Are they reliable? Rugged? Seems built like a tank.
Opinions?
Printable View
Are they reliable? Rugged? Seems built like a tank.
Opinions?
Im a Smith guy, but Ruger makes a solid revolver for sure. I don t know about investment, but a very good gun. GP-100 is GTG. My good friend loves his and has run it hard.
Buy it if you want it. Pappa gives the green light.
PB
It’s a scaled-down Super Redhawk (which I own), very reliable and, indeed, built like a tank. Not quite as refined as a S&W but very durable as they were designed to compete against the L-frame. Weak ignition springs are sometimes problematic but easily replaceable.
The GP-100 is solid and the prices on revolvers seem to be going up.
I got it for $600. It's like new (seriously). A dude owed my buddy some $$$ for gunsmithing and my buddy got it for $575. Made $25 off of me!
I looked at some online retailers and they were all north of $600.
I’ve had one since 1986/87. Like the others have said they are built like a tank. I used it for a basic training police academy weapon and it never missed a beat. Carried it until semi autos were issued in 91.
What are your intentions with it? I think if you are going to get really in depth into cowboy shooting and do a lot of upgrades to refine it's attributes then there are better options out there. But if you just need a reliable solid revolver then it's a fine choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by ABNAK
I have a 6" GP 100 .357 that I bought as a side kick to my Marlin 1894c lever gun. It's a solid revolver. The SA/DA trigger gets better and better. I've even taken it into a tree a few times and dropped deer with 158gr Buffalo Bore's.
Having owned and shot K frames in 357 extensively, they will shoot themselves loose with a steady diet of hot 357. As do 29s in 44 mag. If you plan to shoot it a bunch I'd go with the ruger.
Was digging around through my stash last night and found a partial box of Federal .357 Magnum 125gr SJHP's. IIRC these are full-on magnum loads, pretty good on two-legged critters "back in the day".
Rugged, reliable, well built. Probably a little overbuilt. It's basically a second gen security/speed six. The idea was to beef up the old security/speed six to be able to handle unlimited 357.
This is the old speed six in 357https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...028c182135.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinzgauer
I'd shoot full house 125s very sparingly in any revolver. In my 686, I won't fire a one. Stick with 158s, which is what the gun was designed for.
Mine is about 20 years old and has well over 10,000 rounds through it.
Played gun games with it for a while.
The Ruger doesn't peen the cylinder notches the way a Smith does when used for racing.
The cylinder latch is not a handicap vs a standard Smith but the Smith can be enhanced, the Ruger no so much.
Go shoot the heck out of it. Your wrist (or your wallet) should wear out before the GP-100 does.
I have abused a .357 Blackhawk, the first pistol I bought, since the 1980s.
I have had the GP’s beefier cousin, the Redhawk, for a much shorter time. Shooting 45ACP in moon lips or speedloader fed 45 Colt.
They are solid and durable.
I have a 3” GP-100 in .357 and have really been satisfied with this ultra reliable revolver. I have changed preferences from
semi automatic pistols to revolvers. For me, they are more fun. I even like single actions since for me they help my concentration, and I believe my accuracy. OP, congratulations on your GP 100. You can load anything from hot .357 magnums to good old .38 special lead bullets!
[QUOTE=Uni-Vibe;2786816]I'd shoot full house 125s very sparingly in any revolver. In my 686, I won't fire a one. Stick with 158s, which is what the gun was designed for.[/QUOTE
What? You wont shoot 125's thru a 686? Thats the stupidest thing I ever heard. That revolver was DESIGNED to shoot tons of loads like that. Bought my first one out of boot camp in Feb of 84. Had a few since. That is literally complete horseshit to say "158's are what the gun was designed for"...whether talking about the 686 or the Ruger. Had several Rugers. Shot Lord knows how many 125's & everything else out of them.
Anyone that does even a cursory search knows that 125gr. 357 is one of the top "one shot stoppers" of handgun loads. Its what most depts. issued, and what most people use for SD.
Much info on this on this forum from past highly regarded individuals, as well as many other places.
This is yet ANOTHER post of yours with BULLSHIT information. You need to stop.
All firearms are originally designed with a certain bullet weight and pressure in mind. This translates into the familiar default loading.
For example, the .38 spl was designed for a 158 grain lead round nose at 750 fps. The .45 ACP was designed for 230 grain jacketed at about 830 fps. The M4 was designed for 62 grains at about 3100 fps. This is true of all cartridges. Nontrivial deviations can cause reliability problems or premature wear.
