Ruger Super GP 100

If you want to shoot revolver competitions, 9mm makes a lot of sense. You're probably going to use moonclips anyway for easier reloads, so the fact that 9mm requires moonclips isn't a big deal.

The short case means more positive ejection and less misalignment when loading. And 9mm is cheap and generally shoots pretty well.

The shorter cylinder is lighter which means less trigger effort required to turn it--which can make a difference in rapid fire.

It's not something that interests me right now, but I can see how it might appeal to some folks.
 
"The shorter cylinder is lighter which means less trigger effort required to turn it--which can make a difference in rapid fire."

From what I've read thus far, both the Ruger and S&W 929 have a 10-lb trigger pull in double action. Is that considered light - I don't have any idea. Single action in the Ruger is 3-4 lb. I haven't read what it is with the S&W.
 
cdoc42 said:
From what I've read thus far, both the Ruger and S&W 929 have a 10-lb trigger pull in double action. Is that considered light - I don't have any idea.
Click to expand...
10 pounds for a revolver in DA mode is fairly decent.
 
I just don't get why people have the itch to buy something that just doesn't make sense. What's the net gain shooting a 9mm rimless cartridge in a revolver ? Call me a purist I guess, keep your revolver shooting something 357 / 41 / 44/ 45 rimmed (or cap and ball ). It's not like a 9mm revolver will offer a "unique shooting experience". But it's your money and your want's...
 
From what I've read thus far, both the Ruger and S&W 929 have a 10-lb trigger pull in double action. Is that considered light - I don't have any idea. Single action in the Ruger is 3-4 lb. I haven't read what it is with the S&W.
Click to expand...
There's a lot that has to happen in a DA revolver trigger pull.

1. Cock the hammer.
2. Unlock the cylinder.
3. Turn the cylinder.
4. Lock the cylinder when the next chamber is aligned.
5. Deactivate any passive safeties.
6. Release the hammer.

An SA trigger just has to release the hammer and deactivate any passive safeties.

Cocking the hammer is usually the biggest part of the pull weight, but turning the cylinder can take some effort too when shooting fast. There have been some companies who have used lighter materials for the cylinder to help mitigate this effect.

It's not unusual at all for a DA revolver trigger to run into the double digits. I'd say that 10lbs isn't bad at all for the DA pull on an out of the box revolver.
What's the net gain shooting a 9mm rimless cartridge in a revolver ?
Click to expand...

The short case means more positive ejection and less misalignment when loading.

And 9mm is less expensive than centerfire revolver rounds.

The shorter cylinder is lighter which means less trigger effort required to turn it--which can make a difference in rapid fire.
 
A nice little revolver with a shorter frame to fit the shorter cylinder, six rounds, and a three inch barrel would get my money. Ruger SP101 size frame would work for me, or comparable S&W.
 
Hard to imagine how a company like Ruge could have such an ugly designer!
It doesn't cost any more to produce a nicely aesthetic design!
They must have hired the designer from Hi Point arms.:D

What the heck are those ugly cutouts on the barrel?


Any function like cooling for a wimpy 9mm?
 
The 9mm cylinder fit in there screams that Ruger didn't give two craps about cylinder size to frame.
Click to expand...

It's a competition gun. It's not supposed to rival the Triple Lock for drop dead sexy good looks. The cylinder is made that way to reduce rotating mass because again, it's a competition gun. It is also a custom shop gun. Over the counter it should go for around $1100.
 
The best price I've seen so far - but no one in my neck of the woods actually has one for sale - is $1328.

As far as design goes, beauty, as always, is in the eye of the beholder. And why buy a 9mm revolver? The same reason why one buys a .22 pistol and revolver, or any gun for that matter....just because.
 
They could have left the forcing cone flush with the fame, and named it the Evel Knievel.
 

Attachments

  • Evel Knievel.jpg
    Evel Knievel.jpg
    167.7 KB · Views: 38
I have a early SP 101 3" in 9mm, I like it, shoots well, decent size....but a GP 100 in 9mm
is a real @#$%@#$ I do like mt GP 100 6" in 357 though. I guess each to their own.
 
It's not really a GP100, it's a Super Redhawk. I don't know why they decided to call it the "Super GP100".

Some of the likely reasons they might have chosen 9mm for the gun have been discussed.

By the way, the SP101 in 9mm was designed to be a carry gun. This gun was designed to be a competition gun. Comparing the two just because they're both revolvers and both in 9mm probably doesn't make a lot of sense. Sort of like comparing a paring knife and a katana because they're both made of steel and both made to cut things.
 
wild cat mccane said:
Haven't touched one...but totally not interested.

The 9mm cylinder fit in there screams that Ruger didn't give two craps about cylinder size to frame.

Look at the S&W 646 with the cylinder fit in the frame. It was built around the .40 round.

At 1,500 dollars? Nope :)

You have to really like Ruger to pass up on the cheaper better triggered S&W 627 8 shot on the N frame.
Click to expand...
The 646 was an L frame with a standard length titanium cylinder. It was chambered in .40S&W but the cylinder was not shortened to fit the round.
 
Don't like the looks.... Makes even S&W revolvers look decent.... Also semi-auto cartridges simply don't belong in a revolver IMHO. But I suppose if you are a competitor, anything to give you an edge where looks doesn't win you a trophy.... Sometimes you see some pretty strange stocks and do-dads on competition pistols/revolvers/rifles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top