GP100 in 45 colt

CraigC said:

So far 3" and 5".

View attachment 770622

Click to expand...

Very nice pair of Ruger's you have.

RealGun said:

The Ruger-only load argument for 45 Colt is not convincing, because someone could as easily put over-SAMMI ammo into a 45 Colt not rated for it. The guns exist, and Bubba has to know what he is doing with them.

Click to expand...

Well it isn't really an argument, it's just an opinion, and I wasn't trying to convince anyone, just share a thought. Yes of course it is up to the end user to use appropriate ammo in any gun. Sorry if I portrayed it as the main reason not to build the gun, as that was not my intent.

The point is that Ruger's reputation is for building long lasting, rugged firearms. While this may not preclude a 45 Colt GP100 in the Ruger Company's eyes, I think it is a fair piece of conjecture that they don't have an interest in building and selling a gun that has potential durability or safety short comings. Would a 45 Colt in a GP100 frame have either concern? Only the engineers know for sure, but based on the dimensions of the cartridge, and the dimensions of a GP100 frame and cylinder, there are obvious potential problems with attempting to build the proposed gun.

I had an old book with a chapter on custom revolvers. Spokhanguns was on the cutting edge. They built a .45 K frame S&W. They concluded it was not a good idea and would not build another.

ASP built some .44 Special Speed Sixes. I bet they would do a .45 GP if they were still in business.

Jim Watson said:

I had an old book with a chapter on custom revolvers. Spokhanguns was on the cutting edge. They built a .45 K frame S&W. They concluded it was not a good idea and would not build another.

ASP built some .44 Special Speed Sixes. I bet they would do a .45 GP if they were still in business.

Click to expand...

The GP100 is far closer to an L-frame than an K-frame in size. The GP100 cylinder is ~1.55 inches in diameter. L-frame is ~1.56 & a K-frame is ~1.45. There is some variability in cylinder OD due to when it was made and exact model/caliber. Interestingly a Taurus Judge (5-shot 45 Colt) cylinder is only ~1.53 inches in diameter. Now a Judge is also only rated to take SAAMI MAP 45 Colt and not the super hot "Ruger Only" loads.

Yes, I know. I only mentioned the old Spokhanguns project as an example of what you can do with plenty of nerve and money.

Be interesting to have the bolt circle numbers and barrel shank diameters for Ruger GP, Smith L, and Judge. Taurus also once made a five shot .45 ACP Stellar Tracker that looked interesting, considering that .45 ACP runs at higher pressure than .45 Colt.

Note: Ruger does not "rate" their guns for "Ruger Only" loads. Does anybody?

Jim Watson said:

Yes, I know. I only mentioned the old Spokhanguns project as an example of what you can do with plenty of nerve and money.

Be interesting to have the bolt circle numbers and barrel shank diameters for Ruger GP, Smith L, and Judge. Taurus also once made a five shot .45 ACP Stellar Tracker that looked interesting, considering that .45 ACP runs at higher pressure than .45 Colt.

Note: Ruger does not "rate" their guns for "Ruger Only" loads. Does anybody?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't quibble about a gun's "rating", since I think we know pretty well what 45 Colt guns can handle over SAMMI spec. 38 Special +p is more debatable, I think. "Ruger-only", which actually includes the T/C Contender, has always been informal, supported by magazine articles by respected writers, an acknowledged list of guns known to handle loads hotter than SAMMI spec and in pretty specific categories.

Sort of beating a dead horse at this point but... that is sort of the point of a forum sometimes.



This is a picture of a loaded cylinder of the new GP100 in 44 Special. Notice that the star has been scalloped to accommodate the larger rim of the 44 Special. The star for the 357 Mag has a round perimeter. Now realize that a 44 Special rim is actually larger (ever so slightly) in diameter than a 45 Colt that has very little rim. 44 Special rim diameter is .514 (-.012) and 45 Colt is .512 (-.012). So there is no problem getting the rim of a 45 Colt in a 5-shot configuration into the GP100.



SameGP100 44 Special cylinder unloaded. Now do we have the wall thickness for a 45 Colt chamber? A 45 Colt chamber is .029 inch larger in diameter than a 44 Special. .457 (+.004) for 44 Special and .486 (+.004) for 45 Colt so we would need to remove ~.0145 inch from the wall (the radius) of a 44 Special chamber all the way around. Subjectively there appears to be plenty of room between the chambers to accommodate this but that wall on the outside of the cylinder is going to get thin. Too thin? We would need some measurements, and some material specs, and some good FEA to be sure.



