Ruger Forum banner

41 - 60 of 149 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter #42
Time for a reality check. In past years, Ruger has always been a big supporter of the Small Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI), in fact Bill Ruger himself was on the Board of Directors for several years. As such, Ruger always prided themselves for making firearms that met SAAMI standards and would function safely and reliably with SAAMI spec ammunition. This somehow changed when the 7-shooter GP100 came on the market. If cartridges with SAAMI max-spec rim diameters are used, there's just no way to defy geometry and make them fit. If cases with rim diameters less than SAAMI max specs are used, the cartridges will chamber. This non-compliance with SAAMI specs is totally unlike the Sturm Ruger Company of the past.

Here's the geometry: the centers of all chambers (6 or 7 round cylinders) have to be in a 1" circle so the throats will align with the bore (cylinder-to-bore alignment). One would think a slightly larger cylinder would work but it doesn't because it would NOT allow the cylinder chambers to align with the bore. The only real fix is to make a slightly taller frame with the barrel mounted a bit higher and a larger cylinder where the chambers are spaced farther apart. This would allow for proper cylinder-to-bore alignment and provide enough space between cartridge rims where all 7 rounds can be chambered without binding.

So far, Ruger has NOT made a taller GP100 frame so there is absolutely no way to defy the laws of geometry and solve the problem until they do. I think its a shame that a lesser gun manufacturer like a Taurus made a frame for a 7 shooter but Ruger can't (or won't).
Dewayne said they updated it but wouldn't say what the updates were. How much trouble would it be to alter a mold to size the frame ever so slightly to move the bore up just enough to match a cylinder that's a few thousands bigger? I don't know the answer to that. When I get a call back, if they cant or won't tell me what they changed, I won't accept a "new" 7 shot, I want a gun that can chamber any SAAMI spec round. At some point they have to be open with customers or risk losing them. Whoever made the decision to cut corners can also cost them customers. Honestly, that Taurus 66 may not be a pretty as the Ruger, but it is functional, nice trigger and accurate to 35 yards (I didn't try farther than that, sights aren't the best). 7 shot doesnt sell me, looks and quality does, I'm a hunter, not a zombie killer lol. 6 full house loads is more than enough for me. If they had the same grips, sights for a 6 shooter with a 6 inch barrel, id gladly accept that as a replacement just to avoid any more function issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter #43
Thanks for the update Jason. Good to know that the 2019 guns are updated. I hope they send me one of those.
Don't get too excited yet, gotta see what they actually did to fix this or if they are trying a bandaid method. Problem with bandaid methods is they do not really cure the problem. I'm not sure one could really be applied, and as long as they took to address the production end of it, make one think they had to do some frame adjusting for a slightly larger cylinder. I can't say that's what they did though but it really is the only way to really fix this problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter #44
I called ruger this morning and they gave me a RMA. It's already on its way back. The lady i spoke to said that the tech will inspect it. She asked me to leave a note in the box explaining the problem. I did better than that. I loaded the cylinder with the problem cases and it was so bad that i couldn't close the cylinder. He should have no problem figuring out out.
Before anyone says anything, i did not ship live ammo with the gun. I pulled them and removed the primers as well.
Looks exactly the same as white box Winchester 38s in the one i bought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,881 Posts
"How much trouble would it be to alter a mold to size the frame ever so slightly to move the bore up just enough to match a cylinder that's a few thousands bigger? I don't know the answer to that. "

I don't know but it can't be that costly as that is what S&W had to do to offer the 8 shot .357 N frames they make and I would not think there is a lot of volume to spread the cost over as there would be with a 7 shot medium frame. Also, if Ruger were going to alter the frame, anyhow, they could widen it at the front and offer .44 mag and .45 Colt 5 shooters so the cost could be spread over even more units.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter #46
I don't know if that would be beneficial to them or not to widen it to a degree that accepts 44 magnums, but it might. The Tracker 44 from Taurus is an example of this. I think one would have to port the GP100 is the gun doesn't reach 45-50 oz. for a 44 magnum, recoil would only be tamed by experienced marksman. If you get into making the frame too large to chamber bigger calibers, finding a holster becomes an issue, at least one that fits it good and snug. The same holster (Bianchi) for the Taurus 66, fits a SW 686+ and Ruger GP100, we all know the SW 686+ is close to an L frame and the GP100 is an L frame, the Taurus 66 is between a K and L frame, so there would be very little room to grow the frame outward including the cylinder and have it fit the same holster. If we are are talking a few hundredth's no issue, but more than that I can see one popping up. Making one wider could definitely create a compatibility issue in my thinking, I could be completely off base though. So if you got an N frame holster to carry these with, it would be a very loose fit. Good thinking though, they may have sold and replaced enough 7 shot 357 to alter the mold just enough and still be profitable, I hope that is what they did.

