Ruger bringing new stuff to the table

[MidRoad]

So as posted in two other threads Ruger has launched quite a few new models as of late. 7 shot gp100's, re rereleasing 9mm sp101's, new lcr models,44 special gp100's,and now longer barreled 8 shot .357 RedHawks.

One interesting thing about the new RedHawks is they have a shrouded barrel like Smith and Wesson did with their 66 and 69. Now this along with the ball detent allowed them to put a .44 mag into the L frame.

So if Ruger is willing to shroud their barrels what are their chances of making a 41 mag or 44 mag gp100 in 5 shot to compete with the model 69. I think it would be a awesome side arm for hunting or to take hiking rather than haul around a Redhawk or super redhawk. And gives the Ruger guys another reason to buy a Ruger over a Smith. Not that I have anything against Smith and Wesson.

I sent an email to Ruger last week. "The wish they made a" thread over in general discussion inspired me to send one. I pretty much thanked them for taking care of my gp100 a few weeks back ,and said that since they took care of me I went out a bought an sp101. And will be probably be buying another revolver in .44 or a sr1911 with my tax return . At the end of that I also suggested they make a 5 shot gp100 in .41 or .44 to directly compete with Smith and Wesson. In response they thanked me for sending an email,and where happy to hear of my satisfaction ,and that they will send the suggestion over to sales and development.

So anyways I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to see a heavy hitter gp100 in 5 shot. But it wouldn't hurt for others o shoot Ruger an email to show there is a want for these revolvers. Only takes five minutes to do. Ruger seems to listen to their customers and are always coming out with new stuff. So it could happen. Even if it's just a limited run.

 

[MidRoad]

Also to add before someone chimes in and say .44/41 mag recoil would be too much in a little gun. The Smith 69 seems to handle it. And I'm kinda taking this approach:

The cylinder on the GP would probably be too short to load heavy 300 gr hot loads into. And on would most likely have to stick to the mid to 240 grain on the higher end . Just like buying a 12 Gauge in 2 3/4" or 3" instead of a 3.5". You get the utility of the gauge,and it's good enough for 90% or people. Only some need the true magnum performance of the 3.5" . In case you buy a bigger gun for that purpose .

 

[CraigC]

What do you mean by "shrouded barrel"?

Well, the .44Mag has the N-frame at its limit so I'm not so sure the 69 is a good idea. Seems to me that after well over 100yrs of a relatively unchanged N-frame, S&W is more comfortable with a narrower safety margin than Ruger.

 

[MidRoad]

What do you mean by "shrouded barrel"?

Well, the .44Mag has the N-frame at its limit so I'm not so sure the 69 is a good idea. Seems to me that after well over 100yrs of a relatively unchanged N-frame, S&W is more comfortable with a narrower safety margin than Ruger.

New .357 is shrouded,you can see it on rugers home page. It's under the 8 or so tabs you can scroll through

The 69 is indeed an L frame
https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearms/model-69

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Supposedly the shrouded barrel enhances accuracy. If anyone can explain that to me, I'd appreciate it.

 

[CraigC]

Ruger hammer forges their own barrels so I'd be shocked to find out it was a two piece barrel. IMHO, that is just the way they cut the crown.

I know the 69 is an L-frame, that's my point. The N-frame does not withstand a steady diet of full pressure loads so why would a smaller gun fare any better?

I don't see the two piece barrel as anything but a disadvantage, intended only to cut manufacturing costs. Also makes it impossible to shorten, or even recut the crown and forcing cone. There have been reports of failures. It has nothing to do with squeezing the .44Mag into the L-frame. The main change that accommodated this was to enlarge the barrel shank and beef up the frame in that area.

 

[MidRoad]

Supposedly the shrouded barrel enhances accuracy. If anyone can explain that to me, I'd appreciate it.

Skip to 13:50, Jerry explains a bit. Not sure it increases accuracy myself

 

[MidRoad]

Ruger hammer forges their own barrels so I'd be shocked to find out it was a two piece barrel. IMHO, that is just the way they cut the crown.

I know the 69 is an L-frame, that's my point. The N-frame does not withstand a steady diet of full pressure loads so why would a smaller gun fare any better?

I don't see the two piece barrel as anything but a disadvantage, intended only to cut manufacturing costs. Also makes it impossible to shorten, or even recut the crown and forcing cone. There have been reports of failures. It has nothing to do with squeezing the .44Mag into the L-frame. The main change that accommodated this was to enlarge the barrel shank and beef up the frame in that area.

I misunderstood your post at first sorry. Check out the video I posted though.

And it is a sleeve and shrouded barrel. It suprised me too. It's right on rugers home page

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

View attachment 770015

New .357 is shrouded,you can see it on rugers home page. It's under the 8 or so tabs you can scroll through

The 69 is indeed an L frame
https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearms/model-69

It appears they are using a two piece barrel like Smith did for a few years. This is a cost cutting feature as it is easier (cheaper) to cut rifling in thin round stock then insert it into a thick sleeve. The trade off is reduced rigidity and strength.
It also, of course, makes heavy use of MIM parts, which most manufacturers are embracing these days.
While I'm not enthused about these construction techniques, at least they have avoided such absurdities as plastic sights..... I'm also not excited about Ruger even pursuing these shortcuts in the first place. I know, I know it makes the bean counters happy, allows them to bring new products to market, and keeps Ruger profitable.
Still, it smacks of the downward quality "slide" other companies have fallen down when their founders die and the board runs things into the ground to make their pie charts happy. These types never look further ahead than the next fiscal quarter since they know they won't be with the company indefinitely. Ugh.
All that said, I will still buy this new Redhawk. Would have preferred a 7.5" barrel, but good enough is the enemy of perfect......
Wish me luck!

 

[MidRoad]

Ruger hammer forges their own barrels so I'd be shocked to find out it was a two piece barrel. IMHO, that is just the way they cut the crown.

I know the 69 is an L-frame, that's my point. The N-frame does not withstand a steady diet of full pressure loads so why would a smaller gun fare any better?

I don't see the two piece barrel as anything but a disadvantage, intended only to cut manufacturing costs. Also makes it impossible to shorten, or even recut the crown and forcing cone. There have been reports of failures. It has nothing to do with squeezing the .44Mag into the L-frame. The main change that accommodated this was to enlarge the barrel shank and beef up the frame in that area.

What's your thoughts on a 41 mag in the GP frame? I'm not disregarding your input regarding the .44. it indeed may be just too much.I 've seen your posts around quite a bit and you bring a lot of good info and input to the table.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

I misunderstood your post at first sorry. Check out the video I posted though.

And it is a sleeve and shrouded barrel. It suprised me too. It's right on rugers home page

Bah, they waited this long to worry about increased accuracy. Horsepucky.
Its cheaper to produce, that's all folks. As with the car business, the only two reasons they do ANYTHING are to sell more units or make more profit.
I may not like it, but its way it is. I'm sure this is still a good gun from a good company.
Just worried about the slippery slope- look at Remington.......

 

[Armybrat]

The OP forgot to mention the reintroduction of the 3" SP101 in .327 Federal Magnum. This new version has fixed sights:

 

[D.B. Cooper]

I hate "innovation." No more new Ruger guns for me. Glad I got my Redhawk 44 when I did-before they ruin it.

 

[Varminterror]

Ruger's been "innovating" for a long time. They bring out new stuff every year, the recent launches really aren't much more common than any time in the last ~20yrs for them, other than the market crashes.

The GP isn't big enough for Ruger to get comfortable with it in 44mag. Ruger is a company based on "over built" products, I can't fathom why they would change that to produce a model which would be "slightly under built" for the cartridge.

If you want one, Gary Reeder claims he'll build a 5 shot GP100 44magnum, and HAS built them in 41mag.

 

[Big7]

I LOVE my GP-100 !!!!!

6" Full Lug Blue. (I had two identical at one point in time)

I have ran some hot stuff through them bad boyzz!

 

[MidRoad]

Ruger's been "innovating" for a long time. They bring out new stuff every year, the recent launches really aren't much more common than any time in the last ~20yrs for them, other than the market crashes.

The GP isn't big enough for Ruger to get comfortable with it in 44mag. Ruger is a company based on "over built" products, I can't fathom why they would change that to produce a model which would be "slightly under built" for the cartridge.

If you want one, Gary Reeder claims he'll build a 5 shot GP100 44magnum, and HAS built them in 41mag.

Yea I've seen he and a couple others offer conversions. Cool idea,but can't justify paying 2-3 times what I got my gun for and waiting 6 months to get it done. I'm sure he does excellent work though.

Pretty much was just aiming the thread towards getting people to ask what they want. If ya don't ask it don't happen. It does make sense that 44 would be too much in rugers eyes to deem safe,based on their over built mentality. Nothing wrong with that.

Still wonder if a 41 would be viable . A shame that round isn't more popular. It's the perfect handgun round when you don't need to worry about big bears or elk in your back yard. After shooting my father's .41 Black hawk side by side with my brothers .44 Blackhawk I'm kinda hooked !

 

[CraigC]

I somehow missed the blurb about the two-piece barrels. I wouldn't buy one but I like the option of custom work.

 

[CraigC]

It does make sense that 44 would be too much in rugers eyes to deem safe,based on their over built mentality.

Ruger really took S&W's failures to heart. When the .44Mag debuted, everybody was still learning. By the time Ruger decided to build a DA .44, the S&W's shortcomings were well known. The Redhawk eliminated all of them in spades. The result is a sixgun that can fully explore the potential of the .44Mag cartridge and was readily adapted to the .454 and .480. Which is why we have loads that a S&W not only cannot handle pressure-wise but length as well.

Yea I've seen he and a couple others offer conversions. Cool idea,but can't justify paying 2-3 times what I got my gun for and waiting 6 months to get it done. I'm sure he does excellent work though.

Customs are not for everyone but for those who appreciate the result, they are addictive. There is something very satisfying in getting exactly what you want, built exactly the way you want it built. Rugers are fantastic base guns for custom work.

Still wonder if a 41 would be viable . A shame that round isn't more popular. It's the perfect handgun round when you don't need to worry about big bears or elk in your back yard. After shooting my father's .41 Black hawk side by side with my brothers .44 Blackhawk I'm kinda hooked !

The .41Mag works. There's enough meat in the cylinder and the forcing cone but I don't know if Ruger will do it.

 

[buck460XVR]

Ruger's been "innovating" for a long time. They bring out new stuff every year, the recent launches really aren't much more common than any time in the last ~20yrs for them, other than the market crashes.

Yes they have. They've also been good about discontinuing many of those models after a short duration or not even getting proposed and advertised models to market(Remember the Red Label SxSs?). The use of CNC machining makes prototypes and the production of limited edition and off the wall models much more feasible, especially since CNC technology has gotten much less expensive recently. The idea that home hobbyists will be able, at some point in the near future, to have the capabilities to produce a gun in their garage with relatively affordable CNC technology is not that far fetched, especially if barrels are readily available. While I'm one of those folks that like to have something very few others have, I also know that finding replacement parts for limited production products is difficult at best.(Ruger's .44 Deerslayer Carbine for example).

 

[LUCKYDAWG13]

I for one would love to have a 4" SP101 in 41 magnum

 

[fireman 9731]

I wonder if Ruger's two piece barrel system eliminated their thread choke problem?

 

[zaitcev]

Supposedly the shrouded barrel enhances accuracy. If anyone can explain that to me, I'd appreciate it.

I heard a relevant discussion in FW/InrangeTV interviews with the head honcho of Faxon. He is a big believer into thin barrels and high-tech manufacturing, and instead of hammer forging, he button-rifles his barrels. He said that (one of) the biggest problem with oldie barrels was that manufacturing methods did not allow for a complete stress relief. As a result, as barrels heat up, they bend. The old-school solution to this problem was to use a heavy barrel profile. Or... you can use a thin barrel and then stretch the hell out of it inside a shroud. That'll help with asymmetric changes after heating. This mechanism makes no input into 1-shot accuracy of a cold barrel.

P.S. You can see this approach in use on Walther WS2000 sniper rifle. Well, I cannot claim it makes sense on a revolver with a barrel that's 5 times shorter, but it absolutely did work for Walther.

 

[Riomouse911]

I wonder if the fore and aft support of the barrel in these shrouded guns works like the Dan Wesson system with the barrel nut... minus the interchangeability factor.

I'd love to see a 7 shot GP 100 5 inch .327 with a half lug barrel sticking out of my stocking in a coupla weeks... one can dream!

 

[warnerwh]

X2 No doubt Smith started doing the shrouded barrel because the accuracy of Dan Wessons. A Dan Wesson is excellent even at very long ranges which is why during the silhouette days everybody was using Dan Wessons.

 

[ThomasT]

I see where they stated the barrels were sleeved and shrouded. I din't see any explanation as to why. I always suspected this system was used because it made it easy to set the barrel/cylinder gap and then install the sleeve/shroud without having to fit the barrel so that when screwed in it was properly indexed. With a two piece barrel you just screw in the barrel to the proper depth and then fit the sleeve over it. Perfect fit every time.