Timber-line
Member
I have read several statements on-line lately that the new Ruger .44 Spl Flat-top was a "medium framed" revolver and as such is not suitable for the hotter .44 special loads (like Elmer Keith's 17.5 grs of 2400 w/ 250 lead SWC which was used extensively in first generation Colt Single actions). So the recent statements that the new flat-top .44 isn't even as strong as a fist generation SAA just doesn't figure from what I know about these guns.
Although the Keith load is a very stiff loading, it was used by an entire generation in old Colt SAAs...I think the New Ruger is likely stronger than those guns and possibly stronger in some ways than the S&W N frame. Granted, it is a smaller framed gun than the standard (massive) New Model Blackhawk it is still a "Full Sized" revolver.
I happen to own the magnificent S&W 624 and recently acquired the Lipsey's special Ruger .44 Special Flat-top. The following is a comparison of the cylinder and top straps of the two guns (as measured with my dial caliper)just for those of you who may be interested in this. Note that the outside chamber walls are thicker on the Flat-top Ruger than the N frame Smith. The thickness between chambers is the same as the Smith's outside chamber thickness...still think the Flat-top is not a Full Sized .44 Special?
I won't hesitate to shoot the Keith load in my Flat-top, although I have not had time to do so yet. My 624 eats them for breakfast without any sign of pressure, empties fall out on their own, primers look good,...what's not to love. I only wish I owned a Colt SAA .44 Spl to compare with the Ruger Flat-top. (If anyone has a Colt SAA and could supply cylider measurements, it would be appreciated).
Ruger 2009 Flat-top .44 Special:
Outside cylinder wall thickness: .103”
Inside cylinder thickness (between chambers): .091"
Top strap width: .705”
Top strap thickness (rectangular cross section has only a
small portion notched for rear sight) : .269”
Smith & Wesson 1986 624 .44 Special (N frame):
Outside cylinder wall thickness: .091”
Inside Cylinder thickness (between chambers): .115”
Top Strap width: .653”
Top strap thickness (edges taper sharply & have a deep
groove thru the entire length for the sight): .214”
Although the Keith load is a very stiff loading, it was used by an entire generation in old Colt SAAs...I think the New Ruger is likely stronger than those guns and possibly stronger in some ways than the S&W N frame. Granted, it is a smaller framed gun than the standard (massive) New Model Blackhawk it is still a "Full Sized" revolver.
I happen to own the magnificent S&W 624 and recently acquired the Lipsey's special Ruger .44 Special Flat-top. The following is a comparison of the cylinder and top straps of the two guns (as measured with my dial caliper)just for those of you who may be interested in this. Note that the outside chamber walls are thicker on the Flat-top Ruger than the N frame Smith. The thickness between chambers is the same as the Smith's outside chamber thickness...still think the Flat-top is not a Full Sized .44 Special?
I won't hesitate to shoot the Keith load in my Flat-top, although I have not had time to do so yet. My 624 eats them for breakfast without any sign of pressure, empties fall out on their own, primers look good,...what's not to love. I only wish I owned a Colt SAA .44 Spl to compare with the Ruger Flat-top. (If anyone has a Colt SAA and could supply cylider measurements, it would be appreciated).
Ruger 2009 Flat-top .44 Special:
Outside cylinder wall thickness: .103”
Inside cylinder thickness (between chambers): .091"
Top strap width: .705”
Top strap thickness (rectangular cross section has only a
small portion notched for rear sight) : .269”
Smith & Wesson 1986 624 .44 Special (N frame):
Outside cylinder wall thickness: .091”
Inside Cylinder thickness (between chambers): .115”
Top Strap width: .653”
Top strap thickness (edges taper sharply & have a deep
groove thru the entire length for the sight): .214”