GP100 7 SHOT 357, not completely fixed - Page 3 - Ruger Forum

Ruger Forum

GP100 7 SHOT 357, not completely fixed

This is a discussion on GP100 7 SHOT 357, not completely fixed within the Ruger Double Action forums, part of the Pistol & Revolver Forum category; Thanks for the info. I saw that one ,but didn't know if it would be available. I will ask the CSR about that....


Go Back   Ruger Forum > Pistol & Revolver Forum > Ruger Double Action

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes

Old February 10th, 2019, 11:17 AM   #31
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 3
jerryw1941 is on a distinguished road
Thanks for the info. I saw that one ,but didn't know if it would be available. I will ask the CSR about that.



jerryw1941 is offline  
Advertisements
Old February 10th, 2019, 11:53 AM   #32
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Charlton, Ma
Posts: 31
Falcon3559 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLS1980 View Post
Have you experienced certain brands or loads that the rims bind at all in yours?
I just bought a GP 100 7 shot and first time I shot it I had this problem. I was using Federal 38 spl. I then tried some new starline cases that I bought for reloading and they fit just fine. So did the Federal 357. I checked the rims on the 38 with a caliper and they were out of round between .440 and .436.
So use quality brass and you won't have any problem.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg GP100.jpg (889.4 KB, 20 views)
Falcon3559 is offline  
Old February 10th, 2019, 12:02 PM   #33
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Charlton, Ma
Posts: 31
Falcon3559 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLS1980 View Post
Just an educated guess obviously. I did measure the rim diameters of all the brands I had on hand. Winchester was running to a max 0.438, the max SAAMI spec is 0.440, so they are in spec but on the high side. Remington came in around 0.434, hence the lack of an issue, underwood states starline is 0.432-0.433. If everything is correct about the closed thread and geometry didn't allow for the max SAAMI spec, then it is definitely an engineering flaw, you never design on an average, you design on what the accepted SAAMI allowable spec is. Some said it can't be done with the current cylinder due to the axis and bore alignment. The guy that said he had a contact within Ruger, says there are 3 areas they can address to correct this issue, but could not give details for whatever reason. So obviously there is a fix they can do but can not apply the fix to a prior production run. That makes one think they had to move the bore alignment and open the cylinder up a few thousands, change their mold for the frame slightly. But again, this is just me speculating and adding 2+2.

Now here is the funny part. I was curious, I called Ruger again yesterday and talked to a guy named Dewayne. As soon as I mentioned the model of subject, he instantly said "so you are experiencing rim lock", I said yes, and gave him the run down of my experience with measurements of the ammo. His response was as such: "Yes, we have a fix for that now, but it will require switching the gun out for one of our new production models, so please send it to us". I told him that the person I had spoken to before told me that my revolver was a november run, he said "yes, that was still the old run that had the issue, we changed a few things and fixed the issue since then", the never said if it was done in december or at the 1st of the year. So obviously they knew, took a whole year to work up a change and just now implementing the change in current production. So there you go guys, if you want to buy a 7 shot, DO NOT BUY IT WITHOUT KNOWING THE TIME OF PRODUCTION. I will respond back to all this when I get the "fixed" model and test it.

Jason

So are you saying that they will do a free exchange of the gun for a newer fixed one?
Falcon3559 is offline  
 
Old February 10th, 2019, 05:07 PM   #34
 
JLS1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: SW Virginia
Posts: 73
JLS1980 is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon3559 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLS1980 View Post
Just an educated guess obviously. I did measure the rim diameters of all the brands I had on hand. Winchester was running to a max 0.438, the max SAAMI spec is 0.440, so they are in spec but on the high side. Remington came in around 0.434, hence the lack of an issue, underwood states starline is 0.432-0.433. If everything is correct about the closed thread and geometry didn't allow for the max SAAMI spec, then it is definitely an engineering flaw, you never design on an average, you design on what the accepted SAAMI allowable spec is. Some said it can't be done with the current cylinder due to the axis and bore alignment. The guy that said he had a contact within Ruger, says there are 3 areas they can address to correct this issue, but could not give details for whatever reason. So obviously there is a fix they can do but can not apply the fix to a prior production run. That makes one think they had to move the bore alignment and open the cylinder up a few thousands, change their mold for the frame slightly. But again, this is just me speculating and adding 2+2.

Now here is the funny part. I was curious, I called Ruger again yesterday and talked to a guy named Dewayne. As soon as I mentioned the model of subject, he instantly said "so you are experiencing rim lock", I said yes, and gave him the run down of my experience with measurements of the ammo. His response was as such: "Yes, we have a fix for that now, but it will require switching the gun out for one of our new production models, so please send it to us". I told him that the person I had spoken to before told me that my revolver was a november run, he said "yes, that was still the old run that had the issue, we changed a few things and fixed the issue since then", the never said if it was done in december or at the 1st of the year. So obviously they knew, took a whole year to work up a change and just now implementing the change in current production. So there you go guys, if you want to buy a 7 shot, DO NOT BUY IT WITHOUT KNOWING THE TIME OF PRODUCTION. I will respond back to all this when I get the "fixed" model and test it.

Jason

So are you saying that they will do a free exchange of the gun for a newer fixed one?
That's what was said to me, before it seemed from what I have read, that they would not offer a replacement 7 shot last year but would offer a 6 shot. That alone tells you they didn't want to replace a problem with another problem. What I thought was interesting is this Dewayne guy said this was gonna be a new production run 7 shot that has the fixes in it. So if you aren't happy about the binding, call em. They do what's right in the end. I figure it will be a week before they contact me back to give me my options, so I will let you guys know what they tell me and if indeed a "fix" has been applied. Really they would have to change the height of the bore if they change chamber spacing outward. Might have been what they did I guess we will
JLS1980 is offline  
Old February 10th, 2019, 05:12 PM   #35
 
JLS1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: SW Virginia
Posts: 73
JLS1980 is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon3559 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLS1980 View Post
Have you experienced certain brands or loads that the rims bind at all in yours?
I just bought a GP 100 7 shot and first time I shot it I had this problem. I was using Federal 38 spl. I then tried some new starline cases that I bought for reloading and they fit just fine. So did the Federal 357. I checked the rims on the 38 with a caliper and they were out of round between .440 and .436.
So use quality brass and you won't have any problem.
Mine was the same way, but here is the way I see it. A gun half the price didn't have this issue. If you spend your hard earned money for what these things cost, there shouldnt be an issue to begin with. Dang things sale for 700-800 depending on your exact model, thats not a small chunk of change for any gun.
JLS1980 is offline  
Old February 10th, 2019, 05:15 PM   #36
 
JLS1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: SW Virginia
Posts: 73
JLS1980 is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sr40ken View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLS1980 View Post
My opinion is they were designing the chamber clearances based on an industry average instead of the industry standard. The problem with the average is there are too many variables between runs of brass and between ammo companies, just forming an opinion as to what may have gone on. Too many 7 shot's have this issue, some a lot worse than mine. If it does well and doesn't give me a fit with ammo I know drops in well, I will probably keep it, but if it extracts rough at the range from brass expansion, well I guess you know what the answer is going to be at that point. I honestly didn't research issues etc before I bought it, who would expect one in an GP100? Once I did and researched, found it is fairly common, which says design flaw, as least to me. I hunt with mine and hike, so 7 shots isn't a big deal to me, 6 high powered killers is good enough for that.
One heck of a stab in the dark. Maybe you could use some engineering skills and take some measurements and then it would't be an opinion.
No need to act smart and act like problems don't exist. Most here have pretty good back ground in firearms and education, including myself, so you are welcome to take some measurements yourself, I'm not doing rugers work for them.
JLS1980 is offline  
Old February 10th, 2019, 07:51 PM   #37
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Charlton, Ma
Posts: 31
Falcon3559 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLS1980 View Post
Mine was the same way, but here is the way I see it. A gun half the price didn't have this issue. If you spend your hard earned money for what these things cost, there shouldnt be an issue to begin with. Dang things sale for 700-800 depending on your exact model, thats not a small chunk of change for any gun.
This is my first revolver so when the very first time I fired it I had to use a hammer on the ejector rod to eject the casings I thought it was because it was new. I definitely want a replacement.
Falcon3559 is offline  
Old February 11th, 2019, 07:14 AM   #38
 
JLS1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: SW Virginia
Posts: 73
JLS1980 is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon3559 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLS1980 View Post
Mine was the same way, but here is the way I see it. A gun half the price didn't have this issue. If you spend your hard earned money for what these things cost, there shouldnt be an issue to begin with. Dang things sale for 700-800 depending on your exact model, thats not a small chunk of change for any gun.
This is my first revolver so when the very first time I fired it I had to use a hammer on the ejector rod to eject the casings I thought it was because it was new. I definitely want a replacement.
Exactly. This is my 4th, I have a 44 charter arms bulldog, taurus 605 blued 357 (will not shoot 357 outta that gun), taurus 66 7 shot 357 strong enough to handle a steady diet of 357 ammo, and this new ruger. I can tell you first hand that the same ammo I had issues with on the GP100, caused no problem whatsoever with the cheaper taurus 66. No one should settle for an issue like this with a widely known tank like the GP100 for the price. If they offer me a 6 shot, I may very well accept if they can give me the the same sights, grips on a 6 inch model. When I bought it, I wanted the 6 inch, FFL didn't have a 6 shot 6 inch on hand, had this 7 shot that was beautiful and nice sights. The 6 shot 4 inch they had didnt have the nice sights, so I paid 700 instead of 650 between the 2. Never expected a ammo problem. If ruger makes it right like they have with others, good for them and in my good graces. I don't suspect it will be anything else otherwise. Dewayne said they had 3 name brands on hand that cause the issue, so it should be nothing for a tech to do a 5 minute test.
JLS1980 is offline  
Old February 11th, 2019, 08:15 AM   #39
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Charlton, Ma
Posts: 31
Falcon3559 is on a distinguished road
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.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 20190209_161616_1549901608951.jpg (3.20 MB, 34 views)
File Type: jpg 20190209_161609_1549901622276.jpg (2.99 MB, 32 views)
File Type: jpg 20190209_161414_1549901634569.jpg (2.99 MB, 34 views)
Falcon3559 is offline  
Old February 11th, 2019, 10:01 AM   #40
Retired Moderator & Gunsmith
 
Iowegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: CB, IA
Posts: 15,570
Iowegan has much to be proud ofIowegan has much to be proud ofIowegan has much to be proud ofIowegan has much to be proud ofIowegan has much to be proud ofIowegan has much to be proud ofIowegan has much to be proud ofIowegan has much to be proud of

Awards Showcase

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).
Iowegan is online now  
Old February 11th, 2019, 12:31 PM   #41
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Charlton, Ma
Posts: 31
Falcon3559 is on a distinguished road
Thanks for the update Jason. Good to know that the 2019 guns are updated. I hope they send me one of those.
Falcon3559 is offline  
Old February 12th, 2019, 09:25 AM   #42
 
JLS1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: SW Virginia
Posts: 73
JLS1980 is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowegan View Post
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).
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.
JLS1980 is offline  
Old February 12th, 2019, 09:32 AM   #43
 
JLS1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: SW Virginia
Posts: 73
JLS1980 is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon3559 View Post
Thanks for the update Jason. Good to know that the 2019 guns are updated. I hope they send me one of those.
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.
JLS1980 is offline  
Old February 12th, 2019, 10:11 AM   #44
 
JLS1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: SW Virginia
Posts: 73
JLS1980 is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon3559 View Post
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.
Looks exactly the same as white box Winchester 38s in the one i bought.
JLS1980 is offline  
Old February 13th, 2019, 07:46 AM   #45
 
Rover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 1,831
Rover is on a distinguished road
"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. "

I don't know but it can't be that costly as that is what S&W had to do to offer the 8 shot .357 N frames they make and I would not think there is a lot of volume to spread the cost over as there would be with a 7 shot medium frame. Also, if Ruger were going to alter the frame, anyhow, they could widen it at the front and offer .44 mag and .45 Colt 5 shooters so the cost could be spread over even more units.
Rover is offline  
Reply

  Ruger Forum > Pistol & Revolver Forum > Ruger Double Action

None


Search tags for this page

are newly made gp100 7 shots fixed

,

gp100 7 shot

,
gp100 7 shot issue
,
gp100 7 shot issues
,
gp100 7 shot problems
,
is the 7 shot ruger gp100 just as strong as the 6 shot ruger gp100 in .357 mag
,
review ruger model 1773
,
rim .357
,

ruger gp100 7 shot issues

,

ruger gp100 7 shot problems

,
ruger gp100 7. round 357 issues
,
ruger model 1782 review
Click on a term to search for related topics.

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Ruger Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
.357 reloading sbninja Reloading 70 April 20th, 2019 11:57 AM
Fixed sight SS 4" full lug GP100? stantheman86 Ruger Double Action 20 December 18th, 2017 10:33 AM
Ruger... How About a 7 Shot, 2" GP100 .357 weblance Ruger Double Action 35 August 14th, 2015 05:48 PM
Older model GP100 fixed sights gqucool Ruger Double Action 2 March 16th, 2015 10:08 PM
Ruger GP100 4" Stainless fixed sights Mr Wren Optics 16 June 24th, 2010 04:26 PM

Top Gun Sites Top Sites List
Powered by vBulletin 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
Copyright © 2006 - 2020 Ruger Forum. All rights reserved.
Ruger Forum is a Ruger Firearms enthusiast's forum, but it is in no way affiliated with, nor does it represent Sturm Ruger & Company Inc. of Southport, CT.