|
|
Post by AxeHandle on Jan 10, 2017 19:24:24 GMT -5
Good or bad sights, like so many things, are in the eyes of the beholder.  |
|
|
|
Post by magpouch on Jan 11, 2017 5:48:29 GMT -5
Ya, my front sight is sitting proud too. Looks to be .020 to .030 gap under mine. Waiting on a bigger mold and size die so I can shoot her. Would really like a better fit front sight, and I too will be going with the Rough Country rear.
|
|
|
|
Post by DiamondD on Jan 11, 2017 17:27:18 GMT -5
I'm going to have to feel out this front sight thing... I'll keep my ear to the ground and yell if I hear of something that will fit properly... Still thinking Bowen Rough Country for the rear.. I can't for the life of me figure out why Ruger went away from the great easily replaceable plunger front sight base they used to put on the GP 100/ SRH guns. I am slowly getting to like the green fibre optic sight that came on my SP 101 .327 but it would sure be nice to depress a plunger and fit in a slightly tall metal blade and file it to the load. |
|
|
|
Post by bigmuddy on Jan 11, 2017 17:44:07 GMT -5
I'm going to have to feel out this front sight thing... I'll keep my ear to the ground and yell if I hear of something that will fit properly... Still thinking Bowen Rough Country for the rear.. I can't for the life of me figure out why Ruger went away from the great easily replaceable plunger front sight base they used to put on the GP 100/ SRH guns. I am slowly getting to like the green fibre optic sight that came on my SP 101 .327 but it would sure be nice to depress a plunger and fit in a slightly tall metal blade and file it to the load. I'm sure it's purely cost! That great plunger arrangement had to be more expensive than a simple dove tail milled into the barrel. Dan |
|
|
|
Post by BigBore44 on Jan 11, 2017 23:03:17 GMT -5
I'm going to have to feel out this front sight thing... I'll keep my ear to the ground and yell if I hear of something that will fit properly... Still thinking Bowen Rough Country for the rear.. I can't for the life of me figure out why Ruger went away from the great easily replaceable plunger front sight base they used to put on the GP 100/ SRH guns. I am slowly getting to like the green fibre optic sight that came on my SP 101 .327 but it would sure be nice to depress a plunger and fit in a slightly tall metal blade and file it to the load. I'm Sure we can blame the bean counters for this!  Charge more, give less... Tis the way of the "new & improved" modern world!!!  BigBore44 |
|
|
|
Post by AxeHandle on Jan 13, 2017 7:35:39 GMT -5
Noted that the range 4 inch 22LR SP101 has a dovetailed front sight also. FWIW it IS NOT the same dovetail that is used on the GP100 44.  |
|
|
|
Post by AxeHandle on Jan 13, 2017 7:43:00 GMT -5
Looking around. Looks like the GP100 Match Champion may have the same dovetailed front sight...
|
|
Yetiman
.327 Meteor
Enter your message here...
Posts: 582 
|
Post by Yetiman on Jan 13, 2017 9:40:45 GMT -5
As well as the Wiley Clapp stainless model (gap and all).
That said, the brass bead front sight from the blued WC should drop right in.
|
|
|
|
Post by AxeHandle on Jan 14, 2017 10:01:12 GMT -5
Trigger stacks up pretty good. Makes it easy to stage the trigger if that is what you want to do. I do not. Spring kit arrived. Still looking for a front sight blade.
|
|
Chip
.30 Stingray
Posts: 263
|
Post by Chip on Jan 14, 2017 18:09:47 GMT -5
Hauled mine home today... Front sight is nasty. Forcing cone reminds me of the S&W 696. There will be custom sights, spring kit, custom grips, and bobbed hammer in the near future. [a href= [/a][/quote] So the forcing cone is as thin on the Ruger, as on the 696? |
|
kooz
.327 Meteor
Posts: 618
|
Post by kooz on Jan 14, 2017 19:05:27 GMT -5
Even thinner as I recall. I have owned the 396 & 696 and have a GP44 sitting here . The forcing cone portion of the barrel that sticks into the frame window is not much thicker than an eggshell if at all, I'm surprised that they would go with something that thin . With the cyl throats being oversized and most likely needing to shoot a .433 bullet to get the thing to shoot descent and not lead up will mean pounding oversized bullets into an ultra-thin barrel shell, can't imagine that this is a good situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by dougader on Jan 15, 2017 1:01:08 GMT -5
The forcing cone on mine is thinner than the one on my Bisley 44 Spl, but not egg shell thin...
|
|
|
|
Post by AxeHandle on Jan 15, 2017 7:11:41 GMT -5
My 696 is long gone but I think I remember a slightly thinner walled forcing cone. Knowing Ruger's engineering practices I'd expect the cone on the GP100 44 to be well up to standard 44 Special stuff.. I'd beware the Skeeter level loads. FWIW there is plenty of meat in that frame to bore it for a larger barrel shank. Then a larger barrel shank would bring on the additional expense of unique barrels...  |
|
Chip
.30 Stingray
Posts: 263
|
Post by Chip on Jan 15, 2017 17:44:17 GMT -5
Yeah, it doesn't look much thicker then my 696. Thanks!!
|
|
kooz
.327 Meteor
Posts: 618
|
Post by kooz on Jan 17, 2017 11:05:00 GMT -5
Even thinner as I recall. I have owned the 396 & 696 and have a GP44 sitting here . The forcing cone portion of the barrel that sticks into the frame window is not much thicker than an eggshell if at all, I'm surprised that they would go with something that thin . With the cyl throats being oversized and most likely needing to shoot a .433 bullet to get the thing to shoot descent and not lead up will mean pounding oversized bullets into an ultra-thin barrel shell, can't imagine that this is a good situation. My mistake, I did some measuring this morning before this gun gets send off to a new home. Egg shell- .021 , GP44 bbl thickness in frame window .031 WOW! I really didn't think it was that thin, but you could literally cut yourself on it . |
|
