Forged vs. Cast (65 vs GP100)

[jlh26oo]

Everything I've read about the Ruger GP100 has declared it to be the strongest medium frame out there... but it is of CAST construction!

I am deciding between it and a Taurus M65 in the same configuration (4" SS .357 fixed). The Taurus is supposedly a FORGED frame, with a lifetime warranty, and a hundred dollars cheaper.

So first how is a cast frame of similar mass stronger than a forged frame? Well, Taurus actually specifies forged on their large frame revolvers, not addressed on the 65's description (still waiting to hear back from them).

So putting aside aesthetics (I personally prefer the looks of the Ruger) and cost for the moment, can anyone speak to any other pros and cons on these two revolvers?

I've heard the GP100 trigger is not as smooth (compared to smiths and colts I guess), if only til broken in. Any insight into the Taurus 65 trigger? Also, it appears that the gap b/t cylinder and frame on the taurus is larger, but don't know what relevance this has other than looks.

Taurus- made in Brazil... GP100- USA??

I don't have a problem paying $100 more for the one I like the looks of more, but I refuse to do so if the CHEAPER option is a BETTER gun.

Thanks.

http://www.taurususa.com/products/product-details.cfm?model=65SS4&category=Revolver ($283)

http://ruger.com/Firearms/FAProdResults?function=famid&famid=8 ($383)

 

[Moonclip]

Cast does not mean weaker in the case of a Ruger. The Taurus may be serviceable but if you plan on making one 357mag do all your 357mag shooting and chores you will probably be better off with the Ruger unless you plan on shooting mostly 38splor not much shooting at all.

Taurus while it resembles a S&W revolver is quite different internally and the trigger will not be comparable with a S&W. Ruger has no warranty really but they are generally pretty good about fixing their guns. The previous Ruger 357mag models, the Security/Speed/Service six, I read that the warranty area for them is one small room with one employee! There was over 1 million of those guns made.

 

[Trebor]

I'm not a fan of the Ruger GP 100. I used to shoot my friend's revolver alot and never could do well with it. It was the gun that made me decide that I didn't like revolvers. It wasn't until I tried a S&W Model 28 that I realized it was just the Ruger I didn't like.

That being said, I'd go with the Ruger over the Taurus. I have a Taurus Model 94 in .22 and, while it's OK for what it is, I have had enough problems with it to question the reliability of their revolver line. If it was a "personal defense" revolver instead of a .22 plinker, I'd have sold it off by now. I think the Ruger guns are better built and more reliable.

Me, I like Smith and Wesson much more than Ruger or Taurus. Have you considered a K or L frame Smith?

 

[jc2]

My experience with Taurus is there is a 50% chance it will have problems. My experience with Ruger is that it will be 100% out of the box.

In terms of strength, Ruger is the preferred platform for testing heavy loads because it takes a likkin' and keeps of tikkin'. I know of no manufacturer that selects Taurus products to test their loads (heavy or otherwise).

A big of advantage of the Ruger is the simplicity with which it can be broken down, and its internals cleaned, if required. Try disassemblying and reassembling a Taurus sometime (or a S&W or Colt).

 

[JohnBT]

Info on Ruger's investment casting empire...guns, and those jumbo drivers, are just the tip of the iceberg.

www.pinetreecastings.com/casting/index.html

And the Ruger Security/Police-Six repair guy in that little room is probably re-reading War and Peace between naps.

John

 

[Boats]

Another misnomer about Ruger revolvers is that their strength is derived from mass. It is the design's use of a solid frame that makes it stronger. There is no sideplate using design on the market that can be stronger than the totally solid frame of the Ruger line.

 

[jc2]

A good (and that's the key) cast frame will be stronger than a forged frame. Ruger casts good frames.

 

[BigG]

That is hogwash. Ruger is stronger because it's THICKER. A Ruger frame that weighed the same as a forged frame would be weaker.

Now I'm no fan of either Ruger or Taurus but any Ruger is at least 50% heavier than a competing brand from say S&W.

 

[Boats]

SKU KGP-141 Ruger 4" Stainless w/ Adjustable Sights=39 1/2 oz

SKU 164222 Smith & Wesson 686 4" Stainless w/ Adjustable Sights=40 oz.

I don't know what the force of gravity multiple is on the planet Dixieland, but the Smith weighs more here on Earth.

 

[Z_Infidel]

I have owned 3 Taurus model 65 revolvers, and they all had good triggers out of the box. Two of them were recent models with consecutive serial numbers, and were excellent all the way around -- good triggers, accurate, and dependable.

