GP100 Outdoorsman, 357 Magnum, 6" barrel, would you like to see it manufactured?

[Onty]

I called it GP 100 Outdoorsman; basic revolver GP100, stainless, in 357 Magnum. Barrel 6", configuration as on Security Six. Hammer spur like on SBH. Total weight 35 oz, same as Security Six and S&W M14.

I had S&&W M686-3, but sold it. With its 45 oz is as heavy as 5.5" SBH in 44 Magnum, but it feels considerably muzzle heavier because of all that steel on the barrel. After trying S&W M14, I don't want any of those 6", 357 magnum, DA revolvers, weighing 45 oz, and so muzzle heavy.

Well, this illustration isn't the best creation on this world, I don't have professional tools for that. And certainly, further improvements could be made. But I hope you could see my intention:

Also, cylinder should be long enough to take loaded round with Keith's bullet Lyman 358429 in 357 Magnum case, crimped in the crimp groove (far right):

So, would you like to see it on the market? If Ruger could make it to the same level as Match Champion, and with grooved trigger, I will be the first to put down payment!

Hint; more of us express desire to have it, more chance we have to see it.

 

[horsey300]

I LIKE it, but to LOVE it as an outdoorsman sell, I'd want the sp101 4.2" model front sight AND an integral optic mount of some kind.

 

[Pat Riot]

I think it would be great. I have a 4” GP100 and like it very much. A stout 6” .357 would be a welcome addition to my gun safe. I have an S&W model 19-4 with a 6” Bbl. I rarely shoot magnum loads from it. I bought the GP100 so I could have a .357 Revolver that could handle the steady use of magnum loads. A 6” GP100 would be icing on the cake.

 

[.308 Norma]

So, would you like to see it on the market?

Yeah, I'd probably buy one.

 

[Jim Watson]

Can you get by with a 5 inch until they see a market for a 6 inch?

 

[ECVMatt]

Well this is one of my favorite revolvers for camping:



So I am going to give an enthusiastic thumbs up to your idea.

I would be happy if Ruger just made more 1/2 lugs...

In the meantime a quick fix is the Ruger Match Campion. It is trim, stout and accurate. I switched my Novak fixed sight to the elevation adjustable version and it make a great camping/trail gun. Or you could always just go with the adjustable sighted version and throw on a Bowen Rough Country rear sight.

 

[Ohen Cepel]

I think they have stopped/paused production of the Match Champion, so that may not be a viable option.

I would like a 1/2 lug in either 5 or 6in from Ruger! I have even pondering having the lug milled off of one in the past.

 

[UncleEd]

The listed weight of a Ruger GP100 Model 1790 with 2.5-inch barrel is
36 ounces. This suggests to me that the concept here is not possible
with the GP100 frame.

What is required is for Ruger to step back and recreate the Security Six
which basically mimicked the S&W K-frame. For nearly 40 years Ruger
has resisted such a move back to a K-frame model.

Wouldn't say Ruger marketing won't find a real demand for such a gun
but so far it hasn't happened.

To be satisfied, maybe, the OP must hunt for a 6-inch Security Six. They'
are out there.

 

[Jim Watson]

The 5" I showed is cataloged at 39 oz.

 

[IWAC]

I have a 4" Match Champion with the half lug....38 oz., iirc. Haven't weighed it lately, so might be different. Personally, never have seen the need for a 6". YMMV

 

[UncleEd]

I have a 4" Match Champion with the half lug....38 oz., i

And note, a flat sided barrel to cut a bit of weight.

The MC is Ruger's way to challenge the S&W Stock Service Revolver model.

 

[SeanSw]

It looks a lot likes like the partial lug 6" gp100 I already have! It probably weighs more than 35oz though. I had a 6" security six once upon a time and it was definitely the more svelte revolver. Better action too.

 

[Onty]

If S&W M629 Mountain revolver can have such thin wall barrel for 44 Magnum, I don't see any reason why a new model GP100 couldn't have the same. Here are some pictures:

Also, S&W M27:

GP100 Match Champion:

Security Six. As you could see, there is a plenty of steel on top rib that could be removed in order to get lighter barrel:

All in all, if barrel is slimmed like on Ruger Security Six or Smith & Wesson M27, it will be still strong, yet considerably lighter than current barrels on GP100, and there is a great possibility that whole new revolver GP100 with 6" barrel could weigh about 35 oz.

 

[reddog81]

A pencil barrel on the beefy GP100 frame would look weird. You can have a gunsmith contour the barrel if it’s something you really want.

 

[CraigC]

I never understood the fascination with full underlugs, or why they stopped making them without.

 

[Onty]

A pencil barrel on the beefy GP100 frame would look weird. You can have a gunsmith contour the barrel if it’s something you really want.

I don't think so. At least, I never heard anybody complaining about weird look of relatively thin barrel on Security Six. And its frame is only about 1/16 shorter from top to trigger opening, and 1/16 thinner in front section, when compared with GP100.

Also, I never heard anybody had the same problem with S&W M27/28, M24/624 and M25 in 45 Colt with slim barrel. Just look at M29/629 Mountain gun. Those N frames are considerable larger than GP100 frame, and their barrels are visibly thinner than even those on GP100 half lug:

Just my humble opinion...

 

[Jim Watson]

A pre-war target revolver without barrel rib looks even more spindly. But they shoot.

 

[JohnKSa]

All in all, if barrel is slimmed like on Ruger Security Six or Smith & Wesson M27, it will be still strong, yet considerably lighter than current barrels on GP100, and there is a great possibility that whole new revolver GP100 with 6" barrel could weigh about 35 oz.

As mentioned, a Ruger GP100 with a 2.5" barrel already weighs more than 35oz. I don't see how it would be possible to add 3.5" more barrel, even if it's slimmed, and still have it come in about 35oz overall.

 

[CraigC]

My 6" half lug is 43oz. The 5" .44Spl is 38oz. The 5" 10mm is also 38oz. They could lose a bit more in the barrel profile but not more than an ounce or two at most.

By contrast my 6" S&W 14 is 37oz. The K-frame and Security Six are just slightly smaller and lighter framed guns all around.

 

[Onty]

As mentioned, a Ruger GP100 with a 2.5" barrel already weighs more than 35oz. I don't see how it would be possible to add 3.5" more barrel, even if it's slimmed, and still have it come in about 35oz overall.

You are right regarding weight of 2.5" GP100.

However, without slimming anything on existing barrel, and without touching the frame, just adding extension 3.5" long, OD .550" (.100" wall thickness), minimal rib, additional weight will be something like 2.5 oz. Total 38.5 oz. Certainly, not desired 35 oz, but way better than S&W 686 45 oz, or GP100 full underlug and fluted cylinder 43.5 oz. non fluted 45 oz.

In addition, GP100 5" with half lug is 39 oz. I bet that if barrel is slimmed like on S&W M27, 6" long, weight could be about 37, max 38 oz. Yep, I could live with that!

 

[Onty]

By contrast my 6" S&W 14 is 37oz. The K-frame and Security Six are just slightly smaller and lighter framed guns all around.

I tried last week S&W M14 6". I like it! However, it's not 357 Magnum, and not (never been) available in stainless.

In that respect, my hat off to designer(s) who created Security Six; strong, durable, reliable, and all that at very reasonable weight. No wander many police departments prefered Security Six and Service Six over K-frame S&W.

 

[mec]

Yeah, I'd probably buy one.

I called it GP 100 Outdoorsman; basic revolver GP100, stainless, in 357 Magnum. Barrel 6", configuration as on Security Six. Hammer spur like on SBH. Total weight 35 oz, same as Security Six and S&W M14.

I had S&&W M686-3, but sold it. With its 45 oz is as heavy as 5.5" SBH in 44 Magnum, but it feels considerably muzzle heavier because of all that steel on the barrel. After trying S&W M14, I don't want any of those 6", 357 magnum, DA revolvers, weighing 45 oz, and so muzzle heavy.

Well, this illustration isn't the best creation on this world, I don't have professional tools for that. And certainly, further improvements could be made. But I hope you could see my intention:

Also, cylinder should be long enough to take loaded round with Keith's bullet Lyman 358429 in 357 Magnum case, crimped in the crimp groove (far right):

So, would you like to see it on the market? If Ruger could make it to the same level as Match Champion, and with grooved trigger, I will be the first to put down payment!

