.44 Special GP

[RealGun]

On the question of weight, some speculating that the 69 would be lighter, my 3" GP100, adjustable sights, in 41 Special, 6-shot weighs 34.2 ounces. A 5-shot 44 might have a little more mass in the cylinder, a bit less in the bore.

 

[eldon519]

I am not sure where you are getting that I said the 69 was for hunting?

Regarding an argument that a smaller caliber, higher capacity gun could possibly be a better choice for self-defense, that suggestion is in line with the views of many large LEO agencies such as the FBI, ballistics experts, and respected trainers. The real distraction is alleging I "disrespected" others' opinions by proffering an opinion that you disagree with. If it "disrespects" your opinion, you have mighty thin skin. Note I never said anyone was stupid or wrong for choosing otherwise. What I was pointing out is where these guns really shine and stand out above the competition which is quite relevant to the guns themselves.

 

[RealGun]

I am not sure where you are getting that I said the 69 was for hunting?

Regarding an argument that a smaller caliber, higher capacity gun could possibly be a better choice for self-defense, that suggestion is in line with the views of many large LEO agencies such as the FBI, ballistics experts, and respected trainers. The real distraction is alleging I "disrespected" others' opinions by proffering an opinion that you disagree with. If it "disrespects" your opinion, you have mighty thin skin. Note I never said anyone was stupid or wrong for choosing otherwise. What I was pointing out is where these guns really shine and stand out above the competition which is quite relevant to the guns themselves.

I fear it would be too petty to rebutt. I will stand by what I wrote.

 

[DPris]

I don't think I'm a niche market at all in wanting a durable .44 Special in a GP-sized package.
Had not paid attention to the Smith, but if that model uses a two-piece barrel, that'd be another deal-killer for me. Won't own either the lock or a two-piecer.

I have .44 Magnums.
If I want to shoot a magnum I'll use a magnum, whether .357 or .44.
If I want to shoot a special, I'll shoot a special, whether .38 or .44.

To date I own only one .44 Special, an original Lipsey's flattop.
I never had any interest in the caliber previously, but when that gun came out it just struck me as an excellent balance (with the right loads) between size & power for uses where I did not anticipate mastodon or bison charges.
I asked John Bianchi to build me one of his holster models for it, and I've had the gun tweaked a bit. Still needs grips, but one of these days...

It's very packable, and sufficiently powerful for anything I may encounter outside large bear country.

Essentially, a .44 Special GP with the right barrel length would be a DA equivalent, with the added benefit of quick-reload capability.

The lightest .44 Mag I'll carry (and occasionally do on desert outings) is a Smith 629 Mountain Revolver.
I have zero interest in a lighter or smaller .44 Mag.
The .44 Special DA could make either a very decent town carry with HPs (again, the RIGHT loads, not the anemic traditional LRN) or a good ATV & trail gun out in the dirt.

The electro-chemical Smith rifling is produced by a combination of electricity and chemical interaction.
Traditional methods like broaching & button rifling remove material by cutting or "scraping", which leaves sharp land edges to grab bullets.

The E/C process does not.

This is not a huge issue, but it can be an issue with lead loads, and not all of those will be fired by reloaders.

You can go down the list of GP features in comparing each one individually & decide that standing alone no single feature would tip the scales in either direction, but for me it's the entire package that sells the gun.
Denis

 

[eldon519]

Interesting on the electro-chemical rifling. I googled it to read more and found this article which explains it pretty well. I had a lot of trouble visualizing how they could precisely control anodic removal of material. I'd love to see an animation of the process.

http://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/2010/05/rifling-manufacturing-electro-chemical.html?m=1

 

[Drail]

From the photo it would appear to have an awfully thin forcing cone - just like the 696. And I have always thought the main reason S&W dropped the 696 was that forcing being damaged by over enthusiastic handloaders and returning the gun for warranty repair. I've seen a few that were ruined. Only an idiot would trash a cone that thin with flamethrower loads - but we have an ample supply of idiots in this country. I also think that most of the people who shoot .44 Spl. are handloaders. I wonder if Ruger will caution owners about ammo limitations. S&W decided it wasn't worth the trouble after just four years. Now it's Ruger's turn. But I think it will be a very serviceable gun at a really good price point. It will be very fun to shoot and will good good service life if fed sensible loads. A 200 gr slug @ 900 fps. is all that is needed for self defense loads and won't strain the gun at all. I sure hope my wife doesn't hear about this new Ruger - she has been a total GP 100 junkie since they were first introduced. The non-fluted cylinder is a nice touch and should help keep the manufacturing costs down some.

 

[Legionnaire]

Here's a write-up. Already in my budget.

http://www.downrange.tv/blog/new-ruger-gp100-in-44-special/38124/

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Damn nice looking gun.

 

[Panzerschwein]

Is that the actual Ruger GP100 in .44 special??

