Will Ruger ever step it up and make a 5 shot Big Bore to compete with the Smith 69?

Status
Not open for further replies.
CraigC said:
Being a distributor special means everything. If the distributor orders no more, Ruger makes no more. That simple. Your comment that they were "pulled" has no merit whatsoever. I don't know what people are doing and neither do you.
Click to expand...
Ruger model no. 1761 (stainless 3" GP in .44 SPL) is no longer made and it was not a distributor exclusive. Same thing goes for the LC9s. Ruger decided to stop making both, but it's my estimation that Ruger wants to do away with the .44 GP's for quality issues and concerns of people hot rodding them because one thing I can tell you is the average gun owner who doesn't reload aren't the ones who were buying the .44 GP100, it was reloaders. So, with Ruger having been sketchy when it comes to warranties (or lack thereof) for distributor exclusive models that are no longer produced, you can see the moves Ruger was making.

You can either agree or disagree, but don't tell me what I said has no merit.
 
RKRCPA said:
IMO, there is no comparison between a GP100 and anything Charter has ever built.
Click to expand...
Maybe true in regards to modern day Charter, but Stratford Charter was good, real good. It's also telling that for as small a company as Charter is, they're offering a variety of calibers and models of small to medium frame revolvers when Ruger isn't, at a lower price than Ruger, with customer service as good as Ruger.

As PO'd as I am with the .32 Professional, I'll give Charter a pass as nobody bats 1.000. Ruger the past 10 years tho, outside the LCR and single action .22's, their revolvers are becoming more and more suspect.
 
TTv2 said:
Ruger model no. 1761 (stainless 3" GP in .44 SPL) is no longer made and it was not a distributor exclusive. Same thing goes for the LC9s. Ruger decided to stop making both, but it's my estimation that Ruger wants to do away with the .44 GP's for quality issues and concerns of people hot rodding them because one thing I can tell you is the average gun owner who doesn't reload aren't the ones who were buying the .44 GP100, it was reloaders. So, with Ruger having been sketchy when it comes to warranties (or lack thereof) for distributor exclusive models that are no longer produced, you can see the moves Ruger was making.

You can either agree or disagree, but don't tell me what I said has no merit.
Click to expand...
ALL the .44Spl GP's have been distributor exclusives and nothing you have said on this subject has any basis in reality.
 
It may have ended up as a regular catalog item but it started out as a Lipsey's exclusive. If Ruger discontinued them, it was due to slow sales. The .44Spl has never been a huge seller.

I've had four of them in three configurations. No issues whatsoever. Nor have I heard of any. Where do you come up with this information? Do you have any evidence at all to support your claims?
 
I tend to agree with CraigC here. There is not a huge market for .44 SP to begin with and what demand there is (or was) probably has been satiated for a while. Also, guns tend to be batch produced with production for the slower sellers halted after meeting the demand. As an example Redhawk .41 mags seem to come and go. As to hotrod .44 SP and the GP100 I think before going in that Ruger knew the cartridges would be reloaded and perhaps hotter
than SAAMI. They could have looked at history and the S&W 696 to see that. If they did not want the potential problem they would not have offered the
GP in .44!
 
WrongHanded said:
No, I don't know think so.

My experience with Ruger leads me to believe that they like to engineer and build guns that can take a steady diet of SAAMI spec ammunition. I don't believe a medium frame revolver could handle a steady diet of top end factory ammunition in those cartridges. Sure S&W has the 69, but I doubt it could take regular usage of 300gr .44 mag without some noticeable premature wear. Though the shooter may also take some noticeable premature wear.

If Ruger thought the GP100 could safely handle a diet of heavy .41 Magnum, they may well have produced one by now. So purely speculating, I'm guessing they decided it's a bad idea.
Click to expand...
I would love to see a 41 magnum GP100.
 
Yes, a 41 Mag GP100 might be interesting as long as it has a long enough barrel. 4" to 6" or so would be my choices.
 
CraigC said:
It may have ended up as a regular catalog item but it started out as a Lipsey's exclusive. If Ruger discontinued them, it was due to slow sales. The .44Spl has never been a huge seller.

I've had four of them in three configurations. No issues whatsoever. Nor have I heard of any. Where do you come up with this information? Do you have any evidence at all to support your claims?
Click to expand...
I regret to inform you the .44 GP's first appeared as regular items in Jan 2017 after being announced by Ruger in Dec 2016.

If you'd like more info on the big throats, ask @joneb, he's the one that was gracious enough to inform me of throats measuring .434" months ago.
 
Texas10mm said:
I think you're at least 10X too low (re $250k). When I was talking to a Ruger engineer about making the PCC in 45 ACP he told me that Ruger had looked at it but it didn't pencil out. He said basic engineering work would be north of $10 million.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting datapoint. CMMG did it, with significant difficulty and a relatively unique design, but I can't believe it cost $10e6.

For a revolver that's essentially an interpolation between existing products. . . I think $250-500k in design and prototyping sounds about right
 
edwardware said:
I can't believe it cost $10e6.
Click to expand...

It doesn’t.

The $250,000 estimate is ridiculously low, but $10,000,000 is equally ridiculously high.

My calibration is based on approaching 20yrs of product and technology development. On one hand, I’ve spent over a hundred thousand dollars on: 1) market analysis done to identify potential volume and pricing tolerance for a new product, 2) on a single customer appreciation and new-customer acquisition party, and 3) on two patent applications corresponding with a new product. $100k doesn’t go as far as a lot of people think. Alternatively, I have been involved with product developments which were FAR more complex than any firearm, and spent far, far less than $10,000,000, especially when the new product isn’t a purely new design - meaning a modification an old design costs far less than creating a purely unique design from scratch.
 
Craig you like the half lug or full lug better????

My 5" full lug 357 has a very steady hold to it. The lug sucks up some recoil too. Not that the 357 kicks a lot, but you do need to hold on with the heavier loadings I have experienced. Its got a nice bark to it.
 
I have the full lug 44 Special GP100 and like the similar full lug S&W revolvers, it's nose heavy. I prefer a half lug but you get used to the full lug guns..

The half lug 44 Special GP100 was not available, or I had not seen it in catalogs, when I bought the full lug model and I saw no reason to swap out the full lug revolver.

Buying the 44 Special GP100 was a distraction to some of my other purchases at the time but I did not want to miss getting a 44 Special revolver.
 
Last edited:
CraigC said:
I got my 3" in January 2017. Even if it was, you're making wild assumptions about why it's no longer in the catalog. Where are all the cracked forcing cones?

So one guy measures one gun and now they're all crap? I'd be more interested in hearing how it actually shoots.

View attachment 924825
Click to expand...

I think i actually did see a post somewhere on a split forcing cone, but it isnt coming up on my quick google. Ill check better when i get home.
I wish id bought a 5" 1/2 lug to go with my 5" full when I had the chance.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Riomouse911
  • Locked
I shot a 69 the other day…
Replies
19
Views
987
OrangePwrx9
O
Back
Top