New Ruger 8 Shot .357 Revolver

[jdb]

I like the idea of a .44 special it's a grand old cartridge and when properly loaded it will handle 90% of handgun chores. That said I've always found the gp100 a bit clunky. They're hell for stout I'll give'em that

[Buzz2401]

Ruger is just marketing to those who feel more is better.

[theleo]

I'm struggling to find the appeal in that .44 special. It seems to me like a solution in search of a problem. Why would one buy a dedicated .44 special when you can get a .44 mag and--wait for it--'run' .44 special through it if you want? Is it just that a gun like like this, especially designed to carry only five rounds, can be lighter than a revolver chambered for .44 mag? 

It's matter of weight, size, and capability. I don't care to pack around a revolver much larger than a full size .357 but I do like pushing 240gr bullets to around 1,000 fps. If this is as strong as my Blackhawk 44 Special, it'd handle that chore with a good margin to go hotter. For strong 44 Specials you can push 300gr bullets to rite up to 1,000 fps with certain loads. If you step up to a 44 mag Redhawk you'll get 6 shots but you also end up packing an extra 1/2 pound on your hip, after miles of hiking in the woods you end up noticing that. On the other end of the spectrum there's the S&W 329 PD which would be great to pack but not all that fun to shoot with warmer loads. There is the S&W model 69 which is about identical for weight and size but even though it's chambered in 44 magnum most say to shoot medium to mild loads through it so it doesn't wear out prematurely. For a hand loader this Ruger fills a nice niche. For the guy buying factory stuff off the shelf you're rite, it's not the most practical revolver out there.     

[Bean Counter]

Ok thanks. 

I guess I just don't know much about the .44 special. Not sure how it compares to the .357 magnum. My hunch is that .44 special is a bit overkill for CCW in regular life and I wonder if it offers any advantages that I could get over a hard cast .357 Mag round from Buffalo Bore or a handload from one of you people that are really into guns.

[theleo]

Ok thanks. 

I guess I just don't know much about the .44 special. Not sure how it compares to the .357 magnum. My hunch is that .44 special is a bit overkill for CCW in regular life and I wonder if it offers any advantages that I could get over a hard cast .357 Mag round from Buffalo Bore or a handload from one of you people that are really into guns.

Industry standard loads for the 44 special put it on par with the 45 ACP. The versatility of it comes from everything Elmer Keith and the "44 associates" did with it in the time prior to the introduction of the 44 magnum. Keith loads were 250gr SWC bullets going 1,200 fps Skeeter Skelton liked them closer to 950-100fps. All the 44 Special offers over the 357 magnum is a bigger hole when you start looking at hard cast bullets.

[jdb]

Bigger holes let more blood out and more air in

[b.roberts]

I like Smiths, Rugers, and even Yankee.  But in that video, he was the one that came off as a moron.  Smith .44 mag cylinders and Ruger Blackhawk cylinders have both been tested to the point of destruction.  They both explode at about the same pressure.  Redhawk cylinders take a bit more pressure.   Both companies make .45 colt.  Ruger's gun design takes more high pressure rounds before wearing out than Smiths.

The father of heavily loaded .45 colt, John Linebaugh, carries a .45 Smith mountain gun.  The real heavy stuff, he saves for the rugers, not because the Smith will blow up, but because the smith will shoot loose.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Fl0und3rz]

Amother review with handloads, as well as for the GP100 .44 Special.

http://www.realguns.com/articles/870.htm

http://www.realguns.com/articles/871.htm

.44 Special GP100

http://www.realguns.com/articles/844.htm

http://www.realguns.com/articles/859.htm