GP100 in .45 Colt?

[5Legion]

So what are the chances Ruger will make a five shot GP100 in .45 LC? Seems do-able considering the recent .44 Special version.

 

[protoolman]

Well the .44 special isn't a .44 mag because the frame wouldn't allow a very thick barrel to be screwed in. So the forcing cone on the .44 spl. Is pretty thin already. .45 Colt is not going to leave enough metal for a forcing cone so I'm thinking it's very unlikely.

 

[DPris]

No chance at all.
Denis

 

[Terry T]

Taurus did it in titanium in a 'K' / 'L' sized gun - 5 shot .45 LC. I have one of these. :D Only 19 oz. unloaded.

http://www.gunbroker.com/item/654061041

Taurus made the same sized gun with an aluminum frame in .45 LC and in stainless steel in .45 ACP. :shock:
I have the .45 ACP version and my brother in law has the aluminum .45 LC.

I don't see why Ruger couldn't.
Terry T

 

[CraigC]

Not enough real estate and you would LOSE capability over the .44Spl. :roll:

 

[Terry T]

All about marketing and engineering, both solvable problems. IF Ruger thinks it would be profitable, they can.
The bet is not 'can they' (make one) but 'will they' (think it's profitable). :shock:

By the way, Taurus no longer offers the 5 shot 45 LC. If it was a hot seller, I think they'd be still offering it.
I really don't want to get into a discussion of .44 spl. vis. 45 LC. "You make your choice and pay your money". Each has some advantages, which always seemed a bit odd to me being only 1/100th different in bore diameter, but...I know .... there are other factors.
Terry T

 

[Thel]

Terry, I am curious if you can measure the width of the frame at the point where the forcing cone is. One could then compare it to a GP100 to see how much the frame would need to be widened. I know the Taurus cylinder is slightly smaller in diameter than a GP so that would eliminate that as a problem preventing .44 mag or .45 Colt.

I agree it is a matter of profitability. If they were going to do a .45 it should probably be a .45 Colt/ACP to increase potential sales(if many). As to .44 mag I wonder how the GP frame width compares to the Smith Model 69 L frame .44 mag?

 

[gunzo]

A moot point but the frame widths outside of forcing cone of one example of each;

Gp100 .830"

S&W M69 .885"

 

[DPris]

There are several things that people who point out the Taurus .45 can't seem to understand in asking for a .45-caliber GP.

One. Ruger is not Taurus.

Two. The GP is not built to the same dimensions as the Taurus.

Three. The forcing cone on the .44 GP is already notably thinner than the .357 versions, which means the cone walls are not as strong.

Four. The .44 Spec runs bullets at nominal diameters of .429"-.430".

Five. The .45s run about .451"-452", on average.

Six. If the .44 GP cone walls are already thin, how much thinner (WEAKER) do you think a cone reamed out to accommodate a .45 caliber bullet would be?

Seven. The size of the forcing cone & consequently its wall thickness is limited by the frame section thickness at the point where the barrel screws in.

Eight. Ream out that frame section to a larger hole for a re-dimensioned barrel to allow a bigger forcing cone, and you weaken that section of the frame.

Nine. Beefing up that frame section to make room for a bigger "barrel hole" would require new molds for the cast frames.

Ten. Molds are expensive.

Eleven. You'd be looking at a new barrel, a new/different/non-standard frame, a new ratchet, a new cylinder, and adapting the guts to time up with a .45-caliber five-shot cylinder.

Twelve. You're talking a new gun, with associated development costs.

Thirteen. It's not that Ruger COULDN'T build a five-shot GP in .45 caliber, they obviously could, IF there was sufficient market to repay the effort of building a new gun/new frame.

Fourteen. There isn't sufficient market to bother doing that.

Fifteen. Ruger has the existing frame sizes that they do offer for a reason- they cover the mainstream market.

Sixteen. Ruger can do variations on those existing frames, as long as they're relatively minor modifications, AND they deem those variations to have enough market interest to justify the effort & expense.

Seventeen. Things like the .44's five-shot cylinder, ratchet, and internal timing modifications are relatively cheap.

