GP-100

[Petrol & Powder]

The 1989 GP100's the hammer is countersunk on both side; the newer ones I have are not. Also the first GP's don't have a hole in the backstrap to push the trigger plugger in, so its a little painful to push in.

The lack of the hole in the grip frame makes it a little more difficult to push the plunger in to release the trigger group but a punch held at an angle works pretty well, even without that hole.

As for the hammer, I'm suggesting the inverse of that old style that had bosses around the pivot hole. By placing counter sinks around the hole, the shims would become defacto bosses. The counter sink would prevent the shims from sliding out of position when the hammer was inserted into the frame (the counter sink would trap the shim in place until the hammer pin was inserted)
It's a first world problem.....but there you have it .

 

[Brad]

I don’t have shims on mine. Have owned it since 96 or so. Lord knows how many tens of thousands thru it.

 

[dannyd]

Just shimmed the one I got in 1988; made a big different.

 

[CZ93X62]

Again, zero GP-100 experience here--but lots of time-in-grade with the Redhawk and SP-101. I have a Wolfe spring kit for the SP-101, but haven't installed it. Both of my Ruger D/As seem to have smoothed out with sustained usage enough to cause me to leave well enough alone. I have at least 5K rounds through the RH by now, and about half that many through the SP. Are the actions as nice as my late-40s OMT or mid-60s S&W M&P? Not quite, but they are serviceable and usable for me, and that is good enough. Any time I start getting wrapped around the axle over action smoothness or trigger tension, I need to look no further than my 1916 Tula-made Nagant revolver's D/A trigger stroke, which exceeds 20# at least. Yes, things can be MUCH worse if you look to find same.

Same deal with autopistols--the Ruger P-series got scoffed at by the SIG lovers and Glockophiles, but I LOVE my P-89X, and in both its calibers it will shoot right with my P-226 and G-23.

 

[dannyd]

Again, zero GP-100 experience here--but lots of time-in-grade with the Redhawk and SP-101. I have a Wolfe spring kit for the SP-101, but haven't installed it. Both of my Ruger D/As seem to have smoothed out with sustained usage enough to cause me to leave well enough alone. I have at least 5K rounds through the RH by now, and about half that many through the SP. Are the actions as nice as my late-40s OMT or mid-60s S&W M&P? Not quite, but they are serviceable and usable for me, and that is good enough. Any time I start getting wrapped around the axle over action smoothness or trigger tension, I need to look no further than my 1916 Tula-made Nagant revolver's D/A trigger stroke, which exceeds 20# at least. Yes, things can be MUCH worse if you look to find same.

Same deal with autopistols--the Ruger P-series got scoffed at by the SIG lovers and Glockophiles, but I LOVE my P-89X, and in both its calibers it will shoot right with my P-226 and G-23.

You have plenty of GP experience; Sp is just a baby GP the only real difference is the cylinder crane.

All I own are Rugers and Tc's; they are dependable one GP has probably 35,000 rounds on it.

 

[jordanka16]

I just can't get onboard with the GP100. I love Rugers and S&Ws, I own several of each, including a 686 and a Security six. Both are great but the GP100 just feels clunky to me. I have never personally owned one but I have shot several and never been too impressed.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

I just can't get onboard with the GP100. I love Rugers and S&Ws, I own several of each, including a 686 and a Security six. Both are great but the GP100 just feels clunky to me. I have never personally owned one but I have shot several and never been too impressed.

They are a little clunky at first glance. The GP-100 and the L-frame Smiths use the same speedloaders and when you spend a moment to compare the two, it becomes apparent they are nearly the same size in just about every overall dimension. Some of that “clunky” feel comes from the profile of the barrel, which is a bit more angular than the Smiths.

The GP-100 is capable of fine accuracy. It is also seriously strong. The locking crane is reminiscent of the old S&W triple lock. Most of the lock work is rather beefy and it’s nearly impossible to wear one out.

I think a lot of us wished Ruger would make a more svelte version of the GP-100. Maybe something with a half lug barrel and maybe a little less steel in non-essential areas. (sort of like the old Service-Six………..sigh….)

 

[Mainiac]

They are a little clunky at first glance. The GP-100 and the L-frame Smiths use the same speedloaders and when you spend a moment to compare the two, it becomes apparent they are nearly the same size in just about every overall dimension. Some of that “clunky” feel comes from the profile of the barrel, which is a bit more angular than the Smiths.

The GP-100 is capable of fine accuracy. It is also seriously strong. The locking crane is reminiscent of the old S&W triple lock. Most of the lock work is rather beefy and it’s nearly impossible to wear one out.

I think a lot of us wished Ruger would make a more svelte version of the GP-100. Maybe something with a half lug barrel and maybe a little less steel in non-essential areas. (sort of like the old Service-Six………..sigh….)

I finally found one of them lipsey gp100,s....5 inch,and half lug,,it is a very comfy ruger!!

 

[jordanka16]

They are a little clunky at first glance. The GP-100 and the L-frame Smiths use the same speedloaders and when you spend a moment to compare the two, it becomes apparent they are nearly the same size in just about every overall dimension. Some of that “clunky” feel comes from the profile of the barrel, which is a bit more angular than the Smiths.

The GP-100 is capable of fine accuracy. It is also seriously strong. The locking crane is reminiscent of the old S&W triple lock. Most of the lock work is rather beefy and it’s nearly impossible to wear one out.

I think a lot of us wished Ruger would make a more svelte version of the GP-100. Maybe something with a half lug barrel and maybe a little less steel in non-essential areas. (sort of like the old Service-Six………..sigh….)

I definitely wish they would make a smaller one again, the Security Six was perfect and I bet a lot of other people wish they made them again. Honestly I think the only reason they dropped it is to compete with the other 2 80s champions, the Python and 686. But I think the world is past that and they would appreciate a smaller more nimble gun again. The model 69 is good proof of that.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

I definitely wish they would make a smaller one again, the Security Six was perfect and I bet a lot of other people wish they made them again. Honestly I think the only reason they dropped it is to compete with the other 2 80s champions, the Python and 686. But I think the world is past that and they would appreciate a smaller more nimble gun again. The model 69 is good proof of that.

I think Bill Ruger had no intention of competing with himself and wasn’t going to run the Security-Six line and the GP-100 line (although there was a little overlap from 1985 to 1988 when both models were in production). Once the GP-100 line was up and running and the back orders for the Security-Six, Service-Six and Speed-Six were filled, the DA Six series was done. From what I’ve read, Ruger saw the GP-100 and SP101 as the new generation DA revolvers and not the supplements to the DA Six series guns.

I totally agree the GP-100 was the direct competitor of the L-frame Smiths (581, 681, 585 and 686).

I’ve always said the DA Six series guns were the size of a K-frame with the strength of the L-frame. They were designed from the beginning as .357 magnum guns but had external dimensions that were very close to the S&W K-frame models. In fact, a 4” DA Six- series Ruger would generally fit in a 4” S&W K-frame holster.

The GP-100 was the direct competitor to the S&W L-frames and in some areas, may even best it. The front locking crane, the Peg style grip frame, the beefy components, and the non-rotating ejector rod, are all nice features. Not to mention in the 80’s and early 90’s the GP-100 almost always listed for less money when new.

 

[Brad]

Having a GP100 and a 686 in the house I see them as peas in a pod.
Are they a bit beefy? Yes, but I like that with full on mag loads.
I am not using as a carry gun so the extra ounces just don’t matter.

My GP is plenty accurate and I know I will never wear it out

 

[Petrol & Powder]

I've measured the cylinders the L-frames and the GP-100 and the GP-100 is actually a bit thinner (not by much, maybe .030" ?)
I've also weighed two 4" models with similar grips and the GP-100 is slightly lighter (by less than 100 grams)
So YES, they are peas in a pod.

 

[CZ93X62]

I love the L-frame 357s, and I have since they were rolled out 40+ years ago. To me, it is by some distance S&W's best ideation of the 357 Magnum revolver, and one that can be run "All 357, all the time".

