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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

I think by two peice barrels he's referring to the newer guns that have a barrel and a sleeve. Rather than just a barrel with the sight mounted on it.
 
I think by two peice barrels he's referring to the newer guns that have a barrel and a sleeve. Rather than just a barrel with the sight mounted on it.

O you mean he's just parroting what he's either read or herd? Hands on real-world experience is always a good thing.
 
BigBlue 94 --- Nice photo of the adjustable sight version of the Model 720 Rossi . This Interarms import is the only Rossi that realy impressed me. I used to do all the cleaning and moderate repair work for a local gun shop and the owner gave me a M720 for me to tune. That was 15+ years ago and he kept it for himself and still has it today. I liked the gun so well I searched for one and ended up eventually with three of them. They were also made in a fixed sight DA only version. They stopped making this gun prior to the year 2000 , but they can still be bought for around $400. I would buy another in a heartbeat.
I am sure there are plenty of nice Rugers, and Smith & Wesson's to be had.

In the 1960's to the mid 1980's I most always purchased S&W guns, with a few Rugers, and Colts, and Dan Wessons as well. I would not turn up my nose on any brand as long as the gun meets a good standard of reliability, function, accuracy, and value (price point VS usage factor) That includes Taurus, Rossi, and Charter Arms. I owned a lot of $1,000.00 guns that sold for less than $250 back then.

There are more than just a few of any of those brands that are out there and meeting the needs of their owners. Any company can put out a bad individual gun, and they do.

After 20+ years of cleaning and repairing I learned not to be a brand snob. I have seen nightmare guns from pretty much every manufacture you can think of. I have also been inside them and have seen the parts that most buyers never get to look at. It is all about the individual gun with few exceptions. If they were manufactured to spec , they most often give good service.

All that said I do have some favorite Brands, but they are mostly tied to individual models within the brand. We all have the right to favor one over another for whatever reason we choose.
 
O you mean he's just parroting what he's either read or herd? Hands on real-world experience is always a good thing.
Eh maybe he is. I got no probs with the m69. Actually considered one a few months back but opted for a blackhawk, price was right and 45 colt sounded good. However it is indeed a fact that they are a barrel/shroud setup, again not saying that's a bad thing. If it works it works IMO.
 

Attachments

  • Review-SW-Model-69-Combat-Mag-barrel.jpg
    Review-SW-Model-69-Combat-Mag-barrel.jpg
    37.9 KB · Views: 11
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.
Well, you see, if YOU knew what YOU were talking about you'd know that S&W has changed to two piece barrels to save on production costs.

I'm not the one bitching. Actually, if you bothered to read the thread, you'd see that I have been sorely tempted by the model 69 but since I already have a plethora of .44Mag's to fill every conceivable role, I passed on it. Fact is that I own more S&W's than I do Ruger DA's. If you slowed down and bothered to have some civil discourse, rather than descending into this nasty tirade, you might know that. Don't have any Bubba jobs or aftermarket springs in my GP's but I do have both S&W's and Rugers tuned by professionals. I could take my time and slowly deconstruct all the nonsense you've posted here but I don't see the point. You're just an angry dude.
 
The Smith 69 is on my wish list. Overall I have owned more Rugers than Smith’s, but I like the option of 44 mag vs just being able to use specials. Currently load for 44 mag, and can download if wanted instead of investing in different brass. Plus it gives me a little comfort to know a revolver is rated for the magnum even if full blown loads aren’t ran through it frequently.
 
Well, you see, if YOU knew what YOU were talking about you'd know that S&W has changed to two piece barrels to save on production costs.

You're just an angry dude.

Last I knew there is not supposed to be any personal attacks on this website. I guess I'll have to report you again.

I really shouldn't do this but here goes, I'll try to learn you as best I can. YA see decades ago there was this outfit called dan Wesson and they made these revolvers that had removable/interchangeable barrels. They look like this
DiDmnFO.jpg

There's a barrel (1 single piece/tube) a barrel nut & a barrel shroud. The owner can unscrew the barrel nut, slide the barrel shroud off and then unscrew the barrel to remove it.

S&W saw this and came up with their own version of this setup. The big difference between the s&w and the dw is that you can not change the 1 piece barrel out on the s&w. Here's a picture of what the s&w setup looks like along with the names of the parts
BNpsgMX.jpg If you take your time and look closely at the drawing you can clearly see that the thing marked "barrel" is only 1 piece.

Why you keep saying s&w uses a 2 piece barrel is beyond me. The s&w bbl.'s are 1 solid piece of metal. I own 2 different revolvers that have this setup. They are FANTASTIC and I'm looking forward to buying more. No more worrying about bbl index, excellent bbl gap and the end of the bbl is square to the cylinder every time. Extremely smooth 5r rifling that doesn't distort the bullet.

