New Ruger GP100 .22

[ktktwix]

Greetings, I am new to the forum but I wish to make your acquaintance and to converse in our mutual interest in Rugers fine line of firearms!.

Yesterday I was able to pick up one of the new Ruger GP100's in .22lr and I just thought I would take a moment to share my thoughts so far.

I have not been able to shoot the new revolver yet but my first initial thoughts are that I love it. I love the looks of it, the balance, the feel of the grip. The whole revolver seems to be of the utmost quality and seems to be made strong enough that it will last several lifetimes. the only negative I can think of is the weight is a tad heavy, and the fiber optic front sight is just a bit large for my preferences. but i feel the front sight can be easily remedied.

compared to my SP101 in .22lr i feel that this revolver makes a great companion to that. the SP101 is lighter and more compact and in my opinion makes for a better kit gun than the GP100, but where I feel the GP100 is really going to shine is as a Target/Hunting revolver. with the longer barrel and sight radius. the heavy barrel with the target crown, and the crisp single action trigger pull, I feel this revolver will be more than accurate enough to serve as a fun little critter gitter.

As for comparison of the trigger pull. my SP101 has a lighter and smoother double action pull, but the GP100 has a lighter and crisper single action pull, although I suspect the Double action pull with become smoother with a little shooting.

As far as the price goes i paid 559.99, in comparison to my SP101 .22, I paid 529.99 in 2013 for that revolver and since then I have seen them selling in the 580$ range. So I am quite pleased with the price I paid for my GP100 .22, I am not sure what price it is going for in other areas, but i was given prices from 530 to around 680 when I was asking around at local (West Michigan area) gun shops a few weeks back when I began looking for one of the new GP100s.

I will follow up with an update when I have a chance to shoot this beauty. but for now all I can say is I suspect that this will become another classic revolver from Ruger.

here she is.

Size comparison to my SP101 .22

 

[JLarsson]

So why did they thin out the top strap SO much?

 

[ktktwix]

My guess is weight, or maybe to keep the barrel profile down. I noticed right away that it was considerably thinner than the top strap of my SP101 and Single Six. But seeing that it's a .22 and not a .357 I don't think it's compromising the strength much.

 

[eveled]

Nice pair you have. Great first post, welcome to the forum.

 

[Dave P.]

A little information on the front sight.
The dovetail cut is a .330 inch @ 65 degree, this is a "standard"
Novak size. The stock green blade is .125 wide, which is a bit wide for
my tastes. I bought a Novak blank from Midway and profiled it to
a shape I liked, then milled the blade width down to .105 inch.
I like it better than the green dot. With my old eyes and indoor
range lighting the dots always seem to have fuzzy little halos
around them.
I'll try to post a picture or two....


Also made up a loading box and got some speedloaders from DS 10 Speed.
The loaders work really well.
Debured most of the sharp edges.


Added a Hogue grip.
Dave

 

[eveled]

Dave, that sight is a big improvement IMHO. To each his own, but I am not a fan of them either.

 

[WAYNO]

I am envious.!

There will be no dealers around me that will ever carry them, so once the market is saturated, I'll have to order one, and have pay my dealer a commission for doing nothing.

WAYNO

 

[Chuck 100 yd]

I don't care for the fiber optic front sight either. I recut the dovetail in mine to standard 3/8" and installed a discontinued ,but new, Marbles Patridge front sight from my collection. Much better than the green trash can lid. My gun is a fine shooter. I did shim the hammer,hammer dog and trigger to remove excess side play and installed a Wolff 8# trigger return spring. A sweet shooter indeed.

Welcome to the forum and enjoy your new toy!

 

[ktktwix]

I really like the fiber optic sight on my SP101, but not the sight on my GP100. I'm going to shop around for a new sight in the near future.

 

[JLarsson]

Funny how many express a dislike for the fiber optic sights. Did Ruger start putting them on so many because of actual demand, or because they look flashy to the inexperienced and uninitiated?

And by saying that, I don't mean to criticize anyone who prefers them. You-all would represent the actual demand. I REALLY like Tritium Fiber-Optics on my Glocks, but I don't care for how the FO sights look on any of the revolvers I've seen them on so far.

Still, to each his own. We have so many options for firearms and accessories, we truly live in a time of "an embarrassment of riches".

 

[Heliman]

I really like the fiber optic sight on my SP101, but not the sight on my GP100. I'm going to shop around for a new sight in the near future.

Welcome to the forum! And the process of agreeing to disagree.....it is ongoing here....civilly for the most part!

Equipping a revolver or any other firearm is definitely a personal thing..... Kinda like ordering the options on a new car.....

Anyway, I used to HATE fiber optic sights.... until my eyes started going bad. Now, however, I like them..... especially on the 4" SP101. Just my opinion! :wink:

Dave

 

[s4s4u]

I love FO front sights when coupled with a peep rear like those sold by member sixshot:

But don't really care for them with a notched rear.

 

[djw54]

Congratulations. So, who had it in stock locally in west Michigan?

 

[wwb]

Funny how many express a dislike for the fiber optic sights. Did Ruger start putting them on so many because of actual demand, or because they look flashy to the inexperienced and uninitiated?.......

I've wondered the same thing. I personally have no love for fiber optic sights, and don't have any shooting buddies who prefer them; but we're all old guys, and that may play a part.

 

[Dave P.]

For me the green dot had multiple issues for meeting my preferences.
First the plastic was molded so that it extended just a bit past the
width and height of the sight itself, basically a quality control issue
at Novak. Had I liked the sight it could have been trimmed down.
Second thing for me was it's width, it was .125 wide and the rear notch
is .140. I like a little more daylight showing on the sides.
Then there was the "halo" effect with my old eyes and indoor range
lighting.
I maybe could have gotten used to it.....but I don't need to.
The gun is a toy, and I like my toys to work how I want em to work!
BTW: Put about another 150 rounds through the gun last night
and they all went bang.
Dave

 

[ktktwix]

Congratulations. So, who had it in stock locally in west Michigan?

I picked it up at Port City Pistol. As far as I know it was the first one they got in stock, because I was in there the day after rugger announced that they were releasing the revolver back in mid December, and my name was first on the waiting list, they said they'd call me when they got the first one in. And I ran over and picked it up when I heard they got one in.

 

[jackruff]

Welcome to the forum.

 

[wbwizzard]

I have a GP-100 in 357 which I really like. Great trigger. I have heard good reviews about the GP-100 in 22 LR and was thinking that the trigger would be pretty good; was I ever disappointed. Ruger rep says you need 13 to 18 lbs double action and 3.5 to 7 lbs single action for proper ignition of rimfire ammo. Mine has a measured single action pull of 5.5 lbs and the gauge will not go higher to measure double action. Has anyone tried changing springs to improve trigger pull?

 

[Captain America]

I have a GP-100 in 357 which I really like. Great trigger. I have heard good reviews about the GP-100 in 22 LR and was thinking that the trigger would be pretty good; was I ever disappointed. Ruger rep says you need 13 to 18 lbs double action and 3.5 to 7 lbs single action for proper ignition of rimfire ammo. Mine has a measured single action pull of 5.5 lbs and the gauge will not go higher to measure double action. Has anyone tried changing springs to improve trigger pull?

My SP101 .22lr was dry and gritty when I got it, a good cleaning and lubing along with some dry firing made it a thousand times smoother which gives the "feel" of a lighter pull. I don't have a pull gauge because I could care less about how much pressure it takes to pull the trigger, my GP100 Match Champion is almost too light for my taste. What I'm looking for is a smooth trigger so I can tell exactly when the hammer is going to fall when staging the trigger on a DA pull, cleaning, lubing, and maybe some very light polishing usually accomplishes just that. On a reliable .22 revolver the trigger pull is going to be fairly stiff compared to that of a center fire revolver.

 

[Dave P.]

wbwizzard

If you look up the ibok for the center fire GP100 it basically lays out what to do.
I switched to a 8 pound trigger return spring, added some hammer shims and cleaned
up some sharp rough edges....it helped.
Still have not taken time to do the full polish and try a lighter hammer spring.
Dave

 

[Prescut]

I have a GP-100 in 357 which I really like. Great trigger. I have heard good reviews about the GP-100 in 22 LR and was thinking that the trigger would be pretty good; was I ever disappointed. Ruger rep says you need 13 to 18 lbs double action and 3.5 to 7 lbs single action for proper ignition of rimfire ammo. Mine has a measured single action pull of 5.5 lbs and the gauge will not go higher to measure double action. Has anyone tried changing springs to improve trigger pull?

That statement from Ruger is horse puckey. I have lots of 22 revolvers with 8 lb pulls in double action and 3 lbs. in SA and they go bang every time. I do not believe in staging. DA is for defense and SA is for target. There is no time to stage a DA in a defensive situation.

Ruger attorneys have pushed that DA hard pull for decades. They consider anything under 12 lbs. would be used in a lawsuit as a "hair trigger" used only by Rambos. Ignore the legalese and get your trigger where you can shoot it comfortably. I was told the exact same thing about my new SP101 when I complained about it having a DA that most folks could not pull. Ruger is wrong!

Get some new Wolf springs, stone the parts, shim where necessary, lube, and dry fire with snap caps. The trigger will get to where the factory should have had it. Bill Ruger used to claim that the Ruger was the easiest to work on for non professionals. The GP100 has always been the best of the factory. One of the very best sixguns ever made. Sorry to hear the attorneys got their paws on that new 22.

 

[Captain America]

...get your trigger where you can shoot it comfortably...

Absolutely correct. Jeff Quinn reviewed the GP100 .22lr and listed the DA pull at 9.8 lbs and the SA pull at 3.75 lbs. My guess is that was after some shooting, cleaning, and lubing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr8yuGzEl78

 

[Dave P.]

...get your trigger where you can shoot it comfortably...