But if you look at a Taurus Judge cylinder, and those very thin walls, one could certainly be lead to believe that a GP100 in 45 Colt could probably be done if your willing to live within SAAMI MAP pressure. Taurus is very clear that Judges are only made to take SAAMI spec 45 Colt loads. Something most Ruger enthusiast probably are not willing to accept as they love to brag about the Ruger toughness and using Ruger only loads.

I suspect the wall thickness in a GP100 would be a little bit thicker than that of the Judge. It would be really cool if it could take 45 ACP pressures and then cut the cylinder for moonclips so you could run 45 Colt and 45 ACP on moonclips. That would certainly be an interesting gun.

I bet you could get at least a slightly larger cylinder in the window, too.

But if you figure that Ruger owners live for overloads, might be best not to push the design.

I'd rather have a GP100 in 6 shot 10mm cut for moon clips, 5" barrel, standard insert grips, with fixed defensive night sights. Maybe some G10 textured grip inserts, something that nobody seems to make for the GP100 and is very surprising they don't.

You know, while we're dreaming anyway...

Cooldill said:

I'd rather have a GP100 in 6 shot 10mm cut for moon clips, 5" barrel, standard insert grips, with fixed defensive night sights. Maybe some G10 textured grip inserts, something that nobody seems to make for the GP100 and is very surprising they don't.

You know, while we're dreaming anyway...

Click to expand...

Well if you have an extra 357 Magnum GP100 5-inch and some cash burning a hole in your pocket a 10mm Auto GP100 is very achievable.

http://www.clementscustomguns.com/rugerdarevolvers.html

It's not cheap but still probably cheaper than what a S&W 610 is currently going for. I don't have any first hand experience but I have read good things about Clements and the 10mm conversions.

But if we are dreaming I would rather have a S&W 681 (fixed sight L-frame) in 10mm Auto... The S&W 610 should have been a 7-shot...

Good posts mcb. I was waiting for someone to post some pics. It would appear to be possible, however the question remains is it safe...

I'm guessing Ruger kind of regrets the "Ruger only loads" reputation. I'd be willing to bet Ruger engineers have had to shelve ideas only because they know people would be sticking extra hot ammo in a .44 Magnum or .45 Colt GP100 and other similar scenarios.

If that were true, we'd never have seen the New Vaquero or mid-frame .45 convertibles.

Again, there's not enough room in the GP for a .45.

You could probably buy a .44 Special GP100, a single-stage reloading press, dies and components for 500 rounds of ammo for the price of a custom GP100 .45 Colt (if it would even work.) I have trouble understanding why someone wouldn't simply do that instead other than 'cool factor.'

reddog81 said:

I'm guessing Ruger kind of regrets the "Ruger only loads" reputation. I'd be willing to bet Ruger engineers have had to shelve ideas only because they know people would be sticking extra hot ammo in a .44 Magnum or .45 Colt GP100 and other similar scenarios.

Click to expand...

In my opinion, Ruger has actually done a surprisingly bad job about clarifying what guns can take "Ruger only" loads. By using the Vaquero name for the new medium frame .45 Colt revolvers they have created some real confusion about which loads are safe in which guns. I have had several conversations with people who wanted to buy a Vaquero for its ability to tolerate very strong loads. I have explained that there are now two different frame sizes called Vaquero, and only the large frame one is extremely strong. People have given me some pretty surprised looks after this explanation.

I personally think Ruger should have come up with a new name for the medium frame .45 Colt single actions. Based on the naming that they have used, I believe Ruger has a lot of faith that customers understand which loads are safe, possibly to much so.

The heart wants what the heart wants...

I have little doubt a 45 Colt GP100 could be made. The fact that Ruger get 5 rounds of 44 Special (larger rim than 45 Colt) in a GP100 and Taurus gets 5 rounds of 45 Colt in a cylinder ~.020 inch smaller in diameter than a GP100 means there is enough room for 5 rounds of 45 Colt in a GP100 cylinder/frame. (see my previous post with pics)

The problem I suspect is the reputation Ruger has for being able to take "Ruger only" loads and the fact that a GP100 in 45 would be limited to 45 Colt and maybe 45 ACP SAAMI MAP means they would be creating a potential liability nightmare for themselves.

There are a fair number of GP100's in 10mm Auto out there converted by gunsmiths like Clements but when Ruger decides to make a factory double-action 10mm Auto revolver what frame do they use? Super Redhawk. Talk about over kill, a frame with enough room and strength for 6 rounds of fat 480 Ruger (48ksi) gets a 6-shot little-old 10mm Auto (37.5ksi) cylinder...