Anyway I did the best I could to learn ya about a single piece of metal that s&w uses for there bbl.'s.
 
That's an interesting semantic argument. Since S&W has gone from one piece to two to comprise the same thing, everyone but you calls them two piece barrels. Or we could say they've gone from a one-piece barrel to a permanently installed liner and shroud. Not at all like Dan Wesson but done for reasons of cutting production costs. It precludes a gunsmith from removing the barrel or shortening it. Your attempt to condescend and insult in a context where it is completely unnecessary is duly noted. "Angry" is not an insult but an observation because you are seemingly incapable of having a civil discussion on this subject.

As I said, if I didn't already have a very fine 629MG that was tuned by the late Bob Munden and is one of my favorite sixguns, I'd probably buy a model 69. So I really don't understand your need to deride Ruger and defend S&W here.

IMG_5419b.jpg
 
I have the Ruger .44 Special snub.
The forcing cone thickness does preclude it from hot-rodding .44 Specials.

I could not care less that I can't shoot .44 Mags through it, and the power levels it does allow are more than adequate for any expected needs in that caliber through that gun.

I do not want a two-piece barrel system.
I won't own one.
I won't own a Smith with a lock, and yes- I know it can be removed.
I have no desire to shoot a .44 Mag snub revolver.

As far as MIMs go, the Ruger has a few MIM parts, too.
Their MIMs are just not quite as oogly as Smith MIMs. :)

I own specific revolvers from both companies.
My Smiths are older versions, before lock & MIMs.
I have spent a fair amount of money in professional attention on both brands.
I have no brand loyalty, I choose whichever one fits my needs best in a particular model.
There are expensive examples of both companies in the vault.
There are models from both companies that I would not own as a gift.

I generally prefer Rugers for strength & durability.
Saying they are inferior is false, they just take a different approach.
Denis
 
My .02 in having owned both is that the Ruger is nicer. The S&W 69 isn't bad but I don't really care for the bead blasted finish and shooting normal power .44 Mag's isn't something you're going to do real often. I also think the Ruger just looks better and if you reload, the 44 Special can be make powerful enough for most encounters.
 
I just got a 5" .44 special gp100 and really enjoy it. Shot it side by side with my buddies 7 shot smith .357, and while the smith did have a noticeably lighter double action pull, it wasn't enough to really help me hit anything more accurately. Single action I couldn't really feel a difference.

I can promise y'all are better shots than I am, but I found the greater weight and grip size of the shorter gp made it easier for me to shoot accurately.... Ish.

Out of curiosity, with the reduced forcing cone thickness, how hot a load would generally be considered for regular use?
 
Nobody's going to be foolish enough to give out an exact figure, but I'd feel perfectly comfortable with 250 at 900 in my Ruger GP.
Denis
 
Nobody's going to be foolish enough to give out an exact figure, but I'd feel perfectly comfortable with 250 at 900 in my Ruger GP.
Denis
Thanks, lacking much experience with handguns, I enjoy learning what I can. I've been shooting 231 and cast 240s thru mine, but I may see how some heavier loadings do at some point....
no real need I guess tho, I do have a very nice SBH should I need, and rarely have reason to hunt with a pistol.
 
Just to stick my nose into someone else's business, I'm about as big a fan of S&W revolvers as you'll find, but unlike most, I don't mind the new stuff.

Yes, the do use a "two-piece barrel" for some current production guns. I have no idea how many different ones, but the Model 19-9 certainly has one.

Here's the difference. Model 19-4, conventional barrel on the left, 19-9 "two piece" barrel on the right.

2Muzzle19_zpssfw8zg3q.jpg
 
I have the Ruger .44 Special snub.
The forcing cone thickness does preclude it from hot-rodding .44 Specials.

I could not care less that I can't shoot .44 Mags through it, and the power levels it does allow are more than adequate for any expected needs in that caliber through that gun.

I do not want a two-piece barrel system.
I won't own one.
I won't own a Smith with a lock, and yes- I know it can be removed.
I have no desire to shoot a .44 Mag snub revolver.

As far as MIMs go, the Ruger has a few MIM parts, too.
Their MIMs are just not quite as oogly as Smith MIMs. :)

I own specific revolvers from both companies.
My Smiths are older versions, before lock & MIMs.
I have spent a fair amount of money in professional attention on both brands.
I have no brand loyalty, I choose whichever one fits my needs best in a particular model.
There are expensive examples of both companies in the vault.
There are models from both companies that I would not own as a gift.

