Ruger's answer to S&W's new "L" 44mag????

As a nightstand gun I see zero advantage of a Judge over my .44 Special 3" Taurus. The MAXIMUM range that it would see inside our home is about twenty feet or so. Magnum performance would not be required for any use in this application. Good .44 Special ammo like the Silvertips are entirely adequate. In this application the "shotgun effect" is meaningless. I make these Judgements (sorry) based on fifty years of shooting all types of guns and observing the repeated bushwah presented in the slick gun magazines.

As I said, I see zero advantage to the Judge/Governor in this particular application, and in fact fear that many would be conned into believing they have some sort of ninja death ray if they buy one. They may in fact be adequate, but they offer no specific advantage over a more conventional gun.

Again, JMHO and no relation to any piece intended for defense against bears or other applications.

Ale-8(1) said:

Biggest concern would be that an awful lot of folks would immediately go for "Ruger only" loads trying to turn it into a .44 Magnum. You can bet Ruger is aware of this.

Click to expand...

I see this as a non-issue. For starters, there's no such thing as "Ruger only" .44Spl. Any heavy data to be found for the cartridge would be along the lines of the Keith load and that would be safe in a five-shot GP anyway.

IMHO, if that was a concern, they never would've produced mid-frame .45's. For Ruger to be concerned about this, they would have to acknowledge and condone the use of handloads.

From what I've seen here and elsewhere in the gun world, it's pretty well understood that the mid-frame .45s are NOT to be used with the "Ruger only" loads. This is, of course, totally outside of Ruger's recommendations since they never OK the use of non-SAAMI loads in any of their guns.

We all know that there's a subset of the hobby that will always go for the biggest bang they can create. To assume that somehow this would not occur with a .44 Special GP-100 is ignoring the reality. All I'm saying is that Ruger will almost assuredly take this into account in any such new offering. As far as the mid-frame .45s are concerned, I'm similarly certain that Ruger took this scenario into account. That we haven't seen evidence of catastrophic failures in those guns would appear to justify my suspicion.

Note that I did not say this concern would necessarily doom a .44 Special GP-100, or even a .44 Magnum version, merely contemplating Ruger's possible considerations in the matter. Personally, I have no "need" for a "small" .44 Magnum, but I can certainly see the application for one.

Guess we'll see what develops.

:mrgreen:

I think some of the 410 pistol users owe it to themselves to fire some buckshot at ten feet into some 3/4" plywood. See how many bounce off.

I am confused about what caliber a S&W 69 is supposed to be. Is a 696 nomenclature being shortened to 69? GP-100 are large heavy guns. One reason I sold mine (rats). The Taurus tracker in a 3 inch non-ported barrel, would for me, be the cats meow. I own a Charter Arms Bulldog in .44 spcl, because Ruger hasn't made one (this makes two I have owned). I wish Ruger would make a 34 oz- 5 shot- .44 mag with the old GP grips.
Someone mentioned that the .41 mag was hugely popular, kind of made me laugh. I have NEVER even seen any ammo for it. Just my experience!
gramps

LuckenbachTexas said:

I think some of the 410 pistol users owe it to themselves to fire some buckshot at ten feet into some 3/4" plywood. See how many bounce off

Click to expand...

Indeed. A full face shield is strongly recommended.

:wink:

I would strongly not recommend doing it at all. I slipped the barrel through a gap in th railroad ties. The circuit judge is a whole different animal.

gramps said:

I am confused about what caliber a S&W 69 is supposed to be. Is a 696 nomenclature being shortened to 69? GP-100 are large heavy guns. One reason I sold mine (rats). The Taurus tracker in a 3 inch non-ported barrel, would for me, be the cats meow. I own a Charter Arms Bulldog in .44 spcl, because Ruger hasn't made one (this makes two I have owned). I wish Ruger would make a 34 oz- 5 shot- .44 mag with the old GP grips.
Someone mentioned that the .41 mag was hugely popular, kind of made me laugh. I have NEVER even seen any ammo for it. Just my experience!
gramps

Click to expand...

An S&W 69 is an L Frame 5 shot 44 Mag. Nice gun.

Ruger's newest TALO lightweight 44mag or Ruger's answer to S&W's new "L" 44mag.

REDHAWK 2.75"

I think if I were going to carry a 44 mag with less than a 3 3/4" barrel, I'd carry something else

Jimbo357mag said:

Ruger's newest TALO lightweight 44mag or Ruger's answer to S&W's new "L" 44mag.

REDHAWK 2.75"

Click to expand...

I'd still prefer a five shot on the GP100 frame

The day that Ruger starts producing double action .44 mag revolvers with actions that equal or exceed S&W's is when I buy a Ruger DA 44.
Love my Rugers, but they are no match for a Smith when it comes to out of the box triggers.

diyj98 said:

Jimbo357mag said:

Ruger's newest TALO lightweight 44mag or Ruger's answer to S&W's new "L" 44mag.

