Probably because the Redhawk is significantly larger and heavier.SteelBlue said:Why not just go with the Redhawk in full lug? The two guns are visually similar.
+1. Yep, yep, and yep. The .44Mag just gather dust around here as the .44 Special does pretty much everything that needs doing.Personally, I get all the .44 I want out of the .44Spl GP. If I need more than the Skeeter load, I want a full sized .44Mag platform to do it in.
Simple - forged frame vs cast frame. I'm certain that Ruger's bean counters have determined they can't pull another gram off the Redhawk frame without having failures.rammerjammer said:I'm no engineer, but I reason if S&W can figure out how to make a 5 shot 44 Mag like the Mod 69 then Ruger can too.
CraigC said:Probably because the Redhawk is significantly larger and heavier.SteelBlue said:Why not just go with the Redhawk in full lug? The two guns are visually similar.
Personally, I get all the .44 I want out of the .44Spl GP. If I need more than the Skeeter load, I want a full sized .44Mag platform to do it in.
As discussed several times on this and other forums it takes a new frame. The forcing cone needs to be larger to survive 44mag pressures. That requires a new frame to accommodate move the forcing cone upward to fit a larger outer diameter (beefier) forcing cone. 44SPL is already pushing the GP100 forcing cone according to the smart folks around here (of which I am not one of!).rammerjammer said:I'm no engineer, but I reason if S&W can figure out how to make a 5 shot 44 Mag like the Mod 69 then Ruger can too.
Total nonsense. This crap about cast vs forged is so overblown, no doubt a result of that silly marketing war. As a matter of fact, Ruger builds a stronger gun. Stronger in materials and stronger in design. S&W's forged frames are not that tough and are left intentionally soft so they can be beat back into shape with a lead babbitt. The +100yr old sideplate design is a serious limitation as well. Bill Ruger set out to eliminate known weaknesses in the S&W design and that's exactly what he did. There is a reason why we have 50,000psi load data for the Redhawk and Super Redhawk but they are expressly forbidden in the N-frame. The ONLY advantage the 69 has over the .44Spl GP is that S&W enlarged the barrel shank for a thicker forcing cone.RSIno1 said:Simple - forged frame vs cast frame. I'm certain that Ruger's bean counters have determined they can't pull another gram off the Redhawk frame without having failures.rammerjammer said:I'm no engineer, but I reason if S&W can figure out how to make a 5 shot 44 Mag like the Mod 69 then Ruger can too.
That's where the reloading comes in handy. You can load your 44 Magnums to lower levels like my favorite 9-9.5 gr. of Unique under a 240 gr. bullet.
For general shooting ... yes... But for carrying all day, every day, just for that time you 'may' need to shoot it ... lighter is better. Tis why the CA .44 Special Bulldog is so popular.A little more weight is advantageous, IMO, when it comes to "magnums" anyway.
Tis why the CA .44 Special Bulldog is so popular.
All depends on what your doing and where you are going... and then there is personal preference which throws logic out the window anyway .