Ruger / GP-100 durability question

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wacki

Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
1,703
Location
Reminiscing the Rockies
Quote below from World Guns RU gave me more questions than answers.

The Ruger GP-100 revolver was first introduced in 1985 as a 2nd-generation of the Ruger Double Action revolvers, with intent to replace successful Ruger Security / Service / Speed Six line of revolvers. The GP-100 was a serious improvement over previous Ruger guns. It was made even stronger, with intent to fire an unlimited number of full-power .357 Magnum rounds, and was produced in many variations, with three basic barrel lengths (3" / 76 mm, 4" / 102 mm or 6" / 152 mm), various barrel profiles, with fixed or adjustable sights etc. GP-100 revolvers also are offered in two finish/material variations - blued carbon steel or polished stainless steel. Like most other Ruger guns, GP-100 revolvers are exceptionally strong, reliable and durable, and are great self-defense, security or practice weapons.
Click to expand...

Now for my questions:

1) Can someone explain to me why so many describe the Ruger GP-100 as a "tank"?

2) Why is the GP-100 stronger than the security security six? What engineering changes were made?

3) The last bold statement is a bit of a head scratcher. I understand Ruger had some bad political decisions in the past that led up to the AWB and so they get a bad rap, but the paragraph below claims most Ruger guns really "exceptionally strong". Do you agree?

4) How does the strength and reliability of a GP-100 compare to S&W?
 
1, Rugers tend to have thicker metal in crucial parts of there pistols hence "tank"
2,
Why is the GP-100 stronger than the security six?
Click to expand...
I have both and don't buy into that statement.
3, Yes
4, Both are good guns, S&W tend to have a bit cleaner trigger of the shelf, Rugers tend to be a bit heavier. Both will last a long time if cared for correctly.
 
I have fired over 16,000 rounds through my GP-100 since I bought it new in 1991 with no problems. I haven't done that with any of my S&W's yet, so can't compare the durability. The Ruger's finish and trigger pull isn't as nice as the Smith and Wessons, but it is rugged and accurate.
 
wacki said:
Quote below from World Guns RU gave me more questions than answers.



Now for my questions:

1) Can someone explain to me why so many describe the Ruger GP-100 as a "tank"?

2) Why is the GP-100 stronger than the security security six? What engineering changes were made?

3) The last bold statement is a bit of a head scratcher. I understand Ruger had some bad political decisions in the past that led up to the AWB and so they get a bad rap, but the paragraph below claims most Ruger guns really "exceptionally strong". Do you agree?

4) How does the strength and reliability of a GP-100 compare to S&W?
Click to expand...

Good questions. I believe the answer to number one is the comparsion by Ruger to S&W. I have both in the newer medium frame revolvers. A GP100 and older 686. The GP100 is beefer in the frame and top strap and the trigger group has heavier built parts than the Smith. Answer to question two. I also have a old Ruger Police Service Six and comparing the revolver to the bigger GP100 have found the weight of GP100 to be the biggest advantage against the Security/Service Six. Both revolvers are much stronger than the Smiths. I have heard of Security Sixes that have over 20,000 rounds put through it and this includes thousands of 357s and the revolver is still working. Other than weight I don't see a lot of differences that would prove the GP100 to be stronger that the Security Six. I would say yes to number three. As long as I can remember Ruger has always had the stronger gun. I would not say reliable because I see Smiths that are very durable. Smiths don't have the reputation like Ruger for being able to handle mega loads of ammo. Number four answer is Rugers are built stronger, maybe not as finished as the Smiths but will last longer before needing to be fixed.

This is my take.
roaddog28
 
1) Can someone explain to me why so many describe the Ruger GP-100 as a "tank"?
Click to expand...

People use "tank" to describe things that are "indestructible, can take a lot of beating and still win, heavily built, and the like".

Well the GP is almost like that or just about that.
2) Why is the GP-100 stronger than the security security six? What engineering changes were made?
Click to expand...

To add to what has been posted previously, the GP100 has the front cylinder lock that securely locks the crane to the frame, and the usual pin at the rear of the cylinder. Very rigid 2-lock system (thanks bluebrick for your correction). It has more steel where needed for strength, like the frame itself.

3) The last bold statement is a bit of a head scratcher. I understand Ruger had some bad political decisions in the past that led up to the AWB and so they get a bad rap, but the paragraph below claims most Ruger guns really "exceptionally strong". Do you agree?
Click to expand...

For most of their guns, yes.

4) How does the strength and reliability of a GP-100 compare to S&W?
Click to expand...
Both GP100 and SW686 of same barrel length weigh about the same.
However, Ruger puts the steel where it counts most, for maximum durability.
Plus the modern mechanical design of the Ruger makes it stronger and easier to clean and maintain. So yes, the GP100 is stronger. My GP100 has fired more magnums than my L-Frames. The GP has hardly any sign of wear while the L-Frames do not lock up as tight anymore, but at this point they all are still reliable.
__________________
 
Last edited:
"...trigger group has heavier built parts..." That are SS of a much simpler design. That doesn't make it stronger, but the heavier frame and thicker cylinder walls certainly does.
4. A GP isn't any more reliable than a Smith.
The biggest difference is the grip frame. Had a 4" Smith 19 that I could never get to fit my wide but short hand quite right. Despite multiple grip changes. My 4" GP fits perfectly.
Ruger revolvers are well known for having grips frames that fit smaller hands well. Buddy of mine is 5' 5" and 150 lbs soaking wet. Used a Securty Six. Mind you, he shot a 6" Smith M29 just as well.
 
2 locking points??

Actually, all revolvers having two secure locking points: one in back and one on the bottom. GP100s, SP101s, Redhawks, and Super Redhawks all have three locking points. The third point is in the front, which helps to maintain proper cylinder alignment. Most other DA revolvers use the ejector rod to lock up the front of the cylinder. These other revolvers can experience bent ejector rods as a result of this.
 
Mike Shovel who is with Corbon (Dakota Ammo) which develops and sells high performance ammunition mentioned on another forum a couple of years ago that they had retired their Ruger GP100 test gun.

It still functioned well and was accurate but it had in excess of 200,000 rounds of all types of ammo through it and they felt it deserved a rest. Corbon ammo is on the hot side of SAAMI so I'm sure the gun got a workout. IIRC He did not say what maintenance had been done.
 
One of the major design differences that Ruger has as compared to a S&W is the lack of "side plates" which contributes by itself to a stronger frame design. On the other hand S&W uses forged frames as Rugers are cast. I'm not a metallurgy expert and I have heard that Ruger is notable for their cast technology, but generally forged is thought to be stronger, hence the extra "beef" in the Ruger design.

When S&W "K" frames (.38 special frames par excellance) were chambered for the .357 some that saw heavy use "shot loose", or did not stand up to the durability test. S&W pioneered the .357 mag but in the heavier "N" frame. The lack of durability in the "K" frames led to the "L" frames currently used for the 686. In both the Ruger GP100 and the Smith 686, (and the Colt Mk III series) durability with reasonable use is in the several lifetimes category so this is something of a red herring. In deciding which would best stand up to an overpressure situation I hope to never find out.
 
Last edited:
I just sold a Gp100. Very nice gun, and solid as a rock, but I have a 686, as well, and since .38/.357 ammo is so expensive, I sold the GP for another 9MM, which will get more use. I also hate cleaning revolvers, so my revolvers get shot MAYBE 400 rounds a year. The 686 is much smoother and more refined that the GP is, but the GP was a quality gun.

If you're not gonna shoot thousands of full house .357 a year, I would say get the S&W (if it's a pre-lock version). $100 more over the life time you own that gun will be pennies a month.
 
DBR said:
Mike Shovel who is with Corbon (Dakota Ammo) which develops and sells high performance ammunition mentioned on another forum a couple of years ago that they had retired their Ruger GP100 test gun.

