Ruger GP-100 questions

[CouchTater]

Hello folks, I've been revolverless for many years now and am starting to get the itch again. A medium frame DA is what I'd get the most use out of, so I'm looking at L frames and the GP. Primary uses will be as a NY reload for home defense, a "range gun" for shooting games, and maybe as a "trail gun" for hiking. Because the fixed-sight models weigh less on the GP, I'm considering a KGPF-340 or KGPF-341 since I might use it as a trail gun.

It appears the front sight is pinned even on the fixed sight models, so I guess it wouldn't be overly tough to getting POA and POI squared away for a particular load. What do people here think about getting a fixed-sight model?

Has anybody had a GP-100 put on a diet by a reputable gunsmith? How much weight was removed, and from where?

Lastly, is it worth messing with 180 grain loads in the GP? I'm wondering if there's enough terminal performance on 4-legged varmints to justify the recoil and such.

 

[GUNKWAZY]

GP100

I had a GP100 for a short time, but after seeing and trying the "L" frame S&W I traded it in on a 686. The action was much smoother out of the box.

The GP100 is built like a tank, but that was my problem. The action also felt like a tank. Could have just been the one I had.

Just my 2 pesos.

Jeff (GUNKWAZY)

 

[Lone Star]

I've owned both fixed-sight and adjustable-sight GP-100's. The weight difference is neglible. Go for adjustable sights, as they will "dial-in" for a variety of loads that you may want to try.

The fixed-sight GP-100 wasn't too bad at 25 yards with 158 grain bullets, but different brands shot a little differently. Keep in mind that if you shoot many .38 rounds, that may well require sight adjustment.

If weight is a major factor get the S&W M66. But you can't run it as often or as long with full loads. Durability demands mass.

Lone Star

 

[groessebaer]

I believe it was over at the Ruger Forum that someone sent a 4" adjustable sighted GP off to Cyl & Slide to have some weight taken off. I think there may have been an article in a gun mag, probably "Combat Handguns" on this, too. I do not recall what all was done but they did eliminate the lug forward of the ejector rod which got the weight down to around 36 oz or so which is about what a 4" S&W 66 weighs. A 7 shot 686 if I recall weighs about 38 oz. If you could find a 686 Mtn Gun it weighs about 35 oz due to the light, tapered barrel. I don't know about cost tradeoffs but another solution would be to find a 3" GP with fixed sights and send it off to someone such as Jim Stroh to fit an adjustable rear sight to it.

Here is the link to the article:

http://www.rugerforum.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/004837.html

Here is the link to a picture:

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v325/denj52/C_SRugerGP02.jpg

 

[CouchTater]

Thanks for the input. If I go with the GP I'm already assuming it'll take a trip to a gunsmith for a trigger/action job anyway. Ruger fans claim the GP can be cleaned up to be "almost as good" as the Smiths, which for my applications will be fine.

groessebaer, thanks for the link, I've spent some time reading at rugerforums but didn't see that thread. Since nobody makes what I really want, spending $$ on a custom job is the solution. I can't get excited about 3" .357s; not enough of a good thing, seems to me, plus you end up with a 3" gun in a 4" holster anyway.

Maybe the trick would be to get an adjustable sight GP and have the barrel really lightened. It appears to me that most of the 2.5 oz difference between the fixed and adjustable models comes from that top ramp on the barrel of the adjustable sight models. Cut a deep furrow in that, slabside the barrel and remove the nannygram, and thin or remove the underlug, if that gets it down to 35-36 oz that would be a great hiker's gun.

My thinking is that when you get around 40 oz, a 5.5" Blackhawk in .45 Colt is the better choice, so a .357 ought to be lighter than that.

 

[Checkman]

CouchTater

I own a GP100 with a six inch barrel. While it may not be as refined as my Smith 686 it's a solid revolver. I've even eyeballed the 4" model and have considered buying one, but I already have two 4" .357''s so I'll probably hold off. Anyway I don't think you'll go wrong buying a Ruger. If all I had to carry was a GP100 I wouldn't consider myself short changed - not by a long stretch.

 

[groessebaer]

CouchTater:

Seems to me over at Ruger Forum or somewhere (can't remember) someone slab sided a Ruger barrel on a GP and had some pictures. Another approach would be to cut the underlug and reduce the outside diameter of the barrel to remove weight. I do notice the fixed sight GP's have a thinner topstrap on them but I do not know how much that would reduce weight.

The difference between the S&W and Ruger when tuned is that the Smith has less of a hammer arc and hence quicker lock time and it locks up the cylinder later than the Ruger. In many ways I prefer the Ruger action (but then I seem to be a bit of a maverick). Here is a link to some comments on the GP vs 686 by Iowegan who I think may be a gunsmith (or retired from):

http://www.rugerforum.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/005595.html



Part of the trick in getting away with the minimum poundage Wolff springs is to have minimum headspace (0.060") and max. allowable firing pin protrusion (ideal 0.055" per Brownell's). Here is a link to an article on the latter subject:

http://thesixgunjournal.com/GP_Article.htm

As to weight I agree. A 41.5 oz 4" .357 seems a bit much when a .44 mag or .45 Colt Mtn. Gun comes in at 39.5 oz. 35-36 oz seems reasonable (hmmm, that is what a 4" Security Six weighs). Maybe the easiest way to obtain the light weight gun would be to get a fixed sight 4" bbl. GP (the barrels are a lot thinner and lighter) and mount an adjustable sight on the rear. I know Jim Stroh can mount a S&W adjustable sight on them and maybe he could do the same with a Bowen sight.

