|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,143
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,143 |
I'll stick with the FA premiers, and you can stick with the BFR's or customs:)
I will! I will also continue to own all three and enjoy all three. However, this costs about as much as an FA 83 Premier Grade......
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 8,175
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 8,175 |
Cabelas in Anchorage has or at least had a few weeks ago, a stack of 44 BFRs for around $750-$800. Thought about one for a minute and them remembered I have two Bisleys at home that fill the same role.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,150
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,150 |
My problem with ALL .44 Magnum revolvers is the size of the gun it's self, I do not have large hands and most .44 magnums are just a bit too big to be comfortable for me to carry and shoot.
The N-Frame S&W is just a bit too large for my hands...and even then the N-Frame is a bit small for a steady diet of high-pressure .44 ammo. The K-Frame would be "right" as far as feel....but would definitely be too small for .44 Magnum pressures. The L-Frame would be "OK" for carry, but very marginal as far as proper for the .44 Magnum pressures.
My first .44 Magnum was a Ruger Super Blackhawk which was a great revolver but I quickly realized it was a bit too large for my hand size. I replaced it with an original Ruger Flattop .44 Magnum .
This, to me. is the "perfect" .44 Magnum revolver. It feels right on my hands and is accurate and robust enough for my use. I "know" it is a bit light for extended use with .44 Magnum ammo. But it is a .44 MAGNUM. How many "thousands" of rounds am I likely to shoot with a .44 Magnum? For the 200-500 rounds a year I will likely shoot...it will do just fine and carry so much easier.
The new model 69 is an L frame (5 shot). Time will tell but I suspect it will hold up just fine.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,225
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,225 |
The smaller frame .44 Magnums (N-Frame S&W and Blackhawk size Rugers) actually do hold up pretty well for "normal" use and loads.
For shooting 200-400 rounds a year of 250 grain bullets at 1250-1300 fps they will likely last a lifetime. It's when you start shooting thousands of rounds a year or push 300+ grain bullets at 1400+ fps that the smaller frame doesn't hold up as well.
I suspect the 5-shot L-frame revolvers will also do just fine as long as you don't push things too hard.
If you want to experiment with truly heavy .44 loads, you need a revolver designed to handle them......and will have to live with the heavier weight and reduced comfort in carry.
I hate change, it's never for the better.... Grumpy Old Men The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,143
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,143 |
The Super Blackhawk will eat a heavy diet of loads for a lifetime. Not even in the same league as the N-frame. You're not talking about the mid-frame Rugers are you?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,124
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,124 |
The smaller frame .44 Magnums (N-Frame S&W and Blackhawk size Rugers) actually do hold up pretty well for "normal" use and loads. It is a myth that the original .44 flat-top is a smaller frame than the later Super Blackhawk. They are the same size and strength. The only significant difference is the grip frame. They are much stronger and more durable than an N-frame. For shooting 200-400 rounds a year of 250 grain bullets at 1250-1300 fps they will likely last a lifetime. It's when you start shooting thousands of rounds a year or push 300+ grain bullets at 1400+ fps that the smaller frame doesn't hold up as well. A 250gr at 1200fps is not a .44Mag load. It is a heavy .44Spl load. I agree that an N-frame will do just fine with those loads. Full pressure .44Mag pushes a 355gr at 1200fps. If you want to experiment with truly heavy .44 loads, you need a revolver designed to handle them......and will have to live with the heavier weight and reduced comfort in carry. A 6" model 29 is an ounce or two heavier than a Ruger single action of similar length.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,225
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,225 |
CraigC, I actually had to search my notes to refresh my memory.......as I get older my memory isn't as accurate as it once was.
I said (and believed) that the "original" Ruger Flattop was built on the medium frame (same as the original Flattop .357) and in that was only partially correct.
In 1956 Ruger was rushing to get the .44 Flattop into production and produced 3 revolvers on the medium frame Blackhawk (as was the .357) to exhibit for gunwriters.
As soon as Elmer saw the new revolver he told Ruger that they were too small for the .44 magnum in full-power loads. Ruger disagreed, but further testing resulted in at least one of the guns turning loose with full-bore loadings.
Before commercial production began Ruger "stretched" the frame and cylinder to create the large frame version of the Blackhawk that has been used in the Old Model, Super Blackhawk and New Model Blackhawks.
While the "original" Flattop 44 WAS built on the medium frame.....it was never offered to the public in such a configuration.
In my flawed memory, I thought the Super Blackhawk was introduced due to the smaller frame being inadequite.....while in truth the "problem" was the smaller grip frame caused most shooters pain as recoil drove the trigger guard back into their middle finger (never a problem for my smaller hands).
The larger Super Blackhawk's XR-3RED frame increased the distance between the grip and trigger guard to solve this perceived flaw.....which also made it a bit too much for my smaller hands.