That said, I sold all three of them and I still have my GP100. It took a while, but the trigger is now nice and smooth.

 

[P. Plainsman]

Nice one, Boats.

Anyway, investment casting vs. forging aside, the Ruger double action revolver design is better engineered than the Smith design (which the Taurus design takes off from). No side plates to unscrew; one piece frame. If you are into doing full disassemblies of your revolver, the Rugers are easy to strip and work on.

After a year of usage, my GP100 has a better action than any post-2000 Smith & Wesson revolver I've ever handled, with the possible exception of the very nice, slick, and expen$ive Performance Center Miculek-type 625s. Likewise, the last .44 Super Redhawk I handled on the gun store shelves had a nicer, smoother, lighter action than the (new) S&W 629s next to it.

I really think this deserves emphasis, because it is an instance of the conventional wisdom failing to keep up with changing reality.

I like Smiths too, and just ordered a new one last week. But from everything I've seen, the Smith trigger advantage, while quite real in previous decades, is now a thing of the past. It simply provides no basis for choosing between the two marques today.

Returning to the original query -- Pick the GP100 over the Taurus .357 without hesitation. I think of Taurus as a source for wheelguns that Ruger and S&W don't make, or don't offer in a format or caliber I want. (There are quite a few of these, with the result that there are lots of Tauruses I'd like to own.)

 

[TheEgg]

Your odds of being happy with your purchase will be better with the Ruger.

 

[BigG]

... conventional wisdom failing to keep up with changing reality.

You may be right as I cut my teeth about 40 years ago shooting and the S&W was the only game in town. you could buy a Colt but it cost around 2x as much as a Smith with no perceptible increased value. Rugers were laughably crude in comparison, kind of like Chinese or Russian weaponry - but they were cheap. The finish was something like a motor block, too.

I would have to try the trigger pull of a current Ruger to believe you PPlainsman, as they always felt about like a daisy trigger to me, even on single action.

All that said, the Ruger design is probably superior to the 100 year old S&W Hand Ejector design with it's removeable sideplate. S&W ought to do some engineering of their own and put that upstart back in their place.

 

[mtnbkr]

I've owned a GP100 for 6 years now. In that time, it has endured several thousand 38s and at least 2k HOT 357mag loads. My "hot" mag load is a 180gr bullet at 1200fps from a 4" barrel. Yes, that's actual chronograph data from my gun, not a 10" "test barrel". The gun is still tight and accurate.

Would the Taurus handle that? Probably so. That said, I've heard of more than one ammo company using the GP100 as their testbed.

As for the trigger, it's a different beast. It tunes up well enough if you do some light polishing. Swapping the springs can help as well. After years of shooting, some internal work, and lighter springs, my GP100's trigger is lighter than any NIB S&W I've seen. However, it's still a different pull than the S&W. Not worse, not better, just different. I happen to like it, but that's mainly because I learned to shoot DA on that gun.

Chris

 

[sfhogman]

I own Smiths and Ruger revolvers. I believe the GP100 - mine's a KGP161- to be a superb machine. No doubt the Taurus is an excellent gun; I know they have been trying very hard of late. Those that I've shot have been very nice. I don't think you would go wrong either either one.

For me, it would be the Ruger.

Best,
Jeff

 

[chaim]

There are a few reasons the Ruger is stronger than the Taurus 65 and K-frame S&Ws.

As mentioned above, the Ruger doesn't have a side plate like the Taurus and S&W. The more solid frame will add some to strength.

I'm not sure the conventional wisdom that cast is always weaker than forged is true. I'm not a metallurgist, but I would think that using good materials you could get a very strong part using casting.

So first how is a cast frame of similar mass stronger than a forged frame?

Here is the big part, they aren't really similar mass.

Sure, they are both medium framed revolvers. However the S&W K-frames and similar Taurus 82/65/66 are quite a bit smaller in key areas of the frame than the beefier Ruger GP100 and S&W L-frames (I'm not quite sure where the Taurus Tracker falls in comparison to the K-frame sized and Ruger/L-framed sized medium frame).

 

[4v50 Gary]

Ruger wins hands down when it comes to durability & reliability. If I were to carry one, it would be a Ruger. S&W requires that the sideplate screws are checked every now and then for tightness. It's a good gun, but that's something you have to do with revolvers that have detachable sideplates. Rugers can also take more abuse that other revolvers.

 

[pezo]

the gp100 is same in size to a smith and wesson 686. ( 3" version even smaller and sleeker) The ruger can take a beating that the smith and exspecially the taurus cant. ( look for past threads regarding taurus quality issues). smith's are nice if you can deal with the overinflated price, internal lock and older weaker frame designs. Many smith and wesson fans praise the older products from the company but buying used is a greater gamble on quality then buying new.