Risk mitigation made more acute by the "Ruger Only" loads reputation is the reason you won't see a factory 45 Colt GP100 not because it won't fit...

straightshooterjake said:

In my opinion, Ruger has actually done a surprisingly bad job about clarifying what guns can take "Ruger only" loads.

Click to expand...

When you think about it, this doesn't necessarily make sense. Ruger of course thinks about the fact that their guns are built strong enough to take really hot loads, and the reputation that comes with it, but why would they ever imply or advocate for shooting loads that are above SAMMI spec max loads, or hot, or however you want to put it? All they would do is open the door to people pushing the limit, and end up with a bunch of beat up guns to fix.

The ammo companies trying to sell you the hot ammo are the ones that need to check if their loads are safe in particular guns, and inform the consumer accordingly. So if you put a bunch of Buffalo Bore 45 Colt +p stuff in a Taurus Judge and damage the gun or hurt yourself, BB has a legally firm foot to stand on, and can say that they informed the consumer not to use that ammo in that model gun. They limit their liability by doing so.

A gun company stating that "Ruger Only" loads can be shot in their gun invites liability. "Ruger Only" is also not a defined term, and that grey area would likely leave the company open to lawsuits. Without a clear definition, how would a Judge interpret that?

I agree with you about the reputation of Ruger for building guns that will tolerate hot loads, and it is undoubtedly something they contemplate in design and marketing, but I'd be really surprised if they ever came out and said shooting "Ruger Only" loads in their guns was ok. This will, IMO, always be something that they discuss behind closed doors.

The most I've ever seen in a gun manufacturers instruction manual is to state that loads above SAAMI spec are safe on a limited basis, but will accelerate the wear on a gun, and possibly shorten its service life.

I would like to see a 7-shot, 4" Redhawk in 10mm....It's feasible...I'm looking at you Ruger...

Ruger has never even acknowledged the existence or use of "Ruger only" loads and never will for liability reasons. So you will never hear from Ruger which guns are safe for them and which are not, ever, period. As usual and as it should be, it is up to the end user to KNOW what he has and what it is capable of.

All that said, why the hell does everybody want a GP in .45Colt??? The .44Spl is more capable and is a better fit for the platform. Personally, I think the .45Colt fetish is because people are just enamored with the big, fat case. Not because it actually does anything spectacular, because it doesn't.

mcb said:

I have little doubt a 45 Colt GP100 could be made.

Click to expand...

Well, some think and some know. Some of us have been having custom revolvers built for 20yrs, along with keeping track of dozens of others and having hundreds of conversations with the men who build them. I don't know how to be more clear than, IT DOESN'T FIT! We're lucky there's a .44Spl version at all.

mcb said:

There are a fair number of GP100's in 10mm Auto out there converted by gunsmiths like Clements...

Click to expand...

Ruger is not a custom gunsmith. Ruger is not hand-fitting each gun one at a time. What is possible with a custom gun and what is possible with a mass-produced factory gun is often two different things.

CraigC said:

{snip}
Well, some think and some know. Some of us have been having custom revolvers built for 20yrs, along with keeping track of dozens of others and having hundreds of conversations with the men who build them. I don't know how to be more clear than, IT DOESN'T FIT! We're lucky there's a .44Spl version at all.

Ruger is not a custom gunsmith. Ruger is not hand-fitting each gun one at a time. What is possible with a custom gun and what is possible with a mass-produced factory gun is often two different things.

Click to expand...

This is all just a hypothetical discussion at this point as I think we are all, to some degree, in agreement that Ruger ain't very likely to make a 45 Colt GP100.

That said I am sure a five shot 45 Colt cylinder could be made for a GP100, dimensions are dimensions. Maybe you're right, they could never mass produce it, but if Taurus can mass produce a five shot 45 Colt/410 in a Revolver platform with 1.53 inch diameter cylinder I don't see why Ruger could not do it in a Revolver platform with a 1.55 inch diameter cylinder. What am I missing?

mcb said:

That said I am sure a five shot 45 Colt cylinder could be made for a GP100, dimensions are dimensions. Maybe you're right, they could never mass produce it, but if Taurus can mass produce a five shot 45 Colt/410 in a Revolver platform with 1.53 inch diameter cylinder I don't see why Ruger could not do it in a Revolver platform with a 1.55 inch diameter cylinder. What am I missing?

