Jenks

Has anyone shot the SP101 .357 with the 4 inch barrel and adjustable sights? What do you think about it?

the jigger

I've owned and shot the sp101 and the gp101. IMHO Ruger makes some of the finest revolvers on the market today. With the sp in 357 a 4" barrel is minimum. The two ruger revolvers that I owned shot very accurately and reliably. Both of mine were stainless and the weight made hot 357 loads manageable. If I was in the market for a revolver Ruger would be very high on my list.
GOOD LUCK and GOOD SHOOTING!!!

bugsNbows

I've had an SP101 for several years. It's tough and dependable. I installed a Trausch grip and an XS Big Dot sight. It's my favorite now!

Jenks

Thanks, guys. I had a stainless 1876 Blackhawk in .357 that I gave to my son. I did not shoot it much, it was too big and heavy. I have been watching for a good used 3 inch sp101 in .357, now I think I would rather have the 4 inch. I do not intend to use it as a concealed carry, so the larger size would not bother me. The adjustable sights would be a plus.

Nomercy448

Bear with me, as this is a bit scattered...

Speaking to the quality and accuracy of the SP-101, my wife and I have 3 of these, two 2 1/4" .357mags, and a .327 Federal 3", for which I gave up a .32H&R Mag 2 1/4" Sp-101 a couple years ago. All 4 of these SP-101's have been incredibly reliable and very accurate, especially considering the fixed sights and snubby little barrels. Slow-fire, my wife and I can post cloverleaf's at 15yrds. My wife dropped a doe this year with hers (the machine engraved Talo Edition 2.25" SP-101) at 28yrds using Hornady Critical Defense 125grners.

All Ruger revolvers need new spring kits, but that's pretty much all they need. Whenever I buy one (literally sitting 10ft from over a dozen Ruger revolvers right now), I swap the springs, polish the chambers, and start feeding them lead.

I have mixed feelings about the 4" SP-101, (unless you're a woman or have smaller hands). For my purpose, a 4" barrel denotes what I'd call a "using revolver", whereas the small frame SP-101 would be a little lacking compared to say a Redhawk (discontinued) or GP-100. No, I'm not saying that 6 shots vs 5 is worth much, but just the physical size is a bit on the small side for me for a hunting/using revolver, better suited for CC. There's nothing really WRONG with using a small frame mid to long barrel, but I think I'd lean towards a heavier frame. However, the smaller framed SP-101 is decidedly "sexier" than the larger Redhawk or GP-100, just from an asthetics perspective. The GP-100 and Redhawk have decidedly better grips, and with the added weight, helps tame recoil of full power .357mag rounds a bit better than the tiny SP-101 grips. Ultimately, I'm fairly undecided, so take that at face value, just thought I'd mention it as something for YOU to weigh in your own consideration.

I also would agree that if you're NOT trying to hide it, the more barrel, the better. I'd prefer the 4" over the 3" as well.

GEAR NUT 64

I had the 4'' inch SP-101 and i was loading my own .357 Mag's and it was a little to wild cat for me, so i switched to factory loads and it did help, but thats just me. great gun all in all.....

8mm/06

It has been good to read this thread as I'm getting ready to purchase an SP-101. I want it specifically for CC, and therefore wanted the short 2.25 " barrel. Some here have said that the shorter barrels were not to their liking, but I don't plan on doing a whole bunch of full power .357. I'd practice with .38's and then put through a couple cylinders of the defense loads in .357.

I have a couple small semi-auto's in 9 mm Makharov, and they are fine and nice, but I want something with a bit more oomph on occassion.

Does anyone see any real problems with an SP-101 with the 2.25" barrel for CC?. I've never been very recoil shy, and shoot a .41 mag regularly. On paper the Ruger SP-101 seems to be just what I'm looking for.

Thanks for all the input so far, and for any additional that you guys may reply with.

Nomercy448

Since you asked pretty broad, I'll share my/our experiences with the snubby SP-101's...

Concealability: They're small, but they're still a revolver. I'm 5'10" and a lean/muscled 185lbs, and I have no problem concealing it IWB SOB under a t-shirt, obviously as long as I don't do a lot of bending. My wife is 5'3" and a lean/muscled 130lbs, it's pretty much a "jacket only" proposition for her, since her t-shirts are all fitted and give that grip away like a marquee sign. I have an S&W 60 "Ladysmith" that I've had for years, and a Taurus 85, the SP-101 is definitely on par with their size... Small frame/5-shot .357mag revolvers are just THAT size...

Recoil: Personally, I don't have any issue with the .357mag loads out of the SP-101. It's not much to hang on to, so the split times are a little long, and after 4 stiff ones, if you're lazy with your grip you might need to regrip to place the 5th shot in the bundle (kinda walks out of your hand). Again, that's pretty much universal for small .357mags. I have fairly large hands for a guy my size, but not too big (3.7" palms, 8.75" circumference, size 12.5 wedding ring), and I can only get about 2.5fingers on the grip under the trigger guard. My wife struggled at first with the .357mags. She'd put .38spcls into a cloverleaf, but she'd really open up with the mags. So we practiced a lot and stepped her up through .38spcl, spcl+p, then mag loads. Full house .357mags WILL leave a streak down your palm after a few cylinders full.

Weight: Ruger makes them from all-american steel, and they show it. No, they're not heavy, probably not heavy ENOUGH for full house .357mags to be honest, but coming in at right around 30oz loaded, plus your holster, it's no micro-pistol. Still in the ballpark of a loaded baby Glock though.

Sights: Not that sights are CRITICAL for personal defense, but they're still a consideration. My wife had issues with the factory front sight and the machined receiver groove rear sight at the start. Our indoor range is shadowed over the shooter, so everything blends together (problem for pretty much everyone that shoots there that doesn't have tritium sights). I blacked out the U on the rear of the rear sight groove, and shot the tip of her front sight bright red. Sure seemed to help contrast against the stainless receiver body and still pick up the front sight.

Price: Pretty dang reasonable. Sure, you could find a Taurus or Rossi for $100-150 less, but it won't be as well finished, and frankly, it won't be a Ruger (warranty, reputation, durability) New SP-101's can be had for under $500, which aint bad by any stretch.

For a small frame CC revolver, there's nothing that I'd say needs to be improved on the SP-101 (except the massively overweight springs that come with it: replace them with a wolff spring kit from midway for about $10). It shoots well enough my wife even uses it for deer. I'm working on getting a coyote with mine!

8mm/06

Thanks Nomercy448,

I had figured I'd be gripping it with my middle and ring fingers, with a poor purchase with 1/2 my baby finger. My hands are fairly average sized.

My goal will be to get 5 stiff shots of defense loads (not necessarily full power .357's) into a decent group at 21'. If I can do that regularly I'll be happy. I'll be even happier with groups around 4-5" at 15 feet in a deliberate rate of fire ... definitely doable I think with just a little practice.

So far, what I'm hearing has me even more set on this gun.

I have been set on the hammerless model KPS-321XL. Anyone have one?

Any good reason for me to WANT the exposed hammer rather than the hammerless model?

bookfire1238

I'm going to have to think about that one.