GP100 in 45 colt

[DPris]

Incessantly fueling an argument for a .45 GP that will not happen is not "discussion", it's obsession.
It doesn't matter what numbers you crunch yourself or what Taurus has done.

It simply will not be done by Ruger.
This has reached the same level as the obsession displayed by the "But....Colt COULD build a Python again, I just know it, I feel it in my bones, why won't they, PLEASE Colt- build me a Python because I do truly want it so badly" people.

Colt can't make a Python profitable.
Ruger can't make a .45 GP profitable.
Buying new frame molds, adapting CNC programs, doing the necessary R&D to create what would be a new GP frame, all for a very low number of people who'd actually buy the result, would not be worth the effort.
Denis

 

[wildcatter109]

My mistake carry on, I think it will be a fine project,,

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.

That is exactly why it would not work, nobody buy's a Ruger to settle for the quality of a Taurus, or to tip toe through the loading process on eggshells. Ruger in their history has never built any gun, pistol, revolver, single shot, auto, bolt you name it, in any caliber, that is even close to the ragged edge for safety. That is exactly what this would be if it was ever attempted with a massive amount of machining and cost. There are far to many manufacturers out there that do that and are inferior to them, they are not about to change for this. They make far to many other revolvers that are superior to most other manufacturers 45 colts out their. So again, it's on you if you want it, cause even a shade tree gunsmith that is smart enough to get out of bed in the morning on his own is not going to risk a liability lawsuit on a such a weak build.

That is what the you are trying to do is argue an inferior build that would be useless, and for mthe most part unusable for anything more than a few rounds,, if that. The other thing you should check to verify what your being told is the thread diameter of the barrel and the width of the frame. I wouldn't own a Judge so I can't check it, my money says it is wider than the ruger, giving it room for a larger OD thread for the barrel to accommodate a larger barrel in the frame opening, giving more meat to allow some sort of forcing cone.

If it is just wanting to say you can do it,, ok it may be possible, but if you are wanting to use it,, that I assure is not possible,, but it could make a nice conversation piece, and a true safe queen.

Even if they did do what Denis is mentioning, it would no longer be a GP 100, a new mold and frame would make it a GP 101, and that could someday happen, but I doubt it. Like I say far to many build a fragile 45 Colt know, why would Ruger want to go to alkl that trouble to build another average gun?

 

[captain awesome]

I'm all about making dreams come true and have several custom guns in mind that may seem silly to some but there comes a point where you have to decide that the costs and effort cannot be justified when something more useful is already available.

i would be very interested to read about some of these "silly"
ideas you have. I have several myself, that will probably never come to be a reality. i tend to like the more unusual things. most of my friends dont understand why, but i enjoy outshooting them when they are using their normal AR15s, and glocks and such, and i am using my "460-whatever" and "68 weirdo round" among others.

 

[mcb]

My mistake carry on, I think it will be a fine project,,

That is exactly why it would not work, nobody buy's a Ruger to settle for the quality of a Taurus, or to tip toe through the loading process on eggshells. Ruger in their history has never built any gun, pistol, revolver, single shot, auto, bolt you name it, in any caliber, that is even close to the ragged edge for safety. That is exactly what this would be if it was ever attempted with a massive amount of machining and cost. There are far to many manufacturers out there that do that and are inferior to them, they are not about to change for this. They make far to many other revolvers that are superior to most other manufacturers 45 colts out their. So again, it's on you if you want it, cause even a shade tree gunsmith that is smart enough to get out of bed in the morning on his own is not going to risk a liability lawsuit on a such a weak build.

That is what the you are trying to do is argue an inferior build that would be useless, and for mthe most part unusable for anything more than a few rounds,, if that. The other thing you should check to verify what your being told is the thread diameter of the barrel and the width of the frame. I wouldn't own a Judge so I can't check it, my money says it is wider than the ruger, giving it room for a larger OD thread for the barrel to accommodate a larger barrel in the frame opening, giving more meat to allow some sort of forcing cone.

