Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 51

Thread: Are GP100 7 shot .357's reliable now?

  1. #1
    Member Bruce in WV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Near D.C.

    Are GP100 7 shot .357's reliable now?

    I have an older production 2 1/2" 7 shot .357 GP100.
    The cylinder bound up, wouldn't eject spent cases or close. I returned it on a factory shipping label and Ruger is replacing it with a new one off the current production line.

    Here's the big question. Have there been engineering changes that make this model 100% reliable? I'd like to keep this as a woodland carry gun; its a desirable caliber, easy to carry, and is comfortable to shoot even with full power loads.
    Last edited by Bruce in WV; 09-01-2020 at 08:08 PM.

  2. #2
    I will be watching this thread. I asked Ruger the same question about a year ago. I have not seen any verifiable data to say anything changed ... But I am not as "in the know" as the rest of the "Jedi masters" around here.

    Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Richmond, Va
    Wasn't the issue with these the fact that certain brands of ammo wouldn't fit?

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by vaglocker View Post
    Wasn't the issue with these the fact that certain brands of ammo wouldn't fit?
    Yes. Tolerance stacking meant that on some guns seven .357 rounds that had rims toward the larger side of SAMMI spec wouldn't chamber. There physically wasn't enough room in the cylinder.

    My comment at the time was that there was probably an engineer in a corner at Ruger mumbling "I told you so."

    I don't know if they've fixed that or not, or even if it is fixable without a essentially re-making the GP100.

    The last I paid attention to it was in October of 2018 when I was revolver shopping. I'm sure if you call Ruger they'll assure you it is fine. The various Ruger-centric fora may offer more recent anecdotes.
    I was into 10mm Auto before it sold out and went mainstream, but these days I'm here for the revolver and epidemiology information.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    McKinney Texas
    I have a 2.5 inch also. It has been totally reliable and is my favorite. No binding. There are certain brands of brass it does not like but they are not brands I normally use. The Remington 38+P and 357 golden sabres I use work just fine and are accurate in this gun.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Central Champlain Valley
    When Ruger came out with their 7 shot, they kept the same size cylinder as the six shot GP with an extra chamber. The SAAMI specs for .357 case rim diameter is: max =.440", min =.430". It turned out that cases in the range of .435" to .440" wouldn't fit. The rims overlapped, which led to two problems. Sometimes the cylinder wouldn't close at all. Other times the cases could be pushed in flush with the thumb and the cylinder would close. But jamming the cases in created a wedge-lock in the chambers, which required pounding on the extractor rod with a hammer for removal.

    Case brand is the big factor. In my early production 7 shot, Winchester cases won't work period. The rims run in the top half of the size range. Remington, on the other hand, runs in the bottom half of the range, I've never had a problem with Remington. Note- In the course of a year, Winchester and Remington probably make a million or more .357 cases. Are all Winchester cases over .435" ? Are all Remington cases under .435" ? No way for me to know.

    When problems showed up with the early production guns, Ruger tried a couple minor tweaks that didn't work. In December 2018, customer service began telling callers that the problem had been fixed in current production guns. To my knowledge, Ruger has never said publicly what they changed. But from that time buyers of the late production guns, that reported on the Ruger double-action forum, said they had no problems. A couple owners gave some cylinder measurements on the new guns for comparison with the early model. Comparing those measurements to my early gun, it appears the cylinder diameter was increased from 1.545" to 1.550". The chambers were moved outwards 0.015", creating more rim space. The between chambers walls went from 0.055" to 0.070" on current production.
    Since that time there haven't been any complaints from buyers of the new 7 shots on the Ruger Forum. It's been a dead issue for all of this year.

    There's no definitive source of information that I know of, Ruger isn't talking, and the reports from buyers are a small sample size. As I said in another thread on PF awhile back, I've got the urge to buy a current production gun for side by side measurement and comparison with my early model. Last week I started checking Gallery of Guns daily to try and catch a shipment when it arrives and they have inventory. This could take a while.

  7. #7
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    vtfarmer,

    In trying to visualize you description of Ruger's fix (larger diameter cylinder) it would seem the cartridges would have to move outward, if only by a few thousands. Do your primers show an off center firing pin strike? Or, did Ruger also engineer a slightly raised firing pin location to compensate for the small elevation of the case above the center line of the cylinder?

    I'm curious how they fixed this, or if they found the original firing pin location still reliably set off primers and let it go at that.

    Dave

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Central Champlain Valley
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave T View Post
    vtfarmer,

    In trying to visualize you description of Ruger's fix (larger diameter cylinder) it would seem the cartridges would have to move outward, if only by a few thousands. Do your primers show an off center firing pin strike? Or, did Ruger also engineer a slightly raised firing pin location to compensate for the small elevation of the case above the center line of the cylinder?

    I'm curious how they fixed this, or if they found the original firing pin location still reliably set off primers and let it go at that.

    Dave
    Yes, the chambers were moved outward, a distance of 0.015". ( Fifteen Thousandths of an inch.) My current 7 shot is an early production model, before the fix, so the off center primer strike question doesn't apply. When I get a current production model, that will be something to look at. I doubt they moved the firing pin. If you happen to own a dial caliper, check the thicknesses of various sheets of paper to see how little 0.015" really is. I'd be surprised if they saw a need to move the firing pin.

  9. #9
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Central Wisconsin
    Quote Originally Posted by vtfarmer View Post
    A couple owners gave some cylinder measurements on the new guns for comparison with the early model. Comparing those measurements to my early gun, it appears the cylinder diameter was increased from 1.545" to 1.550". The chambers were moved outwards 0.015", creating more rim space. The between chambers walls went from 0.055" to 0.070" on current production.
    If you give me the cylinder OD, max chamber ID, and thickness between chambers of your current gun, I'll sketch it up in SolidWorks. I'll also use the dimensions you gave for the current production and see what changes.

    Random thoughts:
    I'm finding it hard to believe that they could move the chambers out 0.015" and not have to move the barrel, and I doubt Ruger would move the centerline of the barrel in the existing casting. Of course, making a new wax die for a different casting is easy for Ruger. 0.015" is half a mile in the precision machining world.
    sing

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Central Champlain Valley
    Quote Originally Posted by Toonces View Post
    If you give me the cylinder OD, max chamber ID, and thickness between chambers of your current gun, I'll sketch it up in SolidWorks. I'll also use the dimensions you gave for the current production and see what changes.

    Random thoughts:
    I'm finding it hard to believe that they could move the chambers out 0.015" and not have to move the barrel, and I doubt Ruger would move the centerline of the barrel in the existing casting. Of course, making a new wax die for a different casting is easy for Ruger. 0.015" is half a mile in the precision machining world.
    sing
    The machinists/gunsmiths on the Ruger forum at the time agreed with you. They were adamant that moving the chambers required moving the forcing cone, which meant a redesign of the frame. Since Ruger isn't talking, examination of the two types involved is the only way to get any information. Hence my desire to get one of the current models. On the other hand, the buyers' of the revised model all reported trouble free functioning and accuracy as good as any of their other guns. And that's where it stands at the present time.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •