Ruger / GP-100 durability question

[DBR]

For whatever it is worth:
I own both Rugers and S&W revolvers (GP100, SP101s, 686+ and several J frames) and I like all of the ones I own. I haven't bought a new product from either company in more than ten years. Both companies have stood behind their products 100% for my limited needs of their services over the past 20 years.

I do not like what S&W has done with their revolver design changes: locks, barrel inserts with invisible rifling, MIM parts (they are done very well but are not the same actions as original forged parts) and their current pricing structure (over priced by 20% IMHO). They seem to have made their engineers subordinate to marketing types and bean counters.

These days I prefer Ruger's more traditional designs and their history of not messing with their proven designs. They have also spent considerable money on updating and improving their tooling and manufacturing capabilities even though their financials took a hit.

For the price differential between S&W and Ruger for similar products you can get a good gunsmith to do great things to a Ruger that IMHO will make it surpass a current S&W at the same final price point.

In this age, newer is always cheaper to produce but seldom better in intrinsic quality at least as firearms are concerned. I agree with modern manufacturing but not if the only goal is to charge more for less.

Just MHO from an engineer's perspective with more than 50 years in the shooting sports.

 

[Drail]

While Ruger does not see the need to provide a written warranty I can assure you they stand behind their products. The majority of Rugers I have seen returned to Ruger for problem, the owner was charged nothing for the work or the parts. A written warranty doesn't do you much good if you return the gun and the company claims there's nothing wrong with it or charges you a hefty price for the repair.

 

[Tilos]

SW-Ruger, 1 frame is forged, 1 frame is "cast"

With the forged material being stronger, more material is needed in the "cast" frame to equal the strength of the forged material, taking on the tank look.

Oh no what have I started now

 

[oneounceload]

With the forged material being stronger, more material is needed in the "cast" frame to equal the strength of the forged material, taking on the tank look.

Oh no what have I started now

A chance for me to make another bowl of popcorn....(even if it IS the truth)

 

[rich642z]

Since I work parttime for my cousin who took over my wholesale sporting goods business when I got sick and disabled,we have had orders for all kinds of Ruger Revolvers from the .22 to the 480 cal and we just got 25 of the GP100s 4 inch and 3 inch revolvers as I type. Since the factory does the test firing for those stupid states that have them laws,I put 25 rounds of the Hornady Critical 125 grain to savise me that there are no problems with the revolvers. Autos,except for 1911s is the only semi-auto pistols we order.rich642z

 

[Mr.Revolverguy]

Warning Pictures are large but you be the judge

I am going to stay out of the durability fight I know a friend who has a S&W 686 from 1984 who says he lost track at 12,000 rounds mixture of 38 and 357 and it is still tight. I do have a 686 but not even close to that many rounds.

As for GP100 or the six series you be the judge hope the pictures help out.

GP100


Ruger Security Six look at the top strap on this thing


Then there is the Ruger Security Six and the Ruger Police Six together

 

[GP100man]

The GP is thicker on the side frame , the trigger group is totally removable , the cyl locks at 3 points & is larger, thicker top strap.

Only 3 screws on a GP with adjustable sites, easy change sites on the ajustable models.

A tank yes , & a revolver meant to be shot ALOT !!!!!

 

[gwnorth]

The topstrap on the Security Six looks thick on the sides, but it is releaved in the middle for the adjustable sight, so appearance can be deceiving. A Service Six, built supposedly to the same strength as the Security Six, has a top strap that appears noticeably thinner when viewed from the side (much like that 3" GP100's).

 

[Rexster]

Sixguns don't blow their top straps unless the cylinder blows, so I don't think comparing top straps is all that relevant. If there is enough metal, there is enough metal.

I personally know one friend, a former co-worker, who has fired an L-frame enough to have to send it back to S&W to be rebuilt. I own one S&W that really needs to go back for a rebuild, a Model 58, but because I bought it as a pre-owned weapon, actually a former SAPD (San Antonio, TX) duty sixgun, I don't know how tightly-fitted it was when new, nor how many times it was fired before I bought it in 1984. I fired it many hundreds of times, perhaps between one and two thousand, but it probably had several thousand through it before I owned it. This run of Model 58s was not known for being all that tight to start with.