The 250 grain bullets at 1200 fps was Elmer's original idea for a heavy 44 loading (and thus WERE really a heavy .44 Special loading). The .44 magnum (as conceived by Remington) at 1500 fps or more was just too much of a good thing for "normal" size revolvers....and heavy bullet loadings are even more hard on these guns.
The N-Frame S&W does do well for medium level 44 loads and will handle even the heaviest loadings in limited amounts. However for a heavy user of top level 44 loads.....a slightly bigger gun is called for to insure it holding up over a long period of time.
I hate change, it's never for the better.... Grumpy Old Men The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,698
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,698 |
1200 fps with a 250 grain Lino type bullet is plenty for me. You guys carry on with your heavy loads.
I like to do my hunting BEFORE I pull the trigger! There is only one kind of dead, but there are many different kinds of wounded.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,124
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,124 |
CraigC, I actually had to search my notes to refresh my memory.......as I get older my memory isn't as accurate as it once was.
I said (and believed) that the "original" Ruger Flattop was built on the medium frame (same as the original Flattop .357) and in that was only partially correct.
In 1956 Ruger was rushing to get the .44 Flattop into production and produced 3 revolvers on the medium frame Blackhawk (as was the .357) to exhibit for gunwriters.
As soon as Elmer saw the new revolver he told Ruger that they were too small for the .44 magnum in full-power loads. Ruger disagreed, but further testing resulted in at least one of the guns turning loose with full-bore loadings.
Before commercial production began Ruger "stretched" the frame and cylinder to create the large frame version of the Blackhawk that has been used in the Old Model, Super Blackhawk and New Model Blackhawks.
While the "original" Flattop 44 WAS built on the medium frame.....it was never offered to the public in such a configuration.
In my flawed memory, I thought the Super Blackhawk was introduced due to the smaller frame being inadequite.....while in truth the "problem" was the smaller grip frame caused most shooters pain as recoil drove the trigger guard back into their middle finger (never a problem for my smaller hands).
The larger Super Blackhawk's XR-3RED frame increased the distance between the grip and trigger guard to solve this perceived flaw.....which also made it a bit too much for my smaller hands.
The 250 grain bullets at 1200 fps was Elmer's original idea for a heavy 44 loading (and thus WERE really a heavy .44 Special loading). The .44 magnum (as conceived by Remington) at 1500 fps or more was just too much of a good thing for "normal" size revolvers....and heavy bullet loadings are even more hard on these guns.
The N-Frame S&W does do well for medium level 44 loads and will handle even the heaviest loadings in limited amounts. However for a heavy user of top level 44 loads.....a slightly bigger gun is called for to insure it holding up over a long period of time. All true! My mind is not the steel trap it once was either. Except that the XR3-RED was the standard Blackhawk grip frame from 1962-present. Just like the XR3 but with more room behind the triggerguard. Not the Super.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,225
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,225 |
Didn't mean to imply the XR3-Red wasn't the standard grip frame after 1962....it was...on all Blackhawk pistols!
I was speaking specifically about the .44 Magnum Rugers (Super Blackhawk). I hated the change personally, but apparently I was in the minority judging by the success of the Blackhawk line. I liked it little that I've spent the money to retro-fit the XR3 grip frame to Old Model Blackhawks.
One thing always puzzled me though. If damage to the shooters hand was a problem.....just why was it thought that a flat backed trigger guard (as on the Super Blackhawk) with a sharp corner at the bottom was thought better than a rounded trigger guard??
Must have been the right choice judging by the success Super Blackhawk....quite probably because most shooters aren't as "perfect" as I am and can't appreciate the difference.
I hate change, it's never for the better.... Grumpy Old Men The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,124
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,124 |
I don't care for the change either and have a big preference for the XR3. I change them on my post `62 guns as well. I think the RED and Super grip frames adversely affect handling. Changes the balance point, moving it forward.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,225
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,225 |
Wouldn't it be great if we were as good as we remember......or at least remember exactly how good we were.
I hate change, it's never for the better.... Grumpy Old Men The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,225
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,225 |
Agree totally about the XR3 over the XR3-Red frame feel. If you want GREAT try an 1851 Navy frame on a Blackhawk.
Maybe I'm not the only one who is close to "perfect".]
A grip frame adds nothing (nor takes away nothing) as far as "strength".....only something to hold on to as we unleash the thunder and lightning. "Feel" is all that matters.
I hate change, it's never for the better.... Grumpy Old Men The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know
|
|
|
|
658 members (10Glocks, 17CalFan, 160user, 06hunter59, 1beaver_shooter, 10gaugemag, 59 invisible),
2,613
guests, and
1,312
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,835
Posts18,478,075
Members73,948
|
Most Online11,491 Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|