View Single Post
 
Old 08-12-2018, 01:53 PM
Sevens Sevens is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Ohio
Posts: 7,822
Likes: 9,389
Liked 14,736 Times in 5,022 Posts
Default

The above pictured advertisement with the steak was good, it was actually a direct answer to Ruger's earlier advertisement that attempted to show how beefy the (cast) Ruger was compared to the (FORGED) Smith & Wesson. In the early to mid-80's when the GP-100 was debuted, the two gun builders traded barbs over these models.

One of the popular gun magazines of the day attempted to settle the score, I want to say it was either Shooting Times or Guns & Ammo, but they pitted two brand new revolvers against each other in an "accelerated wear test", nothing over spec and no outright abuse, just PILING up the round count on each revolver attempting to see if they found a trend where either revolver would distinguish itself as tougher, better or longer lasting.

If I remember correctly, they ended the test at 10,000 rounds each because they couldn't see either one distancing itself from the other.

It might also be worth mentioning how or why either model may have been introduced in the first place. The L-frame was supposed to have been designed to address the shortcomings of the K-frame magnums and their associated longevity issues, and to compete with the Colt revolvers for a heavy, full-lug barrel profile.

The Ruger Security Six series didn't really have any known durability issues, and the scuttlebutt behind the GP-100 wasn't about expanding on the Security Six's durability... but about lowering manufacturing costs and moving to a modular design.

Here we are nearly 35 years after the debut of the GP-100 and still, as ripe as ever is the showdown between the GP and the L-frame revolvers.

It seems to me that the answer is easy: Each shooter comes to his own conclusion, and that conclusion ends up being the right answer for sure.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post: