Ruger SP101 Durability

Owned a lot of Pythons and Model 19s have you?

Anyway, nearly 30 years ago I read a magazine article where they took a then new SP in .357 and shot 5k hot .357 rounds through it non stop. They dunked it in a bucket of water to cool it down. In the end, they measured all the critical parts and saw no signs of wear or stretching....I bought a SP shortly afterwards.

The little nub on the bottom rear of the cylinder window holds the cylinder in when the gun is assembled. This is how it works for most revolvers.

Take any revolver and open the cylinder. Try to slide the cylinder off the crane.

I have owned more than a few Pythons and and shot them all I want. I have never had one go out of time. Does it happen? Sure, but the the amount of times it happens and the "delicate" nature of the Python is greatly exaggerated on the internet.

Yes the SP is a tank of a little gun, I've had a few and never had a problem. However your characterization of Smith's and Colts is way off.
It's not heavy load that causes problems with a Python, the reputation came from their use in PPC in the 70s and 80s with high round count DA. Realistically Ruger Smith and Colt all shoot loose with this treatment just Colts are harder to fix.
And timing isn't a problem with hot ioads in a 19 it's the paper thin bottom of the forcing cone that erodes and will crack with heavy loads and light bullets (read lots of powder) shoot 158s and they'll eat plenty.
For the record I've seen a GP100 with a ruined barrel from erosion of the forcing cone, granted it had a ungodly round count of 125gr jhps with Max loads of 296.

Can't speak for Smith & Wesson or Colt... but they've been around an awful long time...they both build pretty reputable firearms. They haven't gotten where they are today by building shoddy equipment. My bucket list includes specific models of each. It's getting the darn bucket list to coordinate with the cash flow and my love affair with Ruger is why I don't own any yet. LOL

Looking at a parts schematic doesn't give one a full understanding of the intrisacries of assembly. You would have to field strip one to see for yourself.

I have shot well in excess of 1000 rounds of .38 Special +P 125 grain JHP thru my SP101 and the forcing cone nor the top strap are no worse for the wear. I don't shoot hot loads and clean my guns diligently after every range session. Maybe that contributes to the lack of wear...don't know for sure.

The hyperbole has already been addressed so I’ll just say I’ve been shooting full power 357s out of my SP101 for ten years.

My hand will wear out before the gun does from my experience. It locks up and shoots as well today as it did ten years ago.

WheelGunMan said:

I have shot well in excess of 1000 rounds of .38 Special +P 125 grain JHP thru my SP101

Click to expand...

SAAMI spec for 38+p is 20,000 psi Smith K frames will handle lifetimes of that I've got a old M14 that's got more then 1K +p and many thousands of std target rounds and begs for more. The K forcing cone problem comes from early 357 loads.
The old SAAMI standard for 357 Mag was 46,000 CUP, which converts to 43,500 psi. SAAMI reduced the max pressure by about 25% (from 43.5k psi to 35k psi),
which is quite a bit.
Like I said earlier stick with 158s at current SAAMI spec and a Smith K will be fine.
Sorry for the hijack but the misinformation on the subject gets tiring.

Mr. Mosin said:

@ ColPythonElite Python’s are notorious for their delicate (relatively speaking) lockwork.

Click to expand...

Only on internet forums it seems. And any gun will wear with use. Even a Ruger. When reading about the actions on Colts in the old gun magazines it wasn't so much about durability but that if the timing got off it was getting harder to find someone who could correct the problem. But Colts aren't weak built guns.

I learned to reload on a 6" model 19 and I shot ever load I had bullets and powder for in the Speer #10 manual. All the hot 110 and 125gr loads with max charges by the coffee can full and never had one issue with the gun. And Speer listed hot loads back then.

I have an SP-101 and I haven't shot a thousand rounds through it yet but I don't ever see having a problem with it. I don't shoot a lot of full bore 357 loads in any of my guns. I have a mid range load I like to shoot instead.

Mr. Mosin said:

@ earlthegoat2 I don’t have a revolver on hand at the moment, but I am confused. I looked at a SP101 schematic, and it confused me even more...

@ ColtPythonElite ok. Cool.

Click to expand...

Go over to the Ruger site and look at the instruction manual for the SP (customer service, address https://ruger-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/_manuals/sp101.pdf) at page 35, where they show a view of the left side of the gun. The nubbin is just below the crane release button. It's cast into the frame, not a separate part (the nubbin).

Mr. Mosin said:

@ ColPythonElite Python’s are notorious for their delicate (relatively speaking) lockwork. Just from a cursory inspection, Ruger’s cylinder walls and topstrap are (give or take a bit) twice as thick as a 19 Classic.

Click to expand...

Ruger SP101 cylinder wall thickness 327 Federal Mag (sorry I don't have a 357 to measure) = .085". Top Strap = .185"

S&W K-Frame (model 66 no dash) 357 cylinder wall thickness = .085". Top Strap = .210"

Rugers are not exactly "built like tanks" - they use investment cast frames which require to be thicker then a forged frame in order to handle the SAME pressures safely. It only looks overbuilt, but it's not... And that thing, the fragile and delicate Pythons, this BS has to stop. Once and for all.

