Nightcrawler
Member
On an impulse, I picked up a used Ruger GP-100 recently. I'd been kicking around getting a GP-100 for the last few years and I finally found a good price on one. It's practically new. It's a 4" stainless model, KGP-141 I think.
It's my first Ruger revolver, so it's been a learning experience. I'm waiting for my free manual from Ruger, along with a tiny takedown pin that stores in the grip (the gun came with one, but I lost it in short order). I've not yet taken it apart, though I was shown how.
I like the trigger. A lot of guys talk about how awful Ruger triggers are; it isn't the case on this gun. It feels different than a Smith, but not worse. Single action trigger pull is heavier than a Smith, but I almost never shoot single action anyway.
The gun is a chunk; it's heavy, heavier than my 686+ was even though it'll fit in the same holsters. The frame is a big square of cast steel with a cylinder window cut into it; the top of the frame is simply flat steel, whereas on a Smith it's contoured and left unpolished to reduce glare. One of the ways Ruger reduces cost, I guess, is to minimize machine time, which results in a blockier gun.
I don't like the sights. A flat black front sight with a white outline rear is, to my mind, a bad sight picture. The rear sight should never be higher-visibility than the front, in my opinion. Either all-black sights or a white-outline-rear and colored-ramp-front would've been a better choice.
That's no matter, though. I'm going to replace the sights with a Bowen rear and a gold bead front, like my 629 Classic. I'm going to use the Ruger as a sort of 4/5ths scale practice gun for the .44 Magnum.
Hm. Speaking of which, Georgia Arms hasn't shipped the ammo I ordered almost a month ago, or even billed me for it. I should probably call them.
Anyway, the left grip panel doesn't fit properly into the rubber. It sticks out a bit, but it probably won't be noticable when firing. The round cylinder that goes through the grip stud and stops you from tightening the grip screw too much had to be literally pounded out with a hammer. Repeatedly pounding it back and forth through the hole shaved some metal off of it and it now moves freely without tools, like I'm told it should.
All in all, we'll see how I like it in the long run. I've had a .357 before and just couldn't stick with it. Maybe it'll be different with the Ruger, just because it's different than my three Smiths.
I do have a question, though. What's the difference between the "old" Ruger DA revolvers like the Redhawk and the "new" ones like the GP100, besides the grip frame? Are there any mechanical differences in the lockwork?
Strange as it may sound, subjectively I "feel" that the GP-100 is tougher...well, it's got more metal on it than a comparable L-Frame, so it'll probably be hard to blow up with a bad handload, but that's not what I'm talking about. Will a Ruger revolver hold up to sand, mud, moisture, and abuse better than a Smith & Wesson? Is the lockwork stronger and less prone to failure? Or is it purely subjective on my part?
On that note, please don't bombard me with a bunch of comments about "TEH LOCK" and MIM parts; that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is the nuts-and-bolts mechanics of the lockwork, assuming equal quality control for each type. Is the Ruger design inherently more durable?
Oh, while I appreciate the sentiment, I wouldn't congratulate me on the gun, with which you may expect me to enjoy many long years of shooting, just yet. If I still have it in six months then it's probably a keeper, but not necessarily. I'm a notorious horse trader.
(OTOH, .38 is cheap and .44 is not, so that's one thing it's got going for it.)
Biggest downside to it? .357 isn't big bore. *shrug* Again, purely subjective on my part, but that kind of stuff drives probably 99% of our gun buying choices. And happily so; otherwise, we'd all be shooting Glocks.
It's my first Ruger revolver, so it's been a learning experience. I'm waiting for my free manual from Ruger, along with a tiny takedown pin that stores in the grip (the gun came with one, but I lost it in short order). I've not yet taken it apart, though I was shown how.
I like the trigger. A lot of guys talk about how awful Ruger triggers are; it isn't the case on this gun. It feels different than a Smith, but not worse. Single action trigger pull is heavier than a Smith, but I almost never shoot single action anyway.
The gun is a chunk; it's heavy, heavier than my 686+ was even though it'll fit in the same holsters. The frame is a big square of cast steel with a cylinder window cut into it; the top of the frame is simply flat steel, whereas on a Smith it's contoured and left unpolished to reduce glare. One of the ways Ruger reduces cost, I guess, is to minimize machine time, which results in a blockier gun.
I don't like the sights. A flat black front sight with a white outline rear is, to my mind, a bad sight picture. The rear sight should never be higher-visibility than the front, in my opinion. Either all-black sights or a white-outline-rear and colored-ramp-front would've been a better choice.
That's no matter, though. I'm going to replace the sights with a Bowen rear and a gold bead front, like my 629 Classic. I'm going to use the Ruger as a sort of 4/5ths scale practice gun for the .44 Magnum.
Hm. Speaking of which, Georgia Arms hasn't shipped the ammo I ordered almost a month ago, or even billed me for it. I should probably call them.
Anyway, the left grip panel doesn't fit properly into the rubber. It sticks out a bit, but it probably won't be noticable when firing. The round cylinder that goes through the grip stud and stops you from tightening the grip screw too much had to be literally pounded out with a hammer. Repeatedly pounding it back and forth through the hole shaved some metal off of it and it now moves freely without tools, like I'm told it should.
All in all, we'll see how I like it in the long run. I've had a .357 before and just couldn't stick with it. Maybe it'll be different with the Ruger, just because it's different than my three Smiths.
I do have a question, though. What's the difference between the "old" Ruger DA revolvers like the Redhawk and the "new" ones like the GP100, besides the grip frame? Are there any mechanical differences in the lockwork?
Strange as it may sound, subjectively I "feel" that the GP-100 is tougher...well, it's got more metal on it than a comparable L-Frame, so it'll probably be hard to blow up with a bad handload, but that's not what I'm talking about. Will a Ruger revolver hold up to sand, mud, moisture, and abuse better than a Smith & Wesson? Is the lockwork stronger and less prone to failure? Or is it purely subjective on my part?
On that note, please don't bombard me with a bunch of comments about "TEH LOCK" and MIM parts; that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is the nuts-and-bolts mechanics of the lockwork, assuming equal quality control for each type. Is the Ruger design inherently more durable?
Oh, while I appreciate the sentiment, I wouldn't congratulate me on the gun, with which you may expect me to enjoy many long years of shooting, just yet. If I still have it in six months then it's probably a keeper, but not necessarily. I'm a notorious horse trader.
(OTOH, .38 is cheap and .44 is not, so that's one thing it's got going for it.)
Biggest downside to it? .357 isn't big bore. *shrug* Again, purely subjective on my part, but that kind of stuff drives probably 99% of our gun buying choices. And happily so; otherwise, we'd all be shooting Glocks.
