Monster Zero
Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2008
- Messages
- 590
Assuming all of these are available in the near future... which one(s)?
Okay, how about this? GP100 44special, Smith 69 2.75", or Smith Performance Ctr model 629?
- Thread starter Monster Zero
- Start date
- Status
tommy.duncan
Member
I love my GP100 357mag. I think this will be a great platform for the 44 special.
gotboostvr
Member
I think the GP could be a great piece.
The problem is the M69 is a little more svelt, and is rated for 44 Mag.
Not that I'd feed either a whole lot of full bore as-hot-as-I-can-load ammo.
Smith triggers and sights are typically on average a step above in my opinion.
N-frames are just out of the question for the most part.
Regardless, it's a great time to be a fan of 44 cartridges!
The problem is the M69 is a little more svelt, and is rated for 44 Mag.
Not that I'd feed either a whole lot of full bore as-hot-as-I-can-load ammo.
Smith triggers and sights are typically on average a step above in my opinion.
N-frames are just out of the question for the most part.
Regardless, it's a great time to be a fan of 44 cartridges!
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,089
You didn't say cost was a factor. If someone was going to give me any of those guns for free, my first choice would be the P.C. 629. No contest, not even close.
RealGun
Member
GP100, in .44 Special, let's say 3" barrel and fixed sights
Smith model 69 with a 2.75" barrel and adjustable sights like it is now
Smith Performance Center model 629 with 2.65" barrel, non-fluted cylinder and Eagle SS grips
A used Rossi or Taurus in .44 Special
A used model 629 or model 29 with 3" or 4" barrel
Pro - Handles only this cartridge - ideal barrel length - good grip options - more affordable than some
Con - near the limit for what many may consider an acceptable carry weight and bulk - too short a barrel for a real range toy
Smith model 69 with a 2.75" barrel and adjustable sights like it is now
Pro - nice gun
Con - stamped "44 Magnum", not Special. Extra chamber cleaning required. Unwanted visible lock.
Smith Performance Center model 629 with 2.65" barrel, non-fluted cylinder and Eagle SS grips
Pro - Bling version
Con - Price, Unwanted visible lock.
A used Rossi or Taurus in .44 Special
Pro - Don't have experience with the Rossi 44 but it seems well respected. The Taurus is a fine gun.
Con - My Taurus 441 lacks grip options and is only marginally concealable as a result.
A used model 629 or model 29 with 3" or 4" barrel
No N-frames, thank you. 5 shots can be better than 6, when you have to lug the thing around and try to conceal it.
P5 Guy
Member
I've got a 696 S&W so looking at a GP in 44SPL would be about the same. Really on the almost too big and heavy for carry most of the year in Florida. I do truly enjoy shooting my 696 with my handloads as far as commercial ammo no thanks. Since the interweb experts say you'll be made an example for using handloads I'm just enjoying a range toy.
RealGun
Member
I think rarity of commercial supplies in 44 Special is a pretty good argument why you might have chosen to load your own SD rounds. I don't mean to validate the hypothetical about prosecution of a shooting with reloads.
375supermag
Member
Hi...
I voted for the GP but would prefer a 4" barrel, if it is offered in that length I will buy one. I would have to think about the 3" model.
I own and sometimes carry a DA Taurus 5-shot .44Spl. I have shot it extensively and it is accurate and has never failed to perform but it is not my primary carry gun. That task is assigned to a couple of 1911s in .45ACP.
I voted for the GP but would prefer a 4" barrel, if it is offered in that length I will buy one. I would have to think about the 3" model.
I own and sometimes carry a DA Taurus 5-shot .44Spl. I have shot it extensively and it is accurate and has never failed to perform but it is not my primary carry gun. That task is assigned to a couple of 1911s in .45ACP.
I may see things differently than some, but I view the 69 being chambered in .44 magnum as an advantage over the dedicated .44 Special offerings. Load it with Specials for the street and magnums for the woods. Very versatile piece. I have no experience with the 2.75" 69 obviously, but recoil with the 4.25" 69 is surprisingly manageable, even with 300gr factory magnums. You can always load it below full-strength if you handload. I'd have to double check my records for my 69, but I wanna say I have between 1500 and 2000 rounds through it with about 50% being full-strength mags. It is a controllable weapon though obviously the mags are too much for SD and may not be relevant if your absolute only interest is SD.
ETA: the 69 sits lower in the hand than the N-frames and tends to have a bit less muzzle rise and torque on the wrist. It does weigh less than your average N-frame though, so there is more recoil, it just handles it very well. Paul105 wrote a great review of the 69 that you can find on THR.
ETA: the 69 sits lower in the hand than the N-frames and tends to have a bit less muzzle rise and torque on the wrist. It does weigh less than your average N-frame though, so there is more recoil, it just handles it very well. Paul105 wrote a great review of the 69 that you can find on THR.
