You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
5-shot .44Spl in a Ruger GP frame.
- Thread starter Pond James Pond
- Start date
Deaf Smith
New member
You can get the GP100 converted to 10mm, as a 6 shooter, by a gunsmith in Texas.
I'd go that route before I shucked out cash for a 5 shot .44.
Deaf
I'd go that route before I shucked out cash for a 5 shot .44.
Deaf
Pond James Pond
New member
You can get the GP100 converted to 10mm, as a 6 shooter, by a gunsmith in Texas.
Surely, you can just go and buy a 6-shot 41Mag and save on any conversion costs...
I had a Taurus 445 for quite a while.It worked.Nice package.I think that for many situations a small 5 shot 44 spl snub is a great idea.
I gave it to a woman in Wyoming who travels alone a lot.
Yes,it would be nice to have a Ruger option..However.
In a small 5 shot revolver,we aren't talking Elmer Keith 44 spl loads.
Would it be fair to say the 44 spl would be roughly equivalent to 45 ACP?
So,then we get to the compact 45 semi-auto question.....Ah,but now the prevailing wisdom is that the 9mm is generally as effective ,for creating a wound channel and ending a threat,as the 45.(I know,we can argue,but its the trend today)
So,then the question is,What about the slim,light reliable S+W Shield or Glock 43 in 9mm?
You pull the trigger and they go bang,just like a DA revolver.8 shots in the Shield.
Not arguing which is better.I'm saying that's the competition for the market .
My guess,for the intended purpose,maybe 80% of folks would go with the light,compact 9mm.
No question,a 5 shot 44 spl is a great personal defense choice.
I think the market,right now,is something like the Shield
I gave it to a woman in Wyoming who travels alone a lot.
Yes,it would be nice to have a Ruger option..However.
In a small 5 shot revolver,we aren't talking Elmer Keith 44 spl loads.
Would it be fair to say the 44 spl would be roughly equivalent to 45 ACP?
So,then we get to the compact 45 semi-auto question.....Ah,but now the prevailing wisdom is that the 9mm is generally as effective ,for creating a wound channel and ending a threat,as the 45.(I know,we can argue,but its the trend today)
So,then the question is,What about the slim,light reliable S+W Shield or Glock 43 in 9mm?
You pull the trigger and they go bang,just like a DA revolver.8 shots in the Shield.
Not arguing which is better.I'm saying that's the competition for the market .
My guess,for the intended purpose,maybe 80% of folks would go with the light,compact 9mm.
No question,a 5 shot 44 spl is a great personal defense choice.
I think the market,right now,is something like the Shield
g.willikers
New member
Betcha' the choice of a .44 is about the nostalgia of that round as much as anything else.
There's just something special about saying "Mine's a .44."
There's just something special about saying "Mine's a .44."
Ah,but now the prevailing wisdom is that the 9mm is generally as effective ,for creating a wound channel and ending a threat,as the 45.(I know,we can argue,but its the trend today)
I think what is really happening is that mode of dress and comfort have caused a younger generation of gun people to rationalize why their little gun is good enough. At least we're armed, and that's a good thing, as long as we don't have a false sense of security and take risks in bad situations and lax situational awareness.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by Real Gun:
One can acquire a "little gun" chambered in 9MM, but there are larger ones. In a larger gun, I would choose a 9MM over a .45, for two reasons: capacity and recoil.
Recoil makes it more difficult to make multiple effective hits rapidly. And the blast at the muzzle does not translate into greater "stopping power".
The .45, like the .44 cap and ball revolvers that led to the .44 Russian and .44 Special, was a product of cavalry requirement in an era before modern bonded jacketed hollow point bullets existed.
I don't think so.I think what is really happening [regarding " the prevailing wisdom is that the 9mm is generally as effective ,for creating a wound channel and ending a threat,as the 45"] is that mode of dress and comfort have caused a younger generation of gun people to rationalize why their little gun is good enough.
One can acquire a "little gun" chambered in 9MM, but there are larger ones. In a larger gun, I would choose a 9MM over a .45, for two reasons: capacity and recoil.
