I was thiiiiiiiiiis close. And someone snaked it out from under me about a half hour before I called the gun shop to say “Hey, do you still have this?”. What was it? Why, a 4″ Ruger GP-100 .357.
What is so special about that, you might ask? After all, aren’t there scads of 4″ GP-100s out there? Well, yes but…
I have long thought that an ideal ‘combat’ revolver, if a revolver can be said to be ideal for the rough and tumble of irregular warfare, would be a sturdy fixed-sight, full-underlug, stainless .357 Magnum. It would have no adjustable sights to get damaged, have a full lug to protect the ejector rod and give some weight at the front, be in everything-resistant stainless steel, be built on a large enough frame to handle a steady diet of .357 but not too heavy to inhibit fast handling, be in the powerful and versatile .357 and still have the option to be fed with .38’s if thats all that was available. The only major manufacturer who made something like that was Smith and Wesson with their 681 series of revolvers built on their L-frame*. An excellent gun it has been out of manufacturer since the 90’s. Ruger, though, once in a while, drops a fixed-sight variant of their GP-100 and thats what your buddy Zero is looking for. The 3″ variants are easy enough to find, and there are some 4″ DAO re-imports that century brought in a while back, but the full-lug versions are scarce.
One of my ‘Grail guns’. Still looking.
I came across an auction last week for a half-lug version and I’d take that over nothing. But…I missed the auction deadline and the store that had it for auction sold it shortly before I called. Dang it.
I would much rather run through the apocalypse with a Glock or HiPower, but if I were to carry a revolver, and I were expecting trouble from things that had language skills, this guy would be a top contender.
*= Yes, Smith ran of some oddball, very-limited-run .357’s with fixed sights on their N frame. (Most notably, the 520.) But the numbers are small enough that they may as well be non-existent. Also, the 520 was blued. There was, I think, a fixed sight variant of the 627 out there but N-frame is bigger than the handier L-frame and I don’t believe it had the full underlug.
Novak do a fixed replacement sight for the Ruger adjustable one. Not as strong as a fixed sight cut into the frame but I don’t think you could kill it without killing the gun. It’s a lot better sight picture then the factory fix sight.
There used to be many like this on the market for both Smiths as well as Ruger, I’ve never seen one for a Colt.
The Novak LoMount 380 combat sight came on the Wiley Clapp GP100.
https://www.novaksights.com/products.aspx?CAT=9509
Nice!
My grail revolver is a 3” M65 S&W. Maybe some day I’ll find a deal on one.
Mine is almost a twin to that one, but I do have the adjustable rear sight. All else is the same. I’ve had it since (I think) 1994.
I love that revolver, and I can shoot it better than any other sidearm I’ve used.
Hey, I’m a winner. I own one of the DAO gp-100s that Century reimported from Canada. I bought it for all the reasons you mentioned. It is fixed sight and the front blade cannot be replaced with major work so get used to the sights you have.It is a forever gun for me.
I share your sentiments regarding best choice.
If it makes you feel better, I still don’t have that GP-100 either.
I’m making do with a pristine Model 13 in the meantime.
My 3” M13 is arguably the zenith of the compact fighting revolver.
I want a 3” M65 clone because I live in a wet part of the country.
Any chance gun shop would connect you with buyer
I think any gun shop that disregarded gunshop-customer privacy like that would not last long once people found out.
More along the lines of Hey Buyer if you are ever interested in selling let me know I have someone looking for one
CDR Zero,
I agree with your criteria on fighting wheel guns. Fixed sights just work. Adjustable rear sights cna be wuite fragile, especially S&W’s factory offering with the thin blade and 3-80 pitch adjusting screw.
Enter Bowen Rough Country replacements. Excellent rear sight and well worth the price. I like them for my working wheel guns. Easy to install on S&W revolvers that are factory tapped for optic mount. Older S&W are a bit more challenging but simple enough for a moderately competent man. I can’t say for Ruger, as I haven’t used them. I am a S&W revo man and shoot mostly ICORE matches after giving up on USPSA open and production class.
Unrelated. I sincerely appreciate your blog. Sensible stuff for practical folks.
Well the best thing, is now we know what your are looking for, and we can all watch for them to come up. It is a great gun, I have one myself. (and no, it’s not for sale, for the above mentioned details!). But I will definitely look for you- great gun.