Having detail stripped both S&W and Ruger revolver actions, I would certainly say the Ruger lockwork mechanism inspires more confidence. Having handled NEW S&W revolvers that had lockworks that were out of time, certainly does not bolster my confidence in S&W. Handling many pre-owned S&W and Ruger revolvers has shown me that very few Rugers seem to have timing issues, compared to S&W. The Ruger lockwork "pre-times" better than S&W in the first place, so this seems logical to me.

To be clear, I am not against S&W; I like both brands, but I do find it much easier to locate good pre-owned Rugers than good pre-owned S&W sixguns, in spite of there being more pre-owned S&Ws in the display cases. By good, I mean with good, tight, properly-timed actions, not cosmetically good.

 

[jad0110]

To be clear, I am not against S&W; I like both brands, but I do find it much easier to locate good pre-owned Rugers than good pre-owned S&W sixguns, in spite of there being more pre-owned S&Ws in the display cases. By good, I mean with good, tight, properly-timed actions, not cosmetically good.

Interesting. Guess it depends on where you live. The vast majority of Rugers I come upon are in far, far worse mechanical condition than S&Ws or Tauri. Often, they are rusted and pitted, shot completely loose, and feel like they have rocks in the action.

I have concluded that Ruger's aire of indestructability leads many to abuse the ever lovin' crap out of them, loading 'em up with sticks of dynamite and blasting away. They may be durable, but they are not invincible. So always check them out carefully, like you would anything else.

So imagine my delight when after 3 years of searching I came upon a mechanically solid, cosmetically decent 4" Police Service Six for $279 last fall.

 

[Dewey 68]

Has anyone done any kind of torture tests with a GP-100 versus a Smith 656 or 686? That would be interesting. It wouldn't stop these internet debates though.

I was going to buy a 686, but I couldn't justify the cost over the Ruger. At this point I'd rather get an older a .38 Smith than another .357.

 

[Rexster]

I think many of the really rough pre-owned Rugers belonged to security companies. If one thinks police officers mistreat guns, well, they haven't met security guards yet.

As for rocks in the actions, well, that is one BIG weakness of earlier Rugers. Several years ago, someone showed the Ruger workers, that assemble the sixguns, how to install smoother trigger actions. Before that, cherry-picking a decently smooth Ruger was quite a challenge. Even now, it is not a given that a Ruger sixgun will be smooth, but the odds are much better.

 

[roaddog28]

I am going to add fuel to the fire on the strength of a Security Six. David Tong is a noted gun writer. Some years ago he did a review on the Security Six.

David tells that he knows of a Security Six that is a rental gun at a range. He has been told by the range that there is a estimate of 1,400,000 rounds of ammo consumed by this Security Six. According to the range there has been no major parts failures. I think this speaks volumes about how strong and durable a Security Six is. Is it stronger than a GP100? Its hard to prove either way. I have many S&W revolvers to go with my two Rugers. But I would not expect my S&W revolvers to shoot that kind of round count without doing some repairs. I think there is no question that a Ruger revolver will out last a S&W and not need major parts replacement.
Below is the link to David's article.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/ruger_security_six.htm




roaddog28

 

[dogngun]

Well, all I can add is this: I owned several "Six" series

Rugers, and the ones that were around 20 years old were just starting to smooth up...I also recall reading that the repair department for the entire "Six"
series was 1 person...

Never had a GP, but I do love my old Highway Patrolman .357 and don't like to shoot magnum loads in anything lighter. I 'm getting to dislike shooting that cartridge as I get older.


mark

 

[CajunBass]

I just wish I had the opportunity to shoot any (quality) gun enough to worry about wearing it out. I'd brag about it.

(To gun shop guy)..."Yea. I gotta buy another one of these. I flat wore the last one out shooting it."

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Sixguns don't blow their top straps unless the cylinder blows, so I don't think comparing top straps is all that relevant.

Revolver frame topstraps are also subject to stretching when fired. More metal in this area = less stretching (hopefully).