Ruger .44 Special-Is it really that good?

greener · Post by **greener** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:18 pm

I loaned my Mark III Hunter to a first time shooter in a CCW class who had become very intimidated by her .357 revolver. After 30 minutes of me loading magazines while she shot, the instructor let me play with his .44 special revolver. I fired six rounds single action doing my best to shoot the same sight picture. The rounds didn't go exactly where I thought I was aiming, but did leave one jagged hole in the target. It was darned impressive consistency. Are the Ruger Revolvers really that consistent or was it just dumb, blind luck? This was the first time I had fired the pistol, which made it even more impressive.

I didn't fire any more rounds because (a) six .44 special rounds are probably more than ample monetary compensation for 200 rounds of Wallyworld bulk .22; (b) 6 more rounds with the similar results and I'd be thinking about my new Ruger .44 special; and (c) 12 more rounds with similar results and I'd be talking about my new Ruger .44 special.

Post by **Bullseye** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:23 pm

No luck to it. You did your best to maintain a consistent sight picture and similar trigger squeeze. Your learning the finer techniques of marksmanship. You'll find that once you apply those same principles to your 22 the results will be similar. Concentrate on the sight picture and squeeze.

A good single action trigger can be a beautiful thing.

R,
Bullseye

greener · Post by **greener** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:43 pm

Amen to the single action trigger. One dry fire single action and I wasn't even going to waste my time finding out if it would shoot double action.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:11 am

Greener,

There's another MAJOR reason you did well with that Ruger .44 Special.

It was a custom built gun.

Ruger never has, and probubly never will chamber a gun in .44 Special. Somebody had to custom convert that revolver.

Ruger has made many revolvers both single and double action in .44 Magnum, but NONE in .44 Special.

Joe

bearandoldman · Post by **bearandoldman** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:56 pm

J Miller wrote:Greener,

There's another MAJOR reason you did well with that Ruger .44 Special.

It was a custom built gun.

Ruger never has, and probubly never will chamber a gun in .44 Special. Somebody had to custom convert that revolver.

Ruger has made many revolvers both single and double action in .44 Magnum, but NONE in .44 Special.

Joe

Ruger has made many thousands of guns that will fire the .44 S&W Special cartridge.
Sorry to diasgree with you but any .44 Magnum revolver will fire the .44 Special cartridge. I used to own a Ruger Super Blackhawk in .44 mag ansd shot a lot of .44 special in it for practice rounds just to keep down the cost , hte noise andf the dambn muzzzle blast from them Dirty Harry cartridges. The .44 Special it to the .44 Magum just as the .38 Special is to the .357 MAgnum. Both of the Magnums were intentionally made longer so taht you could not chamber theem in a gun the may self destruct with the heavier load. If my memory serves me right they are both made 1/10th of an inch longer than the .38 or .44 Special cases.

bearandoldman · Post by **bearandoldman** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:56 pm

J Miller wrote:Greener,

There's another MAJOR reason you did well with that Ruger .44 Special.

It was a custom built gun.

Ruger never has, and probubly never will chamber a gun in .44 Special. Somebody had to custom convert that revolver.

Ruger has made many revolvers both single and double action in .44 Magnum, but NONE in .44 Special.

Joe

Ruger has made many thousands of guns that will fire the .44 S&W Special cartridge.
Sorry to diasgree with you but any .44 Magnum revolver will fire the .44 Special cartridge. I used to own a Ruger Super Blackhawk in .44 mag ansd shot a lot of .44 special in it for practice rounds just to keep down the cost , hte noise andf the dambn muzzzle blast from them Dirty Harry cartridges. The .44 Special it to the .44 Magum just as the .38 Special is to the .357 MAgnum. Both of the Magnums were intentionally made longer so taht you could not chamber theem in a gun the may self destruct with the heavier load. If my memory serves me right they are both made 1/10th of an inch longer than the .38 or .44 Special cases.

Post by **Bullseye** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:56 pm

I have to agree with Len, and so does the Blackhawk, Super Blackhawk and Bisley Owner's Manual. The Ruger Blackhawk can use either 44Mag or 44Spl ammunition.

Here's a picture of the two 44 cal cartridges for comparison.

That's a pretty good recollection Len; the 44 Magnum cartridge case is 1/8th inch longer than is sibling the 44 Special.

To be fair to Jim, the gun is chambered for the 44 Magnum but the 44 Special can also be used in it.

Hope this helps.

R,
Bullseye

bearandoldman · Post by **bearandoldman** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:13 pm

Guess old age is catching up with me, and the memory is lsipping a little. I know the .357 mag case is .100 longer and I thought the .44 mag was the same. Got caught by .025, Wasn't Maxwell Smart alway told 99, misswed by that much. Was the program called Get Smart, kind of a comic detective show and he had a phone in the heel of his shoe, how little did they know taht it can now be done that way easily.

Post by **Bullseye** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:42 pm

I guess your eyes have been playing tricks on you because I see the case length differences in the .38 and .357 cartridges as .135". The differences between the 44Spl and the 44Mag as .125".

Here's a good on-line reference for cartridges: http://handloads.com/articles/cartridge.htm

I remember the old "Get Smart" TV program well, used to watch it every Saturday night. I've said that saying a few times myself. One of my favorites was the "Cone of Silence" which never worked right.

R,
Bullseye

greener · Post by **greener** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 6:17 pm

Hard to tell if it was custom or not. The owner was proud of it. Darn fine shooting revolver.

