Quote:
Originally Posted by jtcarm
Where were you a couple of years ago when I asked if there was any real evidence of the GP100s “superior” durability?
I got all manner of whacky opinions from folks who didn’t seem to know what “exhaustive” and “empirical” mean. Even some misguided souls who thought there was such a thing as “Ruger-only” .357 load data (I wonder if they’re still with us?)
It stands to reason a gun rag would declare a draw. They’re not going to risk losing ad revenue from either manufacturer.
I have no dog in the fight as I’m not really a fan of either. At least in .357.
On the other hand, the 10mm GP100 is a game changer for me. I just recently traded for a match champion. It’s not that I’m super-impressed with the gun so far (I haven’t shot it much) but the possibilities for a medium-frame 10mm revolver. Moon-clipped .40s for IDPA, and full-house 10mms if I want to hunt with it. Whether it warrants my enthusiasm remains to be seen.
Now if S&W would do that on an L-frame (or even bring back the 646), especially with a Ti cylinder, I’d be all over it.
|
The magazine was probably, Shooting Times. They tended to run such articles. But you're right: they'd probably end things well before either gun showed any superiority. Don't want to upset either advertiser, as you said.
But such tests, if honest, can tell you that both guns lasted okay within the test limits.
And the separate tests where Wiley Clapp tested six (?) GP-100's to see how they all fared and with which ammo were impressive.
Such articles gave me great confidence in the GP-100.
I don't like the tendency to call Rugers "tanks." They 're tough, but that label causes many to abuse the guns with excessive use, often with very hot loads.
Look at the photo of the worn barrel throat/forcing cone in this thread. That's what a lot of light bullet, high velocity ammo does to a gun that is fired excessively. One of the Ruger boards, I think Ruger.net, had a photo of a GP-100 that actually suffered a cracked barrel throat. I shudder to think of how much shooting with really hot loads produced that effect. Maybe it's a macho thing with some shooters to push the envelope.
If one must shoot that much, get several guns and spread out the use.
There have probably been no valid empirical tests to determine S&W vs. Ruger durability. BUT...when I was writing about guns, I was told by several persons at ammunition manufacturers that they tested ammo in Rugers, because they lasted a lot longer. I think that says a LOT about the matter.
No one wants to speak on record and I was asked not to name these companies, as they don't want to incur S&W's wrath. But I believe what I was told.
Even a tank has limits. It can be destroyed by another tank, an A-10 or helicopter, or a rocket launcher. Don't abuse either brand and the gun will probably outlast the shooter, although I think they might require repair for cylinder endshake or timing issues.
Based on my handling of many used revolvers, I think these problems will occur more in S&W guns. And they occur much sooner if the gun is fired routinely with ammo meant for serious purposes, not for casual range use. If you can afford to shoot a LOT, get extra guns and spread out the wear.