Ruger's New 44SPL GP100--Got One!

[Tokarev]

Another series. Targets 3, 4 and 5 were with the 200gr plated. Targets 1 and 2 are the 220gr cast. 25 yards.



What appears to be another keyhole




Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[JonInWA]

While I'm pleased that Ruger is increasing the GP100 variants, I'm curious as to why they chose a 3" barrel for a .44 Special chambering versus a 4" one. I'd think that you'd get more out of that cartridge with a slightly longer, but not inordinately longer tube. I'd also speculate that it would balance better, and handle shot splits better... And I've never noticed all that much of a draw time benefit from a 3" versus a 4."

Then again, perhaps I should be appreciative that it's 3" instead of 2.75"...

Best, Jon

[Tokarev]

While I'm pleased that Ruger is increasing the GP100 variants, I'm curious as to why they chose a 3" barrel for a .44 Special chambering versus a 4" one. I'd think that you'd get more out of that cartridge with a slightly longer, but not inordinately longer tube. I'd also speculate that it would balance better, and handle shot splits better... And I've never noticed all that much of a draw time benefit from a 3" versus a 4."

Then again, perhaps I should be appreciative that it's 3" instead of 2.75"...

Best, Jon

My thoughts are they didn't want to make a Redhawk in 44SPL so they went with something smaller and handier than what they already had to offer.

But I imagine a 4" gun will be produced if enough people express an interest.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Tokarev]

Ruger contacted. Inspection/ exchange/repair initiated. Hopefully we'll have a good shooting gun here in a short bit of time. More to follow....

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Buckshot]

While I'm pleased that Ruger is increasing the GP100 variants, I'm curious as to why they chose a 3" barrel for a .44 Special chambering versus a 4" one. I'd think that you'd get more out of that cartridge with a slightly longer, but not inordinately longer tube. I'd also speculate that it would balance better, and handle shot splits better... And I've never noticed all that much of a draw time benefit from a 3" versus a 4."

Then again, perhaps I should be appreciative that it's 3" instead of 2.75"...

Best, Jon

The 3" GP is beautifully neutral in balance, where the 4" is definitely nose heavy. For a defensive revolver, it makes more sense. In fact, I just got a 3" barrel to screw on my 1st year 4" as soon as I finish up a GP for a certain large mammal circling nearby in this general vicinity. Ruger would be brilliant if they'd come out with a 5" 44 Spl version - I'd prefer it without an underlug. THAT would make an outstanding field revolver!

[Tokarev]

That's not me complaining! That's me saying, "excuse me, I'll be in my bunk!" A-la Jayne Cobb. It's Internets for "me likey".

Ah I thought it meant it wasn't worth getting out of bed for.




Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[irascible_joe]

While I'm pleased that Ruger is increasing the GP100 variants, I'm curious as to why they chose a 3" barrel for a .44 Special chambering versus a 4" one. I'd think that you'd get more out of that cartridge with a slightly longer, but not inordinately longer tube. I'd also speculate that it would balance better, and handle shot splits better... And I've never noticed all that much of a draw time benefit from a 3" versus a 4."

Then again, perhaps I should be appreciative that it's 3" instead of 2.75"...

Best, Jon

I'd bet the cult status, and concomitant crazy high prices, of the Smith 696 motivated their decision.

[Tokarev]

I'd bet the cult status, and concomitant crazy high prices, of the Smith 696 motivated their decision.

The 696 is a different breed, no? Scandium frame, etc.

Here's something somewhat related. This is a 220gr cast hollow point loaded with Blue Dot at a little above max for a 429215 cast bullet as published in the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook.

This bullet had a chrono'ed velocity of just over 1,050 fps and penetrated right to 20in in 10% gel from Clear Ballistics. It was fired through four layers of clothing and expanded to .540" diameter. Current weight is 214.4 grains.

Cast bullets always have some weight variance and the few of these I've weighed start out at about 218gr. I didn't notice any chunks of lead in the gel but I seem to have lost a few grains somewhere.

This load is a bit above max but there does not seem to be any signs of pressure. And it is under what Brian Pearce shows for a heavier bullet in his 2005 article. Recoil is stout but not uncomfortable and is actually pretty fun. It has an authoritative thump without being punishing.

I'm pretty surprised at the muzzle velocity and how well the bullet worked especially after being fired through clothing. Once I get the gun back I'll have to play with this load some more and see what we can do.



Note the bits of fabric embedded in the cavity.



Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[irascible_joe]

The 696 is a different breed, no? Scandium frame, etc.

I believe you're thinking of the 396. 696 was all stainless steel, 3" barrel, adjustable sights, 5-shot on an L-frame.

[Tokarev]

I believe you're thinking of the 396. 696 was all stainless steel, 3" barrel, adjustable sights, 5-shot on an L-frame.

Ah yes.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk