5 shot 44: S&W 69 or Ruger GP-100?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Until Ruger figures out how to bore a cylinder properly they are off my radar.
 
I have both the the S&W Model 69 (44 Magnum) and the Ruger GP100 (44 Special). I like the way both shoot and they shoot well.

Flip a coin.

P.S. To me, S&W revolvers are elegant and I like the K-frame grip size while Ruger DA revolvers look frumpy. Just personal preference, I cannot fault the reliability and durability of Ruger firearms.
 
I was interested in the GP-100 chambered in 44 spl until I checked one out. The cylinder throats measured .433-.434" What’s up with that Ruger?
My S&W 696 ND throats measure .429" as they should.
If you get the GP in 44 spl good luck shooting lead bullets

well larger throats are better than smaller than your barrel throats... large throats let the bullet be swaged by the barrel throat to fit the barrel better... smaller throats size the bullet and they wont filll the barrel correctly- you got it backwards sir...
 
well larger throats are better than smaller than your barrel throats... large throats let the bullet be swaged by the barrel throat to fit the barrel better... smaller throats size the bullet and they wont filll the barrel correctly- you got it backwards sir...

The throats should be slightly larger than the bore. And the bullets should be slightly larger than the throats. You can’t find bullet in the .434-.436 range. A .434 bore is just poor QC.
 
The old large throat vs small throat thing & don't forget to throw in there it's "only bullet casters that worry about throat dimensions".

Well I guess it comes down to:
What would be better when using a .429"/.430" bullet in .433" cylinders or .430" cylinders?
How much velocity would you loose when the .429"/.430" bullets have to expand to seal the escaping gasses of the .433" cylinders.
How much is accuracy affected when a .429"/.430" bullet has to bump up 3/1000th's+ to seal the cylinders & then get swaged back down to another 3/1000th's+ when it's in the bbl.

The cylinders are the same length on both revolvers:
Is it better accuracy wise and velocity wise to have less freebore/bullet travel in the cylinders 44spl oal vs 44mag oal?
A lot of posters want to use softer/milder shooting ammo so they chose a ruger. Odd, for some reason the same ammo can't be used in a m69? Can't 44mag ammo be loaded down to those levels? The s&w can be loaded down to the ruger ammo levels, can the ruger be loaded up the the s&w ammo levels? Much ado is made about the bbl shanks. ruger .513" vs m69 .620"

I swear I'm going to start pulling my hair out if I see 1 more post about how a ruger trigger is just as good as a s&w trigger after a bunch of work is done to the ruger. Just make sure that you take a hard look at the hammer pivot holes in the gp100 when doing your trigger job. Typically 1 hole is loose and the other side of the frame, the holes tight.

ruger gp100:
I have no idea why no one had brought up the gap between the front sight and the bbl. The dovetails are cut for a different sight and there's a gap under the sight. For range play, no big deal. For ccw, not something I'd want. But the good news For a mere $39 you can order a sight from dawlson precision that solves the sight/bbl gap. It will also take care of the gp100's shooting high at anything over 20yds. So you do the trigger job, check the hammer pivot pin, get a new front sight, have the cylinders honed/evened. You're still stuck with a low to mid-quality/priced firearm that you had to stick +/- $200 into that can only shoot oversized bullets/low powered loads. Yes low powered!!! If you think a hot 44spl load is anywhere near what a 44mag load brings to the table, then the ruger's your huckleberry.

Myself, I'd go with the m69. It can do everything the gp100 can do without all the drama. The gp100 couldn't even begin to do everything the m69 can do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DM~
Considering whats been said on the GP and that Ruger has put out 327's with .315" throats, I would tend to believe you might have better success with a 69. The trigger comparison is subjective so I will not stoke that fire.
 
The old large throat vs small throat thing & don't forget to throw in there it's "only bullet casters that worry about throat dimensions".

Well I guess it comes down to:
What would be better when using a .429"/.430" bullet in .433" cylinders or .430" cylinders?
How much velocity would you loose when the .429"/.430" bullets have to expand to seal the escaping gasses of the .433" cylinders.
How much is accuracy affected when a .429"/.430" bullet has to bump up 3/1000th's+ to seal the cylinders & then get swaged back down to another 3/1000th's+ when it's in the bbl.