Recoil makes it more difficult to make multiple effective hits rapidly. And the blast at the muzzle does not translate into greater "stopping power".
The .45, like the .44 cap and ball revolvers that led to the .44 Russian and .44 Special, was a product of cavalry requirement in an era before modern bonded jacketed hollow point bullets existed.
bamaranger
New member
too heavy
I believe my .44 Mtn Gun goes 36 oz, empty. (I think) That's not bad, and a tad lighter (not sure by how much) than my M28. Comparitivly, the 4" L-frame .357 that I carried daily for about 7 years, went 39 oz and was indeed too heavy.... (for a 4 " -.357) especially on a duty belt.
Not sure if it is possible, but I'd say an ideal .44 spl 5 shot could go sub 35 oz 0z.......as a 5 shot on a K type frame, it might go 30-32 oZ, is that realistic...I dunno?
As far as lighter goes, I shot a Charter Bulldog out of time with relatively moderate loads in short order.......as an example of a gun that was too light for much shooting.
I'm pulling these weights out of the air from memory and speculation, so don't flame me to hard.
BTW, what does the new 5-shot .44 mag, the model 69, weigh? Does it come in less than a Mtn Gun???
I believe my .44 Mtn Gun goes 36 oz, empty. (I think) That's not bad, and a tad lighter (not sure by how much) than my M28. Comparitivly, the 4" L-frame .357 that I carried daily for about 7 years, went 39 oz and was indeed too heavy.... (for a 4 " -.357) especially on a duty belt.
Not sure if it is possible, but I'd say an ideal .44 spl 5 shot could go sub 35 oz 0z.......as a 5 shot on a K type frame, it might go 30-32 oZ, is that realistic...I dunno?
As far as lighter goes, I shot a Charter Bulldog out of time with relatively moderate loads in short order.......as an example of a gun that was too light for much shooting.
I'm pulling these weights out of the air from memory and speculation, so don't flame me to hard.
BTW, what does the new 5-shot .44 mag, the model 69, weigh? Does it come in less than a Mtn Gun???
BTW, what does the new 5-shot .44 mag, the model 69, weigh?
37.2 oz.
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...57767_757751_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y
Ah,but now the prevailing wisdom is that the 9mm is generally as effective ,for creating a wound channel and ending a threat,as the 45.(I know,we can argue,but its the trend today)
I think we'll do better to confine the scope to revolver cartridges.
OK,on sticking to revolver cartridges.
I brought the 9mm/45 discussion up because that is where the SD discussion on cartridges has been taking place.
The 44 SPL in a 5 shot carry gun approximates 45 ACP performance(big bore,180 to 240 gr bullets,800 to max 1000 fps)
I suppose the +P 38 spl's approach the 9mm.The 357 certainly exceeds 9 mm.
My emotional bias is certainly toward the .44 spl (and 45 acp).It feels right.
But,real world SD effectiveness,is a 5 shot moderate size/weight 44 spl more effective than a K frame S+W 357? or a Model 10 38 spl loaded +P.?
I don't know.I'm asking the question.
I brought the 9mm/45 discussion up because that is where the SD discussion on cartridges has been taking place.
The 44 SPL in a 5 shot carry gun approximates 45 ACP performance(big bore,180 to 240 gr bullets,800 to max 1000 fps)
I suppose the +P 38 spl's approach the 9mm.The 357 certainly exceeds 9 mm.
My emotional bias is certainly toward the .44 spl (and 45 acp).It feels right.
But,real world SD effectiveness,is a 5 shot moderate size/weight 44 spl more effective than a K frame S+W 357? or a Model 10 38 spl loaded +P.?
I don't know.I'm asking the question.
<snip> My emotional bias is certainly toward the .44 spl (and 45 acp).It feels right.
But,real world SD effectiveness,is a 5 shot moderate size/weight 44 spl more effective than a K frame S+W 357? or a Model 10 38 spl loaded +P.?
I don't know.I'm asking the question.
