Are there really so few of us? (Or, why do gun companies keep missing the boat?)

[MakeMineA10mm]

I think this a perfect place for a support group, so....

Hi, My name may be "MakeMineA10mm" but I have a serious addiction to anything with the name "44" in it.

I've owned, shot, reloaded, casted, and been generally totally enamored with 44s since nearly before there was a 10mm, going on 30 years now. I began shooting the 44 Magnum in 1983, and I've never looked back. I blame this mostly on growing up reading Elmer Keith and Skeeter Skelton. Now, Skeeter was a 357 Magnum man, but he had deep affection for 44s, especially the 44 Special, as I'm sure you all know. Elmer Keith, well.... Do I need to say anything?!?

I know I'm not alone, here, right? Do you guys keep going back and re-reading through Gun Notes, Hell I Was There, Sixguns, and Skelton's articles in old Shooting Times?

One of the stand-out things about Skelton and Keith was their particular likes or "druthers" in their sixguns. Skelton liked the 5" barrel on the N-frame, and Keith liked the Magna stocks and 4" barrel on his 44s (both Specials and Magnums). They also both liked single-actions, good gun leather, and purpose-driven modifications or "enhancements" to their pistols. (Keith's #5 maybe being the most extensively modified between the two men.)

Now, here's my main gripe (as you could tell by the subtitle of this thread):

Guns have changed some since these two icons were around. One of the points these men made, was that the 44 Special has a benefit of being a lighter gun than the 44 Magnum. A few people in the industry in modern times "get it" and have ran with that idea, albeit in a limited edition (Lipsey's Ruger 44 Specials) or a semi-custom gun (Freedom Arms Model 97). I hear Ruger has added the 44 Special Blackhawk (357-sized medium frame) to it's regular catalog, and even though it's expensive and there's a wait, Freedom Arms will still make a 44 Special 97. So, I'm pretty happy with the state of single actions.

It's the double-actions I'm more than a little disappointed about. (Yes, Smith and Wesson, I'm calling you out!) S&W almost made it. They came awful darn close to making a perfect DA 44 Special with their Model 696. The trouble was, it had a really thin forcing cone. So, sticking with the L-Frame idea to make it smaller and lighter, but attacking that forcing cone issue, they messed around with the 2-piece barrel system and some heat treating, and pretty soon, they realized they could chamber the cylinder for 44 Magnum safely. I'm sure the marketing department got together with the bean counters and decided that they should run with that idea, as the Magnum label appeals to more people and we 44 Special aficionados would load it down anyway. A classic example of not giving us what we want, but what they think will sell and telling us to like it or go away...

Here's what would be better (IMO, FWIW):
-- Start with the L-Frame, but give it the old, square-butt, longer grip frame. Base it on the new Model 69, so it has a stronger, larger-circumference breach ring for the forcing cone area of the barrel. (See below.)
-- Chamber it in 44 Special.
-- Go back to the old-style, front of ejector-rod lock-up system (which was only changed on the new Model 69 because of the pressures of the 44 Magnum; chambering it in the Special precludes the need for the new system).
-- Use a traditional-looking, 1-piece barrel. By traditional-looking, I mean - a tapered barrel like was used on the M24 with the thin, lighter barrel walls, and the thin, profiled ejector rod housing (not the full-round, lopped-off ejector rod housing you've been putting on all L-frames that seems to give me the impression a troll in the basement with a dremel tool cut off the front part of a M-586 barrel to make it "look" like a short ejector rod housing, but leaves a full-round "bull-barrel" style ejector rod housing). To make up for the thin forcing cone issue, use the new Model 69's larger breach ring and re-size the forcing cone area of the barrel to fit that breach ring. This will give the forcing cone all the thickness it needs, even for hot-rodded 44 Specials (which will not get shot much out of such a light gun, but still, it will handle it, no matter what). And, finally, regarding the barrel, we only need two lengths: 5" and 3.5". For the 3.5" make it end at the end of the ejector rod housing, so it looks like the 1930s FBI Registered Magnums with the 3.5" barrels. (I'm giving you some lee-way here, as I'm not sure the ejector rod housing on this new L-Frame barrel will cause the barrel cut-off at its end to be exactly 3.5", but I'm sure it will be close, possibly 3-3/8" or some such.)
-- Lastly, make this in both an adjustable-sight and a fixed sight version.
-- Oh - there's always one more thing... Get rid of that stupid lock on the side of the frame. Either just eliminate it, for this model like you have for some other "classics," or set about your design engineers to come up with a more clever design that is completely hidden from view like the Ruger designers did, where you have to remove the grip panel to activate or de-activate it. (While you're at it, do it one better than Ruger and instead of making it part of the frame, design it so we can just take it completely out of the gun and throw it away, without it effecting the function of the gun...)

