ruger blackhawk, 44 special

So Is the .44 Special the only mid-size frame gun Ruger has made since the 50's that they call Blackhawk?
Click to expand...

No, all the Old Model .357 BHs are built on the medium frame. This includes the flattops starting in '55 to the Old Model with 'ears' up until around '72. All the New Model BHs are on the large frame ..... ready for this ... except for the .44Spec flattop BH, Lispey's special run of .45 flattop convertibles, and the 50th .357 flattop. This is great because Ruger had planned in '55 to introduce the .44Spec and .45 Colt on the medium frame after the .357 was introduced. This was scrapped with the introduction of the large frame .44Mag in '56 and the SBH (same as a large frame BH with bigger grip) in '59. Who needs a .44Spec or .45 Colt now that we have the .44Mag? Ruger said.... Well many still liked the .44Spec and .45 Colt.... That is why you hear/heard of many having their Old Model .357s re-bored to .44Spec, so they could have the .44Spec on the medium frame. Great day to be alive now as we have all three calibers on the medium frame .357, .44Spec, and .45 Colt (and .45ACP). :D . Wahoo!

As a side note the New Vaquero is also on the medium frame. Available calibers are .357, .44Spec, and .45 Colt. The original Vaquero (same as a large frame BH) was also available in .44Mag and I think several other addition calibers as well. Not as 'up' on them, other than I have an original Vaquero in .45 Colt.
 
Last edited:
Where are all these .44Spl's that have been battered to pieces? Surely, after 80yrs of battering, they should be practically littering the ground.
Click to expand...
No, silly...they are in the used handgun display in gun shops. Look for the ones that have excessive end shake, flame cutting, and battered notches in the cylinder. Also, check for slight bulges in the cylinder, ...or wait a few years and look at yours. Or, you could wait a few years and look at my .44 Special; mine will likely have a lot more rounds through it, but it is likely to still be in good shape. But, you go right ahead and shoot the loads you want though yours, but if you ever decide to sell it, I do not want it no matter what the price. I will look for one that was only fired with factory ammo or SAAMI level hand loads.
 
Batter up!

Where are all these .44Spl's that have been battered to pieces? Surely, after 80yrs of battering, they should be practically littering the ground.
Click to expand...

Please note that the people who loaded their .44 Special and .45 Colt revolvers to 30,000-32,000 psi shot them relatively little with those loads. Load development...accuracy testing and zeroing...and when they had to take a shot at a large animal. They didn't burn up 10,000 rounds a year, and they didn't use that ammunition for plinking. It was strictly for business, and the use of it was need-based. After the initial workup and testing...the guns probably didn't see more than 50 rounds in a year...if that much.

I've seen .45 Colt Blackhawk chambers bulged to the point of having to remove the cylinders and beat the cases out with a dowel rod because the owners felt like they had to shoot "Ruger Only" ammunition every time they pulled the trigger.

As the man said: "All things in moderation."
 
You guys have an interesting conversation going on and I'm going to stay out of it for the most part because I've little to no experience with the medium frame Rugers. I'm the sort which would rather buy the bigger gun and load down vs buy a smaller gun and load up. But that's all academic.

Can someone post a picture of a Medum frame Ruger next to a Large frame Ruger, so we can see what you're talking about?

Also, how much do the medium frames weigh as compared to a large frame?

Carry on.
 
Also, how much do the medium frames weigh as compared to a large frame?
Click to expand...
Well now .... that depends :) . My .45 Colt Large frame blackhawk is lighter than my flattops medium frame .45 Colt BHs.... This is because Ruger put a steel grip frame and steel ejector housing on the flattops whereas the large frame revolver has aluminum grip frame and ejector housing.... So depends on what parts you add/subtract from the revolvers. Obviously the 'size' is different.

Here is a good picture of the large vs. medium frame differences :

Original Vaquero vs New Vaquero

Cylinder difference

Same as BH frame size so comparison is valid even though these are Vaqueros.
 
I have to go to a LGS and pick one up and handle it. It has to be different in real life, I can't see much difference at all in the size from pictures.
 
All I can say is we need more .44 spl wheel guns. I think Charter Arms is making a killing with their DA .44. If Ruger or S&W made a good small packable DA .44 spl they would sell really well. And if they made one in .45 Colt I could die a happy man.
 
I was lucky enough to have one of the original Blackhawk, fluted cylinder .44 Magnums. It's barrel was a half-inch or so longer than the end of ejector rod. It had an aluminum grip frame that was smaller than the latter .44 Magnum Super Blackhawk. It was a real hand killer. One had to put a lot of pressure on the grip with the small fingers to keep the little beast from rolling back into the web of the shooting hand. Now, before someone tells me that single actions are supposed to do that (roll into the web of the hand), allowing it to do that under recoil was a painful experience with those 90 degree angles colliding with the bones in one's thumb and hand.
After that gun burned up in a fire, I replaced it with .44 Magnum Super Blackhawk (still three-screws), and found that full-house loads were significantly more comfortable to shoot in that latter model.
 
Since I have both the 50th .44 Mag Ruger and the .44 Special Flattop, I have reasons for loading them as I do. The .44 Magnum was chosen for it sleek, compact, and lightweight handling with a 6.5 " barrel, which is a great length, and one that Ruger hasn't offered in awhile on a .44 mag. Of course, it is desinged to handle full .44 Mag loads. The Flattop .44 Special is on a slightly smaller frame and cylinder, and is scaled more for the .44 Special with lower pressure loads. I DO load it up with the previously mentioned "Skeeter" loads with a 250 grainer @900 -950fps. I feel this is enough for defense, a good bit better than your basic .45 ACP loadings, but the gun isn't designed for the Keith .44 Special heavy loads, in my opinion, due to the lighter and less beefy frame. It is NOT an "old" New Model Blackhawk, or old Vaquero (it really is confusing, isn't it?). There are guns that can be hotrodded, but this more compact "New Vaquero" or new Flattop Special is probably not the one to do it with.
 
Blackhawks and Keiths

I DO load it up with the previously mentioned "Skeeter" loads with a 250 grainer @900 -950fps. I feel this is enough for defense, a good bit better than your basic .45 ACP loadings, but the gun isn't designed for the Keith .44 Special heavy loads, in my opinion, due to the lighter and less beefy frame.
Click to expand...

The medium-framed Blackhawk is quite a bit stronger than the old 1873 SAA revolvers that Keith used, and it should stand up to limited use with that sort of ammunition. Just don't try to burn up 10,000 rounds.
 
Sharpsdressed Man, you did read the articles in the following? There is one by Seyfried and in the listing of articles there is a couple articles by Brian Pearce on the Ruger .44special. One is called 'Ruger Lipsey .44Special.pdf' . Good reads with loads. BTW, most all of all my .44Spec loads are 7.5g Unique/Universal under 240g SWC too. Good enough more most all my shooting. But I know these revolvers with handle more than that when required.

articles on the .44spec
 
...the gun isn't designed for the Keith .44 Special heavy loads, in my opinion, due to the lighter and less beefy frame.
Click to expand...
No gun was "designed for" the Keith load but the new mid-frame Rugers are some of the best sixguns available for use with it. They are some of the strongest .44Spl's ever put into production. No worries.
 
I guess if you want to load up some "Keith" loads, and fire them occasionally in the new Ruger .44 Specials, it would be fine. But why would anyone want to wear out a gun sooner with such, when they could easily buy a stronger gun for a more potent cartridge if a steady diet was planned? I have one of each, and like the .44 Special for extended carry, if big game hunting or extreme long range shooting is not the call of the day. For that, the Ruger .44 Mag Anniversary with the 6.5" barrel is the next step up, and ALMOST as nice to pack, but a shorter barrel packs easier.
 
Like I said, I'm still waiting to see or hear of a .44Spl worn out by shooting the Keith load. Particularly a new flat-top Ruger. I'm sorry but your fears are unfounded.
 
You will note that there have been a lot of Old Model .357s (medium frame) converted to .44Special and you don't hear of them being worn out.... yet.

FYI, Taffin makes a reference in his book to having tested the Keith load under a #44-250K 241g bullet in both the old balloon head case and modern solid head case at the Speer Ballistics Lab. CCI-300 primers were used. In the balloon head case, 18.5g of 2400 the pressure was 26,682psi. In a S&W 24-3 4" barrel the velocity was 1090fps... Today's Load of 17g 2400 load in solid head case was 24,783psi with velocity of 1102fps in same gun.... Later he talks about the same loads approaching 1200fps in longer barreled revolvers.... Page 274 in Taffin's "Book of the .44" . Just more to chew on :) .
 
My 44 Bisley

I got a Lipsey's 44 Bisley as soon as they became available. I broke it in with 17.0gr of 2400 under a 240gr Remington SP, launched by a CCI300 in RP cases. They fell out of the cylinder and normal pressure on primers. I will, however, use the Skeeter load since I have a 44 SBH.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top