Ultimate long term durability revolver

[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.ph...ct_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?