Ruger 44spl ?

[murf]

back when lipsey's brought out the 44 special blackhawk, the initial order was two thousand guns. i'm sure the low order quantity had a lot to do with ruger already having brought out the 50th anniversary 357 magnum blackhawk flattop. just bore out the chambers and barrel and "poof", a new gun.

maybe lipsey's would be interested in a gp100 in 44 russian. cas should love that caliber in their new vaqueros, bulldog owners would get more life out of their guns, and maybe ruger could shoehorn that little guy into the lcr.

murf

 

[CraigC]

I doubt 500 units would cover even the R&D phase, let alone casting, production, etc. They'd have to sell a whole lot more than 500 units.

You can always have a custom built.......

That's what I was thinking.

I'd kinda rather see them legitimize the .41Spl and give it some balls.

 

[Drail]

Yes indeed. A properly (even moderately) handloaded .41 Spl. puts a .357 to shame. But it's not readily adaptable to many medium frame platforms. But if chambered in a large heavy frame designed for the .44 it gives you more steel to wrap around that cartridge and more weight to absorb the recoil.

 

[ljnowell]

Ruger doesn't want to deal with all of the stupid handloaders that WOULD destroy the forcing cone with their flamethrower +P light bullet handloads. S&W learned that lesson the hard way and dropped their L frame .44 Spl. revolvers after only a few years. Stuffing a .44 barrel into a medium frame revolver leaves very little room for a decent sized forcing cone. Putting a small caliber into a large frame works fine - but putting a big bore caliber into a frame designed for a .357 opens up a lot of room for abuse. If people would stick to moderate .44 Spl. loads it could be doable - but they won't (cuz MO is better). If I were a manufacturer I wouldn't want to deal with those people either. And Ruger has always been known to overbuild their guns (which is a good thing) until the current craze came for lightweight polymer/alloy pocket pistols. I wouldn't want to warranty those guns either. A huge number of people today no longer believe that a 200 gr. .44 bullet @ 850-900 fps is plenty of power. But it is.

They've brought back the 44 L frame, only now it's a magnum.

 

[Drail]

...and with a completely different barrel attachment system that does away with the thin forcing cone. I much prefer the old barrel attachment setup and if I wanted shoot a .44 Magnum cartridge I most definitely want to do it in an N frame. Most of my S&W revos are N frames - but they're a little but large and heavy for all day carry and I don't see a need for a .44 Magnum in a carry revo. The .44 Spl. is plenty.

 

[ljnowell]

...and with a completely different barrel attachment system that does away with the thin forcing cone. I much prefer the old barrel attachment setup and if I wanted shoot a .44 Magnum cartridge I most definitely want to do it in an N frame. Most of my S&W revos are N frames - but they're a little but large and heavy for all day carry and I don't see a need for a .44 Magnum in a carry revo. The .44 Spl. is plenty.

I agree on the new guns. I have no use for any of the new j,k,l, or N frame guns from S&W.

 

[Drail]

There have been a number of documented failures of the new 2 piece barrels failing on the S&W forum. I'll take the old style S&W barrels any day. A special tool is required to remove and replace the new barrels - and S&W won't sell it to any smiths outside the factory. They can keep it.

 

[ljnowell]

There have been a number of documented failures of the new 2 piece barrels failing on the S&W forum. I'll take the old style S&W barrels any day. A special tool is required to remove and replace the new barrels - and S&W won't sell it to any smiths outside the factory. They can keep it.

I've never been keen on that design. I'm a guy that competes regularly with S&W revolvers but my newest one is a 686-3 and I commonly use my 19-3 PnR 6" for bullseye. I won't touch any of the new stuff.

 

[Eb1]

I don't know, but I wish they'd make another run of the Lipsey Bisley Blackhawk on the medium frame real soon.

 

[diyj98]

I've emailed Ruger in the past asking for a 44 special on the GP100 frame. I'd love one.

 

[Panzerschwein]

Sorry, but the current S&W guns are some of the best ever made. Sure, I don't like the lock hole or some of the new features but as far as accuracy, consistency, and reliability/durability, they are fantastic. The new designs like the M69 Combat Magnum are great guns.

That being said, if Ruger did bring out a 3" GP100 in .44 special, 5-shot, I'd buy it. Make it fixed sights and with the compact wood panel grips.

 

[RealGun]

The thin walled forcing cone that would be present on a GP100 in 44 would be contrary to Ruger's emphasis on strength. They also have to worry about every nimrod who has to use ammo not intended for the gun, which I understand was why S&W dropped the SW696 (cracked forcing cones), which I am wearing at the moment.

 

[CraigC]

A five-shot GP-100 in .44Spl is fully capable of utilizing the 1200fps Keith load so any concern over hot rodding is purely academic.

Fact: there are no known .44Spl loads that would be a problem for the GP.

Fact: there are published "Ruger only" .45Colt loads that will damage a New Vaquero.

 

[Drail]

Yes but how thick of a forcing cone can you get in a GP frame with a .429" bore threaded into it? Ruger has always look at every part and asked - "how heavy does this to need to be to stand up". And then make it 2.5 times stronger than that. The forcing cone is the first thing that enthusiastic handloaders will damage with hot loads. Would you want to warranty that against erosion and cracking knowing that it will face abusive handoading? Blowing it up is a probably remote possibility but damage is not.

