Ta-daaaaa! This is what a .44 Special should look like. 5" half lug barrel with tasteful wood grips.

Link to Lipsey's

I know everybody has their individual tastes and such and some might not think this is perfection, but then your tastes would be wrong! This is almost perfection in a .44 Special revolver. The only thing that would add the 1.8% to achieve Absolute Perfection would be to make it in stainless.

Am I seeing things? Looks like there are flutes on one side but not the other.

That's the one I wanted when they introduced the shorty barrel. I'd like to see one of those close up...

Lighting in the picture...

It's for those who can't make up their minds...

I just grabbed a couple of pics off of gunbroker but noticed the same thing, so I replaced the top one with the pic from Lipsey's website. Their description says unfluted cylinder.

Hmm, this does put me in a quandry.

I had gotten out of big bore revolvers. No more .45 Colts, .44 Magnums nor even .44 Specials. Just got it down to one each GP-100, 6" half lug stainless, btw, and a Blackhawk in .357 Magnum. But this! This might cost me some money getting back into .44 Specials. In my first post I jest about people's tastes (not really, if you don't like this you have no taste at all) but this model truly is my idea of perfection in a DA revolver - no unneeded full lug, barrel length just right, they even put a nicely shaped set of grips on it. I am swooning... Still might have to replace the front sight just to keep up my looney standing.



Lipsey's shows an MSRP of $869 but I'm seeing a price of $625 with buy it now of $630 on gunbroker. Some of the bigger internet dealers may eventually have it for less.

Found the fluted models. I searched Lipsey's for all GP00 models - this same style revolver is made in a six shot .357 and a seven shot .327 Federal as well, both with fluted cylinders.

Lipsey's .357

Lipsey's .327 Federal

If they follow the same track they did with the Blackhawk Flattop .44 Specials and .45 Colts, stainless versions of these might not be too long in coming. I swoon yet again...

I would really like to see a 7.5" GP100 in 327 Federal with the barrel rib cut for Ruger's scope rings like the older Redhawks.

The S&W Model 329PD is the "Closest to Perfection" .44 Special DA revolver that I've yet to own.

I have long thought that the S&W Model 696 would have been better if it had been built on a K-Frame with a 4" barrel that parroted the Model 66.

Very nice.......dare I say, a sort of a 21st century Triple Lock.

That's a good way to describe it. The Roper style grips in particular really give it a more classic S&W look. At 38 ounces it's not too heavy, only a couple ounces more than a K frame .38 Spl. I've always like a 5" barrel on revolvers, the Redhawk 5 1/2" is my favorite of that model. They have an overall "balanced" look.

Nice revolver! I would like it better in stainless too. I have the 3” model and have been very pleased.

Nice revolver! I would like it better in stainless too. I have the 3” model and have been very pleased.

laughing. I would not consider a big, clunky, ugly Ruger DA revolver to be perfection in any caliber. Frankly, my opinion trumps that of others.

Those sure look nice. I'd choose the unfluted cylinder.

Agreed.

This is a dilemma for me. I was out shooting yesterday, 44 Special and 45 Colt. I was shooting Single Actions. I do have some 44 Specials in Double action, but unless you go with bit heavy double actions in 45 Colt there aren't a lot to choose from. It's either an N frame, or a Ruger Redhawk. There doesn't seem to be any K or L frame size 45 Colts. No smaller ones to carry. I started life big on the 357 mag, and then moved to the 44 mag and bigger, but as I age I don't have any real NEED for the bigger calibers but I like the bigger bullets. If someone looks down one of those big holes and sees that big bullet, it's got to give them pause. Any ideas???

x2 agree. Nothing beats an old S&W...624 4" comes to mind.

Recently traded into one and really like it. Might have to dump my 3" one.

Definitely one of the better looking Ruger DA revolvers I’ve seen.

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!

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.