Is the Ruger GP100 the Greatest Double Action Revolver Ever Made?

[Homerboy]

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. ]

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.

 

[savit260]

What did Colt make to replace their Python and how well did it sell?

Nothing.

The GP has been selling for nearly 30 years now

The Python had a production run of 45-50 years.

The Army Special/Offical Police for over 60 years.

The Single Action Army has been selling (with a brief hiatus around WWII) for over 140 years, selling every one they build with a waiting list these days.

Sure, the newer S&W's might not be as "refined" as their older counterparts, but at least they still exist!

Colt still exists today as well !! They just have a much more limited catalogue these days. They still make a very nice SAA model.

Ironically, "The Walking Dead" did more for the sales of Pythons then Colt ever did!

Pythons have always been desirable. I doubt some relatively new flavor of the month TV show had all that much influence.

 

[digi]

If it's not the greatest,it's pretty close.

 

[Homerboy]

The Python HAD a run for 45 years when the revolver was king. And it went away not long after semi auto's became more popular. When you add in the Six series to the Ruger line-up, the guns have been around for nearly 40 years, and they're not going away anytime soon. Ruger, S&W, even Taurus still make DA revolvers in a semi auto world. Colt no longer does.

Single Action guns are in a completely different class. They're not duty guns or self defense guns. They appeal to a very narrow niche, and Ruger makes a very nice single action, as well.

The Official Police battled the S&W Model 10 and lost to it. The S&W 10 is still made (in stainless as the 64 as well as the Model 10 Classic). It has been in production for over a century.

The Walking Dead has stimulated the market for the Python. Tex Shomaker holster is making a copy of the duty rig the main character wears on the show, and they are selling as fast as they can make them. The S&W 29 was around years before Dirty Harry came along. That movie put the gun on a 6 month waiting list.

Colts are quality gun, there is no doubt. But they are WAY overpriced, there aren't as many gunsmiths who will work on them anymore, and the Ruger and the S&W that people say are inferior are still being made while the Colts have gone away.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Or was Colt too "proud" to take some shortcuts in the manufacturing of their revolvers?"

What do you think the later snakes were, like the Anaconda and the King Cobra?

They were far cheaper to manufacture than the Python and cut a LOT of corners in the manufacturing processes.

They were decent guns, but Colt was simply in too poor financial condition at that time to make a concerted entry into the market in a way that would allow them to successfully compete with Ruger and Smith & Wesson.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Did Ruger ever have to decide if they should concentrate resources on Military contracts or the Civilian market?"

Colt didn't "Have" to decide on one or the other, either.

They could have easily stayed in both markets and continued to do very well.

They simply saw the military contracts market giving greater returns for far less effort and Colt's management VOLUNTARILY began to remove the company from the civilian markets.

Everyone does realize that the firearms part of Ruger's business is the smaller part of their business, correct?

Ruger's primary business is investment casting outside of the firearms industry.

 

[Homerboy]

I know the later snakes were less refined than the python. But they didn't sell well either. Why is that? That had nothing to do with colts financial situation. The guns were on the shelves. If they were being sold in great numbers colt would have kept making them. They would have gotten out of their financial hole. Apple was nearly dead but they came out with the IPod and look what happened. Knocked the PC off it's high perch, didn't it?

Is the argument that colt made a superior product but nobody bought them? Taurus, Rossi, and charter arms make a budget revolver and people are still buying them. S&W just brought back the 66, although I would still take an older 66 over it. The J frame is one of the most popular guns sold today. Ruger came out with the LCR, although I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole. Polymer and revolvers should never be in the same sentence.

The Colt is a nice looking gun. Nice trigger, too. The backwards cylinder release always felt awkward to me, though. Actually, I think the Ruger push button release is superior to the S&W. I like how you can take a Ruger apart with a dime if that's all you have. makes cleaning, especially if it's gonna be a field gun, much easier.

Truth is, if I was given a Colt today, I'd sell it to someone who had this need to buy the inflated priced product, then take the money and buy a Ruger and a couple hundred rounds of ammo. Finest .357 ever made? I wouldn't give that nod to the Ruger. But I sure wouldn't give it to the Colt, either. I'd probably give it to the S&W 27, although I've never owned one, just fired my friends a few times.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Colt had been our of the general revolver market for a long time when they tried to re-enter. People were not as familiar with them as they had once been. Smith was also able to undercut their prices handily.

They simply were not able to compete price wise so sales couldn't support the costs.

 

[savit260]

I just said the price difference between it and the Ruger is not justified by whatever benefit loyal users claim.

Maybe not to you. To me it was worth seeking out old Colt's. Only one of which (double action) I paid more for than what a new Ruger cost. Most were less , and in some cases a GOOD amount less.

They stopped making those revolvers because they weren't making a profit

How much of that profit was being swallowed up by having to pay union labor. I'm fairly certain Ruger doesn't have a union to deal with.

S&W won the police contracts more then Colt.

This is true after WWII, but before that, Colts were very competitive if not dominant.

Single Action guns are in a completely different class. They're not duty guns or self defense guns. They appeal to a very narrow niche, and Ruger makes a very nice single action, as well.

Ruger does indeed produce a very good single action line of guns, to a certain price point (I own a few), but the fit and finish isn't anywhere near as nice as a new Colt SAA. Yes, the Ruger is more robust, and in some ways better, but it's just not the same.

S&W used to make some fine single actions too. A shame they don't anymore. A S/A can make a fine defense gun if you're willing to put the time in with one.

Colts are quality gun, there is no doubt. But they are WAY overpriced,

I agree that the prices on some models are out of control, but that's only because there's a finite supply and people still want them.

I know the later snakes were less refined than the python. But they didn't sell well either. Why is that?

Expensive Union labor likely contributed to pricing them out of the market. Do you think if a gun that nice was produced with Rugers lower labor costs that it wouldn't have sold well? Ruger could build a gun that nice but the don't. I'd LOVE a GP without all the sharp edges and a nice polished finish. The Wiley Clapp probably comes close, with a much higher price tag, and a cheap o bead blast finish. Still a nice gun, but I can only imagine how nice it would be with a top notch fit and finish, and nicely fitted walnut grips.

Actually, I think the Ruger push button release is superior to the S&W.

Totally agree with you here. The Ruger release is quite nice, but so is the Colt's IMO> Never liked the S&W (it's backwards to me)

I'd probably give it to the S&W 27,

I agree a pretty solid argument can be made for the 27. I have a slight preference myself for the Python, but the 27 is just plain awesome as well.

 

[Homerboy]

Colts ruled the police departments before WWII? That was 75 years ago. So S&W rules the PD's for nearly 50years before the revolver fell out of favor. And what, 35 years before colts stopped with the DA revolvers?

I am NOT saying colts aren't great guns but am saying that it is hard to name colt the best .357 ever made when they stopped making them 30 years ago. Smith and ruger have continued to because the market still calls for them but if colts were really that stellar, they would have kept on cranking them out

 

[savit260]

but am saying that it is hard to name colt the best .357 ever made when they stopped making them 30 years ago. Smith and ruger have continued to because the market still calls for them but if colts were really that stellar, they would have kept on cranking them out

There hasn't been a S&W made in the last 30 years IMO(nor a Ruger in that same time period) that would qualify as "greatest of all time" either. o.k Maybe the pre lock 586, but those are from the same era when Pythons were still being built.

I'd agree that the S&W 27 is in the running, but certainly not the current production one.

In case you haven't noticed, those command a pretty decent penny these days too. Not too far behind or in some cases MORE than the Python in pricing. Have you checked the price on a Triple Lock, or a Registered Magnum these days? You could buy 2 Pythons for the price of either of those.

Using that logic, if Triple Locks and Registered Magnums were really that stellar, they would have kept on cranking them out.... right?


... and again, you haven't even acknowledged that Union Labor costs probably was a factor in a smaller profit margin.

 

[savit260]

I am NOT saying colts aren't great guns but am saying that it is hard to name colt the best .357 ever made when they stopped making them 30 years ago.

I'm not the greatest at math, but the Python production run went well into the 90's, and possibly even later in the Custom Shop .


Colt ceased the D/A's in 1999 or 2000 ish. That's not even close to 30 years ago.

 

[Homerboy]

Guess my math is off. Been so song since I saw a new colt revolver in the display case. And yeah, the 27's aren't made anymore. But their ancestors are still super strong sellers. Something the colt no longer is.

And I don't care about union labor. And neither does the guy who walks into a gun shop ready to plunk down his hard earned money. Something ruger understands. Quality at a fair price.

 

[savit260]

And I don't care about union labor. And neither does the guy who walks into a gun shop ready to plunk down his hard earned money. Something ruger understands. Quality at a fair price.

How is a company saddled with extremely high labor costs going to put out a product at a "fair price"?

That's the problem your ignoring.

It's not that they weren't good products. Part of them being more expensive/less profitable was due to labor costs... not an inferior product.

I'm guessing you've never owned a business. Excessive labor costs can kill just about any business.




The U.S. auto market suffers the same problem. The labor/benefits cost per employee drives the price of the car up. You can buy just as good or better car for less than what an American brand will cost you.

 

[savit260]

So why doesn't S&W build a gun to the level of the Registered Magnum or the Triple Lock anymore?

