New gun as mentioned in my post above.
No word on what may or may not have been wrong with the original.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Printable View
While I'm sure most members of this board are loading their own ammo there's something to be said for being able to walk into Wal-Mart and pick up a box or two of factory stuff.
I do understand the desire for more versatility. This will be the biggest drawback to the Ruger vs the S&W. Both are similar in size and weight so I bet the S&W will be the better seller.
As I think I have mentioned here previously I think Ruger probably should have made the GP in 44mag. Who knows? Maybe that was the initial intent but they discovered the design wasn't strong enough to take a regular diet of magnum ammo. Or maybe they'll make a magnum later depending on sales and customer feedback.
I still say the best approach would have been a medium frame LCR in Special. That's what I want.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
would the cylinder be long enough for 44 mag? I don't own a 44mag so i am not sure. If they would need to go with a bigger cylinder (longer or fatter) it would mean a different (but very similar) frame. And that would be very expensive to do. Still worth it I think. :)
so probably a bit short...
Probably depending on how they marketed it.
I suppose it would be possible to lengthen the cylinder and then use a modified frame, yoke, etc to cram the longer cylinder in. But additional changes and unique parts means additional cost passed on to the consumer.
Would the gun sell or would most consumers just get the snubbie Redhawk?
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
ya, thats what I mean, a lot of expensive changes.
Guys this gun was designed to fill the vacancy left by the demise of the S&W696. It is easily strong enough to take the Magnums pressures but wasn't meant to compete with the S&W M69.
The OAL for factory .44 mags is 1.610 but virtually any SWC boolit will go longer. My standard Keith Boolits come out 1.660 when crimped in the groove and they feed just fine in my Marlin 1894 which is only supposed to feed up to 1.610. however in this revolver if the boolits start to jump crimp it would tie up the cylinder immediately. So without major changes it ain't gonna happen. Also they already have a 4" barreled Redhawk so why would they make a 3" barreled 5 shot version of that gun?
Where I'm at on this, is that since I can't seem to get much in the way of concrete information or empirical results due to too much missing data, I'm gonna just call this one good and just defer to the companies judgment on what they consider acceptable to ship.
I personally wouldn't care if it shot any Factory Load or not since mine would never get any. All .44 Special Factory Ammo is expensive!, so I wouldn't use it. I realize some may not think that way,,, and if that's the case then maybe these guns aren't for you.
But no gun will shoot everything well, and absent some complete load data nobody here can make any definitive comments about the accuracy of these guns.
You can buy really nice brass from Starline and I have 300 unloaded cases and 200 more that have been shot only a few times, and you can also buy about 1500 different moulds for this caliber and if they come out too small you can PC them and make'em bigger. So for someone who hand loads this shouldn't be a problem.
What I will say is that Ruger got that gun back to him in less than one week which is pretty damn good company support.
I'm off to Las Vegas tomorrow and I will report back with information directly from the horses mouth when I get back.
Randy
To the OP:
"I still say the best approach would have been a medium frame LCR in Special. That's what I want. "
I agree with you on that. I have always wanted a small to medium frame revolver in 44 SPL. Something along the lines of the old S&W 696 or Taurus 431.
But I live in California so my options are limited. I finally settled on a new Charter Arms Bulldog in 44 Spl. Obviously it is not a S&W but for the money I am getting my 44 Spl fix in a easy to carry revolver.
I don't own or reload for 44 Mag. In fact, I have never owned one. I am a 357 Mag fanatic. But the Ruger caught my attention right away. Unfortunately it is not on the CA approved list so it is a moot point for me.
I wish you luck with your GP100.
You need to read a little deeper between the lines here, there is too much missing data to adequately and fairly develop any real impressions on these guns. The technical information that I am seeing in this thread is simply too nebulous. Nothing more than flyers and poor measurements on the negative side,,, and closer groups when flyers are discarded, and calipers are tightened up to the centers of holes on the positive side. Look at the targets a little closer. They actually look pretty good.
sqhart, yes,,, these guns aren't on the list in CA yet anyway so your Bulldog was probably a good thing. I'm gonna ask Ruger about that problem too.
However now I think about it, there probably isn't going to be any new guns put on that list, because no new guns can do the Micro Stamping BS that Arnold signed before he left. That is now a requirement for all handguns.
Randy
I have just taken the time to read this thread in it's entirety. My conclusion: I'm glad I have my S&W 696.
Also, I'm glad that all my Ruger guns are at least 15-20 years old or have been customized w/new cylinders & bbls.or have been reamed by Doug. The main benefit to me is no leading. I can't shoot well enough to confirm increased accuracy but prefer to believe that these guns are accurate.
My son's/grandson's are going to inherit some nice handguns someday.
I should also state that I am not picking on Ruger for perceived quality issues. In the last few years I have returned two new S&W's for QA problems as well as one new CZ75 and one new Ruger. And the Ruger was a Wiley Clapp special edition.
No, my choices hinge on what is readily available to me.
I hope the OP gets this resolved. My Ruger Vaquero circa 1993 is a beautiful, well built and accurate gun.
All you have to do is look how thin the cylinder walls are on it. I wouldn't want to take that cylinder and chamber it for a cartridge with well over 2 times the max pressure of the .44 special. I like this GP100 .44spec fine but it should have a 4" barrel IMO. I don't know what Rugers deal is with such short barrels on revolvers lately. They did it again with the 8 shot Redhawk they are coming out with, another dinky little 3" barrel on a full size magnum revolver.
This new GP100 does seem to be a conglomeration of competing ideas. Why Ruger chose the shorter barrel combined with the Hogue target grip does seem to send mixed signals. Adjustable sights and unfluted cylinder also seem to be somewhat contradictory. Was Ruger’s intention to make a heavy-duty hunting handgun? Were they trying to make a big bore concealer for those who prefer a revolver for such uses? Were they wanting to make a handgun that's a direct competitor to the M69 or were they trying to fill a void in the current market?
I personally like the 3in barrel. I find it to be a good length for packing in an IWB holster. With the change from the Hoque to the factory compact grip the gun rides fairly comfortably under a shirt or light jacket. The short barrel and compact grip makes for a sort of "Glock 19 sized" package. One that conceals and carries nicely yet is still big enough to shoot comfortably even with hotter loads.
I can also see a good case for adjustable sights. There's a good amount of disparity in 44SPL ammo. Factory loads range from 165gr on up to 240+ in weight. Same with the fiber optic. It works well in good sunlight and will work fine for hunting as well as target shooting.
It would seem to me the gun isn't designed to fit any one particular role but rather be a gun that can be used for most purposes without being tied into one corner of the market. It is just a good "general purpose" firearm. Does that assessment make sense?
The weather here is clearing nicely so I should be able to hit the range this afternoon for a bit more shooting.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Well finally got time to shoot mine. Cast some 240 gr Full Wad-cutters and loaded them over 6.5 grains of Unique. First up was 30 rounds of firelappers loaded down. That went ok so I fired 50 of the wad-cutters and everything went real well. it's 25 degrees with a breeze but at 20 yards I could hold everything in a 6" circle. I love it!
Here are a few more targets.
The gun really likes 180XTP with 8.5gr of Unique. It also really likes the 200gr Gold Dot with 5.9gr of Red Dot. Surprisingly it also likes the Underwood Bulldog load.
Bulldog load
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...f4b6b103d9.jpg
5.9 Red Dot
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...c2b374cd2b.jpg
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Just for grins I loaded a handful of Gold Dots with 5.9gr of Red Dot and another handful with 8.5gr of Unique. As can be seen above the Red Dot load shot well. It is mild and not too flashy. I should chronograph it as it might be a good carry load.
The load with Unique had four rounds fairly close together and then one way up above the bullseye. It wasn't a keyhole but it looked somewhat egg shaped. This and the fact that the Underwood Bulldog load shot okay really do seem to indicate that the Gold Dot doesn't like speed and short barrels.
Here's the hotter load of Unique with the Gold Dot. Please note that I used this target with the Red Dot load too.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...6e86542495.jpg
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
This is what the GP100/44 was made to compete with,( SEE Pics below) however this is no longer made and it's S&W replacement is different. The S&W 696 was designed as a Potent Field Carry Gun, to be on you when you are in the field. It also could double as a Potent Defensive Carry gun and even though it is considerably heavier than a CA Bulldog with the right holster it is comfortable to carry. Note; the similarity between the gun made by different manufacturers, they are essentially identical in form and function. I might add that the GP100/44 weighs the same 36 oz. as the S&W696.
Also note my Mernickle Carry Rig and disregard my Fat ****!
The GP100/44 was not designed to complete directly with the S&W M69 even though they are similar. The M69 is a .44 Magnum and the GP100/44 is .44 Special which can easily be loaded up to 90% of Factory .44 Magnum Power, which is generally considered not needed for the vast majority of Personal Defense or Hunting Applications. I have said this so many times I am blue, but a 250gr .44 cal SWC will go clean thru an elk in any direction at 900 fps. Anything more just drives the boolit deeper in the dirt on the off side. 900 fps is easily obtainable by the .44 Special, so for it's intended purposes, the GP100/44 is just about a perfect combination of power versus carryability. It is a lighter version of the Ruger Red Hawk, or SRH Alaskan, but still able to deliver a lethal blow to just about anything it is pointed at.
This is what the S&W 696 was originally conceived as, but they had one problem with the gun that they failed to address. That was the Small Barrel Spigot necessary due to the size threads on L framed guns that they used on the barrels. This led to cracked forcing cones if HV Jacketed bullets were fired into leaded forcing cones. The M69 design was altered to correct this problem, but then they expanded the frame to swallow the .44 Magnum cartridge and attached a 4" bbl. thus changing the character of the gun permanently.
Understand the fact that the GP100/44 is what it is. And what it is,,, is a S&W696 made by Ruger.
As far as the perceived accuracy of these guns I have hit a 200 meter Ram with my 696 so it is accurate enough for me. YMMV. I will report back as to the topics of discussion with the Ruger guys at the show.
Randy