Which is stronger? S&W 27, 28 or GP-100

B

bigboredave

Inactive
Hi all
I will consider either a used 27 or 28 or a gp-100. I do load my .357 to the old specs (@43000 cup) and was wondering which is stronger in the long run because the n-frames are considered large frame while the gp-100 is a medium frame. I think the ruger is stronger because its a more modern design. opinions?
 
The Ruger GP-100 is stronger than anything you can throw at it. I've put reloads through mine that blew out the primers (my bad!) without the slightest effect on the gun. Nothing seems to faze it........
 
M27/28 frame= M29 frame & More cylinder steel

Well, I enjoy the Smiths very much and the M27/28 will hang with the Ruger and, IMHO, it's a LOOKER !....dewey
 
Well, just on frame size alone I'd say the Model 27/28 had it.

BUT, depending on the age and nature of the heat treating, it could well be the Ruger.
 
MY GOD, ARE YOU GUYS CRAZY? The GP-100 is <nearly> twice as strong as the Smith Model 28 hands down. The Ruger DOES NOT have a sideplate. The Smith is thinner in several different areas, uses tiny parts and has less contact surfaces on ALL moving parts. The GP-100 would make an excellent basis for a 5-shot 44 magnum IMHO. Wish Ruger would get around to it. <----partially tongue-in-cheek rant.

Of course, the "N" frame Smiths are Very strong guns in their own right and are more-than strong enough for the .357. They are also smoother from the factory. Problem is, you are comparing apples to oranges. The "N" frame gun is in the Redhawk category. That they chamber it in 357 is interesting, but not fair to the GP-100. You should compare it to the 686 and 586. I'd probably be hard-pressed to choose between the 686 7-shot and the GP-100 6 shot. Until then, I'll have to settle for my Model 66 and Ruger Blackhawk for .357 fun.
 
Uh, Badger, metallurgy has a LOT MORE TO DO WITH IT than just a sideplate cut or a thinner section here and there. Without an analysis on the metallurgy and the heat treating, there's really no way to tell which is stronger.

Remember, the 27/28 uses the same frame that is used for S&W's .44 Mags.
 
The GP100 locks up at the crane and rear of the cylinder...

If the cylinder pin is being stiffly held at BOTH ends of the cylinder as in the Ruger, then less movement during firing should equal a reduction in stress and wear.

Assuming the metallurgy is good in both, tight cylinder lockup should make up for a bit less overall metal? That's one reason SA revolvers can be made so damn strong, it's the lockup at both ends being more or less absolutely fixed by a cylinder pin that can't move at the front.

I think if I wanted one .357 for both 48-state wilderness survival and street defense carry, a 4" GP100 might be close to the ultimate.

Jim
 
I'd forgotten about that point, Jim -- I think it's a good one.

I think that could have a significant effect on the amount of cylinder "lash" that the gun undergoes during firing.

S&W locks the ejector rod at the very ends (except for the Triple Lock, which also locked up at the crane).

I think in apparent wear this point alone would be more important than the existence/absence of a sideplate.
 
Apples to apples; 357 N-Frame vs 357 REDHAWK

Own two stainless 4" GP100's, and the ultimate DA 357 -- the Redhawk.

My 7.5" stainless 357 Redhawk has that great big cylinder but those itty bitty .357" holes; what do you think it would take to bend that gun? I have been unable to find out yet but I keep trying. (I'm the guy who got a 300g to 1800fps from my 5.5" 44 Redhawk -- for one shot.)


ps will acquire the stainless 5.5" version as soon as I can justify buying a fourth 357 wheel.....wife is no dummy.....
 
Wes,

A friend of mine has the longest-barrel Super RedHawk in .44 you can get... 9 or so inches?

We were shooting it over a chronograph one day...

310-gr. hard cast bullets at 1500 fps.

No primer flattening, no stick extraction, LOTS of recoil.

He wouldn't tell me how he was doing it, but I'm certain he was duplexing.
 
Cool. But 300g/1800fps is, in my experience, harder to achieve unless you carry a REALLY BIG HAMMER and some spare parts.
You know, to beat the cylinder open.

Can see 310g/1500fps with correct case and lotsa W296....
 
As previously stated, probably the strongest .357 out there is the Redhawk (you might could blow it up with C4 if you tried hard). That aside, the M27 and M28 were designed spefically for the older .357 loads (158 grains at +/- 1500 fps)--they should be able to handle any reasonably prudent heavy load. The GP100 was designed more or less for the 125 grain at +/- 1500 fps which is easier on the frame than 158 grains at approximately the same velocity (or heavier bullets at slightly lower velocities), but it should be able to handle the heavier loads as well as the Smiths--at least the ordinance steel models (maybe not the stainless steel modes). The point was well-made that the GP100 corresponds to the L-frames not the N-frames).
 
My GP's deliver 158g's at 1500fps ALL DAY LONG (but they get hot).

Someday I'm gonna spend some time and make a 180g load for my Redhawk that gives me 1700fps or so.....not sure what primers to use....

All outta C4.....
 
Another thing to remember about the Ruger vs. the S&W's is the bolt notch in the cylinder is offset whereas the S&W notch is on the thinnest part of the cylinder. Then you get into the discussion of forgings vs. investment casting. Suffice to say that both are strong revolvers but if you try "real" hard you can tear up anything. regards, birdman
 
Sling Shot that's true, but do you think a 7 shot 686 is stronger than a 6 shot 27 or 28? I think not ---- less cylinder wall thickness between chambers. Personally, I think the Security Six and the GP100 (less the under lug) are the strongest double actions around "for their weight". I still prefer the S&W N-frames for other reasons. As dewey says they're all strong enought with any "sane" ammo. regards, birdman
 
birdman, I never said a 686 7 shot was stronger than a N frame. You had stated earlier that the cylinder locking notches on S&W's were machined above the cylinders. I was just reminding you that this was not the case with the 686 7 shot whose cylinder locking notches are machined between the cylinders and not on top. Now, if you had asked if I thought the 686 7 shot was stronger than a 686 6 shot, I would have said yes, but that would be pure speculation on my behalf. Sling Shot

[Edited by Sling Shot on 05-26-2001 at 05:35 AM]
 
DITTO birdman

They are all strong enough with sane ammo.

That's why I like my insane Redhawk; there is a tremendous safety margin with that huge cylinder.

An L-frame, GP, or N-frame will withstand a considerable amount of heavy stuff (you know, like until dinosaurs again roam the earth).
 
Tried plate shooting with a M27-2 once. Had problems with fast reloads, space between cylinders is almost as big as the holes. Speedloaders used to line up on space instead of chambers. At least with SWC bullets. Lot of metal there.
Enough that they make an EIGHT shot out of them now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top