Ruger FINALLY offers 7-shot .357 GP100

[willie]

If I were going to buy a GP100 and could select from among several specimens, I would opt for the one with the best action regardless of cylinder capacity.

[BehindBlueI's]

Sorry if this was covered and I missed it while reading through...…

...but why this instead of an 8-shot Redhawk?

GP100 is 9 oz lighter for 4" barrel models, cheaper, and is generally accepted to have the better trigger.

https://ruger.com/products/gp100/specSheets/1772.html is a good looking gun.

[Tokarev]

https://ruger.com/products/gp100/specSheets/1772.html is a good looking gun.

I wish Ruger would do a 4" with a half underlug. Both in blued and stainless.


Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[OlongJohnson]

The stainless one is called the Match Champion. I'd say it's the Glock 19 of .357-capable revolvers at this point.

I would pick the best action from among available samples of the model I want, expecting that there will be the least work to do on the way to it being what it ultimately will be.

[Bigghoss]

Sorry if this was covered and I missed it while reading through...…

...but why this instead of an 8-shot Redhawk?

For most folks the main difference is size. The Redhawk is designed around 6 rounds of .44 magnum.

I wish Ruger would completely replace the Redhawk with the Super Redhawk. An 8-shot .357 Alaskan would be cool.

[jtcarm]

I wish Ruger would do a 4" with a half underlug. Both in blued and stainless.


Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

I hate full-lug barrels.

The 10mm GP is whispering to me in my dreams.

[jtcarm]

No lock and I like the Lett grips better. And I don't consider them "second class". Why spend more for a similar product?

Better trigger on the Smith. Maybe not out of the box, but with a little smoothing.

Ruger will always stack.

[jtcarm]

What Oblong reports is true but a fact surprising to some is that it's nothing new. In 1970 I bought my first K frame Smith which was a good specimen. In '71 I bought a M25 .45 ACP that had numerous problems. As time passed I bought more and more Smiths and began working part time in gun shops and noticed that quality control issues existed in various other brands. In 1981 I began working for the Texas prison system which used M65 Smiths. Our armorers were factory trained. Once we received a large shipment of several hundred M65's, and so many were non functional that S&W had to send a factory team from Massachusetts to Texas to repair them. I had the privilege to observe master fitters repair them. Mostly they used a file and big hammer(lead bar). We also had several hundred 870 shotguns that had an outstanding service record. Our Colt AR15's were trouble free too.

I observed that when other state agencies or the feds trained, semi auto's frequently malfunctioned. One sheriff's dept had a new batch of 1911 .45's and six out of six continuously malfunctioned. So why has this problem persisted over decades? I'm certain that factory techs know the difference between good and poor work. My opinion is that they perform poorly because manufacturers continue to accept low standards because "good" quality control is expensive. Eventually nobody cares as long as the companies are making money. Law enforcement agencies have armorers to correct some crappy factory products. The guy buying a firearm at a box store or a lgs may lack knowledge to know the difference. And then we have guys like ourselves who either fix it at home or send it back.

I’ve said that for years on the S&W forums.

The difference in the Bangor Punta/Lear Siegler days was the lack of an internet to report every problem and then 100 other people who never saw it to echo the problem as gospel.

I’ve heard when San Antonio PD switched to the Model 58, their armorers earned a ton of overtime pay getting them into shape to issue. One even had a Model 29 cylinder.

I guess shooters today are too young to remember, or else grouchy old farts who have never gotten over P&R, MIM, etc.

Fact is, all that loving “hand fitting” they claim was the source of the quality of yore was necessary because by today’s standards, manufacturing tolerances sucked. That much skilled labor today would probably triple the cost of a gun.

I’m not disputing Oblongs observations, but someone posted on another forum how nine out of ten 929s he inspected at an LGS had issues. Which left me wondering, since I’ve never seen even ONE 929 on a dealers shelf, what LGS has ten in stock? It’s not a gun with broad appeal that dealers will devote precious overhead to.

[spinmove_]

GP100 is 9 oz lighter for 4" barrel models, cheaper, and is generally accepted to have the better trigger.

https://ruger.com/products/gp100/specSheets/1772.html is a good looking gun.

That’s basically exactly what I want.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[Kan S LaTrans]

I have no need for a revolver....

Want however...I have a surplus of want.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

It's not the Bill Of Needs man!

At least, that's what I tell my wife when I come walking in the door with a new box from the LGS.

She rolls here eyes and says "Lemme guess...if you didn't adopt it, they were going to send it to the pound?"

On Topic though: My son bought one of the GP100 Match Champions (6-shot) last year and I was super impressed with it. It was smoother than any Ruger revolver I had ever fired out of the box, and with 20 minutes at the bench, it was like butter. I can only imagine the 7-shot would be even nicer and with a faster cyclic rate with less rotation between chambers.

I am waiting for the 6-shot GP100 Match Champion in 10mm to actually be available for purchase. I will be there on day one with my money in hand. Moon clip fed 40 S&W IDPA revolver anyone?