I've posted a similar idea over on the Smith & Wesson Forums, and people there loved the idea. (This was before the Model 69 came out, so my idea about the larger breach/forcing cone was not in that posting.) I'm betting a lot of you guys here would support a factory-made double-action 44 Special that fits the bill better than anything that has come before.

Is there really so few of us REAL 44 Special guys around that we can't get a proper DA 44 Special built? Ruger and Freedom Arms are doing it (and probably a couple others I'm leaving out)...

[Frank46]

I always wanted a 44 special but when Ruger came out with theirs and after shooting a buddy's it still left me wanting a genuine S&W 44 special. Just as I was leaving a local gun show a few years back I spotted a 624 with 6.5" bbl. Bit the bullet and she came home with me. Had the red C on the box and shooting it with WW silvertips was almost like shooting a 22. Gunshows have always been my downfall as when I have no money I see what I would like to have. One show one of the higher end dealers had one of the 24-3 3" bbld lew horton guns. I jumped on it so fast the wife who was with me didn't see me until the deed had been done. And last but not least was the 24-3 4" bbld one that went home. Went to a local show in December and was the first in over a year. Got a bubba'd Chilean 1895 mauser to play around with this winter. Frank

[Adam10mm]

I like the 44 special. Haven't a gun for it but some brass and a 44-250-K mold. Single action is first choice. A gp100 size da would be neat with a four inch barrel.

[ejcrist]

Amen Brother! I'm more of a single action guy than DA but I'd buy the 44 Special you described in a New York minute. I thought I remember seeing a S&W classic model 24 once a while back but by the time I could afford one I didn't see it being made anymore. I don't know - maybe I was just dreaming or something. I have the Ruger BH 44 Special in 5 1/2" barrel but I really wanted a 6 1/2"-7 1/2" so I have a Freedom Arms 97 on order. Can't wait to get it. But yeah, I'm definitely with you on that idea. My guess as to why they don't make it is the cost is high and there probably isn't a large enough market to break even on. I'm guessing the market for high-speed, cool looking (in some's minds) semi-auto's is the most profitable so that's what they do. I'd be happier if they included revolvers like you described, even if the price was high relative to the other handguns. I think there'd be plenty enough of a market for them even if they cost between $1,000-$1,500. Just my $0.02.

[Piedmont]

There just isn't a market. I have a 6.5" M624 and had a 4" and stupidly sold it more than 15 years ago. I thought it recoiled too much with 250 grain bullets. Now I have a lighter mold. S&W makes that L frame in .44 mag now since they strengthened it. That is what everyone will buy.

Face it, just about everyone would rather buy a .44 Mag or .357 Mag and stick specials in there if they want. It is only weirdos like us that want the specials. Heck, I had a .44 Russian made. How weird is that?

As a point of interest I am very happy Ruger gave us the .44 Special single actions but they are heavy because they are all steel. Much heavier than a Ruger 3 screw .357 conversion and heavier even than an all steel Colt SAA or New Frontier.

You need to just commission a revolversmith and have them make what you want. The factories won't do it. Maybe we could have a thread on our custom revolvers. I have a buddy that converted a New Model .357 Flattop to a 4" .40 S&W. I still think that is about as cool as revolvers get and am tempted to do the same but I don't load that round and want to downsize, not add to the clutter.

[Bazoo]

I am not much of a special kind of guy. I dont care for 44's much either. I am a 357 nut though. I like the 38 special pretty good but not like I like the 357 magnum.

That said, I have though about a ruger 357 converted to 44 special on occasion, I believe i'd fancy that idea. Or , a single action in 44 special period would be pretty nice. Paired with a 44 magnum rifle. One would have options.

I gave it a long hard thought, some time back, and I decided to go with the 357 for a number of reasons. Mostly notably, the history.

[Hickory]

I have had a S&W69 ordered since I first read about it a year ago.
The plan is to shoot it with 44 magnum brass but load it as no more than a 44 special+p, a load that would disappoint Elmer Keith's expectations.

[buckwheatpaul]

MakeMineA10mm you have some very valid points....however, with the latest RELOADER magazine bringing those issues to light I doubt that the bean counters will ever fix it.....not that many people want a 44 special when they can have a 44 mag. and still shoot the 44 special.....as pointed out if you keep the pressure under 15000 psi all is good and those loads listed will more than do the job whether it be paper, deer, or for self-defense.....That same problem is what killed the Mod 19 and the 66...most shooters want the "most powerful" when in reality most will only shoot lighter loads.....I love the 44 special and most of my loads are in the realm of what was outlined in the article....however, I use the old powders....old guy kind of thing....thanks for posting and we can only pray that the S & W people will fix the problem before it kills a great revolver...

