Reading all 60 messages in thread
message board home

3/21/2013 2:15:05 PM

Reply or ReplyNewSubject
Section 8: Handguns
Subject: M325 Nightguard Msg# 853032

From:

Stu Wayne

Joined 4/4/2000

To:

Mark Freburg (Read) Forum Manager

Joined 4/3/2000

With the stubby little barrels in that AH article, I think I would have preferred the Ruger round-butt handle you pictured, Mark, at least aesthetically.

I don't recall having read that article before. Thanks for the link. The more I think about this, their cartridge retention and extraction system is cool but is it needed? I'm wondering if a shooter wouldn't be better served by moon-clips, especially on a defensive firearm which might need to be reloaded under pressure!

Stu

For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where:
I thought the same thing about the barrel length, but for different reasons perhaps. As hard as I argued for the Nightguards, I would have those GP100s done with a 3" barrel. Not much but I like that length barrel. the symmetry was off due to those--pardon me--ridiculous stocks. Those may have been beautiful according the the author, but they were completely out of place for anything but a BBQ gun, which is all I can see at least the high gloss model being, if not both. The GP100 used to be offered with a rubber stock using wood inserts, and they came in square and round butt. Both fit because the GP100 has a frame stud something like the old Dan Wesson as opposed to a Smith or Taurus, which restricts stock options. If you put the early type stocks on a GP100 snub, especially the smaller ones, it would not look at all out of proportion. Here's a purely bad photo by me showing the older stock options (which have been replaced by a larger, ungainly Hogue finger groove stock, one size fits all):

Image below from Mark Freburg - Image Title: Ruger Grips
Image Info: Comparison of Ruger round butt and square butt grips for the GP100 (and Super Redhawk).

I actually gave a minute or two's thought to having my revolver shortened to three inches, but I wouldn't, as I don't think anyone could redo the Target Grey finish of the stainless steel. If I ever get really interested in custom--and I'm always somewhat interested in those things--I'd buy a new GP100 with a 3" barrel already. All I really want is an action job, cylinder charge holes chamfered, sights (you can see it comes with fixed sights [below]. Also note the ugly Hogues, which are way too large.), cylinder leading edges chamfered, and the following if needed: cylinder throats measured and opened and cylinder gap checked and adjusted. I would definitely pass on jeweling the hammer and trigger. I don't see that it adds any smoothness, it's just decorative. If the hammer and trigger showed rub marks I'd have them polished but flat. And no custom stocks. I'd want a firm rubber stock, and I happen to have two of the old Ruger type, square and round. And I'm guessing I could get more off eBay as I'd want round on the custom, and I have my round ones on my current GP. They fit great, even though the square ones fit good too, I just like the round butt. I think the round butt Ruger stocks are perhaps a bit smaller as well.

Re: the video. The Charter Arms extraction mechanism is definitely more robust than that on the old S&W 547, which was often termed fragile. You may not recall, our News Desk reported on this revolver over a year ago. Here's the story

message board home