Ultimate long term durability revolver

[Crow Hunter]

If you were going to pick up the ultimate long term durability revolver that is reasonably easy to find and reasonably priced, would the group suggest something like the GP-100 3" 1715?

https://www.ruger.com/products/gp100/specSheets/1715.html

3" barrel = good compromise for CCW
GP100 = Durable and easily user serviceable
Stainless Construction = Improved environmental resistance
Fixed sights = less likely to break than adjustable

While I believe, based on my research that a Manhurin M73 or maybe a Korth might be more reliable, they are significantly harder to source at a reasonable price.

Am I going down the wrong path?

[TicTacticalTimmy]

If I were looking for the "most durable revolver" the exact model you posted would be a great choice.

Another to consider would be a fixed sight SP01, if you can live with one less round.

[HeavyDuty]

For me, a 1715 is about 90% of the way there. If it only had a drift adjustable rear...basically a stainless 1753.

[Crow Hunter]

For me, a 1715 is about 90% of the way there. If it only had a drift adjustable rear...basically a stainless 1753.

Yes. I would love if Ruger did the stainless WC again. Those are really, really hard to find. I assume whenever Ruger gets around to that production batch there will be another run of the 1715 again but I don't know if a stainless WC will ever be available again.

[Lester Polfus]

I have a 4" blued model. Clearly if you wanted ultimate reliability, stainless would be better. I've replaced the stock rear sight on mine with a Bowen Rough Country, and while in strict terms no adjustable sight is going to be as durable as a trough milled into the top-strap, I would suggest that it is extremely unlikely to break in a lifetime of hard use, and the utility it offers in allowing the gun to be zeroed to a wide variety of loads is worth it.

[gato naranja]

If you were going to pick up the ultimate long term durability revolver that is reasonably easy to find and reasonably priced, would the group suggest something like the GP-100 3" 1715?

https://www.ruger.com/products/gp100/specSheets/1715.html

3" barrel = good compromise for CCW
GP100 = Durable and easily user serviceable
Stainless Construction = Improved environmental resistance
Fixed sights = less likely to break than adjustable

While I believe, based on my research that a Manhurin M73 or maybe a Korth might be more reliable, they are significantly harder to source at a reasonable price.

Am I going down the wrong path?

I made my utility wheelgun choice by getting a gently used 1705 since it best checked all my boxes at the moment. But to address specific points-

3" Barrel: 3" or 4" is fine, though 3" is going to be less unwieldy for CCW. I believe 4" to be the best "all around" choice of barrel length... but that is me.
GP-100: It is as rugged as anything out there, and easier to fiddle with at home than the others. Rugers are generally kind of "agricultural" in fit/finish compared to most S&Ws, let alone Korth or Manurhin.
Stainless: Stainless is easier to care for and is a better "all-weather" choice, but I do not think the stainless used in most revolvers wears as well mechanically - I am talking about timing, endshake, etc - over long use (my humble opinion). Tossup, depending on use/location (again, IMHO).
Fixed sights: Personally, I would not go with fixed sights unless the model has a Novak-style rear that is at least "drift-able/changeable." And replacing an adjustable factory rear with something along the lines of a Bowen Rough Country or equivalent is pretty doggone rugged, all things considered.

The 1753 TALO run would probably be my choice among the current GP-100s having a 3" barrel.

[Stephanie B]

Pretty much "yes", and I'm a S&W girl.

If I had to have one handgun and only one, a 3" or 4" GP.100 would be my first choice (686 second, 66-8 third), A 3" is better for appendix carry. I can do a 4", but it's a little bit pokey. 4" is better if you're going to shoot a lot of magnums because the longer tube extracts more of the work.

[okie john]

Any of those would work. Feed it milder ammo and keep it clean and properly lubricated, and you'll add thousands of rounds to its life.


Okie John

[Pol]

Ruger released the GP100 in 44 special. S&W released the L Frame in 44 mag. There is a reason why Ruger did not chamber the GP100 in 44 mag.

GP100 the most durable gun, my rear-end. Shoot 44mag level pressure ammo in a GP100 and you’re going to lose fingers.

FTR. I own Rugers, including a GP, and I do like them. But I pass on drinking the koolaid.

[03RN]

Im still trying to shake apart my M66.

Any of the .38 k frames would work too. A m64 might be the easiest solution if you dont need the magnums.

[Zeke38]

There are a few of these around. This one fills the bill for me. Ruger made a run of these in 357 and 38. I purchased a 38 and had Clements hog it out to 357 as the same steel and heat treatment is used in both calibers. Little heavy but I use a 38/44 level load for town and country.

https://i.imgur.com/gxIEMLc.jpg

[Crow Hunter]

Pretty much "yes", and I'm a S&W girl.

If I had to have one handgun and only one, a 3" or 4" GP.100 would be my first choice (686 second, 66-8 third), A 3" is better for appendix carry. I can do a 4", but it's a little bit pokey. 4" is better if you're going to shoot a lot of magnums because the longer tube extracts more of the work.

I have a 66-8 4.25" now and while I love the trigger and accuracy, I will only be able to carry it at 4-5:00 with a fairly steep cant. Which, I guess isn't that bad, but I would like to get something that I could carry anywhere on the belt that was also extremely durable.

So, based on my reading it appeared that the GP100 was the most durable after the Manhurin/Korth option.

I also noted that most people felt that fixed sights were better for carry than adjustable (ie M64).

So combining that gave me a leap of logic to the 1715.

[Crow Hunter]

Im still trying to shake apart my M66.

Any of the .38 k frames would work too. A m64 might be the easiest solution if you dont need the magnums.

I am still looking for a 66-8 2.75 that doesn't have a 20# trigger. The one I had was terrible, my 63-5 trigger was 1/3 as light.

I was just thinking if I was going to buy something else anyway, go with the most durable revolver.

I have only ever owned Smith revolvers and I have never shot one out of time but the conventional wisdom is that the Rugers are more durable.

Having watched videos of cleaning/field stripping of the GP/SP series, I can definitely see the benefits of their subassemblies versus the Smith lockwork.

[Wheeler]

Arguing about how durable a Ruger is over a S&W is roughly akin to arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

This M&P was made back when you could buy the .38 Special cartridges loaded in the tried and proven black powder or that new smokeless powder stuff. According to Mr Jinks it was made between 1916 and 1919. It seems revolver production was interrupted due to that big European war we sent good American boys to die in. I’d have to pay for the letter to have it researched further.

Find something you like, shoot the crap out of it and maintain it well. It will outlast you and probably your progeny too.

69380

[03RN]

I am still looking for a 66-8 2.75 that doesn't have a 20# trigger. The one I had was terrible, my 63-5 trigger was 1/3 as light.

I was just thinking if I was going to buy something else anyway, go with the most durable revolver.

I have only ever owned Smith revolvers and I have never shot one out of time but the conventional wisdom is that the Rugers are more durable.

Having watched videos of cleaning/field stripping of the GP/SP series, I can definitely see the benefits of their subassemblies versus the Smith lockwork.
Definitely the luck of the draw when it comes to triggers. Mines 8/3lbs with oem springs.

I had a redhawk. It was ok. Mediocre all around except weight. Which was above average:p Had some weird fail to fire issues as well.


I have a 66-8 4.25" now and while I love the trigger and accuracy, I will only be able to carry it at 4-5:00 with a fairly steep cant. Which, I guess isn't that bad, but I would like to get something that I could carry anywhere on the belt that was also extremely durable.


I carried my 4" m19 aiwb for a year before I picked up my m66. I do prefer the shorter holster but a 4" gun is not that bad and Id rather deal with a thinner longer gun than a shorter fatter gun.

4oclock in a nice vm2 style holster is even less of an issue. So much so that I carry my shorter guns in it when I want to carry back there and have no intention of getting another holster.

[03RN]

Double tap

[RevolverRob]

Ruger released the GP100 in 44 special. S&W released the L Frame in 44 mag. There is a reason why Ruger did not chamber the GP100 in 44 mag.

GP100 the most durable gun, my rear-end. Shoot 44mag level pressure ammo in a GP100 and you’re going to lose fingers.

This is a silly argument.

Go load some of these in a Model 69 and see if you keep your fingers: https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=54

Arguing that a gun is less "durable" because it blows up when used beyond it's operating limits is like arguing a bulldozer is bad at being a bulldozer because it can't carry you down the road at 80mph.

A properly assembled, stock, GP100 in .357 Magnum is the most durable revolver anyone can buy for less than a grand. Unless they luck into an MR73.

[OlongJohnson]

Iowegian over on Rugerforum.net is pretty realistic. Has both. Retired gunsmith who worked on both for decades with agency contracts. Clearly explains that GP will go the distance far past an L frame, and the technical reasons why a GP stays in time longer. The difference becomes even greater when the percentage of .357 rounds fired increases.

[jetfire]

When you say "durable" do you mean "withstand a high round count with minimal/no parts breakages" or do you mean "banged around in a holster/tackle box/glove box/holster shot maybe 150 rounds a year?"

[Rex G]

If you were going to pick up the ultimate long term durability revolver that is reasonably easy to find and reasonably priced, would the group suggest something like the GP-100 3" 1715?

Am I going down the wrong path?

1. I am not the “group,” but as an individual owner, of GP100 revolvers since the very early Nineties, I would say “yes.”

2. No, a GP100 is not the wrong path. There are other valid paths, but a GP100 is not a wrong path. The GP100 is a superbly valid path.

If I could own only one firearm, it would be a 6” GP100.

If I could own only one handgun, but could own long guns, the handgun would be a 4” GP100. This would be true, I believe, even if I did not use a 4” GP100 during a deadly force incident, in 1993. I had dressed-around 4” revolvers, before that happened.

I am glad that I can own my 3”, 4”, and 6” GP100 revolvers. I am not anti-S&W. I have them, too.

AIWB is realistic, with a 3” GP100. I have AIWB’ed a 4” GP100, but, it might not work with as many trousers, in as many circumstances, as a 3” gun.

If possible, hand-select your GP100. Some have rougher actions than others. The one time I did not hand-select, I regretted it.

[camel]

I picked up a 4” gp100 match champion as a dedicated magnum gun. Despite it being the fixed sight version this is what I got when looking for the same characteristics as the OP. Only around 1500 rounds with around 900 being some flavor of magnum. Mostly 125 grain cause that’s what I got a deal on. I would recommend it for this purpose. But get the adjustable sights.

I think the 4 inch makes more since for magnum than anything else. Body type matters for ccw. I can’t carry a 4 inch appendix but with wardrobe choices it’s not a problem 3 o’clock IWB. With a speeloader 1 o’clock on the belt and a speed strip in the watch pocket of certain jeans.

If it’s not a magnum gun I would much rather have some flavor of a model 10

[Crow Hunter]

When you say "durable" do you mean "withstand a high round count with minimal/no parts breakages" or do you mean "banged around in a holster/tackle box/glove box/holster shot maybe 150 rounds a year?"

I was thinking being a gun I could keep and shoot to the rest of my natural life without needing parts/factory support.

40 years shooters shooting maybe 100 rds per month on average. So a functional life of 50,000 rds.

Eta: Mostly .38, not magnums.

[Pol]

This is a silly argument.

Go load some of these in a Model 69 and see if you keep your fingers: https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=54

Arguing that a gun is less "durable" because it blows up when used beyond it's operating limits is like arguing a bulldozer is bad at being a bulldozer because it can't carry you down the road at 80mph.

A properly assembled, stock, GP100 in .357 Magnum is the most durable revolver anyone can buy for less than a grand. Unless they luck into an MR73.

Sorry, but your hurt feeling doesn't make my argument any less valid. Nor does it change the obvious facts.

The bottom line is this. Ruger determined that their GP100 frame would not be capable of coping with SAAMI 44magnum level ammunition and therefore chambered it in 44 special. S&W determined that their L Frame is capable of 44 magnum level loads and released their L frame as a 44mag. The notion that a gun incapable of coping with 44mag loads would be more durable than one that is, is absurd. Ergo, compared to an L Frame, a GP100 is a weakling.

Given that GP's first appeared in 1985, we cannot say if they are durable ito being long lasting either. No tests have been done as to how many full power rounds a GP100 will shoot before it falls apart. Ergo, your comments pertaining to a GP100's durability is conjecture.

Nice sidestep with the +P+ ammo. But as far as that goes, do you have any information that a mod 69 won't cope with +P+ ammo? I'm guessing you don't? More conjecture on your part. The only facts we do have is that a GP100 won't cope with +P+ 44 mag ammo as it cannot even cope with regular SAAMI pressure 44 mag ammo. The mod 69 will shoot SAAMI 44 mag all day long and may, or may not, cope with +P+ ammo. You just don't know either way.

BTW, love those analogies. Bulldozer? LMAO!

[Rex G]

For most folks, a 3” barrel is probably easier to live with, 24/7/365.

If, someday, I have to pray, “Lord, make me fast and accurate,” as I enter a supermarket, or a school, where I hear an active shooter actively shooting, I am going to be glad to have 4” of fully-lugged barrel, for its longer sight radius, and extra recoil-damping steel.

I am not saying that a 3” barrel is going to get one kilt in the streets. At typical give-me-your-wallet-and-phone distance, a 3” revolver may well be the quicker to bring into action.

Of course, one can carry two revolvers. One short, and one longer. ;) Life is good.

[Pol]

I was thinking being a gun I could keep and shoot to the rest of my natural life without needing parts/factory support.

40 years shooters shooting maybe 100 rds per month on average. So a functional life of 50,000 rds.

Eta: Mostly .38, not magnums.

Some parts can go south without warning. I've had a couple of handsprings go in fairly new guns while others are still working as good as the day of manufacture in revolvers that are over 100 years old. Things happen.

50,000 rounds of .38 is doable. Full power .357 not so much. Most guns will be pretty tired after 25,000 rounds of .357.

[BN]

Nobody has mentioned Ruger Blackhawks.

However, if you want a double action, I agree that a GP100 is probably the best choice. I say that even though I am pretty much a Smith & Wesson K-Frame guy.

[03RN]

Sorry, but your hurt feeling doesn't make my argument any less valid. Nor does it change the obvious facts.

The bottom line is this. Ruger determined that their GP100 frame would not be capable of coping with SAAMI 44magnum level ammunition and therefore chambered it in 44 special. S&W determined that their L Frame is capable of 44 magnum level loads and released their L frame as a 44mag. The notion that a gun incapable of coping with 44mag loads would be more durable than one that is, is absurd. Ergo, compared to an L Frame, a GP100 is a weakling.

Given that GP's first appeared in 1985, we cannot say if they are durable ito being long lasting either. No tests have been done as to how many full power rounds a GP100 will shoot before it falls apart. Ergo, your comments pertaining to a GP100's durability is conjecture.

Nice sidestep with the +P+ ammo. But as far as that goes, do you have any information that a mod 69 won't cope with +P+ ammo? I'm guessing you don't? More conjecture on your part. The only facts we do have is that a GP100 won't cope with +P+ 44 mag ammo as it cannot even cope with regular SAAMI pressure 44 mag ammo. The mod 69 will shoot SAAMI 44 mag all day long and may, or may not, cope with +P+ ammo. You just don't know either way.

BTW, love those analogies. Bulldozer? LMAO!

I don't disagree with the gp100 44spc vs the l frame .44 mag line of thought but I do recall a test performed by the border patrol doing a test on the gp100. Iirc (which I probably do not) they did a 40,000 round test that was all full power mags and the gp did fine.

I think the test predated the L frame and trashed the k frame. Now that there are L frames and stronger K frames I wish someone would redo the test

[farscott]

I am hesitant to state that because Ruger has not marketed a GP-100 in ,44 Magnum and S&W has chambered the L-frame in the caliber we can state that the L-frame is stronger and/or more durable. One thing we do know is that Ruger tends to overbuild revolvers compared to S&W. For the .454, Ruger worked with Crucible to find a steel that Ruger approved for the pressures while S&W made the X-frame very large. It could be that Ruger requires more design margin than S&W. That assumption is based on the fact that lots of K-frame and N-frames died from loads that do not impact the timing on any Ruger revolver. S&W needed the "Endurance" package; Ruger did not. It could be that Ruger is waiting to chamber the GP-100 in .44 Magnum (like they did with the SP-101 first offered in .38 Special and later in .357), that Ruger does not see the demand for a .44 Magnum GP-100, or that Ruger does not want to take sales away from the larger Ruger revolvers. It is all speculation.

We do know that there are loads in reloading manuals that are marked "Ruger only". Most are for the Redhawk, Super Redhawk, and the Blackhawk, but there are no "S&W only" magnum loads in any reloading manual.

If pure durability in a DA revolver was my goal in .357 Magnum, S&W would not get the nod. Not because of strength (if I went with strength, the Freedom Arms 83 with the replaceable forcing cone would get the nod), but because the Ruger design is modular and comes apart much easier. Which Ruger would get the nod is a good question. The .357 Redhawk is a beast, but I am not fond of the single-spring action. I am not sure Ruger ever built a Super Redhawk in .357, but that would be one big, heavy, and durable revolver. The GP-100 sure would be high on the list. Heck, my SP-101 samples would serve me well as they have done for about twenty-five yards.

[RevolverRob]

Sorry, but your hurt feeling doesn't make my argument any less valid. Nor does it change the obvious facts.

The bottom line is this. Ruger determined that their GP100 frame would not be capable of coping with SAAMI 44magnum level ammunition and therefore chambered it in 44 special. S&W determined that their L Frame is capable of 44 magnum level loads and released their L frame as a 44mag. The notion that a gun incapable of coping with 44mag loads would be more durable than one that is, is absurd. Ergo, compared to an L Frame, a GP100 is a weakling.

Given that GP's first appeared in 1985, we cannot say if they are durable ito being long lasting either. No tests have been done as to how many full power rounds a GP100 will shoot before it falls apart. Ergo, your comments pertaining to a GP100's durability is conjecture.

Nice sidestep with the +P+ ammo. But as far as that goes, do you have any information that a mod 69 won't cope with +P+ ammo? I'm guessing you don't? More conjecture on your part. The only facts we do have is that a GP100 won't cope with +P+ 44 mag ammo as it cannot even cope with regular SAAMI pressure 44 mag ammo. The mod 69 will shoot SAAMI 44 mag all day long and may, or may not, cope with +P+ ammo. You just don't know either way.

BTW, love those analogies. Bulldozer? LMAO!

How many full spec .44 Magnum press level .44 Specials have you put through a Model 69 L-Frame?

How many .44 Magnum Pressure Level .44 Specials have you put through a GP-44?

How many full spec .357 Magnums have you put through an L-Frame?

How many full spec .357 Magnums have you put through a GP100?

[camel]

I don't disagree with the gp100 44spc vs the l frame .44 mag line of thought but I do recall a test performed by the border patrol doing a test on the gp100. Iirc (which I probably do not) they did a 40,000 round test that was all full power mags and the gp did fine.

I think the test predated the L frame and trashed the k frame. Now that there are L frames and stronger K frames I wish someone would redo the test

I have pondered the redesign of the smiths. They fit my body type a hell of a lot better than a gp100.
As far as stuff breaking. Everything breaks or wears to a point. Somebody’s gonna get a lemon sooner or later.
A revolver is not readily serviceable like most modern designs. Can the end user really do anything bad by picking one manufacturer over the other?

[gato naranja]

I was thinking being a gun I could keep and shoot to the rest of my natural life without needing parts/factory support.

40 years shooters shooting maybe 100 rds per month on average. So a functional life of 50,000 rds.

Eta: Mostly .38, not magnums.

I don't think just shooting .38 Specials (assuming they are not loaded to ridiculous pressures) will bother any current Ruger or Smith & Wesson .38/.357 revolver in a significant way.

It is often over-cleaning, over- (or under-) lubricating, constantly detail stripping and enthusiastically doing "amateur gunsmithing" that will prematurely age a handgun. I have damaged more firearms by doing the aforementioned than than I ever have by actually just shooting them.

Based on decades of my own and acquaintences' wheelgun woes, Rugers are generally more forgiving of the average owner going in and mucking about with the innards armed with nothing more than something like the "IBOK" (Iowegian's Book of Knowledge) and common sense allied with a bit of care. I mention this again because as someone has pointed out already, even a good gun can have a spring go bad or some such thing, and (IMO) one stands a better chance of getting a GP-100 or SP101 running right without resorting to a pro or the mother ship.

[Lester Polfus]

Nobody has mentioned Ruger Blackhawks.

However, if you want a double action, I agree that a GP100 is probably the best choice. I say that even though I am pretty much a Smith & Wesson K-Frame guy.

The .357 Magnum New Model Blackhawk is grotesquely overbuilt, seeing as how it is built on a design that is pretty herky for a .44 Magnum. I really wish they would do another run of the .357 Flattops on the smaller frame.

Our .44 GP100 vs Model 69 discussion is going south in a “Batman is better than Superman” way, but I would observe that Smith has often built around a “mostly specials, with an occasional Magnum” philosophy, whereas When Ruger provides a Magnum chambering it s aimed at a study diet of Magnums.

Most custom pistol smiths seem to think the GP100 forcing cone is on the thin side for a .429 projectile, and Right Out for a .451 bullet. I looked askance at the Model 69 and I would be curious to know if any of them have held up to lots of magnums.

[Pol]

How many full spec .44 Magnum press level .44 Specials have you put through a Model 69 L-Frame?

How many .44 Magnum Pressure Level .44 Specials have you put through a GP-44?

How many full spec .357 Magnums have you put through an L-Frame?

How many full spec .357 Magnums have you put through a GP100?

?

Is this inane prattle supposed to mean a GP100 frame is as strong as a L-Frame? LMAO!

[Crow Hunter]

?

Is this inane prattle supposed to mean a GP100 frame is as strong as a L-Frame? LMAO!

To Rob's point. What each company has made the marketing decision to release their product chambered in isn't really relevant.

I know at my own company marketing drives most of the decisions about what we do and do not offer and what performance level we release them at. Not necessarily what they are or could be engineered to handle.

To his other point. What experiences can you share with respect to number of rounds or durability of Ruger vs Smith and Wesson?

[camel]

I was thinking being a gun I could keep and shoot to the rest of my natural life without needing parts/factory support.

40 years shooters shooting maybe 100 rds per month on average. So a functional life of 50,000 rds.

Eta: Mostly .38, not magnums.

Either will do providing the factory does it’s thing. There is no guarantee when humans do their thing with a machine.

[Pol]

I don't disagree with the gp100 44spc vs the l frame .44 mag line of thought but I do recall a test performed by the border patrol doing a test on the gp100. Iirc (which I probably do not) they did a 40,000 round test that was all full power mags and the gp did fine.

I think the test predated the L frame and trashed the k frame. Now that there are L frames and stronger K frames I wish someone would redo the test

I won't argue that a GP100 will handle 40,000 full power rounds - that sounds about right. Given the US border patrol did the test, that would be probably mean SAAMI pressure level ammo which tops out at around 35,000 psi. The French CIGN managed to get 25,000 out of their K frames, but it's worth noting they were shooting CIP/European .357 loads which tops out at 43,500 psi (3,000 bar).