If it is just wanting to say you can do it,, ok it may be possible, but if you are wanting to use it,, that I assure is not possible,, but it could make a nice conversation piece, and a true safe queen.

Even if they did do what Denis is mentioning, it would no longer be a GP 100, a new mold and frame would make it a GP 101, and that could someday happen, but I doubt it. Like I say far to many build a fragile 45 Colt know, why would Ruger want to go to alkl that trouble to build another average gun?

I don't believe I have argued that Ruger would or should do it. I have simply argued that it is possible, there is room in a GP100 frame and cylinder to do 5-shot 45 Colt. It would be possible to do it safely within SAAMI MAP loads pretty easily if for no other reason that there is more cylinder/frame room/material than a Taurus Judge (along with the other data shared on the third page). Yes the barrel shank might need address but that also could be enlarged as there is plenty of strength and material in the frame to allow for a minor increase in barrel shank diameter that might be needed. We could do Ruger Only loads if we want to step into the world of more exotic materials I mentioned earlier but that would drive costs up appreciably but since it would be a custom gun what does price matter.

 

[CraigC]

And yet Taurus has managed to get 5rds of 45 Colt into a revolver with a cylinder that is ~.020 inch smaller in diameter than a GP100.

A GP is not a Taurus. The GP was designed for the .357Mag cartridge.

Asking a gun smiths if it is possible to make a 45 Colt GP100 is sort of like asking the local mechanic to design a new engine for your car. Sure he might be able to drop that 500hp V-8 crate engine into your V-6 Camaro but if you ask him to redesign that engine to lighten it by 30% without a loss of HP you have sort of step outside of his expertise. It might actually take some real engineering and some R&D to make a GP100 in 45 Colt to work rather than just a gun smith mismatching and/or modifying parts.

So you don't think the guys who have built five-shot GP's (mind you, with oversized cylinders and enlarged frame windows) might know more than you about this subject? Your comments add up to indicate that you really don't have a clue what you're talking about. With regards to the firearms' design or the work of custom gunsmiths.

“Science is the Belief in the Ignorance of Experts” — Richard Feynman.

Now that right there is comical......and ironical.

We could do Ruger Only loads if we want to step into the world of more exotic materials I mentioned earlier but that would drive costs up appreciably but since it would be a custom gun what does price matter.

An interesting theory that has little basis in reality.

 

[mcb]

A GP is not a Taurus. The GP was designed for the .357Mag cartridge.

And yet even Ruger has put 327 Mag, and 44 Special in it. Along with adding a 7th round of 357 magnum to the orginal 6-shot version... Third parties have done 10mm Auto. Why not stretch it a bit with 45 Colt...

So you don't think the guys who have built five-shot GP's (mind you, with oversized cylinders and enlarged frame windows) might know more than you about this subject? Your comments add up to indicate that you really don't have a clue what you're talking about. With regards to the firearms' design or the work of custom gunsmiths.

Not going to argue unprovable credentials with you... You would believe mine at this point even if I told you...

Now that right there is comical......and ironical.

Yes it is...

An interesting theory that has little basis in reality.

What part of Aermet and similar and similar martensitic alloy steels is not reality? Although these alloys original create as a specialized tool steel and super alloy for the aerospace industry these alloys are already being used by some firearms manufactures for high stress parts. It is very much a real material who material properties are easily verified.

 

[CraigC]

i would be very interested to read about some of these "silly"
ideas you have. I have several myself, that will probably never come to be a reality. i tend to like the more unusual things. most of my friends dont understand why, but i enjoy outshooting them when they are using their normal AR15s, and glocks and such, and i am using my "460-whatever" and "68 weirdo round" among others.

