Ruger GP100 44 special

[DPris]

The chambers on my GP sample are oversized, but turns out my calipers are better at outside measurements than inside measurements.

I was getting .434+, which would be grossly oversized, and to be fair to Ruger had my gunsmith do his own measurements with better equipment today as a double-check.

He got:
430.5"
430.5"
430.0"
427.0"
428.5"

Not knowing at this point what Ruger considers standard, I also took along my first-run Lipsey's Blackhawk Flattop from when they first brought those out.

He got:
428.5"
428.0"
428.5"
428.0"
428.5"
428.5

I'd conclude if Ruger'd take those GP throats down to 428.5 or 429, and make 'em consistent, the gun would be a more consistent shooter.

The Blackhawk's not picky about bullet weights or diameters, and anything above 428.5 gets through with minor compression that doesn't seem to adversely affect accuracy.

Many of the jacketed bullets I see are 429-430, and a lead bullet as high as 431 can still do well.
Denis

 

[Legionnaire]

Interesting. Thanks.

 

[Pond James Pond]

Just found proof that Ruger listens to me!!



5-shot .44Spl in a Ruger GP frame.

 

[tipoc]

About a decade ago John Taffin and Mike Venturino took up a petition and letter writing campaign to get Ruger to build a gun in 44 Spl. Bill Ruger said no. Ruger produced no 44 Spl. gun on his watch.

tipoc

 

[DPris]

Two years ago I pitched it & was told it couldn't be done as a GP.
Denis

 

[tipoc]

Well someone was wrong, wern't they!

tipoc

 

[DPris]

We owe the Flattop .44 Spec to Jason Cloessner at Lipsey's.
That was a milestone & I've thanked him several times.

I don't know who ramrodded the GP, but if Ruger can get the manufacturing end cleaned up on it, we'll owe SOMEBODY.
Denis

 

[huntinaz]

Haven't bought a pistol new in a long time but when I find one of these in store it might follow me home. Would love to find a used one but that may take awhile.

I think 41 mag would be a good offering as well

 

[Siggy-06]

Looks like S&W has the Model 69 coming out in a 2.75 in barrel. I'd have to go with that over the gp100 .44 special for magnum capabilities. Granted Im not sure of .44 mag performance in a short barrel in general...

https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearms/model-69-combat-magnum

 

[Cosmodragoon]

I like the GP100 in .44 special but my gun budget took a beating at Christmas time. We'll see how the year shapes up but I imagine one of these appearing in my collection at some point.

A key selling point here is that it doesn't have an ugly hole drilled in the side of it, surrounded by little arrow marks. There has been significant argument over whether the S&W ILS is really a safety hazard but my gunsmith assures me that it is. He tells me that it's pretty rare but problems do occur. You can get the mechanism removed and the hole plugged but it still looks a little funky. It's a big part of why I buy Ruger revolvers these days.

 

[Legionnaire]

I'm with Cosmodragoon. I'll look at a new Smith when the lock goes away. Until then, it's Ruger ... or pre-lock Smiths.

 

[dgludwig]

Massad Ayoob authored an article in the March issue of Guns magazine titled "Big Bore Breakout", wherein he tested the Ruger Model GP 100, chambered in .44 Special. He reported that at a September writers' conference, the writers "...all asked (Ruger's representative, Brandon Trevino) the same question. Why?" To which Mr. Trevino "...gave the best possible answer: 'Because we had customers who wanted it.' "

Later in the article, Mr. Ayoob posed a logical question: "What, exactly, is the niche for a service-size revolver firing 5 rounds of .44 Special? After all, a 6-shot GP100 loaded full with 125-grain .357 ammo puts 3,498 ft-lbs. of energy at the tip of your trigger finger before you need a reload, while the 5-shot .44 Special with Critical Duty rounds tallies but 1,485...". I entertained the same bit of logic when I traded my neat, 5-shot, Smith & Wesson Model 696 revolver, chambered in .44 Special for a 7-shot, Smith Model 686 Plus, chambered in .357 Magnum (I did take a big hit on what the two revolvers are each worth now monetarily ).

Though I still think I made the wiser decision in terms of trading for a handgun better suited for self-defense duties, Mr. Ayoob added, "The answer is, there are a lot of folks who don't buy energy as a determinant of 'stopping power' nor a supplier of confidence. Large-caliber bullets have been associated with downrange effectiveness for as long as there have been small arms and some folks are simply more confident with fewer larger bullets than an increased payload of smaller ones, regardless of velocity and energy. And recoil with this .44 Special load in the GP100 was lighter than with full power .357 Mag in my own (GP100)...".

Interesting comparisons that will always be fodder for lively debate but destined to never result in a mutually agreeable resolution. Thankfully.

 

[Cosmodragoon]

In terms of putting damage downrange, .357 magnum and .44 special are both decent cartridges. They might do their damage in different ways but they both do it well enough for most applications where you might be carrying a GP100. These two are sort of a wash for me in terms of "stopping power".

Capacity seems to be the key argument for .357 magnum (or better yet, .327 Federal). On the "big and slow" side, your ears may take a slightly less horrific beating from the .44 special if you ever need it to save your life. Sweeter felt recoil is a good thing too. I'm just happy to live in a country where we have these kinds of choices.

 

[Legionnaire]

I'm just happy to live in a country where we have these kinds of choices.

Yup ... and I'll choose one of each, thank you. Once I get my 44 spl back, I'll have to take a family picture with its .357 cousin.

 

[shootniron]

Y'all can fawn over this piece of feces, all you want...I will pass.

44 Special is my favorite cartridge...but I won't buy this brick.

 

[dgludwig]

Glad you got that off your chest...

 

[joneb]

I'd conclude if Ruger'd take those GP throats down to 428.5 or 429, and make 'em consistent, the gun would be a more consistent shooter.

My 696 throats measure .429" and has been working well cast and jacketed.
It's easier to make them bigger than smaller, if I were Ruger I'd shoot for .4295" and with a 3" barrel a 1:18 twist would likely do better with longer bullets.
The cylinder throats of my Security Six .357 Mag measure .3575" and it shoots well with .358" cast and .357" jacketed.

 

[ocharry]

all i can say fellas is i got to handle one of these rugers yesterday at a lgs,,,it felt good in the hand,, balanced very well for me and i new better than to touch it but i did and well,,,for me i would like to see it with fixed sights BUT i will be owning one,,,very shortly

thx ruger for listening to the minority crowd

ocharry

 

[tipoc]

I ran across this issue of American Handgunner from 1983. On page 48 there is an article about a custom Ruger police Service Six in 44 Spl. Makes for good reading.

There's also several good articles in there. A useful one on the trials that led to the adoption of the M9 in 1986.

Gun mags were better back then.

Page 48...

http://americanhandgunner.com/1983issues/HMJ83.pdf

tipoc

 

[Legionnaire]

Got my GP100 back from Ruger yesterday. Invoice says, "Replaced barrel, cylinder, refinished. Repair, safety function check proof test and range test firing have been completed. Released for shipping."

There is still a slight gap under the front sight; two sheets of 20# paper will slide in, but not three. No longer highly noticeable. I'm fine with that.

Best I can measure with my inside calipers, chamber throats are now .430. I tried three different style cast bullets, all sized .430. All three slipped into the throats and were held there by friction; easily passed through with minimal pressure. Again, I'm fine with that.

I'm looking to get back to the range, hopefully this weekend! Have some 215 grain button-nosed wadcutters (mattsbullets.com) loaded up with Unique and Trail Boss. And as promised, here's a family pic with the fraternal twin .357.