Naphtali
Single-Sixer
As best you can, please describe why the GP 5-shot .44-caliber revolver is not — was not — available in 44 Magnum?
GP 5-shot .44-caliber revolver
- Thread starter Naphtali
- Start date
Help Support Ruger Forum:
rammerjammer
Blackhawk
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2010
- Messages
- 735
I'm no gunsmith or engineer but I believe it has to do with the frame size not being able to accomodate the larger cylinder.
I'd rather opt for an S&W Mod 69 which is about the same size as the 44 GP100.
Don't get me wrong, I love 44 SPL and carry one in colder months. But I would not buy a gun as large and cumbersome as the GP100 without also being a 44 Mag.
I'd rather opt for an S&W Mod 69 which is about the same size as the 44 GP100.
Don't get me wrong, I love 44 SPL and carry one in colder months. But I would not buy a gun as large and cumbersome as the GP100 without also being a 44 Mag.
Thel
Blackhawk
The gun probably was not offered in .44 magnum because as it is currently designed it would not hold up well especially to so called "Ruger only" loads some owners feel the need to feed them. Smith & Wesson does offer a medium frame .44 magnum, the Model 69. Built on the L frame S&W made a number of changes to the frame compared to other L frame offerings. One major difference is the width of the frame was increased.
I think if Ruger were to widen the frame width up at the crane area the gun could take .44 mag loadings. This is necessary to allow a thicker forcing cone that would take the increased pressure from firing magnum rounds. Aside from frame width some would opine that cylinder diameter should be increased to give greater wall thickness. However, in this area the GP100 currently exceeds the dimensions for the medium frame Taurus. I would guess that although adequate Ruger feels it does not offer a comfortable safety margin or durability margin. This could also be said about increasing forcing cone thickness WITHOUT increasing frame width.
One other aspect would be that the GP100 could use a slightly longer cylinder to allow heavier bullets e.g. 300 gr to be employed. Perhaps this could be done without increasing the cylinder window by lengthening the cylinder and shortening the barrel shank which protrudes into the cylinder window.
Some measurements:
Frame width: 69 .885" , GP100 .835"
Cyl. Diameter: 69 1.56", GP100 1.557"
Barrel shank diameter: 69 .62", GP100 .513"
Cylinder length: 69 1.68" , GP100 1.60"
I think if Ruger were to widen the frame width up at the crane area the gun could take .44 mag loadings. This is necessary to allow a thicker forcing cone that would take the increased pressure from firing magnum rounds. Aside from frame width some would opine that cylinder diameter should be increased to give greater wall thickness. However, in this area the GP100 currently exceeds the dimensions for the medium frame Taurus. I would guess that although adequate Ruger feels it does not offer a comfortable safety margin or durability margin. This could also be said about increasing forcing cone thickness WITHOUT increasing frame width.
One other aspect would be that the GP100 could use a slightly longer cylinder to allow heavier bullets e.g. 300 gr to be employed. Perhaps this could be done without increasing the cylinder window by lengthening the cylinder and shortening the barrel shank which protrudes into the cylinder window.
Some measurements:
Frame width: 69 .885" , GP100 .835"
Cyl. Diameter: 69 1.56", GP100 1.557"
Barrel shank diameter: 69 .62", GP100 .513"
Cylinder length: 69 1.68" , GP100 1.60"
Naphtali
Single-Sixer
Many thanks. I just verified SAAMI specifications for 357 Magnum — that is, GP1xx's original reason for "being" — and 44 Magnum. The COAL for the 44 is precisely .010 inch longer than the 357. While a hundredth of an inch sounds like a "no sweat" change to me, in the real world it must be a show stopper,
rammerjammer said:
deac45
Single-Sixer
I went with the S&W 69. While I generally shoot my own handloads of a 240 gr swc running just shy of 1000 fps, it's nice knowing I can go full magnum if I want to.
I can't think of anything a hot 44 special can do that it would take a light 44 mag to cover for. At least not in the majority of states.
https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=89
https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=89
Jon406
Single-Sixer
deac45 said:
I also own and carry a mod 69, but most days the .44 Spl load of 240-gr SWC loads is enough... 8) But when my wife and I head out here in NW Montana, it goes in the center console and I wear my Redhawk 5.5" and both are loaded appropriately for bear if need be.
