Ruger GP-100 .22lr 5.5”

chicharrones said:

My last Ruger revolver (Single Six) had rough chambers from the factory and ammo wouldn't seat properly after the chambers got fouled. It only took a few cylinders worth of firing to make ammo hard to seat. I polished them myself with a cleaning rod tip chucked in a electric drill and used a cleaning patch with polish on it to polish out the tooling marks.

Click to expand...

I had to do the same on a SP101 in 22lr. The chambers were rough enough that ejecting the spent cases was really difficult, and my hand would be sore after three or four cylinders.

A chamber mop and Mother's Mag Polish fixed the issue.

Thanks. Both guns were gone over several times and I probably spent about 4 hours polishing the SP and 5 hours polishing the Smith. I like the way they turned out.

460Shooter

I would probably hand polish that entire gun several times with Mothers until it had a nice shine to it. I've done it on several revolvers and I prefer it over a brushed finish. Just my preference though.

Click to expand...

I have done the same thing with a couple of my S&W revolvers. The Model 649 turned out quite nicely as did the Model 686. At times they look to have a mirror finish as if they were nickel plated.

Hand polishing guns is my version of knitting in front of the TV.

Click to expand...

Yes I also find it very relaxing (and maybe even a little therapeutic), to hand polish stainless guns with Mother's Mag Polish.

I had the 5.5" version and traded it. Couldn't wait to get it, but when it came, I wondered why I had it; just too heavy a gun to shoot 22LR for target very long. And the light strike issue is a known problem with the GP100 22's.

On another thread I posted a blow out with hypervelocity ammo in a 22 revolver. One post noted that early 22 revolvers had rebated cylinders because blow outs in 22 rim fires were common back in the day. Interesting to see that this Ruger has that rebated cylinder also. Another gun for the wish list.

I have a GP100,.357, and its my go to target gun for 38 caliber paper punching. Many thousands of rounds and no problems, other than learning one can "short stroke" the trigger in double action firing. On mine the trigger has to be allowed to come fully forward after each double action shot. I've had this gun slicked for double action so maybe that's the reason. I also replaced the grips with Hogue rubber with finger grooves, made a difference.

460Shooter said:

That's what I would do.

Click to expand...

That's the nice thing about stainless guns, no finish to worry about replacing. Polish away.

I had quality issues with my GP100 .22 also and so did my friend with his. After a lot of rework it is now pretty good.

Things that were bad:
1 Trigger guard was also unfinished/sharp on the right side. (filed and sanded)
2 The front sight (too high) dovetail milled too shallow causing rear sight to be at upper limit. (put on a red dot)
3 Hammer was not shaped correctly. (reshaped it and polished)
4 Cylinder ratchet was poorly machined on 4 cogs causing rough DA on those 4. (filed and polished)
5 Cylinder star had metal curls that needed to be removed. (made a tool to cleanup)
6 Firing pin not reliable with several brands of ammo. (reshaped firing pin)
7 Hammer rubbing on the frame. (added shims)
8 Hard trigger pull. (replaced springs with lighter ones)



The main thing I found between my S&W's (I have 3 S&W 617's) and the GP100 is that the trigger pull is longer on the Ruger, this takes a bit getting used to for speed shooting sports but with practice I can do OK with it.

<*(((>< said:

@DS-10-SPEED

I've never taken the firing pin out of a revolver, how hard is it? I like the picture you posted of the before and after of the cartridges, it seems like this would be a great improvement to do to mine. I'm assuming you don't change the overall length (no filing perpendicular to the pin), just chamfered/radiused the edges?

Click to expand...

Before doing this make sure your firing pin is located properly in the frame (where the indent is on the spent cartridge). I think the reason they use such a large firing pin is because they can't precisely locate it in the frame. My friends gun was hitting on the very edge of the cartridge rim, not like mine.

If you don't have misfires now I wouldn't bother doing this, but I couldn't reduce my heavy factory hammer spring without modifying mine.

To get the firing pin out I made a spanner tool. I took a 1/4" hex head bolt, cut off the threads for a flat end and drilled 2 small holes the same size/location as the holes in the firing pin retainer. I then made 2 dowel pins from an old drill bit (same size as holes in retainer). I inserted the dowel pins in the new tool and removed the retainer with a 7/16" socket wrench. Mine came out easy but my friend had to heat his frame slightly with a lighter because his had Loc Tite on the threads.

I slightly rounded the edges of the pin making sure not to shorten it. Be aware that Ruger won't sell you a new pin if you mess it up.

Also for the "metal curls" you can see from my post above the tool I made to clean it up. I have a small lathe to make it.

whughett said:

On another thread I posted a blow out with hypervelocity ammo in a 22 revolver. One post noted that early 22 revolvers had rebated cylinders because blow outs in 22 rim fires were common back in the day. Interesting to see that this Ruger has that rebated cylinder also. Another gun for the wish list.

Click to expand...

Most rimfire revolvers have countersunk chambers but some, like the USFA 12/22, do not. I think this is a moot point with modern ammo.

<*(((>< said:

It came with a few firing pin marks on a couple of the cylinders

Click to expand...

That right there would have been a deal breaker. There is no way there should be firing pin marks on the inside edge of the chamber. The firing pin retainer should prevent that from happening, if it continues you may have trouble seating rounds in those charge holes. Back to Ruger it Goes...