Eighteen. Making frame modifications are not.

Nineteen. Trying to cram .45s into a frame that's already stretching the envelope at the forcing cone with .44s is not feasible.

Twenty. If you haven't picked up the main theme by now, I'll summarize: The .45 is too big for the existing GP frame, the GP frame would have to be altered & a new barrel created, altering frames is expensive, non-standard low-volume barrels are expensive, and the whole resulting new gun would not sell well enough for Ruger to bother.
Denis

 

[Terry T]

"Pessimist". :wink:
I'll agree it's not likely - not enough market vis the cost. Otherwise Taurus would still be making them.
Terry T

 

[CraigC]

All about marketing and engineering, both solvable problems. IF Ruger thinks it would be profitable, they can.
The bet is not 'can they' (make one) but 'will they' (think it's profitable). :shock:

By the way, Taurus no longer offers the 5 shot 45 LC. If it was a hot seller, I think they'd be still offering it.
I really don't want to get into a discussion of .44 spl. vis. 45 LC. "You make your choice and pay your money". Each has some advantages, which always seemed a bit odd to me being only 1/100th different in bore diameter, but...I know .... there are other factors.
Terry T

It's not a won't, it's a can't. If it was possible, it would've already been doneby custom gunsmiths. If you have to re-engineer and enlarge the gun for a larger cartridge, it's no longer a GP but something else entirely.

 

[DPris]

Terry,
Not being a pessimist, just a realist. :)

As Craig says- the result would not be a GP.
And as me says- the market wouldn't repay the effort.
Denis

 

[sp327]

People need to remember. Rugers are cast, that metal is soft. Take a file to one, and then do the same to a forged frame. There is a reason Ruger keeps all that extra metal there. By the time they change the frame, and everything to accommodate the 45, it would no linger be a GP. It would be a redhawk

 

[Terry T]

Now you’ve made me curious. :shock: I’ll get my calipers out tomorrow (grandkids visit today in a few min. :D ) and dig out the two Taurus (.45 LC titanium and .45 ACP stainless) and a GP100 (357 mag) just to see what the frame measures at the forcing cone.

It’s my understanding that Taurus subcontracted the titanium casting for their revolvers to Ruger casting. Might just be gossip but Ruger does have some amazing expertise in metallurgy and lost wax casting. :shock:
Terry T

 

[DPris]

Ruger pretty much quit contracting their Pine Tree services out a while back & I'm not aware of them doing any titanium anywhere along the line.
Denis

 

[5Legion]

Gents - Thanks for the responses. Great insight for a non-revolver expert such as
myself! Sounds like I need to get my hands on one of the .45 LC/ACP Redhawks and see if that will scratch the itch.

 

[Terry T]

Ruger did titanium golf clubs and hammers, among other things. :shock:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Mens-RH-Callaway-Great-Big-Bertha-10-Ruger-Ti-Driver-BBUL-Firm-Graphite-Golf-/391813904181?hash=item5b39edb735:g:wawAAOSw6dNWToA6

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Stiletto-Tool-Co-Ruger-Titanium-14-OZ-Claw-Framing-Hammer-w-Wood-Handle-NICE-/332258412271?hash=item4d5c2506ef:g:fh0AAOSwd~RZO0DS

Terry T

 

[DPris]

Gunwise, I've not heard of Ruger doing any titanium contracting. Shoulda been more specific.
Might easily have, I've just not heard of it.
Denis

 

[CraigC]

People need to remember. Rugers are cast, that metal is soft. Take a file to one, and then do the same to a forged frame. There is a reason Ruger keeps all that extra metal there. By the time they change the frame, and everything to accommodate the 45, it would no linger be a GP. It would be a redhawk

Uh no, Rugers are not soft, they are through-hardened. S&W's forged frames are left intentionally soft so they can be beat back into shape with a lead babbitt. It's all in the heat treat.

 

[Terry T]

So..... revelation! :shock:

Ruger GP-100 (stainless 6", half lug, .357 mag.) measures .835" wide at the outside of the frame where the forcing cone is.
Ruger GP-100 stainless 3" .357 mag. also measures .835".

