Ruger Forum banner

GP100 7 SHOT 357, not completely fixed

44K views 148 replies 39 participants last post by  fxstchewy 
#1 ·
Since the older thread is closed, I have decided to chime in. Not that is matter to me a whole bunch unless it becomes more and more common with ammunition. The 3 areas they were supposed to improve, either a epic fail, didn't do it or both. Here is why:

I noticed that when i loaded white box (not usa branded) winchester 38+p, i was getting this issues that were beaten to death in the closed thread. I used my micrometer/caliper to measure those rims and they had a wide variance from 0.434 to 0.438. Now I could push the last round in most of the time but it was difficult to extract unfired rounds if I did. Now to I got interested and tried the other brands I have, which included: UMC 38+p 125 grain hollow points, all measured less than 0.435, no issues, would fall with out using the ejector, i moved on to federal standard 38 158 grain round nose lead, measure up to 0.436, no issues, fall right out, I then went to my magnum loads of sig sauer elite 125 self defense ammo, perfect, drop right out, then on to barnes vortex hunting loades 140 xpb bullet, same, fall right out, then on to remington HTP 158 grain soft points, same result, no binding all fall right now. So it leads me to conclude that my particular 7 shooter is limited to 0.436 and lower for flawless function, which is a tad better than the original guy who measured his blazer brass at 0.436 and had issues. When I contacted Underwood and talked with them about hunting loads and mentioned the rim diameter issues, they even recognized that firearm companies squeezing that 7th chamber has caused the ammunition industry to take note and the starline brass they use is 0.432-.433, straight from the horse's mouth.

This leads me to believe that Ruger has indeed not fixed their "issue" (if you want to call it that). Now why do I say that, the answer is I called and gave my serial number to see when it was made, well it was shipped to the FFL in November 2018, well after the issues were brought to Ruger's attention. When I mentioned that it was a known issue to the CS rep, she acted like she had never heard of it, and mentioned all she had to do was research the net and she would find that it is known and then I asked if I could speak to someone else more in tune with the GP100, she acted like no one would know anything she didn't know. Instead of arguing I just said "ok". So what do you choose to do here, send it to them, let them tell you its in spec or trade it out for a 6 shooter (which i don't mind, but if i am trading i want to be able to see the firearm before i say ok!!). That's the part that bothers me, I love to inspect my purchase before I buy it. I did with this 7 shooter, nicely made revolver, so I bought it. The other option is to just live with the fact it can't currently shoot all ammunition without difficulty.

So whoever is making the list of ammo that had caused binding, add winchester white box 38+p 125 ammo to it. So far, my particular revolver doesn't seem to have as tight a tolerance as the original complaint, but it still isn't far off. Ruger hasn't fixed it guys, so either wait, or just know that its not going to accept everything out there. For me, I don't really want alot of aggravation, so unless I run into more brands that give me fits, I am not going to worry about it. Just passing my experience along.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Depressing. My GP is an old (1996) model. If I were after a seven shot today, I would look to S&W, lock and all. I have shot a friend’s pre-lock 686 with seven rounds. It is a fine revolver. I would start by looking for one of them, if you get rid of the Ruger.

QC remains suspect for all the big companies, I fear: they want to sell lots of guns to the upgrade-constantly crowd, not build a lifetime relationship with a customer who might only buy a few. Every time Glock or Smith have a new Gen pistol, you can snag the last versions at good prices, used, at my LGS.

For some owners, it is like upgrading the phone...
 
#3 ·
I hear ya. I own a Taurus 66 7 shot, and it doesn't have this issue. I wanted the GP100 to use full magnum loads like they used to be made, like those from underwood for the purpose of hunting. Taurus is a good revolver but their CS is terrible, they destroyed mine when I sent it in for a barrel replacement after I dropped it from a tree stand, now they are sending me a blued version (original was stainless) because they were out of stainless and wouldn't accept any other model, so it was either wait for 6 months likely or accept the blued version. I guess it could have been worse and them sending back a destroyed pistol that they did themselves screwing a new barrel on.

I knew the Ruger was built like a tank, so it was obvious that was the direction I would go if Taurus keep screwing with me. Contrary to what one says about cylinder thickness being a concern in strength, well I know well enough that the strength is mostly in the frame, not the cylinder, hence the lock positions to the frame. Went ahead and got it. I haven't fired the revolver yet to know it if has extraction issues with the ammo that feel freely out of it unfired. I wanted the 6 shot version to begin with because it was 50$ cheaper but they were out of the 6" model at the FFL, but they had this 7 shooter with a 6 inch, figured what the heck, paid the premium, I love the sights and the grips but this does make me wonder if I should fire it and see where that goes or go back to the FFL and see if they can swap it for me. I dunno, its a tough one, revolver looks great and I hate to keep blowing money on background checks lol
 
#63 ·
OP, I would agree with this poster, It is probably an issue with that particular lot of ammo, see if a buddy will trade, or put it away for a future firearm, it really doesn't go bad. just my 2 cents.
 
#5 ·
I don't know if Ruger has a QC issue with the 7-shot GP's or a geometry problem. The GP's cylinder is actually a bit smaller in diameter than the 686's and that may be the reason the rims overlap with some ammo in the GP but not in the S&W. The difference is small but so are the interferences with the GP.

I know the 6-shot 686 and GP use the same speedloaders but the 7-shot guns seem to have individually spece'd speedloaders telling me the charge hole circle centers are not the same.
 
#6 ·
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.
 
#11 ·
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.
 
#12 ·
"My opinion is they were designing the chamber clearances based on an industry average instead of the industry standard. " SR40Ken

I don't think they bothered with the consideration. They simply took what they had in the 6 shot in terms of center of axis of the cylinder to center of the bore and ran with it. By doing so they would not need to alter the frame by moving the barrel further up the frame and coming up with a whole new cylinder on outside dimensions. It could be they modified a 7 shot .327 Fed model and maybe checked it with a few cartridges and it worked so they ran with it. If they had done some mathematical analysis with the cartridge case head max dimensions should have revealed the interference.
 
#14 ·
Agreed, and likely the deal with all this. The most alarming thing that doesn't make sense, when they knew about the issue, they kept making the darn things without the changes applied to the revolver that they have said they made recently. Seems like a money loss and counting on customers to just accept the flaw, maybe that worked to an extent but it obviously was serious enough for them to do something about it later....
 
#21 ·
Several lengthy threads took place here and elsewhere during which there was first silence from Ruger, then sorta denial,then more silence, and then eventually it became known that Ruger would exchange a "problem" sevenshooter for a new sixshooter if requested. This latter development was the obvious tipoff that Ruger knew they had a problem. How long they kept the faulty sevenshooters in production after the problem was known to them is something we'll likely never know.

All most of us care about now is that they have acknowledged the problem and addressed it in a couple of ways and offered to make good on the faulty ones in the only way they could in the interim, by swapping even up for good sixshooters. If they are now swapping for "good" sevenshooters, so much the better. Don't know what else we could expect from them.

It's all a shame, but they'll survive, and I for one have no problem remaining a fan of Ruger guns. All JMHO, of course. :)
 
#22 ·
sure a lot of frustrations and headaches to get one more round of ammo into a revolver

hopefully they've worked it out, i personally like Ruger, every revolver i've bought has been problem free and will last 100 years
 
#24 · (Edited)
I did all the same and came up with 0.4338" center/center on seven-shot chambers, so maybe 0.434" rims MIGHT fit depending on the tolerances of case diameter and chamber diameter. At SAAMI rim max of 0.440" though, no.

My numbers are based on a 1" diameter "bore circle", measured on my GP100 and then doing the necessary geometry and trig to calculate the center/center distance. You used the arc length for seven chambers on the 1" diameter, but the actual spacing involved is the straight chord length between any two holes.

Similar manipulations indicate that the "bore circle" would have to be at least 1.014" for just barely rim/rim contact on SAAMI-max cases.

Small numbers . . . and I'm betting that Ruger did NOT make the "bore circle" to that odd 1.014" diameter. There would have been zero reason to do so when designing the original gun for six chambers.

Whatever, it was a "calculated" (or not) decision, and as a designer myself I can only hope the engineers explained the potential problem but marketing said "Ahh, what's a few thousandths? SELL 'EM!"

JMHO

:)
 
#27 ·
Took my 7shot out past Friday and picked a box of Winchester white box out of my inventory and fired them, no issues, to date i have had NO issue with ANY premium defense ammo and have only had one brand of target ammo that i don't remember brand that was "tight" when loaded with 7 rounds, i sure wish i could say same with my auto loaders.
 
#28 ·
Good thread. I bought My GP 100 model 1771 new in January 2019, and it is now at Ruger for the same problem that is being discussed. I received a e-mail from the CSR Friday afternoon 2-8-19 stating that they would replace it with the same model.

I tried to call the CSR and got a recording. Unless they have fixed the binding problem which from reading threads here, I doubt that they have. I do not want another 7 shot,

The problem is according to the Ruger website is they do not make a identical model in 6 shot as mine except the match grade.

Will call tomorrow 2-11-19 and see what I can work out

Been a loyal Ruger customer for a big part of my 77 years, hope I can continue being
 
#29 ·
The problem is according to the Ruger website is they do not make a identical model in 6 shot as mine except the match grade.

Ruger replaced my 1771 with a 1762 Lipsey's Distributor Exclusive which has the identical features of the 1771 except it is a 6-shooter. One of the reasons I got the 7-shot was that I liked the grip and sight it had, so I was glad to get a 6-shot with those same features.
 
#39 ·
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.
 

Attachments

#40 ·
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).
 
#42 ·
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.
 
#43 ·
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.
 
#45 ·
"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.
 
#46 ·
I don't know if that would be beneficial to them or not to widen it to a degree that accepts 44 magnums, but it might. The Tracker 44 from Taurus is an example of this. I think one would have to port the GP100 is the gun doesn't reach 45-50 oz. for a 44 magnum, recoil would only be tamed by experienced marksman. If you get into making the frame too large to chamber bigger calibers, finding a holster becomes an issue, at least one that fits it good and snug. The same holster (Bianchi) for the Taurus 66, fits a SW 686+ and Ruger GP100, we all know the SW 686+ is close to an L frame and the GP100 is an L frame, the Taurus 66 is between a K and L frame, so there would be very little room to grow the frame outward including the cylinder and have it fit the same holster. If we are are talking a few hundredth's no issue, but more than that I can see one popping up. Making one wider could definitely create a compatibility issue in my thinking, I could be completely off base though. So if you got an N frame holster to carry these with, it would be a very loose fit. Good thinking though, they may have sold and replaced enough 7 shot 357 to alter the mold just enough and still be profitable, I hope that is what they did.

Side note, they did call me this morning and offer me a new 7 shot, I asked the lady if she can get me some kind of reassurance that there will be no issues with a new run 7 shot, she said she can provide that but trying to get any specific info out of their techs would be difficult, in other words, they don't want to tell what they had to change due to having to formally come out that there was an issue to begin with to the public. In all regards, a recall should have been issued when this first popped up and verified.

Jason
 
#47 ·
Ok, just to play on error of caution, I chose the 6 shot version (being a hunter, the extra round doesn't make or break me). They wouldn't say what they did to fix this, I didn't feel like being a test monkey for their fix so it was an obvious choice for me. They did let me choose the sights that the 7 shot had instead of the ramp site and change the back blade to the white outline. Guess this ends the debate for me (hopefully). Thanks for all the replies, sometimes its just best to go with something you know is proven.

Jason
 
#48 ·
Well I can finish my experience. I did trade it for a 6 shot version. Their customer service didn't fight me whatsoever, they allowed me to choose the 6 shot version and have the fiber optic sights with white outline back blade installed. I just picked the pistol up today, I am pleased, got it all cleaned up and ready for the range. BTW does anyone have any insight to getting powder burn stain off of the finish without abrasive cloths etc? Look like they test fired mine with oil or grease in the cylinder housing in a few places and baked it right on. Overall though, that was amazing quick turn around service. About a week and a half. Compared to Taurus, well there is no comparison......I was expecting a few weeks for mine to be built but they must have had one already built from a canceled order or something, won't complain at all about that. If any of you do choose another 7 shot, give us a report as to what they changed to make it work. Regards.

Jason
 
#49 ·
To me Ruger's 7 shot GP100 .357 has to be a design flaw so has Ruger changed the design enough to actually make a successful GP100 7 shot .357 or not?? To the OP I think you made the right choice in getting a 6 shot GP100 .357. Whats weird is the Taurus Model 66 does have just a very slight smaller diameter cylinder vs the S&W Model 686, yet it seems that S&W Model 686 + & the Taurus Model 66 both of these revolvers seem to work just fine in the 7 shot versions!!! Oh well it will be interesting to see if Ruger gets it right on the 7 shot GP100 .357.
 
#50 ·
They claim they have, but would not tell me what it was, so I opted to let them keep the 7 shot option. They already used us as test rats once with the model, sure wasnt gonna do it again. It is definitely a design flaw and not a simple to fix one.
 
#51 ·
"Whats weird is the Taurus Model 66 does have just a very slight smaller diameter cylinder vs the S&W Model 686, yet it seems that S&W Model 686 + & the Taurus Model 66 both of these revolvers seem to work just fine in the 7 shot versions!!! Oh well it will be interesting to see if Ruger gets it right on the 7 shot GP100 .357."

Well, Taurus is Taurus. To get the 7 shot to work obviously the bore center to cylinder axis is greater on the Taurus and 686+. The 686 has a slightly larger diameter cylinder than the GP so could still retain the same or greater cylinder wall thickness at the outside. The Taurus being smaller means that they would have less cylinder wall thickness at the outside compared to the GP. I guess it is a matter of how much is enough OR maybe Taurus does not think their guns will see "Ruger only loads"(??)

The big question is whether Ruger will increase the cylinder axis to bore center distance to fix the problem. I am anxiously awaiting an answer as could influence whether I will buy a 7 shot GP.
 
#55 ·
Actually not a bad observation and questioning of Taurus, and I won't defend them. As far as the Model 66 they produce, it is their strongest medium frame, the top strap etc is fairly beefy, not GP100 beefy but stronger than the smith 66. If someone is going to shoot a steady diet of 357 mag loads in it, within SAAMI specs, it would handle it much better than their tracker model. You would probably have to to shoot a few thousand rounds through this gun before needing it tightened up, and most have reported just that using nothing but 357 run of the mill loads. Would I shoot nothing but buffalo bore or underwood through it? Not really sure it would matter, both of those companies claim to be at or slightly under SAAMI spec for pressure and Taurus claims that their guns are designed to handle those pressures. Cylinder wall thickness would probably be the least of my concern with the Taurus (it is actually about the same thickness as the 7 shot GP100), the grade of steel they use is what would stand out I think. Nobody knows how good or bad it is. The one I have is accurate and fairly smooth action. It's not a Ruger or a Smith, but sometimes people don't need a Ruger or Smith. The big Black Mark for that company is customer service and the lack of a direct line to Brazil in getting things ordered, you can wait for months on end for a repair or replacement. Their repair shop is hit and miss as well, some techs are good and some are shoddy at best, they destroyed mine when I sent it in for a barrel replacement after I dropped it 20 feet from a tree stand and boogering up the end of the barrel. They put (at my expense) either a barrel they took off an old revolver what was a 6 shot version on it or had an old run (more than 15 years old, it was half lug, they hadn't made those in a long time, mine was full lug bought just last year) still sitting around, and if that wasn't bad enough, they put tooling marks on the frame of the gun in the process that they couldn't fix because they don't refinish stainless. So long as you don't need to repair your gun with them, you are good and most are satisfied with the product, but damn if you ever need a repair or replacement done.
 
#58 ·
So i was all excited for my new updated gp100 7 shot. Ruger calls me back and says that they can't ship the new gun to me since i live in the crappy state of Taxachussetts. It's not on the approved list. WTF. So I opted for a new 6 shot gp100 1707. Basically same gun with a nicer grip but no fiber optic front sight. I tried talking the rep into shipping it with the new sight since they're building a new one anyway. We'll see. I didn't even get credit for the missing hole. 😁 Should have it in 2 weeks.
I hate my commie state. Can't wait to move out. 😠
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top