Old vs New GP100

I just had my brother ask me how long Ruger has been using MIM hammers in the SP101. Told him I didn't know. He sent me a picture he found of one, but I don't have it handy. I found this online pic (Ruger forums is the source, I think).
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r267/know1man/100_3667.jpg

I'd have no problem with buying a new Ruger with MIM.

I remember when S&W had first started using MIM, and they were discussing it in armorer classes. I also learned a bit more about when talking to the LE contacts for customer service for parts and repair. They said that S&W owned their own MIM molds, so they could control the quality of the molds. The molds were said to be really expensive at the time. They said the actual MIM work was done by a "MIM house", and they took care to explain that it wasn't an offshore MIM house, but one located in the US.

Dunno know if or how they may have changed in more recent years, as they've been busy buying businesses. I learned they finally decided to buy their own equipment to do their own nitrocarburizing (instead of outsourcing parts for Melonite processing). It will save them money in the long run, give them better control of the process, and is something they can offer to other gun companies (who can call the hardening process by any name they wish for their own product lines).

Hard to keep up with all the rapid changes among gun companies and their vendors. For me, anyway, as I'm much less interested in the behind-the-scenes stuff than I was as a younger man.

Sometimes I'll think to make notes of such trivia during armorer classes or conversations with factory folks, and other times I'll think it's something mildly interesting at the moment, but not make a note of it and forget what it was soon thereafter. :)
 
I just had my brother ask me how long Ruger has been using MIM hammers in the SP101. Told him I didn't know. He sent me a picture he found of one, but I don't have it handy. I found this online pic online.
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r267/know1man/100_3667.jpg

I'd have no problem with buying a new Ruger with MIM.

I remember when S&W had first started using MIM, and they were discussing it in armorer classes. I also learned a bit more about when talking to the LE contacts for customer service for parts and repair. They said that S&W owned their own MIM molds, so they could control the quality of the molds. The molds were said to be really expensive at the time. They said the actual MIM work was done by a "MIM house", and they took care to explain that it wasn't an offshore MIM house, but one located in the US.

Dunno know if or how they may have changed in more recent years, as they've been busy buying businesses. I learned they finally decided to buy their own equipment to do their own nitrocarburizing (instead of outsourcing parts for Melonite processing). It will save them money in the long run, give them better control of the process, and is something they can offer to other gun companies (who can call the hardening process by any name they wish for their own product lines).

Hard to keep up with all the rapid changes among gun companies and their vendors. For me, anyway, as I'm much less interested in the behind-the-scenes stuff than I was as a younger man.

Sometimes I'll think to make notes of such trivia during armorer classes or conversations with factory folks, and other times I'll think it's something mildly interesting at the moment, but not make a note of it and forget what it was soon thereafter. :)
 
Injection molded parts can be as strong as extruded or stamped parts. A lot depends on the metal used and the work performed after the part is molded. This process is much better than a standard casting.
 
The MIM parts aren't going to affect the reliability or the longevity of the gun, but I'm not a huge fan of the GP-100s. Ruger cut the grips off the steel frame and added steel to the barrel. In my view it throws the weight off to where it's no longer well balanced. In fact, they're known to many of its critics as "boat anchors."

In my view the S&W 686 is much better than the GPs. The balance and accuracy of the 686 is better. Ruger would be well advised to bring back the Security-Six and Service-Six revolvers. These were smaller, lighter and easier to carry, and the balance is phenomenal. They were also extremely durable.

If you're going to be using a gun at the range, the steel underlugs are a great help; however, if you're carrying it camping, hiking or fishing, you want a gun that's fast and light. You can still get a good, used Security-Six on the used market. For range use, I'd go with the S&W 686. But for field use, I'd take a used Security-Six.

 
Aside from occasional QC issues, of course the current batch is not a "bad batch".
You can't condemn all Ruger products using MIM as "bad", and MIM is now widespread in Rugers across all lines.
Denis
 
I owned a 4" 686 for a couple years...I never liked it much in comparison to my Model 15 (which was love at first shot).
My 3" GP, however is fantastic, and I often carry it.
 
That's comical. They're the same size and weight as an L frame.
Click to expand...
That's not surprising, but that doesn't mean the balance is the same. The gun is forward heavy to reduce recoil, which is great for competition shooting. I wish I had a GP-100 I could photograph with my Security-Six with all grips removed.

When I took a basic journalism course in college, my professor told us, "Don't add words until you can add no more, but remove words until you can remove no more." The same thing is true with .357 revolvers, but with steel. Don't add until you can add no more, but get rid of it until you can get rid of no more. When I first saw a Ruger Service-Six, it was, to me, the perfect home defense gun. Strong, easy to master even with magnum loads, accurate and durable. Not an ounce of steel that wasn't needed. That and the Security-Six, which sported adjustable sights, were perfect outdoor carry guns -- and no one complained about shooting magnum loads.



I realize not everyone agrees with my views, and they love their heavy magnums, but there are also many people who want smaller, durable, accurate defense and hunting revolvers. I think this is one reason that used Security-Sixes seem to be selling at higher prices these days. Anyway, it would be nice to have the choice. Even the half-underlug versions, by the way, still lack the balance of the Security-Six and S&W 66.
 
I put this Ruger grip on today and like the feel better than the big Hogue tamer grip I had on it. We'll see, after a dozen or two .357s I might be putting the tamer back on, but these sure do look better. Also added the red ramp, I think it will help some with sight picture.


gp100_grips.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]

I prefer the full underlug. bpth on this and on my model 14-7.
 
Those grips work well for me, after trying a number of alternatives. I find the width of the grip in your hand has more to do with handling recoil than the overrated softness of the material. Rubber is simply easy and cheap to mold and has a useful tackiness. I find it important not to lock up your trigger arm joints when shooting this sort of cannon ammo, nor is it good to tense up excessively in anticipation of recoil and noise. The answer for me is not always in the grip choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top