EDC Ruger revolver

[WAYNO]

I've owned many variations of both guns.

The Redhawk is big. That's great if you want a big revolver. And in a soft puffer chambering, it's a pleasure to shoot.

For EDC, the GP is easier to carry. And in .357, it's still a relatively easy gun to shoot.

So, a big gun that's easy to shoot in .45, but also very big in your hand as well as hanging from your belt, or a mid-size in a chambering that's still formidable...

I see them as two different guns that only you can decide which is more important, carryability or shootability.

For me...Unless I need to hotrod the .45 Colt loading in the Redhawk, believe the GP to be more versatile. The Redhawk was designed for big, magnum cartridges.

 

[Plunger45]

3" GP 100. I like the fixed sights on mine.

 

[DLS]

GP100 44 special problems

Want to buy a ruger 44 but don't know if I should wait till Ruger sorts out the problems? I read something about the Chambers reamed wrong. Sight gap Anything else?

castboolits.gunloads.com

Thanks for the link snarlingdog. I read the posts there and they were talking about a problem that I did know about. There was a spell where the throats on some cylinders were inconsistent and oversized along with excessive cylinder gap in the finished revolvers. This leads to poor accuracy, accelerated wear on the forcing cone and in some cases leading of the bore.

Those problems have been handled a number of years ago when Ruger changed the cylinder reaming process to address these quality issues.

Nothing in this problem suggest the gun is not robust enough for the .44 Special loading. As far as I know (and I know little believe me ) the .44 Special is doing just fine in the majority of GP100s.

 

[nammac]

I'd go Redhawk, because nothing says you really care like a 255 gr, nearly half inch projectile stepping out at about 1,400 FPS...

Besides with a .45 LC, ya only gotta shoot 'em once!

 

[DeanMk]

Are you stopping men or stopping things that see you as dinner?

General shooting.
It's just that recently, I find I'm liking the idea of wearing a gun on the hip.
I'm not James Bond. I don't need to go all black ops with my stuff.
To me, its just a more honest way to carry.
However, you guys have given me something to think about.
Weight and bulk is definitely a consideration.
Although there's only 4 oz. difference between the two guns and they're both the same length, but the .45 cylinder is obviously larger, and that is something.
I'll have to give this some more consideration.

Thanks for everyone's help.
Much appreciated.

Dean

 

[3MTA3]

General shooting.
It's just that recently, I find I'm liking the idea of wearing a gun on the hip.
I'm not James Bond. I don't need to go all black ops with my stuff.
To me, its just a more honest way to carry.
However, you guys have given me something to think about.
Weight and bulk is definitely a consideration.
Although there's only 4 oz. difference between the two guns and they're both the same length, but the .45 cylinder is obviously larger, and that is something.
I'll have to give this some more consideration.

Thanks for everyone's help.
Much appreciated.

Dean

I lean towards the GP over the Redhawk, but mainly because of the handle design. The Redhawk, of which I love every other aspect, has a traditional "cowboy" handle that for me takes a great deal of joy out of shooting it. The looks I like, but ultimately I couldn't live with it.

If you look at the Super Redhawk the handle is a much improved design. If they would put that same handle on the standard Redhawk I'd buy another one in a heartbeat. Maybe if I get a windfall I'll see if @Velzey could graft or reshape a GP style handle on the Redhawk.

The GP has the same type of handle design as the Super Redhawk. The first time I handled one I decided if I ever got another revolver this would be the one.

Really handle and compare them side by side. Both are excellent, but for the better ergos and less weight I think the GP is the better choice.

 

[titsonritz]

I lean towards the GP over the Redhawk, but mainly because of the handle design. The Redhawk, of which I love every other aspect, has a traditional "cowboy" handle that for me takes a great deal of joy out of shooting it. The looks I like, but ultimately I couldn't live with it.

If you look at the Super Redhawk the handle is a much improved design. If they would put that same handle on the standard Redhawk I'd buy another one in a heartbeat. Maybe if I get a windfall I'll see if @Velzey could graft or reshape a GP style handle on the Redhawk.

The GP has the same type of handle design as the Super Redhawk. The first time I handled one I decided if I ever got another revolver this would be the one.

Really handle and compare them side by side. Both are excellent, but for the better ergos and less weight I think the GP is the better choice.

^^Yes 100% to this, at least for a boomer for EDC I'd still go with a Speed-Six or Service-Six if you prefer more of a square butt. Mechanically speaking the Speed/Service/Security-Six is to the Redhawk as the GP100 is to the Super Redhawk, the latter being the new and improved version. The problem with the Super is you're stuck with massive barrel extended frame with a long barrel and integral ring mount cuts or no barrel at all being the Alaskan but at least it doesn't have the frame cuts. Enter the Bowen GP-44, a modified Super Redhawk frame with a Redhawk barrel...
http://www.bowenclassicarms.com/news/articles/GP_44_Redhawk.pdf

 

[Certaindeaf]

Thanks for the link snarlingdog. I read the posts there and they were talking about a problem that I did know about. There was a spell where the throats on some cylinders were inconsistent and oversized along with excessive cylinder gap in the finished revolvers. This leads to poor accuracy, accelerated wear on the forcing cone and in some cases leading of the bore.

Those problems have been handled a number of years ago when Ruger changed the cylinder reaming process to address these quality issues.

Nothing in this problem suggest the gun is not robust enough for the .44 Special loading. As far as I know (and I know little believe me ) the .44 Special is doing just fine in the majority of GP100s.

Exactly the .44 Special is a black powder cartridge, you'd best know what your particular gun is rated for regarding the respective power levels that can be attained.
No news there.