The cylinders are the same length on both revolvers:
Is it better accuracy wise and velocity wise to have less freebore/bullet travel in the cylinders 44spl oal vs 44mag oal?
A lot of posters want to use softer/milder shooting ammo so they chose a ruger. Odd, for some reason the same ammo can't be used in a m69? Can't 44mag ammo be loaded down to those levels? The s&w can be loaded down to the ruger ammo levels, can the ruger be loaded up the the s&w ammo levels? Much ado is made about the bbl shanks. ruger .513" vs m69 .620"

I swear I'm going to start pulling my hair out if I see 1 more post about how a ruger trigger is just as good as a s&w trigger after a bunch of work is done to the ruger. Just make sure that you take a hard look at the hammer pivot holes in the gp100 when doing your trigger job. Typically 1 hole is loose and the other side of the frame, the holes tight.

ruger gp100:
I have no idea why no one had brought up the gap between the front sight and the bbl. The dovetails are cut for a different sight and there's a gap under the sight. For range play, no big deal. For ccw, not something I'd want. But the good news For a mere $39 you can order a sight from dawlson precision that solves the sight/bbl gap. It will also take care of the gp100's shooting high at anything over 20yds. So you do the trigger job, check the hammer pivot pin, get a new front sight, have the cylinders honed/evened. You're still stuck with a low to mid-quality/priced firearm that you had to stick +/- $200 into that can only shoot oversized bullets/low powered loads. Yes low powered!!! If you think a hot 44spl load is anywhere near what a 44mag load brings to the table, then the ruger's your huckleberry.

Myself, I'd go with the m69. It can do everything the gp100 can do without all the drama. The gp100 couldn't even begin to do everything the m69 can do.
What, no endless rant about the Skeeter load??? I really wish you could post without all the veiled insults and condescension. It's fascinating how you have to imply that everyone but you is uninformed.

That's interesting. I would've thought there'd be some comments about the 5/8" group I posted, fired out of a box stock Ruger .44Mag from about two years ago. With commercial cast bullets sized .430" but I guess that doesn't fit the narrative. I guess we're going to pretend that S&W throats are always perfect?

Ruger is now low to mid-priced and needs a bunch of work??? Rugers are made like they always were. They have not spent the last 40yrs cutting more and more corners and cheapening their product to lower production costs. Sorry but the elements of fit & finish that S&W used to hold over Ruger no longer exist and haven't for some time. They've been replaced by two-piece barrels, injection molded innards, bead blasted finishes and synthetic grips. I have S&W's going back to the 2nd Model Hand Ejector but mostly from the `60's to `70's. I have them that have been tuned by professionals and nearly twice as many S&W's as Ruger DA's. So I know what a good DA trigger feels like. With that in mind, I can find very little to complain about with my late model Ruger DA triggers. No, they're not as good as they could be but nothing is. They are perfectly serviceable out of the box and their SA triggers are excellent. Yes, I did replace the front sight with a taller one, an easy five minute fix.

I'm fairly certain I know the difference between a "hot .44Spl load" and the .44Mag's capability. :confused: Yes, I'd agree that a factory load using a 246gr roundnose at 700fps is "low powered". I do not agree that a 250gr Keith bullet at 950fps is "low powered". It's not a .44Mag load but I don't need it to be. Because when I'm walking the woods or hunting with a rifle, that's all I want. If I wanted more out of a mid-frame package, I would have bought the 69. It's that simple. However, when I need a real .44Mag load, I 'need' more sixgun to launch it from. S&W hasn't been my go-to for that, ever. Those crappy Rugers you refer to seem to do just fine and I don't recall one I've ever owned that wouldn't do 2"@50yds with .430" commercial cast bullets. As I said, for my purposes, the GP made better sense. Not to mention that it has a 5" barrel and is made from blued steel. So I reckon the 69 won't do everything the GP will do. Others obviously think and prefer differently and that is fine. We can discuss it without hostility.

PS, I didn't say that "only casters worry about throat dimensions". I said that casters obsess about minutiae. That round thing with the five or six holes that the cartridges go in, that's the cylinder. Those five or six individual holes, those are called chambers.
 