Click to expand...

Not a thing, from my perspective. There's no doubt what's motivating them to not offer this combination - that Taurus pic is kind of unnerving to me. Imagine the first time somebody got their new Ruger, looked at the cylinder, and saw that.. An additional .010" of beef wouldn't change the impression at all. The GP100 family itself was created to eclipse the ruggedness of the Security Six and K-frame, after all.

CraigC said:

All that said, why the hell does everybody want a GP in .45Colt??? The .44Spl is more capable and is a better fit for the platform.

Click to expand...

Well, yes. Some old guy name of Elmer demonstrated that to my satisfaction about 80 years ago.
But as MCB says, some folks want what they want and are insulted when they don't get it. And cheaply, too.

mcb said:

There are a fair number of GP100's in 10mm Auto out there converted by gunsmiths like Clements...

Click to expand...

Ruger is not a custom gunsmith. Ruger is not hand-fitting each gun one at a time. What is possible with a custom gun and what is possible with a mass-produced factory gun is often two different things.

mcb said:

This is all just a hypothetical discussion at this point as I think we are all, to some degree, in agreement that Ruger ain't very likely to make a 45 Colt GP100.

That said I am sure a five shot 45 Colt cylinder could be made for a GP100, dimensions are dimensions. Maybe you're right, they could never mass produce it, but if Taurus can mass produce a five shot 45 Colt/410 in a Revolver platform with 1.53 inch diameter cylinder I don't see why Ruger could not do it in a Revolver platform with a 1.55 inch diameter cylinder. What am I missing?

Click to expand...

So I guess you know better than all the gunsmiths who actually build these guns??? The diameter of the cylinder and distance between the chambers is not the only important factor. The outer chamber walls on the .44Spl are already thinner than a Colt SAA .45. Another limiting factor here is making it work around the ejector.

CraigC said:

Ruger is not a custom gunsmith. Ruger is not hand-fitting each gun one at a time. What is possible with a custom gun and what is possible with a mass-produced factory gun is often two different things.



So I guess you know better than all the gunsmiths who actually build these guns??? The diameter of the cylinder and distance between the chambers is not the only important factor. The outer chamber walls on the .44Spl are already thinner than a Colt SAA .45. Another limiting factor here is making it work around the ejector.

Click to expand...

Please don't take this personal, I thoroughly enjoy a good what if discussion and the more technical and data driven the better. As far as me knowing "better than all the gunsmiths", it's the internet so I am like Schrodinger's cat. I am both a snotty nosed high school kid that failed HS physics and a PhD Mechanical Engineer working for a major firearms manufacture ,and you can't know, and I can't prove which, if either... Let stick to what technical facts we can share and confirm and leave unverifiable personal credentials out of it.

All I have to work with is what I have already shared in my previous posts. I don't currently have access to a GP 100 (I'm a S&W guy), but from the information I have scrounged and inferred from the internet I think a 45 Colt GP100 is very likely possible (as explained in the earlier posts). If we did have access to a GP100 44 Special and a few minutes with some calibers we could get the data we need. The big missing dimension is what is the bolt hole circle diameter for the 44 Special's chambers. It would also be good to confirm that the OD of the cylinder is in fact 1.550 inch, as that number was found on the internet. From those two numbers it would be easy to get the wall thickness between chambers and between a chamber and the OD of a hypothetical 45 Colt cylinder. From that its a case of basic strength of materials to see if it would actually withstand the stresses put on it by firing. That would be accurate enough to say, "Hey, it might very well really work!" or " Whoa grenade impersonation coming up!"

So does anyone have a GP100 44 Special and a pair of calipers?

If Ruger says no and the gunsmiths who build such things say no, who are you to say "a 45 Colt GP100 is very likely possible"??? In fact, I know of only three gunsmiths who build custom cylinders for DA's. One is the aforementioned Clements, who likely no longer does such work at all and won't do a .45 GP; another is Bowen, who does not do GP's at all and the other is Jack Huntington. If you can convince Jack to take at least 2000 of your dollars and build one with an oversized cylinder, IF you can get a barrel rebore done, it still won't be as capable as the factory .44Spl.

The K-frames mentioned above had ZERO safety margin and you won't find a gunsmith today that will build such a thing. Manufacturers certainly aren't comfortable in doing so.

mcb said:

Let stick to what technical facts we can share and confirm and leave unverifiable personal credentials out of it.

Click to expand...

Some people are obviously more qualified to comment on this than others.