Over the years I have had a number of medium frame .357s. Probably my favorite have been the GP's and Security Sixes (wish I still had some - don't ask where they went). Part of the reason is I am a maverick (want to be different) but they also are tough and durable.

 

[mountaindrew]

Another difference between the fixed and adjustable sights it the adjustable sight model comes with a much larger grip. All that extra rubber could acount for an ounce or two. The grips are interchangeable, though.

 

[CouchTater]

mountaindrew, you're right; I noticed that on the pics at Ruger's website, but didn't connect it to the weight differential. Which implies some aftermarket grips might trim an ounce from the total.

groessebaer, yeah I saw that thread with the slabsided GP; the side cuts were actually angled, so that the flats were tapered with more removal towards the muzzle. Pretty darn slick. Maybe the trick would be to buy an adjustable sight model and get a fixed-sight barrel from Ruger and put that in. Gotta be easier to wrench a new bbl in than to mill & drill the frame for a sight. Probably requires a custom front sight blade to recover POI, I guess.

For my purposes, I'm looking for a fairly good SA trigger and an excellent DA trigger. Under 8 lb is probably better than I deserve!

One thing in that posting by Iowegan that I don't believe is the trigger quality with MIM parts. One of the local dealers has a recent manufacture 686 Plus on display, and both the DA and SA trigger pulls on that thing are as good or better than any stock Smith I've ever fired or dryfired. Maybe there's more variability with the MIM parts, and its probably harder to work with the stuff, but it ain't tofu, either.

 

[Fumbler]

Here's one that has been modified.
jdmb03 had the action worked, barrel milled to a tapered slab side, hammer bobbed, and bead blasted.
Looks wonderful.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=110463

 

[Dienekes]

FWIW I have an extremely smooth DA on a GP-100 (4") but do not use it very much--it's just more weight than I want to lug around even as a field gun. I may pick up a Bianchi military style UM-84R holster for it some time that might make it a bit less of a burden. On the other hand I have worn a 4" Security Six (alternating with 4" Service Six) for about 25 years now, daily.

The lighter guns do the same job for all practical purposes while being infinitely easier to manage. It's a little coincidental that I opted for Rugers way back when, and have absolutely nothing against a nice K frame Smith; but I have never found anything better for an all-arounder.

These can still be found in nice shape for a very reasonable price.

 

[groessebaer]

New Barrel?

I was going to mention that. Ruger will not sell the barrel or probably do that as it would be a non-stock configuration. Numrich (E-gunparts.com) and some others (maybe Ebay) have Ruger parts sometimes such as hammers, triggers and barrels that Ruger will not sell individually. Numrich prices the barrel at about $67 and it would probably run around $100 to have the barrel put on and forcing cone recut if necessary. Stroh would probably weld on an ear to take the Ruger rear sight and do some milling and drilling I imagine. It is probably why he uses S&W sights usually due to less milling, welding, etc. If you go the barrel route you would probably need to change the front sight but that could readily be done using a dovetail.

 

[CouchTater]

Fumbler, thanx for the link. Beautiful gun, and excellent photography as well. Beat blasting definitely looks like the way to go.

Dienekes, I just picked up the Ruger annual tonight at Wally World, and skimmed the article on SSes. It sure seems like Ruger ought to develop a 2nd gen Security Six. I think there would be sufficient demand for a gun in between the SP101 and the GP. Now if they did a 5-shot .44 Spl on an SS sized chassis, that would be wonderful. I recall sometime in the 90s that Colt came out with a new Police Positive (or something like that), smallish medium frame 5-shot .38SPL with a 4" barrel. Never got to shoot one but handled a couple and I thought the ergos were excellent, maybe as close to a "universal gun" as anything else. I felt like you could hand that gun to almost anyone and they'd shoot it well. With all this Gun O' The Month business coming out of Massachussetts, the Big Three still overlook some obvious market niches.

groessebaer, as long as a Rugersmith (?) could get ahold of a fixed sight barrel by hook or by crook. I suppose there isn't a thriving market in takeoff barrels like there is for boltguns.

Great stuff, guys.

 

[groessebaer]

I don't know about barrel and other parts thriving markets. Because some of the parts are hard to come by there might be a brisk market. I usually try to get some extra parts usually for Ruger revolvers that have action jobs. That way if someone screws up the hammer notch by cutting too far I have an extra. If I send the gun back to Ruger they return it to all stock condition and send the bill.

You are correct about the Security Six Version II. A while back when Colt had the Magnum Carry I tried to interest them in a version that would be a 4" Diamondback .357 mag. I thought that would be a great idea and be light, too. If Ruger were shrewd they would shrink the GP-100 a bit and lighten the existing GP for a bit more compact version and also come out with a slightly larger version also that would take 7 rounds of .357 mag or 5 of .44 Spec or .45 Colt or maybe a 5 shot .44 mag (something in a weight range between the S&W Scandium .44 and the existing Redhawk. However, I would be amazed if they ever come out with any new small and medium frame double action guns.