What are the pros and cons of the Ruger GP-100
- Thread starter ahusk93
- Start date
- Status
sidheshooter
Member
Cons: it's big, heavy, and a little rough.
Pros: Darn near everything else.
Buy with confidence.
Pros: Darn near everything else.
Buy with confidence.
Trahma Hownd
Member
I have one and I love it. It is well built, accurate, easy to shoot full load 357s out of and is quite nice to look at. It's simply a joy to shoot.
jgiehl
Member
Can take a beating and keep on shooting. It can be exposed to psychotic reloads and just smile. Yeah it's heavy but on the plus side it's so heavy if you run out of ammunition you can chuck it or use it as a club.
BigN
Member
All the pros listed but I've found none of the cons. I like a beefy revolver so it's not too heavy for me. And beautiful? Shiny like the day I bought it. I don't often fire full power loads since most around 3/4 max or so are more accurate at a given range but I've sent some nasty wrist-busters through it and she never protested once.
41 Mag
Member
I have two of them, with the 6" barrels, and the only thing I changed were the grips on the one with the under lug, and the sights on the one without the under lug.
Of the two I couldn't tell you which one I liked better as they are both very accurate, and tough as you can get.
For carrying I might give the edge to the lighter one, but since I usually carry a Redhawk or Raging Bull in the woods, neither is really an issue.
I highly suggest once you get it, to look on the parts list, and order a set of the gold dot and v-notch sights for target use. I find them great for both target and hunting as I can get a much finer bead on what I am shooting at. For the price they are sure worth having a set at least to give a fair shake.
Of the two I couldn't tell you which one I liked better as they are both very accurate, and tough as you can get.
For carrying I might give the edge to the lighter one, but since I usually carry a Redhawk or Raging Bull in the woods, neither is really an issue.
I highly suggest once you get it, to look on the parts list, and order a set of the gold dot and v-notch sights for target use. I find them great for both target and hunting as I can get a much finer bead on what I am shooting at. For the price they are sure worth having a set at least to give a fair shake.
RevDerb
Member
Pros: Good looking, durable, reliable, accurate, reasonably priced, backed by perhaps the best customer service in the firearms industry.
Cons:
Here's my carry:
The proper holster makes all the difference in the world.
Cons:
Here's my carry:
The proper holster makes all the difference in the world.
Last edited:
I offered my thoughts before, so rather than re-type, I'm just cutting and pasting:
I only own S&Ws, but I've been impressed with the GP100. When a local top-notch wheelgunner local recently became the 1st to classify as a USPSA Grand Master with a speedloader-fed gun, I had the opportunity to check out and shoot his gun - a nicely tuned GP100.
As far as durability, most seem to focus on the differences in metallurgy, but, really, both are plenty strong from this perspective. I believe the bigger differences are in the design elements:
1. Smiths use a single screw/plunger assembly to hold the cylinder/crane in, which is one of their weak links - with enough hard use & reloading, it can bend. Bend enough, and the cylinder won't shut, or will even fall out of the gun. I've seen both happen. The GP100 doesn't use such a system, and it's impossible to even removed the cylinder/crane assembly until the trigger assembly's been removed.
2. Another S&W weak link is their ejector rod: It not only turns as the cylinder turns, but it's also used to lock the front of the cylinder in place. If the rod gets bent a bit, the bent rod turns against the retaining plunger under the barrel, which could affect the smoothness of the action. The GP100 ejector rod, in contrast, doesn't turn with the cylinder, nor (IIRC) is it used to lock the front of the cylinder. IIRC, the front of the cylinder is locked in place by a mechanism that links the crane to the frame, closer to where the actual force is being generated.
Other GP100 niceties include:
3. Front sight: The GP100 (at least the adjustable sight version) comes with an interchangeable front sight. Some S&Ws come with interchangeable sights, but most don't. Though they can be converted, it'd take some milling by a gunsmith (read: time & $$) to accept the Weigand base.
4. Reach to the trigger: Again, I'm going by memory, but IIRC, the reach to the trigger seemed shorter on the GP100, so one can use grips with a covered backstrap to reduce recoil, while still having a manageable trigger reach.
So, what are/were the GP100 cons?
1. I understand Ruger won't sell certain parts if they break, so you'll have to send the gun to Ruger for repair. If you send it back to Ruger, though, they'll send it back in factory configuration. No biggie if your gun is stock, but if you've spent money to tune & modify it, it's a big issue. And if piece of unobtainium does happen to break on your tuned GP100, then, you've got yourself a real headache, I suppose.