No way to tell if it was custom or not. On a quick read, it looks like the pistol, if it was truly .44 special, could be in the range of 35++ years old.

Next time I see the fellow, I try to get the details.

bearandoldman · Post by **bearandoldman** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 6:27 pm

Bullseye wrote:I guess your eyes have been playing tricks on you because I see the case length differences in the .38 and .357 cartridges as .135". The differences between the 44Spl and the 44Mag as .125".

Here's a good on-line reference for cartridges: http://handloads.com/articles/cartridge.htm

I remember the old "Get Smart" TV program well, used to watch it every Saturday night. I've said that saying a few times myself. One of my favorites was the "Cone of Silence" which never worked right.

R,
Bullseye

Don't have a reloacing book aroun anymore, lost that years ago. Maqybe my memory too, must have got swatted by them Penguins too much. That .100 was something I just pulled from my memory and that shows you tha my memory is not very good and short too,. What were we discussing now?

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 1:42 pm

Hey guys, I'm quite aware of Rugers manufacture of the .44 Magnum revolvers and rifles.
I'm also aware that these will also chamber and fire the .44 Special cartridge.

HOWEVER you either did not read what I said, or you did not understand what I said, so I'll quote myself:

Ruger never has, and probubly never will chamber a gun in .44 Special. Somebody had to custom convert that revolver.

Ruger has made many revolvers both single and double action in .44 Magnum, but NONE in .44 Special.

Now, since Greener was specifically referencing a .44 Special caliber Ruger revolver in his post:

snip.....the instructor let me play with his .44 special revolver. ......... Are the Ruger Revolvers really that consistent ...

, my comment IS correct and your comments were unnecessary as I had already covered that fact in my original statement - quoted and emphasized above.

EDITED because I hit the submit button when I wanted to hit the preview button.

Greener, it's been a common thing for gunsmiths to convert Ruger Flattop and 3 Screw .357s to .44 Special for decades. Ruger has its corporate head up its @$$ when it comes to the .44 Special. There is a small but steady demand for it. Skeeter Skelton pestered S&W and Colt to reintroduce the .44 Spcl and since then S&W has made occasional limited runs of them. Ruger has not. Please don't think I'm a smart @$$ but their is a difference between guns chambered for the .44 Spcl and the .44 Mag. Those chambered for the .44 Special generally are lighter, more compact and easier to carry than the heavier larger beafier .44 Mag chambered guns. This is why the converted guns are almost always the smaller framed .357guns.
That is what the fans of the .44 Spcl are after.

Now in all this I've said nothing to demean the quality or usefullness of the .44 Mag, but simply saying that Ruger has made thousands of .44 Specials because the .44 Magnum revolvers will accept it, is blatently incorrect.

Joe

bearandoldman · Post by **bearandoldman** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 6:17 pm

J Miller wrote:
Ruger never has, and probubly never will chamber a gun in .44 Special. Somebody had to custom convert that revolver.

Ruger has made many revolvers both single and double action in .44 Magnum, but NONE in .44 Special.Joe

Sorry Joe, somtimes reading and comprehending do not take place at the same time. What you were saying is taht Ruger never made a hangun chambered for the S&W .44 Special as the primary and only cartridge. Sorry to take your statement wrong. Yes old Skeeter and I believe Colonel Askins were great believers in this cartridge. Got rid of my Super Blackhawk because I did not shoot it that much and lost interest in the single action slow to reload gun. At one time my primary carry was a Taurus Ultralite in S&W .44 Special, but when I got the SA Micro Compact in .45ACP it sat around unused and became trading material for another project. That little hand cannon was chambereed primarily for the .44 Special and not for the .44 Magnum, thak God or I probably woud have tried shooting them in a 23 ounce Titanium pisola.
The S&W .44 Special is a good cartridge but not a popular one, it is like the 16 gage shotgun, not very popular. At one time Remington marketed some, if I remember correctly 240 grain lead flot nose that were great shooters, but they stopped making them. The selection of ammo for the .44 and the 16 gage is very poor and availablility is not the best either. At the time I did not reload metallic and lost interest due to the poor selection of ammo. Still a damn good cartridge but not very popular.

greener · Post by **greener** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:52 pm

I followed this discussion and did some internet checking and it seems very unlikely that I fired a Ruger .44 special. I know the rounds were .44 special and the pistol was described by the owner as a .44 special, and I further believe he said Ruger. I also know (now) that it was a single action revolver.

What-ever I shot, it was a sweet-shooting pistol. Perhaps one of these days I'll identify the maker.

Post by **Bullseye** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:52 am

greener wrote:I followed this discussion and did some internet checking and it seems very unlikely that I fired a Ruger .44 special. I know the rounds were .44 special and the pistol was described by the owner as a .44 special, and I further believe he said Ruger. I also know (now) that it was a single action revolver.

What-ever I shot, it was a sweet-shooting pistol. Perhaps one of these days I'll identify the maker.

I kind of figured from the wording of your first posting that there was a air of uncertainty about the model of pistol you shot that day. The information provided didn't seem to warrant a definitive conclusion as to the model/type and caliber of pistol.

Joe, I'm sorry if I implied you were incorrect. My disagreement with your conclusion was not intended as an insult to your credibility. I see now that you meant Ruger had not made a pistol exclusively chambered in .44 Special and not that some couldn't shoot that caliber ammunition. I must have misuderstood the wording in your post; again, my apologies.

R,
Bullseye