Flattop Bisley 44 Special, 5.5"; what is weight?

[Onty]

Just checked on Lipsey's Flattop Bisley 44 Special, 5.5", blue. Weight is 45 oz., https://www.lipseys.com/itemdetail?itemno=RURNVB-445-SPCL .

Then I checked Ruger website SBH 44 Magnum, 5.5", stainless. Weight is is also 45 oz., https://ruger.com/products/newModelSuperBlackhawkStandard/specSheets/0811.html .

I understand that might be difference in weight of grip frames, but so much that Flattop, with a smaller frame, shorter cylinder and possible smaller dia cylinder, still has same weight as SBH in 44 Magnum on a full size frame!? Am I missing something?

 

[beentheredone]

What you're missing is that virtually no gun weighs exactly what the manufacturer's specs say it weighs.

 

[Onty]

Difference in grams or grains, yes. Not in ounces.

I just checked my SBH, 5.5 converted to Bisley. The weight is 1355 grams, or 47. 79 oz. since Bisley grip frame looks somewhat larger than standard grip on 5.5 " SBH, that might make my revolver bit heavier than original SBH.

Checked other revolvers on Lipsey's:

Flattop 357 Magnum, 9 mm, 5.5", 45 oz., https://www.lipseys.com/itemdetail?itemno=RUNVB-35X

Flattop 45 Colt, 45 ACP, 5.5", 40 oz., https://www.lipseys.com/itemdetail?itemno=RUNVB-455X

Anybody could confirm weights Lipsey's is listing?.

Thanks

 

[hittman]

Anybody could confirm weights Lipsey's is listing?.

Thanks

Maybe a call or email to Jason at Lipsey's will. Jason is a member here even though I don't think he's posted for a while.

 

[dangt]

My own 44 Special, 5.5" Flattop Bisley weighs 44.4 oz.

 

[gunzo]

Rugers weight list seem to be getting better than in the past. Some years ago they might have a 6.5"" 357 BH listed as weighing the same as a 5.5" 45.

My scales are a Berkly electronic fish scale that have been accurate to a half ounce or so. My 5.5" 44 mag Bisley is 46 ozs. My non Bisley 5.5" 44 Special flattop is 43 ozs. With that, I would have guessed a Bisley flattop would be very close to just what dangt posted.

FWIW, my favorite BH's are a 5.5" 45 Colt, & a 5.5" SBH that I dressed down with an aluminum grip frame & ejector rod housing. 37 & 38 ozs. respectively.

 

[71shooter]

Aluminum parts make for very handy field revolvers. I like!

 

[Johnnu2]

Just checked on Lipsey's Flattop Bisley 44 Special, 5.5", blue. Weight is 45 oz., https://www.lipseys.com/itemdetail?itemno=RURNVB-445-SPCL .

Then I checked Ruger website SBH 44 Magnum, 5.5", stainless. Weight is is also 45 oz., https://ruger.com/products/newModelSuperBlackhawkStandard/specSheets/0811.html .

I understand that might be difference in weight of grip frames, but so much that Flattop, with a smaller frame, shorter cylinder and possible smaller dia cylinder, still has same weight as SBH in 44 Magnum on a full size frame!? Am I missing something?

I'm truly curious, why does one care?
I mean, +/-1 or 2 ounces...???
It's not like we're taking off on a short runway on a hot summer's day in Georgia..!
J.

 

[Onty]

I'm truly curious, why does one care?
I mean, +/-1 or 2 ounces...???
It's not like we're taking off on a short runway on a hot summer's day in Georgia..!
J.

Well, if for the same revolver weight of Flattop in 44 Special, we can have large frame SBH in 44 Magnum, or NMBH in 45 Colt, I would rather have SBH in 44 Magnum, or NMBH in 45 Col.

 

[Johnnu2]

I think I see your logic....
Why not just get one of each and be happy..!!!

J.

 

[Rclark]

Well, my large frame plow handle .45 Colt BH is like ~39oz. And the medium frame .45 Colt flattop is in the 40s, if I remember correctly. But I like the flattops as they are more 'Colt' like and all steel. Where-as the standard BH has alloy grip frame and ejector housing which makes them lighter. Of course the .44 Mag SBHs are all steel so they'll be in the 40s too. Really is is a matter of which 'you' prefer and the intended purpose. I feel my flattops will do the job on whatever I'll run into regardless around here.

 

[Onty]

Johnnu2, Rclark, you made valid points. If somebody likes Flattops, I cannot see a single reason why not to get them. Here is IMHO the best looking and the most functional modern SA revolver;

Unfortunately, not mine. I think it was crafted by Alan Harton. Unfortunately again, Alan doesn't work on Rugers any more, just Colts.

 

[Rolando Martino]

Having run across this thread with the same concern--and since acquiring a 5-1/2" S.B. and a scale--here is its weight, and weights of some other .44 cal. pistols for reference. I've found the scale to be no more than 1/10 oz from the expected weight of various objects.

5-1/2" S.B.: 44.9 oz
4.62", .44 Spl., Bisley Flattop: 43.9 oz
7-1/2", three screw S.B.: 47.4 oz
6-1/2" S&W 29-2: 47.5 oz

 

[Bigbore5]

Johnnu2, Rclark, you made valid points. If somebody likes Flattops, I cannot see a single reason why not to get them. Here is IMHO the best looking and the most functional modern SA revolver;

Unfortunately, not mine. I think it was crafted by Alan Harton. Unfortunately again, Alan doesn't work on Rugers any more, just Colts.

That's a modern gun that hasn't been produced in 60-some years!

 

[Onty]

That's a modern gun that hasn't been produced in 60-some years!

Right or wrong, but it seems to me that number of gun writers assume as "modern SA" revolver those produced by Ruger and other companies, chambered in 357, 41 and 44 magnums. Noted revolvers are way stronger than revolvers made to shoot cartridges with black powder, or loaded at same pressure level.

Of course, we have many many replicas of black powder era Colt and Remington revolvers, manufactured now in greater numbers then ever. Just for curiosity, I have C&B Uberti, 1858, target, stainless. Out of the box, it locks cylinder same as best tuned S&W competition revolver. IMO, by any yardstick, it is "modern" revolver.