Ruger GP100 in .44 special

Status
Not open for further replies.
DannyLandrum

DannyLandrum

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2017
Messages
439
Did a search - didn't find anything else on this topic.

I guess these aren't new, but I just learned of them. The .44 spl and 10mm are both interesting to me, espec. this .44 spl.

Anyone have one? Which one would you get for woods carry in brownie country? I like the idea of a miniature bear gun, given that my 4" Redhawk (.45 colt) feels heavy and awkward after carrying a few hours in the wild - also scares the sheeple-tourists (espec. foreigners) on Glacier Park hiking trails -but I admit I enjoy that last fact a little bit. The GP100 may be a smidge more concealable / lighter / more comfy.

I would imagine you could handload the .44 spl pretty hot since Rugers are tanks.

https://www.ruger.com/products/gp100/models.html
 
Probably the 10mm. I can't recall the thread ,but there has been talk on here about the thickness of the forcing cone on the 44 special version. Seemed like consensus was Skeeter loads would be ok,but the Kieth loads might be pushing the limits.

At least the 10mm you could hotrod or get some stuff like Underwood or bufffalo bore hard casts and not worry. Now if you were talking Blackhawks I'd go .44 special flattop:thumbup:
 
The heavy frame, barrel and cylinder should have no problem at all withstanding stout loads. The problem is going to be the very thin forcing cone that was required to screw a big bore barrel into a medium bore frame. This is exactly the same problem S&W had on the original 696 L frame .44 Spl. Within the first year of production S&W started seeing 696s sent back by idiots who insisted on beating the forcing cone to death with high velocity flamethrower handloads and Corbon/Buffalo Bore loads trying to make it into a lightweight .44 Mag. It didn't take long for S&W to drop the 696. I saw one that some guy had actually flared out the forcing cone like a trumpet with his handloads. S&W saw the same problem with their K frame guns when people started using lots of 110-125 gr. flamethrower loads and designed the L frame which solved the problem. The forcing cone was just not thick enough to take the flame erosion from those high performance loads. Ruger is probably starting to see the same thing now. As long as you stick with moderate loads of at least 200 gr. or more and keep them under 1000 fps. you will have no problems.The classic Skeeter load is fine as long as you use a 240-250 gr. bullet and Unique because it produces respectable velocities at amazing low pressures. I have a 696 from 1996 that is still in perfect shape and I have shot it a great deal but only with sensible loads. I am a huge fan of the .44 Spl. and have been handloading it for many years but a large number of guns chambered for it are lightly built and we now have so many owners who absolutely believe that they "need" to use very light very fast flamethrower loads in those guns. They're wrong. A 200 gr. .44 Spl moving at 850 to 900 fps. is PLENTY of cowbell for anything you might need to kill. It's easy on the shooter and on the gun and has almost the same ballistics as the .45 ACP (and people have been killing people with the .45 quite efficiently for a hundred years). A moderate 200 gr. .44 Spl from the 696 feels like a big .38 Spl. - there is just a big soft push on recoil instead of a sharp fast recoil that blinds everyone in the area. I applaud Ruger for building a .44 Spl. GP revolver but a few idiots may very well ruin a good thing for the rest of us by pushing the envelope of a gun originally designed for a .357 cartridge. The GP is a modern strong design but in spite of that I completely ruined the forcing cone in one by shooting stupid handloads (110 gr. @ 1300 FPS.) in it when I was young and stupid. And it only took about 3 months to do it with a .357 GP with a big heavy forcing cone. It looked like someone took an oxy-acetylene cutting torch to it. If you like the GP 100 in .44 Spl. go for it - just don't beat it to death with stupid loads. Confucious say "Moderation in all things".
 
Last edited:
DannyLandrum said:
I guess these aren't new, but I just learned of them. The .44 spl and 10mm are both interesting to me, espec. this .44 spl.
Click to expand...
If it were I, I wouldn't get either. I'd get a Model 69 Smith. A Model 69 is already a 44 Magnum, so you wouldn't have to hot-rod a 44 Special. Besides that, a 3" Model 69 is shorter and lighter (by an inch and a couple of ounces or so) than a 3" GP-100.
I have to admit I'm a little biased though. I love my 4" Model 69 Smith. However, the fact is, a long time ago when my wife and I were into backpacking in grizzly country, I carried a heavily loaded Taurus 41 Magnum. It was reliable, didn't cost an arm and a leg, and I never had to use it anyway.:)
 
.308 Norma said:
If it were I, I wouldn't get either. I'd get a Model 69 Smith. A Model 69 is already a 44 Magnum, so you wouldn't have to hot-rod a 44 Special. Besides that, a 3" Model 69 is shorter and lighter (by an inch and a couple of ounces or so) than a 3" GP-100.
I have to admit I'm a little biased though. I love my 4" Model 69 Smith. However, the fact is, a long time ago when my wife and I were into backpacking in grizzly country, I carried a heavily loaded Taurus 41 Magnum. It was reliable, didn't cost an arm and a leg, and I never had to use it anyway.:)
Click to expand...
That model 69 looks real tempting. I always forget about it,good suggestion.
 
"If it were I, I wouldn't get either. I'd get a Model 69 Smith. A Model 69 is already a 44 Magnum, so you wouldn't have to hot-rod a 44 Special. Besides that, a 3" Model 69 is shorter and lighter (by an inch and a couple of ounces or so) than a 3" GP-100.
I have to admit I'm a little biased though. I love my 4" Model 69 Smith"

Thank you. But the 69 is only made in a 4.25" barrel, according to the Smith web site. The 4.25" Smith is listed as 9.6" overall, vs. 8.5" for the 3" GP100. Subtracting 1.25" would make a 3" 29 come in at 8.35", about 0.15" shorter than the GP100 (negligible). The 69 would be a smidge lighter though. Regardless, though interesting, I won't buy any revolver with a hillary hole again - which is all Smiths for the last umpteen years.
 
DannyLandrum said:
But the 69 is only made in a 4.25" barrel, according to the Smith web site.
Click to expand...
Hmm, that's strange. The Smith site I looked at lists a Model 69 with a 2.75" barrel. It comes in at 34.4 ounces and 7.8" OAL.
I admit I've never seen a Model 69 with a 2.75" barrel though. My own Model 69 has a 4" barrel - just like every other Model 69 I've seen for real - not just on a web site.;)
I guess it doesn't matter anyway if you're set against revolvers with hillary holes. Several of mine have them.:mad:
 
cheygriz said:
.357 magnum is superior to either 10MM or .44 special.
Click to expand...
357 Magnum is at best equal to 10mm when comparing heavy for caliber bullets. 10mm has a slight edge in bullet mass. 357 Mag has a case volume advantage especially with light for caliber bullets. There is not enough real world difference for the target to tell them apart. 10mm has a noticable reload speed advantage being shorter and fatter utilizing thicker and more robust moonclips. And in my personal experience full bore 10mm is easier on unprotected hearing than full bore 357 Mag.
 
DannyLandrum said:
"If it were I, I wouldn't get either. I'd get a Model 69 Smith. A Model 69 is already a 44 Magnum, so you wouldn't have to hot-rod a 44 Special. Besides that, a 3" Model 69 is shorter and lighter (by an inch and a couple of ounces or so) than a 3" GP-100.
I have to admit I'm a little biased though. I love my 4" Model 69 Smith"

Thank you. But the 69 is only made in a 4.25" barrel, according to the Smith web site. The 4.25" Smith is listed as 9.6" overall, vs. 8.5" for the 3" GP100. Subtracting 1.25" would make a 3" 29 come in at 8.35", about 0.15" shorter than the GP100 (negligible). The 69 would be a smidge lighter though. Regardless, though interesting, I won't buy any revolver with a hillary hole again - which is all Smiths for the last umpteen years.
Click to expand...

https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearms/model-69-combat-magnum

But like ya said Hilary hole.
 
Don't get either and use the money you would spend on a quality shoulder holster, a holster supported by the back is much more comfortable than a belt holster over long distances, the redhawk is the among the strongest of the DA revolvers so much so that they can be converted to the mighty linebaugh calibers with none of the excess of the Smith X frames. I have slept (camped) and hiked with heavy revolvers in a good shoulder holster you will feel carry it far more comfortably and it can still be relatively easy to conceal rather than a chest holster we see all the rage about from wannabe alaskans.
 
DannyLandrum said:
"If it were I, I wouldn't get either. I'd get a Model 69 Smith. A Model 69 is already a 44 Magnum, so you wouldn't have to hot-rod a 44 Special. Besides that, a 3" Model 69 is shorter and lighter (by an inch and a couple of ounces or so) than a 3" GP-100.
I have to admit I'm a little biased though. I love my 4" Model 69 Smith"

Thank you. But the 69 is only made in a 4.25" barrel, according to the Smith web site. The 4.25" Smith is listed as 9.6" overall, vs. 8.5" for the 3" GP100. Subtracting 1.25" would make a 3" 29 come in at 8.35", about 0.15" shorter than the GP100 (negligible). The 69 would be a smidge lighter though. Regardless, though interesting, I won't buy any revolver with a hillary hole again - which is all Smiths for the last umpteen years.
Click to expand...
4.25" only? Nope.

Try searching "S&W 69" on GunBroker.com.

IMG_6310.PNG
I wouldn't buy a two piece barrel gun personally, but it does exist.
 
.357 mag shines in a rifle, but in a handgun with sub-5" barrel, I'll take the 10mm or .44 spl any day for my purpose. I don't figure the .357 mag to be superior - roughly equal; if anything inferior - I'll take the 220-250 grainers please for brownie defense.
 
Dan Wesson revolvers use a different method to attach the barrel to the frame.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The_Shootist
  • Locked
.44 Special Self Defense Loads
Replies
13
Views
2K
coelacanth
C
D
  • Locked
Ruger GP100 in 44 mag
2
Replies
25
Views
8K
MrBorland
MrBorland
M
  • Locked
Ruger Redhawk 45 Colt vs 44 Mag
Replies
16
Views
3K
MarkVII
M
minutemen1776
  • Locked
New .44 Special GP100 range report
2
Replies
43
Views
6K
Dunross
Dunross
Zaydok Allen
  • Locked
Do you think Ruger will chamber the GP100 in 41 Remington Magnum?
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
jdh
jdh
Back
Top