Am I the only one that didn't know about this? https://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/2084_21_49_1814/products_id/719007299. I like this alot.
5" GP100
- Thread starter Targa
- Start date
LeverGunFan
New member
The five inch GP100 is a Davidson's distributor exclusive, they are listing 99 available on the Gallery of Guns:
http://www.galleryofguns.com/genie/default.aspx?item=1740
I really like mine, it balances well in my hand and I like the sight radius provided by the 5 inch barrel.
http://www.galleryofguns.com/genie/default.aspx?item=1740
I really like mine, it balances well in my hand and I like the sight radius provided by the 5 inch barrel.
Model12Win
Moderator
They're cool, kind of wish I had the 5" over the 6" one I have. That thing is nose heavy for sure and for certain.
Stargater53
New member
I agree. The thing is too bloody heavy. Why would Ruger keep building them like this. A 5-inch barrel styled after the Security-Six barrel would be far better, in my opinion. But why is every release of this gun styled after a frickin' boat anchor?
The gun has too much steel in it and it's useless as an outdoor gun. When it was a Security-Six, it was already overbuilt. So why did Ruger beef up a gun that was already more than strong enough? And why did it add the underlugged barrels without also offering lightweight barrels for those who may carry guns more than they shoot them.
When the GP-100 was introduced, one gun hack left me slack-jawed by recommending that Security-Six owners avoid full house 357 loads for the same reasons that S&W 66 guns shouldn't be shot with a full diet of full 357 loads. How anyone could write regular columns and make such a boneheaded statement was beyond belief.
I would love a good 5-inch 357, especially for camping and hiking, but as long as I have to drag that much steel around in a GP-100, forget it!
The Security-Six (inset) is great for outdoor
carry, but all modern 357s seem to support
underlugs, which are great for shooting, but
horrible for carrying.
.
The gun has too much steel in it and it's useless as an outdoor gun. When it was a Security-Six, it was already overbuilt. So why did Ruger beef up a gun that was already more than strong enough? And why did it add the underlugged barrels without also offering lightweight barrels for those who may carry guns more than they shoot them.
When the GP-100 was introduced, one gun hack left me slack-jawed by recommending that Security-Six owners avoid full house 357 loads for the same reasons that S&W 66 guns shouldn't be shot with a full diet of full 357 loads. How anyone could write regular columns and make such a boneheaded statement was beyond belief.
I would love a good 5-inch 357, especially for camping and hiking, but as long as I have to drag that much steel around in a GP-100, forget it!
The Security-Six (inset) is great for outdoor
carry, but all modern 357s seem to support
underlugs, which are great for shooting, but
horrible for carrying.
.
Last edited: