.44 Special with 5-shot non-fluted cylinder. Pretty cool!
http://www.downrange.tv/blog/new-ruger-gp100-in-44-special/38124/
http://www.downrange.tv/blog/new-ruger-gp100-in-44-special/38124/
Ruger's new revolver
- Thread starter Blaze
- Start date
- Status
I keep saying I'm not a Ruger guy, but looks like I'm making some phone calls tomorrow to try and get someone to order one for me...
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 5,293
While I like the gun, the ballistics published in that article are inferior to my more compact 8 shot (one in the chamber) Walther PPS .40 s&w firing remington golden saber rounds.
Sometimes technical data and published data don't relate well to nostalgia and proven effectiveness.
Originally Posted By: LoneRanger
While I like the gun, the ballistics published in that article are inferior to my more compact 8 shot (one in the chamber) Walther PPS .40 s&w firing remington golden saber rounds.
Originally Posted By: LoneRanger
While I like the gun, the ballistics published in that article are inferior to my more compact 8 shot (one in the chamber) Walther PPS .40 s&w firing remington golden saber rounds.
You can buy a Charter Arms Bulldog for about half the price. I really don't see the significance in this. You can shoot .44 Special in a .44 Magnum and I think a .357 Magnum is a better cartridge than the .44 Special in the same gun. Guess we are getting into the 9 mm v.s .45 Auto. Big slow slug v.s fast light slug. Except now you don't get a the larger ammo capacity. .44 Special is a old cowboy load, this GS have improved. I see a gimmick gun here.
Originally Posted By: Panzerman
You can buy a Charter Arms Bulldog for about half the price. I really don't see the significance in this. You can shoot .44 Special in a .44 Magnum and I think a .357 Magnum is a better cartridge than the .44 Special in the same gun. Guess we are getting into the 9 mm v.s .45 Auto. Big slow slug v.s fast light slug. Except now you don't get a the larger ammo capacity. .44 Special is a old cowboy load, this GS have improved. I see a gimmick gun here.
If you don't get it, it's not for you.
Saying you can get a Charter Arms for half the price is analogous to saying that you don't need a Glock because you can get a Hi-Point for half the price. There's really no comparison other than a common chambering.
If history is any indication, the Ruger will probably be able to handle some stout 44 Special loads as well.
I am a big 357 Mag fan, but the "big and slow" philosophy has some merit especially as a self defense cartridge. The 44 Special is a lot quieter and less flashy than the 357.
Also, I don't generally like shooting "short" cartridges in Magnum guns. It's fine if that's all you ever shoot out of the gun, but they're a pain to clean to get reliable ejection of Magnum cartridges.
You can buy a Charter Arms Bulldog for about half the price. I really don't see the significance in this. You can shoot .44 Special in a .44 Magnum and I think a .357 Magnum is a better cartridge than the .44 Special in the same gun. Guess we are getting into the 9 mm v.s .45 Auto. Big slow slug v.s fast light slug. Except now you don't get a the larger ammo capacity. .44 Special is a old cowboy load, this GS have improved. I see a gimmick gun here.
If you don't get it, it's not for you.
Saying you can get a Charter Arms for half the price is analogous to saying that you don't need a Glock because you can get a Hi-Point for half the price. There's really no comparison other than a common chambering.
If history is any indication, the Ruger will probably be able to handle some stout 44 Special loads as well.
I am a big 357 Mag fan, but the "big and slow" philosophy has some merit especially as a self defense cartridge. The 44 Special is a lot quieter and less flashy than the 357.
Also, I don't generally like shooting "short" cartridges in Magnum guns. It's fine if that's all you ever shoot out of the gun, but they're a pain to clean to get reliable ejection of Magnum cartridges.
.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: LoneRanger
While I like the gun, the ballistics published in that article are inferior to my more compact 8 shot (one in the chamber) Walther PPS .40 s&w firing remington golden saber rounds.
Saved for future reference.
While I like the gun, the ballistics published in that article are inferior to my more compact 8 shot (one in the chamber) Walther PPS .40 s&w firing remington golden saber rounds.
Saved for future reference.
I'll stick with my HK's.
Originally Posted By: Panzerman
You can buy a Charter Arms Bulldog for about half the price. I really don't see the significance in this. You can shoot .44 Special in a .44 Magnum and I think a .357 Magnum is a better cartridge than the .44 Special in the same gun. Guess we are getting into the 9 mm v.s .45 Auto. Big slow slug v.s fast light slug. Except now you don't get a the larger ammo capacity. .44 Special is a old cowboy load, this GS have improved. I see a gimmick gun here.
A lot of people collect guns like Hot Wheels, so caliber and how many rounds it carries, etc doesn't really matter to those kind of people. They just want certain brands, and something in their collection that they don't have.
You can buy a Charter Arms Bulldog for about half the price. I really don't see the significance in this. You can shoot .44 Special in a .44 Magnum and I think a .357 Magnum is a better cartridge than the .44 Special in the same gun. Guess we are getting into the 9 mm v.s .45 Auto. Big slow slug v.s fast light slug. Except now you don't get a the larger ammo capacity. .44 Special is a old cowboy load, this GS have improved. I see a gimmick gun here.
