CraigC
Sixgun Nut
The limitation is the forcing cone, not the frame.Craig, I beg to differ. The fact is that the forging process of heating and hammering upsets the grain structure of the metal creating stronger structure. Casting produces linear grain structure which isn’t as strong as forged metal. So....it isn’t S&W marketing. It is metallurgy 101. Blades and machine parts are forged rather than cast not only for strength but to obtain a similar part by casting would require it to be heavier and larger to be as strong. That being said, I see no problem with having a .44 special GP. I have no doubt that it is a fine weapon.
However, being able to use both magnum and specials is a positive to my way of thinking. Of course, one could handload .44 specials to approach magnum levels if you want to push the limits as Keith famously did. It is the prerogative of the buyer to do as he wishes.
I'm sorry but the cast vs forged argument is old and tired. It falls flat on its face with little scrutiny. Fact is that forgings are stronger, in one direction but investment castings are strong in all directions. The bit of added material in the Ruger's frame MORE than makes up for any shortcoming compared to a forging. Furthermore, the Ruger's design is stronger, by far. Bill Ruger set out to deliberately eliminate all the known shortcomings in the S&W and Colt designs when he designed his revolvers. That included eliminating the sideplate, reinforcing the crane and moving the bolt notches. It's worthy of note here that the N-frame is beyond its limit with the .44Mag and quite often shoots loose with only a few thousand full power loads but Ruger .44Mag's have been successfully adapted to the .454 and .480 chamberings with only slight alterations. Yet S&W had to design the massive X-frame to contain +60,000psi.