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

As mine does re polluting sipping whiskey with ice and sweet mixers.

Can't see buying one of these with the S&W 69 in existence.

Problem with any Ruger double action, is that it is not a Smith and Wesson. I had an original SP101 4" 22LR. I could never get used to the trigger. It just wasn't a S&W.

Now days we can access some spring kits that are supposed to make the Ruger triggers better, but why? I can buy a S&W 69.

I have a Ruger 4 3/4 inch 44 spl. Just wish I had waited for the stainless to come out.

I'd suggest handling one before rendering judgement. Just as I wouldn't judge N-frames by a J-frame.

The Model 69 is certainly a good option in a medium frame revolver. When it came out the concensus of opinion was that it would make a great .44 Special.

I grew up on classic pre-lock Smiths - 19's, 15s, 27's, 29's, etc. So the reason I like this particular Ruger is that it isn't a modern Smith but it reminds me more of the older classic ones. My objective mind can recognize that the new S&W revolvers are excellent, even with the wart and MIM parts and EDM rifling or two piece barrels (which are supposed to be very good), but their styling just doesn't warm the cockles of my heart, and a lot of what they're turning out with angled ejector rod housings and such, well, I just won't talk about that.

Regardless of individual tastes, I'll still put out a request for anyone who has a GP100 .44 - lots of 3" versions out there by now - and a set of calipers to measure the forcing cone thickness and post it here so we can get some actual numbers, with the same request to those who have a .44 Spl. Blackhawk Flattop.

Just checking the trigger pulls (double/single) on my M29 and Mod 65 S&W and my 44 Sp. GP-100. The pulls on the Ruger are nice until I compare them to the S&Ws. The S&W being better. I haven't shot a new S&W so can't say anything about them. Saying that I still like the Ruger a lot.

Did S&W ever do a blued L frame in 44?

Something like the 69 in 44spc, but nicely blued with old school square butt target or roper style grips would be sweet!

Negative. The only blued .44 Specials I know of were the N frame Model 24's, then they made some Thunder Ranch Specials with "The Lock" but mimicking the old 1917 or Outdoorsman sort of style with fixed sights and round front sight blades but again on the N frame. They definitely only made the one Model 696 five shot .44 Special on the L-frame, and of course now the M69 five shot L-frame .44 Magnum, both in stainless.

Me too!

How about the model 396 that is a scandium/titanium L frame in 44 special?

Got one on the way! This could be really nice.

Jim,
I would answer your question about barrel shank thickness/forcing cone if I could measure my 3” SS GP100. My caliper which I use for reloading just won’t fit inside that big, clunky cylinder opening. (Grinning). I can say that is only about half as thick as a 629 44 magnum and maybe 40%/45% as thick as a 44 Redhawk. Sorry I can’t answer your question. But I can say, I don’t think it is designed to handle Elmer’s 44 Special loads. It’ll be interesting to see if Mr. Pearce will shed any light.

I was measuring my Blackhawk and GP100 .357's last night and you're right, it is difficult to get the caliper jaws in there. But by coming in on the right side at about 45 degrees to the opening and just using the very tips of the jaws you can get a fairly repeatable measurement, +- about .001" at each try. FWIW, a full size Blackhawk .357 forcing cone is .130" thick, a GP100 cone is .075". That might not be the most rock solid professional draftsman approved way of doing it and those might be off a thousandth or two but for our purposes they're plenty close enough. At least I'm very sure the GP100 cone isn't .065" nor it is .085".

Even knowing the thickness of the cone on the .44 Specials isn't going to give us a definitive answer as a standalone number but at least we can compare it to the cone on the GP100 .357 which is designed to withstand a lifetime of 35,000 psi loads. Recall that the L-frame Smith, the same size as the GP100, was created in response to the problems K-frame revolvers experienced with the then new hot 125 grain .357 loads.


I sent a snail mail to Mr. Pearce this morning, reviewing his recent "Handloader" article where he specifically lists the New Model Blackhawk .44 Spl. as suitable for Category 3 25,000 psi loads and does not recommend the Smith 696 for them, and asking him "whether you can recommend the Ruger GP100 for those Category 3 loads? From what I can gather the cylinder is strong enough but there are opinions either way on whether the forcing cone could stand up to them."

I also asked if he would address the issue in his Bullets and Brass column in Handloader since a lot of people are interested in the answer. I know he can't answer every letter in detail personally but included a stamped, addressed envelope back to me and asked if he would write one word across the top of my letter - "YES" or "NO" and send it back. We'll see what comes of it.

It'll take a while for the letter just to get to him since it had to be sent c/o Wolfe Publishing in Prescott AZ when he only lives about 50 minutes away from me in a little town I'm very familiar with, right next to my old home in Fruitland, ID.

Give us a full report when you get it! I'm anxious to see how these stack up for quality of build and accuracy. The strength part is fun to know but is really a sidelight to the other things like its handling qualities.

One thing I will say is that there is very little of the barrel breech exposed after passing through the frame. It appears that this is an advantage over the M696, which appears to be longer in looking at Brian Pearce’s pictures in the December 2014 Handloader. In this issue he is discussing the pros and cons of the 696/396 and suitable loads. For what it’s worth, according to Pearce, the breech measurement on the 696 is .035”

I think you will like the handling qualities. I played with one of the new 5” models at Whittaker Guns this morning. I like it a lot.

I'm not a big bore revolver guy but I am a Ruger fan and the 44 special is on the low end of the large calibers so I like it.

I'd like it a lot more if it had a four inch barrel though.