5-shot .44Spl in a Ruger GP frame.
- Thread starter Pond James Pond
- Start date
Comparison - Ruger GP100, S&W M629 & M69
Here's a link with measurements comparing the GP100, 629 & 69.
http://rugerforum.net/gunsmithing/99853-measurements-s-w-629-69-gp100.html
For me the real value of the .44 Special is in the smaller framed guns. I currently have a FA97, and a S&W 396 (Ti Mtn Lite). After acquiring the new M69 I sold my 696 (still have the 396 & FA).
Can't speak highly enough about the new M69s, mine would be the last to go if it ever got to that.
Paul
Here's a link with measurements comparing the GP100, 629 & 69.
http://rugerforum.net/gunsmithing/99853-measurements-s-w-629-69-gp100.html
For me the real value of the .44 Special is in the smaller framed guns. I currently have a FA97, and a S&W 396 (Ti Mtn Lite). After acquiring the new M69 I sold my 696 (still have the 396 & FA).
Can't speak highly enough about the new M69s, mine would be the last to go if it ever got to that.
Paul
That in itself is not a proof. It is hard to feel confident in what one has learned, when there is always someone to come along and dismiss it all as bunk. One guy will state some common belief and it goes unchallenged, while on another occasion the most sacred axiom is abused like only this person knows anything.
Last edited:
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by Real Gun:
The basics of handgun wounding effectiveness--on what causes immediate physical disablement--are described in FBI Special Agent Urey Patrick's Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness. "Greater wallop" is certainly not one of them. Again, it boils down to what the projectile hits and destroys inside the body. That's partly a matter of penetration and partly a matter of shot placement.
Penetration and wound channel results for different handgun loads are publicly available from manufacturers and in numerous articles. Premium grade loads with bonded JHP bullets are best, and top 9MM loads are about as good as any.
Again, "shot placement", in the context of defensive shooting, is not a matter of marksmanship per se. It's largely a matter of luck, and it is dependent upon the ability of the shooter to score hits rapidly with combat accuracy, since one cannot be at all sure what one will hit within the body of a moving attacker with only one shot. The equipment factors that affect it are described in the two links I provided earlier. And, of course, it can be observed at any good defensive pistol shooting class.
It is important to not regard the body as a monolithic entity, and to not confuse the bang at the muzzle and the push on the hand with wounding effectiveness.
Some time back, when I was looking for a defensive handgun, I looked high and low for a good used S&W five shot .44 Special revolver. My reasons were three-fold: my belief in the concept of "knockdown power"; the lower sound pressure level, important for indoor use; and my assumption that "over penetration" might be mitigated.
I had availed myself of no defensive handgun shooting training, and I had done no in-depth research on handgun wounding effectiveness whatsoever. Thus, I had no no real appreciation of the importance of low recoil for higher rapidity of fire while maintaining combat accuracy, or for the importance of higher capacity.
I could not find one, and I selected a high end .45 Auto on an Officer's frame with a barrel a little shorter than that of a Commander. Same though process, plus the legend of the Moros. Great gun, but subsequent training, study, extensive analysis of capacity considerations by JohnKSa and others on our staff, and the advice of a number of experts led me to set it aside in favor of a 9MM. And 9MM ammunition is better now than it was then.
I retired my .38 J-frame from primary carry years ago, but it finds great use in a left hand vest pocket holster, where it sits for backup and for great accessibility should a surprise visitor in the form of a violent criminal actor suddenly appear in the passenger seat. That happens to people from time to time.
True, nor was it intented to be.
The basics of handgun wounding effectiveness--on what causes immediate physical disablement--are described in FBI Special Agent Urey Patrick's Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness. "Greater wallop" is certainly not one of them. Again, it boils down to what the projectile hits and destroys inside the body. That's partly a matter of penetration and partly a matter of shot placement.
Penetration and wound channel results for different handgun loads are publicly available from manufacturers and in numerous articles. Premium grade loads with bonded JHP bullets are best, and top 9MM loads are about as good as any.
