RKRCPA
Member
A five shot 41 mag GP100 would be a dandy! And there is nothing in the market to compare to.
What would it cost to develop and market such a firearm? Maybe quarter of a million dollars. Got to sell a lot of guns to make back the up front costs.
A five shot 41 mag GP100 would be a dandy! And there is nothing in the market to compare to.
I believe Ruger made a 5 shot Super Redhawk in .480 Ruger for a very, very, very short time.
"OP wants a gun that smaller and lighter than a BH, but has the same power like S&W's Combat Magnum."
- TTv2
There is a niche for a medium frame .44 mag which may not be very large. I see the gun as something that is easier to carry and more likely to have on person than a large frame. The primary purpose would be defense as opposed to hunting say for a person out hiking in bear country and for defense
against other large animals encountered unexpectedly. I believe a forum member (Paul105?) claimed that the 69 had a lower bore axis than the N frames
and he found it easier to shoot with various loads. I think he also ran some 300 gr+ loads through the 69.
Yeah, you're one of the three"I think me and three other people are down for a properly sized 5 shot .32 revolver in .32 ACP or S&W."
Me too!
Pretty sure that's why the .44 Special GP100 got pulled. I can only imagine how many cracked forcing cones they were having to deal with.Rugers a victim of its reputation. Maybe since people aren't blowing up NM Vaquero's in 45 colt, they might, but I think they're scared of people hot loading them.
As I already said, it would require exactly what the S&W required, a larger barrel shank to increase forcing cone thickness.It would be interesting, but I doubt it. It would require a new frame size to be made because the GP100 is barely capable of hot loaded .44 Special, let alone full power .44 Magnum.
Where does this information come from? The .44Spl was not "pulled". They were distributor exclusives, not standard catalog items. I doubt they've had to deal with as many as S&W did with the 696. They could eliminate the issue altogether by shortening the barrel shank.Pretty sure that's why the .44 Special GP100 got pulled. I can only imagine how many cracked forcing cones they were having to deal with.
Ruger doesn't seem to have ever worried about that.Rugers a victim of its reputation. Maybe since people aren't blowing up NM Vaquero's in 45 colt, they might, but I think they're scared of people hot loading them.
I still have not seen the limits pushed, beyond a .32 single six. Even a 10mm Vaquero is hard to find. Not many .454, or even 44 mag in a frame size appropriate to the caliber.Ruger doesn't seem to have ever worried about that.
I'll admit I'm projecting with the cracked forcing cones because I'm thinking there are people out there running hot .44 handloads thru the gun thinking because it's a Ruger that it's "built like a tank" and can take low end .44 Mag loads.Where does this information come from? The .44Spl was not "pulled". They were distributor exclusives, not standard catalog items. I doubt they've had to deal with as many as S&W did with the 696. They could eliminate the issue altogether by shortening the barrel shank.
A five shot 41 mag GP100 would be a dandy! And there is nothing in the market to compare to.
Pretty sure that's why the .44 Special GP100 got pulled. I can only imagine how many cracked forcing cones they were having to deal with.
They stopped making any that were standard catalogue items, but they are still making some distributor exclusive GP's in .44 Spl, but they'll cost more because they'll cost more.They stopped making them?
Charter has a 5 shot 41 magnum.
Pretty sure that's why the .44 Special GP100 got pulled. I can only imagine how many cracked forcing cones they were having to deal with.
I believe Ruger made a 5 shot Super Redhawk in .480 Ruger for a very, very, very short time.
Being a distributor special means everything. If the distributor orders no more, Ruger makes no more. That simple. Your comment that they were "pulled" has no merit whatsoever. I don't know what people are doing and neither do you.I'll admit I'm projecting with the cracked forcing cones because I'm thinking there are people out there running hot .44 handloads thru the gun thinking because it's a Ruger that it's "built like a tank" and can take low end .44 Mag loads.
Being a distributor exclusive means nothing, there are lots of less popular revolvers that are "distributor exclusive" still being made. The .44 was pulled, I've heard from numerous people on forums that there was a problem with the cylinder throats being way oversize. Add to that people running hot ammo thru them (you know it's happening) Ruger likely decided it wasn't worth the headache and decided it wasn't worth doing anymore.