The front sight gap has been largely addressed, again one of the errors with early GP .44 production.
I can live with .430 throats, ideally would wish for tighter but I couldn't persuade Ruger to take 'em down any farther.
Denis
 
Im with craig on the ruger triggers, they actually are more tuneable and serviceable than most others. Ive got a gp100 with probably 50,000 rounds downrange and it has a sweet trigger with no modification at all. Yeah, ive felt better, but who hasnt? I am not that big on s&w because the modern ones ive had have been junk - a 686 with an offset barrel and a 629 that i would consider fragile, got out of time twice in under 3,000 rounds that werent even hot. Im not getting into the whole strength fiasco but i will say ive done things to rugers i wouldnt try with a smith, your mileage may vary. Rugers take some fine tuning no doubt but the end result is a fine weapon that will last many lifetimes.
If its out of spec send it in, if its in spec tune your load for that specific gun. I have a 454 casull ruger that came with a bore diameter of .446 and it had rough patches in it, sent it in and it was replaced. Casting can address any projectile concerns you have, a proper smith can address and firearm mods required, works for me.
 
I have them both and like them both. Never had a problem with either. But I'm not one to get into minutiae about them. Each shoots well and seems adequately durable. I don't really care about anything else.
 
well larger throats are better than smaller than your barrel throats... large throats let the bullet be swaged by the barrel throat to fit the barrel better... smaller throats size the bullet and they wont filll the barrel correctly- you got it backwards sir...
My Redhawk has a groove diameter of .427", and the chamber throats measure .4325" .0055" over the groove diameter of the barrel is to much imho.
 
Has Ruger started cutting proper forcing cones on the barrels?

I had to have the forcing cone on my Vaqueros cut by a gunsmith. Actually neither gun had a forcing cone and one of them the back of the barrel had been cut unevenly. The b/c measured .003" from one side and .001" on the other! Anyway after getting the b/c gap correctly set and a forcing cone cut both guns are good shooters.

Ruger manufactures gun that are good enough for the average owner. All of my Ruger revolvers needed a little tweaking and TLC to give me the level of performance I want.

With that I probably would be happy with the Ruger. I would be prepared to have the forcing cone cut and the b/c gap adjusted and, as I shoot mostly lead bullets, have the chamber throats checked.

With the Model 69 I don't know what to expect. The two barrel is a unknown to me. In theory the b/c gap should be easier to set correctly with the two piece barrel.
 
I'd get a 69 over the 44spl GP100

My next 44spl is going to be a Taurus Tracker 44mag with a 4 inch barrel
 
Has Ruger started cutting proper forcing cones on the barrels?

I had to have the forcing cone on my Vaqueros cut by a gunsmith. Actually neither gun had a forcing cone and one of them the back of the barrel had been cut unevenly.
My 4" S&W 29-2 was that way.

I had to send it back to S&W to have it fixed. In the process, they damaged the outside of the barrel, requiring me to replace the barrel at my own expense, but that's another story...
 
CDNN has the 3” Ruger for $579 right now. With shipping and transfer that would be about $610. The S&W would probably be close to $750 once tax is factored in. I’m not sure the ability to shoot magnums is really worth the extra $100, but I f I go for the Ruger I would need to spend about $50 on a couple of bags of Special brass. Same if I decided on a Charter Arms, which I could get from Buds for just a bit under $400 with tax.


I have never seen any of these guns in real life, but I know what an L-frame and a GP feel like in 357. The Bulldog is a complete unknown to me, but is attractively cheap. And then there’s also a five shot Taurus...

Consider a rossi m720. 5 shot 44spl. No it's not a Smith or Colt, but it's a pretty darn nice gun.

View attachment 823161

I don’t think they are importing them anymore.
 
Last edited:
Off topic, but I havent found a revolver yet that fits my hand better than my Taurus tracker.44.(with aftermarket hogue grips). It is a pleasure to shoot. Ive been trying numerous other hogue grips on the mdl. 69 trying to find something comparable with no luck yet. The hogue tamer x frame grips are close, but im not satisfied yet.Need to try some wood grips next.
 