The 44 Special being subsonic is a big advantage over 357. All I can say about 44 vs 38 +p is that big, fat, slow bullets should have the greater wallop in my estimation.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by Real Gun:
Wounding effectiveness, or the physical effects of defensive handgun rounds, are a function of what the projectile hits and destroys inside the body (and "what" is best if it is plural).
Those things are a largely a function of luck, since an attacker is opaque, three dimensional, and moving; of the number of hits; of penetration; and to a lesser extent, of wound channel diameter.
True. That advantage manifests itself primarily in a less powerful sound pressure wave, which will cause less permanent injury to people in a house.The 44 Special being subsonic is a big advantage over 357.
"Greater wallop" would provide no meaningful advantage in a defensive situation.All I can say about 44 vs 38 +p is that big, fat, slow bullets should have the greater wallop in my estimation.
Wounding effectiveness, or the physical effects of defensive handgun rounds, are a function of what the projectile hits and destroys inside the body (and "what" is best if it is plural).
Those things are a largely a function of luck, since an attacker is opaque, three dimensional, and moving; of the number of hits; of penetration; and to a lesser extent, of wound channel diameter.
Wheelie_Fan
New member
I would have to agree with a couple of posts here and say that, if looking for a .44 Spec. (or Mag).... take a look at the 5-shot Model 69. I've had mine for about a year now and have never regretted making the purchase.
Looks great, feels right, shoots like a dream with .44 Spec. yet can handle the Mag without feeling like it's too light.
It's really quite a nice revolver.
Looks great, feels right, shoots like a dream with .44 Spec. yet can handle the Mag without feeling like it's too light.
It's really quite a nice revolver.
"Greater wallop" would provide no meaningful advantage in a defensive situation.
I think that pronouncement is hard to defend, especially in light of our choices for hunting big critters.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by Real Gun:
"Big critters" differ markedly from human bein s when it comes to what it takes to penetrate to vital organs. One more time, the .45 (Colt and ACP) came about when the need was to shoot the horse of the opposing cavalryman.
I'm sure we have all had, at one time, the impression that a big-bore handgun would be more effective in terms of wounding humans than would something that expands from a diameter of .357 inches and has adequate penetration. After all, they kick harder (though that kick isn't enough to do anything); they blow men out of saloons in screen fiction; and that make bigger holes, though not much bigger, when one considers the size of the target.
None of those things really mean much if anything, and the greater recoil slows the second and subsequent shots, which if they are needed, will be needed quickly.
But the myth persists. Heck, before I leaned some objective facts, I bought a .45 ACP for self defense, and I felt much better armed.
And that was just a little over five years ago.
I learned shortly afterward that it wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.
Two good reads:
http://www.imakenews.com/valhalla/e_article002168437.cfm?x=bk1b43S%2Cbj7QPlVl%2Cw
http://looserounds.com/2014/09/21/fbi-9mm-justification-fbi-training-division/
Easy to defend, very well understood, and accepted by those who are knowledgeable.I think that pronouncement [("Greater wallop" would provide no meaningful advantage in a defensive situation)] is hard to defend, especially in light of our choices for hunting big critters.
"Big critters" differ markedly from human bein s when it comes to what it takes to penetrate to vital organs. One more time, the .45 (Colt and ACP) came about when the need was to shoot the horse of the opposing cavalryman.
I'm sure we have all had, at one time, the impression that a big-bore handgun would be more effective in terms of wounding humans than would something that expands from a diameter of .357 inches and has adequate penetration. After all, they kick harder (though that kick isn't enough to do anything); they blow men out of saloons in screen fiction; and that make bigger holes, though not much bigger, when one considers the size of the target.
None of those things really mean much if anything, and the greater recoil slows the second and subsequent shots, which if they are needed, will be needed quickly.
But the myth persists. Heck, before I leaned some objective facts, I bought a .45 ACP for self defense, and I felt much better armed.
And that was just a little over five years ago.
I learned shortly afterward that it wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.
Two good reads:
http://www.imakenews.com/valhalla/e_article002168437.cfm?x=bk1b43S%2Cbj7QPlVl%2Cw
http://looserounds.com/2014/09/21/fbi-9mm-justification-fbi-training-division/