For the record, I am not an L-Frame fan. But as far as mid frame revolvers go, the GP100 is mediocre at best. Contrary to popular belief, it's not a particularly strong revolver, it's not been proven to be durable, it's most certainly not accurate, and it's trigger doesn't compare to a S&W trigger.

[camel]

and it's trigger doesn't compare to a S&W trigger.[/QUOTE]

Blaming it on who has the best trigger is a crutch. There will be always somebody better than you that’s what the trigger says. Call your shot. Don’t depend on super duper fancy pancy

[jetfire]

Ruger determined that their GP100 frame would not be capable of coping with SAAMI 44magnum level ammunition and therefore chambered it in 44 special.

This has literally nothing to do with why the GP100 was a 44 Special and not a mag but okay :D

Edit. Or lord, I just saw this dumb shit


But as far as mid frame revolvers go, the GP100 is mediocre at best. Contrary to popular belief, it's not a particularly strong revolver, it's not been proven to be durable, it's most certainly not accurate, and it's trigger doesn't compare to a S&W trigger.

God, where do I begin. I mean, in 16,000+ rounds I have never shot a GP100 out of time, and in fact I just recently had my very first one break in a meaningful way. In ~12,000 rounds, I have broken three different S&W revolvers, all during what I would consider "normal levels of shooting and training," for me of course. You probably shoot...a lot less than I do, and that's okay.

Accuracy: if you don't think a GP100 isn't accurate, that's just because you suck at shooting. I mean here's a literal photo of a 25 yard group I shot with a 3 inch 10mm gun standing offhand. 6 shots in around 10 seconds to a 3x5 head box.

69390

Last, triggers. The fact is that saying "S&W has a better factory trigger" is like comparing piles of actual shit. Sure, the S&W pile of shit is slightly smaller, but it's still a pile of shit. Both S&W and Ruger triggers require action jobs to be serviceable, so saying that a gritty 14lb trigger that stacks near the end is better than a gritty 16lb trigger that stacks near the end tells me everything else I need to know about your opinion on revolvers.

Anyway, post your USPSA/IDPA/ICORE revolver classification

[Pol]

To Rob's point. What each company has made the marketing decision to release their product chambered in isn't really relevant.

The GP100 .44 special chambering was an engineering and a legal decision. The GP100 is not capable of handling 44 mag ammunition. The frame is too weak. Period.



I know at my own company marketing drives most of the decisions about what we do and do not offer and what performance level we release them at. Not necessarily what they are or could be engineered to handle.


Framing the same absurd notion differently does not change the fact that it's absurd. There is no way in this universe Ruger would not have released the GP 100 as a 44 mag if it had been capable. The notion that Ruger purposefully marketed it as a 44 special when it could have been a 44 mag is absurd, and you know that.


To his other point. What experiences can you share with respect to number of rounds or durability of Ruger vs Smith and Wesson?

I've fired .44 mag pressure ammo in my mod 69. Neither you, nor your buddy, can do it in a GP100. But if you want to prove me wrong, I'd love to come watch. I'll be standing way back ... filming. You supply your own ambulances.

[Malamute]

Ive pondered this question some. The Rugers are tougher as regards purely mechanical functioning over time and hard use. I never could warm up to the GPs, but liked the Security Six,....just not as much as the Smiths. Ive tinkered with Smiths and Ruger SAs some, neither seem all that difficult to do basic maintenance work on as needed, fit a hand, or a little slicking up of the actions, some barrel swaps.

Ive used a couple of my Smiths fairly hard, the 29 in particular, living outside, open carry on the motorcycle in all sorts of weather and in the hills for years of daily carry. Adjustable sights are very high on my list, Ive only damaged one, and it was still functional, just a little lopsided after it fell out of the front of my pants when climbing out over the tailgate of my truck when camping and it landed on the rear sight on the channel steel bumper. I replaced the blade and it lives on.

That they wont go a bazillion rounds of magnums doesnt bother me, I dont care for shooting magnums as a recreational thing very much, just occasionally and for shooting game and such, but I like having the option, so in Ks, the model 19 is my choice. I do the majority of practice shooting with a K-22. The old family unit has somewhere over 200K rounds through it with no work or problems besides a lost thumbpiece nut back in the late 70s.

I also never could get very interested in stainless, they just dont appeal to me at all. Id rather take the occasional rust spots and stains, blue loss, or whatever than have to look at a stainless gun. Ive owned a few, they mostly tend to go down the road regardless of the virtues. The blued guns will still likely outlast me by a long shot.

[WDR]

I really wish they would do another run of the .357 Flattops on the smaller frame.


I recently sent an e-mail inquiry to Ruger about the stainless 5.5" flat top convertible model asking if that model was still in production or planned to be produced in the future, and they replied that yes it is. I didn't ask for more details.... But I too, hope they put some out in the near future. I check to see if I can find one just about every day online.

[jetfire]

The GP100 .44 special chambering was an engineering and a legal decision. The GP100 is not capable of handling 44 mag ammunition. The frame is too weak. Period.

Which Ruger engineer told you this? Because I'm willing to bet that well, none of them did.

[Pol]

This has literally nothing to do with why the GP100 was a 44 Special and not a mag but okay :D


Yes, the tooth fairy made it a 44 special. I know.




You probably shoot...a lot less than I do, and that's okay.


Okay Rambo ...




Accuracy: if you don't think a GP100 isn't accurate, that's just because you suck at shooting. I mean here's a literal photo of a 25 yard group I shot with a 3 inch 10mm gun standing offhand. 6 shots in around 10 seconds to a 3x5 head box.

69390



Yeah, as I said, GPs aren't accurate. Thanks for proving it although you seem to have written words that claim otherwise?

Oh now I see, you think that grouping is "accurate"? Okaaaaay ...








Last, triggers. The fact is that saying "S&W has a better factory trigger" is like comparing piles of actual shit. Sure, the S&W pile of shit is slightly smaller, but it's still a pile of shit. Both S&W and Ruger triggers require action jobs to be serviceable, so saying that a gritty 14lb trigger that stacks near the end is better than a gritty 16lb trigger that stacks near the end tells me everything else I need to know about your opinion on revolvers.


Thanks Dad



Anyway, post your USPSA/IDPA/ICORE revolver classification


You post your mom's phone number first. :rolleyes:

[Pol]

Which Ruger engineer told you this? Because I'm willing to bet that well, none of them did.

The toothfairy told me.

<ignored>

[jetfire]

Oh now I see, you think that grouping is "accurate"? Okaaaaay ...



Standing unsupported at 25 yards shooting double action and keeping it all under 3 inches? Yeah, that's accurate. But please, post your superior groups! I can't wait. I always love when these dorks who are attached to brands show up in threads like this.

So far we've established several fun facts: you're not very good at shooting, you don't have a relevant shooting sports classification to speak about practical use of revolvers, and you don't have a reference for why the GP100 wasn't made in 44 Special other than your own opinion.

Fun! So anyway post your groups shot standing unsupported at 25 yards in 10 seconds or less that are better than mine, and also your citations for the GP100. Otherwise we're all going to know what's already pretty clear: you're full of shit.

[jtcarm]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210327/e1df348fd83baaf03256ab52daf8b17c.jpg

[TheNewbie]

I am posting to once again ask Ruger to make a 6 shot SP101 in .38 special.



To say my mechanical skills are limited, is an understatement. Even I could do work on the Security Six without feeling overwhelmed.

[jetfire]

I know he'll probably see this anyway since you can click into threads of ppl you have on ignore, but for everyone else: just keep asking this dorkwad what his actual, measurable evidence for the GP100 claim is. I'm super curious, and not because I actually know the real answer to the question (hint: it has nothing to do with the strength of the frame and everything to do with manufacturing efficiencies)

[TheNewbie]

Besides the BP test of the GP100, it would be interesting to know what the Border Patrol experience with the gun was like.

[jetfire]

Besides the BP test of the GP100, it would be interesting to know what the Border Patrol experience with the gun was like.

Anecdotally: they killed a lot of people with that gun and it was genuinely well liked by agents.

[WDR]

Otherwise we're all going to know what's already pretty clear: you're full of shit.

Having traded a barb or two with jetfire before... I have to agree with this assessment. Particularly the last part. I actually had to find the ignore function. Ugh... .44 anything isn't even really part of this discussion.

The Ruger .357's are plenty sturdy, and probably a bit more so than comparable Smiths for something like outlined in the OP. And I say that while currently not owning any Ruger wheel guns, and a couple Smiths.

[Pol]

I am posting to once again ask Ruger to make a 6 shot SP101 in .38 special.

.

No, there is not enough real estate on the SP101 cylinder to fit 6 .38 chambers.

[Tokarev]

Buy a Redhawk.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[LittleLebowski]

You post your mom's phone number first. :rolleyes:

No, Pol. jetfire took the honest route and offered his public competition data. Now, you either ante up or admit you have never competed with the GP100, and/or have no statistical data to back your argument; or you leave this thread willingly or by force. Ball’s in your court. Honesty never hurts and is always respected. This is a technical forum.

[Crow Hunter]

Buy a Redhawk.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Undoubtedly more durable but I think it is probably too big for my skinny butt to conceal. :)

I could conceal my previous 66-8 2.75 ok. My current 66-8 4.25 is a little bit too long to aiwb.

Of course this is pretty academic at this point based on what I have found for sale locally. Based on my last couple of experiences buying revolvers I definitely want to dry fire before buy if possible.

[Pol]

Having traded a barb or two with jetfire before... I have to agree with this assessment. Particularly the last part. I actually had to find the ignore function. Ugh...

I don't take little boys with hurt ego's seriously ...


.44 anything isn't even really part of this discussion.

It's a pretty good indicator of frame strength.


The Ruger .357's are plenty sturdy, and probably a bit more so than comparable Smiths for something like outlined in the OP.

No evidence exists to support that assessment


And I say that while currently not owning any Ruger wheel guns, and a couple Smiths.

That would make your assessment more honest, not more accurate.

[LittleLebowski]

Pol is no longer participating in this thread, carry on.

[RevolverRob]

Deleted original post here, because it was driving off topic.

I don't think one can go wrong with a 4" steel framed revolver from Smith or Ruger, provided it was properly assembled and is within specification. Unless you keep up a hellacious firing schedule, I doubt you can wear out either.

I have a GP100 with about 12,000 rounds through it, it's as tight as the day I bought it. When shit got all weird and sideways earlier this year, it was that GP100 that I picked up, loaded with some 125-grain Gold Dots, and holstered up. It's been through four different classes. And as I've mentioned here before, I've never taken it apart to its sub assemblies...I don't actually know how. Because it's never needed repair or as far as I can tell, cleaning.

[JAD]

This forum was to a degree built around the study of crazy handgun durability versus round count, but I hesitantly point out that even with your own reloads you’re going to spend about $5-10k on ammo in the process of wearing out a $700 revolver.

So whether it takes one or two revolvers to do that might not actually be a big deal.

[BehindBlueI's]

Buy a Redhawk.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Super Redhawk. Seriously. Aesthetics aside, it's superior to the Redhawk in any other metric that matters.

[jetfire]

Super Redhawk. Seriously. Aesthetics aside, it's superior to the Redhawk in any other metric that matters.

Most significantly the lockwork is basically "beefy GP100"

[Totem Polar]

This forum was to a degree built around the study of crazy handgun durability versus round count, but I hesitantly point out that even with your own reloads you’re going to spend about $5-10k on ammo in the process of wearing out a $700 revolver.

So whether it takes one or two revolvers to do that might not actually be a big deal.

There is always that.
:cool:

[Wondering Beard]

I wonder where the new Python fits in that durability discussion. Colt says they beefed it up but if I remember correctly the Python's main problem was the lock work (I think that's the right word as I'm not terribly knowledgeable about revolvers) going out of time not the strength of the frame.

