New Ruger 7 shot GP100 357

They missed the boat, in my view, by going with 2.5" instead of 3".

Otherwise... probably pretty nice revolvers.
 
Pretty cool. Hopefully they can take the 7 shot HKS speedloaders.

Also nice to see fluted cylinders again. For a while all it seemed like they were introducing were smooth sided non fluted cylinders, which I do not like on modern revolvers.

One thing I am NOT happy to see is that Ruger is doing away with their excellent plunger based quick front sight exchange system for a cheaper standard dovetail affair. Frankly, that plain sucks. Gotta make that bottom line...
 
I feel sure the new revolvers will conform in size to the 7-shot L-frame
HKS speed loader marked 587.

But I wonder if this will finally prompt Safariland to offer
a 7-round L-frame speed loader.

And yes, initial offering should have been with a 3-inch
model, not a 2.5. I think, no proof for it, that a lot
of revolver shooters these days don't care that much
for the 2.5 revolvers.

I believe Smith was on the right track when it offered
a 2.75 barrel in the Model 66 with the front locking
in the yoke. It permits a full length ejector rod.
 
I've never gotten used to the "feel" of the double action pull and timing of a 7 shot revolver. Feels weird to me.
 
8-Shot Redhawk

You scroll down that page a little farther and you'll see the one I'm most excited about :D a new 8-shot Redhawk chambered in .357 mag:D:cool:
 
SONOFA!!!!!!

I am honestly out of room, have no needs, no real wants but in all those “If you could have a manufacturer make any Gun.......” threads my answer is always a 7 shot GP100. Sigh..........I can always make more money.....and I am well past the CNN he had HUNDREDS OF GUNS AND BAZILLIONS OF AMMOS AND BLAH BLAH”.

Funny thing is I am a happy coward/pacifist. I just like my pew pews. :)

DAMMIT RUGER!!!! I am not even an old guy but I likes me my revolvers.
 
I'd say that's the most important item. The GP is an excellent gun once you get those things off of it. Why they won't get some Tamers on there like they have for the LCR I don't know. As for the barrel length, 2.5 is still enough barrel to give the .357 the velocity it needs to expand properly and get the job done. Depending on the load (and staying away from a lot of the store bought watered down stuff), you can still expect anywhere from 12-1300. That's not exactly wimpy for two-legged defense. Put some Corbon or Underwood in there and you've got a heck of a setup.
 
Must be getting old, I find anything more than six shots out of a revolver irritating.
Kinda like having a foot with an extra toe, just don't seem right. :eek:
 
In the case of carrying and using a handgun for self-defense, it's not hard to imagine a scenario when having an extra toe might save your life. If the same revolver is of equal size and weight, I see no downside to one having an extra round on board when your life could be on the line in a shootout.

I'm likely older than you, Brutus, but I've never experienced any difficulty in transitioning from a six-shot revolver to one having seven shots (or going from one carrying five shots to one having six shots, for that matter). Of course, I've shot very many different types of firearms over the course of my lifetime and usually have had no problem going from one kind to another with a little practice.

And though I suppose it's "statistically" unlikely that you'll ever need more than two or three shots when using a firearm to defend your life, relying on the "odds" isn't how real life sometimes plays out. Otherwise, we might as well carry derringers.

All of which is why I prefer depending on a six-shot Colt Cobra to my five-shot J-frame Smiths and my seven-shot Model 686 Plus to a six-shot Model 686 when my life might be in jeopardy. No real downsides in size or weight in the two examples cited in exchange for getting the advantage of having an additional round in the cylinder. Whether it "seems wrong" or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top