Why anyone would want a .44Spc 5-shot instead of a 6-shot .357 is beyond me, but hey, those little intricacies are what makes the world go round. I love the .357 round and it's one of my favorite calibers (.22LR is my favorite), and 9mm and .357 fall next in line. The 9mm seems better to me than the .38Spc, if for no other reason than its higher velocity and higher capacity.
The only .44Spc I ever owned was a Charter Arms. It was too frail to handle the .357; however, standard velocity .44 seemed to work okay. It was stainless steel and tended to bind when the gun became too hot. And though it was a cool looking piece, I liked to travel, so I needed something I could use on the road, so I ditched the gun the First chance I got and bought two Ruger stainless .38Spc and had them reamed out to fire .357s. They had 3-inch barrels and I was told it would cost me $65 for one gun or two guns for $120. The gunsmith did such a great job that the chambers would catch 125-grain JHP bullets dropped into each.
They are exceptionally accurate revolvers, too.
The Security-Six was never offered in .44Spc, but if offered in that caliber in the GP-100, it should offer plenty of bulk for hot loads. It makes me wonder what would happen if Ruger offered the GP-100 in a 5-shot .357. Would that make the GP-100 a gun that would shoot hotter .357s? The .357Max suffered not in frames that weren't strong enough, but forcing cones that weren't robust enough.
But since we're not talking about .357s, YES, the GP-100 should offer frames that are tough enough. I do hope if you go that direction that you'll type up a review. I'd like to find something a GP-100 would do better than a Security-Six, and this may very well be it. Are the .44s more expensive, less expensive, or the same price as the .357s?
--