Post by: Bean Counter on January 04, 2017, 02:15:25 AM
Has an unfluted cylinder and the charge holes are recessed to accommodate moon clips. This could be a great gun for someone trapped in a standard-magazine-capacity-hating brood of Leftists such as the Urine Colored State or who simply doesn't want to mess with the complexity of a semi-auto. I wonder if its fat cylinder will make it too bulky for CCW, but the fact that the barrel is under 3" makes me think they designed it for such.
Post by: bowhunterforever on January 04, 2017, 02:43:40 AM
Post by: TheSkyBuster on January 04, 2017, 06:40:35 AM
https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearms/performance-center-model-627-0
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 04, 2017, 07:20:16 AM
Post by: jrebel on January 04, 2017, 08:01:54 AM
Post by: Bigshooter on January 04, 2017, 08:28:37 AM
Looks like a stronger version of the type that people carry in their man bags, the 627, I think it is called.
:yeah:
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Mongo Hunter on January 04, 2017, 08:31:20 AM
The Smith Performance center 627 is exactly the same MSRP but is slightly lighter (probably due to Ruger using castings). Also knowing S&W and their Performance Center I can pretty much guarantee superior fit, finish and quality (especially triggers).
I'm not trying to Ruger bash but Ruger is supposed to be a cheaper alternative to the S&W's of the world. Drop it a couple hundred bucks and you may be in business.
Heck the Chiappa Rhino with its more expensive materials and design is cheaper.
And its not stronger than a Smith. casting is inferior that's why they have to make their guns bigger and heavier.
Post by: Bean Counter on January 04, 2017, 01:03:43 PM
I've found that by swapping a lighter hammer spring and doing about 10-20 minutes of polishing the strut that the Ruger is about on par with a Smith. Not sure if $5 and 20 minutes can improve a Smith or not. I don't do cowboy or match shooting so the Ruger is good enough for our CCW needs with that little bit of effort and expense.
As to which is bar none stronger than the other, I've seen a lot of "Ruger only" charts for hot reloads, but have never seen "S&W only" loads :dunno:
..."Should Ruger firearms be legal for hunting?" :chuckle: :stirthepot:
Post by: Mongo Hunter on January 04, 2017, 01:21:01 PM
I've seen a lot of "Ruger only" charts for hot reloads, but have never seen "S&W only" loads :dunno:
..."Should Ruger firearms be legal for hunting?" :chuckle: :stirthepot:
he says it better than I do as to why there are Ruger only loads. has to do with the type of ammo being loaded at the time and Ruger using a longer cylinder.
but for the same money why not just buy the Smith? :dunno:
Rugers are meant to be less expensive alternatives to Colt and Smith so why did Ruger even make this gun unless they could make it cheaper than those guys?
Post by: Bean Counter on January 04, 2017, 01:37:23 PM
- http://ruger.com/products/redhawk/models.html
- http://ruger.com/products/sp101/models.html
- http://ruger.com/products/gp100/overview.html
but for the same money why not just buy the Smith? :dunno:
Rugers are meant to be less expensive alternatives to Colt and Smith so why did Ruger even make this gun unless they could make it cheaper than those guys?
I would--but I i just don't want that damned side plate and internal lock >:(
Post by: Mongo Hunter on January 04, 2017, 01:40:58 PM
I agree with you on the side lock though on the smiths. I have 2 and its just an eye sore.
Post by: JJB11B on January 04, 2017, 02:26:24 PM
Sorry too expensive for what it is. Ruger has it listed as "Suggested Retail $1079.00" so expecting around $850-$900 street price.so Taurus makes a hunk of garbage called the 627 tracker that is a 7rnd .357 as well. I would rather have a Ruger, I love their revolvers.
The Smith Performance center 627 is exactly the same MSRP but is slightly lighter (probably due to Ruger using castings). Also knowing S&W and their Performance Center I can pretty much guarantee superior fit, finish and quality (especially triggers).
I'm not trying to Ruger bash but Ruger is supposed to be a cheaper alternative to the S&W's of the world. Drop it a couple hundred bucks and you may be in business.
Heck the Chiappa Rhino with its more expensive materials and design is cheaper.
And its not stronger than a Smith. casting is inferior that's why they have to make their guns bigger and heavier.
Post by: theleo on January 04, 2017, 03:12:39 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on January 04, 2017, 05:49:59 PM
Post by: Bofire on January 04, 2017, 06:38:02 PM
Carl
Post by: jdb on January 04, 2017, 07:11:26 PM
Post by: Buzz2401 on January 04, 2017, 08:25:11 PM
Post by: theleo on January 05, 2017, 09:26:53 AM
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? :dunno: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.
Post by: Bean Counter on January 05, 2017, 01:46:41 PM
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.
Post by: theleo on January 05, 2017, 02:55:58 PM
Ok thanks. :tup: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.
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.
Post by: jdb on January 05, 2017, 03:03:59 PM
Post by: b.roberts on January 05, 2017, 07:47:00 PM
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
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 08, 2017, 10:00:34 AM
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