2. Historically, the fit and finish of Rugers weren't up to that of S&Ws, and the factory action's typically been rougher. The good news is they respond well to some basic smoothing & tuning. My GM buds GP100 was smooth as silk.
I only own S&Ws, but I've been impressed with the GP100. When a local top-notch wheelgunner local recently became the 1st to classify as a USPSA Grand Master with a speedloader-fed gun, I had the opportunity to check out and shoot his gun - a nicely tuned GP100.
As far as durability, most seem to focus on the differences in metallurgy, but, really, both are plenty strong from this perspective. I believe the bigger differences are in the design elements:
1. Smiths use a single screw/plunger assembly to hold the cylinder/crane in, which is one of their weak links - with enough hard use & reloading, it can bend. Bend enough, and the cylinder won't shut, or will even fall out of the gun. I've seen both happen. The GP100 doesn't use such a system, and it's impossible to even removed the cylinder/crane assembly until the trigger assembly's been removed.
2. Another S&W weak link is their ejector rod: It not only turns as the cylinder turns, but it's also used to lock the front of the cylinder in place. If the rod gets bent a bit, the bent rod turns against the retaining plunger under the barrel, which could affect the smoothness of the action. The GP100 ejector rod, in contrast, doesn't turn with the cylinder, nor (IIRC) is it used to lock the front of the cylinder. IIRC, the front of the cylinder is locked in place by a mechanism that links the crane to the frame, closer to where the actual force is being generated.
Other GP100 niceties include:
3. Front sight: The GP100 (at least the adjustable sight version) comes with an interchangeable front sight. Some S&Ws come with interchangeable sights, but most don't. Though they can be converted, it'd take some milling by a gunsmith (read: time & $$) to accept the Weigand base.
4. Reach to the trigger: Again, I'm going by memory, but IIRC, the reach to the trigger seemed shorter on the GP100, so one can use grips with a covered backstrap to reduce recoil, while still having a manageable trigger reach.
So, what are/were the GP100 cons?
1. I understand Ruger won't sell certain parts if they break, so you'll have to send the gun to Ruger for repair. If you send it back to Ruger, though, they'll send it back in factory configuration. No biggie if your gun is stock, but if you've spent money to tune & modify it, it's a big issue. And if piece of unobtainium does happen to break on your tuned GP100, then, you've got yourself a real headache, I suppose.
2. Historically, the fit and finish of Rugers weren't up to that of S&Ws, and the factory action's typically been rougher. The good news is they respond well to some basic smoothing & tuning. My GM buds GP100 was smooth as silk.
KJS
Member
When firing Magnum rounds some might not consider plenty of weight to absorb recoil a con.
Virtually the same size as a S&W 686, well, except for price that's less big.
A GP-100 is actually 1 or 2 oz lighter than a comparable S&W 686 and will fit in the same holster and uses the same speed loader. Some guys seem to think they are big heavy monsters when they are not.
They are most commonly compared to the 686. The Ruger is a modern design that will take more abuse than the Smith. They are easier to fieldstrip and clean without tools. The cylinder lockup and ejection systemm are much stronger than the Smith. If I wanted a 357 revolver that could go to hell and back and still work I'd buy the Ruger.
The Smiths I've shot were all a bit more accurate and smoother in operation.
The Rugers only real downside is long term value. The Smith & Wesson revolvers I own have all increased in value dramatically over thte years. A used Ruger just does not hold it's value if you ever decide to sell later.
They are most commonly compared to the 686. The Ruger is a modern design that will take more abuse than the Smith. They are easier to fieldstrip and clean without tools. The cylinder lockup and ejection systemm are much stronger than the Smith. If I wanted a 357 revolver that could go to hell and back and still work I'd buy the Ruger.
The Smiths I've shot were all a bit more accurate and smoother in operation.
The Rugers only real downside is long term value. The Smith & Wesson revolvers I own have all increased in value dramatically over thte years. A used Ruger just does not hold it's value if you ever decide to sell later.
murdoc rose
Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2009
- Messages
- 582
Find a set of grips that fit you well and it will never fail you.
bikemutt
Member
I don't care for the trigger shape, my finger wants to ride up to a spot that doesn't feel like the "sweet spot" to me. I'm getting used to it, reluctantly.
Everything else is great!
Everything else is great!
Pros: It fits me superbly, as if the guy who designed it has hands just like mine. This is especially true of the factory grip, and way the trigger is shaped; I can perform well at speed with the GP100, compared to other handguns.
Cons: There can be rough edges on some parts. Moreover, it is not good at cooking my breakfast, or polishing my boots, and it cannot perform brain surgery. Horrid!
Cons: There can be rough edges on some parts. Moreover, it is not good at cooking my breakfast, or polishing my boots, and it cannot perform brain surgery. Horrid!
