Anyone tried the RCBS 44-300 SW in a Ruger GP-100 5 Shot 44 Special ?

[Glaciers]

Thanks, but I have the NOE cloned version of RD 265 RNFP with traditional lube grooves and GC. Use to use it in the Marlin, till I purchased the MP 250 RNFP with three pin (solid, conic and HP) option. The MP has a larger meplat, plus hollow point versatility.

I have shot the 265 RNFP in the 2.50" DAO Bulldog with both W-231 and Alliant 2400 and chronographed the loads with LabRadar.

5.5 grains of W-231 yields 728 fps..........practice load

13.0 grains of 2400 yields 828 fps...........carry load, while bowhunting.

That Smith was twice the Bulldog hoped to ever simulate. I'm sure it is, especially the weight. Strictly a belt holster piece. IMO. Try carrying that in your pocket. Not my cup of tea. Bulldog fits nicely in the cargo pocket of my hunting pants, in a DeSantis Nemesis pocket holster. Hardly, know its there.

Spot on. They are different animals for different uses.

 

[Jeff H]

Well there are different reasons for heavy or light bullets in a given caliber, most of which have been touched on here.
Michael hits a home run with the only gun and only mold.
.....

Hard to make a blanket assertion and cover everything, so yeah, different applications, different loads. "It depends" comes along every time we try to make a rule.

As for the one gun, one mould thing, I'm set up for that. I have several 358 moulds that I like, but also have a "succession plan," or maybe it's a REgression plan. Saving the really long story, the 3", 5-shot 357 will be the absolute last to go, if things should go that way. I'm not talking conspiracies, zombie take-overs or anything like that, but real-world things like what will MY economy look like in five years, ten years? WilI l be able to take care of my property or have to move to a smaller place?

The ONE mould that I would take is a NOE 360-180 WFN, plain-based to weigh 187 grains. It's a bell-ringer/vermin-buster/squirrel load/... in the suppressed 357 carbine and can be loaded to 1800 fps therein as well, if needed. In the 3" revolver, I can push it slow with a pinch of powder and still have adequate mass to effect good momentum/penetration without exploding my eardrums and lighting up the night. Small game to deer, personal defense. @Glen wrote a neat article on the Lyman 215 grain SWC along these lines.

I'll take the momentum offered by the greater mass over trying to hit 1400 fps with a 125 JHP any day for about any purpose myself. 125 JHPs in a 3" revolver are nothing like 125 JHPs in a 6" revolver, so the slower 180s come in handy. Not criticizing the 125s at high velocity at all here - just that they won't do for me all I need done if I can only have ONE.

Is it folly to shoot nothing but 180s in a short 357 for everything all the time? Sure. I shoot other stuff to conserve lead, but my go-to, last-ditch will be the "heavy" all the way.

 

[Winelover]

That 3 cavity aluminum NOE 265 RNFP mould was the very first Group Buy, I participated in. Before, Al opened his retail operation. It was honchoed by SciFi Jim on CB.

 

[Winelover]

Come to think about it, it was also my first aluminum mold. All, I ever used were RCBS 2 cavity iron molds, before than.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

I totally understand the concept of, “this is what I have so this is what I going to use”.

I also understand the short range, heavy bullet concept. However, I maintain my lack of enthusiasm for heavy for caliber or light for caliber bullets. It’s not an absolute aversion but it is a general aversion.

 

[oscarflytyer]

if I want a hand grenade, I use a light bullet. If I want a train, heavy for caliber (and I am quite fond of trains!; HG s are good, but...). And if I want middle of the road reliable game perf, prob std weight.

If you gottem', Smoke Em'! Whatever floats your boat. AND why we cast and reload! 'Cause we CAN!

 

[Missionary]

Getting a S&W 69 is on my list. Saw a NIB 69 go for just under $800 on GB. So I have hope one day to collect a good used one.
But having read post #40 (thankyou !) maybe I will rethink our 4" model 29. It is a 95% blue and a round butt would be a nice improvement for us.
But again I cannot get to it right now......

 

[Petrol & Powder]

Ruger uses good quality steel in their cylinders and frames, so no problem there. The chamber walls are a little thin in the 44 Special cylinders of the GP-100, but I think they are more than strong enough even for hot 44 Special loads slightly above the pathetic SAAMI 44 Special limits. However, when you start talking about 300 grain bullets in 44 Special casings, in a 44 Special revolver like a GP-100, I have to say, “no thank you”.

A 44 Magnum built on the S&W L-frame (a model 69) is a neat setup but that L-frame was born as a 357 magnum revolver and the 5-shot 44 magnum versions came as an afterthought.

A 44 Magnum built on an N-frame is well proven and not much larger than the L-frame. In addition, the N-frame was a big bore revolver to start with.

When I returned to the 44-caliber game after a lengthy sabbatical, I found all the DA revolvers chambered in 44 Special to be priced in the stratosphere. The prices for an N-frame chambered in 44 Special were obscene. My solution was a 629 Mountain Gun. It is the lightest, all steel, magnum N-frame chambered in 44 Magnum that I could find. It mainly sees 44 SPECIAL class cartridges, but it has more than the required strength for those loads.

I would have preferred some DA revolver chambered in 44 Special that was built around that cartridge to start with, but those are just not available. The 44 magnum really killed off the revolvers chambered exclusively for the 44 Special. I think the Ruger GP-100 in 44 Special is an awesome setup but I would be leery of a GP-100 with 300 grain, 44 caliber, bullets.

 

[CZ93X62]

A 4" Model 29/629/Mountain Gun does a whole lot of things well. I think this series of revolvers is truly at its best with 44 cases--Special or Magnum--loaded to 'Skeeter's Load' specs. A 240 grain cast SWC loping along at 950-1000 FPS can do some great work and won't beat up the user or a fine N-frame revolver like the full-tilt loadings can.
I know this viewpoint is antithetical and heretical, but hear me out. The 44 Special's first homes c. 1908 were in S&W N-frame and Colt SAA and New Service platforms. The S&W N-frame was designed around the 44 Special cartridge. I submit that had the 44 Special been loaded to the standards of the 45 Colt--standard-weight bullets at 900-950 FPS--that the 44 Magnum might not have been able to totally eclipse the Special in the way that it has. The 454 Casull has not set the world on fire compared to the 45 Colt, as has been the case with the 44 Special and 44 Magnum.

Boil this all down--my full-tilt 44 Magnum shooting gets done with a carbine or with Ruger Redhawk and Bisley Hunter Blackhawk revolvers. SAAMI neutered the 44 Magnum in the 1990s, but I didn't. The 240 grainers in my Full Tilt loads run at 1400-1450 FPS from the sideirons and 1800-1850 FPS from the MirokuChester 1892 carbine. As said in another thread, recoil with those loads is exhilarating; 20-25 of those in a session is sufficiently interesting for me. 90% of my 44 Magnum shooting gets done with the #429421 stepping out at 950-1000 FPS. I am reasonable sure that they will not bounce back from the target paper or carboard backer.

 

[Bret4207]

Even in the magnums (357 and 44) I tend to run more towards 1-1.1K than the 1400 fps stuff. That was fun when I was young and...well, kinda stupid. Now, the only max loads I use are in hunting calibers like the 250-3000 where I want to be sure of a clean kill. A heavy-ish for the cal cast bullet with a good SWC or FP profile out of a handgun at 850-1000fps isn't going to be a problem in the northeast as far as stopping nasties. A rifle with a good FP or RNFP profile at 16-1800 fps does just as well IME thus far. Heck, the 45-70 405 at 11-1300 fps has been a reliable number for 100 and almost 50 years IIRC!

 

[Petrol & Powder]

In a perfect world…….

What I envision is an all-stainless steel DA revolver with a cylinder large enough in diameter for 6 rounds of 44 special and just long enough for a 44 Special casing with a 250ish grain SWC bullet. I would want the “window” in the frame to be just large enough to accommodate that cylinder with as short of a barrel shank protruding through the frame as possible. In essence, no larger in any dimension than needed.

I would like a tapered barrel about 4” long to keep the weight down. A nice ramped front sight, maybe with a night sight insert. I would like a rear sight that provided a good sight picture but was snag resistant (rounded exterior corners and sloped at the front). This is a gun that will be shot with only one loading so the sights can be adjustable, but they don’t need to be conveniently adjustable. The sights will be zeroed to a particular load and never altered after that.

I would want a shrouded ejector rod but not a full length underbarrel lug. A smooth trigger face and a rounded hammer spur. A round butt grip frame would be fine but a peg style grip frame would be even better.

The 629 Mountain Gun in 44 Mag was as close as I could get to the above. It gets fed Skeeter 44 Special loads or Skeeter equivalent loads in 44 mag cases. The 29/629 is bigger than it needs to be for strictly 44 Special loadings but that’s the world we live in, so I had to accept that.

 

[CZ93X62]

Bret--Yessir.

Jon--That's called 'Reasonable Accomodation' in this day & age.

One of the Captains at my shop had a S&W Triple Lock in nickel finish x 6.5" barrel. Exquisite condition, too. It is likely the nicest revolver I have ever had the privilege of handling.

To me, the N-frame and 44 Special are a perfect marriage. Same story for L-frame and 357 Magnum and K-frame with 38 Special. All three were purpose-designed for those calibers.

 

[Missionary]

I would like to see that Triple-Lock ! Those were / are some fine revolvers.

 

[Bret4207]

The N Frame 44's are nice, but I prefer the shorter barrels when talking of handling. I have a 44 and 45 with the 8 3/8" barrel stored here. Simply too unwieldy for me. Maybe if I was a silhouette shooter, but they're just too big for me. 4-5" feels right to me. My 24-3 44 Spec feels perfect. My M-28 4" feels slightly barrel heavy, but not bad.

Just one persons observation on the feel of those N frames, not offense to lovers of long barrels. And yes Al, the L frame 357's were darn near perfect, but the K frame still feels better in my hand! For sure a few less ounces felt better on my hip bone after a 12 hour shift!!!

 

[oscarflytyer]

I have 2x N frame 44 Specials. The 21-4 TR has too skinny throats for the bbl groove. Will either fix or part with. But I do like the old school 4" bbl, round grip frame and 1/2 moon fixed sights.

OTH, the 624 stainless has open throats and tighter bore. 6 1/2" bbl. Love it as is! And it likes my Keith loads. Prob/hopefully one day take a deer with it.

 

[Glaciers]

I’m a fan of 4” in the N frame, my 480 is 5” which works well for that gun cartridge combo. My new to me 625 is a 4” my first 625 was a 5” which I liked slightly better, but, for N frames the 4” is about perfect.
3” for the SP 101 357 and Bulldog, Rossi 720 feel right.
I’ve had the 8” Smiths in K & N frames, they are down the road now, only have one 6” N frame left a 24-3 44SPL and it’s going to be sold off

 

[JustJim]

The problem with the solution proposed by P&P is that if you have an S&W Mountain Gun in 44 Mag, it becomes difficult to make excuses that you "need" another gun. Maybe a spare.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

The problem with the solution proposed by P&P is that if you have an S&W Mountain Gun in 44 Mag, it becomes difficult to make excuses that you "need" another gun. Maybe a spare.

Well, A John Jovino Effector could show up........and the......I guess ......need (?) could materialize.