Dragline45
New member
Deet said:
That's a bold statement. I would like to see a list of all the revolvers you have actually owned. Especially since some like the Mateba are extremely rare.
Is the Ruger GP100 the Greatest Double Action Revolver Ever Made?
- Thread starter weblance
- Start date
That's a bold statement. I would like to see a list of all the revolvers you have actually owned. Especially since some like the Mateba are extremely rare.
I'm not sure where that Security Six rumor got started, but that is not the case. They are hearty and built for packing. My 79 Security Six has a tighter lockup than my GP with far more rounds through it.
I like them both, but they are two different frame sizes. The GP handles the recoil better because the weight is pushed more to the front end. The security Six is sleek and has the balance/size of a k-frame Smith. The Sec Six was made during a time when revolvers ruled the world. When a revolver had to be packed all day, bulk and weight were not always the best option.
Junior Lollipops
Inactive
..
Last edited:
jolly roger
New member
Just picked up a 5 inch GP a few months ago for 600 including tax. VERY nice so far. I would say they are every bit as good as NEW 686s...but as good as the older ones?..probably not. Stronger than a Python though for actual shooting and just as accurate. This 5 inch is CRAZY accurate after Wolff springs.
A local shop near me just got 2 Colts in, a python and an Anaconda. Didn't feel the trigger was that fabulous.
I love S&W. Owned 3 66's, a 19, 2 686's, 2 65's, and a 13. All nice revolvers. All .357. Sold them all.
Left with a Ruger Service Six. K frame size, but able to handle .357 much better than a K frame .357. Did the S&W's have better triggers? Sure. The paper target never knew. Blew out the center last month with my fixed sighted Service Six.
So is the Gp 100 the "best revolver" ever made? Don't really know. But what i DO know is it is stronger than a S&W K frame in .357, cheaper than a 686, does not have the cheesy lock like the new S&W's do, nor the black hammer, trigger and cylinder latch on a stainless gun like new S&W's do, and will deliver .357 rounds all day long accurately. I'd take one over a new S&W all day.
I love S&W. Owned 3 66's, a 19, 2 686's, 2 65's, and a 13. All nice revolvers. All .357. Sold them all.
Left with a Ruger Service Six. K frame size, but able to handle .357 much better than a K frame .357. Did the S&W's have better triggers? Sure. The paper target never knew. Blew out the center last month with my fixed sighted Service Six.
So is the Gp 100 the "best revolver" ever made? Don't really know. But what i DO know is it is stronger than a S&W K frame in .357, cheaper than a 686, does not have the cheesy lock like the new S&W's do, nor the black hammer, trigger and cylinder latch on a stainless gun like new S&W's do, and will deliver .357 rounds all day long accurately. I'd take one over a new S&W all day.
Last edited:
Junior Lollipops
Inactive
..
Last edited:
If colts are so great why did they stop making them? S&W, Ruger, and even Taurus are still heavily into the revolver game. They must have stopped turning a profit, right? So either there are far too few discerning revolver buyers out there or people realized paying the extra money for something not much better wasn't worth it. I know I never felt the need for a colt
Micahweeks
New member
I understand this point of view. I never saw the value in many guns beyond the price point of the 686. Colts, Dan Wessons, and other "high end" revolvers never seemed to bring much to my attention I couldn't get out less expensive revolvers with a little bit of labor. The GP100 may not be the most refined or pretty revolver, but I think it's hard to beat at its price point. As far as I'm concerned, I'd have probably only ranked the 686 equal to or slightly higher, but given how much its price has shot up in my area, it's no longer the value it used to be.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"If colts are so great why did they stop making them?"
Colt made a decision in the late 1950s/early 1960s that they were pretty much going to surrender the civilian and police handgun market (with a few exceptions) to Smith & Wesson and concentrate primarily on becoming a military contractor.
Colt didn't back out of the handgun market overnight, but they certainly allowed it to decline through benign neglect.
In the 1980s, when Colt once again tried to become a serious player in the domestic handgun market (the brought out guns like the new snake revolvers, the Double Eagle, and the AA2000), they were already in seriously degraded financial shape, and every decision they made in the handgun market seemed to be both half-hearted and made at the worst possible time.
The snake revolvers were decent guns, but they simply couldn't keep up with S&W & Ruger and Colt apparently lost money on every one they sold.
The Double Eagle was never the world beater that Colt thought it was going to be, and the AA 2000 was an unmitigated disaster that almost put the final nail in Colt's coffin.
The one thing that truly kept Colt afloat was the market for the 1911, especially after the magazine capacity ban in 1994.
Colt made a decision in the late 1950s/early 1960s that they were pretty much going to surrender the civilian and police handgun market (with a few exceptions) to Smith & Wesson and concentrate primarily on becoming a military contractor.
Colt didn't back out of the handgun market overnight, but they certainly allowed it to decline through benign neglect.
In the 1980s, when Colt once again tried to become a serious player in the domestic handgun market (the brought out guns like the new snake revolvers, the Double Eagle, and the AA2000), they were already in seriously degraded financial shape, and every decision they made in the handgun market seemed to be both half-hearted and made at the worst possible time.
The snake revolvers were decent guns, but they simply couldn't keep up with S&W & Ruger and Colt apparently lost money on every one they sold.