Pros: Big and Heavy
Cons: Big and Heavy
There's really a lot to like about this gun. It soaks up nasty recoil from a big .357 round and makes shooting .38 spl similar to shooting an air gun.
I wasn't overjoyed with the DA on it at first, but a quick swap of springs changed that.
Cons: Big and Heavy
There's really a lot to like about this gun. It soaks up nasty recoil from a big .357 round and makes shooting .38 spl similar to shooting an air gun.
I wasn't overjoyed with the DA on it at first, but a quick swap of springs changed that.
ErictheRed
Member
The 4" GP 100 was my first handgun and I love it. I do not conceal carry, so the weight is a big plus for recoil. I've never shot anything out of it that was uncomfortable. Accurate gun, built like a tank, fits my hand very well. Great value too in my opinion. Shoots .38's so you can save a little money on ammo.
Every time we go shooting on the farm, my buddies all want to fire off a few even though they're mostly semi-auto guys.
Every time we go shooting on the farm, my buddies all want to fire off a few even though they're mostly semi-auto guys.
baylorattorney
Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2011
- Messages
- 489
It may be beefy but it's slender like a 1911 almost. Great for carry. The only con I can think of is the rear blade sight breaks in the middle if abused.
Cons:
The trigger reset is a bit anemic. On my brand new Ruger, the trigger actually started failing to reset when it got dry. I had to disassemble it to oil it up.
The single action trigger isn't as good as my Smith. But it's still really, really good.
The lockup isn't as good, either. My Ruger's cylinder will rotate a bit at full lock. My Smith cylinder rotates a bit, too, but it always returns back to the counterclockwise most position after you let go.
One con on my Smith, it has a noticeable stricture near the forcing cone, which theoretically could reduce the accuracy with lead bullets. Haven't noticed anything, though. Both guns are very accurate.
If I had to choose between my GP and 686, it would be practically a coin flip. I might choose the Smith, just because I have a nicer holster for it. It's hard to find a good holster specifically for a 3" GP100.
The trigger reset is a bit anemic. On my brand new Ruger, the trigger actually started failing to reset when it got dry. I had to disassemble it to oil it up.
The single action trigger isn't as good as my Smith. But it's still really, really good.
The lockup isn't as good, either. My Ruger's cylinder will rotate a bit at full lock. My Smith cylinder rotates a bit, too, but it always returns back to the counterclockwise most position after you let go.
One con on my Smith, it has a noticeable stricture near the forcing cone, which theoretically could reduce the accuracy with lead bullets. Haven't noticed anything, though. Both guns are very accurate.
If I had to choose between my GP and 686, it would be practically a coin flip. I might choose the Smith, just because I have a nicer holster for it. It's hard to find a good holster specifically for a 3" GP100.
Last edited:
Pros: Heavy & big. Less recoil! Able to use .38 spl, 38 spl+p, 38 spl +p+, and full power .357 without worry. Feels good in hands. Shoots great.
Cons: None. ( To each their own! )...
I love mine! Its the 3' tho. I like the weight and feel of it. It feels awesome to me and the fact that I can use those loads listed makes it more of a reason as to why I like it.
Although, If I had to list a small con, It would be the DA trigger. I would recommend a lighter DA pull. Bout it really..
Cons: None. ( To each their own! )...
I love mine! Its the 3' tho. I like the weight and feel of it. It feels awesome to me and the fact that I can use those loads listed makes it more of a reason as to why I like it.
Although, If I had to list a small con, It would be the DA trigger. I would recommend a lighter DA pull. Bout it really..
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Pros? It's not a S&W. It's a more modern, more robust, tougher design. It was laid out with the .357 cartridge in mind. T`wasn't an afterthought. It's a tough, accurate and dependable sixgun that will undoubtedly last several lifetimes.
Cons? It's not a S&W. The design and finish are utilitarian. It doesn't really appeal to those of us who love older S&W's. The action is not as smooth, tuned or not. Grip selection is dismal. If what you want is a nicely figured, properly fitted set of Ropers, it'll cost you three times as much. It lacks refinement and that little intangible something you can only get in an older Smith.
Cons? It's not a S&W. The design and finish are utilitarian. It doesn't really appeal to those of us who love older S&W's. The action is not as smooth, tuned or not. Grip selection is dismal. If what you want is a nicely figured, properly fitted set of Ropers, it'll cost you three times as much. It lacks refinement and that little intangible something you can only get in an older Smith.
GP100man
Member
I`m Biased !! can`t find a CON , if you compare late production ANY revolver to the late production Rugers !!!
- Status