[TheNewbie]

Rex G


Did you carry your GP100 in a Safariland 070?

[03RN]

Anecdotally: they killed a lot of people with that gun and it was genuinely well liked by agents.

What was their issued ammo?

[jetfire]

What was their issued ammo?

I am not 100% committed to the accuracy of this, but based on conversations that were mostly had over drinks, I believe it was the 357 Magnum 125 grain SJHP. I do know that BP has always favored light rounds moving fast, which is why when they went to 40 S&W they used a 155 grain round going like Mach 9

[Totem Polar]

I am not 100% committed to the accuracy of this, but based on conversations that were mostly had over drinks, I believe it was the 357 Magnum 125 grain SJHP. I do know that BP has always favored light rounds moving fast, which is why when they went to 40 S&W they used a 155 grain round going like Mach 9

IIRC, after moving on from the various .38 rounds, including the 110 +P+, I believe that the BP standardized on 110 .357 for legacy revolvers (and 115 +P+ 9mm for autos) in the mid 80s, until moving on to the .40 155gr across the board.

But what do I know, I wasn’t there, either.

[Lester Polfus]

This has literally nothing to do with why the GP100 was a 44 Special and not a mag but okay :D

(and then Jefire said some other stuff)
I mean, in 16,000+ rounds I have never shot a GP100 out of time, and in fact I just recently had my very first one break in a meaningful way. In ~12,000 rounds, I have broken three different S&W revolvers, all during what I would consider "normal levels of shooting and training," for me of course.

(and then Jetfire said some more stuff, and posted a cool picture)


Is the rationale behind not offering the GP100 in .44 Mag the forcing cone?

Could you share what broke on your GP100, and if you don't mind, the Smiths?

[ECVMatt]

For long term durability in a revolver the first thing I am going to look at is the main spring and how this spring imparts energy to the hammer. The Ruger's coil spring and hammer strut are more robust and simpler than the Smith's design.

Next I would look at the frame. I think a one piece frame will be stronger in the long run.

I own Smith's and they are great revolvers but for long term durability the Ruger is what I would choose.

The "hollow" hammer of the Smith is not too inspiring either.

Here is a couple of pix for perspective.

6939869399

[RJ]

If I was ever off the leash, I’d get one of these in a heartbeat.

69400

This thread is not helping. :cool:

[Crow Hunter]

This forum was to a degree built around the study of crazy handgun durability versus round count, but I hesitantly point out that even with your own reloads you’re going to spend about $5-10k on ammo in the process of wearing out a $700 revolver.

So whether it takes one or two revolvers to do that might not actually be a big deal.

I agree. But let me explain my rationale for the question.

I am approaching the half century mark. I have found that the recoil of various firearms is beginning to cause me hand pain and I have noticed that sometimes my finger joints hurt. My fear is that I am developing arthritis.

After my father passed away my mother decided she wanted start using a firearm. Initially she had a Taurus Beretta 92 clone that belonged to my father. She liked it and ran it fine, but as time progressed she found that she began having trouble running the slide and loading the mags due to arthritis in her hands. Through experimentation my brother and I found that a med frame revolver worked great for her.

I am projecting that I may have a similar future. While I have owned and used glocks primarily since 1998, I want to "future proof" myself.

I am concerned with the state of future gun laws. I am afraid that there will be legislation coming that will make it difficult to buy spare parts or ship guns back for repairs, so I want to get a durable revolver that will be as unlikely as possible to go out of time or need spare parts with a reasonable firing schedule.

I also wanted to get something that was a size that was reasonable for me to conceal so it would have some uses today.

In my opinion this is pretty much the premier resource for all things involving actually shooting rather than theorizing, so I figured I would ask.

[xray 99]

There are a few of these around. This one fills the bill for me. Ruger made a run of these in 357 and 38. I purchased a 38 and had Clements hog it out to 357 as the same steel and heat treatment is used in both calibers. Little heavy but I use a 38/44 level load for town and country.

https://i.imgur.com/gxIEMLc.jpg

The 1708 is my dream GP - 3” barrel and adjustable sights. The examples I’ve seen had plain, black ramp front sights.

[Wheeler]

I agree. But let me explain my rationale for the question.

I am approaching the half century mark. I have found that the recoil of various firearms is beginning to cause me hand pain and I have noticed that sometimes my finger joints hurt. My fear is that I am developing arthritis.

After my father passed away my mother decided she wanted start using a firearm. Initially she had a Taurus Beretta 92 clone that belonged to my father. She liked it and ran it fine, but as time progressed she found that she began having trouble running the slide and loading the mags due to arthritis in her hands. Through experimentation my brother and I found that a med frame revolver worked great for her.

I am projecting that I may have a similar future. While I have owned and used glocks primarily since 1998, I want to "future proof" myself.

I am concerned with the state of future gun laws. I am afraid that there will be legislation coming that will make it difficult to buy spare parts or ship guns back for repairs, so I want to get a durable revolver that will be as unlikely as possible to go out of time or need spare parts with a reasonable firing schedule.

I also wanted to get something that was a size that was reasonable for me to conceal so it would have some uses today.

In my opinion this is pretty much the premier resource for all things involving actually shooting rather than theorizing, so I figured I would ask.


If you’re concerned that you’re going to have issues racking a slide with two hands due to arthritis or similar why would you think that you’re going to be able to manage a double action trigger proficiently?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all about revolvers. I prefer them to semi autos for a plethora of reasons however, I think your expectations about what actions are and are not feasible when shooting a double action revolver are skewed.

[Crow Hunter]

If you’re concerned that you’re going to have issues racking a slide with two hands due to arthritis or similar why would you think that you’re going to be able to manage a double action trigger proficiently?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all about revolvers. I prefer them to semi autos for a plethora of reasons however, I think your expectations about what actions are and are not feasible when shooting a double action revolver are skewed.

I am going off my experience with my mom. She could not operate any of the autos that we owned but could quite easily administrative handle and fire a med frame double action revolver both double action and single action. She wasn't going to win any competitions but was definitely able to defend herself across a room.

I could easily be wrong since I only have the single anecdote to work off of.

I am a victim of my experiences.

[Crazy Dane]

Is the rationale behind not offering the GP100 in .44 Mag the forcing cone?

Could you share what broke on your GP100, and if you don't mind, the Smiths?



From my understanding, Ruger used the standard 5/8 diameter barrel threading on the .44s. This caused the forcing cone to be relatively thin. The 10mm GPs have 11/16 threads giving a beefier forcing cone. If Ruger's engineers would do a redesign of the .44s using the larger threads you could possible see them jump up to magnums in the GP.

I have shot some stout loads in my specials. They would have made ol' Elmer proud.

[Tokarev]

Disregard

[Tokarev]

There's a little anecdotal info about S&W vs. Ruger here from retired Border Patrol Agent Ed Head:

http://www.downrange.tv/blog/review-ruger-gp100-seven-shot/40371/

Regarding my earlier post to buy a Redhawk; it was prompted by seeing this at auction:

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/894908570

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[farscott]

Super Redhawk. Seriously. Aesthetics aside, it's superior to the Redhawk in any other metric that matters.

Did Ruger ever offer a .357 Super Redhawk? For some reason, I believe it has never been offered in a smaller-diameter round than 10mm Auto.

[Stephanie B]

What sort of round count are we considering, here?

[gato naranja]

I agree. But let me explain my rationale for the question.

I'm WAY past approaching the half century mark, so I have already scratched my head over the points you enumerated. One of the problems I have run into a lot is that theorizing does not necessarily work out so well in the real world; I have dropped some serious coin on guns and accessories that might be the cat's azz (so to speak) for someone else, but did not work out for me despite my due diligence. Another problem is that aging is a work in progress- what you think you may have nailed down at 50 may be untenable at 60 or 65... with or without some damnable "curveball of life" like a retina problem or a car accident that leaves your range of motion limited.

I opted for a 4" GP-100 as explained on an older thread, but despite all my rationale for it and my present satisfaction with the choice, I do wish it had a better setup for mounting an optic.* In the end, nothing is going to be perfect, the perfect is the enemy of the good, there are no free lunches, and the grass is always greener "over there."

*Why in the hell Ruger can offer a useful and intuitive optical sight mounting solution on the Super Blackhawk Hunter but not do likewise at least on something like the GP-100 Match Champions baffles me. (Think Foghorn Leghorn saying: "Match, I say, MATCH Champion, son. Why, that shootin' iron is just a-hollerin' for an optical mount you can use easy-like. Pay attention to me, Ruger, I'm talkin' to you.")

[LittleLebowski]

The 1708 is my dream GP - 3” barrel and adjustable sights. The examples I’ve seen had plain, black ramp front sights.

#WANT

Seriously, why the hell doesn’t Ruger build the revolvers people want?!

[Tokarev]

#WANT

Seriously, why the hell doesn’t Ruger build the revolvers people want?!As I try to do with each Ruger thread, I will now post my desire for a medium frame LCR.

As I envision this, it would be built with enough thickness in the top strap to accept a Novak rear sight. Front would be dovetailed so shooters could swap in fiber optic, gold bead, Tritium, etc.

The gun would be big enough to work with six rounds of 357 or 5 rounds of 44 SPL and maybe 41 Mag. It would be more Security Six in size as opposed to GP100.

Ideally the new bigger LCR would lead to a new line of revolvers. 2 and 3 inch barrels in a few different sight and caliber options as well as maybe a few 4 inch models.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[jetfire]

Is the rationale behind not offering the GP100 in .44 Mag the forcing cone?

Could you share what broke on your GP100, and if you don't mind, the Smiths?

Short answer: yes, mostly. I have a longer technical answer but I’m on the road and don’t have access to all my notes right now.

Ruger: had a mystery issue with the trigger return spring/gun not resetting during DA. Cylinder and Slide said a burr had developed on the engagement surfaces, polished it right off, gun should be fine.

S&W: On a 686 SSR and a 625 I broke the cranes practicing reloads, and I shot a 986 out of time chasing sub .20 splits in dry fire. Little known fact: chasing super fast splits with a wheelgun will knock it out of time quicker than a steady diet of magnums.

[RevolverRob]

If one wants to future proof against arthritis

Beretta 86B or 86BB - the safety can be set for Condition 1 use and the tip up barrel means you never need to rack the slide.

.380 isn't great, but from the 4.37" 86 barrel, you should get reliable penetration and expansion particularly with heavier .380 loads. I wouldn't hesitate to carry one of these guns. And if I'm not mistake jetfire is all about the Beretta Cheetah.

[HeavyDuty]

The 1708 is my dream GP - 3” barrel and adjustable sights. The examples I’ve seen had plain, black ramp front sights.

That would do it for me. Swap out the rear for a Bowen Rough Country and the front with a gold bead Patridge.

I just noticed the 1754 - that could really flip my switch for a four incher with a set of different stocks.

[Tokarev]

Within the current product line I'd like to see:

SP101 Clapp with 2.25" barrel in 327 Fed Mag

SP101 in 40 S&W. I talked to Jack Huntington some years ago about making one of these as custom. He said it should be do-able. But 40 is dead now, more or less, so doubtful this would ever be considered as a factory offering.

GP100 44 SPL in blue or stainless. 4" barrel with partial under lug.

GP100 Clapp with Novak rear in 41 Mag. 3" would be fine here. Basically a 41 version of the 10mm revolver.





Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[OlongJohnson]

GP100 44 SPL in blue or stainless. 4" barrel with partial under lug.

We have a whole thread about that.

https://ruger.com/products/gp100/specSheets/1788.html

[Tokarev]

We have a whole thread about that.

https://ruger.com/products/gp100/specSheets/1788.htmlYep. Just wanted to keep it all fresh in everyone's mind in case someone feels inclined to email Chris Killoy.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[Crow Hunter]

What sort of round count are we considering, here?

100 rounds a month for 40 years hopefully. So 50k rounds of mostly 38 spec.

[Crow Hunter]

Short answer: yes, mostly. I have a longer technical answer but I’m on the road and don’t have access to all my notes right now.

Ruger: had a mystery issue with the trigger return spring/gun not resetting during DA. Cylinder and Slide said a burr had developed on the engagement surfaces, polished it right off, gun should be fine.

S&W: On a 686 SSR and a 625 I broke the cranes practicing reloads, and I shot a 986 out of time chasing sub .20 splits in dry fire. Little known fact: chasing super fast splits with a wheelgun will knock it out of time quicker than a steady diet of magnums.

Purely for scientific inquiry, what makes it go out out time quicker? Inertia of the cylinder or something else?

[Crow Hunter]

I'm WAY past approaching the half century mark, so I have already scratched my head over the points you enumerated. One of the problems I have run into a lot is that theorizing does not necessarily work out so well in the real world; I have dropped some serious coin on guns and accessories that might be the cat's azz (so to speak) for someone else, but did not work out for me despite my due diligence. Another problem is that aging is a work in progress- what you think you may have nailed down at 50 may be untenable at 60 or 65... with or without some damnable "curveball of life" like a retina problem or a car accident that leaves your range of motion limited.

I opted for a 4" GP-100 as explained on an older thread, but despite all my rationale for it and my present satisfaction with the choice, I do wish it had a better setup for mounting an optic.* In the end, nothing is going to be perfect, the perfect is the enemy of the good, there are no free lunches, and the grass is always greener "over there."

*Why in the hell Ruger can offer a useful and intuitive optical sight mounting solution on the Super Blackhawk Hunter but not do likewise at least on something like the GP-100 Match Champions baffles me. (Think Foghorn Leghorn saying: "Match, I say, MATCH Champion, son. Why, that shootin' iron is just a-hollerin' for an optical mount you can use easy-like. Pay attention to me, Ruger, I'm talkin' to you.")

Thank you. What would your advice be? Just keep using my glocks until I can't or maybe something else? Like don't worry be happy? :)

[Rex G]

Rex G


Did you carry your GP100 in a Safariland 070?

Yes. It was issued to me, by Supply Division. I later exchanged it for the K-Frame version.

Edited to add: It is not easy to find 070 revolver holsters, anymore. This was causing problems for some of my colleagues, who were carrying “grandfathered” duty revolvers, at the time I retired, in early 2018. Safariland does not make a 6360 for revolvers, and PD policy specifies the 070 or the 6360, for uniformed duty carry. One officer had taught himself to make quite decent repairs to the retention straps, on 070 holsters.

[Rex G]

How many full spec .44 Magnum press level .44 Specials have you put through a Model 69 L-Frame?

How many .44 Magnum Pressure Level .44 Specials have you put through a GP-44?

How many full spec .357 Magnums have you put through an L-Frame?

How many full spec .357 Magnums have you put through a GP100?


?

Is this inane prattle supposed to mean a GP100 frame is as strong as a L-Frame? LMAO!

Seriously, gentlemen, I believe, that in the context of this post, long-term durability, and user-serviceability, is more about the parts not wearing to the point of uselessness, and wear parts being readily replaceable, than what it takes to catastrophically split a cylinder or barrel, in either a Ruger GP100, or S&W L-Frame revolver. I cannot speak for the OP, but personally, I only want to shoot within-spec ammo in my .357 revolvers, and really do not care to own a .44 Special GP100, much less Magnum-ize it.

I have detail-stripped both S&W and Ruger revolvers. Lord, how I hope it is never again necessary to detail-strip an S&W K/L-Frame! Lining everything up for re-assembly is especially vexing. For reference, it is MUCH easier to detail-strip a 1911 pistol.

I am not trying to “play” moderator. I am “just sayin’.”

[BobM]

Seriously, gentlemen, I believe, that in the context of this post, long-term durability, and user-serviceability, is more about the parts not wearing to the point of uselessness, and wear parts being readily replaceable, than what it takes to catastrophically split a cylinder or barrel, in either a Ruger GP100, or S&W L-Frame revolver. I cannot speak for the OP, but personally, I only want to shoot within-spec ammo in my .357 revolvers, and really do not care to own a .44 Special GP100, much less Magnum-ize it.

I have detail-stripped both S&W and Ruger revolvers. Lord, how I hope it is never again necessary to detail-strip an S&W K/L-Frame! Lining everything up for re-assembly is especially vexing. For reference, it is MUCH easier to detail-strip a 1911 pistol.

I am not trying to “play” moderator. I am “just sayin’.”

That’s why I’ve given up on tracking down Security Sixes for users. I have one identical to the one I was issued in 89, but I don’t plan on shooting it that much. I have GPs in 4” and 5” and eventually want to get a 3”. I figure it will be a long time before GP parts are unavailable.

[jtcarm]

#WANT

Seriously, why the hell doesn’t Ruger build the revolvers people want?!

I’d say they do a better job than Smith PC. Some of the whacked-out designs they produce cannot have a significant market.

I can’t help but think the resources spent on that silliness would be better directed to some standard models with broader appeal, like concealed-hammer, no-lock K-frames, a 315, a 3” 64.

[gato naranja]

Thank you. What would your advice be? Just keep using my glocks until I can't or maybe something else? Like don't worry be happy? :)

Well, I don't know if I'd go that far, but if I had some good Glocks and used them well, I would keep doing so until I was forced to do otherwise. In my own case, I only got another revolver after having abandoned them for the most part, and some of your thoughts echo some of the reasons why I dipped my paws back into that water; it sounds like you are another shooter that considers a 3" to 4" .38/.357 to be be a good thing to have on hand in addition to the Glocks. No one handgun is going to do EVERYTHING, and there are times when a wheelgun is going to be the better hammer for a particular nail.

(Same with knives. I habitually carry a Victorinox alox "Swiss army knife" when I am out and about. Sometimes I add or substitute an ESEE Izula. If I am going to do some special "outdoor thing," I might take something Kephart-esque instead.)

In the spirit of the "proverbial pistol in Texas" ("I may not always want it, but when I do want it, I want it damned bad!"), I decided last year that at some point down the road I might have use for a revolver. I won't restate things here, but post #20 on this thread begins to show how my feline brain was firing and some of why I ended up with what I did: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?43929-Best-option-for-current-off-the-shelf-3-quot-357-King-Cobra-vs-66-vs-Ruger-vs-Kimber/page2&highlight=Bianchi+Simply+rugged

I'd recommend getting the right Ruger or Smith that checks off the most boxes for you, and then don't REPLACE the Glocks... just AUGMENT them. That way, if the time ever does come when the Glocks become unuseable or unavailable, you may already be golden by way of having a revolver that gets the job done. In my case, the Ruger checked more boxes.

69406

[03RN]

I have detail-stripped both S&W and Ruger revolvers. Lord, how I hope it is never again necessary to detail-strip an S&W K/L-Frame! Lining everything up for re-assembly is especially vexing. For reference, it is MUCH easier to detail-strip a 1911 pistol.

I dont really mind k frames after the first 2 times apart.

A winchester m92. Now that is scary

[BillSWPA]

I agree. But let me explain my rationale for the question.

I am approaching the half century mark. I have found that the recoil of various firearms is beginning to cause me hand pain and I have noticed that sometimes my finger joints hurt. My fear is that I am developing arthritis.

After my father passed away my mother decided she wanted start using a firearm. Initially she had a Taurus Beretta 92 clone that belonged to my father. She liked it and ran it fine, but as time progressed she found that she began having trouble running the slide and loading the mags due to arthritis in her hands. Through experimentation my brother and I found that a med frame revolver worked great for her.

I am projecting that I may have a similar future. While I have owned and used glocks primarily since 1998, I want to "future proof" myself.

I am concerned with the state of future gun laws. I am afraid that there will be legislation coming that will make it difficult to buy spare parts or ship guns back for repairs, so I want to get a durable revolver that will be as unlikely as possible to go out of time or need spare parts with a reasonable firing schedule.

I also wanted to get something that was a size that was reasonable for me to conceal so it would have some uses today.

In my opinion this is pretty much the premier resource for all things involving actually shooting rather than theorizing, so I figured I would ask.

Dealing with diminished dexterity is a very individual thing, and I have sometimes been surprised by what works for different people.

Two older female friends have hand/wrist issues, and prefer the way a revolver recoils. However, one of them shoots her revolver using both index fingers on the trigger simultaneously.

Loading a magazine can be simplified, for example, with one of these: https://www.maglula.com/product/uplula-9mm-to-45acp

Racking the slide can be done by placing the entire weak hand across the top of the slide (thumb is towards the left rear of the slide), bringing the gun in close to one's chest (we are all stronger closer to our body), and pushing with the shooting hand while also pushing with the weak hand.

Working a DA trigger usually means doing all the work with a single finger, unless one wishes to use my one friend's two-finger solution.

Re: pistol selection, this one is hard to beat for diminished hand dexterity: https://www.smith-wesson.com/product/mp-shield-ez-0

RE: long term durability: As a general rule, the parts that make a revolver run are small, and relatively delicate as compared to the parts that make a semiauto run. While some really good choices for durability have been discussed in this thread, if long-term durability is a concern, that would make me lean towards a semiauto. We have some really knowledgeable revolver people here, who teach others how to shoot, and who had careers carrying revolvers into harm's way. Some of them have described having armorers at the range on qualification day due to the likelihood of a revolver going down.

[03RN]

Yes. It was issued to me, by Supply Division. I later exchanged it for the K-Frame version.

Edited to add: It is not easy to find 070 revolver holsters, anymore. This was causing problems for some of my colleagues, who were carrying “grandfathered” duty revolvers, at the time I retired, in early 2018. Safariland does not make a 6360 for revolvers, and PD policy specifies the 070 or the 6360, for uniformed duty carry. One officer had taught himself to make quite decent repairs to the retention straps, on 070 holsters.

Was there a reason the 6280 wasnt allowed?
69408

[WDR]

Purely for scientific inquiry, what makes it go out out time quicker? Inertia of the cylinder or something else?

I'm not jetfire, but I believe that is the case. Moving the cylinder faster (chasing splits) makes it smack into the cylinder stop harder and eventually wear occurs. Weight of the cylinder (and its inertia) comes into play. I remember some discussion about N frame .357's vs K and L frame guns, and how cylinder weight seemed to matter when running the guns hard and at speed. I'm no revolver gunsmith, but that is my understanding of that specific issue.

I'd like to hear what he's ( jetfire ) got to say about it too.

[TheNewbie]

Was there a reason the 6280 wasnt allowed?
69408


No active retention would be my guess. The 6280 is a good holster for some purposes, but is a terrible duty holster in my opinion.

Not only did I find my hood down more than once, I’ve heard stories of the gun getting dumped during a foot pursuit. One guy I personally know got into a fight got up to grab his gun, and it was on the ground.

I’m not anti 6280 for everything, but for duty work it’s a no go. If I were in charge of an agency, they would be banned at that agency.


The 070 seems like an excellent revolver duty holster.

