They came out in Late 1996, I ordered one as soon as I heard about them.
Printable View
That's what I did. I'm thinking I read an article about them in Shooting Times back when it was a decent magazine. I dropped Guns & Ammo LONG before '96. Don't take any of them now.
The Skeeter load is my max and isn’t considered a hot rod load. The 15,000psi is around for 100 year old guns, not a modern GP100.
I have some 195gr swchp to try in the 696. I leave the Skeeter's for my Blackhawk.
Skeeters load is around 16,000psi. You must be thinking about Elmer Keith’s hot loads of 2400. That’s a different animal. A 696, GP100, and even a Bulldog can handle 7.5grs of Unique, but admit it’s a handful in a Bulldog and not pleasant. Not because of the stress on the revolver, but rather the stress on one’s palm.
Recoil and certainly pressure on that load in a 696 or GP100 is average at best.
I've always had a soft spot for .44 Specials. I've got the 696 that I got in 2004, the S&W Hwy Patrolman that Jim Stroh converted around 2006(or possible later, I just don't remember) and the just purchased FA 97. Just didn't have room in the budget for any more but these scratched the itch very well.
As far as the stocks go, the ones shown in the pictures that rkrcpa posted are the same as on mine. They handle recoil very well since I don't load to the max.
BTW, I paid $460 for mine in 2004
One more thing. I appreciate the caution by Randy to be careful about shooting jacketed behind cast. I don't and am unlikely to do so but there will be a note to the son that ends up with the gun to follow that advice.
Yes smart advice.
Post links please. Not denying, but I’d like to read it. Thanks. I did a through search for the 696 and the Bulldog and no such occurrence. Most of the forcing cone issues I saw with the GP100 centered on the 357 mag.
Again… no disrespect and I appreciate the dialog. The
This was the first one on google.
https://castboolits.gunloads.com/sho...100-44-special
This one post #21 broke at 50 rounds
https://castboolits.gunloads.com/sho...ug-GP100/page2
There's quite a substantial list of cracked forcing cones out there in 44 special. The 357's are built quite well, and will live a long life. Same for the 327 and 10mm auto's. The 44 specials unfortunately are built to handle actual 44 special 15,000 psi loads, and no more. It isn't because the cylinder will fail, it's that for whatever dumb reason Ruger used the 357 barrel instead of the 10mm barrel, leaving a paper thin forcing cone.
I respect your knowledge. This is a good discussion. Not to call out the obvious, your examples are limited and don’t address any load with 7.5 gr Unique. Also the difference between 7.5 and 8.0 grains of Unique isn’t castrophic but still much more.
Myself and many others reject your “research”
Do you own and shoot any of the 44 specials in this thread? Not being a jerk, but if have actually owned these firearms and witnessed stresses on it, I’d like to know.
Magasupermagnum has tried to give you excellent advice, understandably it's a hard pill to swallow. But the other turn of the coin, he's trying to enlighten you on the pros and cons of what you deem a "superior" firearm along with trying to protect your investment and more importantly, your health.
Perhaps a little due diligence (that research thing) on your part would help with a little clarity on what the "true" pressure of your 16,000psi 7.5gr/unique keith 250gr swc bullet combo actually is. If you figure that one out it may give you perspective on the link provided with the +/- 15,000psi/ww231 load that cracked a forcing cone.
Most don't grasp why the gp100 in 44spl failed nor do I see the short bbl'd version listed on the ruger website anymore. Then again the 1 you posted could still be listed and I missed it.
Myself I'd pick a s&w 69 over the gp100 (or 696) every day of the week and twice on sunday if the "strength" of the firearm was the main concern.
The 44spl is a fantastic cartridge and there's a ton of threads about the 44spl on this website including people who have pressure tested (2011?) that skeeter load. Their results have mimicked tests done by handloader magazine's 2005 and 2018 44spl articles.
At the end of the day you have 3 different revolvers chambered in 44spl with the bulldog known as a weak design & the other 2 with forcing cone issues.
The first thing I noticed about the 696 when I received it, way back when, was the thin section of barrel that extended thru the frame. I wasn't really concerned about it because I have never shot max loads in any handgun. I didn't know about the concern about jacketed following cast at that time. It sounds as if even mid power loads could cause a problem in that scenario.
Having been made aware of these things, I'm not sure why the OP is concerned about lower level loads. A .44(.43?) caliber bullet of decent design should put paid to any confrontation. If more power is wanted for carry, just practice with reasonable loads and higher power for carry. If a gun saved my life, I wouldn't worry about any possible damage to the gun.
Reading this thread caused me to go to an article(The .44 Special Revisited) by Glen Fryxell on the LASC site. In the article he recommended lighter weight bullets for the 696 and Charter Pug than commonly used in .44 Special. Specifically, +or- 200 grains. Also, his thoughts were that adequate bearing surface to work in the polygonal rifling of the 696 is required.
I've been going thru the Accurate site and came across two that I would like to try but thought that others might have supporting or conflicting thought about.
I am looking at these Accurate designs:
http://www.accuratemolds.com/bullet_...bullet=43-200W
and
http://www.accuratemolds.com/bullet_...bullet=43-190C
Just curious what others might think of them.
I've never had much luck with double ended wadcutters but am not opposed to trying again.
In my 696 no dash the Lee 200 shot very well and a Lyman 200 designed for the 44-40 was excellent. The Lyman was a 2 1/2 inch shooter at 25 yards, sorry I don’t remember the load as I just had a bunch but no mold. There is a 235 gr NOE RF that I really like in the GP, works well on hogs and deers at 7.5 unique:) Most of my shooting was with the Skeeter load, and I don’t have a .429 jacket in the house. After Larry Gibson’s pressure tests on the Skeeter load I have dropped to 7.2 grains for my 696 and GP100, just being prudent and the difference is meaningless on the receiving end.
Note: on that statement about polygonal rifling, my 696 no dash is standard rifling, no idea about the later ones. I bought mine used in 97, has been a favorite every since. There were 2 in the case, wish I’d bought both, a helpful buddy suggested just that as I was trying to decide between the two!
The reference to the polygonal rifling in the 696 came from the Fryxell article. I'll go to the shop this afternoon and check my 696. Strange I never thought to look at it to confirm. Maybe I'll be lucky and find regular grooved rifling.
Not in this thread's focus, but I hope someday to find a Ruger Flat Top in .44 Spec. It will seem like a real bargain after the FA 97.
THREAD DRIFT WARNING!
Alamogunr (and all others); I am getting ready to buy a 97 in the next few months. In your experience, are they all everyone makes them out to be? What diameter are you sizing your bullets? I have read the 97 44 Specials may need .429; my others run best on .432 to .434(Redhawk). Did you get the 5.5 or 4.25 inch barrel? I am leaning toward 4.25, but am not yet fully decided.
I started out wanting a 44 Special but am really considering a dual cylinder 45 Colt. 45 ACP is my favorite pistol cartridge, and I will never run out of brass. 2k of Starline 45 Colt will last the rest of my life.
I have the blued Ruger FT and Bisley 4 5/8 and considered sending one to Bowen. Trying to decide which to send and looking at the approximate cost led me down the FA road. Does anyone with both have an opinion on the Bowen FT vs. the M97?
Thanks to all for thought and opinions.
Tony