 

[Sunray]

"...if only til broken in..." With the exception of the high priced Colt Python, all new firearms require a trigger job. Not "broken in". A polishing of all the mating internal parts and changing the springs. Frivolous law suits and the cost of setting up the trigger have caused the manufacturers to sell their products with poor triggers.
GP100 internal parts are made with high quality SS. A trigger job is easy. No special tools needed. Polish, I say again polish all mating parts and either change or clip 1/4 turn off the mainspring. Then use good ammo. Preferably handloaded.
A S&W/Taurus trigger job requires one special tool to do. It's used to remove the rebound spring. Then polish all mating surfaces, adjust the strain screw and change the springs. No cutting them, it doesn't work on Smith's.
In any case, cast parts are not in any way weaker than machined parts. Especially investment cast parts. Most of the parts in your vehicle's engine are cast. Starting with the block. You'll also find that both Smith and Taurus are also making parts by investment casting. Not just Ruger.

 

[DHart]

So much is made about this brand or that brand being stronger, as if in practice, for most people, the difference would really make any difference. THe vast majority of gun buyers will never shoot anywhere near enough to discover what difference there might be in strength between this brand and that brand, this manufacturing process or that one. It's pretty comical, really. For all intents and purposes I assert that all of these brands are sufficiently strong for the task at hand and it would be a rare shooter who would find a strength limitation in any of them.

That said, for the person who wants to literally shoot the snot out of a gun, stuff it with bully loads and blast the crap out of it, perhaps one brand or another would begin to suffer in a noticible way earlier on. For the person who thrives on the most brutal loads he can shoe-horn into his guns, this question might have some validity. And for him, guns like the SuperBlackhawk, Thompson Contender, and Redhawk are the most suitable. But simply because they are tough guns doesn't make them "better" or more desireable in general.

For those who stick more closely to standard and target loads and don't shoot thousands of rounds a year through a single gun, the guns offered by all of these brands are quite likely to be sufficiently strong to do the job well for a long service life. I would choose among them on the basis of feel in the hand, size, weight, functionality, and features. "Strength" in and of itself would have little to do with my decision.

Now when it comes to reliability and build quality, there might be some more noteworthy differences between some brands. I suspect that the Taurus guns in general are likely to be of lesser overall build quality and perhaps more likely to have problems. But I've never owned one to speak from experience, nor will I likely ever own one.... I like Smiths, I like Rugers, I like Colts, I like Brownings... they're all great guns. Tauri, well... they just don't trip my trigger.

Smiths tend to go out of time more easily, but they are such magnificent revolvers that this issue fades from importance. Rugers tend to stay in time well, but lack other aspects which some might truly appreciate. I love them both for their individual attributes and accept their limitations as part of the price to pay for their wonderful attributes.

 

[jlh26oo]

Thanks all.

I visited a couple of shops today for some hands-on research. GP100 it is.

Only problem is, I am having trouble finding the 4" with fixed sights. Buds e-gunshop says it doesn't exist, and I can't convince him otherwise. And indeed there is not a "KGPF341" on ruger's site, as listed for sale here: http://www.lisc.net/p523.htm
(Except that this place just won't respond to my shipping questions).

Does anyone actually have a four inch, fixed sights, .357 GP100 in stainless, with the long shroud? I know it exists, because I've seen a picture of it. Possibly discontinued?

I could go with the 3" instead, which comes exclusively fixed, but would rather not sacrifice sight plane for a gun that will not be carried (aside from replacing the 12ga in my truck... come Sept 1).

Again, thanks for all the help. Great forum.

 

[DHart]

Trust me, you would love the 3" GP-100 in blue or stainless!

If you want a 4" barrel for long distance sighting, having the adjustable sights would be a nice benefit.

 

[jlh26oo]

Stunning.

So how did you get the Ruger logo and safety paragraph off the barrel? Or were they ever even on it in the first place?

And at what distance will the loss of sight plane (from 4" to 3") start making a significant difference? I am just really partial to the integral design of their fixed sights.

 

[mete]

Casting is only the means of forming the steel , it implies nothing else.The proper choice of steel and it's heat treatment determine performance .Things like jet engine turbine blades are cast ,they don't fail very often do they ?Yet the stresses are very high.

 

[Boats]

Deleting the safety paragraph isn't hard, but it voids having any free work done by the factory service department. However, a GP-100 is about as trouble free as an AK-47.