I generally prefer Rugers for strength & durability.
Saying they are inferior is false, they just take a different approach.
Denis

It's all well and good that you won't own a Smith with a lock, but they didn't make a pre-lock 69.

If you eliminate the Smith then the only 5 shot 44 magnum revolver left on the market is the Taurus tracker...and it has a lock. And it's a Taurus...
 
I have the Ruger .44 Special snub.
The forcing cone thickness does preclude it from hot-rodding .44 Specials.

I could not care less that I can't shoot .44 Mags through it, and the power levels it does allow are more than adequate for any expected needs in that caliber through that gun.

I do not want a two-piece barrel system.
I won't own one.
I won't own a Smith with a lock, and yes- I know it can be removed.
I have no desire to shoot a .44 Mag snub revolver.

As far as MIMs go, the Ruger has a few MIM parts, too.
Their MIMs are just not quite as oogly as Smith MIMs. :)

I own specific revolvers from both companies.
My Smiths are older versions, before lock & MIMs.
I have spent a fair amount of money in professional attention on both brands.
I have no brand loyalty, I choose whichever one fits my needs best in a particular model.
There are expensive examples of both companies in the vault.
There are models from both companies that I would not own as a gift.

I generally prefer Rugers for strength & durability.
Saying they are inferior is false, they just take a different approach.
Denis
Agreed. I hate that so many discussions devolve into a Ford vs Chevy argument. That's not how I look at it. I don't choose one side and hate the other. For me they're more like children. You love them because of, not in spite of, their flaws and shortcomings. My 629MG can't handle Buffalo Bore 340gr loads but I don't need or expect it to. Just as my Super Redhawk is homely and doesn't ride on the hip as well but I love them both all the same. I don't look upon the GP .44Spl with disdain because it's not a .44Mag. Rather I enjoy it for what it is and what it can't do. I don't expect it to do the same job as my big Ruger .44Mag's. The same deference is shown to Ruger versus Colt-type SAA's. Might be different if I only wanted to own two or three guns.

That said, I think we're still short on information to decide how much room we have to play with the .44 GP. I do agree that the limitation is the forcing cone/barrel shank and it's worthy of note that S&W enlarged this area for the model 69. I'm leery of pushing past the Skeeter load but David Clements was building these long before Ruger and rated them for the 1200fps Keith load. Have the feeling Brian Pearce will shed light on this subject before too long.
 
Agreed. I hate that so many discussions devolve into a Ford vs Chevy argument. That's not how I look at it. I don't choose one side and hate the other. For me they're more like children. You love them because of, not in spite of, their flaws and shortcomings. My 629MG can't handle Buffalo Bore 340gr loads but I don't need or expect it to. Just as my Super Redhawk is homely and doesn't ride on the hip as well but I love them both all the same. I don't look upon the GP .44Spl with disdain because it's not a .44Mag. Rather I enjoy it for what it is and what it can't do. I don't expect it to do the same job as my big Ruger .44Mag's. The same deference is shown to Ruger versus Colt-type SAA's. Might be different if I only wanted to own two or three guns.

That said, I think we're still short on information to decide how much room we have to play with the .44 GP. I do agree that the limitation is the forcing cone/barrel shank and it's worthy of note that S&W enlarged this area for the model 69. I'm leery of pushing past the Skeeter load but David Clements was building these long before Ruger and rated them for the 1200fps Keith load. Have the feeling Brian Pearce will shed light on this subject before too long.
Yeah would be nice to have a better idea what is safe in the Ruger. That 3" 44 special seems like it be one hell of a woods bumming gun. Everytime I looked at one Eddie money starts singing in my head lol. But I resist and tell myself I don't NEED one....yet :confused:
 
I agree with CraigC and Bones741 as I, too, would like to know what is safe in the gun being I own one. American Rifleman tested one in 2016 with the Buffalo Bore 255 gr Heavy Load and got 934 fps in a 3" model. Having seen Dave Clements comments on 1200 fps I got to wondering what barrel length he was talking about. Elsewhere, I seem to recall someone with a 2.75" 69 that was getting about 1130 fps or so with commercial 240 gr MAG loads so I don't think one would get over 1000 fps in the 3" GP with any load if they wanted durability. Also, I don't know what pressure the Buffalo Bore loads were loaded at but assume they are up there. Going over to the S&W Forum I thought I would see what all was said about hot loads in the 696's and forcing cone demise. Some were of the opinion that they held up better with lead bullets vs. jacketed. I would dearly love to see what Brian Pearce would also recommend.

