GP100 in 45 colt

[Jim Watson]

But you never heard of "Taurus only" ammo.

 

[RealGun]

But you never heard of "Taurus only" ammo.

Missing what you mean. A Smith 45 Colt doesn't shoot the heavy stuff either.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Sure you have Jim. They're called 45 Schofield.

 

[CraigC]

It's not relevant, at all. The dimensions of the Taurus are obviously more compatible or Taurus is more comfortable with less safety margin than Ruger. As I said, what Taurus has done with their guns and why has no bearing on what Ruger will or will not do with the GP. It's not the same company and it's not the same gun. If it was technically feasible, we would already be seeing custom GP's in .45Colt. We don't. Case closed.

For perspective, fans wanted a mid-frame Blackhawk .44Spl for FIFTY YEARS before Ruger finally built one. What did they do in the meantime? They had them built by custom gunsmiths. It became by far the most popular revolver caliber conversion. If you guys who are so convinced that it's not only a good idea but technically possible, put your money where your mouth is and have one built. Rather than speculating and postulating, get on the phone with a gunsmith and plan it out. When you spend $3000 to have yours built, only to enjoy a 250gr at 800fps, I'll still be enjoying my $500 .44Spl and 250's at 1200fps. Sorry but it's a dumb idea in the first place.

 

[RugRev]

"

But you never heard of "Taurus only" ammo.

I think they are called Cowboy Loads!

 

[heyjoe]

What Taurus did is irrelevant. If they're so cool, buy one and be happy.

I was answering post #119, who said that he had never seen one. I happen to have the Taurus 450 so i showed it to him. Others could also get an idea of the thickness of the cylinder at the outer diameter and between chambers.I never commented on whether Ruger could or would or should make a similar gun. It is a cool gun, very light and easy to carry. For Ruger only loads i have a Ruger Vaquero. No reason to be nasty. You seem to be emotionally invested in this topic.

 

[ATLDave]

For Ruger only loads i have a Ruger Vaquero.

I thought that Vaqueros were not sturdy enough for the "Ruger only" loads... though robust enough for loads suitable for Model 25 S&W's, but too warm for a true Colt SAA or direct copy.

Or maybe that's just New Vaqueros.

 

[CraigC]

I was answering post #119, who said that he had never seen one. I happen to have the Taurus 450 so i showed it to him. Others could also get an idea of the thickness of the cylinder at the outer diameter and between chambers.I never commented on whether Ruger could or would or should make a similar gun. It is a cool gun, very light and easy to carry. For Ruger only loads i have a Ruger Vaquero. No reason to be nasty. You seem to be emotionally invested in this topic.

Don't read too much into my posts. The dead horse is beat to a pulp and I see no point in continuing to do so.

 

[RealGun]

I thought that Vaqueros were not sturdy enough for the "Ruger only" loads... though robust enough for loads suitable for Model 25 S&W's, but too warm for a true Colt SAA or direct copy.

Or maybe that's just New Vaqueros.

No, please, not that again. New Vaqueros are offered in 45 ACP convertible, so it seems well accepted than 45 Colt loads can go at least to 45 ACP pressure levels, which are not full on "Ruger only", better left to Blackhawks old and new, to large frame Vaqueros, and Redhawks.

 

[mcb]

It's not relevant, at all. The dimensions of the Taurus are obviously more compatible or Taurus is more comfortable with less safety margin than Ruger. As I said, what Taurus has done with their guns and why has no bearing on what Ruger will or will not do with the GP. It's not the same company and it's not the same gun. If it was technically feasible, we would already be seeing custom GP's in .45Colt. We don't. Case closed.

BUT it is technically feasible and the Taurus Judge and old Taurus 450 is sort of the proof. Taurus safety puts 5 rounds of 45 Colt (SAAMI MAP loads only) into a cylinder that is smaller in diameter with walls that are thinner than a hypothetical GP100 in 45 Colt would be if made. They even did it on an aluminum alloy frame for some Judges and the 450. That information sort of point to the fact that it is then feasible. I somehow doubt Taurus is using better materials than Ruger.