[FrankB]

Sheesh! I’ve never asked for a firearm that will last 20,000 rounds without needing a part replaced. I expect any mechanical part to break, and at the worst possible time. I owned a Ruger SP101, but preferred the feel of a J frame. The LGS is owned by a guy who’s son is James McGinty (who also manages the place). He shoots for Ruger now, and is more than happy with Rugers in competition. Dave Olhasso slicks the hell out of their Rugers, and Dave shoots for Ruger now as well. Any comparison to one of their revolvers, and a stock revolver would be ridiculous. I have S&W L and N frame .357 magnums, because I prefer the way they feel in my hand. Not having a warning label stamped on the barrel is a bonus. While I’m 6’2”, I drive a Miata, and I beat the hell out of it on winding country roads. My wife cheers me on, and we’re always saying, “That won’t end well”, but so what. If we wanted durability, we’d be driving a dump truck. Buy whichever you like to shoot, and buying two would give you piece of mind. Heck, I have 3 Sig P365’s, and the same number of Glock 19’s.

[jetfire]

I'm not jetfire, but I believe that is the case. Moving the cylinder faster (chasing splits) makes it smack into the cylinder stop harder and eventually wear occurs. Weight of the cylinder (and its inertia) comes into play. I remember some discussion about N frame .357's vs K and L frame guns, and how cylinder weight seemed to matter when running the guns hard and at speed. I'm no revolver gunsmith, but that is my understanding of that specific issue.

I'd like to hear what he's ( jetfire ) got to say about it too.

That's pretty close, actually. When you're running max level splits in these guns, all the mechanical parts are slamming in and out of contact at a pretty aggressive rate. This causes increased wear, usually on the hand, and when that starts slipping the gun is out of time. There are threads on the Enos revolver forum that describe this exact problem happening to multiple people.

[Totem Polar]

2 thoughts: One, all things being equal, a heavier cylinder (eg. N-frame) will go out of time more quickly, when being shot very quickly, than a smaller, lighter cylinder (eg. J-frame).

And, two, if the goal is 100 rounds of mostly .38s a month, just get two of whatever revolver you like to shoot the most, and move on to another topic. Any of the reputable steel guns will do.

JMO.

[Dave T]

I've read this entire thread (onto page 11 now) and would like to offer some personal experience...and maybe an opinion based on that.

First, I am 72 and have severe arthritis in my hands and shoulders. The last 10 years or so I've shot and carried Glocks: a G30 and a G36. A little over a year ago I found I could no longer perform the manual of arms with these handguns. The biggest problem was racking the slide back and locking it open. And yes, I tried all the trick, guaranteed not to fail techniques. Don't work! I can however, manage the DA trigger on every revolver I own and none of them have light, competition tuned trigger pulls. I shoot them pretty well for an old, broken, retired deputy/firearms instructor.

On to durability. I started my LEO career with a 4" M28-2 S&W. I shot it a lot, being convinced bad things could indeed happen to me (unlike far too many cops I've known). During my probation period I shot once or twice during the work week and a lot on my weekend days off. This was all DA rapid fired with my Magnum level reloads. I never fired that gun SA and a couple months before probation ended, that M28 was out of time, frequently would fail to carry up, and had more end shake than it started with. As jetfire said, pushing a S&W in rapid fired DA will wreck it in fairly short order and I believe it was the DA fire more than the magnum ammo that did in my M28.

Finally, were I to want a 357 Magnum revolver strictly for it's long term durability, I would find a 4-5/8" old model Flat-top, 3-screw Ruger Blackhawk. The strength of those guns, the simplicity of their lock-work, combined with their coil springs, makes them almost indestructible. Not the first choice for self defense or concealed carry but I think they were/are the most durable 357 Magnum revolver you can buy. YMMV!

Dave

[03RN]

No active retention would be my guess. The 6280 is a good holster for some purposes, but is a terrible duty holster in my opinion.

Not only did I find my hood down more than once, I’ve heard stories of the gun getting dumped during a foot pursuit. One guy I personally know got into a fight got up to grab his gun, and it was on the ground.

I’m not anti 6280 for everything, but for duty work it’s a no go. If I were in charge of an agency, they would be banned at that agency.


The 070 seems like an excellent revolver duty holster.

Hmm, never saw that with the 6004s Ive used.

I do prefer the ALS but unfortunately they dont make one for revolvers

[Rex G]

Was there a reason the 6280 wasnt allowed?
69408

It was, simply, not asked. ;) My answer was in the context of the question about my duty holster, which was required to have the ALS, the SLS, and the added guard that makes it Level III. (Or, the 070, with two retention straps, plus having to rock the gun into alignment with the release path.)

Nothing against the 6280, for the folks whose needs it serves well. :)

[RevolverRob]

Seriously, gentlemen, I believe, that in the context of this post, long-term durability, and user-serviceability, is more about the parts not wearing to the point of uselessness, and wear parts being readily replaceable, than what it takes to catastrophically split a cylinder or barrel, in either a Ruger GP100, or S&W L-Frame revolver. I cannot speak for the OP, but personally, I only want to shoot within-spec ammo in my .357 revolvers, and really do not care to own a .44 Special GP100, much less Magnum-ize it.

I have detail-stripped both S&W and Ruger revolvers. Lord, how I hope it is never again necessary to detail-strip an S&W K/L-Frame! Lining everything up for re-assembly is especially vexing. For reference, it is MUCH easier to detail-strip a 1911 pistol.

I am not trying to “play” moderator. I am “just sayin’.”

I agree Rex. In my now deleted post. I pointed out that frame strength has little to do with "durability", because durability is basically the ability for an object to work within design parameters without excess wear or maintenance. Since neither L nor GPs regularly need frame replacement or repair, frame strength means very little in this context.

Instead what matters is the design, construction, and fitment of the parts that allow the gun to function. All else being equal, the more durable design, definitionally, is the one with the longest life span before requiring excessive maintenance.

The GP100, being both a simpler and more robust design, is likely to be more durable than an L-Frame. I've not broken one of either of them, myself. Anecdotally, I've seen more broke L-Frames than GP100s. Anecdotally, I've seen far more broken K and D frames than either L, N, or GPs. And I've never seen a broken Super Redhawk.

I'd really like to get my hands on a Super GP100 in .357. So I could beat the living dog shit out of it and see how durable that design is.

[Rex G]

I've read this entire thread (onto page 11 now) and would like to offer some personal experience...and maybe an opinion based on that.

First, I am 72 and have severe arthritis in my hands and shoulders. The last 10 years or so I've shot and carried Glocks: a G30 and a G36. A little over a year ago I found I could no longer perform the manual of arms with these handguns. The biggest problem was racking the slide back and locking it open. And yes, I tried all the trick, guaranteed not to fail techniques. Don't work! I can however, manage the DA trigger on every revolver I own and none of them have light, competition tuned trigger pulls. I shoot them pretty well for an old, broken, retired deputy/firearms instructor.

Dave

I know what you mean, about aging hands and shoulders, compromising one’s ability to run autoloaders. (I am not quite yet 60.) In addition to arthritis in my right thumb/hand/wrist, which is not yet severe, thankfully, I have nerve impingement issues affecting my right thumb, right ring finger, and right pinky finger, so, my right hand does not always do what my brain is telling it to do. If I shoot an auto right-handed, I can sometimes numb-thumb/limp-wrist a malfunction, especially firing one-handed. Being functionally ambidextrous with most handguns, shooting lefty is not a problem, but I have to use what some call the Israeli way to use my gimpy right hand to reliably run the slide. This works, for now, but revolvers are my ambidextrous guns, and, so, my “comfort” guns.

[03RN]

It was, simply, not asked. ;) My answer was in the context of the question about my duty holster, which was required to have the ALS, the SLS, and the added guard that makes it Level III.

Nothing against the 6280, for the folks whose needs it serves well. :)

Thanks. Was just curious.

[Rex G]

Thanks. Was just curious.

Actually, one of my colleagues had surreptitiously started to use a 6280, to tote his grandfathered L-Frames. He may have had to still qual with his battered 070 on his duty belt. I hope he is still managing to make it work. I should touch base with him, and offer to let him use my old duty SIG P229R DAK, if they give him flack about his duty holster, as he prefers long-stroke DA. (Well, that is, unless policy has changed. I have read that new-hires have to use the G17, and it is possible that has been extended to senior officers who want to transition.)

[BehindBlueI's]

Did Ruger ever offer a .357 Super Redhawk? For some reason, I believe it has never been offered in a smaller-diameter round than 10mm Auto.

I believe you are correct, 10mm is the smallest.

[Rex G]

Did Ruger ever offer a .357 Super Redhawk? For some reason, I believe it has never been offered in a smaller-diameter round than 10mm Auto.


I believe you are correct, 10mm is the smallest.

I believe that the Super GP100 is built on the Super RedHawk frame, just eye-balling my Super GP100 and SRH Alaskan.

Eight shots of .357 sound and fury.

[TheNewbie]

Hmm, never saw that with the 6004s Ive used.

I do prefer the ALS but unfortunately they dont make one for revolvers



I think in the context you used them, they probably worked well.



Really wish I had purchased a couple of Safariland 070 GP100 holsters over the years. And a couple of GP 100s to go along with them.



Like I said earlier, taking the Security Six apart was not overwhelming for a non mechanical guy like me. If you are adept at mechanical things, then it may not matter as much which you get. If you are like me in lack of mechanical skills, then the Ruger seems easier to keep running on an end user level.

[jetfire]

I believe that the Super GP100 is built on the Super RedHawk frame, just eye-balling my Super GP100 and SRH Alaskan.

Eight shots of .357 sound and fury.

It is, they took a SRH and put it on a bit of a diet to make the Super GPs.

[farscott]

I believe that the Super GP100 is built on the Super RedHawk frame, just eye-balling my Super GP100 and SRH Alaskan.

Eight shots of .357 sound and fury.

That is a connection I did not make, and I was just perusing the Super GP100 on the Ruger website. I went back to the website, and, lo and behold, I found this.


Utilizes the superior action of the Super Redhawk® to allow for a two-spring lock work arrangement providing a more even double-action cycle and better ignition.

[TheNewbie]

If one wanted a GP100 2.5 or 3 inch for CCW what would you have done to it for maximum reliability and a decent trigger?


One thing I would do convert it to DAO but what else needs to be done?

[Rex G]

Now, Ruger, please, make a Super GP100 Alaskan, .357 Mag. Or, call it the the Texan. Down here, feral hogs will eat a person.

https://abc13.com/christine-rollins-chambers-county-woman-found-dead-animal-attack-death-wild-hogs/5716849/

[TheNewbie]

Rex G makes me want to carry a GP100

blues makes me want to carry a 2.5 inch Model 15

Adam 12 makes me want to carry a 4 inch model 15 or maybe even a 6 inch model 14.

[Rex G]

If one wanted a GP100 2.5 or 3 inch for CCW what would you have done to it for maximum reliability and a decent trigger?


One thing I would do convert it to DAO but what else needs to be done?

Well, I recommend shopping, in person, and selecting with one’s own hands, if practicable. I realize that not all of us live near a large Ruger dealer, and, of course, few dealers have any stock on hand, anymore.

[Rex G]

Rex G makes me want to carry a GP100

blues makes me want to carry a 2.5 inch Model 15

Adam 12 makes me want to carry a 4 inch model 15 or maybe even a 6 inch model 14.

The late, great Jim Cirillo carried three revolvers. Go ye therefore, and do likewise. ;)

[jh9]

There are threads on the Enos revolver forum that describe this exact problem happening to multiple people.

link here: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?45772-Revolver-Acro-host/page4

[BN]

Purely for scientific inquiry, what makes it go out out time quicker? Inertia of the cylinder or something else?

Several years ago, when people were shooting a lot of 625s in USPSA, they started having problems with Skip Chambers. The cylinder stop notches in the cylinder would peen. They were replacing the steel cylinders with titanium cylinders to fix the problem. There was a lot of talk on Brian Enos. It was 10 or 15 years ago.

[blues]

Rex G makes me want to carry a GP100

blues makes me want to carry a 2.5 inch Model 15

Adam 12 makes me want to carry a 4 inch model 15 or maybe even a 6 inch model 14.