I would not be happy with a new firearm with all the defects that the OP mentions. Where in the world were Ruger's quality control?

<*(((>< said:

So your saying the gp100 .22 should be safe to dry fire without contacting the edges of the cylinder?

If so then yes mine needs to head back to Ruger

Click to expand...

I very well may be wrong, but I thought I read on a forum somewhere, that you shouldn't dry fire rim fire 22 revolvers without snap caps which are unnecessary for center fire GPs. What you're seeing is what they were warning about.

The fit & finish issues are to be expected with a Ruger. It's always been that way.

The only Ruger I ever had to send back to the mothership was a New Bearcat that peened every chamber right out of the box. They replaced it, rather than fixing it. That said, I also subscribe to the idea that rimfires should never be dry fired without snap caps or drywall anchors.

CraigC said:

The fit & finish issues are to be expected with a Ruger. It's always been that way.

The only Ruger I ever had to send back to the mothership was a New Bearcat that peened every chamber right out of the box. They replaced it, rather than fixing it. That said, I also subscribe to the idea that rimfires should never be dry fired without snap caps or drywall anchors.

Click to expand...

Ditto on the Ruger fit and finish but most issues are pretty easy to correct yourself and once you put the personal touches to you'll likely be very happy with it. I bought a new model 1740 5" GP-100 stainless which had some of the same issues as yours. The rear sight pin kept backing out, the cylinder had machine marks from when the lock notches were cut in and right side of trigger guard was rough and sharp like yours. The trigger assembly where it meets the frame had a couple shallow chips that looked worse then they were and came out with light sanding. The hammer pivot pin sat raised above the frame because of a burr left on frame from when they drilled the hole. The extractor action wasn't smooth until it spit out a burr during a cleaning. Add hammer and hammer dog shims and a set of Altamont inserts and I've got a gun that I really like and enjoy.

I do not dryfire my rimfire revolvers without snap caps, or any rimfire rifle I own.
I own S&W K22, and model 34 revolvers that are over 50 years old and owned by who knows who before I bought them, none of them have firing pin dents in the cylinder.
My SIngle six has fired thousands of rounds since I bought it used in 1985 it has no dents.
If I saw this on a rimfire I would not buy it as it has clearly been abused. For a new gun to come this way is unacceptable.
Back to Ruger...

Master Blaster said:

I do not dryfire my rimfire revolvers without snap caps, or any rimfire rifle I own.
I own S&W K22, and model 34 revolvers that are over 50 years old and owned by who knows who before I bought them, none of them have firing pin dents in the cylinder.
My SIngle six has fired thousands of rounds since I bought it used in 1985 it has no dents.
If I saw this on a rimfire I would not buy it as it has clearly been abused. For a new gun to come this way is unacceptable.
Back to Ruger...

Click to expand...

Agree completely. It shouldn't be happening. Some rimfires are safe to dry fire without snapcaps (dummy rounds or spent cases) and some aren't. I don't really dry fire any of my guns anymore without snap caps.

The bottom line is the gun shouldn't have peening or dents from the factory. Something isn't right there.

If you do send the gun back to Ruger be aware they will send it back stock. Lighter springs, shims ect. may be removed. I apologize if this was already mentioned or maybe you knew. BTW, nice gun and nice work. Best of luck with it.

<*(((>< said:

I would read @460Shooter post above. When researching the sp101 and GP100 .22’s there were lots of people complaining about the trigger on the sp101. And it makes sense like he said that the GP100 with the larger hammer can handle a lighter pull weight as it has more mass/momentum to hit the firing pin with.

Click to expand...

An elderly relative has an SP-101 in .38 Special and was having trouble with the DA trigger weight as well as cocking it for SA shots. Took it to a gunsmith a bit north of me and he was startled that the DA pull was 30 lbs. !! He said he couldn't do the alterations due to liability but he did talk me through it. We took the trigger spring out of the handle CAREFULLY and cut off a little piece. After reassembly, the weight was down to 11 lbs. so we took off a bit more. We finally got the DA trigger pull down to ~5 lbs. which allowed said relative to use either method. If I live long enough to inherit this gun, I'll probably have to replace that spring for my own use. Oh well.

JTHunter said:

An elderly relative has an SP-101 in .38 Special and was having trouble with the DA trigger weight as well as cocking it for SA shots. Took it to a gunsmith a bit north of me and he was startled that the DA pull was 30 lbs. !! He said he couldn't do the alterations due to liability but he did talk me through it. We took the trigger spring out of the handle CAREFULLY and cut off a little piece. After reassembly, the weight was down to 11 lbs. so we took off a bit more. We finally got the DA trigger pull down to ~5 lbs. which allowed said relative to use either method. If I live long enough to inherit this gun, I'll probably have to replace that spring for my own use. Oh well.

Click to expand...

30 lbs? Yikes. I don't even understand how that could leave the factory. My 357 mag SP101 has a light SA pull, and acceptable DA pull. I don't have a gauge, but I'd estimate it in the 8-9 lb range.

The 22 version I had though, I'd put money on it being north of 15 lbs. Not what I want in a target gun.................. or any gun really.

I know Smiths have their own problems, and I do like the GP100 platform, but I am really hesitant to ever buy a Ruger 22 lr revolver after my own experience, and reading this thread. It just seems the 22s don't get adequate attention. I think if I want a 22lr handgun, I'll go with a S&W 617 of some flavor.

Maybe a 17-3.