Hint; more of us express desire to have it, more chance we have to see it.

It used to be a standard catalog item. Came in blue and stainless with the short lug barrel and also in 6-inch full underlug at the same price. I liked the looks and balance of the short lug while the underlug actually sold better. I've I I had one for 20 -30 ears guiltlessly shooting top-end loads it is still tight with no carry-up issues or end float. At one time I installed one of Hamilton Bowen's rear sights and selected among the main and trigger-return springs in the Trapper Kit. I wrote it up in American Handgunner. as the Full-Gorilla Target Revolver. It is my favorite handgun though i generally carry either the 4 inch variety or the 2.25" SP101

 

[whatnickname]

What I would really like to see is a five shot GP100 in 3”, 4” and 5” configuration in 41 Magnum. Sent that suggestion to Ruger via e-mail over a year ago and got a canned “ Thank you for your suggestion…” response. Reached out to Lipsey. They said they had brought up the same topic with Ruger and they just were not interested citing the expense of R&D on the project and what they believed would be limited interest in the end product. Too bad. If they did that there would be a waiting list a mile long. What would really seal the deal is if they would partner with someone like Remington or Winchester and come out with a 41 Special round. For the life of me I just can understand why Ruger can’t see the value of this project.

Lipsey also requested a GP100 in 22 Magnum. Ruger’s response to that was ignition problems with a 22 magnum in the GP100 platform. I’m not buying that one at all.

As for your suggestion of a GP100 Outdoorsman, about the closest they got to that one was the GP100 with a non-shrouded barrel. Mine dates back to 1984. They didn’t make all that many of these because they didn’t sell. All the public wanted was 680 and 580 series Smiths and Pythons…hence the shrouded barrel configuration of the GP 100. My guess is that Ruger is going to have limited interest in your Outdoorsman suggestion.

I never understood the fascination with full underlugs, or why they stopped making them without.

It was all part of the craze brought on with the Colt Python. Hence, at least in part, the L frame Smith & Wessons.

 

[mec]

One gun shop wallah said that it was probably because you got More Metal! for the same price. Your reference to the python cosmetic craze probably explains it better.

 

[Onty]

What I would really like to see is a five shot GP100 in 3”, 4” and 5” configuration in 41 Magnum. Sent that suggestion to Ruger via e-mail over a year ago and got a canned “ Thank you for your suggestion…” response. Reached out to Lipsey. They said they had brought up the same topic with Ruger and they just were not interested citing the expense of R&D on the project and what they believed would be limited interest in the end product. Too bad. If they did that there would be a waiting list a mile long. What would really seal the deal is if they would partner with someone like Remington or Winchester and come out with a 41 Special round. For the life of me I just can understand why Ruger can’t see the value of this project.

See thread Lipsey & Ruger…ask for a GP100 in 41 Magnum!!! https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/lipsey-ruger…ask-for-a-gp100-in-41-magnum.898006/ . Pay attention to this post:

I totally forgot that the 10mm version of the GP already has a larger barrel shank. 11/16" compared to 5/8" on the .357 and .44Special. Which is a hair bigger than the .670" of the N-frame. The Redhawk, by contrast is 3/4", so 1/16th bigger.

Also worthy of note that the standard GP is a bit bigger than the L-frame at 5/8" (.625") compared to .562".

All these measurements are at the threads, not the forcing cone.

This is significant! If S&W makes N-frame with .670" thread, and chambering it in 41 Magnum, 44 Magnum and even 45 Colt, 11/16" thread in 10 mm GP100 clearly indicates that Ruger already made design changes that will allow GP100 chambered not just in 41 Magnum, but also in 44 Magnum and 45 Colt. Sort of DA Flattop. Of course, GP100 cannot compare in strength with Redhawk and Super Redhawk, but I would say it is close, if not at least equal, to S&W N-frame.

Also GP100, something old, something new and what we could expect? https://www.rugerforum.com/threads/...and-what-we-could-expect.298775/#post-2976470