Now I think most of us are in agreement that Ruger is very very unlikely to ever do so for the many reasons already included in this thread. That said I think this thread also shows it is technically feasible to convert a GP100 to 45 Colt about as well as a forum discussion can without a couple sacrificial GP100's and a lathe and mill.

For perspective, fans wanted a mid-frame Blackhawk .44Spl for FIFTY YEARS before Ruger finally built one. What did they do in the meantime? They had them built by custom gunsmiths. It became by far the most popular revolver caliber conversion. If you guys who are so convinced that it's not only a good idea but technically possible, put your money where your mouth is and have one built. Rather than speculating and postulating, get on the phone with a gunsmith and plan it out. When you spend $3000 to have yours built, only to enjoy a 250gr at 800fps, I'll still be enjoying my $500 .44Spl and 250's at 1200fps. Sorry but it's a dumb idea in the first place.

I sort of agree with you on this part. A GP100 in 45 Colt especially at those prices for a custom build and if resigned to run only SAAMI MAP 45 Colt ammunition is sort of dumb. If your going to carry that heavy GP100 frame around you might as well have some usable power in it.

Don't read too much into my posts. The dead horse is beat to a pulp and I see no point in continuing to do so.

You have stated this sentiment more than once in this thread and yet continue to return to the dead horse to take another swing. I think you subconsciously enjoy beating dead horses like the rest of us but are in denial.

 

[RealGun]

It's not relevant, at all. <snip>

Your opinion, with which I disagreed. Mention of the existing Taurus gun directly addressed the question whether a Ruger offering needed to be over built or was not at all feasible with the resulting thin cylinder walls. Let's not keep being dismissive to the point of causing a social problem and getting the thread scuttled like so many others.

 

[heyjoe]

its new vaqueros that are not suitable for ruger only loads....the Vaqueros can handle them...very confusing i know

I thought that Vaqueros were not sturdy enough for the "Ruger only" loads... though robust enough for loads suitable for Model 25 S&W's, but too warm for a true Colt SAA or direct copy.

Or maybe that's just New Vaqueros.

 

[CraigC]

BUT it is technically feasible...

And yet the professionals who build them for a living disagree.

...and old Taurus 450 is sort of the proof.

Only if you ignore every other critical dimension than cylinder diameter.

You have stated this sentiment more than once in this thread and yet continue to return to the dead horse to take another swing. I think you subconsciously enjoy beating dead horses like the rest of us but are in denial.

Because you keep making statements that are unsupported by fact and/or patently false.

Your opinion, with which I disagreed. Mention of the existing Taurus gun directly addressed the question whether a Ruger offering needed to be over built or was not at all feasible with the resulting thin cylinder walls. Let's not keep being dismissive to the point of causing a social problem and getting the thread scuttled like so many others.

I'm dismissive of the point because it is too simplistic and ignores too many details. Details such as the distance from the center of the cylinder to the center of the chambers. Bolt notch placement. Interference that may be caused by the ejector assembly, along with the size of the hole for it. Forcing cone dimensions, which I imagine would be the biggest limiting factor. In other words, all those things the custom gunsmiths have to contend with, while all you guys do is measure the cylinder diameter.

And what problems did Taurus have with this gun they no longer produce?

What has to happen for you guys to accept the fact that it's not possible???

 

[heyjoe]

As far as Ruger never making a 45 colt in a GP 100, who would have thought that Ruger would come out with an LCP or an LCR 20 years ago. A defer to Denis in this though as he knows much more about Ruger than i ever will.

 

[heyjoe]

And what problems did Taurus have with this gun they no longer produce?

What has to happen for you guys to accept the fact that it's not possible???

I have heard few complaints about the Taurus 450 in 45 Colt, the 445 in 44 special, the 455 in 45 ACP or the 415 in 41 magnum.....all basically the same gun except for caliber. The people i know who have them are very happy with them including myself.

 

[mcb]

And yet the professionals who build them for a living disagree.

The professionals are not here just us amateurs.

Only if you ignore every other critical dimension than cylinder diameter.

Please list them so we can discuss.

Because you keep making statements that are unsupported by fact and/or patently false.

Call me out, be specific where I have made a false statement. I will do my best to defend them or admit when I am wrong. It happens, rarely but happens.

