Ruger GP100 in .22lr 10 Shot...coming soon!!!

cableguy

cableguy

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
269   0   0
Location
B.C.
All I can say is, the trigger better be good.

Looks nice.

I like the 5.5" half under-lug barrel.

I think I'll wait and see if it comes in the 4.2" full under-lug........blued!











 
Last edited:
im looking at that and im looking at my Ruger SP101-22 and im not seeing a whole lot of differences other then barrel length.

1757.jpg

5765.jpg
 
Last edited:
wayupnorth said:
im looking at that and im looking at my Ruger SP101-22 and im not seeing a whole lot of differences other then barrel length.
Click to expand...


Trigger.....here's your testament

wayupnorth said:
I did do a non scientific test before i went out to the shop, i handed the pistol to my wife and asked her to pull the hammer back, i just wanted to make sure i wasnt being a vag about the hammer on this gun. i was relived to see that she couldn't even pull the hammer back OR even get the gun to cycle in DA. which is funny because my wife's favorite gun is my Ruger GP100 and she burns up full power 357mags in that with no problem. the SP101 was in definite need of some cleaning up to get it to work.
Click to expand...
 
wayupnorth said:
wonder why the triggers would be so drastically different.
we are also assuming the trigger WILL be drastically different!
Click to expand...

Because it's a rimfire, the trigger on the 617's has a heavier spring than the 686 but nowhere near what is described here.

Does the frame size look smaller on this ruger 22 than a 357 gp100? It just looks like a sp101 to me. If they're smart they'll make it identical to their 357 so people can justify buying it as a trainer just like smith has done.
 
The GP 100 is quite a bit larger and heavier than a SP 101. I've had both and currently have the GP100 in .357. The trigger is no screaming shakes and will probably be worse on the .22 cal. S&W have always had way better triggers but Rugers more robust.
 
Pricing is up there on this one as well. I would have like to have seen a blued option, otherwise as wayupnorth stated, it looks just like my SP101.
 
SUPER TENERE said:
The GP 100 is quite a bit larger and heavier than a SP 101. I've had both and currently have the GP100 in .357. The trigger is no screaming shakes and will probably be worse on the .22 cal. S&W have always had way better triggers but Rugers more robust.
Click to expand...

Change the springs, both the hammer and trigger springs and the trigger on your GP-100 should be smooth as silk and much lighter. The .,22 version should be pn the same frame as the GP-100 which will be attractive. I to wish it was coming in a 4.2" package. The gun then would be a perfect companion to the larger caliber version of the Competition model.

Take Care

Bob
 
I tried the lighter springs in my GP100 and then some primers wouldn't ignite. Went back to stock. I fired and owned plenty of Smiths and Rugers. IMHO there is no way a Ruger trigger can be made as good as a Smith trigger. I'm talking double action here.
 
It looks like it shares the same frame as the GP100. I'd venture the trigger will be a little heavier than the GP100 due to reliable ignition of 22LR typically needing a stronger hammer spring than centerfire primers. I like that they made it in 10 shot, no point having such a large cylinder and only putting six shots in it.
I'd take this over the SP101 22LR any day as personally I find the SP101 too small and it cramps up my shooting hand. Plus since we're only range warriors, the larger revolver doesn't really matter.
Hopefully this won't take too long to find its way up here to Canada.
If you want a decent written review, check out Joe's review at RealGuns:
http://www.realguns.com/articles/767.htm
 
A GP 100 in .22LR is way too much revolver for the cartridge imho. For those who own Smiths and not Rugers, the GP100 frame is every bit as stout as my "N" frame .44 Rem mag Smiths.
A GP100 in .22 is much like putting .45 acp breech adapter into a Howitzer!? Doesn't make any sense. If you want to practice with your .357 on the cheap, download .38 special, to own another GP100 in .22 arguing you need to practice in .22 with the same frame as your .357 is just dumb.

I thought the reason for the K frame Smith 17 was a desire from the market for a revolver to accommodate .22 target (bullseye) shooting, not to make a practice model for the .38 special frames.
 
I expect the GP100 in 22 will be a good seller. The larger frame is better suited to the average/large hand. The SP101 is great for a small hand but not comfortable in a larger hand. Given the new pricing for the Rugers, I fear that it may be a bit on the rich side for most...
 
plinker 777 said:
A GP 100 in .22LR is way too much revolver for the cartridge imho. For those who own Smiths and not Rugers, the GP100 frame is every bit as stout as my "N" frame .44 Rem mag Smiths.
A GP100 in .22 is much like putting .45 acp breech adapter into a Howitzer!? Doesn't make any sense. If you want to practice with your .357 on the cheap, download .38 special, to own another GP100 in .22 arguing you need to practice in .22 with the same frame as your .357 is just dumb.

I thought the reason for the K frame Smith 17 was a desire from the market for a revolver to accommodate .22 target (bullseye) shooting, not to make a practice model for the .38 special frames.
Click to expand...


Well dumb is a matter of perspective given your commentary not sure how dumb it really is.

First the GP-100 i the same size as the 686. Sorry what you say is.....well just not true. In fact my 4.2" GP-100 weighs LESS than my 105.14 686 No Dash. Not sure where you got your info but it is wrong. The GP-100 would be a very good sized frame. My SP101 .22LR is small and to light in my mind. DA pull is a tad heavy making shooting difficult given the guns weight.

You do make one good point though. If you reload, 38spl can be done up for almost as much as what 22 sell for these days. I cast my own so all my center fire rounds cost me is primers and powder along with a bit of lube.

The gun could be a player in US Steel if there is a revolver rimfire division.

I likely will buy the new GP-100 22 5" though I would have preferred a 4.2" offering.

At one time Smith made 22 versions of a number of their 38spl revolver offering aside from the K-22 aka Model 17

Here are the two together.



Take Care

Bob
 
Last edited:
daBear said:
I expect the GP100 in 22 will be a good seller. The larger frame is better suited to the average/large hand. The SP101 is great for a small hand but not comfortable in a larger hand. Given the new pricing for the Rugers, I fear that it may be a bit on the rich side for most...
Click to expand...

^^ This says it all for me the Canadian dollar right now is killing my desire to add a new member to the clan.
 
It would be great if it was designed to take the same speed loaders as the 617. Right now only having two expensive (yet quality) options is kind of lame.
 
SUPER TENERE said:
I tried the lighter springs in my GP100 and then some primers wouldn't ignite. Went back to stock. I fired and owned plenty of Smiths and Rugers. IMHO there is no way a Ruger trigger can be made as good as a Smith trigger. I'm talking double action here.
Click to expand...

You can say it but it just isn't true. I installed hammer shims and a a wolf spring kit. If it were not for the different style of grips you could not tell the difference in trigger pull between the above two handguns. I love my Smith but it is no better than the Ruger. The latter is may or may not be more stouter than the Smith. Both are hell for strength.

Take Care

Bob
 
Turkinator said:
It would be great if it was designed to take the same speed loaders as the 617. Right now only having two expensive (yet quality) options is kind of lame.
Click to expand...

I was going to order speedloaders for the SP101 22 but now may wait until the GP-100 comes out. I would expect someone will make loaders for it as well.

Take Care

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom