Ruger Forum banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,932 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Blame Aurora40 for this:

"So now how do we do the same thing for the kgpf-330 (1719 I think)?"

With the 1708 coming back I can see a need for the 1719. While noted that there is not a significant weight difference between this model and the full lug model I do think it looks sleeker both in the barrel and in the top strap giving it a more rounded look like S&W. If I was going to get the full lug model I would buy a 1708 instead (which I might). It is too bad Ruger does not come out with the configuration in an adjustable sighted model. It would go well with my 2.75" Speed Six, too.

I will note that the Python was a bit lighter with its full lug than comparable length Smiths and Rugers. I gather at one time the lug was even hollow on them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
524 Posts
I prefer the no-lug look as well. It is my understanding that to mill down the lug costs extra money and that is why it went away. I am sure others will chime in with a deeper knowledge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,142 Posts
Personally that would fall into the "meh" category for me. I think the balance of the 3" GP full lug is already perfect and I can take or leave the looks. Now the adjustable sights and 357 chambering is enough difference to make we want the 1708 in addition to my 1722. I hope there are some left in a month or two when I might have the funds saved up.
 

·
Righteous Dude
Joined
·
21,694 Posts
I want the 1708. That's why I chased the 1751. I wanted that look. I went custom, but I still want the 1708. I like the look in a 3". Full lug makes sense at that length.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,356 Posts
I have a Canadian trade-in 1719, some came in DAO, some came DA/SA, I chose to drop in a DAO hammer because I think it looks "right".

I remember hearing about some kind of new 3" GP100 called a "Combat Carry" but either it never came about or it was supposed to be the name for the "Wiley Clapp", after the original 2000 were made, the exact same gun might have been called this I don't know..

The 1/2 lug looks good but I think the full lug 3" and 4" GP's look just as good..........I prefer the 1/2 lug 6" GP but I won't turn down a nice 6" full lug either.

You'd have better luck tracking down a used 1719 than waiting for a new one. I also got a blue one by accident, I bid on the full lug model on GunBroker and the guy said he only had a 1/2 lug left, I was like sure whatever, and it turns out they're super rare.

I read somewhere that Ruger makes the barrel "blanks" in several foot long lengths, or something like that, and just "cuts and shapes" them into barrels, whether 3's, 4's, 6's, etc. and it may indeed cost more to mill a 1/2 lug GP100........with demand for the full lug GP's being higher Bill probably just decided to drop them.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,932 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 · (Edited)
I think weightwise the 1/2 and full lug 3" are close at about 34.75 oz vs. 36 or so. I think you have a point on milling cost albeit it would be higher on a 4" or 6" bbl. Could be why most S&Ws are full lug models, too. That gets to an interesting point regarding frames. I wonder if the same casting is used for adjustable sighted and fixed sighted guns. I would think there would be more milling cost associated with the frame if the same blanks are used for both to mill off area around the "ears" provided for adj. sight models and round the top strap and cutting the sight channel on the fixed sight models.

I wonder if anyone got the chance to see the"making of a Ruger revolver" that was supposed to be on TV on the 2nd? Could be interesting in touring the factory and talking to the cost accountant(s) regarding the processes.

I am not waiting for a 1/2 lug model to appear. However, gun shops are rare around here with much inventory of used items. They seldom turn up on Gun Broker and the like and the prices are up there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,394 Posts
Haha, I doubt there is any meaningful difference from the 1715. However I think the half lug looks a lot better! I'd buy the 1719 over the 1715 for sure. :)
 

·
Ruger Tinkerer
Joined
·
11,898 Posts
Of the partial underlug GP100 models I have the impression that the 1719 is the most desirable. Maybe it's because that was the one I was hoping to find someday at a good price and every time they appeared on Gun Broker (which is fairly often so they're not that rare) they would fetch almost as much as a brand new 1715 or more. I was wanting one that wasn't re-imported with the added re-import markings. I finally scored one recently on GB but looked off and on for several years before nabbing mine. I never saw a used on in a LGS around here.

I'm not so sure there are any higher costs associated with manufacturing a partial underlug barrel vs a full underlug. Machining is done on industrial CNC machines and highly automated. I think the market just favors the full underlug right now. But that could change like fashion styles and the partial underlug look might someday be more popular again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,394 Posts
1708? Is that back? Did I miss something?
You did. It's back.

I'm sorta tempted on the 1708 just because it's uncommon, but really I don't see the need for adjustable sights. Unless they are off left-right, I don't see much point in adjusting them. I shoot .38's, .357's, and moderate and hot of each. So at any distance with any load, either sights will be off. The adjustable are not so quickly or repeatably adjustable that I'm gonna have some dope chart to dial them in on a load/distance before I shoot. So the reality is I'm changing where I hold with either.

Though the ability to easily change the sights on the adjustable sight models is a plus. I don't know why they make the front sight on the fixed sight model more difficult to replace.

My two 4" GP's are fixed sight with half-lugs, and I really dig that. A 3" and 6" half-lug would be a nice addition to round them out. I'd be fine with adjustable sights on a 6", despite my previous statements about them. :)

ExArmy, it looks like the 3" has more of a radius to the cut than the 4", which is more of just a ramp down to the ejector housing. I think that little detail makes the 3" look more elegant/high end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,932 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
The 1708 is a full lug gun like the 1751. Only adjustable sighted GP100 with a 1/2 lug was a 6" version. A while back someone posted a picture of a custom 3.25" 1/2 lug adjustable sighted model they had made up by Ahlmann's in Minnesota.
 

·
Ruger Tinkerer
Joined
·
11,898 Posts
You could always buy a new 1708, grab a file and get busy. There's not a lot of underlug in a 3" full lug.
 

·
Ruger Tinkerer
Joined
·
11,898 Posts
'Cause threads go better with pictures...here's my 1719. It may be a subtle thing but I think this looks better than a 1715.



I can live without the big "bill board" on this side though...

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,356 Posts
I don't know if all the 1719's are radiused like that or it depends on who did the finish work, I also think the 3" in the pic is a few years newer.

My 3" "feels" better in the hand but shoots more or less the exact same as the identical gun I have with a 1" longer tube.

I love fixed sight GP100's and have several of them, basically the only reason I like my target sight GP's is they are a little more "range friendly" for target shooting,since I can add different front sights, and also rear sights. I usually see no difference in accuracy between them.

I could probably shoot my 1719 the rest of my life and be perfectly happy but I like variety too:)
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top