If so it looks good, but I'd prefer a fluted cylinder for weight reduction though. S&W did it with their gun, and it's a .44 magnum! Just unnecessary weight for a .44 special.

 

[ECVMatt]

Please make these CA approved!! I want one so bad...

 

[mongoslow]

th

Is that the actual Ruger GP100 in .44 special??

If so it looks good, but I'd prefer a non-fluted cylinder for weight reduction though. S&W did it with their gun, and it's a .44 magnum! Just unnecessary weight for a .44 special.

that is a non-fluted cylinder....you want a fluted one

 

[Drail]

The weight saved by cutting flutes is so small it's not worth even measuring. Besides having a non-fluted cylinder makes you cooler than the other kids. Flutes have been unnecessary since black powder guns died out.

 

[the Black Spot]

Man i'm drooling!!

 

[Deaf Smith]

Ok now Ruger needs to get rid of the full length underlug. Then flute the cylinder (and maybe do a black powder chamfer job on the front of the cylinder.)

Then add WOOD grips. This ain't no .454, ok?

Being just .44 Special, it needs to be LIGHTER, not heavier. And if you price it at $1000 I'll just find a used 696 S&W!!!

Just my 2 cents worth.

Deaf

 

[Drail]

Good luck finding a nice used 696.

 

[Panzerschwein]

They probably used a non-fluted cylinder to make it stand out among the GP100 lineup.

 

[Drail]

S&W made some 629s unfluted and they were very cool. It certainly does stand out. If you see a Ruger GP with no flutes you know what you're looking at.

 

[CraigC]

IMHO, flutes only look right if it's a six shot.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Good luck finding a nice used 696.

There is one for sale not six miles from me. They want $999.99 but can be talked down a mite.

Deaf

 

[Shane in MT]

Is that the actual Ruger GP100 in .44 special??

If so it looks good, but I'd prefer a fluted cylinder for weight reduction though. S&W did it with their gun, and it's a .44 magnum! Just unnecessary weight for a .44 special.

I believe it is. Pic came from Jeff Quinn's FB page, and was posted over on 24HCF.

 

[Shane in MT]

Ok now Ruger needs to get rid of the full length underlug. Then flute the cylinder (and maybe do a black powder chamfer job on the front of the cylinder.)

Then add WOOD grips. This ain't no .454, ok?

Being just .44 Special, it needs to be LIGHTER, not heavier. And if you price it at $1000 I'll just find a used 696 S&W!!!

Just my 2 cents worth.

Deaf

But if they remove much of that underlug, they might have to shorten the ejector rod. It wouldn't be a good trade if it sacrificed full ejection.

 

[Deaf Smith]

But if they remove much of that underlug, they might have to shorten the ejector rod. It wouldn't be a good trade if it sacrificed full ejection.

It needs weight reduction. It ain't no .44 magnum. Bit off the barrel will make it balance better. Fluted cylinders lighten weight. If it ain't handy, it will go the way of the S&W 696 (which is also heavy.)

Deaf

 

[RealGun]

Ok now Ruger needs to get rid of the full length underlug. Then flute the cylinder (and maybe do a black powder chamfer job on the front of the cylinder.)

Then add WOOD grips. This ain't no .454, ok?

Being just .44 Special, it needs to be LIGHTER, not heavier. And if you price it at $1000 I'll just find a used 696 S&W!!!

Just my 2 cents worth.

Deaf

Minimizing the underlug would be a nice touch, rounding the end of the barrel. but I think it would be only a fraction of an inch before weakening the ejector shroud.

Based on the wood grips of the Match Champion and the GP's grip frame requiring pocket grips, a rarity among grip makers, I would do what I am doing now with a 3" GP and use the compact rubber grips with wooden inserts, Altamont as I recall. They are short and would conceal better.

On the flutes, I wonder if Ruger was concerned about making the cylinder stronger. Pictures of guns that blew up often show the cylinder popping at its thinnest point. In 44 caliber (.429) the chamber wall and flute might have been too close together, even in 5-shot. My point is that there may have been strength and safety concerns mandating an unfluted cylinder not just styling the gun.

I think one either likes or accepts the look of a Ruger or they do not. Customizing a gun can double its cost and void the warranty. That's how I would view it. Personally I prefer the look of fluted cylinders.

 

[Deaf Smith]

I'd hope Ruger makes it look like a Mountain Gun (S&W). Bit thinner barrel to as well as no full length underlug, fluted cylinder, chamfured front end of the cylinder, and a full tang for grip (like the Security Six had.)

I mean if I'm gonna spend serious bucks I want one I can pack, not a brick that weighs so much I leave it home.

Deaf

 

[Legionnaire]

I doubt it'll weigh much more than the 3-inch .357 I have now. My guess is if one doesn't like the .357 version, won't like the .44 spl either.

With RealGun on the grips. Fortunately, I have a spare original Lett grip--the smaller size--that should work great.