[Zouave 58]

Don't forget a broached barrel instead of a EDM.

[missionary5155]

Greetings
Only caliber 44 I have is a 2.5 inch barrelled titanium 5 shot by Taurus. That one will never leave. The rest left home when I realised between 41 mag and 45 Colt I had little use for a caliber in between. I did keep all the 44 Russians though as they are thier own nitch of fun.
But if you go to GB there are always numerous 44 Specials for sale. Use some patience and the right one at the right price will plop right up.
44 Special is a fine one and happily is still available.
Mike in Peru

[contender1]

A few posts above, as well as a comment in the OP explains it all.

Bean counters.

That said, any company, (not just gun companies,) are in business to make money. The product is the route to that end. Add in stockholders, and the bean counters force the companies to figure out the best way to build a product to sell to a lot of people & make money.
Bill Ruger built his company on his method of manufacturing over others by changing the way things had been done for decades. And he was one frugal individual. He made things in a way that it was cheaper to built the product.

It's all about profit, and unfortunately, too many folks just wouldn't buy what you described, BECAUSE of the cost of making it and what they would have to sell it for.
Ruger was able to be successful because they already had the frame size (mid-frame) stuff from the early years. And by building the 44 spl in that frame, NOT making it a 44 mag it was safe.
Safety is another reason a lot of guns don't get built by factories. Can we say idiots & lawsuits?

A lot goes on behind the scenes that many consumers don't know or understand. But it comes down to what can they build to make money.

[theperfessor]

A 5 shot 3" bbl GP100 in .44 Special is one of my dream revolvers.

[rintinglen]

I have 3 44 specials and have owned 4 others previously, and there is a sound reason that S&W won't bother with a 44 Special--they won't sell!

When you go to the range, what do you see? A few revolvers awash in a sea of plastic handled 9mm's and 40's. The only Revolvers that still sell in respectable numbers are the Single actions, the Magnums and the snubbies. Even the snubbies are magnums, as often as not. When S&W has made 44 Specials available, what has happened? After the initial splurge of purchasing, sales dropped off to nada. I bought my 624 new on clearance for 268 dollars--a full hundred bucks off list, and those were 1988 dollars. That gun was less accurate than my 38's and 357's, bigger too. It was less accurate than the Redhawk, so two years later when I needed money, out the door it went at a tidy profit. My 21 came to me the same way. After sitting on the shelf at a major distributor for nearly a year they marked it down to $696 off of a list of 855. The travails of the L-frame 44 Specials and the broken forcing cones back in the 90's has been mentioned before. 44 specials? Each time S&W has made them they have been bitten . Don't look for them to change their minds anytime soon.

And even amongst those that like them, there is not a unanimous opinion. The OP wants a 3 and 1/2 incher and a 5 inch, and I'd want a 4 and a 6.5. All 44 enthusiasts do with their clamour is make new varieties of odd-ball models for future collectors... Oh, and have fun shooting them.

[Petrol & Powder]

Similar to Theperfessor - I wish Ruger would make a 44 Special GP100. I think there's enough metal in the GP100 cylinder that you could get 5 chambers in there without changing the external diameter of the cylinder. The frame is strong enough and with those big bores, it might actually weigh less than a boat anchor. I also think there's a market for that concept.

MakeMineA10mm - very valid points and I agree with a lot of your ideas.

I far prefer a 44 Special over the 44 magnum, both in terms of the performance of the cartridge and the guns themselves. A DA revolver chambered in 44 Special can be made a bit lighter than the same gun in 44 magnum. Unfortunately there aren't too many DA 44 Specials available and I'm not a big fan of single action revolvers (There's nothing wrong with SA and I've had my share, I just gravitate towards DA)

The S&W models 21, 24 and 624 are pretty much what is available and they tend to be limited in supply and ridiculously high priced. There are some other DA 44 Specials out there but it's a limited field. It's unfortunate but the 44 magnum just about killed off the 44 Special. For whatever reason, the 38 Special escaped that same fate, probably because of the target disciplines and the usefulness of 38 snubnose revolvers.
The other strike against the 44 Special in terms of marketing, is the factory ammunition that is available for the 44 Special. In a word, "it sucks"! You just about have to be a handloader to get decent performance out of the 44 Special. It's a great cartridge but not in its factory loadings. Not everyone is a handloader and the availability of factory ammunition affects the marking of guns.
rintinglen, as for the reluctance of S&W to get back into the 44 Special market - I would argue with you if I could but I don't have a leg to stand on. You're right, S&W is in business to make money, not guns.

