Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns 98.2% Perfection in a .44 Special

Nice gun, but for some reason, I still like mine better. :>)

Yeah, I'd say yours is pretty nice, too.

I like the looks of this GP100 but I have the S&W 329PD already and mine is accurate enough I doubt the GP100 adds anything. I don't have a ton of use for a .44 special .. the .327 Federal versions of the GP100 are better fit to the open niches in my lineup. I wish they'd offer something longer than 6 inches and set it up with redhawk-style rib and rings as a small game / varmint hunting rig.

Yeah, that's very nice - but I'm holding out for a 4" version in stainless.

its only 83 percent perfect.....I dont want a sixshooter that only shoots 5 times.....

My 44s, in order of preference, 624, New model Blackhawk flat top, Charter bulldog. Original.

Since I mostly carry a revolver to shoot snakes, the .44 Special that I carry the most is much unloved Rossi 720 with 2 CCI snake-shot and 3 240 grain hard cast semi-wadcutters.

friggin awesome sir

Very nice.

Big and clunky, are you high??? I love my S&W's but this is the best handling DA .44Spl ever produced. Its 4oz lighter than my 6.5" model 24-3 and 2oz lighter than my 629MG.

IMHO, it'd be 100% perfect if it had figured walnut, a polished blue finish, carbon steel hammer/trigger and all black target sights.

Mannlicher has a point. But it is actually a half-ounce heavier than the S&W 69 - and that is one sweet revolver. I keep wavering between the two, but the Smith does come in 4.25", which I think is closer to ideal....

https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearms/model-69

I wonder who is going to fulfill my wish list first.....Ruger, with a half-lug 4" .44 GP100....or S&W, with a 10mm M&P 2.0?

I'm not about to diss one man's opinion over another's but we're cutting some fine hairs here. The Smith 69 is based on an L frame which is the same size (or so near as to make no difference) as the GP100 frame. To call either one big and clunky is just someone trying to get back at me for an old perceived slight.

To tell the truth I would have been real happy with a 4" half lug GP100 .44 - as long as it doesn't have a full lug. But to my mind a 5" barrel is just right in a field type revolver, a little more eye relief but not a burden to carry in a decent holster. Lots of folks love their 3" .44 Spl Ruger and that's cool with me, I just like a bit longer barrel. I carried a 6" L-frame 586 for many years in a good Safariland holster and it wasn't a burden at all so this 5" model that weighs 7 ounces less (almost a half pound) certainly isn't going to be either.

Yeah, that's the problem. Those split hairs are keeping my money in my wallet. Funny thing is the S&W looks more svelte - but isn't really. If I ever get to shoot those two side by side, I'm going to be in trouble, I think. But I just know a half-lug 4" GP100 would suit me though (based on my many years with the Security Six). I do like a 5" revolver for informal shooting and hunting, but a shorter barrel is generally easier for me to live with. I think I'm being pretty dang reasonable, not falling for the 3".

I hear you. The only reason I never bought a 696 when they came out was that 3" barrel when a 4" would have had me reaching for my wallet at the speed of light. I cursed S&W up and down for the lack of that extra inch.

I have a 3” 696 and like it. Saying that, I would like a 5 to 5 1/2” bbl for hunting.

I'm gonna need me one of those! I hope they make a 10mm version next!

It also has an inch longer barrel than the 69.

You can say you don't like Ruger DA's all day long but to say that the .44Spl GP is big and clunky compared to any S&W is just ignorant nonsense from someone whose obviously never handled one.

Is it the Redhawk that is coming out in 10mm?

It's the Super Redhawk with a 6.5" barrel.

https://ruger.com/products/superRedhawkStandard/specSheets/5524.html

That’s it. Thanks Jim!