A lot of people collect guns like Hot Wheels, so caliber and how many rounds it carries, etc doesn't really matter to those kind of people. They just want certain brands, and something in their collection that they don't have.
I don't need the Ruger. I have the Smith and Wesson 696 with a factory master action job. It's a tack driver and so much fun to shoot. The Ruger should be all of that too. What's not to like about a revolver that will easily duplicate 230 grain 45 ACP ballistics without all the metal bits flailing around when you shoot it.
Ed
Ed
Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
My hand and wrist hurt just thinking about shooting a 230gr bullet in that little revolver.
Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
My hand and wrist hurt just thinking about shooting a 230gr bullet in that little revolver.
It's not all that small. It's L frame and weighs 36 ounces empty, about the same as a standard 1911. It's also a lower pressure round than 45 ACP. I find the 696 to be softer shooting than a 1911.
It looks like the Ruger in .357 also weights 36 ounces. The 44 Special should be about the same.
Ed
My hand and wrist hurt just thinking about shooting a 230gr bullet in that little revolver.
It's not all that small. It's L frame and weighs 36 ounces empty, about the same as a standard 1911. It's also a lower pressure round than 45 ACP. I find the 696 to be softer shooting than a 1911.
It looks like the Ruger in .357 also weights 36 ounces. The 44 Special should be about the same.
Ed
Last edited:
JHZR2
Staff member
For some reason I feel the S&W is a little bit prettier...
Does the actual ruger have that ugly etched lettering down the barrel like that?!?
Does the actual ruger have that ugly etched lettering down the barrel like that?!?
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
For some reason I feel the S&W is a little bit prettier...
Does the actual ruger have that ugly etched lettering down the barrel like that?!?
That's because we're comparing S&Ws and Rugers
. I have to say, though, that the 586/686 has never been my favorite due to the full underlug barrel. The best looking gun of the series to me has been the(hard to find) 687 "Mountain Gun" mostly because the underlug is in the style of an N frame or model 19.
The last Ruger I bought had the "shoot it all day, read it all night" roll mark on the bottom of the barrel.
For some reason I feel the S&W is a little bit prettier...
Does the actual ruger have that ugly etched lettering down the barrel like that?!?
That's because we're comparing S&Ws and Rugers
The last Ruger I bought had the "shoot it all day, read it all night" roll mark on the bottom of the barrel.
Ruger = Ruggedness
S&W = Pretty
That's the general consensus I've come up with after owning and shooting several of both. Except I don't always find S&W's all that much more "pretty". My latest Ruger was in fact a GP-100, but in .22 L.R. It's a beautiful handgun. In the first outing I had 2 people come up to me and ask, "Is that really a .22?" I like the brushed Stainless Steel finish on the Ruger guns better than I do the S&W models. The S&W's seem a bit more "blotchy" in their appearance. They're not brushed, but they're not polished either. At least not to the degree the Rugers are.
I looked long and hard at the S&W 617 before I settled on the GP-100 .22. That is not to say I won't own a S&W 617 in the future. I just thought the Ruger was the better choice based on appearance, feel, and overall ruggedness. If the trigger on the Smith is any better, I don't know. The last thing you want to do at a gun shop, is to start dry firing brand new rimfire revolvers.
When I bought my .500 S&W, I settled on the Magnum Research BFR. I just saw zero need to own a double action .500. Especially when, at the time they were having all of the problems with the guns double firing. And also a lot of the early ones were having lock malfunctions. My dealer told me he got the first 3 S&W .500's he sold back because they all locked up. Again, at some point I might spring for the S&W 4" model.... Just to have. It appears they've got the bugs finally worked out.
S&W = Pretty
That's the general consensus I've come up with after owning and shooting several of both. Except I don't always find S&W's all that much more "pretty". My latest Ruger was in fact a GP-100, but in .22 L.R. It's a beautiful handgun. In the first outing I had 2 people come up to me and ask, "Is that really a .22?" I like the brushed Stainless Steel finish on the Ruger guns better than I do the S&W models. The S&W's seem a bit more "blotchy" in their appearance. They're not brushed, but they're not polished either. At least not to the degree the Rugers are.
I looked long and hard at the S&W 617 before I settled on the GP-100 .22. That is not to say I won't own a S&W 617 in the future. I just thought the Ruger was the better choice based on appearance, feel, and overall ruggedness. If the trigger on the Smith is any better, I don't know. The last thing you want to do at a gun shop, is to start dry firing brand new rimfire revolvers.
When I bought my .500 S&W, I settled on the Magnum Research BFR. I just saw zero need to own a double action .500. Especially when, at the time they were having all of the problems with the guns double firing. And also a lot of the early ones were having lock malfunctions. My dealer told me he got the first 3 S&W .500's he sold back because they all locked up. Again, at some point I might spring for the S&W 4" model.... Just to have. It appears they've got the bugs finally worked out.
I hardly call a Charter Arms a Hi Point and I also Hardly call a Glock one to be standard of high Quality. Comparing Charter Arms to a Ruger would be like comparing a Glock to a Springfield Arms. Charter Arms is not junk. Your right, I don't get it. A .44 is a old cowboy round at best. Better came for a reason. It's the argument that .38 Special is Great because police used it so long and some still do, doesnt make it better, just common. A Bulldog does anything that Ruger does. Seriously, a Hi point??
- Status
Similar threads