When I decided to get back into the 44 game I REALLY wanted a DA 44 Special revolver. I couldn't find one that was both a decent gun and didn't require a 2nd mortgage. I capitulated and purchased a 44 magnum. At least I was able to get a Mountain Gun with tapered barrel. It's not a 44 Special but it was as close as I could get without needing a second job.
At least with the magnum, I can download to Skeeter level loads and have a huge margin of safety in the strength of the gun.

[shoot-n-lead]

The other strike against the 44 Special in terms of marketing, is the factory ammunition that is available for the 44 Special. In a word, "it sucks"! You just about have to be a handloader to get decent performance out of the 44 Special. It's a great cartridge but not in its factory loadings. Not everyone is a handloader and the availability of factory ammunition affects the marking of guns.
rintinglen, as for the reluctance of S&W to get back into the 44 Special market - I would argue with you if I could but I don't have a leg to stand on. You're right, S&W is in business to make money, not guns.

This is the elephant in the room concerning the 44 special...ammo availability and cost of factory ammo are real problems.

For those wanting a 44 special DA carry gun, the Rossi 720 is fine quality gun for not much money.

[Vulcan Bob]

We may well be few but we do buy em! When the S&W brought out the 22-1 I bought one, when they came out with the 22-4 I bought one, same with the classic 24 I bought one a nice shiny nickeled 6 1/2 incher, with its trim tapered barrel it feels real good in the hand. When Lipseys/Ruger brought out the Flat Top in .44 Special I bought three of em and the NV in .44 Special. The mid size Flat Top in .45 Colt/ACP was a no brainer, snarfed one of them too. I too cannot fathom why they don't satisfy the cravings of us non conformists with special runs now and again, how hard can it be?

[shoot-n-lead]

I too cannot fathom why they don't satisfy the cravings of us non conformists with special runs now and again, how hard can it be?

I agree...if they can do runs of 1000 for distributors...seems like they could do the same for us.

I would love to have a new 44 special SP101 or GP100...short barrel, of course.

[jmort]

Are there really so few of us?

Yes

If there were fewer laws and restrictions on firearms, niche markets would be better served.

[rintinglen]

I agree...if they can do runs of 1000 for distributors...seems like they could do the same for us.

I would love to have a new 44 special SP101 or GP100...short barrel, of course.

If one thousand of us could get together and commission a special edition of an existing gun, it could happen, but the task of selling them through normal distribution,makes it daunting. I don't happen to have the 3-5 million it would take to fund such an endeavor. Especially in these times of shortages--when was the last time you saw a box of 44 Specials on the shelf of your local gun store--odd ball calibers just don't have mass appeal. Now don't get me wrong, my guns are not for sale, but I realize that my taste for the exotic is not shared by the multitude, and I have my brass already, and I cast. GOLDEN!

[MakeMineA10mm]

Well, there are a LOT of good comments here.

First, while I support the idea of a GP-100 in 44 Spl., I've always been a S&W man when it comes to DA revolvers. I think GP-100s are good-looking, well-built, and about the perfect size, but the DA trigger is just not to my liking, at least not as much as a good S&W's DA trigger pull. Believe it or not, I don't like Colt Pythons for the same reason. Great-looking, well built, right size, but Colt DA is bad. I prefer the Ruger to a Python...

A couple of you picked up on my derision towards accountants. Ironically, all of them I know personally are nice guys, but when it comes to running a gun company, I'd rather a gun enthusiast was in charge and the accountants just told him where the profit point was and let him make good stuff instead of a lot of compromises... Our whole world's economy has become a "just-in-time," "throw-away," "six-sigma" pile of garbage. No craftsmanship and no "building a better product" (regardless of the cost) any more. Basically, zero corporate pride; everything's about the weekly profit/loss sheet... (The one different company? Apple, but I digress.)

I think I'm going to do what Piedmont suggested and have one made. This will only work if the Mod. 624 barrel fits (or is really, really close) the breach window of the 69 and the ejector rod shroud lines up with the ejector. Guess I'll be doing some researching on that next. I've had a pristine M586 in the safe to have converted, but finding a gunsmith to do the proper shaping of the ejector rod housing is daunting, and then, with the new M69's bigger breach window, I figured it's a much better starting point.