 

[Dframe]

A 44 special GP would certainly get my attention! I'm not that much of a Ruger guy but THAT would do it

 

[CraigC]

Yes but how thick of a forcing cone can you get in a GP frame with a .429" bore threaded into it? Ruger has always look at every part and asked - "how heavy does this to need to be to stand up". And then make it 2.5 times stronger than that. The forcing cone is the first thing that enthusiastic handloaders will damage with hot loads. Would you want to warranty that against erosion and cracking knowing that it will face abusive handoading? Blowing it up is a probably remote possibility but damage is not.

If a gunsmith will build it, it is safe.

Ruger has never endorsed, condoned or even recognized handloading with regards to their firearms. Like I already said, if they were so concerned with the use of heavy handloads in their guns, they never would've marketed the .45Colt New Vaquero, which is now in its 11th year.

 

[RealGun]

Fact: there are no known .44Spl loads that would be a problem for the GP.

You mean there are none that would disprove your opinion.

 

[RealGun]

Fact: there are published "Ruger only" .45Colt loads that will damage a New Vaquero.

Not sure how that is pertinent here, but I don't know that there are many sources for the Tier II loads, of which the New Vaquero is capable of routinely firing.

 

[RealGun]

If a gunsmith will build it, it is safe.

I don't think I will bet my life on that opinion or put that plaque on my wall. With all due respect to the gunsmith trade and those with impressive reputations, they cannot control what Bubba will load in the gun.

 

[RealGun]

Ruger has never endorsed, condoned or even recognized handloading with regards to their firearms. Like I already said, if they were so concerned with the use of heavy handloads in their guns, they never would've marketed the .45Colt New Vaquero, which is now in its 11th year.

The New Vaquero Owner's Manual has an Ammunition Disclaimer that denies any responsiblility for the consequences of using "nonstandard" ammunition. The only applicable standard would be SAAMI, which for 45 Colt is limited to 14k psi. The New Vaquero, by way of the convertible cartridge capabailities, is capable of at least 20k.

 

[CraigC]

You mean there are none that would disprove your opinion.

Any and all .44Spl loads that are above SAAMI pressure standards would be safe for a five-shot .44Spl GP-100. Therefore, I know it's difficult for you to follow a train of logic, there are no credible sources for ANY data that would prove an issue.

Not sure how that is pertinent here, but I don't know that there are many sources for the Tier II loads, of which the New Vaquero is capable of routinely firing.

Are you really this dense? Those "Ruger only" loads, which are printed in many handloading manuals and may approach 32,000psi would be dangerous in a New Vaquero. So why would Ruger not produce a .44Spl GP, for fear of the use of handloads that are not readily available, if they are not concerned with heavy handloads that may be used in the New Vaquero, which are readily available? Is this logic too difficult for you to follow?

I don't think I will bet my life on that opinion or put that plaque on my wall. With all due respect to the gunsmith trade and those with impressive reputations, they cannot control what Bubba will load in the gun.

What are you even talking about??? No one can control what idiots will do, period. The capability of idiots is COMPLETELY irrelevant. What is relevant is that professional gunsmiths will convert a GP100 to .44Spl and that those conversions are safe for the 1200fps Keith load. Now, if you know of some established data that produces more pressure than the 26,000psi Keith load, I'm all ears. If you actually have anything meaningful to add to this discussion, I'm all ears. Because this nonsense you're posting comes from obvious ignorance, is entirely argumentative and includes some rather meaningless points.

The New Vaquero Owner's Manual has an Ammunition Disclaimer that denies any responsiblility for the consequences of using "nonstandard" ammunition. The only applicable standard would be SAAMI, which for 45 Colt is limited to 14k psi. The New Vaquero, by way of the convertible cartridge capabailities, is capable of at least 20k.

Ok, now tell me something I don't know and/or argue against a point I actually made.

 

[joneb]

I load a 205gr Penn TCPB at 975 fps with VV N340 in a S&W 696, works pretty good at 432 Ft Lbs from a 3" barrel.

 

[Drail]

I don't see any problem at all with a GP in .44 Spl. being "safe", as far as blowing it up. The problem is forcing cone life (which most owners would assume is warrantied by the manufacturer). It's the same problem S&W faced when guys were cracking forcing cones in K frames with very fast light bullet loads. None of those guns blew up either - but the barrels were trashed. S&W's solution was to design a heavier frame to allow for more barrel shank and forcing cone.

 

[RealGun]

CraigC - Any and all .44Spl loads that are above SAAMI pressure standards would be safe for a five-shot .44Spl GP-100

That is your own dogma. Beyond that, stop reminding me why your arrogance and disrespect for others belongs on an ignore list. Looking past the aggression, sometimes what you offer is actually useful.

 

[CraigC]

The problem is forcing cone life (which most owners would assume is warrantied by the manufacturer).

If the gunsmith building them says they're good for the Keith load, it shouldn't be an issue. Seems to me the GP has a larger barrel shank than the L-frame. No one, EVER, said the 696 was safe for the Keith load.

Any and all .44Spl loads that are above SAAMI pressure standards would be safe for a five-shot .44Spl GP-100

I never said that and I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth. I said there are no well known or widely accepted loads in circulation that would be a danger to a .44Spl GP100. Which is NOT true for the .45Colt New Vaquero.

Beyond that, stop reminding me why your arrogance and disrespect for others belongs on an ignore list.

If that is YOUR impression, it is because I have little patience when those who don't know argue with those who do. And it's not my fault your logic is broken.