It still functioned well and was accurate but it had in excess of 200,000 rounds of all types of ammo through it and they felt it deserved a rest. Corbon ammo is on the hot side of SAAMI so I'm sure the gun got a workout. IIRC He did not say what maintenance had been done.
Click to expand...
Bottom line is the Ruger revolvers either GP100 or Security Six are much stronger than the Smith and Wesson revolvers. They are not as refine as Smiths and for the most part do not have the smooth trigger as most Smiths but you don't see any reloading manuals or ammo companies saying for Smiths only. They all recommend Ruger only when talking hot or heavy loads. That is why Corbon uses a GP100 and not a 686. I think you need to compare the GP100 to the L frame and the Security Six to the K frame. Again, the Ruger on both counts will win the durability and strength test. Ruger revolvers whether SA or DA are some of the strongest most reliable guns ever built. They last longer without needing any repairs compared to Smith and Wesson, Colt or just about any other gun maker. I do know this, I have a older Ruger Police Service Six 4 inch which over the years has develop as smooth a double action trigger as a lot of my Smiths and better than my two newer Smiths. So with time a Ruger gets better.
As far as new revolvers go I would buy the Ruger over the Smith. And I just did! I bought a new GP100 4 inch Stainless Steel which was over $200.00 less than a new Smith 686. And the trigger is just as good as the Smith.
The Ruger GP100 is the strongest medium frame revolver in production today. I don't think many people would disagree.

Thanks,
roaddog28
 
I think that roaddog28 has a point that many boutique ammo makers use a GP100 for a test gun.
 
I have an SP 101, not a GP 100. But 6000 rounds later (over 4000 of them magnum) I'm pretty sure the '101 will last me to the "End of Days". I suspect the GP 100 would too.
 
the Ruger Security-Six pioneered the solid mid-framed .357 (no side plate)

Dan Wesson placed a lock (as oppsed to the detent on the S&W triple lock) on the crane to better align the cylinder with the barrel and used the stub grip frame to allow more freedom of grip design.

Ruger took both these features and added the off-set ejector rod to increase the metal surrounding the barrel when they upsized their .357 Mag to a comparable sized frame as the Colt Python and S&W L-frame. they also retained the simplified action, off-set bolt notches and coil springs which made the Security-Six reliable and durable

the GP-100 is a bit harder to tune (no side plate access) and... like a tank... is a bit hefty for my taste. i till prefer the Security-Six frame size...specifically the Speed-Six
 
Last edited:
If I ever manage to wear out my security six, I guess I'll have a measuring point.
I would hate to even have to try and figure out how many rounds have been ran through it.
My dad does have a GP 100 and I do find it to have a heavier feel to it, and as explained above has some steel where the security six doesn't. But comparing durability is like comparing one cannon ball to another.
 
Ruger actually has three lock up points not two. Ruger uses a solid frame and thicker metal in the top strap and the bolt cut holes line up with the 'meat' of the cylinder and not over the charge holes giving you more of a safety margin in case of over loaded ammo.
Both the S&W 686 and the Ruger GP are fine revolvers and both will last a life time of normal shooting. The Smith's are slightly more refined and will generally have a better trigger pull, but the new Ruger's have a very nice pull.
The GP replaced the Security series because it was stronger and cheaper to make. Smith did the same thing when they phased out the .357 in the K frame and went to the L frame (686) or tried to. The K frame is just to nice of a revolver to ever die.
 
I also think that high power ammunition developers selection of the GP100 platform is significant, just as most competition shooters selection of the Smith is significant.

So following this logic if you are likely to press the envelope for acceptable pressures, you may choose the Ruger, but there is also a reason why most competitors would choose the Smith.

Define what your use of the gun will be and select from Ruger, Smith, or Colt Mk III or V according to what works best for you and have confidence that these 3 brands will all be durable if not abused, If you try hard enough you can break anything.

P.S. the 686+ 7 shot also has the offset bolt notches from the charging holes increasing the cylinder strength. And to my knowledge references to Ruger only for high pressure loads refers to loads acceptable for Blackhawk/Super Blackhawk SA as oppsed to Colt SAA designs. This is not really relevant to a GP100 vs. 686 comparison. I personally know of no loads that manufacturers say are acceptable for GP100 and not 686.
 