Back to reality, I have several ideas for guns and chamberings that are somewhat interchangeable. I've long wanted a .38-40 convertible with an extra cylinder chambered in a resurrected .401PowerMag. Or whatever we end up with after running .41Mag brass through a 10mm carbide sizer, which may be a little longer than the .401. Possible base guns started with the Old Model Blackhawk .357 but since the demise of USFA I've also thought about building one on a Uberti. We've discussed converting a flat-top target to the Bisley configuration, which will require welding up the ears of the receiver and we've also discussed converting a factory Bisley to a flat-top or perhaps a dovetail Single Six type arrangement, which will also require welding. Also want to do a flat-top target .44Spl, which may get an 1860 grip frame and banded barrel like some of the Croft guns. Right now I have a Ruger Bisley .22 in the shop that will probably get a linebored cylinder, heavy barrel, case colored finish and walnut grips. Was going to build a .327 off a blued .32 Bisley but it looks like a factory version is on the way. So the .32 may have to become a .38Spl or something else, maybe a .25Flea. Probably the first will be a basic Old Model .357 converted to a 4", roundbutted .45ACP.

 

[CraigC]

Not going to argue unprovable credentials with you... You would believe mine at this point even if I told you...

Doesn't matter, your credibility is already established. We've established that you don't really know what you're talking about but know more about the subject than the gunsmiths who have actually done the work.

I'll stick to the word of the pros who actually know, rather than the theorists who think they know.

 

[mcb]

Doesn't matter, your credibility is already established. We've established that you don't really know what you're talking about but know more about the subject than the gunsmiths who have actually done the work.

I'll stick to the word of the pros who actually know, rather than the theorists who think they know.

View attachment 771221

Fair enough...

 

[RugRev]

Just some data:

Cyl Dia Frame Width
Taurus Med Frame 1.535" 0.77"
GP 1.557" 0.83"
S&W 69 1.56" 0.885"
Six Series 1.50" 0.80"

At one time some gunsmiths converted K frames and Sixes to fire .44 Special but as I recall one could only fire moderate loads in them. As noted above Ruger wants to allow
for way over standard load pressures. But more interestingly is that Taurus no longer makes the .45 caliber Trackers. Either they did not stand up or there was not a sufficient
market for them. I would think any design labor costs in Brazil would also be substantially less if indeed Taurus did devote much effort in the design of the .45 caliber Trackers.
As to creating a 7 shot .357 GP there really was no reason to not do this in the sense given the dimensions of the gun and the fact it was already engineered for .357 as the
dimensions are very similar to the L series guns.

 

[Monster Zero]

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...

Hey... check out the new GP-100 seven shooter in .357, in your choice of barrel lengths. I just might run out and buy one with a 2.5" barrel, a couple boxes of Winchester "white box" practice ammo and a box of Golden Sabers. Looks like fun...

 

[Panzerschwein]

Hey... check out the new GP-100 seven shooter in .357, in your choice of barrel lengths. I just might run out and buy one with a 2.5" barrel, a couple boxes of Winchester "white box" practice ammo and a box of Golden Sabers. Looks like fun...

No thanks.

 

[wildcatter109]

7 shot 357 just aint my cup of tea, I would own one if ruger would just make 7.5" barrel non fluted cylinder, in a hunter model with ful under lug and rib for Ruger Rings,,, I think it would make a nice Varmint gun. But if I ever buy another in any configuration, it will be a 6 shot,, and either in 327 federal, or 357 mag. If I want a serious big bore handgun, mine will stay in a big bore frame. Preferably single action!

 

[mcb]

Just some data:

Cyl Dia Frame Width
Taurus Med Frame 1.535" 0.77"
GP 1.557" 0.83"
S&W 69 1.56" 0.885"
Six Series 1.50" 0.80"

At one time some gunsmiths converted K frames and Sixes to fire .44 Special but as I recall one could only fire moderate loads in them. As noted above Ruger wants to allow
for way over standard load pressures. But more interestingly is that Taurus no longer makes the .45 caliber Trackers. Either they did not stand up or there was not a sufficient
market for them. I would think any design labor costs in Brazil would also be substantially less if indeed Taurus did devote much effort in the design of the .45 caliber Trackers.
As to creating a 7 shot .357 GP there really was no reason to not do this in the sense given the dimensions of the gun and the fact it was already engineered for .357 as the
dimensions are very similar to the L series guns.