REDHAWK 2.75"

Click to expand...

I'd still prefer a five shot on the GP100 frame

Click to expand...

The Talo Redhawk is 44 oz vs the S&W model 69 at 37 oz If Talo is Rugers answer to the Smith they certainly missed the mark IMO. I think Ruger is banking on the popularity of the Alaskan and the Redhawk to sell a lot more revolvers.

Ale-8(1) said:

From what I've seen here and elsewhere in the gun world, it's pretty well understood that the mid-frame .45s are NOT to be used with the "Ruger only" loads.

Click to expand...

That's my point. There IS heavy .45 data readily available in nearly every reloading manual that would not be good for a mid-frame .45Colt. There is NOT heavy .44Spl data that would hurt a five-shot GP. IMHO, the concern over heavy "Ruger only" .45 loads finding their way into mid-frame New Vaqueros and flat-tops, because they ARE Rugers afterall, should be far greater than any over a .44Spl GP.

I really don't know where this fear of people "turning .44Spl's into .44Mag's" comes from. Nobody worries about folks hotrodding the .38Spl. That data exists and predates heavy .44Spl loads. I can only guess that people really just don't know any better.

OMG, the 69 is a dream. Got it today!

A wholesale price of $642 is fairly low for what it is.

Well, seeing all the first-hand posts here on the forum lately about Ruger's fading quality re: shipping un-finished guns, sharp edges, timing, B/C gap, tool marks, etc etc; I can't help but wonder if Ruger is approaching the quality levels claimed against Taurus (at one time). Perception is reality. BTW, I've never had to use Taurus' Lifetime Warranty (something Ruger has never offered) and I've owned a few.

ON the OP note, The potential for a GP-size 5-shot 44 magnum is pretty thin. A small niche market at best. I'd opine that most "newer" shooters aren't buying 44 magnum revolvers, sadly. Most gun shoppers I see walk straight toward the cases full of black plastic autos... I like the Smith gun & concept, but the lock turns me aaway.

Ruger hasn't changed since day one. You either get an excellent Ruger, or not, depending on what day or time of day it was made. Same as Taurus!

S&W must work 3 days a week and the best ones made on one of those days.

I'll tell you this, I feel no real difference between the 69 and 329PD eventhough the 69 weighs some ten ounces more, thats how good the gun feels! This thing is a game changer for someone wanting a "real" 44 and can make due with five rounds.

CraigC said:

Ale-8(1) said:

From what I've seen here and elsewhere in the gun world, it's pretty well understood that the mid-frame .45s are NOT to be used with the "Ruger only" loads.

Click to expand...

That's my point. There IS heavy .45 data readily available in nearly every reloading manual that would not be good for a mid-frame .45Colt. There is NOT heavy .44Spl data that would hurt a five-shot GP. IMHO, the concern over heavy "Ruger only" .45 loads finding their way into mid-frame New Vaqueros and flat-tops, because they ARE Rugers afterall, should be far greater than any over a .44Spl GP.

I really don't know where this fear of people "turning .44Spl's into .44Mag's" comes from. Nobody worries about folks hotrodding the .38Spl. That data exists and predates heavy .44Spl loads. I can only guess that people really just don't know any better.

Click to expand...

If you're gonna quote me, use the entire thing . . .

"We all know that there's a subset of the hobby that will always go for the biggest bang they can create. To assume that somehow this would not occur with a .44 Special GP-100 is ignoring the reality. All I'm saying is that Ruger will almost assuredly take this into account in any such new offering. As far as the mid-frame .45s are concerned, I'm similarly certain that Ruger took this scenario into account. That we haven't seen evidence of catastrophic failures in those guns would appear to justify my suspicion.

"Note that I did not say this concern would necessarily doom a .44 Special GP-100, or even a .44 Magnum version, merely contemplating Ruger's possible considerations in the matter. Personally, I have no "need" for a "small" .44 Magnum, but I can certainly see the application for one.

"Guess we'll see what develops."

I stand by that.

I just want to know where my all weather Ruger 30-30 is?

Really, is you want a lot of power in a carryable package and recoil that is manageable enough for quick follow-up shots, I would take a hard look at the Glock 29 in 10MM Auto.

By the time you figure the velocity loss in short barreled .44 Mg. revolvers vs the 3.8" Glock in 10MM, plus the recoil factor, one just might be surprised at how close the 10MM comes.

http://www.dayattherange.com/?p=219

And then of course, there is always the glock model 20, with longer bbl, bigger grips and more power. 8)

http://www.gunblast.com/Glock20.htm