Again, "shot placement", in the context of defensive shooting, is not a matter of marksmanship per se. It's largely a matter of luck, and it is dependent upon the ability of the shooter to score hits rapidly with combat accuracy, since one cannot be at all sure what one will hit within the body of a moving attacker with only one shot. The equipment factors that affect it are described in the two links I provided earlier. And, of course, it can be observed at any good defensive pistol shooting class.
It is important to not regard the body as a monolithic entity, and to not confuse the bang at the muzzle and the push on the hand with wounding effectiveness.
Some time back, when I was looking for a defensive handgun, I looked high and low for a good used S&W five shot .44 Special revolver. My reasons were three-fold: my belief in the concept of "knockdown power"; the lower sound pressure level, important for indoor use; and my assumption that "over penetration" might be mitigated.
I had availed myself of no defensive handgun shooting training, and I had done no in-depth research on handgun wounding effectiveness whatsoever. Thus, I had no no real appreciation of the importance of low recoil for higher rapidity of fire while maintaining combat accuracy, or for the importance of higher capacity.
I could not find one, and I selected a high end .45 Auto on an Officer's frame with a barrel a little shorter than that of a Commander. Same though process, plus the legend of the Moros. Great gun, but subsequent training, study, extensive analysis of capacity considerations by JohnKSa and others on our staff, and the advice of a number of experts led me to set it aside in favor of a 9MM. And 9MM ammunition is better now than it was then.
I retired my .38 J-frame from primary carry years ago, but it finds great use in a left hand vest pocket holster, where it sits for backup and for great accessibility should a surprise visitor in the form of a violent criminal actor suddenly appear in the passenger seat. That happens to people from time to time.
Or when the facts do not support what one has learned. I hear you.
INTERESTING reads... Atrocious spelling and grammar.
I DID carry a 5-shot .44 Spl. Taurus M431 and 6 speed-loaders as a defensive piece for a number of years. Being so armed, one must husband their shots, but I never felt inferior to any threat on the street that I was aware of.
I started out carrying the 7.5/Unique/240 SWC load, but decided that it was a bit much, in terms of recoil and sight picture recovery. I went to the 215 gr. "button head" SWC over the same charge, and sight recovery was much better. Ballistically, I doubt that I lost anything.
It has been asked if the .44 Spl. is roughly equivalent to the .45 ACP. I'D say they're pretty close, at least in terms of their original factory loads. The .45 ACP has a slight edge in momentum and bore area, which is offset somewhat by its FMJ configuration. If one shot from a .44 Spl. won't put an attacker out of the fight, the .45 ACP isn't likely to, either. If there is a barrier between the defender and the attacker, I would expect the .45 to have a slight edge, in that FMJs tend to penetrate things a little better than other shapes, but how often such things happen in gunfights is not something I know with any certainty.
Last edited:
jackmoser65
New member
What I "learned" long ago is that 9mm proponents will go to great lengths to prove (to themselves and others) that their choice is "just as good".
What I also "learned" long ago through actual experience with bullets on live flesh, is that size matters. Diameter matters and mass matters. Sometimes it matters a little, sometimes it matters a lot. All in all, greater diameter and mass are FAR more reliable than relying solely on smaller caliber, higher velocity and expanding bullets. A 9mm or .357 hits harder and is more effective than a .32. A .40 hits harder and is more effective than a 9mm. A .44 hits harder and is more effective than a .40. A .475 hits harder and is more effective than a .45 and a .500 hits harder and is more effective than anything. We KNOW this from putting bullets into flesh. Not from reading or postulating or theorizing about it. With that said, sometimes I carry a .38Spl, sometimes a 9mm. However, unlike some here, I actually recognize and accept the fact that I'm compromising effectiveness for easier concealed carry. It's always been obvious that 'some' can never recognize or accept the compromises they make. They go to great lengths to convince themselves that they have made no compromise at all and get quite defensive when challenged.
The difference between choosing a hunting arm and a defensive arm, is that the likelihood you'll need to put a bullet into a living creature is exponentially greater when hunting. Such compromises as outlined above are not ethical, responsible or advisable.
