New Ruger Flat-top .44 Special strength...You decide.

[Timber-line]

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”

 

[sidheshooter]

Jeff Quinn seems to agree with you about the Keith load.

http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-44Flattop.htm

 

[Old Fuff]

There isn't any problem with Elmer's .44 Special load. The problem comes when some folks think that a Ruger is so strong they can substantially exceed Elmer's load, and try to turn it into a high-end .44 Magnum. To it's credit, this revolver will take a lot of abuse, but there are limits.

 

[steveno]

if you feel you need 44 mag power get a 44 mag. enjoy the 44 special for what it is

 

[ArmedBear]

The Ruger Flat-top gun is a stout .44 Special revolver.

However, I think that the warnings are about something else: if you see "Ruger-only" in .44 load data, that refers to a Ruger Super Blackhawk .44 Magnum. It doesn't necessarily mean "anything with an eagle on it."

 

[rcmodel]

I have always been content with the Skeeter Skelton load (7.5 Unique - 240 LSWC) in my 5" S&W 1950 Target.

The Keith load kicks like a stud mule in the fairly lightweight 1950.

Anyway, the Skelton load will shoot clear through a deer quartering, so how much more power do I need out of a .44 Special?

rc

 

[ArmedBear]

the Skelton load will shoot clear through a deer quartering, so how much more power do I need

Don't ask that in the Rifle Forum. In the Rifle Forum, you need a lot more muzzle energy to do that.

 

[BlkHawk73]

Hmmm, I think I want a single action reveolver with .44 magnum power...I know! I'll buy a .44 special and hot load it. :roll:

 

[Timber-line]

Blkhawk ""Hmmm, I think I want a single action reveolver with .44 magnum power...I know! I'll buy a .44 special and hot load it. :roll:

Why do you feel the need to throw rocks, and put words in people's mouths to make yourself feel superior???

How about this for a post Blkhawk: Hmmmmm, I don't have an arguement because I don't know what I am talking about so I'll attack this guy's intelligence by trying to make him sound stupid. :roll:

Take a pill.

Anyway, for the rest of the functional readers out there:

Regarding "enjoy a .44 Special for what it is"; I must note that what it is, is a great cartridge handicapped with underpowered (750fps) factory ammo and equally anemic commercial load data. Those of us who are really fans of the .44 Special enjoy it for what it truly is capable of, beyond the commericial squib loads and data. Skeeter's 7.5 / Unique at about 950 fps is much hotter than the loading manuals are willing to go. Keith's loads (1150 fps) are a step above that but have long proven safe in good heavy revolvers. .44 Special fans generally do not consider that they are "trying" to make anything out of the Special than what it honestly is: a good powerful handgun. For a comprehensive look at the .44 Special check out John Taffins article at:

http://www.sixguns.com/tests/tt44spec.htm

 

[Dienekes]

Got a Ruger .44 Spl on order, if I don't get left at the station. Reading about those who already have theirs is mildly depressing...

Guess I'd better go down to the safe and remind myself that I already have more and better than I deserve now...

 

[BlkHawk73]

Timber...did I hit a sore spot? perhaps make a comment that hmmm, makes sence and that hit a nerve with you?
Please explain with all the infinite wisdom you must hold as to why there's such a benefit to buy a lesser chambering, in this case a .44 special only to hot rod loads to .44 magnum levels? I appreciate the .44 sp for what is is and what is was designed as. Neither of which is a .44 magnum, which personally I don't care for. I simply am one that sees NO reasonable reason to buy small to make it big when it's avaailable to begin with.

So...while this hits another never proberly...go take YOUR pill!


Not that this is the sought after "argument" but there's a Ruger here heading off fior a full makeover, part of which is having it converted to .44 special. Hope I'll never have the desire to hot rod it. I'd need to ahve it's twin made in .44 magnum.

done with the TVNM

 

[madcratebuilder]

What is the point of a hot load for a .44spl? That is what the 44mag was designed for. I have not seen the new Ruger .44 Spl Flat-top. Is it similar the the Anniversary .44 mag NMBH frame size?

 

[Old Fuff]

I have not seen the new Ruger .44 Spl Flat-top. Is it similar the the Anniversary .44 mag NMBH frame size?

No, and that's what I like about it.

It's identical to the smaller, lighter .357 Anniversary Flat-top, but chambered in .44 Special. I agree that there is no purpose in trying to turn it into a junior .44 Magnum, and whould point out that for his personal use, .44 Magnum guru Elmer Keith downloaded that round slightly from factory balistics.

In my view, a load midway between the original .44 Special load and the .44 Magnum is close to ideal in most instances. In a shorter barreled revolver Skeeter's load using Unique is dead on.

Bill Ruger Sr. absolutely hated the practice of hot-rodding the Super Blackhawk using so-called "Ruger only" loads. He once remarked to me that it "constituted criminal revolver abuse," but there was no way he could stop it. Blown-up guns were rare, but they did get back some with expanded chambers.

 

[wcwhitey]

Sounds like the perfect companion revolver to me. Why would someone look to stress it out by overloading it, that's why they make the SBH. The Skeeter loading is just about perfect for 90% of field use, unless you have big bears nearby. Not to mention super accurate and fairly moderate recoil. That is what I love about the .44 Special in the first place. I guess you could go more but 970 fps (240 Keith SWC, 7.5 Unique) out of my 5" SBH is just about perfect. JMHO Bill

 

[batmann]

I'm not sure why one would want to load a .44 Spl 'hot'. That is why we have the .44 Magnum.
The .44 Spl is a lot like the .45 Colt or the .45 ACP. They just work.

 

[BlkHawk73]

The .44 Spl is is a lot like the .45 Colt or the .45 ACP. They just work.

BINGO!!! But wait, don't say things like this. Good chance you'll be labelede as not having an argument and not knowing what you're talking about. Treading on thin ice there folks. LOL

yeah right