Has Ruger started cutting proper forcing cones on the barrels?

I had to have the forcing cone on my Vaqueros cut by a gunsmith. Actually neither gun had a forcing cone and one of them the back of the barrel had been cut unevenly. The b/c measured .003" from one side and .001" on the other! Anyway after getting the b/c gap correctly set and a forcing cone cut both guns are good shooters.

My 4" S&W 29-2 was that way.

I had to send it back to S&W to have it fixed. In the process, they damaged the outside of the barrel, requiring me to replace the barrel at my own expense, but that's another story...

That is why I just paid a local gunsmith to cut the forcing cone and correct the b/c gap. I got the guns fixed in few minutes without the risk of damage or being lost by the factory or shipper. It shouldn't have to be this way but it is.

However in fairness I have seen far worse new Smith & Wesson's. It is just that Ruger knows their guns should have the correct angle forcing cones and not everyone has easy access to a good gunsmith.

Maybe if the Model 69 turns out to meet my expectations when I get one I should buy a lottery ticket also. :D
 
Last edited:
I have owned a Taurus Tracker in .44 mag which was a nice gun which I shot mostly .44Spl ammo from. Factory .240 grain magnums were also comfortable to shoot from this gun. Then I went to .44Spl only with Rossi model 720's and found I liked that gun ending up owning 3 of them.

I had no problems with any of these. They gave good accuracy, problem free function, and were well built. I own one of the M720's and that one will stay here as long as I do. I have been down sizing due to poor health so the rest I have sold. All of the ones I had wore adjustable sights.
 
Just too many issues with a gp-100 alone with the standard ruger fixes coupled with the 44spl is like a 1 legged man in a butt kicking contest when compared to a 44mag.

The m69 is drama free, cylinders & bore are correct. You can shoot any ammo in the m69 that you can in the gp-100. But the gp-100 is extremely limited with what ammo it can actually handle compared to the m69.

Even if you hit the ruger lottery & get the best gp-100 they've put out in decades, you'll still have do some work on it & it's still a 44spl vs 44mag.
 
Just too many issues with a gp-100 alone with the standard ruger fixes coupled with the 44spl is like a 1 legged man in a butt kicking contest when compared to a 44mag.

The m69 is drama free, cylinders & bore are correct. You can shoot any ammo in the m69 that you can in the gp-100. But the gp-100 is extremely limited with what ammo it can actually handle compared to the m69.

Even if you hit the ruger lottery & get the best gp-100 they've put out in decades, you'll still have do some work on it & it's still a 44spl vs 44mag.
Oh yes, Rugers are problematic junk but S&W's with their injection molded innards, internal lock, two piece barrels etc., are just fantastic. Typical irrational Ruger hater. Mine must all be defective:

Ropers%20014b.jpg
 
Oh yes, Rugers are problematic junk but S&W's with their injection molded innards, internal lock, two piece barrels etc., are just fantastic. Typical irrational Ruger hater. Mine must all be defective:

View attachment 823940

See there we both agree rugers are problematic junk

Typical irrational ruger lover. Bitch about the injection molded innards of a s&w and then turn around and do a bubba home smith job on the trigger of a ruger just to claim it's now just as good as a s&w. How pathetic!!!

I love the internal locks, heck both my sa 1911's have them also.

Odd, I always thought the barrels on the s&w's were 1 piece. But I wouldn't expect the typical ruger owner such as yourself to really know what your talking about when it comes to gun pieces and parts. If you knew what you were looking at you wouldn't be buying too many rugers. See, it's actually pretty simple. How about the watered down version. There's this thing that looks like a tube with a thing-a-ma-bob on the end. That's called a barrel It's all 1 piece. I know pretty hard to understand but after you re-read the "this thing that looks like a tube with a thing-a-ma-bob on the end" "this thing that looks like a tube with a thing-a-ma-bob on the end" "this thing that looks like a tube with a thing-a-ma-bob on the end". You might get it but I'm really not expecting too much too quickly.

At the end of the day no matter how it's sliced and diced the s&w is a better firearm right out of the box. The m69 can do things the gp-100 can only dream about. But then again some of us expect more out of a firearm than a 250gr bullet doing +/- 900fps.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top