I'm dismissive of the point because it is too simplistic and ignores too many details. Details such as the distance from the center of the cylinder to the center of the chambers. Bolt notch placement. Interference that may be caused by the ejector assembly, along with the size of the hole for it. Forcing cone dimensions, which I imagine would be the biggest limiting factor. In other words, all those things the custom gunsmiths have to contend with, while all you guys do is measure the cylinder diameter.

And what problems did Taurus have with this gun they no longer produce?

What has to happen for you guys to accept the fact that it's not possible???

I have measured far more dimensions than just OD's. Look back at my posts. At this point in time it looks very much like it's more possible than not. There are far more hard facts in this thread pointing to a feasible 45 Colt cylinder design for the GP100 than you have produced saying its not possible at all. I had a model with FEA analysis with a worst case dimensions that said it would not grenade and that was assuming some pretty mediocre materials.

You seem to have access to a GP100 44 Special. Give me more measurements and I can make my model more accurate. What is that diameter of the center hole for the extractor assembly? What is size and location of the cylinder stop notches? I have my CAD software sitting right here ready to roll.

I am willing to play, share data, and discuss and maybe even convince myself it is not possible. I am not willing to accept blindly that it is not possible because a third party said so. That makes for really boring threads on forums too.

 

[CraigC]

The professionals are not here just us amateurs.

So I just imagined those discussions?

Please list them so we can discuss.

I just did.

Call me out, be specific where I have made a false statement. I will do my best to defend them or admit when I am wrong.

Right there in the post I quoted.

BUT it is technically feasible...

That's your unsupported, uninformed opinion stated as fact.

You seem to have access to a GP100 44 Special. Give me more measurements and I can make my model more accurate. What is that diameter of the center hole for the extractor assembly? What is size and location of the cylinder stop notches? I have my CAD software sitting right here ready to roll.

I am willing to play, share data, and discuss and maybe even convince myself it is not possible. I am not willing to accept blindly that it is not possible because a third party said so. That makes for really boring threads on forums too.

I have two with a third on the way but have little interest in wasting time getting you measurements.

 

[mcb]

{snip}
I have two with a third on the way but have little interest in wasting time getting you measurements.

Now that is not very productive or helpful to advancing the original thrust of this thread...

But I'll be here if you change your mind and want to share some data, or if anyone else can give the thread more measurements from a 44 Special GP100. I am happy to improve my model and share the results.

 

[CraigC]

Now that is not very productive or helpful to advancing the original thrust of this thread...

It's a pointless thread because the question was answered five pages ago. The fact that you cannot accept the answer is the only reason why it continues.

 

[mcb]

It's a pointless thread because the question was answered five pages ago. The fact that you cannot accept the answer is the only reason why it continues.

I don't think I am the only one that thinks its feasible just the only one still rambling...

So lets recap the thread:

I think you and I and most of the participant in this thread are in agreement that Ruger is very very unlikely to make a 45 Colt GP100.

The prickly part is whether its technically feasible to convert a GP100 45 Colt. We know Taurus makes a 5-shot 45 Colt in a similar medium frame size to the GP100 with their Judge and the now out of production 450. Lets compare the dimension we do know between the Judge and a theoretical GP100 in 45 Colt.

Cylinder diameter
Judge: 1.515
GP100: 1.557

Wall thickness between chambers
Judge: .074
GP100: .079*

Wall Thickness between chamber and OD
Judge: .043
GP100: .0455*

Barrel Shank
Judge: .535
GP100: .5625 Max **

Judge dimension were from actual measurements. GP100 measurements were taken from information shared in this thread as I currently don't have easy access to a GP100.

*Base on CraigC's reported .062 wall thickness, chamber to OD, of the GP100 44 Special and then assume the .062 wall thickness of the 44 Special is measured on a minimum spec chamber diameter for 44 Special. That makes the calculated bolt hole circle the largest possible (.969 inch) with current known dimensions. Then assume a maximum 45 Colt chamber diameter making the theoretical 45 Colt wall thicknesses as thin as possible for a worst case tolerance/measurement stack-up.