I suspect the 45 Tracker probably fell victim to the Judge Craze. Despite its dubious usefulness the Judge in all it variations has to be one of the hottest things to hit the revolver market in years, maybe decades. It would be interesting to know what percentage of Taurus' revolver production capabilities is being use to produce Judge variations compared to their other revolver offerings?

 

[Varminterror]

Fair enough...

View attachment 771244

Build it then. Spend the money, apply your engineering talents, and build it. It's not so hard, if this is your evidence, so why banter and bicker, just build it and brag on it when it's done?

 

[strangelittleman]

 

[RealGun]

Incessantly fueling an argument for a .45 GP that will not happen is not "discussion", it's obsession.
It doesn't matter what numbers you crunch yourself or what Taurus has done.

It simply will not be done by Ruger.
This has reached the same level as the obsession displayed by the "But....Colt COULD build a Python again, I just know it, I feel it in my bones, why won't they, PLEASE Colt- build me a Python because I do truly want it so badly" people.

Colt can't make a Python profitable.
Ruger can't make a .45 GP profitable.
Buying new frame molds, adapting CNC programs, doing the necessary R&D to create what would be a new GP frame, all for a very low number of people who'd actually buy the result, would not be worth the effort.
Denis

Attempts to strong arm the discussion into silence aside, Ruger does need a new platform that handles larger bullets and longer, higher pressure cartridges without resorting to a massive Redhawk. S&W did it with the 69, although not necessarily 45 Colt but simply bigger than 357 Magnum.

 

[<*(((><]

Well, I for one appreciate the contributions @mcb has made to this thread, at least he's attempting, thinking and striving and doing so without demeaning others abilities and desires. And I can appreciate the first time that many others have said they've talked to renowned gunsmiths who said it can't be done and why, but after that their parroting of the same gets old.

I'm glad that all the scientists, engineers, and physicians, don't stop at it can't be done in this country. I never thought I would be carrying a phone that is exponentially more powerful than a room full of computers was back in the 60's. Technology changes, materials change, manufacturing changes, some peoples ideas don't.

 

[ATLDave]

mcb, I think you and CraigC may be talking past one another. You are speaking in terms of what is literally possible in terms of technology/materials science available somewhere in society today. CraigC is talking about what is physically feasible within the existing infrastructure for firearms production and modification.

I suspect you are coming from an aerospace background where producing a single component that costs $15,000 is acceptable, if that tiny component makes it possible to get to the moon. Or $15 million, for that matter, if it's the difference between success and a launch pad explosion. That's not the world of consumer firearms, though, nor even custom firearms.

I find it perfectly plausible that a gun shaped very much like a GP-100, and perhaps even capable of using some of the lockwork and other non-heavily-loaded components of a GP, could be made to accept and fire .45 Colt rounds. But that probably couldn't be done with materials that firearms makers know how to work with, nor with existing equipment. At least not while providing the kind of safety margin that Ruger has always provided.

I suspect a .45 Colt GP-100 is possible in the way that a hypersonic passenger airliner is currently possible. But perhaps only slightly more feasible.

 

[mcb]

mcb, I think you and CraigC may be talking past one another. You are speaking in terms of what is literally possible in terms of technology/materials science available somewhere in society today. CraigC is talking about what is physically feasible within the existing infrastructure for firearms production and modification.

I suspect you are coming from an aerospace background where producing a single component that costs $15,000 is acceptable, if that tiny component makes it possible to get to the moon. Or $15 million, for that matter, if it's the difference between success and a launch pad explosion. That's not the world of consumer firearms, though, nor even custom firearms.

I find it perfectly plausible that a gun shaped very much like a GP-100, and perhaps even capable of using some of the lockwork and other non-heavily-loaded components of a GP, could be made to accept and fire .45 Colt rounds. But that probably couldn't be done with materials that firearms makers know how to work with, nor with existing equipment. At least not while providing the kind of safety margin that Ruger has always provided.

I suspect a .45 Colt GP-100 is possible in the way that a hypersonic passenger airliner is currently possible. But perhaps only slightly more feasible.

