ in .357 magnum. While I love my big bores, a strong argument can be made that a 6 or 7 shot .38+P or .357 magnum loaded with today's modern, mild SD loads would be a better tool strictly for 2-legged SD. Where these guns really shine is when defense against larger 4-legged creatures is on the table. No doubt about the advantage of a .44 magnum there. Also, the bigger the animal, the heavier the bullet, and luckily for these shorter-barreled guns, heavy bullet magnum loads still tend to perform relatively well due to the increased dwell time allowed to burn the comparatively smaller powder charge of the heavy-bullet loads. As noted, the 69 cylinder is not as long as some others, but it is still long enough to accommodate 325gr bullets which ought to be enough for most North American pursuits.



That would be convenient for the sake of your argument, but it is not reflective of the reality of the situation. These are not mutually exclusive realities, and therefore both are valid pros of the .44 magnum option. Having a .44 mag chambered gun really is a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too situation. Ammo will always be more available because you can feed it all of the .44 Special ammo that a Special-only gun can eat, plus all the more-commonly-available magnum ammo out there. And you can also tailor the loads from mild to wild. Yes, hard to believe but both of these things are true. I have heard the complaints about the extra cleaning of shooting .44 Specials in a magnum chamber, but that is a fairly weak argument to make with a straight face, especially with how little .44 magnum ammo everyone seems to anticipate shooting. Shouldn't come up very often if that is the case, and in my experience, we are vastly overstating the difficulty of cleaning the chamber after shooting specials.

I don't think it is realistic, other than to serve an argument, to characterize a 69 as a hunting gun. The N-frames and Redhawks already served that purpose and are not hard to carry when outfitted for hunting.

To debate against a big bore...a cartridge that starts with a 4 or more...as a smart carry alternative is a distraction and would be disrespectful of others' choices. That debate belongs in another thread. Here it is merely attacking the premise of coveting a new 44 Special.

I don't consider my reference to a 3" GP100 as a guess, since the gun is already offered in a 3" barrel, with and without adjustable sights, and I own one in my 3", .41 Special conversion, originally 38 Special only. It would be a short leap for Ruger to offer a 3" alternative to the Canadian 4 1/4". Not recognizing the carry potential of the 44 Special and then the interest in a 3" barrel would be pretty odd, seems to me.