Side note, they did call me this morning and offer me a new 7 shot, I asked the lady if she can get me some kind of reassurance that there will be no issues with a new run 7 shot, she said she can provide that but trying to get any specific info out of their techs would be difficult, in other words, they don't want to tell what they had to change due to having to formally come out that there was an issue to begin with to the public. In all regards, a recall should have been issued when this first popped up and verified.

Jason
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter #47
Ok, just to play on error of caution, I chose the 6 shot version (being a hunter, the extra round doesn't make or break me). They wouldn't say what they did to fix this, I didn't feel like being a test monkey for their fix so it was an obvious choice for me. They did let me choose the sights that the 7 shot had instead of the ramp site and change the back blade to the white outline. Guess this ends the debate for me (hopefully). Thanks for all the replies, sometimes its just best to go with something you know is proven.

Jason
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter #48
Well I can finish my experience. I did trade it for a 6 shot version. Their customer service didn't fight me whatsoever, they allowed me to choose the 6 shot version and have the fiber optic sights with white outline back blade installed. I just picked the pistol up today, I am pleased, got it all cleaned up and ready for the range. BTW does anyone have any insight to getting powder burn stain off of the finish without abrasive cloths etc? Look like they test fired mine with oil or grease in the cylinder housing in a few places and baked it right on. Overall though, that was amazing quick turn around service. About a week and a half. Compared to Taurus, well there is no comparison......I was expecting a few weeks for mine to be built but they must have had one already built from a canceled order or something, won't complain at all about that. If any of you do choose another 7 shot, give us a report as to what they changed to make it work. Regards.

Jason
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,156 Posts
To me Ruger's 7 shot GP100 .357 has to be a design flaw so has Ruger changed the design enough to actually make a successful GP100 7 shot .357 or not?? To the OP I think you made the right choice in getting a 6 shot GP100 .357. Whats weird is the Taurus Model 66 does have just a very slight smaller diameter cylinder vs the S&W Model 686, yet it seems that S&W Model 686 + & the Taurus Model 66 both of these revolvers seem to work just fine in the 7 shot versions!!! Oh well it will be interesting to see if Ruger gets it right on the 7 shot GP100 .357.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter #50
To me Ruger's 7 shot GP100 .357 has to be a design flaw so has Ruger changed the design enough to actually make a successful GP100 7 shot .357 or not?? To the OP I think you made the right choice in getting a 6 shot GP100 .357. Whats weird is the Taurus Model 66 does have just a very slight smaller diameter cylinder vs the S&W Model 686, yet it seems that S&W Model 686 + & the Taurus Model 66 both of these revolvers seem to work just fine in the 7 shot versions!!! Oh well it will be interesting to see if Ruger gets it right on the 7 shot GP100 .357.
They claim they have, but would not tell me what it was, so I opted to let them keep the 7 shot option. They already used us as test rats once with the model, sure wasnt gonna do it again. It is definitely a design flaw and not a simple to fix one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,881 Posts
"Whats weird is the Taurus Model 66 does have just a very slight smaller diameter cylinder vs the S&W Model 686, yet it seems that S&W Model 686 + & the Taurus Model 66 both of these revolvers seem to work just fine in the 7 shot versions!!! Oh well it will be interesting to see if Ruger gets it right on the 7 shot GP100 .357."

Well, Taurus is Taurus. To get the 7 shot to work obviously the bore center to cylinder axis is greater on the Taurus and 686+. The 686 has a slightly larger diameter cylinder than the GP so could still retain the same or greater cylinder wall thickness at the outside. The Taurus being smaller means that they would have less cylinder wall thickness at the outside compared to the GP. I guess it is a matter of how much is enough OR maybe Taurus does not think their guns will see "Ruger only loads"(??)

The big question is whether Ruger will increase the cylinder axis to bore center distance to fix the problem. I am anxiously awaiting an answer as could influence whether I will buy a 7 shot GP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
I have an update to this. I just talked to Ruger customer support and they will be sending me a new updated dated 7 shot GP100 to replace the one I sent back. Should have it in a couple of days. Will keep you updated on the new one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,478 Posts
They claim they have, but would not tell me what it was, so I opted to let them keep the 7 shot option. They already used us as test rats once with the model, sure wasnt gonna do it again. It is definitely a design flaw and not a simple to fix one.
Cool, you're an engineer and victim all at the same time. Maybe you should sue Ruger for making you a test dummy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter #55
"Whats weird is the Taurus Model 66 does have just a very slight smaller diameter cylinder vs the S&W Model 686, yet it seems that S&W Model 686 + & the Taurus Model 66 both of these revolvers seem to work just fine in the 7 shot versions!!! Oh well it will be interesting to see if Ruger gets it right on the 7 shot GP100 .357."

Well, Taurus is Taurus. To get the 7 shot to work obviously the bore center to cylinder axis is greater on the Taurus and 686+. The 686 has a slightly larger diameter cylinder than the GP so could still retain the same or greater cylinder wall thickness at the outside. The Taurus being smaller means that they would have less cylinder wall thickness at the outside compared to the GP. I guess it is a matter of how much is enough OR maybe Taurus does not think their guns will see "Ruger only loads"(??)