The .357 mag was designed for a 158 grain LSWC. It's a question of timing. By the time the 158 gets going, a certain amount of powder has burned. With the hot 125s, they get going quicker. Too much of the powder is still burning. This can cause damage to weaker guns such as the Smith model 19, which was designed to be light enough for policemen to carry. It's more or less a .38 that will shoot some .357. Forcing cone damage and flame cutting are known side effects.
Now, it may be, and I believe it is, true that my 686 and the GP100 are stronger guns that will handle more hot 125s.
Still, I try to stick close to the original loadings in guns, unless I have a reason to deviate.
Huh?? Like Straight Shooter said, the L-frame was designed specifically to shoot full power magnums. All day long. The 125 grain SJHP is THE definitive self defense load in .357 magnum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uni-Vibe
Merry Christmas, UniVibe, and to all on M4C.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uni-Vibe
Not to be pedantic, but the only companies making "full house" 125s anymore are those like Buffalo Bore. Most of the 125gr stuff you can get today is lower pressure and lower velocity. 125gr was meant to be higher velocity than it is today and most ballistic tests I've seen would support that as they're usually pretty "meh" performance-wise - on par with 115 +p+ 9mm loads. Even if you were shooting older 125 loads, it's much less of a concern from an L frame than a K. 19s and 66s were prolific when the hotter 125gr was de rigueur for a duty round, which is probably why the "shoot itself loose" thing came about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uni-Vibe
To the OP: I don't think there's much "investment" potential, at least like there is with older Smiths and Colts. They're a workhorse revolver. I used to borrow a 6" GP100 when shotgun hunting and that thing was a tank. Handled .357 loads really well and the lockup was bank-vault tight, but the trigger wasn't as nice a 686. I have no doubt you could put 10,000 rounds of .357 through it without it being much worse for wear.
If you have a vintage K-frame to compare to an L or N-frame, you can see the end of the K-frame barrel (where protrudes into the cylinder window) has a flat cut on it at about the 6 o'clock position. This is to make room for the yoke when it is locked into the frame. Where the flat spot comes closest to the forcing cone is noticeably thinner. This thin spot has been known to split and is attributed to magnum loads with light bullets. This led to to the general advice about using 125s sparingly.Quote:
Originally Posted by sundance435
When Smith designed the L-frame, they made sure that the frame size would accommodate room for the barrel and yoke without having to compromise on one or the other. The L-frame can handle anything that meets 357 magnum specifications.
Also note that Smith has re-designed the K-frame. Newer ones are not constructed the same (2-piece barrel and different yoke construction/ball detent lockup) and do not have the flat at 6 o'clock.
As mentioned before L frames are beefed up to handle more full house magnum loads. They will however still shoot loose with very high round counts. The Model 19 and 66 (same thing only stainless) had a problem of shooting loose but also were prone to the forcing cone cracking with bullet weights under 158 grains, which back in the day was 125 and 110 grains. The heavier bullet was easier on the forcing cone but the increased recoil stress was harder on the frame.
There are none of these worries with the GP100 and most other Ruger revolvers, they are like bank vaults. Another tidbit is the cylinder stop notches are also between chambers on a Ruger while S&W puts them centered on the chamber. This results in a much thinner cross section. You really have to watch shooting heavy "magnum'ish" handloads in the big N frame .45s. It's pretty frightening how thin the steel is from the outside wall of the chamber to the centerline of the cylinder stop notch. Ruger has no such affliction. It's not much of an issue except in the .45 Colt and ACP guns, the N frame S&W model 27 & 28 are stout as hell in .357.
Just got a Rossi .357 lever action (16") so now I have a handgun/long gun combo in .357 Magnum!
I can say for sure the GP100 will likely outlast you and your billfold.
We ran 10,000 round 357 Magnum tests at FLETC in 80s with 158 gr. JHP Mag ammo and the Security Sixes and Speed Sixes held up fine. Still in time at 10,000 rounds. The Border Patrol burned up 60,000 rounds in that testing and I burned up another 40,000 in mine.
When I left FLETC they had just passed 18,000 rounds on a GP100 4".
As I result I now have two GP100s with 6" barrels, two with 3" barrels. Had a 4" and traded it for a military generator and guy I traded it to is still shooting it.
I also have two Security Sixes w/ 4" bbls, one Speed Six with 2 3/4" barrel and one with 3" barrel. All the above are stainless and I have one Speed Six w/ 6" barrel that is blued.
For social occasions I have two SP101s w/ 3" barrels.
They are absolutely tough.