Is the Ruger GP100 the Greatest Double Action Revolver Ever Made?

[savit260]

but am saying that it is hard to name colt the best .357 ever made when they stopped making them 30 years ago. Smith and ruger have continued to because the market still calls for them but if colts were really that stellar, they would have kept on cranking them out

There hasn't been a S&W made in the last 30 years IMO(nor a Ruger in that same time period) that would qualify as "greatest of all time" either. o.k Maybe the pre lock 586, but those are from the same era when Pythons were still being built.

I'd agree that the S&W 27 is in the running, but certainly not the current production one.

In case you haven't noticed, those command a pretty decent penny these days too. Not too far behind or in some cases MORE than the Python in pricing. Have you checked the price on a Triple Lock, or a Registered Magnum these days? You could buy 2 Pythons for the price of either of those.

Using that logic, if Triple Locks and Registered Magnums were really that stellar, they would have kept on cranking them out.... right?


... and again, you haven't even acknowledged that Union Labor costs probably was a factor in a smaller profit margin.

[savit260]

I am NOT saying colts aren't great guns but am saying that it is hard to name colt the best .357 ever made when they stopped making them 30 years ago.

I'm not the greatest at math, but the Python production run went well into the 90's, and possibly even later in the Custom Shop .


Colt ceased the D/A's in 1999 or 2000 ish. That's not even close to 30 years ago.

[Homerboy]

Guess my math is off. Been so song since I saw a new colt revolver in the display case. And yeah, the 27's aren't made anymore. But their ancestors are still super strong sellers. Something the colt no longer is.

And I don't care about union labor. And neither does the guy who walks into a gun shop ready to plunk down his hard earned money. Something ruger understands. Quality at a fair price.

[savit260]

And I don't care about union labor. And neither does the guy who walks into a gun shop ready to plunk down his hard earned money. Something ruger understands. Quality at a fair price.

How is a company saddled with extremely high labor costs going to put out a product at a "fair price"?

That's the problem your ignoring.

It's not that they weren't good products. Part of them being more expensive/less profitable was due to labor costs... not an inferior product.

I'm guessing you've never owned a business. Excessive labor costs can kill just about any business.




The U.S. auto market suffers the same problem. The labor/benefits cost per employee drives the price of the car up. You can buy just as good or better car for less than what an American brand will cost you.

[savit260]

So why doesn't S&W build a gun to the level of the Registered Magnum or the Triple Lock anymore?

Was it because it was too expensive?

You have to admit the fit and finish on a new 627 isn't anywhere near either one of those.

[Mike Irwin]

"Was it because it was too expensive?"

Yep.

To build a gun to the level of the Triple Lock or the Registered Magnum would likely result in a minimum price of $1,500, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it closer to $2,000.

[Homerboy]

So why doesn't S&W build a gun to the level of the Registered Magnum or the Triple Lock anymore?

Was it because it was too expensive?

You have to admit the fit and finish on a new 627 isn't anywhere near either one of those]

They don't build them to that level because they wouldn't sell enough to make a profit. if there was a market for them, they would happily build them.

You can buy a Rock Island Armory 1911 for $600, or you can buy a Les Baer for $3500. Les Baer's still sell. They just target a different audience. Some over under shotguns sell for over $100,000.

And oh yeah, the fit and finish on older S&W's are much better then new ones. But the new ones are still flying off the shelves.

I guess the average shooter nowadays is looking for good quality and good value. The Ruger GP100 certainly qualifies. I will admit the colt's are prettier, but I have seen many posts about timing issues with Colt's, too. Come to think of it, I cannot recall ever seeing a Colt revolver at the range.

And I'm not ignoring the high labor cost issue. Those costs are going to be passed onto the consumer. So how is it that S&W and Ruger, both American companies, managed to avoid those high labor costs? You're saying Colt is union built and S&W and ruger aren't? What I am saying is the guy coming into the gun store to buy a revolver could care less about who makes his gun, as long as it is a well built piece at a fair price, and when he sees a Colt with a price tag 75% higher than the S&W or Ruger, that he'd better get a whole lot more for his money of he buys a Colt. Getting to say "this was built by union labor" isn't gonna cut it, or make the gun shoot better, either.

[savit260]

Again you totally miss the point.

I'm not saying Union Labor makes it better , I'm saying it makes it too expensive to build and market at a competitive price.

The fact that S&W and Ruger are non union shops is probably why they can still put out a decant product at a somewhat reasonable price.

[savit260]

They don't build them to that level because they wouldn't sell enough to make a profit. if there was a market for them, they would happily build them.

or they just decided there was MORE profit (easier money) doing something else.

There's a difference between "making a profit" and "making a LOT of profit". Most businesses are going to want to make as much as they can as easily as possible.

Eliminating and reducing labor costs , be it by making production less complicated, less finish work, less assembly time , less skilled workers etc. is an easy way to increase the bottom line.
If most people don't care about the reduction in quality, it's a WIN for the business.
S&W is banking on this.

As for Ruger... Their angle has always been "good enough" quality level at a reasonable price. I'm a big fan of Ruger myself, but they are what they are.


To understand what labor cost does to pricing a product... take a look at what a pair of "Made in the U.S.A." Levi's jeans cost vs. the price of the ones made somewhere else with much lower labor costs.

[Homerboy]

Again you totally miss the point.

I'm not saying Union Labor makes it better , I'm saying it makes it too expensive to build and market at a competitive price.

The fact that S&W and Ruger are non union shops is probably why they can still put out a decant product at a somewhat reasonable price

I'm not missing your point. I get it, the Colt is a union shop so they gotta pay their guys more so they pass that onto the customer. What I am saying is that I do not care one bit WHY the gun I am looking at is more expensive, I just know it is, so unless there is a real reason to spend that extra money (MUCH higher quality), then I'm not going to. The Colt never did anything better (especially 50-75% better) then the S&W or the Ruger. So why would I spend the extra money? I align my sights on my S&W or Ruger revolvers, pull the trigger, the gun fires, and I hit my target. What else do I need?

Sounds like Colt needed to get rid of their unions. S&W and Ruger flourished without unions. I know guys here are going to take offense (and i have been a union worker since i started working, first with the PD and then with public schools), but union labor doesn't always equal better labor. The senior guys could care less about the finished product. As long as they have seniority over somebody else they are pretty much immune.

And the Ruger "good enough" attitude has kept them making revolvers. GP series, SP series, LCR. Different calibers for them all. Just what the customer wants. Colt no longer does. Sounds like Ruger had it right.

The first rule in business is to give the customer what they want at a fair price. if you can't do that, you go away. If it was the union labor (and I'm not convinced it rested only on that), then how are they still in business today? Are they still a union shop? And why is the Colt AR-15 still the premiere AR? Plenty of people still buy them , despite Bushmasters and DPMS being available. . 1911's too.

And profit is profit. Sure, more profit is better, but if Colt made one dollar profit on each revolver sold they would not have stopped making them. They would have looked to keep making those revolvers while cutting corners to increase their profit, like S&W and Ruger have.

[savit260]

And profit is profit. Sure, more profit is better, but if Colt made one dollar profit on each revolver sold they would not have stopped making them.

That's just not true. I DO however agree with a lot of your last post.


USFA up until very recently made a seriously great, top notch single action revolver. One that in all respects is even nicer than the Colt SAA. They sold every one they made with people waiting in order to get one.

They sold at a premium price. They could probably ask whatever price they wanted. Some costing multiple thousands of dollars. People were willing to pay the price to get one.

They stopped making them in order to focus on a new plastic .22.

There are tons of reasons businesses do what they do. Profit is clearly one of the main reasons, but so is loopy/misguided management along with a host of other reasons.

Colt simply chose to focus their resources on other things. S&W quit making single action revolvers likely for similar reasons

[Mike / Tx]

I have 8 or so Rugers, two of which are GP-100's, couple of Blackhawks, and several Redhawks, only one Colt DA that I would shoot, and even I know that Ruger isn't the top dog in excellence.

That said, I purchased mine for the "built like a tank"reason so I didn't have to get upset dragging one of those really nice Smith's or Colt's through the junk I usually hunt, and work in and around.

I know for a fact it would have broken my heart to have found a nice Smith in the water soaked moldy leather holster sitting in the bottom of my friends kayak after a month or two. The ol Redhawk came out with nary an issue, well after several hours of scrubbing anyway.

[45_auto]

And profit is profit. Sure, more profit is better, but if Colt made one dollar profit on each revolver sold they would not have stopped making them.

A business that followed your advice wouldn't be around long.

Let's say it costs Colt $300 to build a revolver (admittedly low, but it makes things even worse if I use realistic numbers).

They sell it to the wholesaler for $301, making your $1 in profit.

That means that they're getting a return of 1/300, or .3%, on their investment.

They could put their money in a savings account and make 3 times as much.

Whether you like it or not, companies are in business to make money. A company that doesn't optimize it's resources won't be around long.

[RangerHAAF]

The Colt Python sets the standard.

[Homerboy]

I totally disagree that the python sets the standard. As far as trigger pull goes, there is nothing sweeter than a S&W K frame. The Python and Anaconda I fondled the other day (two used guns that the seller wanted $1500 EACH for!) didn't have as nice a trigger pull as my Model 65 does.

[Guv]

All these different excuses for Colts DA revolver demise, the bottom line is that if they would have built a competitive product they would still be in the DA revolver market.

[Homerboy]

Yep. If you charge 75% more for a product, it better be 75% better, at the very least. I remember reading an article about the S&W Model 10 and the Colt Official Police and the S&W won the contracts because they were $10 cheaper. You would think Colt would have learned something from that. Glock being used by 70% of police departments has sure helped their civilian sales.

[Mike Irwin]

Enough with the economics discussion, please.

Its slipped well off topic.

[Homerboy]

True. for me the best .357 of all time is the S&W 19/66. Not as stout as the 27 or 686/586, but since my shooting has always been 95% .38 anyway, it doesn't really matter. Wish I still had my 19 and 66.

Now the Ruger Six series beats the GP in my opinion. Stronger then the K frame S&W, yet it's the same size, nearly as strong as the GP, yet lighter.

[Model12Win]

I think it is the best .357 magnum full-sized double-action revolver one can find for the price currently being produced. Here's mine:



Envious?

You should be.

[mukwah]

Searched for a year for my GP, won't part with it for anything!

[Broker]

I never warmed up to the GP100s, I did really like the Security Six. I'll take a pre-lock S&W L-frame, a 686+, specifically, please! As a matter of fact, I own only two 357 revolvers. One's a nice pre-lock S&W 66, the other a S&W 686+. I believe I'm well equipped with 357 Mag handguns.

[Homerboy]

The 686 is a great revolver. I have owned two. if I was going to shoot .357 exclusively, I would have kept them. But they're too beefy to be a 95% .38 shooter, which is why the 19/66/13/65 revolvers beat it for me. As for the 686+, there's just something about a 7 shot revolver that seems wrong to me.

[weblance]

I traded my 4" 686 PLUS yesterday for this NIB 2008 vintage GP100. I never warmed uo to the 686. I never cared for its trigger, and didnt shoot it as well as my 4" GP100. I wanted a 6" for some time.

[kostner]

Not even close.