Ruger GS-34 (stainless Speed Six, 4", .357 mag. later scalloped frame) measures .80"!

Taurus stainless 2" .45 ACP measures .77".
Taurus titanium 2" .45 LC measures .77".

Now....Taurus does caution about +P loads since there is no pressure standard for +P, only for standard loads. Both standard .45 LC and .45 ACP are (relatively) low pressure loads.

So.....Taurus has made, in the past, a 5 shot .45 LC and a 5 shot .45 ACP with a thinner frame than the Ruger GP-100! :shock:
Even thinner than a Speed Six! :shock:

I stand by my premise the GP-100 can handle a 5-shot .45 cylinder. :D
Now....making money and marketing are a whole 'nother issue, of course.
Not to mention Ruger's reputation for building 'hell bent for stout' guns. Kind of doubt Ruger would market a revolver that would not handle +P loads, just because of liability issues. Just say'n.
Terry T

 

[DPris]

And why would you suppose Taurus no longer makes those?
Could it be they weren't holding up?
Or just didn't sell?

Either way, Ruger's not gonna do it.
Denis

 

[CraigC]

You're oversimplifying it and I guess you're smarter than the custom gunsmiths who actually build these guns? There is much more to take into account than the frame window, which can be easily enlarged. There are the dimensions around the ejector, the distance between the center of the cylinder to the center of the chambers, the diameter of the barrel shank, etc.. Those are not dimensions that can be changed without serious effort. Ruger cares nothing about +P loads or liability regarding them because they condemn the use of anything but standard pressure factory loads. Otherwise they would have never introduced the New Vaquero in .45Colt.

 

[DPris]

Yeah! So there!! :)
Denis

 

[Terry T]

Waiting for a competent custom gunsmith / gun maker to check in to this discussion. :shock:

The old "given enough time and money most any gun can be transformed into...." adage might be in play here. :roll:

My observation was simply that Taurus had done it successfully on a smaller frame. Draw your own conclusions.

Terry T

 

[CraigC]

You can ask any of them, they'll all tell you the same thing. Where do you think I got it???

 

[Thel]

Terry T

Appreciate the information. I assume the same frame is probably used on the Trackers. Of more interest to me is if the frame measures 0.770" wide and the gun will handle .44 mags which they make the last I knew. The GP100 is 0.835" wide. If a barrel with a larger shank were fitted AND the frame cast out of a stronger alloy I would think it could be done. It could cost a bit more but perhaps a lot less than redoing the frame dies. Only other reason I can think of is I seem to recall the cylinder would need to be a bit longer for the .44 mag than it is currently. Will the market support it? If not wonder why Smith came out with the Model 69?

Having the dimensions for frame widths it would be interesting to compare outside diameters of the barrel shanks at the forcing cone across the Tauruses, Smith 69 and Ruger GP100 .44 Sp. Wonder if the Ruger GP is thicker in the shank than a Smith 696?

 

[DPris]

I look at the cone on my GP .44 Spec & I wouldn't buy a .45 with walls any thinner than what I see there.
Denis

 

[MaxP]

People need to remember. Rugers are cast, that metal is soft. Take a file to one, and then do the same to a forged frame. There is a reason Ruger keeps all that extra metal there. By the time they change the frame, and everything to accommodate the 45, it would no linger be a GP. It would be a redhawk

This is just not true. There is nothing inherently weak about castings.

 

[HAWKEYE#28]

Side bar comment 8) I truly enjoy MR DPRIS' informative thoughtful comments and numbered lists on this matter. THANK YOU :) :wink:

 

[Sugar River]

People need to remember. Rugers are cast, that metal is soft. Take a file to one, and then do the same to a forged frame. There is a reason Ruger keeps all that extra metal there. By the time they change the frame, and everything to accommodate the 45, it would no linger be a GP. It would be a redhawk

This is just not true. There is nothing inherently weak about castings.

Thanks for responding, Max.
This kind of nonsense never fails to make me laugh.