Absolutely correct. Jeff Quinn reviewed the GP100 .22lr and listed the DA pull at 9.8 lbs and the SA pull at 3.75 lbs. My guess is that was after some shooting, cleaning, and lubing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr8yuGzEl78

And maybe a just a bit of tuning before it left Ruger......
Don't want the gun writers to get any of those rough, nasty sharp edged, misfiring
production guns now do we.
That gun also had a nice chamfer job done on the charge holes
You can see it in the video near the end.
That didn't come from cleaning and shooting.
Dave

 

[DPris]

Dave,
If you're going to try to start up the old "Special Guns For Writers" BS, lemme tell you about two 4.2 SPs in .22 LR that came with almost non-existent forcing cones.

And the early LCP before the frame was modified that'd throw brass into a six-county arc & peen that section of the frame.

And the Super Red with deep machining rings inside the forcing cone.

And the .44 Mag 3.75-inch stainless Bisley that had gaps between frame & grips big enough to watch TV through, along with external surfaces that looked like they'd been done by at least four different people between the poor machining and the mix of irregular polishing & matte finishing.
That one was so bad the article it woulda been in was cancelled & the gun returned to Ruger.

And the Flattop .44 that had a bent front sight blade.

And the Kodiak .44 with a buggered crown & a trigger that didn't like to return.

And so on.

By & large, especially with Ruger, we get what you get.
Warts & all.
Denis

 

[Captain America]

Dave,
If you're going to try to start up the old "Special Guns For Writers" BS, lemme tell you about two 4.2 SPs in .22 LR that came with almost non-existent forcing cones.

And the early LCP before the frame was modified that'd throw brass into a six-county arc & peen that section of the frame.

And the Super Red with deep machining rings inside the forcing cone.

And the .44 Mag 3.75-inch stainless Bisley that had gaps between frame & grips big enough to watch TV through, along with external surfaces that looked like they'd been done by at least four different people between the poor machining and the mix of irregular polishing & matte finishing.
That one was so bad the article it woulda been in was cancelled & the gun returned to Ruger.

And the Flattop .44 that had a bent front sight blade.

And the Kodiak .44 with a buggered crown & a trigger that didn't like to return.

And so on.

By & large, especially with Ruger, we get what you get.
Warts & all.
Denis

I better stop buying Rugers while I'm ahead...30 and 0 for me so far

 

[DPris]

I've gotten a truckload of good ones over the years, don't misunderstand & think I'm saying they're all bad.

Just pointing out the fallacy of that tired old myth.

QC is an ongoing concern on this & the other Ruger forum, because frankly Ruger does need to pay more attention overall.

But- I'm getting the good, the bad & the ugly, just like everybody else is.

And I've been doing this biz for 26 years.
Denis

 

[Dave P.]

DPris,
Well, mine doesn't have any chamfer on the charge holes ( yet ).
So I didn't get what at least one writer got.
Somebody worked on the gun in Jeff's review.
Some "myths" have a bit of truth behind them.
Dave

 

[DPris]

The sample of the same gun I have here has no chamber chamfering nor do I see any on Jeff's gun in his video.

His looks just like mine; countersunk, but not chamfered.
I'm not seeing on my screen what you're seeing on yours.
Denis

 

[Dave P.]

DPris,

Try this instead,
http://www.gunblast.com/images/Ruger-GP100-22/DSC05542.jpg
Blow it up a bit.
Dave

 

[DPris]

What you're seeing as chamfering is not consistent & I'd take it as more of a by-product of the original cylinder/chamber machining than a deliberate attempt to chamfer those chambers.
Possibly even a trick of the lighting.

You can see what looks like chamfering is ONLY on the cylinder & is not replicated on the extractor.
If chamfered, only about 60% of the hole IS chamfered.

I've had the chambers chamfered on several of my revolvers over the years & no gunsmith has ever addressed ONLY 60% of each chamber & left the remaining 40% as it came from the factory.
The entire circumference of each opening is chamfered.

If, as you seem to be asserting, Ruger had given those chambers on Jeff's sample a "Special Writer's 60% Treatment" & stopped there, that would strike me as not being anything very special.
Why bother to do such a half-assed job if the company's supposedly trying to give him a super-tuned product far above what goes out to the general public?

If I paid somebody to chamfer one of my guns & it came back 60% done, I'd be raising unholy hell over it.

After writing up over 30 Ruger products during the past 26 years, many of which were revolvers, and seeing what gets sent out, and knowing Jeff, I spit ferociously upon your implied assertions.
I don't see him getting a ringer from Ruger any more than I get a ringer from Ruger.

One other thing to consider that you're probably not aware of is that on occasion we may get an early production sample with one or two features or aspects that might be changed slightly in subsequent production.

That was the case with the LCR I mentioned where I made a minor "thing" over that frame peening & the company changed it, and the forcing cone issue on the two early 4.2 SPs in .22LR, where the company corrected that problem in subsequent production.

The early GP Match Champ sample I had came with two front sights, because they were initially shipping that way. It was not a matter of writers getting secret bonus stuff.
Very quickly somebody at Ruger made the decision to ship with only one sight.

If, and I say IF, Jeff's sample does have partial chamfering, where yours & mine don't, it could just as easily be a matter of a mid-stream manufacturing changes as anything else.
Denis