GP100 in 45 colt

Status
Not open for further replies.
farm23

farm23

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
885
Location
Mountains NC
I may have missed the thread but are there any rumors about Ruger coming out with the GP100 in 45LC. I know they have the Redhawk but it is heavy so I wonder about the GP platform. Again I know when ever a gun manufacturer brings out a new gun there is always someone who says 'I would buy if-------', but I would like a lighter 45.
 
I'd be interested in it. I like the idea of the GP in .44 special, but I can't find any ammo. At least in .45 colt I can get a (spendy) box of ammo from Wal-mart if need be.
 
I think you gents may be dipping into the wishing well a little to deeply. I seriously doubt there is enough metal in a GP100 cylinder to fit even 5 rounds of 45 Colt in it. Note that even a S&W 625 is an N frame sized gun, and it only shoots 45 ACP.

Even if you could put them in, the cylinder walls will be scary thin. Ruger doesn't have a reputation for underbuilding their guns.

Take a look at images of a S&W 696. They were L frames chambered in 44 spl. The cylinder walls, and the forcing cone for that matter were really thin. Granted, I believe the GP cylinder is a bit thicker, but not enough to matter. Take a look at the 44 spl GP100 also. All someone would have to do is put a "Ruger only" load in a 45 Colt GP100, and I'm guessing that gun is going to grenade after a few rounds.

Ruger likes a wide safety margin, as is apparent in their designs. The concept is wonderful, but not likely to ever come into being. If I were a smith, I wouldn't even attempt it for the potential disaster that could happen.
 
Last edited:
.455_Hunter said:
???

There have been plenty of N-frames 25's and 625's that have left Springfield in .45 Colt. One done up in Mountain Gun configuration currently lives at my home.
Click to expand...
Woops. Thanks for the correction.
 
Last edited:
The Evangelist Cowboy said:
Not that I know of and I really wouldnt buy one either, the redhawk is sitting at 44 oz and the ruger gp in .44 spl sitting at 36 oz not enough difference for me at least.
Click to expand...
That's just because the .44 special GP is a 3" barrel. The 4" GPs are 40oz. guns. Truly little difference.
 
Simply not enough real estate for a .45, even with a custom oversized cylinder.


The Evangelist Cowboy said:
Not that I know of and I really wouldnt buy one either, the redhawk is sitting at 44 oz and the ruger gp in .44 spl sitting at 36 oz not enough difference for me at least.
Click to expand...
The .44 GP is 34oz, 10oz is a HUGE difference!


ray15 said:
That's just because the .44 special GP is a 3" barrel. The 4" GPs are 40oz. guns. Truly little difference.
Click to expand...
That's .357 weight. The .357's are a good bit heavier due to the smaller chambers and bore.
 
I do not think Ruger makes a 4" GP100 44 special a 5" yes. A GP100 -3" in 45lc would be easier to carry which is what I am looking for.
 
There is no room in the GP package for a .45 Colt chambering.
It will not happen.
Denis
 
Well shucks, I wish there was enough room. I would like a lighter weight 45 to carry. When I asked the question I didn’t consider the extra width of the 45. It will be interesting to see what Charter Arms comes out with next year in their XL frame.
 
460Shooter said:
I think you gents may be dipping into the wishing well a little to deeply. I seriously doubt there is enough metal in a GP100 cylinder to fit even 5 rounds of 45 Colt in it. Note that even a S&W 625 is an N frame sized gun, and it only shoots 45 ACP.

Even if you could put them in, the cylinder walls will be scary thin. Ruger doesn't have a reputation for underbuilding their guns.

Take a look at images of a S&W 696. They were L frames chambered in 44 spl. The cylinder walls, and the forcing cone for that matter were really thin. Granted, I believe the GP cylinder is a bit thicker, but not enough to matter. Take a look at the 44 spl GP100 also. All someone would have to do is put a "Ruger only" load in a 45 Colt GP100, and I'm guessing that gun is going to grenade after a few rounds.

Ruger likes a wide safety margin, as is apparent in their designs. The concept is wonderful, but not likely to ever come into being. If I were a smith, I wouldn't even attempt it for the potential disaster that could happen.
Click to expand...
The Ruger-only load argument for 45 Colt is not convincing, because someone could as easily put over-SAMMI ammo into a 45 Colt not rated for it. The guns exist, and Bubba has to know what he is doing with them.
 
Last edited:
What frame and cylinder size does Taurus use for their 5 shot big-bore platform?

They have produced many .41, .44 and .45 caliber guns in such a style.
 
I think there is plenty of room in a cylinder the diameter of a GP100 for a 5 shot 45 Colt/ACP cylinder. The problem is that it would require moving the barrel down in the frame and making the star in the center of the cylinder smaller in diameter (and associate frame/lockworks changes) There is plenty of room in a 1.55 inch diameter cylinder but a GP100 would require a fair amount of other changes to make it work.

When S&W made the 8-shot 357 Magnum on the N-frame they had to move the barrel up in the frame a touch. In this case going from a 7 or 6 shot GP100 to a 5-shot 45 would require moving the barrel down. If someone can throw a pair of calipers on the star in their GP100 I could sketch it up in CAD. I have the cylinder diameter and it's easy to get chamber and rim diameters for 45 so it seems feasible but I am pretty sure the star will be a problem.
 
Last edited:
No, there isn't enough room.

S&W did no such thing on the 8-shot N-frames. No more than Ruger did with the Redhawk. Barrels aren't arbitrarily moved around on the frame, nor chambers in a cylinder. Doing so constitutes re-engineering the whole frame.
 
CraigC said:
No, there isn't enough room.

S&W did no such thing on the 8-shot N-frames. No more than Ruger did with the Redhawk. Barrels aren't arbitrarily moved around on the frame, nor chambers in a cylinder. Doing so constitutes re-engineering the whole frame.
Click to expand...

I am sure that the 627 bore axis is higher than the 625, 610. I can measure it on my samples. It is talk about occasionally over on the S&W forums. You could get 7-shots (third party custom cylinders) in the original Model 27 but they had to move the chambers out a touch to fit 8-shots of 357 in the 627. Its not much difference but they did in fact move the barrel up in the frame about .037 inch. This also required the frame mounted firing pin to be move up the same amount. The bolt hole circle for the chambers on my 610 and 625 measures ~1.090 and the bolt hole circle for the chambers on my 627 measure 1.162.
 
Last edited:
Regardless of what S&W did, Ruger will not produce a .45 Colt GP. :)
Denis
 
mcb said:
I am sure that the 627 bore axis is higher than the 625, 610. I can measure it on my samples. It is talk about occasionally over on the S&W forums. You could get 7-shots (third party custom cylinders) in the original Model 27 but they had to move the chambers out a touch to fit 8-shots of 357 in the 627. Its not much difference but they did in fact move the barrel up in the frame about .037 inch. This also required the frame mounted firing pin to be move up the same amount. The bolt hole circle for the chambers on my 610 and 625 measures ~1.090 and the bolt hole circle for the chambers on my 627 measure 1.162.
Click to expand...
Sorry but that's not how it works.
 
CraigC said:
Sorry but that's not how it works.
Click to expand...
I don't mean to be argumentative but I have read it else where and I have confirmed it by measuring my 627, 625 and 610 and the distance from the center of the cylinder to the center of the chambers on a 627 is ~.037 inch further than that of my 625, 610. But you need not take my word, go over and ask on the S&W forums. The bolt hole circle diameter for the chambers has been increased and the hole for the barrel and firing pin in the frame on the 627 has been moved up (compared to other N-frames) to accommodate the 8-shot cylinder.

ETA: Some other support for my claim.

https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143223
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/64988-converting-27-28-6-shot-8-shot.html
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-re...who-best-convert-my-28-2-8-shot-revolver.html
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-smithing/71898-can-8-shot-cylinder-retrofitted-m28-2-a.html
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-re...515034-bolt-circle-diameter-629-vs-627-a.html
The last thread is a thread I start some time ago.
 
Last edited:
An early "high capacity" gunsmith conversion M27 8 shot - or was it the 9 shot .32?- put the barrel in an off-center bushing, made the new cylinder with larger bolt circle, and moved the firing pin.

I think a GP100 .44 and a set of dies would be a lot less expensive than a conversion like that. Heck, you could probably add in a .44 rifle for a set and still be out for less money.
 
Regardless, if it's a light GP100 in 45 colt, it won't be as strong as a redhawk and able to take magnum like pressures; or if it will be as strong at a redhawk, it'll pretty much weight as much. So if it's just a plain jane light 45 colt revolver you're looking for, there are other manufacturers for that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Ruger GP100 in 44 mag
2
Replies
25
Views
8K
MrBorland
MrBorland
DannyLandrum
  • Locked
Ruger GP100 in .44 special
2 3
Replies
57
Views
6K
MJ
MJ
Quoheleth
  • Locked
Help me decide...
Replies
15
Views
731
straightshooterjake
S
L
  • Locked
Are Redhawks as reliable as GP100s?
Replies
12
Views
719
GRIZ22
G
N
  • Locked
Could they make...
Replies
2
Views
529
Old Fuff
O
Back
Top