I agree with the stainless 4″ fixed sight revolver, but wish for it in .45ACP using the full moon clips to load – remove cases. My S&W 1917 is a bit bulky and long and blued but a joy to shoot. And joy to shoot means more practice, really just a gentle bump. A surplus Brazilian contract revolver purchased in the late 1980’s for obscene little money. A stainless finish would be more long term solution.
I used to feel that way about the round-butt 625 5″, but after a while I was concerned about reliability of ignition if the moon clips were slightly bent or otherwise tweaked.
Seems like anything a half moon clip loaded .45 acp can do a decent modern semi auto (FN, HK 45c, etc all) can do better.
I would agree with most of that. I really don’t wanna re-ignite the revolver vs. auto debate. However, assuming that the debate isnt between revolver and auto, but rather about which revolver to choose…thats a different kettle. For my requirements, a .45 ACP revolver only has one advantage and thats the quick loading with moon clips. The guns are larger frame (N vs. L), the cartridge isn’t as ubiquitous as .38 and .357, the available power isnt as great, and the requirement of moon clips for positive ejection is a minus, IMO. The ability for fast reloads is really all its got going in its favor.
Durn it, pushed POST before I thought about it. Would a stainless Ruger Police Service-Six do ? That came in .357 Magnum. That line not quite as robust as the GP but not weak by any means.
Thats still K-frame, which in my opinion, is handy but not large enough for a steady diet of .357.
consider a Taurus Judge, stainless or titanium, 2 1/2” cylinder, 3” barrell.
no rear sight, just a notch, .45 Colt with hotter loads makes it a little more serious hole puncher.
the accuracy of mine at 25 yards is nothing short of amazing.
and shoots the shotshells too!
Mmmm…not a fan of Taurus’ hit-n-miss quality. I admire their outside-the-box thinking, but my experiences (YMMV) have left me feeling cold on Taurus.
An answer to the question, if you could only take one handgun with you which would it be? Ruger GP100 in SS. Just picked up a pre-Remington Marlin 1894 lever action in .357 to go along with it.
I have that exact same combo. I put in a ‘safety delete’ on my Marlin and added a Williams receiver sight. A very capable combination, those two guns.
I had a blued 4″ GP-100 .357 mag back in the 80’s, good gun, sold it to a friend and bought a Colt King Cobra .357mag 4′. Still have it. My current GP-100 is a 10mm using moon clips. It also takes 40S&W in those clips, so it versatile as well. I also have I’ve always liked a revolver for a bug out bag or truck gun. You can leave it loaded without fear of “mag spring fatigue” and most revolvers will run pretty dirty as well. So overall I am on page with your choices and after all you can’t go wrong with a Ruger.
Mag spring fatigue is an interesting thing. From what I’ve read, the magazine springs fatigue from repeated use cycles rather from being compressed for a long duration. In other words, the magazine spring left loaded for five years is less likely to fail than one that has been loaded/unloaded once a week for that same five years. Anecdotally, I’ve shot mags that were left compressed for decades and never had an issue. But..why take chances? I usually rotate to new magazines on my ‘just laying around the house guns’ every couple years just on principle.
The only mag problems I have ever had were with mags for a S&W 645 stainless. I have two mags(I marked them) that will not feed the last round reliably and that happened after 8 or so years of use. So I must agree with your observations about loading and unloading during steady use. I shot IPSC in those days with the 645, Hi Power, and M 92 Beretta. However it has been only the mags for the 645 I’ve had any trouble with. Still a revolver fan though. TTFN Phil
After reading this, brought up sad memories that I should have bought
that Smith 681-1 when it was offered a decade ago. It’s kind of wild to see how much revolvers cost today.
From that pic, are the grips smaller on this model. I have a blued fixed sight and if i remember correctly the grips are smaller.
The Charter Arms .44 Spcl. 3″ barreled fixed sight Bulldog was simple and light and fulfilled a simple need to carry an effective self defense gun with little bulk. I wish it had been offered in .45ACP, even with the needed clips to eject. .44 Spcl. is a great round but very hard to find on store shelves.
100% agreement on a 3-inch .44 Special. I have the Rossi 720. That revolver has a very good trigger, and I believe that 5 rounds of .44 are a good thing to have. I thought about .45 ACP also, but I believe the cylinder would have to be slightly wider to accomodate that excellent caliber, so I’m pretty happy with the .44 Special.
Until I bought the Rossi, my only shooting in .44 was with black powder revolvers. Those and black powder musket shooting–tearing paper cartridges with my teeth–gave me my nickname.