I took my new Ruger GP-100 .22 pistol to the range the other day to sight it in and familiarize myself with it. I’m not going to get into why I think a .22 revolver has high value as a resident of a good survivalists armory…you may agree, you may disagree, but that has no bearing on how my shooting experience went, so why bring it up?
I have a very nice S&W K-22 pistol that I’ve had for a number of years. No two ways about it, its a fine gun. But while its a great gun for taking out to the range and on gopher shooting adventures, it’s not as well suited for survivalist needs as other options. What, specifically? Well, a few things: six shot capacity, blued finish, K-frame size, non-replaceable front sight, and a few other details.
I picked up a Ruger GP-100 in .22 and am so far pleased with it. It is stainless steel, carries ten rounds, has interchangeable front sights, is on the same L-frame-size as my .357s (thereby giving some holster cross-compatability), and is wildly overbuilt for a .22.
The biggest advantage this thing has over the K-22 is that it holds 66% more ammo. Cases ejected cleanly with no hangups, the ejector rod throw was plenty long to clear the chambers, and the chambers are close enough to each other that loading three rounds at a time is do-able with practice.
Accuracy, I thought, was quite good. I was shooting Federal bulk hollowpoints…you know, the brick you get at WalMart, and it shot rather well after I moved the sights up a few inches. The limiting factor when it comes to accuracy, in my experience, with a .22 is more about the ammo than the gun. Federal bulk is kind of the Norinco 7.62×39 of the .22 world – it’s cheap, its abundant, it usually goes bang every time you pull the trigger, but some corners had to get cut somewhere to make that price point. Now, I could have thrown some Eley in there and seen how that shoots but this is my survivalist’s .22 revolver. It will spend its entire career eating bulk Federal ammo unless some bizarre situation forces me to some sort of ‘dogs lunch’ of mixed .22s.
Trigger was a tad heavy but..its a new gun. Shooting it frequently will eventually smooth things out. I don’t really care for fiber optic sights…I’d prefer a Patridge or Baughman ramp, but since the front sight is replaceable, I’ll probably hunt down an alternative.
Being on the L-frame-size (interestingly Smith L-frames, Ruger GP-100, and Colt Pythons are approximately the same frame size and often holsters wll interchange) and having a tiny .22 bore, theres a lot of metal in the gun. The weight is nice for steady shooting but it might wear on you if you’re carrying it on your belt all day as you climb hills. For situations where weight isn’t as big a factor, perhaps in a light plane’s survival kit, this thing would be hard to beat.
Pricewise its about as expensive as a .357 GP-100…and I suppose that makes sense. Other than the smaller holes in the barrel and cylinder, its the same as a .357 GP-100 in terms of materials.
Alternatives? Smith makes the 10-shot 617, and I’m sure its a fine gun, but its actually more expensive than the Ruger. Taurus makes 8- and 9-shot DA revolvers that cost less but…Taurus. Colt, desperately trying to remain relevant (and solvent) has a 10-shot .22 version of their King Cobra and its right up there with the Smith in terms of price…but you get the bonus of knowing you have a collectible because Colt will probably discontinue it after their next couple of successive bankruptcies.
So, overall, my impression of the Ruger GP-100 .22 is that its a good candidate for an end-of-the-world .22. It’s overbuilt, even by Ruger standards, and should last for generations. I’d say the only real apples-to-apples competition it has would be the S&W 617 10-shot. As much as I like Smith revolvers, I’d probably have more confidence in the Ruger for getting banged around in mud, blood, sand, snow, wet, and crud. But…either one will probably serve admirably. Ruger has always had a reputation for making products that are built like tanks (usually at the expense of ergonomics and aesthetics) and that durability and survivability mean alot to me…so, for me, the Ruger gets the nod. You do you, man…but I’m pleased so far with the Ruger .22.
Nothing wrong with that revolver as a dead nuts overbuilt survival companion. I see why it can be useful especial as you can load .22 shot and then .22 CCI mini mags or Federal punch all in one 10 shot cylinder.
By the way Zero I sort of doubt Colt will go under/bankrupt again now that they are owned by the far better run and more solvent CZ. The Czechs know how to run a firearms company.
Perhaps. But the Czechs havent had to deal with unions like Colt has.
Alright, Thank You for the review of this Ruger model. I had no idea it existed. It definitely has ‘The Book of Eli’ of last DA rimfire pistol standing in the apocalypse. Very nice that existing holsters are already there (holsters are damn expensive nowadays).
That is one fine gun you have.
My experience has been that, unless your need is very particular or unusual, you are always going to get a better deal on a holster that is used from a gun show or eBay.
True, used holsters are far less expensive at gun shows. Old manufacturers now gone who made a quality holster with some / a lot of wear for $20 or less. Can’t beat that deal. NIB cost is at least three times that, and only when can be found. Supply chain issues.
My problem is I forget to look through the bins to see if I can find one that fits my particular sidearm.
I have a S&W 617 and a Taurus Tracker 990 (22 LR) – I’ve had the Taurus longer, and, for me, the Tracker has been a fine gun – I might even say that aside from the roll marks on the side plate, I like the Taurus a bit better.
For an end-of-the-world .22lr, why not a Ruger MK2 stainless target. They are cheap, reliable and very easy to repair if needed. The ones I have eat anything, but prefer the CCI flavors.
A fine gun. In reality, its six of one, half dozen of the other. (Or, if youre from the midwest, its a horse apiece) I suppose an argument could be made that the auto’s reliance on magazines poses a logistical weak spot, as well as the inability to fire a mixed bag of shorts, longs, etc, while maintaining reliability. Thats a niggling argument, I agree, but it does have some validity.
In reality, either one would be fine but in the case of the auto I’d always have a close eye on my spare mags. But, really, either one is probably fine.
Commander:
Isn’t a magazine preferable due to faster reload?
Although if you are battling a ‘possum you won’t need more than ten shots (at least I hope not)…
Ceejay
Sure, but its a tradeoff….faster reload versus risk of loss of magazine. Either one works, .22 auto or .22 revolver, its just a matter of where *you* think the weak spots are.
If I was rank ordering the priority for handguns it would go something like:
– Compact sized jack of all trades handgun. Something in 9/.40/.45. Any popular model from a major manufacturer will do fine.
– A smaller concealed carry type handgun. Something like a J frame or an Sig P365 or whatnot.
– A full sized .22 handgun. For economical training, pest control, etc. Semi auto or revolver, whatever you prefer.
I wouldn’t argue with that. In a world of ‘one handgun’ I’d certainly go with the centerfire over the rimfire. This is the ancient “If you could only have one gun…” scenario. I suppose it depends on the environ you imagine you’ll find yourself in. Sloshing through New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina? 9mm Glock, please. Emergency landing in middle of nowhere? .22 most likely.
FWIW, a world-champion competitive shooter of my acquaintance cleaned up his Ruger actions by shooting the insides full of a gently abrasive toothpaste, and doing about 500-1000 rounds of dry fire with snap caps (obviously a must with a rimfire revolver) while watching cowboy movies. Then cleaning it out and lubricating normally.
After that, he reported they were as butter-smooth as legacy-era Colt Pythons.
Yeah, of heard of people doing that with valve grinding compound.
You sound like you’re trying to justify your purchase. We don’t care why!