It is amazing so many find no use for the .44 Special GP100 with out ever carrying one or spending time with it. I have a 5" 629 .44 Mag. and like it fine but the .44 Special with 240g slug will do all I need in a 3" package. There is a time and a place for full house .44 Mag. but not every day.
Pura Vida
Pura Vida
protoolman
Service-Sixer
The forcing cone is too thin. Hot loading the 44 special will risk cracking it also.
5of7
Hunter
I have a S&W L frame in .44 Sp. and when the GP100 came out in .44 Sp. I bought one thinking that it would be a bit more rugged than the Smith. It isn't. Actually the Smith weighs an oz or two more than the GP in .44 Sp. So I sold the GP and kept the Smith because the crane fits to the frame a lot better and I can't see daylight under the front sight. Meanwhile I have the medium frame Blackhawk in .44 Sp. and in my opinion, it will handle more hot .44 Sp. than the Smith or the GP would.
Anyway, I don't have any desire to magnumize the .44 Sp. A 240 Gr. Keith style bullet at 950 fps is about right. Maybe that's just me getting old. I donno. 8)
Anyway, I don't have any desire to magnumize the .44 Sp. A 240 Gr. Keith style bullet at 950 fps is about right. Maybe that's just me getting old. I donno. 8)
contender
Ruger Guru
"The gun probably was not offered in .44 magnum because as it is currently designed it would not hold up well especially to so called "Ruger only" loads some owners feel the need to feed them."
This may have something to do with it. Look at Ruger history.
The .357 Maximum. Built around the idea of a heavy bullet with medium to slower powders,, and the factory ammo was built accordingly. Enter; the reloader,, with the hotrodders who want to do things differently. Light bullets,, with a fast burning powder. Enter,, a small ( and actual insignificant,) flame cut topstrap. BUT,,, gun writers, & self proclaimed experts trashed the gun,, and Bill got peeved & stopped building them. He even scrapped 5000 Maxi's.
Ruger has a long standing reputation for building a STRONG dependable firearm. When you build something,, you HAVE to look at whatever the "so called experts" or the people who refuse to accept a design for what the INTENT was,, will do. And trust me,, MANY people will HOT load a gun,, not worrying about frame strength, cylinder strength, forcing cone thickness, etc,,, because the WANT to hotrod things.
Get a .44 spl & use it as a .44 spl. Get a .44 magnum & use it as a .44 magnum. Get XYZ & use it as intended. If more power is needed,, get a gun built for more power.
Use a 16 gauge shotgun until you need a 12 gauge. Get a .38 spl until you need a .357 mag. Get a .45 Colt until you need a .454. OR,, OR,, do as so many have done prior, buy the bigger caliber,, in a gun designed to handle more power,, & use lighter,, and compatible ammo according to needs.
Guns are designed with strength for the intended calibers. And if a design isn't strong enough,, then don't build it into something it shouldn't be.
This may have something to do with it. Look at Ruger history.
The .357 Maximum. Built around the idea of a heavy bullet with medium to slower powders,, and the factory ammo was built accordingly. Enter; the reloader,, with the hotrodders who want to do things differently. Light bullets,, with a fast burning powder. Enter,, a small ( and actual insignificant,) flame cut topstrap. BUT,,, gun writers, & self proclaimed experts trashed the gun,, and Bill got peeved & stopped building them. He even scrapped 5000 Maxi's.
Ruger has a long standing reputation for building a STRONG dependable firearm. When you build something,, you HAVE to look at whatever the "so called experts" or the people who refuse to accept a design for what the INTENT was,, will do. And trust me,, MANY people will HOT load a gun,, not worrying about frame strength, cylinder strength, forcing cone thickness, etc,,, because the WANT to hotrod things.
Get a .44 spl & use it as a .44 spl. Get a .44 magnum & use it as a .44 magnum. Get XYZ & use it as intended. If more power is needed,, get a gun built for more power.