I agree with you ALTDave, CraigC and I have been speak past each other for most of the thread unfortunately. I think your assessment of our points of view is also accurate.

My only caveat is that the materials like Aermet I mentioned are being used in the firearms industry. Admittedly in very limited areas but the industry uses those super alloys when its needed, mostly small high stress parts (like extractors in semi-autos). The material is expensive and moderately harder to work with (ie machine and heat treat) but it is within the firearm industries capabilities if not within the markets capabilities to afford its use beyond a very few small high stress parts.

 

[CraigC]

mcb, I think you and CraigC may be talking past one another. You are speaking in terms of what is literally possible in terms of technology/materials science available somewhere in society today. CraigC is talking about what is physically feasible within the existing infrastructure for firearms production and modification.

I think that's accurate. I don't argue about hypothetical nonsense. What 'can' be done given a set of circumstances that do not already exist does not interest me. I see this as nothing but mental masturbation, something that will never bear fruit. A discussion for teenagers, not unlike arguing about Lamborghini's and Ferrari's. What does interest me and what I will comment on with an informed opinion, is what is imminently possible. It seems to me that some are under the impression that these gunsmiths are die hard sticks in the mud whose mind is already made up. Nothing could be further from the truth. Jack Huntington in particular loves a challenge and hates to say "no". So when that happens, it really does mean something.

I find it perfectly plausible that a gun shaped very much like a GP-100, and perhaps even capable of using some of the lockwork and other non-heavily-loaded components of a GP, could be made to accept and fire .45 Colt rounds. But that probably couldn't be done with materials that firearms makers know how to work with, nor with existing equipment. At least not while providing the kind of safety margin that Ruger has always provided.

I agree. You can enlarge the barrel shank, move the chambers around or slightly enlarge the whole gun but then you no longer have a GP-100. You can also utilize exotic alloys (like Ruger already does with Carpenter 465) that are expensive and difficult to machine but what would be the point? You've gone to a lot of trouble and expense to build something that is LESS capable than what you already catalog, that will appeal to a dozen people. Everybody else will complain because it costs more and only holds five rounds.

This is just another example of how irrational .45Colt fandom can be.

 

[ATLDave]

Some people like to talk about how to properly inflate tires for optimal fuel milage. Others would rather talk about how humanity might travel at near-relativistic speeds without breaking known laws of physics. Both are perfectly valid discussions... as long as everyone involved knows which is which. When you have dudes trying to make fusion engines in their basements, however....

As I said above, you're interested in talking about what is feasible. When it comes to firearms, that's generally my bent as well. If we're going to talk about the outer limits of humanity's technical capacity, there are more interesting topics than getting an extra .021 inch of frontal area on a handgun round out of a big-but-not-huge revolver. But there's no "wrong" preference in terms of what one likes to discuss.

 

[RugRev]

I think ultimately the situation resolves to whether Ruger with a redesign, modification or whatever to make a GP "type" gun for the .45 caliber could make a satisfactory profit on the investment involved. I do not see a market for a 5 shot .45 that would fire standard pressure .45 Colt loads or much of a market for a 5 shot .45 ACP. I would guess there is a market of a couple of thousand at most. Perhaps that is what happened with .45 Trackers. Those that wanted them (not many) bought them and demand dwindled. If the gun was engineered for "Ruger only" loads it would be heavier and probably approach the Redhawk in weight. I suspect, if anything, there probably would be a larger market for a GP in .44 magnum and it would be easier to redo the frame compared to the .45.

 

[farm23]

We will get a idea of market interest next year when Charter Arms brings out their XL frame in 45 Colt. It will not be 'Ruger only' capable but it will handle standard 45 loads, I would prefer a smaller Ruger 45 package like a GP but we probably will not see one.

 

[CraigC]

Ruger is never going to legitimize, recognize, endorse or condone "Ruger only" loads. They have no reason to. They 'may' see fit to produce a sixgun in between the GP and Redhawk but I strongly doubt it. That's what N-frames are for.