Last edited:
For whatever it is worth, in the same post Mike Shovel said Corbon now uses a SW 686 as a 357 test gun.
 
rswartsell said:
I also think that high power ammunition developers selection of the GP100 platform is significant, just as most competition shooters selection of the Smith is significant.

So following this logic if you are likely to press the envelope for acceptable pressures, you may choose the Ruger, but there is also a reason why most competitors would choose the Smith.

Define what your use of the gun will be and select from Ruger, Smith, or Colt Mk III or V according to what works best for you and have confidence that these 3 brands will all be durable if not abused, If you try hard enough you can break anything.

P.S. the 686+ 7 shot also has the offset bolt notches from the charging holes increasing the cylinder strength. And to my knowledge references to Ruger only for high pressure loads refers to loads acceptable for Blackhawk/Super Blackhawk SA as oppsed to Colt SAA designs. This is not really relevant to a GP100 vs. 686 comparison. I personally know of no loads that manufacturers say are acceptable for GP100 and not 686.
Click to expand...
Corbon has used the GP100 to test their ammo. I don't know about the 686. Actually the new model Blackhawk in 357 is stronger than the GP100. The Blackhawk is also reference in reloading manuals too. The New model Blackhawk is built on the 44 magnum frame. I can only recall the Freedom arms or a Ruger Redhawk in 357 to be stronger than a Blackhawk.

roaddog28
 
In regards to your question #4:

"4) How does the strength and reliability of a GP-100 compare to S&W?"

I had a S&W model 57, .41 Mag and after about 17,000 mag rounds I had to sent it back to S&W for repairs. After another 15,000 rounds (I was tracking my primer usage), it needed to go back to S& W for repair again so I sold it....

...and got a Ruger Redhawk, .44 Mag "tank."

I have no idea how many rounds of near-max and max reloads I've put through the Redhawk (it was a Ruger so I never bothered to count), and it is like new --- except very, very smooth now.:D

I figure that if my great grand kids are still allowed to own guns, that Redhawk will still be functioning like new.;)

I recently purchased a 6" GP100 for regular practice and use in our local Bullseye matches. I only have 1,235 rounds through it (I'm keeping a journal on this one) but plan to post when it hits 10K, 30K, etc. rounds. We shall see how well this one holds up under almost daily usage.:D

While old S&W revolvers are my favorite because of their wonderful, smooth triggers, etc., I'll stay with my Ruger "tractors" and figure they will still be working without repairs long after I'm gone.

JMHO - YRMV
 
Ruger VS Smith

I cant add any structual or scientific info to the issue however I currently own and have owned the revolvers you are discussing.
My 4" stainless Ruger police service six marked S.C.P.D. sure has been flawless over the last 23 years. however when I go the range I usualy take my GP100 6" stainless, it has shot every factory 357 load without a burp never ran 38 in it.

the old sevice six now is a bed side stand friend.

Ok now the Smith 686 stainless 6" with factory adjustable front sight is my favorite shooter. It puts holes on top of the holes that I get from my Dan Wesson 15-2. The Smith is just plain pretty.

they all seem very strong in the over 20 to 30 years of their life.
take care
Alan
 
Let me first say I like both brands equally but here's my take they are both gonna last a very long time but smith has nicer triggers finish and it's alot lighter and when they finally do need something fixed smith and wesson has a lifetime warranty and ruger has no warranty
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Ruger Question: Speed 6, Security 6, GP-100
Replies
8
Views
966
Dienekes
D
Confederate
  • Locked
Ruger Security-Six v. GP-100
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
oldgoat46
O
T
  • Locked
Ruger revolver questions
Replies
18
Views
2K
9mmepiphany
9mmepiphany
Confederate
  • Locked
Preference: Security-Six or GP-100?
Replies
22
Views
986
Confederate
Confederate
Confederate
  • Locked
Missing the Security-Six?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
132
Views
10K
BWS
BWS
Back
Top