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.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).
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.Thanks for the update Jason. Good to know that the 2019 guns are updated. I hope they send me one of those.
Looks exactly the same as white box Winchester 38s in the one i bought.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.
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.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.
Cool, you're an engineer and victim all at the same time. Maybe you should sue Ruger for making you a test dummy.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.
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."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.
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.Cool, you're an engineer and victim all at the same time. Maybe you should sue Ruger for making you a test dummy.
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?So you KNOW production continued after the problems was discovered?
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 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.
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...lolSo 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. 😠