TheNewbie

That's a 2" Model 15. The Model 19 was 2.5".

[03RN]

The late, great Jim Cirillo carried three revolvers. Go ye therefore, and do likewise. ;)

Im not a huge fan of shoulder holsters but it sure is convenient. My 3" m10 has been has been a nice secondary gun:cool:

[Ed L]

Thank you. What would your advice be? Just keep using my glocks until I can't or maybe something else? Like don't worry be happy? :)

You could always buy the Vickers tactical charging handle for your Glocks, It replaces the backplate with one that has protrusions that make the gun easier to grasp and cock:

https://www.rockyourglock.com/custom/GSR-03.htm

[RevolverRob]

If one wanted a GP100 2.5 or 3 inch for CCW what would you have done to it for maximum reliability and a decent trigger?


One thing I would do convert it to DAO but what else needs to be done?

It's interesting, because I've not found the GP100 trigger to be bad at all. My gun had a 9# DA stroke after the first couple of thousand presses. The mainspring weight can be dropped easily if you want. jetfire has more experience doing that than I do.

Now the SA triggers on GP100s are kind of "meh". Mine is creepy and has kind of a mushy break, but who cares?

[Malamute]

link here: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?45772-Revolver-Acro-host/page4


Several years ago, when people were shooting a lot of 625s in USPSA, they started having problems with Skip Chambers. The cylinder stop notches in the cylinder would peen. They were replacing the (stainless) steel cylinders with titanium cylinders to fix the problem. There was a lot of talk on Brian Enos. It was 10 or 15 years ago.

I was just reading some of that discussion and saw something which didnt exactly surprise me, though I dont know the person that wrote it and what their qualifications are for stating it, however:


Posted by Waltermitty
...There are two reasons I wouldn’t plate the SS piece. First, the main problem is the underlying strength of the SS substrate. Stainless steel (which by some definitions isn’t actually “Steel”) is a compromise. Market forces pushed the manufacturers to produce SS guns because the vast majority of us can’t (or don’t want to) properly care for steel guns. The first choice for high stress gun parts is a good carbon steel primarily due to its fundamental strength. So any rational chrome plating thickness (.0003” to .0005”) on your SS cylinder would not impart the functional toughness you desire.

...My motivation to consider the Chrome on carbon steel route was to get the strength of carbon steel with the rust and abrasion resistance imparted by a thin, although variable, layer of chrome. This is how I did my Limited guns in the past. I would buy a blue steel gun, get it tweaked and broken in good, and then send it off for hard chrome....



Ive seen comments in the past about Smith stainless steel being somewhat soft. I was reminded of it when a gunsmith thats reamed possibly a couple thousand forcing cones commented how soft a stainless Smith K frame barrel was that he was reaming.

Carbon steel, old school blued. Whats not to like? :D

[BehindBlueI's]

I believe that the Super GP100...

I forgot that was a thing, but yeah that would basically be a Super Redhawk .357.

[BN]

I was just reading some of that discussion and saw something which didnt exactly surprise me, though I dont know the person that wrote it and what their qualifications are for stating it, however:


IIRC WalterMitty was pretty heavy into getting the most out of the 625s. I think I remember him doing cylinder swaps etc.

[Malamute]

IIRC WalterMitty was pretty heavy into getting the most out of the 625s. I think I remember him doing cylinder swaps etc.


I dont know who he is, but he appears to know of which he speaks.

[BN]

I dont know who he is, but he appears to know of which he speaks.

I don't remember his real name. I was on a revolver squad with him at the USPSA Nationals one year.

[RevolverRob]

I was just reading some of that discussion and saw something which didnt exactly surprise me, though I dont know the person that wrote it and what their qualifications are for stating it, however:




Ive seen comments in the past about Smith stainless steel being somewhat soft. I was reminded of it when a gunsmith thats reamed possibly a couple thousand forcing cones commented how soft a stainless Smith K frame barrel was that he was reaming.

Carbon steel, old school blued. Whats not to like? :D

It basically goes like this:

The higher the carbon content, the harder the steel can be. The harder a given steel is the lower the ductility of that steel is.

Guns, particularly repeating guns, firing smokeless powder cartridges, have a lot of different kinds of force acting in them. Friction, heat, high pressure, vibration, reverberation, and repetitive impacts. Optimizing the materials and heat treatment used for a given operating parameter is how it should be, and is, done.

The French and Germans specifying different steels for different parts of the gun and often (but not always) through harden each part to its own specific range of hardness, such that the guns withstand impacts and have tight tolerances.

Smith moved the opposite direction and has opted to pare down the number of steels used in their guns and case harden many parts. The advantage is they can specify a wider range of tolerances, but case hardening allows the underlying steel to remain more ductile, reducing wear and breakage. The guns have wider tolerances overall, but continue running well, due to the specifications of those tolerances (it's also way easier to do batching of case hardening than through hardening).

I would argue that folks who fire tens of thousands of rounds per year at rapid intervals are pushing the boundaries of the design parameters of most revolvers. But they are certainly pushing the boundaries of the current iterations of Smith and Wesson and Colts. And probably most Rugers too.

Frankly, given the ability to buy an 8-shot Nighthawk-imported Korth, I'd really like to have one of those along side my theoretical stable of a Super GP100 and 627 and hammer on them all until I broke each of them.

Anyone want to finance my scientific endeavor?

[BillSWPA]

Im not a huge fan of shoulder holsters but it sure is convenient. My 3" m10 has been has been a nice secondary gun:cool:

Shoulder holsters were one of my main carry methods up until sometime in 2004. Although I rarely use them today, everyone should own one. When my wife's brother was married, I was the best man, and had to wear a tuxedo. With no belt, a shoulder holster became the ideal solution.

With horizontal shoulder holsters, the thumb break is positioned much more conveniently with a revolver than it is with a semiauto. Also, at least in the case of a Galco Miami classic, the harness straps attach to revolver holsters in a manner that contributes to good concealment more so than with semiauto holsters. The increased likelihood of crossing my own arm during a draw, as well as sweeping through a 180 degree arc makes a DA revolver trigger desirable.

Unfortunately speedloader pouches are much less comfortable under the armpit than magazine pouches. Dump pouches are good for holding speed strips, and are much more comfortable under the armpit. Speedloaders can go in a jacket pocket.

[vtfarmer]

Shoulder holsters were one of my main carry methods up until sometime in 2004. Although I rarely use them today, everyone should own one. When my wife's brother was married, I was the best man, and had to wear a tuxedo. With no belt, a shoulder holster became the ideal solution.

With horizontal shoulder holsters, the thumb break is positioned much more conveniently with a revolver than it is with a semiauto. Also, at least in the case of a Galco Miami classic, the harness straps attach to revolver holsters in a manner that contributes to good concealment more so than with semiauto holsters. The increased likelihood of crossing my own arm during a draw, as well as sweeping through a 180 degree arc makes a DA revolver trigger desirable.

Unfortunately speedloader pouches are much less comfortable under the armpit than magazine pouches. Dump pouches are good for holding speed strips, and are much more comfortable under the armpit. Speedloaders can go in a jacket pocket.

I've been happy with cordura speedloader pouches on shoulder holsters. Compared to leather pouches they're softer and more rounded so I don't find them bothersome at all.

[gato naranja]

Smith moved the opposite direction and has opted to pare down the number of steels used in their guns and case harden many parts. The advantage is they can specify a wider range of tolerances, but case hardening allows the underlying steel to remain more ductile, reducing wear and breakage.

"Toughness" vs "hardness," so to speak. When I was young, my eyes automatically glazed over whenever Fudds would go on and on (and on) about the "low-numbered" M1903 rifles, so I didn't "get" the difference for some years.

My rattletrap SP101 has beat-up cylinder lock notches (despite the fact that I am no fast DA shooter... or a genuinely fast shooter, period), but the peening appeared to have gone into remission some time ago. I consider that cylinder "soft" in some respects, but still "tough." In contrast, we have had revolver parts that were apparently harder than hell - very little visible wear - fracture on us because they were brittle, not tough. Metallurgy in firearms is quite the balancing act.

If I knew 100% that I would never get a revolver wet, neglect to clean it, leave it in a holster or drawer too long or occasionally play the role of clueless bonehead, I'd probably pass on stainless and put the savings toward another cup of coffee or piece of pie. As it is, stainless still generally gets the nod even though I don't obsess over it like I did in years past.


But don't get me started on aluminum.

[Totem Polar]

Since the thread title is “ultimate long term durability revolver” I will just leave this link here.

All you MoFos who are pining for a GP snub with real sights and a good trigger are welcome.

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/896038346

:cool:

[Half Moon]

But don't get me started on aluminum.

Come on, man, the first taste is free! :-P

[BillSWPA]

I've been happy with cordura speedloader pouches on shoulder holsters. Compared to leather pouches they're softer and more rounded so I don't find them bothersome at all.

Good point. I have a Bianchi Tuxedo nylon shoulder holster that has a very comfortable double speedloader pouch on the opposite side. I stopped using it the first time my hammer spur snagged on the retention strap. Assuming harness/pouch compatibility, that pouch on a Miami Classic holster would be a nice combination that perhaps I should try.

[Dave T]

No offense to Ruger fans but I'm having a hard time seeing how a GP100 is worth $1500, let alone the "buy it now" price of $1700.

Really? What am I missing?

Dave

[jetfire]

No offense to Ruger fans but I'm having a hard time seeing how a GP100 is worth $1500, let alone the "buy it now" price of $1700.

Really? What am I missing?

Dave

That's a Gemini Customs GP100, they're one of the top custom shops that does work on Rugers, and their end products are really phenomenal.

[TicTacticalTimmy]

After reading this whole thread, I'm highly certain the OP's original hunch is the best choice for him: 3" GP100. Plenty durable, easy to work on if needed, low recoil, reasonably concealable. Personally I would want an adjustable sight model, but understand the rationale for preferring a fixed sight channel for this purpose.

OP's desire to dry fire and inspect before buying is definitely the say to go, although it is easier said than done in 2021.

OT, but I would love to see the larger LCR mentioned above. 6 shot 3", same size as a Kimber K6S, but a couple hundred cheaper.

What I would really like to see is an N-frame LCR, with 8 shots of .357 or 9 shots of 9mm. Basically it would be like a S&W TRR8 for 2/3 the price. With a removable rail under the barrel and an MOS plate system on the topstrap.

[03RN]

After reading this whole thread, I'm highly certain the OP's original hunch is the best choice for him: 3" GP100. Plenty durable, easy to work on if needed, low recoil, reasonably concealable. Personally I would want an adjustable sight model, but understand the rationale for preferring a fixed sight channel for this purpose.

OP's desire to dry fire and inspect before buying is definitely the say to go, although it is easier said than done in 2021.

OT, but I would love to see the larger LCR mentioned above. 6 shot 3", same size as a Kimber K6S, but a couple hundred cheaper.

What I would really like to see is an N-frame LCR, with 8 shots of .357 or 9 shots of 9mm. Basically it would be like a S&W TRR8 for 2/3 the price. With a removable rail under the barrel and an MOS plate system on the topstrap.

It would have to be 8 shots for 9mm

[jtcarm]

"Toughness"My rattletrap SP101 has beat-up cylinder lock notches (despite the fact that I am no fast DA shooter... or a genuinely fast shooter, period), but the peening appeared to have gone into remission some time ago. I consider that cylinder "soft" in some respects, but still "tough." In contrast, we have had revolver parts that were apparently harder than hell - very little visible wear - fracture on us because they were brittle, not tough. Metallurgy in firearms is quite the balancing act.


DougGuy over on castboolits is a gunsmith and is the goto man for opening up revolver chamber throats.