But the N-frame 357 Magnum/Model 27 (and Model 28) were no slouches, either. I will NEVER understand why S&W didn't do for the N-357s what they did with the Model 29 and Model 57/58--extend the cylinder length to the full length of the frame window. It could be argued that a cylinder re-design would have been a lot less work than cobbling up a whole new receiver. I guess S&W had thousands of 38/44 Heavy Duty cylinders laying around. Or something.

 

[jordanka16]

I think Bill Ruger had no intention of competing with himself and wasn’t going to run the Security-Six line and the GP-100 line (although there was a little overlap from 1985 to 1988 when both models were in production). Once the GP-100 line was up and running and the back orders for the Security-Six, Service-Six and Speed-Six were filled, the DA Six series was done. From what I’ve read, Ruger saw the GP-100 and SP101 as the new generation DA revolvers and not the supplements to the DA Six series guns.

I totally agree the GP-100 was the direct competitor of the L-frame Smiths (581, 681, 585 and 686).

I’ve always said the DA Six series guns were the size of a K-frame with the strength of the L-frame. They were designed from the beginning as .357 magnum guns but had external dimensions that were very close to the S&W K-frame models. In fact, a 4” DA Six- series Ruger would generally fit in a 4” S&W K-frame holster.

The GP-100 was the direct competitor to the S&W L-frames and in some areas, may even best it. The front locking crane, the Peg style grip frame, the beefy components, and the non-rotating ejector rod, are all nice features. Not to mention in the 80’s and early 90’s the GP-100 almost always listed for less money when new.

For strength I don't doubt a GP100 beats an L frame, not least of which is due to the solid frame and bottom loading components. I am personally not a fan of the peg grip frame, but I have big hands so usually need to add material anyway. My favorite is the round bottom frame, since it kind of gives you the best of both worlds.

The security six is indeed the same size as a k frame, I don't own a K frame 357 but I have a few .38s, and I share holsters and even speed loaders between both.

Perhaps if I ever found one for a great deal I would buy it and try it out, but they tend to cost about the same as an L frame these days. Dealer cost for a new 686+ is only about $40-50 more than a GP100.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

I love the L-frame 357s, and I have since they were rolled out 40+ years ago. To me, it is by some distance S&W's best ideation of the 357 Magnum revolver, and one that can be run "All 357, all the time".

But the N-frame 357 Magnum/Model 27 (and Model 28) were no slouches, either. I will NEVER understand why S&W didn't do for the N-357s what they did with the Model 29 and Model 57/58--extend the cylinder length to the full length of the frame window. It could be argued that a cylinder re-design would have been a lot less work than cobbling up a whole new receiver. I guess S&W had thousands of 38/44 Heavy Duty cylinders laying around. Or something.

I suspect the overal size of the N-frame may have been a drawback. You could lengthen the cylinder a bit but you would still have a huge frame and a cylinder with a lot of extra steel adding unneeded weight. The N-frame .357 magnum guns (models 27 & 28) are incredible guns but they were always bigger than they needed to be.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

For strength I don't doubt a GP100 beats an L frame, not least of which is due to the solid frame and bottom loading components. I am personally not a fan of the peg grip frame, but I have big hands so usually need to add material anyway. My favorite is the round bottom frame, since it kind of gives you the best of both worlds.

The security six is indeed the same size as a k frame, I don't own a K frame 357 but I have a few .38s, and I share holsters and even speed loaders between both.

Perhaps if I ever found one for a great deal I would buy it and try it out, but they tend to cost about the same as an L frame these days. Dealer cost for a new 686+ is only about $40-50 more than a GP100.

Safariland actually makes a specific speedloader for the DA Six's (Security, Service and Speed-Six models). The S&W K-frame cylinders have slightly different spacing between the chambers as compared to the Ruger DA Six's. While the HKS speedloaders will work between the two makes, there is a bit of difference.

And unfortunately, you are correct about the pricing. The days of the GP-100 being less expensive than a 686 are over. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.