**I don't have an actual measurement but from doing a little more research I found that a GP100 uses a 5/8-24 thread for the barrel to frame connection. Bases on Class-2A threads that would mean the maximum they could leave the barrel shank would be the min spec on minor diameter of the thread. It is probably a touch smaller than that for easy of assembly but still larger than the Judge.

In ever case our theoretical GP100 45 Colt has dimensions that results in more material than the Taurus Judge. Assuming they are both made from the same material this would point to the fact that it is technically feasible to make a GP100 in 45 Colt. With the assumption that we are shooting ammunition loaded to SAAMI MAP.

The only real unknowns left here is the hole size in the center of the cylinder for the extractor assembly in the GP100. The cylinder latch should end up between chambers given the odd number of chambers although with Ruger's off set latch location it will be closer to one chamber than the other but still in the thick area between chambers.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

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.

To refresh everyone's memory, this is the original post.

Are there rumors about Ruger coming out with a GP100 in 45 Colt? The answer is NO!

I unfortunately made an assertion early on that there wasn't enough room in a GP frame to chamber it in 45 Colt. Why did I do that? Because I asked the same question a few years ago about an L frame Smith in 45 Colt, and the answer was the same then. No, and it isn't a very good idea.

Arguing technicalities about is it technically possible or not was never the point of this thread. I blame myself for starting us down that thread derailment. Sorry.

Taurus' choices on what guns to build have nothing to do with what Ruger will produce.

As Craig pointed out, the modifications needed to the frame to allow a 45 Colt in a GP would mean it's no longer a GP100. It's a new frame!

S&W declared their Govenor model a "Z frame" not an "L frame but only kinda".

Are there rumors? No there aren't. There never have been except in threads like this. Will Ruger produce a GP100 sized gun in 45 Colt? No one knows for sure but Ruger, but I'm guessing Dpris could possibly be a good person to listen to on this topic. He sort of talks to Ruger now and then. Either way, it would not be a GP100. It's a different gun at that point.

 

[mcb]

To refresh everyone's memory, this is the original post.

Are there rumors about Ruger coming out with a GP100 in 45 Colt? The answer is NO!

I unfortunately made an assertion early on that there wasn't enough room in a GP frame to chamber it in 45 Colt. Why did I do that? Because I asked the same question a few years ago about an L frame Smith in 45 Colt, and the answer was the same then. No, and it isn't a very good idea.

Arguing technicalities about is it technically possible or not was never the point of this thread. I blame myself for starting us down that thread derailment. Sorry.

Taurus' choices on what guns to build have nothing to do with what Ruger will produce.

As Craig pointed out, the modifications needed to the frame to allow a 45 Colt in a GP would mean it's no longer a GP100. It's a new frame!

S&W declared their Govenor model a "Z frame" not an "L frame but only kinda".

Are there rumors? No there aren't. There never have been except in threads like this. Will Ruger produce a GP100 sized gun in 45 Colt? No one knows for sure but Ruger, but I'm guessing Dpris could possibly be a good person to listen to on this topic. He sort of talks to Ruger now and then. Either way, it would not be a GP100. It's a different gun at that point.

I thought the Governor's Z- frame was an elongated N-frame. Hence 6-shots and uses the same moonclips as the N- frame 625.

And the we are all in agreement Ruger ain't making a 45 Colt GP100 and what is technically possible is just that technically possible.

 

[CraigC]

More fruitless mental masturbation. Something to do to pass the time but otherwise unproductive.

And the we are all in agreement Ruger ain't making a 45 Colt GP100 and what is technically possible is just that technically possible.

"Technically", only MCB, who is apparently more informed on this subject than the men who actually build these guns, knows better about what is "technically possible". Not the first know-it-all "engineer" I've encountered.

 

[mcb]

I must apologize to those that have read and/or posted in this thread for having dragged this thread out.

I have tried to keep this thread technical, if contentious, but CraigC and I clearly are failing to communicate in a meaningful manner. He has insulted me multiply times in the thread and I have done my best to not return the personal insults and tried to ignore them and continue the discussion. That has clearly failed.

This will be my last post to this thread and to spare you all and myself in the future I will add CraigC to my ignore list.

Again I apologize for the disruption here and will try not to repeat it in the future.

Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

 

[MidRoad]

Can't we all just get along and gang up on the antis instead of duking it out with each other??