He said the variations in hardness of Ruger cylinders forced him to switch from reamers to a Sunnen hone. He said the reamed throats would often “spring” back their to original dimension.

[03RN]

DougGuy over on castboolits is a gunsmith and is the goto man for opening up revolver chamber throats.

He said the variations in hardness of Ruger cylinders forced him to switch from reamers to a Sunnen hone. He said the reamed throats would often “spring” back their to original dimension.

He did my m66. It went from accumulating lead inside the cylinder and causing really heavy trigger pulls with cast loads and needing to be disassembled a lot to be cleaned. To not needing to be cleaned.

What a difference it made.

[jtcarm]

I don't disagree with the gp100 44spc vs the l frame .44 mag line of thought but I do recall a test performed by the border patrol doing a test on the gp100. Iirc (which I probably do not) they did a 40,000 round test that was all full power mags and the gp did fine.

I think the test predated the L frame and trashed the k frame. Now that there are L frames and stronger K frames I wish someone would redo the test


I don't disagree with the gp100 44spc vs the l frame .44 mag line of thought but I do recall a test performed by the border patrol doing a test on the gp100. Iirc (which I probably do not) they did a 40,000 round test that was all full power mags and the gp did fine.

I think the test predated the L frame and trashed the k frame. Now that there are L frames and stronger K frames I wish someone would redo the test


I don't disagree with the gp100 44spc vs the l frame .44 mag line of thought but I do recall a test performed by the border patrol doing a test on the gp100. Iirc (which I probably do not) they did a 40,000 round test that was all full power mags and the gp did fine.

I think the test predated the L frame and trashed the k frame. Now that there are L frames and stronger K frames I wish someone would redo the test

IDK about the GP100, but I read a report by the BP dated 1985 (can’t find the file!) in which 2 3” M-65s and 2 2 3/4” Security sixes were tested.

The test was to be 10,000 rounds of magnums through each gun with regular checks by armorers.

Abbreviated Cliff Notes: the S&Ws started going out of time at or before 1,000 rounds. At roughly 2,500 rounds each, the armorers determined the Smiths had developed too much end shake to continue.

The Rugers made it to 10k. Not unscathed, I’m sure. But critical dimensions like B/C gap were still within acceptable tolerances.

Now as I understand it, 1985 was several years before SAAMI reduced the max pressure for the .357 magnum to 35,000 psi (from 46,000 CUP, which I’ve also read is roughly 43,500 PSI). That’s a 25% reduction. So the test ammo may have been a good bit hotter than today’s.

[Malamute]

IDK about the GP100, but I read a report by the BP dated 1985 (can’t find the file!) in which 2 3” M-65s and 2 2 3/4” Security sixes were tested.

.

Outpost75 has that file and I believe may be firsthand familiar with the tests

[JAH 3rd]

I used him to check the throats on my Ruger single action in 45acp and 45LC. I had no way of checking the specs of each cylinder. His work is first rate with about a 2 week turnaround. Reasonably priced too. Based in NC.

[Navin Johnson]

If you were going to pick up the ultimate long term durability revolver that is reasonably easy to find and reasonably priced, would the group suggest something like the GP-100 3" 1715?

https://www.ruger.com/products/gp100/specSheets/1715.html

3" barrel = good compromise for CCW
GP100 = Durable and easily user serviceable
Stainless Construction = Improved environmental resistance
Fixed sights = less likely to break than adjustable

While I believe, based on my research that a Manhurin M73 or maybe a Korth might be more reliable, they are significantly harder to source at a reasonable price.

Am I going down the wrong path?

2 or 3

[vtfarmer]

IDK about the GP100, but I read a report by the BP dated 1985 (can’t find the file!) in which 2 3” M-65s and 2 2 3/4” Security sixes were tested.

The test was to be 10,000 rounds of magnums through each gun with regular checks by armorers.

Abbreviated Cliff Notes: the S&Ws started going out of time at or before 1,000 rounds. At roughly 2,500 rounds each, the armorers determined the Smiths had developed too much end shake to continue.

The Rugers made it to 10k. Not unscathed, I’m sure. But critical dimensions like B/C gap were still within acceptable tolerances.

Now as I understand it, 1985 was several years before SAAMI reduced the max pressure for the .357 magnum to 35,000 psi (from 46,000 CUP, which I’ve also read is roughly 43,500 PSI). That’s a 25% reduction. So the test ammo may have been a good bit hotter than today’s.

The GP100 didn't come on the market till late 1986/early 1987, so it wasn't around for the Border Patrol tests.

[Malamute]

The GP100 didn't come on the market till late 1986/early 1987, so it wasn't around for the Border Patrol tests.


Correct, it was Security Sixes and Speed Sixes that were tested.

My ping of Outpost75 didnt seem to work before. It doesnt look like its working now either. Not sure how to make the @ work, its not live in the post.

[Outpost75]

.pdf of tests are public domain, but large files. I can send if you PM me, but too arge to attach here.

[TheNewbie]

.pdf of tests are public domain, but large files. I can send if you PM me, but too arge to attach here.

Have a link?

[jtcarm]

Outpost75 has that file and I believe may be firsthand familiar with the tests

Yep that’s who I got it from.

[HeavyDuty]

This damn thread.

I’ve been looking for a S&W 620 (a short lived 7 shot half lugged L frame .357) for a few years now, and a NIB one popped up. I couldn’t say no. I think I’m set now, or will be after a few minor changes.

[Outpost75]

Have a link?

Don't have a link. The 3 reports are 15MB of .pdf files. PM me with an email address which can accept the files and I can send them to you.

[TheNewbie]

Don't have a link. The 3 reports are 15MB of .pdf files. PM me with an email address which can accept the files and I can send them to you.


Thank you. Sent a PM.

[Pistol Pete 10]

My choice would be the S&W 686, an older one of course because new S&Ws always have something wrong with them.

[Flashman]

I'm big fan of the SP/GP revolvers and have several but do have concerns over their long term durability. One GP100 acquired new 10 years ago, blue in .38, has been used primarily as the IDPA gun. I had one or two minor problems resolved by Ruger early on but at about 7000 rounds, it developed a severe case of light strikes. Ruger fixed it and returned the tightest revolver I have ever used. Of course, they wouldn't say what the problem was but I suspect it was end shake--end shake after 7000 rounds? But I wonder how it will hold up in the next 7000 rounds.

I have a S&W 617 with just under 20,000 rounds and has been back to the factory about 14 times
with a host of unrelated problems, the most recent of which was the light strike problem which was probably end shake again.

Neither one of these revolvers have seen hard use.

[jetfire]

I'm big fan of the SP/GP revolvers and have several but do have concerns over their long term durability. One GP100 acquired new 10 years ago, blue in .38, has been used primarily as the IDPA gun. I had one or two minor problems resolved by Ruger early on but at about 7000 rounds, it developed a severe case of light strikes. Ruger fixed it and returned the tightest revolver I have ever used. Of course, they wouldn't say what the problem was but I suspect it was end shake--end shake after 7000 rounds? But I wonder how it will hold up in the next 7000 rounds.

It's worth noting that the practice of using a revolver in match conditions, with repeated speed reloads and trying for fast splits is far more damaging to the gun than simply firing the same number of rounds through it. A competition gun that's seen 5000 rounds of matches, training, etc will have seen a lot more "use" than a gun that was casually fired on the range for 5000 rounds and never had someone trying to slam a Comp-III into it while running.

[Flashman]

It's worth noting that the practice of using a revolver in match conditions, with repeated speed reloads and trying for fast splits is far more damaging to the gun than simply firing the same number of rounds through it. A competition gun that's seen 5000 rounds of matches, training, etc will have seen a lot more "use" than a gun that was casually fired on the range for 5000 rounds and never had someone trying to slam a Comp-III into it while running.

You may be right but my average round count in our local IDPA match for 5 stages is less than 80 rounds. The maximum number of rounds by the rules are 18. And, the cylinder is fully supported by my hand before the Comp III is pushed. Slamming a speedloader into a GP or SP unsupported can lead to others problems. In fact, this may be a weakness in the design because although I have never performed unsupported reloads, both an SP (which Ruger replaced) and this GP had major failures with the crane assembly popping out of alignment.

USPSA or other high volume matches wears out guns much faster.

Perhaps my expectations are too high but as we know, most handguns will never reach 5000 rounds and manufacturers recognize this.

[Malamute]

I'm big fan of the SP/GP revolvers and have several but do have concerns over their long term durability. One GP100 acquired new 10 years ago, blue in .38, has been used primarily as the IDPA gun. I had one or two minor problems resolved by Ruger early on but at about 7000 rounds, it developed a severe case of light strikes. Ruger fixed it and returned the tightest revolver I have ever used. Of course, they wouldn't say what the problem was but I suspect it was end shake--end shake after 7000 rounds? But I wonder how it will hold up in the next 7000 rounds.

I have a S&W 617 with just under 20,000 rounds and has been back to the factory about 14 times
with a host of unrelated problems, the most recent of which was the light strike problem which was probably end shake again.

Neither one of these revolvers have seen hard use.

Its difficult to draw useful conclusions from little or no information. With all due respect, your suspicion of what was wrong isnt much information to go on, since you apparently didnt do any diagnostics such as measuring end shake or cylinder gap etc. It may well have been end shake, or there may have been other problems. It may have been right at the edge of allowable spec when it went out the door of the factory and didnt take much wear to get past proper spec. Theres no way to know at this point.

Ive heard quite a lot of unfortunate problems with later Smiths. Such things are why I tend to like the older ones, not that they are perfect by any means, just seem less problematic overall, and I keep parts and tools to do basic things on them and am not averse to working on one. Barrel or cylinder swaps or similar arent deal killers for me if the price of a particular gun I may be interested in needed such things. Anyway, to the point of the 617, I dont know where they went off the rails on some later guns, I have a family 17 thats had somewhere between 200k-300k rounds through it with no parts or work other than a lost thumbpiece nut in the late 70s.

And I agree with the use question regarding super rough handling/loading/speed firing whatever. I dont think it reflects actual practical defensive use, or field use of the guns in anything ive ever done. I dont care if a revolver will or wont go 2k rds without cleaning, high volume round count classes, or any of the common current metrics used for autos. At this point, I know they will easily run for far more rounds than I ever carry with me (100-200 rds in the vehicle, like that many rds are ever going to be used at one time defensively....) with no particular care, even when carried for months daily with little or no attention. Im satisfied on that point. YMMV of course. Preventive maintenance seems to take care of most of the common bugs people have.

These discussions are interesting, but they seem to follow similar trajectories for the most part. Outpost75 has been in the business for a long time, and probably worn out more guns than most of us ever will. I would note that the ones he mentions carrying or using most often seem to be Smiths along with a Colt here and there. I may be mistaken in that, just my impression, but the point being, single point criteria (longest lasting) is only one factor for most of us. I can live with knowing my guns may not be the longest possible lasting gun under severe use, but Im also comfortable keeping them up and can fix many of the common ailments myself, though its not been needed much overall. Finding parts hasnt been an issue either, despite the common internet rumor. The main wear parts (hands and cylinder locking bolts) are available from a decent aftermarket supplier, as well as shims to correct end shake, though I have enough factory parts to get by.

Bottom line: I liked the Security Six, just not quite as much as Smiths, and the GPs just never appealed to me. Mechanically great guns, I just like Smiths more overall.

[HeavyDuty]

I’d love one of these, but I’ve been really bad lately. But in case someone’s ideal is a 5” blue GP100, RK Guns has this on special today:

77109

[Guerrero]

These two articles may interest people reading this thread:

https://revolverguy.com/great-revolver-frame-war-part/
https://revolverguy.com/great-revolver-frame-war-part-ii/