Ref: American Rifleman https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2016/12/19/tested-ruger-gp100-44-special-revolver/
Buffalo Bore https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=89
D. Clements http://www.clementscustomguns.com/rugerdarevolvers.html

Here is a guy with a 5" GP100 with some hot loads in a .44. Don't know how long it will hold up, though:

https://pistol-forum.com/archive/index.php/t-29962.html
 
Last edited:
Brian Pearce recommends 200 gr. bullets running 900 fps. in a 696 (that article is still on the internet - do a search) That agrees with my testing and it's all the cowbell one needs from a snub .44 Spl. The forcing cone issue is about trying to launch very light bullets at very high velocities. Running loads like that in any revolver in any caliber will erode the forcing cone away. I know this because I have done it to a "bullet proof" Ruger GP 100 (you know - the ones that are "built like a tank and you can't hurt it?") I was young and stupid. The forcing cone on that Ruger looks as if you took an oxy-acetylene cutting torch to it. It is ruined. The 696 forcing cone is the thinnest cone I have ever seen - especially compared to the thick cone on a Ruger GP. The L frame was never designed to accept a big bore barrel - it was designed for a .357 barrel. Fitting a big bore barrel to an L frame is pushing the envelope IMO. I have been handloading for and shooting a 696 since 1996 and only fed it 200 gr. SWC at 850 to 900 fps. The forcing cone is still in perfect condition. I have seen 696s that people tried to "magnumize" and the forcing cones were all damaged from erosion. The problem with snub .44 Spl. guns is not so much about pressure - it's about erosion from gas cutting.
 
Last edited:
People tend to deride the Ruger .44 GP because it's not a .44 Magnum.

It doesn't have to be a .44 Magnum.
It wasn't intended or introduced to be a hot-rodded .44 Special.

It's not fragile, you just can't hotrod it up into Magnum territory.
It can handle any .44 Special load commercially produced.
It will not splinter into tiny pieces if you shoot something hot in it.

If you over-stress the forcing cone walls, they can crack.
Over-stressing can come from either one single grossly over-loaded round or from repeated shooting of a hot-loaded round.

I see no fault in this.
The gun was built to shoot .44 Specials, and there are several commercial loads available that far exceed the anemic original factory lead round.
It's a dependable package in a very totable size, offering excellent protection (with the right bullet) against people and anything up to small bears.

Why does it HAVE to shoot Magnums to be worthy of anything but disdain?
Why do you think it HAS to be a Magnum?

As far as loads go, I can comfortably load hotter in my Ruger Flattop .44 Special, with a thicker forcing cone.
In THAT gun, I don't mind the extra steam.
In the GP snub, I don't need it.
I also don't want it.
Trying to get 1200 FPS out of that snub barrel with a 250 bullet is nothing less than silly.

I have no interest in shooting .44 Mags through that light a package.
Period.

When I need .44 Mag power, I simply carry a .44 Mag (which will NOT be a Smith wearing a two-piece barrel and carrying a lock).

If you don't like the .44 GP, don't buy one.
Otherwise, there's no point whatever in these continual .44 GP bashing threads.
The gun fits a niche, it doesn't need to be anything more than it is, and if what it offers is not enough for you, just go somewhere else.
Denis
 
^ :thumbup:

Pretty much sums that up!

I wanted it BECAUSE I have a .44 magnum. Same dies, same bullets, powder I already stock, smaller, lighter, easier to identify reduced loads, and if I can drive a 250 at 900ish from my 5" barrel it's a bonus.
Could I have got a 6, or 7 shot, .357, or slightly larger 44magnum....sure, but those arnt what I wanted.
 
It's all well and good that you won't own a Smith with a lock, but they didn't make a pre-lock 69.

If you eliminate the Smith then the only 5 shot 44 magnum revolver left on the market is the Taurus tracker...and it has a lock. And it's a Taurus...
The problem is not A lock but THAT lock, which is both a functional and esthetic abomination.
 
Well, the decision has been made. I won a S&W 69 (4”) on GunBroker for $630. That’s only $40 more than the Ruger, which I would have had to spend on 44 Special brass anyway.

The problem is not A lock but THAT lock, which is both a functional and esthetic abomination.

It is easily removed. I have removed them from several guns. It’s not an issue for me.

If I’m being honest I will probably end up with a Ruger and a Charter Arms anyway.
 
Last edited:
Well, the decision has been made. I won a S&W 69 (4”) on GunBroker for $630. That’s only $40 more than the Ruger, which I would have had to spend on 44 Special brass anyway.



It is easily removed. I have removed them from several guns. It’s not an issue for me.

If I’m being honest I will probably end up with a Ruger and a Charter Arms anyway.
Congrats! Post pics and a range report!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top