RealGun
Member
You seem to be speaking for a 4.25" barrel 44 Magnum, which I would expect to be significantly more manageable under real magnum range power than a 2.75" barrel, an inch and a half shorter. I expect snubs are generally known as wilder than longer barrel guns in the same cartridge and load. If the 44 Magnum snub has to be tamed with 44 Special ammo or 44 Magnum cases loaded to approximately 44 Special shooting experience, it seems like one might as well just buy a 44 Special.
I will let you know how it is when I get mine 
It won't be my first rodeo with big bore magnum snubs. I am sure it will get a bit snappier and a bit louder, but an experienced big bore shooter will still find plenty of usable performance well above the .44 Special level without getting uncomfortable. With the 4.25", I usually shoot maybe 100 magnums in a sitting. It isn't like it is teetering on the threshhold of usability.
It won't be my first rodeo with big bore magnum snubs. I am sure it will get a bit snappier and a bit louder, but an experienced big bore shooter will still find plenty of usable performance well above the .44 Special level without getting uncomfortable. With the 4.25", I usually shoot maybe 100 magnums in a sitting. It isn't like it is teetering on the threshhold of usability.
Me also, I'd be real interested in a GP100 with a 4 plus inch barrel (4.25" would be fine to keep our northern neighbors happy) and adjustable sites. I'm not interested in 3".
I have a 3" S&W 624 (44 Special), which shoots great but I really do not care for the recoil. I recently passed on a nice S&W N-frame 41 Magnum only because it had a 3" barrel.
Maybe Ruger will make 3" and 4+" versions and make everyone happy.
Poohgyrr
Member
From this list, the Ruger GP100.
The rules I carry under say: no chambering in 44Magnum. Rules are what they are, besides I wouldn't load a 44Magnum for in town. And, I bought a new Charter Arms Bulldog vs a used Taurus or Rossi. The used Smith five shot 44Specials cost...
The rules I carry under say: no chambering in 44Magnum. Rules are what they are, besides I wouldn't load a 44Magnum for in town. And, I bought a new Charter Arms Bulldog vs a used Taurus or Rossi. The used Smith five shot 44Specials cost...
Just out of curiosity, why the prohibition on the .44 mag chambering? Are they your rules or someone else's (department, agency, etc)?
Anything chambered in 44mag over a 44spl only. Unless you reload or buy specialty ammo from somewhere like buffalo bore, factory 44spl ammo is anemic at best.
I've carried/shot short bbl'd 44spl's since the 80's and still due to this day, namely the ca bulldog. It's light enough unloaded and I wouldn't want the extra weight of of the heavier n-frame or full underlug of a gp100. Add to the pistols weight the heavy 44cal slugs (5 44spl's (220gr bullet) is 3.5oz) it let's you know it's there. That leaves the 69.
As usual, there's always so many entertaining comments in these type of threads. Like people don't want to do the extra cleaning of the 44mag cylinder???. Interesting, sounds like it's better to buy 38spl's, less cleaning then the 357's.
Without being argumentative I don't get why a ruger gp100 would only be chambered in 44spl? Something wrong with the strength of the gp100??? You would think that ruger would want to get as much of the market they can ($$$) if they plan on re-tooling/design a small framed 44cal firearm. I do understand the 44spl caliber in a snubnose after carrying/shooting/testing with them for 30 years. Myself I wouldn't want to carry something heavy, the 357 3" bbl'd gp100 weighs 36oz & the smaller sp100 with a 3" bbl weighs 27oz. The 4" bbl'd model 69 with the unfluted cylinder weighs 37.4oz. If they took 1" off of the 69's bbl and fluted the cylinders it would weigh in around the sp100's range.
In the ccw world concealability and weight are huge. The ca bulldog (2 1/2" bbl) that I carry is 25oz loaded. A gp100 would be closer to 37oz loaded with a 3" bbl. Myself I'd take a 3" bbl'd 69 over a 3" bbl'd gp100 any day of the week. More horsepower, a lot better ammo selections, better trigger, lighter. I'd rather stick with a light weight ca bulldog over a gp100, easier to conceal, same ammo selection, less weight, same trigger. And the ca costs ($$$$) $150+ less than the ruger.
I've carried/shot short bbl'd 44spl's since the 80's and still due to this day, namely the ca bulldog. It's light enough unloaded and I wouldn't want the extra weight of of the heavier n-frame or full underlug of a gp100. Add to the pistols weight the heavy 44cal slugs (5 44spl's (220gr bullet) is 3.5oz) it let's you know it's there. That leaves the 69.
As usual, there's always so many entertaining comments in these type of threads. Like people don't want to do the extra cleaning of the 44mag cylinder???. Interesting, sounds like it's better to buy 38spl's, less cleaning then the 357's.