Was it because it was too expensive?

You have to admit the fit and finish on a new 627 isn't anywhere near either one of those.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Was it because it was too expensive?"

Yep.

To build a gun to the level of the Triple Lock or the Registered Magnum would likely result in a minimum price of $1,500, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it closer to $2,000.

 

[Homerboy]

So why doesn't S&W build a gun to the level of the Registered Magnum or the Triple Lock anymore?

Was it because it was too expensive?

You have to admit the fit and finish on a new 627 isn't anywhere near either one of those]

They don't build them to that level because they wouldn't sell enough to make a profit. if there was a market for them, they would happily build them.

You can buy a Rock Island Armory 1911 for $600, or you can buy a Les Baer for $3500. Les Baer's still sell. They just target a different audience. Some over under shotguns sell for over $100,000.

And oh yeah, the fit and finish on older S&W's are much better then new ones. But the new ones are still flying off the shelves.

I guess the average shooter nowadays is looking for good quality and good value. The Ruger GP100 certainly qualifies. I will admit the colt's are prettier, but I have seen many posts about timing issues with Colt's, too. Come to think of it, I cannot recall ever seeing a Colt revolver at the range.

And I'm not ignoring the high labor cost issue. Those costs are going to be passed onto the consumer. So how is it that S&W and Ruger, both American companies, managed to avoid those high labor costs? You're saying Colt is union built and S&W and ruger aren't? What I am saying is the guy coming into the gun store to buy a revolver could care less about who makes his gun, as long as it is a well built piece at a fair price, and when he sees a Colt with a price tag 75% higher than the S&W or Ruger, that he'd better get a whole lot more for his money of he buys a Colt. Getting to say "this was built by union labor" isn't gonna cut it, or make the gun shoot better, either.

 

[savit260]

Again you totally miss the point.

I'm not saying Union Labor makes it better , I'm saying it makes it too expensive to build and market at a competitive price.

The fact that S&W and Ruger are non union shops is probably why they can still put out a decant product at a somewhat reasonable price.

 

[savit260]

They don't build them to that level because they wouldn't sell enough to make a profit. if there was a market for them, they would happily build them.

or they just decided there was MORE profit (easier money) doing something else.

There's a difference between "making a profit" and "making a LOT of profit". Most businesses are going to want to make as much as they can as easily as possible.

Eliminating and reducing labor costs , be it by making production less complicated, less finish work, less assembly time , less skilled workers etc. is an easy way to increase the bottom line.
If most people don't care about the reduction in quality, it's a WIN for the business.
S&W is banking on this.

As for Ruger... Their angle has always been "good enough" quality level at a reasonable price. I'm a big fan of Ruger myself, but they are what they are.


To understand what labor cost does to pricing a product... take a look at what a pair of "Made in the U.S.A." Levi's jeans cost vs. the price of the ones made somewhere else with much lower labor costs.

 

[Homerboy]

Again you totally miss the point.

I'm not saying Union Labor makes it better , I'm saying it makes it too expensive to build and market at a competitive price.

The fact that S&W and Ruger are non union shops is probably why they can still put out a decant product at a somewhat reasonable price

I'm not missing your point. I get it, the Colt is a union shop so they gotta pay their guys more so they pass that onto the customer. What I am saying is that I do not care one bit WHY the gun I am looking at is more expensive, I just know it is, so unless there is a real reason to spend that extra money (MUCH higher quality), then I'm not going to. The Colt never did anything better (especially 50-75% better) then the S&W or the Ruger. So why would I spend the extra money? I align my sights on my S&W or Ruger revolvers, pull the trigger, the gun fires, and I hit my target. What else do I need?

Sounds like Colt needed to get rid of their unions. S&W and Ruger flourished without unions. I know guys here are going to take offense (and i have been a union worker since i started working, first with the PD and then with public schools), but union labor doesn't always equal better labor. The senior guys could care less about the finished product. As long as they have seniority over somebody else they are pretty much immune.

And the Ruger "good enough" attitude has kept them making revolvers. GP series, SP series, LCR. Different calibers for them all. Just what the customer wants. Colt no longer does. Sounds like Ruger had it right.

The first rule in business is to give the customer what they want at a fair price. if you can't do that, you go away. If it was the union labor (and I'm not convinced it rested only on that), then how are they still in business today? Are they still a union shop? And why is the Colt AR-15 still the premiere AR? Plenty of people still buy them , despite Bushmasters and DPMS being available. . 1911's too.

And profit is profit. Sure, more profit is better, but if Colt made one dollar profit on each revolver sold they would not have stopped making them. They would have looked to keep making those revolvers while cutting corners to increase their profit, like S&W and Ruger have.