The government is akin to an irresponsible trust fund baby. Why do we care how they justify their decisions, with regards to the 9mm or anything else?
All that off topic crap aside, a .44 Special GP100 would be a great idea. I've often toyed with having one built. Or a 10mm or .41 Special.
What I also "learned" long ago through actual experience with bullets on live flesh, is that size matters. Diameter matters and mass matters. Sometimes it matters a little, sometimes it matters a lot. All in all, greater diameter and mass are FAR more reliable than relying solely on smaller caliber, higher velocity and expanding bullets. A 9mm or .357 hits harder and is more effective than a .32. A .40 hits harder and is more effective than a 9mm. A .44 hits harder and is more effective than a .40. A .475 hits harder and is more effective than a .45 and a .500 hits harder and is more effective than anything. We KNOW this from putting bullets into flesh. Not from reading or postulating or theorizing about it. With that said, sometimes I carry a .38Spl, sometimes a 9mm. However, unlike some here, I actually recognize and accept the fact that I'm compromising effectiveness for easier concealed carry. It's always been obvious that 'some' can never recognize or accept the compromises they make. They go to great lengths to convince themselves that they have made no compromise at all and get quite defensive when challenged.
The difference between choosing a hunting arm and a defensive arm, is that the likelihood you'll need to put a bullet into a living creature is exponentially greater when hunting. Such compromises as outlined above are not ethical, responsible or advisable.
The government is akin to an irresponsible trust fund baby. Why do we care how they justify their decisions, with regards to the 9mm or anything else?
All that off topic crap aside, a .44 Special GP100 would be a great idea. I've often toyed with having one built. Or a 10mm or .41 Special.
WELL SAID, JACKMOSER65 ! I find nothing with which to disagree in your post, including the thing about the .41 Special or 10mm revolver. JUST to make matter worse, a workman brought a revolver to me (he forewarned me, bless his heart) to examine and about which to give him more information.
It was Colt 1877 in .41 Colt. The bore was clean and shiny, with well-defined rifling, and clean chambers. It had too much endshake to safely shoot, and and the screws which bolt the grip to the frame were loose. Best estimate of date of Manufacture was mid 1897.
What REALLY impressed me was how small the frame was, for the caliber in which it was chambered. I didn't have another SA revolver with which to compare it, but it was substantially smaller than my Police Service Six. The .41 Colt doesn't usually top the "Manstopper" list many places, but a 202 gr. hollow base projectile at 730 f/s, or a 186 gr. HBRN at 790 f/s isn't something to take lightly.
It makes me wonder if a frame that is intermediate between a J- and K- S&W in size, and chambered in .40 S&W or 10mm might work, also. Just saying.
It was Colt 1877 in .41 Colt. The bore was clean and shiny, with well-defined rifling, and clean chambers. It had too much endshake to safely shoot, and and the screws which bolt the grip to the frame were loose. Best estimate of date of Manufacture was mid 1897.
What REALLY impressed me was how small the frame was, for the caliber in which it was chambered. I didn't have another SA revolver with which to compare it, but it was substantially smaller than my Police Service Six. The .41 Colt doesn't usually top the "Manstopper" list many places, but a 202 gr. hollow base projectile at 730 f/s, or a 186 gr. HBRN at 790 f/s isn't something to take lightly.
It makes me wonder if a frame that is intermediate between a J- and K- S&W in size, and chambered in .40 S&W or 10mm might work, also. Just saying.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by jackmoser6:
And regardless of diameter and mass, you do have to hit something vital, and it is easier to ensure doing so with more shots fired faster.
And that's what you need to do to have a reasonable probability of hitting something vital inside a twisting and turning, opaque, three dimensional attacker moving at five meters per second.
That was the first thing that hit me in making me realize that my .45 had not really been the best choice. The second was seeing some penetration test comparisons that I had not looked at before buying the gun. The third was learning something about the reality of wounding effectiveness.
I now realize what Massad Ayoob recommends that his students buy, read, and keep close at hand a copy of Gray's Anatomy.
If you do not hit something vital inside that attacker, it will do no good to hit it "harder".
Have you also "leaned" that current premium 9MM defensive and service ammunition is vastly improved over what they had "long ago"? Well, it is.
Can't argue with that.
Dunno about "far" . Tests show that today's top of the line 9MM bullets penetrate and expand very reliably in ballistic gelatin, after having penetrated barriers and fabric, with approximately the same effect as .40 and .45.
And regardless of diameter and mass, you do have to hit something vital, and it is easier to ensure doing so with more shots fired faster.
Although many of us may have once thought otherwise, hitting "harder" is just a means to achieve penetration, and nothing more. And when one is shooting at a human target, there is only so much penetration that one can use.
Urey Patrick and all of the others who have analyzed the subject of wounding effectiveness over the decades have not been theorizing.
There are two other big differences: more power is generally useful in hunting large game, but you can use only so much in self defense against a human; and unless you are up against bears, cats, or some boars, the consequence to you of a miss or poorly placed shot are a whole lot less severe.
I don't. I want the best answer.
Get out to a defensive class and listen to the magic of the music on the steel plates in El Presidente drills. The guys and the gals with the 9MM full size pistols will almost always make more hits faster than those with the .40 or .45 pistols, or .41 or .44 revolvers.
And that's what you need to do to have a reasonable probability of hitting something vital inside a twisting and turning, opaque, three dimensional attacker moving at five meters per second.
That was the first thing that hit me in making me realize that my .45 had not really been the best choice. The second was seeing some penetration test comparisons that I had not looked at before buying the gun. The third was learning something about the reality of wounding effectiveness.
I now realize what Massad Ayoob recommends that his students buy, read, and keep close at hand a copy of Gray's Anatomy.
If you do not hit something vital inside that attacker, it will do no good to hit it "harder".
Cold Steel
New member
Lots of room for growth in the .44 Spc. As it is now, its kind of a weak sister to the .45 ACP. On the other hand, the .44 Mag is a bit too stiff for self defense. It might be nice for an in-between round similar to what the .41 was supposed to be. If you could get a .44 185-grain moving out the barrel at, say, 1150-1250 fps, five rounds, the gun might actually be worth lugging around!
jackmoser65
New member
Have you learned that the same technology is also applied to larger cartridges???
Far. Diameter and mass don't fail. Modern JHP's can and do fail.
Shot placement is a given.
When you go from shooting critters with .44's and .45's to shooting them with .475's and .500's, it is very clear what "hitting harder" means and it has nothing to do with penetration.
True but the likelihood of encountering those consequences is infinitely more likely in hunting than self defense.
Good. Because I could care less the reasoning the FBI uses to justify their decisions. I would question its validity at every turn.
Of course. Smaller is always easier/faster to hit with. Smaller also means your odds of needing more hits is also higher. There are no free lunches.
Again, shot placement is a given. If you choose the 9mm because it holds more, is easier to shoot faster or has less recoil, that is fine. No reason to try so hard to convince yourself and others that it's "just as good". I don't. I know when I strap on a .38 or 9mm that I'm making compromises in effectiveness for the sake of concealability.
I am not letting go of the concept of "wallop", which I believe is more technically labeled energy transfer.
I don't carry 9mm because it is too loud as a supersonic round. I carry mostly either 32 H&R in the summer of 44 Special in colder weather with more concealment possibilities. My walkabout guns are 41 Magnum, 44 Magnum, and 45 Colt (Redhawk loads). Going to that much trouble, I can also wear hearing protection/enhancement on those occasions. When not in a revolver frame of mind, I could always go back to my Kimber Compact 45. My best concealment with some serious power is my Kahr PM40 in a Sneaky Pete or ankle holster.
I don't carry 9mm because it is too loud as a supersonic round. I carry mostly either 32 H&R in the summer of 44 Special in colder weather with more concealment possibilities. My walkabout guns are 41 Magnum, 44 Magnum, and 45 Colt (Redhawk loads). Going to that much trouble, I can also wear hearing protection/enhancement on those occasions. When not in a revolver frame of mind, I could always go back to my Kimber Compact 45. My best concealment with some serious power is my Kahr PM40 in a Sneaky Pete or ankle holster.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by Real Gun:
I think it comes from confusing the effect on the hand and the blast at the muzzle with bullet effectiveness.
It doesn't mean much if anything in handgun calibers.
From Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness:
Many of us once had the same idea.
I think it comes from confusing the effect on the hand and the blast at the muzzle with bullet effectiveness.
It doesn't mean much if anything in handgun calibers.
From Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness:
There is merit to that point, particularly indoors.
jackmoser65
New member
Penetration without tissue disruption is nearly useless.
The greater effect larger bullets have on soft targets is undeniable, regardless of what any book says.
You like books, here's a better one.
http://amzn.com/0964357712
The greater effect larger bullets have on soft targets is undeniable, regardless of what any book says.
You like books, here's a better one.
http://amzn.com/0964357712
My friend and I took his teenaged son shooting with us for the first time recently. My friend adores my Rossi 720 and was shooting it that day. His son had been shooting 22's and 32's, but when he saw his dad shooting the 44, he wanted to try it too (of course). He was very impressed with the size of the rounds. "Wow, you could hurt someone just by throwing these at them!"
I love 44 special. The recoil is modest and it makes big holes in things. My FiL has an excellent GP100 in 357. It would be loads of fun in 44 special!
I love 44 special. The recoil is modest and it makes big holes in things. My FiL has an excellent GP100 in 357. It would be loads of fun in 44 special!
I didn't agree with the Late Mr. Keith on everything, but I think he was right about his hand-load vs. a .357 Mag, especially the less emphatic "new" (non-original) loadings.
And was that Elmer Keiths' handload, or Skeeter Skelton's? Either way, it's right freakin' PEPPY!
I'd like a GP-100 in .44 Spl., no question. But, to be honest, I'D be happy with a SLIGHTLY beefed-up Charter Arms Bulldog with a SHROUDED 3" or 3.5" barrel and some adjustable sights. At 21 oz., the Bulldog is a handful, even with the less emphatic factory fodder. A 2.5" shrouded barrel puts a little weight, a little further out on the muzzle to combat muzzle whip and recoil, but not enough weight and not far enough out front. This means backing off the 7.5/Unique/250 hand load, with attendant loss of penetration/ stopping power/"whallop"/whatever.
Buying a 4.2" Target Bulldog and bobbing the the barrel to 3" or 3.5" probably puts the cost of the piece (for the mere mortal shooter) at or near $700. Might be cheaper to find a used Taurus 431 and put adjustable sights on it. BUT, something tells me that Charter Arms could probably turn out a 3" - 3.5" Target Bulldog (stainless or otherwise) for a price between the Target Bulldog's and that of the Bulldog "On Duty" model. Just a thought.
And was that Elmer Keiths' handload, or Skeeter Skelton's? Either way, it's right freakin' PEPPY!
I'd like a GP-100 in .44 Spl., no question. But, to be honest, I'D be happy with a SLIGHTLY beefed-up Charter Arms Bulldog with a SHROUDED 3" or 3.5" barrel and some adjustable sights. At 21 oz., the Bulldog is a handful, even with the less emphatic factory fodder. A 2.5" shrouded barrel puts a little weight, a little further out on the muzzle to combat muzzle whip and recoil, but not enough weight and not far enough out front. This means backing off the 7.5/Unique/250 hand load, with attendant loss of penetration/ stopping power/"whallop"/whatever.
Buying a 4.2" Target Bulldog and bobbing the the barrel to 3" or 3.5" probably puts the cost of the piece (for the mere mortal shooter) at or near $700. Might be cheaper to find a used Taurus 431 and put adjustable sights on it. BUT, something tells me that Charter Arms could probably turn out a 3" - 3.5" Target Bulldog (stainless or otherwise) for a price between the Target Bulldog's and that of the Bulldog "On Duty" model. Just a thought.