Mr. Mosin said:

Question. Was watching a SP101 field strip video today, and a thought occurred to me. We all know Ruger revolvers are built like tanks, and can take hot loads that would knock a Colt Python out of time with one cylinder and would send a S&W 19 running in terror back to the safety of the gun safe... anyways, has there been any record of someone shooting the trigger group dub assembly loose ?

Also, I noticed the cylinder just.. slid off the crane assembly when field stripped. What holds the cylinder in place when the assembly is opened to load/unload/reload when the revolver is not field stripped ?

Click to expand...

Ruger uses a triple cylinder locking system on their revolvers so no issue there. Ruger makes strong well built and very durable revolvers but the "built like a tank" and "overbuilt" are over used descriptions but probably accurate. Your comparisons between the Colt Python and M19 Smith to the Rugers was bound to ruffle some feathers.

Mizar said:

Rugers are not exactly "built like tanks"

Click to expand...

Agree. If I never read that cliché again, I'd be a happy man.

Why would the fire control sub-assembly ever “shoot loose”? It’s not under any load during firing.

Jesus will come back before the SP101 will die... It's a great gun.

Mizar said:

Rugers are not exactly "built like tanks" - they use investment cast frames which require to be thicker then a forged frame in order to handle the SAME pressures safely. It only looks overbuilt, but it's not... And that thing, the fragile and delicate Pythons, this BS has to stop. Once and for all.

Click to expand...

Dripping in pseudo-science here. The frame does not contain any pressure from firing. The Cylinder is what sustains the pressure of firing, which is no different in material manufacture between Ruger or S&W.

Not quite correct - for instance, tensile strength is one factor one should take account of. If that was the case, then heat treating of the frames would be pointless, right? Or heavy framed "service" revolvers would be pointless also it terms of longevity...

Varminterror said:

The Cylinder ... which is no different in material manufacture between Ruger or S&W.

Click to expand...

And this actually proves my point that Rugers are not exactly built like tanks, don't you think? They are fine revolvers and I like them pretty much, but broad statements like "built like tanks" are pure BS - one should take account for the specific revolver he is talking to. An SP101 is no different in terms of longevity as a new S&W 60 magnum.

SP-101 4.2" is a rock.

DARE you to break one.
(and RUGER would fix/replace it anyway, Gratis)




GR

It's not just a bad hyperbole, it's a terrible cliche. Rugers built like tanks, Pythons delicate, and Model 19's not built for a "steady diet" of hot magnums. None of it is correct, but the fact that these sayings are all wrong, hackneyed and trite doesn't stop them from being repeated ad nauseam.

The frame does not contain pressure per se, but it does see stress from the pressure. When the bullet is still in the cylinder, the frame mostly sees stress from recoil. Once the bullet leaves the cylinder and enters the barrel, there is pressure that is forcing the cylinder back away from the barrel. The gap relieves some of this pressure, but it does not relieve it all or barrel length would not affect velocity. So long as there is pressure in the barrel behind the bullet, that same pressure is trying to blow the cylinder off the back of the barrel. The frame is the thing holding the cylinder to the barrel.

There has not been a steel revolver model made by Colt, S&W or Ruger that was insufficiently strong for many tens of thousands of firings of the cartridge for which it was designed. There are wear items like cylinder stops, notches, and the hand which wear on all revolvers. These are small metal pieces that rotate the cylinder and stop the cylinder's rotation. The greater the mass and diameter of the cylinder and that faster it is accelerated by the shooter's finger, the greater impacts these parts will see. These parts follow the original design by Colt on virtually all revolvers made by anyone, but the cylinder mass and diameter, and the size and material of the hands and stops vary with different models.

The SP101 has a small diameter 5-shot cylinder that puts less stress on the hand to rotate it and less stress on the stop and notches to stop it than a large steel 8-shot N-frame cylinder. You can get a Titanium N frame cylinder to help mitigate that stress, or shoot slower. In my mind, the SP is not a very clever design. Kimber and S&W have made revolvers that do everything better (lighter, smaller, more rounds). Lauding the SP for unnecessary strength or durability doesn't commend it to me. It's built like an anvil or a boat anchor. How is that better for me in any practical sense?

My SP-101 of 2009 vintage has only about 2800 rounds through it, I'd say 40% magnum loads. The only problems I have had were of my own making by trying foolishly to improve it. I see no reason why it will not continue to function for long as I care to shoot it. It is 100% stock except for a big-dot tritium front sight and some aftermarket wood panels.

Mizar said:

Rugers are not exactly "built like tanks" - they use investment cast frames which require to be thicker then a forged frame in order to handle the SAME pressures safely. It only looks overbuilt, but it's not... And that thing, the fragile and delicate Pythons, this BS has to stop. Once and for all.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but this made me laugh out loud.

So far, all have failed to notice that of all the revolvers described, only the Rugers do not have side plates. Rugers are much like "monocoque" design machines, whereby the frame design incorporates the strength of surrounding metal, and is not compromised by the removal of structural elements, like a side plate does. A Ruger is inherently stronger, by design, for the same weight, than any other competing design.