 

[Certaindeaf]

I lean towards the GP over the Redhawk, but mainly because of the handle design. The Redhawk, of which I love every other aspect, has a traditional "cowboy" handle that for me takes a great deal of joy out of shooting it. The looks I like, but ultimately I couldn't live with it.

If you look at the Super Redhawk the handle is a much improved design. If they would put that same handle on the standard Redhawk I'd buy another one in a heartbeat. Maybe if I get a windfall I'll see if @Velzey could graft or reshape a GP style handle on the Redhawk.

The GP has the same type of handle design as the Super Redhawk. The first time I handled one I decided if I ever got another revolver this would be the one.

Really handle and compare them side by side. Both are excellent, but for the better ergos and less weight I think the GP is the better choice.

Aftermarket grips are available for most guns last I heard.

 

[titsonritz]

Aftermarket grips are available for most guns last I heard.

But you're stuck with a back-strap and/or square butt when they are present which is the case the *****-Six series and Redhawks, not so with the GP-100 and Supers. That feature gives incredible flexibility over those with back-strap.





In addition, the action itself is an improvement.

 

[3MTA3]

Aftermarket grips are available for most guns last I heard.

I used them and none of them did a decent job, at least for me. The best one was a Pachmeyer, but it the grip was still not very comfortable. Again, some might prefer the Redhawk grip and more power to them

 

[orygun]

Keep in mind the Rugers are not forged, they are cast and rely on mass for their strength. Removing mass and adding power is not a good combination.

Personally, I keep in mind that some people keep regurgitating "old wives tales", especially when it comes to things like metallurgy, which most don't understand.
Investment "casting", especially with select materials can be much stronger than a forged part.... Ruger bolts have been proven to have stronger shear strength than forged parts, but I won't spend any more time or space to explain. If anyone is curious, that information can be found. (while you're at it, look to see how things very important, like turbines for jet engines and medical joint replacement parts are formed)

I've not heard of the problems of the Ruger 44 Special and will do a little research, cuz I'm curious. If there's trouble, I'm sure it won't be hard to find!

There have been two times I have chosen a S&W revolver over a Ruger, though.
Once was downright looks and the round butt I prefer, well plus that extra hole in the cylinder (686+ vs GP100 6 shot). The other was that the Ruger GP100 44 was "only" a Special, not a Mag and it only had a 3" barrel. (I wanted 4")

To address @Jonnyuma safe queen, the real problem with the 41 Mag IS cost. If you don't handload, the 41 can be stupid expensive and the options are extremely limited. I've owned a few and it's my favorite magnum handgun cartridge. If anyone besides Taurus made a 4" mid frame, double action 41 Mag, my Model 69 would be on the chopping block.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Personally, I keep in mind that some people keep regurgitating "old wives tales", especially when it comes to things like metallurgy, which most don't understand.
Investment "casting", especially with select materials can be much stronger than a forged part.... Ruger bolts have been proven to have stronger shear strength than forged parts, but I won't spend any more time or space to explain. If anyone is curious, that information can be found. (while you're at it, look to see how things very important, like turbines for jet engines and medical joint replacement parts are formed)

I've not heard of the problems of the Ruger 44 Special and will do a little research, cuz I'm curious. If there's trouble, I'm sure it won't be hard to find!

There have been two times I have chosen a S&W revolver over a Ruger, though.
Once was downright looks and the round butt I prefer, well plus that extra hole in the cylinder (686+ vs GP100 6 shot). The other was that the Ruger GP100 44 was "only" a Special, not a Mag and it only had a 3" barrel. (I wanted 4")

To address @Jonnyuma safe queen, the real problem with the 41 Mag IS cost. If you don't handload, the 41 can be stupid expensive and the options are extremely limited. I've owned a few and it's my favorite magnum handgun cartridge. If anyone besides Taurus made a 4" mid frame, double action 41 Mag, my Model 69 would be on the chopping block.

Yeabut cast iron is brittle, man.





lol

 

[444 Marlin]

I have carried both as a sidearm while archery hunting. My Redhawk is a 41. The GP is the 3" 44 special. The GP is much easier to carry and this past season it was my 'go to'. The 4" 41 Redhawk is a BRICK to carry, but the 41 version will be slightly heavier than a 45. Less metal because of bigger holes.

I really like the design of the Wiley Clapp GP 100 and that would also make a fine EDC.

 

[DeanMk]

OR, I'd do this,

Ruger® GP100® Standard Double-Action Revolver Model 1770

ruger.com

Yeah, I've been a fan of that gun since they came out with it, so yeah, that's another consideration.

 

[DeanMk]

GP100 Ery day.

can still do damage with .38 special +p+

Dammit...my "dream gun" is a Smith model 15. They still make the 67, too (stainless version).
If I were to carry .38, that would probably be it....so yeah, that's another consideration....man, this started off so easy! Now I need an asprin! ( )

 

[IceAxRiflRvlvr]

Ruger Bisley .44 Magnum 3.75" .

 

[tj3006]

Gary Reeder makes a model called the Black Mamba, it turns your GP100 into a 5 shot 44 mag, if I was going to spend the 2k it costs, I would opt for a 41. As a city boy I carry a 4" sp101 in .327 Federal, With 100 grain factory hollow points, I have every confidence it would stop a man quick. With hand loaded hard cast 115 grain swc's I have shot into a fresh cut stump and had an inch and a half of penetration, I think that would Crack the skull of the biggest black bear in Oregon. But still for woods carry I like a round that starts with 4....