Use a 16 gauge shotgun until you need a 12 gauge. Get a .38 spl until you need a .357 mag. Get a .45 Colt until you need a .454. OR,, OR,, do as so many have done prior, buy the bigger caliber,, in a gun designed to handle more power,, & use lighter,, and compatible ammo according to needs.
Guns are designed with strength for the intended calibers. And if a design isn't strong enough,, then don't build it into something it shouldn't be.
I have an Charter Bulldog in .44 spcl, with a 2.5 inch barrel. It is a couple of years old. The case it came in says .44 spcl +P! I shoot my reloads of 240 gr over 14.5 grs of 2400. I have never chrono'd it due to no chrono. RClark had some data, but I can't find it right now.
gramps
Per RClark:
All I shoot is 240g SWCs in all of my Ruger .44Specials (and .44 Magnums). Even the .44Spec CA Bulldog gets 'em ... As for powder I like the standard Unique/Universal Skeeter Load. I don't shoot the standard Skeeter load in the Bulldog however, and I drop the Unique charge down to 6.3g for it. Still can ding the 70+ yard steel targets out there with it ... so is good for basic self defense distances! All my Rugers are regulated for the same load, so I stick with the 240s. I did try some 200g TC bullets in my fixed sight Bulldog and they did drop in closer to the Bullseye. The 240s tend to shoot a bit high in it. As mentioned above, Trail Boss is another good powder for those light loads.
As for 200 vs 240 ... well, I just don't see a need to go below 240g. In .45 Colt, I don't go below 250g . Just me . I sure don't have a concrete reason why you'd pick one over the other, unless your are recoil sensitive, CAS shooter, or a hunter. I just sort of 'standardized' on the heavier bullets and found loads that work well with them and use 'em."
gramps
Per RClark:
All I shoot is 240g SWCs in all of my Ruger .44Specials (and .44 Magnums). Even the .44Spec CA Bulldog gets 'em ... As for powder I like the standard Unique/Universal Skeeter Load. I don't shoot the standard Skeeter load in the Bulldog however, and I drop the Unique charge down to 6.3g for it. Still can ding the 70+ yard steel targets out there with it ... so is good for basic self defense distances! All my Rugers are regulated for the same load, so I stick with the 240s. I did try some 200g TC bullets in my fixed sight Bulldog and they did drop in closer to the Bullseye. The 240s tend to shoot a bit high in it. As mentioned above, Trail Boss is another good powder for those light loads.
As for 200 vs 240 ... well, I just don't see a need to go below 240g. In .45 Colt, I don't go below 250g . Just me . I sure don't have a concrete reason why you'd pick one over the other, unless your are recoil sensitive, CAS shooter, or a hunter. I just sort of 'standardized' on the heavier bullets and found loads that work well with them and use 'em."
SAJohn
Hunter
I have lived with my faithful Charter Arms 5 shot .44 special Bridgeport 3" Bulldog for over 40 years. The small size, lightweight, all steel construction is hard to beat. Carried in the small of the back, I never even notice it unless it is not there. Sorry Ruger and S&W but the original Charter Arms Bulldog revolver is tough to beat.
Odd that they were such a sales success and yet the original company managed to go under.
John
Odd that they were such a sales success and yet the original company managed to go under.
John
To clarify, I, personally, would NOT shoot 2400 loads in a Bulldog. I don't even shoot the Skeeter load in it. I don't think it would last long if I did..... To me, the Bulldog is a 'human' defense handgun and doesn't need to be loaded for bear. Just a standard load on the high end of the load range suffices. When I CC (in town), this this the gun I use. In the wild and woolly woods, I pack a SA open carry.
As for the GP-100. I have one. I would not magnumize the .44 Special loads here either because the barrel walls are thin in that forcing cone area. I stick with the Skeeter load for this gun. The GP-100 simply isn't built for .44 Magnum loads IMHO.
---
That said, in one of my .44 Special Ruger SA Flattops, I did test from 15.0g to 17.0g 2400 under 240g SWC. But I don't use these loads. It was for testing only even though I think the SA flattop revolver could handle them. YMMV of course.... Do you own research... I settled on the Skeeter load as my goto load for most of my .44 Special shooting. I figure, I don't need to Magnumize my .44 Special when I have .44 Magnum SAs on-hand.
Similar threads
