Ruger GP100 44 special

I must disagree with you on the timing issue. In the Border Patrol we had thousands of 357 magnums that fired tens of thousands of rounds. K frame's, L frames and GP 100's. The GP 100 suffered problems 10:1 more often than the Smiths did. And this was when we were issuing and shooting 125 and 110 grain magnums.
Click to expand...

I agree with this ^^^^ GP100's have been given, essentially, an "honorary" reputation for being the toughest .357 revolver...by folks that shoot 500rds through one maybe every 3rd year, if that.

A matter of ignorance, being cruel...they just don't know any better.

Just another case of something being regurgitated, over and over, again...because they read it on the internet. How many times have you read they are "built like a tank"...? Most folks posting that have probably never held one in their hand. Matter of fact, it IS hard to hold one in my area because, in my life, I have N E V E R seen the first GP100 on a dealer's shelf...they DON'T stock them. Huh...must be a reason for that...maybe they don't move as quick as others?

With that said, I would buy one in a heartbeat...I think they are good guns...but they certainly are not any better than my 686 that has had THOUSANDS of flawless rounds put through it since 1983.
 
Last edited:
Horsefeathers, the day S&W's outlast Rugers of any kind I'll eat my freaking hat, with a side of dog poop.

I see a lot more GPs than 686s on dealer shelves in these parts.
 
jackmoser65

Horsefeathers, the day S&W's outlast Rugers of any kind I'll eat my freaking hat, with a side of dog poop.

I see a lot more GPs than 686s on dealer shelves in these parts.
Click to expand...

Another one of the "aficionado's" I was talking about...
 
Shoot,
I am not an aficionado.
I've shot Rugers & Smiths for well over 40 years. I've carried both on duty in various uniforms, and bet my life on both.
I deal regularly with gunsmiths across the country who do repairs on both brands, including high-level custom work.

I own customized revolvers based on products from both companies.

I have yet to encounter a longtime gunsmith who'll tell me Rugers go out of time before Smiths do, but have heard just the opposite for decades.
Same with longtime high-volume shooters, and with longtime use of heavy loads.

I have yet to encounter a gunsmith (or anybody else) who'll tell me a Smith 29 can stand up to the hot sauce a Ruger Redhawk can easily handle, for decades, without shooting loose.

Both brands have QC issues in recent years, but in a head to head between the two, my money still goes on Rugers for durability in DA revolvers, based on the above.
Rugers are well-represented where I live.

I own & use Smiths, for certain purposes, and my regular daily carry is a Smith M&P .40.
I have no automatic Ruger default as a brand, and no automatic condemnation of Smith & Wesson as a company.

Both companies put out products that I own & use regularly, both companies put out products that I have no interest in.
Both companies have their strengths in terms of product lines.

Ruger gets no "honorary" rep from me, and I've gone the rounds with them in the past when I've thought they missed the boat in a couple peripheral issues with products.

I make no assertions that anybody should avoid Smiths, or that anybody should ONLY buy Rugers.
I do not state or infer that either company is "better" across the board.
I do not state or imply that Smith revolvers will fall apart inside 1000 rounds.
I do not state or imply that Smiths are inherently "weak".

Buy whichever you feel meets your needs & preferences.
I do stick to my earlier statements.
Denis
 
Another one of the "aficionado's" I was talking about...
Click to expand...
This "aficionado" has put tens of thousands of rounds through dozens of each brand and owes loyalty to no brand. The very thought of defending a brand based on loyalty rather than merit is absurd to me.

As is the idea that you're actually getting a better gun with a modern S&W.
 
Sounds to me like shootniron is the (smith) aficionado more than anyone else. DPris has it 100% right.
For example I have a GP100-22 that I bought in January. I have put about 12,000 rounds through it this year. 99% of it in double action. After a good clean I genuinely have a hard time seeing any level of wear on it other than the normal blacking on the front of the cylinder and the turn line. I have two other gp100s as well. Both excellent. I have owned 686s and they are great guns. Smoother than the gp100 but not quite as durable, especially in the cylinder strength. I haven't had any timing issues. I have had some quality control with several new rugers I have bought new but after a quick mail off to the factory and they come back perfect. It's not ideal, but Ruger has always done right by me. Smith too for that matter.
Frankly anytime I see anyone hating on either company my first thought is "that person is uneducated on this topic and over-opinionated." Then I move on.
 
Do They have speedloaders to fit something like this yet?
Would the old H&K stuff for the Rossi's work??
Click to expand...

HKS CA44 should work. They are sloppy enough. I use them for my Smith 69 as well.
 
DPris mentions another barrel option coming soon...maybe a 5" .44 Spcl GP? Boy, that would make me part with some more of my hard earned dollars again (that and a Colt Cobra or maybe a Kimber K6). 2017 is turning out to be a good year for firearms enthusiasts!
 
Makes one wonder why the 696 wasn't successful.
Click to expand...
Soon after it's debut the S&W 696 ND began to change into something less desirable.

I had a CA BD made in Sheldon, it was a piece of junk. I bought the gun new, it was out of time. and the barrel was rough and out of spec. I sent it back to CA they sent it back the same and said it was with in spec :mad:
I will never buy a new Charter Arms firearm again.
 
Am official 44 special fan boy, and glad Ruger came out with a 44 special. Anyone wanting one should get it, in case it doesn't sell as well as it should.

The limiting factor on the Ruger may be the forcing cone, although it does not appear to extend out far past the frame, like a 696.

Am also S&W is introducing the 2.75 in 69. Probably get one. Mainly because the L frame with rb bantam grip fits my hand size bout perfectly, and can load down the 44 mag easily. Might end up selling off several 3 in N-frame 44's, and get the shorter 69. Like some others, the very few times I shoot a full load 44 mag will be in larger revolver/longer barrel.
 
[QUOTESoon after it's debut the S&W 696 ND began to change into something less desirable.][/QUOTE]

The 696 was in production from 1996-2002. In 1997 Lew Horton distributed a Magna-ported run of the guns.

In 2001 Saf-T-Hammer bought S&W from the British firm of Tompkins. Shortly after that S&W placed the lock in the 696. The gun was discontinued several months later. It may have been due to lack of sales but S&W was retooling and redirecting itself at the time, new ownership, and may have let it slide for a combination of factors.

They sell quite well, for a good deal more than the original retail cost, on the used gun market.

tipoc
 
77e59eed1f5c12e854efb5326ccbb763.jpg


Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top