The Double Eagle was never the world beater that Colt thought it was going to be, and the AA 2000 was an unmitigated disaster that almost put the final nail in Colt's coffin.
The one thing that truly kept Colt afloat was the market for the 1911, especially after the magazine capacity ban in 1994.
Most likely for the same reason Ruger stopped making the Security Six. Not enough profit and too expensive to build.
Why doesn't a garden variety S&W J frame have the nice deep polished blue finish they used to have instead of the cheap looking matt finishes they use today?
Same answer all around. People will put up with less quality to keep the price down.
Ruger stopped with the Six series because they were expensive to make and they wanted a direct competitor with the L frame 686. The S&W K frames were getting a rep for not being able to handle hotter .357 loads, and people figured the Six would be in the same boat since they were the same size. The Average Joe never knew that it wasn't the size of the K frame, but the flat spot on the forcing cone, which the Six series did NOT have, that was the issue. But Ruger made the GP to replace the Six. What did Colt make to replace their Python and how well did it sell? The GP has been selling for nearly 30 years now. Sure, the newer S&W's might not be as "refined" as their older counterparts, but at least they still exist! Or was Colt too "proud" to take some shortcuts in the manufacturing of their revolvers?
And the Six sold very well. If the Colts were flying off shelves they would have kept making them.
Ironically, "The Walking Dead" did more for the sales of Pythons then Colt ever did!
And the Six sold very well. If the Colts were flying off shelves they would have kept making them.
Ironically, "The Walking Dead" did more for the sales of Pythons then Colt ever did!
Last edited:
Apparently yes. They DO still make Single Action Army's and they are finely made revolvers.
Did Ruger ever have to decide if they should concentrate resources on Military contracts or the Civilian market?
Answer is no they didn't.
The trials and tribulations of the Colt company have been pretty well documented. The company hasn't always made the greatest decisions.
To think Colt stopped making D/A revolvers because they were junk is a bit foolish in my opinion.
The GP is a very good revolver at it's price point and a very good revolver in general. I don't think anyone will argue that, but it's not a pre lock 27, 586, Python or King Cobra.
Also worth asking???? Does Ruger use expensive Union labor to build it's guns?
When discussing why Colt's were so expensive, that probably needs to be factored in.
[QUOTEApparently yes. They DO still make Single Action Army's and they are finely made revolvers.
Did Ruger ever have to decide if they should concentrate resources on Military contracts or the Civilian market?
Answer is no they didn't.
The trials and tribulations of the Colt company have been pretty well documented. The company hasn't always made the greatest decisions.
To think Colt stopped making D/A revolvers because they were junk is a bit foolish in my opinion.
The GP is a very good revolver at it's price point and a very good revolver in general. I don't think anyone will argue that, but it's not a pre lock 27, 586, Python or King Cobra.
Also worth asking???? Does Ruger use expensive Union labor to build it's guns?
When discussing why Colt's were so expensive, that probably needs to be factored in. ][/QUOTE]
Well, I never said Colt made a bad product. I just said the price difference between it and the Ruger is not justified by whatever benefit loyal users claim. Is a slightly better trigger worth $300 more to me? Nope. I put the sight of my Service six (a fixed sighted gun), and hit what I aim at.
As for being too proud to make an inferior product, I am calling BS on that one. Colt is a company that exists to make a profit. They stopped making those revolvers because they weren't making a profit. because more people were buying Smiths and Rugers.
S&W won the police contracts more then Colt. When were they trying to get military contracts? 30 years ago? So when they didn't get them they could have turned their attention back to making quality revolvers. They didn't. I don't know why. Does Beretta not make any other handguns, rifles, and shotguns because of the M9 contract?
Colts are sweet guns. But they are way more expensive than a S&W or a Ruger, and the average Joe couldn't justify their higher price for what he wanted to do with it. so they went away.
Did Ruger ever have to decide if they should concentrate resources on Military contracts or the Civilian market?
Answer is no they didn't.
The trials and tribulations of the Colt company have been pretty well documented. The company hasn't always made the greatest decisions.
To think Colt stopped making D/A revolvers because they were junk is a bit foolish in my opinion.
The GP is a very good revolver at it's price point and a very good revolver in general. I don't think anyone will argue that, but it's not a pre lock 27, 586, Python or King Cobra.
Also worth asking???? Does Ruger use expensive Union labor to build it's guns?
When discussing why Colt's were so expensive, that probably needs to be factored in. ][/QUOTE]
Well, I never said Colt made a bad product. I just said the price difference between it and the Ruger is not justified by whatever benefit loyal users claim. Is a slightly better trigger worth $300 more to me? Nope. I put the sight of my Service six (a fixed sighted gun), and hit what I aim at.
As for being too proud to make an inferior product, I am calling BS on that one. Colt is a company that exists to make a profit. They stopped making those revolvers because they weren't making a profit. because more people were buying Smiths and Rugers.
S&W won the police contracts more then Colt. When were they trying to get military contracts? 30 years ago? So when they didn't get them they could have turned their attention back to making quality revolvers. They didn't. I don't know why. Does Beretta not make any other handguns, rifles, and shotguns because of the M9 contract?
Colts are sweet guns. But they are way more expensive than a S&W or a Ruger, and the average Joe couldn't justify their higher price for what he wanted to do with it. so they went away.