Thoughts on the Ruger Blackhawk .44 Special

[Webleymkv]

So lately I've been thinking more and more about acquiring a single action revolver. As many of you probably already know, I'm quite fond of S&W DA wheelguns, the N Frames in particular. That being said, while I've owned a wide variety of DA revolvers I've never had a SA and my curiosity about one has been piqued recently.

In the past, when the idea of a SA revolver rolled around in my head a Ruger Blackhawk always seemed like the most logical choice since they are of known good quality, not terribly expensive, and the adjustable sights give a good bit of latitude to play around with different bullet weights. Previously, I always thought of .45 Long Colt as the most logical cartridge choice due to its wide versatility in said platform.

That being said, the fact that the Blackhawk is now offered in .44 Special intrigues me. As I've explained in the past, the .44 Special is a cartridge that I've always wanted to like, but never really found the right gun to like it in. A .44 Special Blackhawk seems like it might scratch both my .44 Special itch and my curiosity regarding SA revolvers.

Also, because I also own and reload for .44 Magnum and have loaded for .44 Special in the past, I would not need to invest much in new dies and components like I would to load .45 Long Colt thus making .44 Special, for me at least, very possibly the more economical choice.

What I would like to know is if anyone here who owns/has owned, shot, or has handled a .44 Special Ruger Blackhawk would care to share their thoughts and opinions about the gun. Specifically, I'd be interested to know the consensus regarding the gun's strength. I know that it is on the newer "medium" Blackhawk frame and thus cannot handle .44 Magnum or Ruger-only .45 Long Colt level handloads and, quite honestly, I have no interest in "magnumizing" the .44 Spl as I've already got .41 and .44 Magnum revolvers. What I'm interested in using is something more along the lines of the classic Skeeter Skelton .44 Special load (250 gr bullet over 7.5 gr Unique) or a similar recipe to push a 240-250 gr bullet at 900-1000 fps. Is the .44 Spl Blackhawk strong enough for that kind of ammunition or would I be limited to factory-equivalent handloads? What say you TFL?

[DPris]

I'd never had the slightest interest in the .44 Special caliber, since I have several other guns that get the same big-bore job done in other calibers, till Lipsey's came out with their Flattop Blackhawk a while back.

I ended up buying the test sample I worked with.
It's been tweaked slightly, squaring up the front sight blade, installing a red insert, rounding off the sharp rear sight corners, installing a locking Belt Mountain basepin, and removing the indexing plunger & spring.
Finally getting around to replacing the black plastic cheesegrater grips.

It's a handy package, decently accurate, 4 5/8-inch barrel.
After conferring with John Taffin, I worked up a 250-grain Keith bullet at 1050 FPS with 2400 through it, which it handles fine.
I see no need to go any higher, I have .44 Mags (including a 50th Ann Flattop with 6 1/2-inch barrel) if I want or need more power in a .44.

The gun is strong enough to deal with those pressures, produces the equivalent energy of a hotter .45 Colt load, and feels trim in the hand.
The factory grips are not intolerable on this gun with that load (the same grips on the .44 Mag Flattop ARE intolerable, bare-handed), but they're borderline.

Conventional .44 Special factory stuff at more sedate velocities & energy levels offer me no advantage over a good .45 Colt load, and I have several .45 Colt revolvers, DA & SA, to handle varying power levels.

It was the gun, more than the caliber, that sold the package, for me.
I bought it with the sole intention of loading my own ammunition for it, to a specific power level, to fit a specific trail & ATV application.

Today picking up a Bisley version, I'll be doing a project with it & my standard Flattop in two weeks.
I think I have six different factory loads on hand, from conventional Winchester on up to two or three Buffalo Bore hot-sauce stuff.

The nearest BB load to my handload runs within 50 FPS or so of mine, according to the box (and Sundles is usually very close on his velocity figures).

I BELIEVE the gun could go slightly hotter, but there's not much reason to push it further, and don't use my "believe" to base higher pressures on in experimenting yourself.

The .44 Special, in that Ruger, has plenty of steam at 1000 FPS with a good 250-grain bullet, and remains safe IN MY GUN.

You certainly would not be limited to factory equivalent, in terms of mainstream 800 +- FPS velocities & energy.

Denis

[Aguila Blanca]

I have an original (large frame) Blackhawk in .45 Colt, and I also have a "new" model Blackhawk (medium frame) in .44 Special. The .44 is definitely and visibly smaller, and that includes the cylinder. Personally, I don't think I'd care to exceed factory loads in the smaller gun.

That said, I believe the 50th Anniversary Blackhawk in .44 magnum was built on the smaller frame, so I guess Ruger must think the guns will stand up to magnum loads.

[DPris]

I have a "full-sized" Blackhawk in .45 Colt, the Flattop .44 Special, and the Flattop .44 Mag.

All three frames are fractionally different in size.

Both the .45 Blackhawk & the .44 Flattop will fit the same holsters, the .45 frame is slightly beefier, but not hugely.

The .44 Mag Flattop frame is slightly longer than the .44 Special frame, as I recall. It's at the gunsmith having the same sight work done as the Special.
Can't compare them at the moment.

The frame is more than strong enough on the Special to handle 1000 FPS with a 250-grainer, and the chamber walls are plenty thick for it.

In discussing the idea, Taffin gave me a range of charge weights for the gun & bullet that actually ran higher velocities than what I'm using, he says they're safe & I defer to his experience.
I just don't need to push that Special any harder.
Denis

[salvadore]

I've shot Keith's load in my flat top .44 spec. It's pretty snappy. It doesn't hurt as much as my M-21 due to the grip shape. I don't care for the ramp front sight which tends to disappear on me depending on the light. The trigger pull is a little heavy but not horrible, and easily fixed. The grip is a little small and will eventually replace original grip panels with fatter ones.

My most accurate load is a Lee 429-240-2R @ around 750/850 using 231, bullseye, and titegroup, that's the powders that I have used and groups are all pretty consistant. I use RCBS's Keith bullet with 7 grs of Unique, Keith recommended 7.5 grains in a 1969 Guns and Ammo article, but it wasn't clear to me if he was using balloon type brass. I have also shot the Lyman The 429352 a WC thumper as shown below, good for man or beast. One more bullet I like is the 429478, a light bullet if you are developing a flinch.

[Bob Wright]

Up until a few years ago, I was without a .44 Special, and had been for maybe thirty years. Decided to rectify that situation and had a Three Screw Ruger Blackhawk .357 Magnum reworked by Dave Clements to .44 Special. Became rather infatuated with the cartridge, don't know why. Shot accurately enough, in fact, very accurate, and exceptionally mild shooting.

Well, one thing led to another:



Sure do like the caliber and the guns chambered for it. Now, don't get me wrong, still love the .44 Magnum, and the .45 Colt. Each has a special place in my battery.

Bob Wright

[GeauxTide]

My Ruger Bisley 44 Special and 45 Colt are my favorite revolvers. As mentioned, loads that go 1050 with Unique or Power Pistol are mild and effective. Mine is a 5.5", but I'm gonna get a standard grip in 4.62" next.

[roashooter]

Like many others I have a favorite 44...mine happens to be a 5inch 629 Classic S&W...but when I saw a Lipsey's Ruger Blackhawk 44 special...I did not hesitate.
it was by comparison a neat tidy hip gun compared to my S&W....for those occasions that 44 special was plenty enough....but what really sold me on the gun was the fact.....that who ever put this one together....must surely have gotten laid, the night before by the local hottie, gotten a huge raise the day he sat down to work, cuz he was in a great mood....this Blackhawk is PERFECT!!!!!.
just needed a swap for some nice wood stocks I had ready to go.....this one is one the grandchildren will be fighting over some day

[hammie]

@webley: Get one. The re-introduction of the mid-fame ruger single action combined with the .44 special chambering, are a divine signal. Failure to act on this sign, could put your soul in jeopardy.

I have 5.5 and 4 5/8 inch flattops. They would be among the last guns I would sell. Later, I passed up the opportunity to get a 3 3/4 inch, .44 special sheriff's model and have regretted it ever since.

You can find heavier loads specifically for the mid-frame rugers in "Handloader" magazine. The article was by Brian Pearce and appeared in the June 2009 issue (#260, page 32). Dave Scovill also has an article on +P, .44 special loads in the August 2013 "Handloader" issue (#285, page 8).

[Duke City Six]

Just got back from shooting mine at the range. I love the gun and I love the 44 special cartridge. It's a great combo. Like roashooter said, PERFECT!

[Jim Watson]

Denis, what is the purpose of "removing the indexing plunger & spring"?

I thought that rectified the worst annoyance of the New Model, that it does not have a stop position with the extractor lined up.

[Jim March]

That said, I believe the 50th Anniversary Blackhawk in .44 magnum was built on the smaller frame, so I guess Ruger must think the guns will stand up to magnum loads.

NOPE! The 44Mag Flattop was a large-frame gun - wider longer beefier cylinder than the mid-frame guns like the New Vaquero and 44Spl Blackhawks. You cannot run full magnum-grade ammo in a mid-frame! The frame strength isn't all that different but the cylinder beef...photos showing the differences between mid-frame and large-frame cylinders (both in 45LC) can be found here:

http://gunblast.com/Ruger-NewVaquero.htm

Denis, what is the purpose of "removing the indexing plunger & spring"?

Doing so in most cases will "free spin" (or "ninja spin") the cylinder - no clicks, dead smooth rotation in both directions. In a few cases including my heavily modified 14rd capacity New Vaquero I had to grind a tiny bit off the tip of the pawl to allow free-spinning to work 100% and dead smooth.

Taking off the indexing plunger and spring also very slightly reduces wear and tear at the back of the cylinder.

[Ozzieman]

When Ruger advertised that they were making the gun I had a terrible wait for 4 months since my wife purchased it for me for Christmas.
That was one LONG 4 month!
I am also saving for a Bisley-Style Grip 44 special.
I have loaded some hot loads (safe) but the standard grips beat the front of my middle finger unless the small finger is under the bottom of the grip. I’m looking to replace the grips but haven’t found any that I like yet.
Mine is accurate, well made but I agree that the front sight can be difficult to find if the lighting is bright and over head.
Why 44 special? I really don’t know. My first 44 was a bulldog and I liked the cartridge so much that I have centered my collection more on that caliber than another caliber.
I have an early version of the stainless Vaquero and a Blackhawk in 45 long colt and a second cylinder for 45ACP.
The 44 special new model is my favorite.

[DPris]

I removed the indexing plunger from both of those .44s primarily because I don't trust it over the long run.

NOTE: ONE MAN'S OPINION, AND NO SLAM AT RUGER!

The "breechface" section of the cylinder window in the frame does accumulate burned powder carbon deposits. I clean those off after firing, but I can't get inside the channel the plunger & spring rest in without dismantling the gun.
Being lazy, I prefer not to dismantle the gun any more than I have to, beyond the dictates of normal cleaning.

The POSSIBILITY exists of eventually clogging the plunger to the point of freezing it in place.

I do NOT say this WILL happen, merely that it MIGHT.

My gunsmith has also repaired a broken plunger that lodged firmly in place, interfering with cylinder rotation.

Removing the parts prevents any possibility of any plunger-caused issues anywhere down the road, and since those two guns were acquired for defensive, as opposed to recreational, roles, I see their removal as far outweighing any benefit FOR ME in chamber indexing.

The secondary benefit, a free-spin cylinder, also works well FOR ME in loading those Rugers.

I do not advocate the plunger removal, I do not say the plunger is a poor design, I do not say anybody else has to worry about it, I do not say chances of freezing the plunger in place are high, I do not recommend others do it, I do not criticize Ruger for including it.

I just don't want it.
Denis

[Bob Wright]

Removing the parts prevents any possibility of any plunger-caused issues anywhere down the road, and since those two guns were acquired for defensive, as opposed to recreational, roles, I see their removal as far outweighing any benefit FOR ME in chamber indexing.

The secondary benefit, a free-spin cylinder, also works well FOR ME in loading those Rugers.

I do not advocate the plunger removal, I do not say the plunger is a poor design, I do not say anybody else has to worry about it, I do not say chances of freezing the plunger in place are high, I do not recommend others do it, I do not criticize Ruger for including it.

I just don't want it.

Denis,

From reading the foregoing, I assume you don't want it?


Bob Wright

[DPris]

Just trying to forestall arguments over the odds of the part freezing, the bennies of leaving it in, the "Oh, that's silly....", "I've got 43 million rounds through mine with no problems", and so on.

Purely an individual choice, did not want it to deteriorate into any side issues.
Merely answering the question.
Denis

[Webleymkv]

Well, it certainly sounds as though the gun is well thought-of. I guess the next question is whether you all would recommend the 4 5/8" or 5 1/2" barrel length. I'm leaning towards the 5 1/2" barrel both because I rather like the look of it and it seems as though it might balance well. As a point of reference, the balance of my 5" S&W M27 is, in my hand, just about perfect and something as close to that as I can get is what I'm primarily after here.

[rclark]

The medium frame .44 Special BH flattop is one of my favorite revolvers. I have three in fact (BH (5 1/2), Bisley (5 1/2), and Sheriff (3.5)) . The medium frame is 'perfect' for the .44Special cartridge. I shoot the BH a lot and even had it slicked up by Jeff of Munden Enterprises plus a no creep 1.5# pull on it. Can't say enough about it as I am completely satisfied with it. Yes, it can easily handle the Skeeter load of 7.5g Unique, Universal, or 20/28 load under 240-260g SWC forever. I've also shot the Keith load (1200fps load) from them as well with good results, but much prefer a steady diet of the Skeeter load instead. I highly recommend the revolver. One of the accurate revolvers I have. Oh, the pawl indexing is good too as the chamber lines up with the loading gate every time. Nice feature.



Some good reading:

Ross Seyfried on the .44 Special Flattop

and the treasure trove

.44 Special Articles

I prefer 5 1/2" for my guns. Just feels right, looks right and is a good compromise between to long and to short IMO.

[Webleymkv]

Well, I pulled the trigger and had my favorite LGS order a 5 1/2" one for me. They said it will be here in about a week so I just have to try to be patient (never a strong suit of mine). Now, I need to decide what sort of grip I want on the gun: rosewood or bonded ivory. I had every intention of replacing the checkered plastic grips from the get-go as I've shot my younger brother's .41 Magnum Blackhawk with them and all I can say is that DPris's "cheesegrater" description sums them up about perfectly.

[Crunchy Frog]

I have the Bisley version of the .44 Special Flattop Blackhawk. The only problem is now I need a "standard" Blackhawk, and maybe another one in stainless, to round out the collection.