Without being argumentative I don't get why a ruger gp100 would only be chambered in 44spl? Something wrong with the strength of the gp100??? You would think that ruger would want to get as much of the market they can ($$$) if they plan on re-tooling/design a small framed 44cal firearm. I do understand the 44spl caliber in a snubnose after carrying/shooting/testing with them for 30 years. Myself I wouldn't want to carry something heavy, the 357 3" bbl'd gp100 weighs 36oz & the smaller sp100 with a 3" bbl weighs 27oz. The 4" bbl'd model 69 with the unfluted cylinder weighs 37.4oz. If they took 1" off of the 69's bbl and fluted the cylinders it would weigh in around the sp100's range.
In the ccw world concealability and weight are huge. The ca bulldog (2 1/2" bbl) that I carry is 25oz loaded. A gp100 would be closer to 37oz loaded with a 3" bbl. Myself I'd take a 3" bbl'd 69 over a 3" bbl'd gp100 any day of the week. More horsepower, a lot better ammo selections, better trigger, lighter. I'd rather stick with a light weight ca bulldog over a gp100, easier to conceal, same ammo selection, less weight, same trigger. And the ca costs ($$$$) $150+ less than the ruger.
RealGun
Member
The Ruger Flat Top is rare in magnum, a special edition no longer offered, while a mainstay in 44 Special. A possible motive for choosing 44 Special only is to have a gun that is more compact and lighter. The ammo argument has been overworked IMO, since I feel it simply isn't advisable to even consider 44 Special shooting in any volume without reloading.
Everyone is different & I'm no exception.
Now if ruger was to come out with a:
sp100 pistol chambered in 44spl I'd be all over it!!!
gp100 pistol chambered in 44mag s&w better get their heads out their a$$$ because I would be taking a real hard look at that setup also.
Anything with fixed sights in a ccw revolver is a huge + to me.
Anything with a 2" bbl to 2 1'2" bbl is a huge + to me.
I don't like adjustable sights on ccw revolvers & consider a 3" bbl too long.
Personally I think the sp series would be an excellent platform for a 44spl. Convert a sp100 to a 5-shot 44spl I wouldn't even consider a 69 or 629.
I just don't get the gp100 for ccw or for making it a 44spl only??? But that's just me.
sp100 ='s 44spl
gp100 ='s 44mag
Why not a sp100 in 44spl????
RealGun
Member
An SP101 is 5 shots in 38/357. The gun was originally 38 only. I don't expect there to be enough cylinder there to make 5 shots of 44 (429). And then there is the barrel thickness concern. Using the GP100 platform seems to make the better sense or even the single practical choice.
However, I have a GP100 converted to 41 Special (.410), 6 shots, and consider that about as far as the platform can be stretched for a gun Ruger might even consider supporting, should they see sufficient demand and an ammo supply. ICBW.
I'm jealous.
RealGun
Member
Odd charter arms has no problem using a small frame to make a light weight 44spl. I guess if you say ruger can't do it with a sp100 perhaps they need to regroup/rethink or simply buy a ca bulldog and a tape measure.
gotboostvr
Member
Odd charter arms has no problem using a small frame to make a light weight 44spl. I guess if you say ruger can't do it with a sp100 perhaps they need to regroup/rethink or simply buy a ca bulldog and a tape measure.
Pretty sure the charter arms bulldog is built on a larger frame than the SP101, but a smaller frame than the GP100.
Odd??
The sp100 with a 3" bbl is 8" long x 4.5" high and 27oz
The ca bulldog with a 3" bbl is 7.2" long x 4.5" high and weighs 21oz
Both firearms are ss.
A little perspective:
CA put out a ss "police bulldog". It is nothing more than ss bulldog frame that is chambered in 38spl rather than 44spl. 38spl is a lot closer to the sp100's 357 chambering. The police bulldog has the ss bulldog frame, a 6 holed cylinder and a 4.2" fully underluged ss bbl. The 4.2" full underlug 6-shot police bulldog weighs 26oz
That' 1 ounce less than the sp100 with a 3" bbl!!!
Same bulldog frame with 1 extra hole in the cylinder, it does have an adjustable rear sight and 1.2" longer underlugged bbl.
If you compare a 4.2" bbl'd sp100 to a 4.2" bbl'd police bulldog you get.
sp100 ='s 29.5oz
bulldog ='s 26oz
Both are 4.2" bbl'd full underlugged revolvers. The sp100 is a 5shot & the police bulldog is a 6-shot. Perhaps the 3.5oz difference is from the extra hole in the cylinder??? But you'd have to also subtract the weight of the adjustable read sight on the ca police bulldog from the sixed sighted sp100.
The bulldog frame is the "large" ca frame. In comparison, a 4.2" bbl'd gp100 with a 6-shot cylinder and an adjustable rear sight weighs 40oz.
Hence sp100 ='s 44spl and the gp100 ='s 44mag.
If ca can do a 44spl with a smaller frame than the sp100 and s&w can do a 44mag with a l-frame. Ruger should have no problem putting out a small framed (sp100 frame) light weight 5-shot 44spl and a 5-shot 44mag with the gp100 frame.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