The big question is whether Ruger will increase the cylinder axis to bore center distance to fix the problem. I am anxiously awaiting an answer as could influence whether I will buy a 7 shot GP.
Actually not a bad observation and questioning of Taurus, and I won't defend them. As far as the Model 66 they produce, it is their strongest medium frame, the top strap etc is fairly beefy, not GP100 beefy but stronger than the smith 66. If someone is going to shoot a steady diet of 357 mag loads in it, within SAAMI specs, it would handle it much better than their tracker model. You would probably have to to shoot a few thousand rounds through this gun before needing it tightened up, and most have reported just that using nothing but 357 run of the mill loads. Would I shoot nothing but buffalo bore or underwood through it? Not really sure it would matter, both of those companies claim to be at or slightly under SAAMI spec for pressure and Taurus claims that their guns are designed to handle those pressures. Cylinder wall thickness would probably be the least of my concern with the Taurus (it is actually about the same thickness as the 7 shot GP100), the grade of steel they use is what would stand out I think. Nobody knows how good or bad it is. The one I have is accurate and fairly smooth action. It's not a Ruger or a Smith, but sometimes people don't need a Ruger or Smith. The big Black Mark for that company is customer service and the lack of a direct line to Brazil in getting things ordered, you can wait for months on end for a repair or replacement. Their repair shop is hit and miss as well, some techs are good and some are shoddy at best, they destroyed mine when I sent it in for a barrel replacement after I dropped it 20 feet from a tree stand and boogering up the end of the barrel. They put (at my expense) either a barrel they took off an old revolver what was a 6 shot version on it or had an old run (more than 15 years old, it was half lug, they hadn't made those in a long time, mine was full lug bought just last year) still sitting around, and if that wasn't bad enough, they put tooling marks on the frame of the gun in the process that they couldn't fix because they don't refinish stainless. So long as you don't need to repair your gun with them, you are good and most are satisfied with the product, but damn if you ever need a repair or replacement done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter #56
Cool, you're an engineer and victim all at the same time. Maybe you should sue Ruger for making you a test dummy.
Yet another useless response from you, so are you claiming they didn't mess up? They are admitting they did, hence the "fix", they even have the known ammo on hand to use as a check for every 7 shot sent to them now, directly from the horse's mouth. Are you also claiming there is no way they wouldn't have known about the margin of error on the initial design? That would make Ruger incompetent. Cool story, I will read it to the kids during bedtime.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter #57
So you KNOW production continued after the problems was discovered?
Yes, I KNOW they continued production, mine was made and shipped in November to the FFL, when I mentioned that to the CS rep (who also said they just had a meeting regarding the issue and the implemented fix of the 7 shot GP100 and it was after mine was made) who knew about the issue, he said, yes that was still considered the "old run with the issue". That good enough?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
I have an update to this. I just talked to Ruger customer support and they will be sending me a new updated dated 7 shot GP100 to replace the one I sent back. Should have it in a couple of days. Will keep you updated on the new one.
So i was all excited for my new updated gp100 7 shot. Ruger calls me back and says that they can't ship the new gun to me since i live in the crappy state of Taxachussetts. It's not on the approved list. WTF. So I opted for a new 6 shot gp100 1707. Basically same gun with a nicer grip but no fiber optic front sight. I tried talking the rep into shipping it with the new sight since they're building a new one anyway. We'll see. I didn't even get credit for the missing hole. 😁 Should have it in 2 weeks.
I hate my commie state. Can't wait to move out. 😠
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter #59
So i was all excited for my new updated gp100 7 shot. Ruger calls me back and says that they can't ship the new gun to me since i live in the crappy state of Taxachussetts. It's not on the approved list. WTF. So I opted for a new 6 shot gp100 1707. Basically same gun with a nicer grip but no fiber optic front sight. I tried talking the rep into shipping it with the new sight since they're building a new one anyway. We'll see. I didn't even get credit for the missing hole. 😁 Should have it in 2 weeks.
I hate my commie state. Can't wait to move out. 😠
That doesn't make sense......why can't they ship you a 7 shot but they can a 6?? That was the same model I chose as well and I asked them to go ahead and replace the stock sights for the fiber optic ones, wasn't an issue. They did tell me the same as you, two weeks to build, so imagine how surprised I was to get an email the next day saying the revolver has shipped....got lucky I guess. Don't move to Virginia, its another liberal hotbed due to the northern and eastern part of the state...lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
I have had two new GP100 7 shot within the past two months (first one did have a problem but not related to this, see my post "SA 8lb trigger pull") and both have ran everything I have tried in them. Winchester white box, Fiocchi, PMC, Federal, both .38 special and .357.
 
41 - 60 of 149 Posts
Top