Changes to SP 101 hammer. Anybody know why?

[Checkman111]

Noticed that the hammer of the SP is different from older specimens. Mine was shipped last year. For lack of a better word, it's "skeletonized". Anybody know why the design change? I don't care about cast parts vs MIM parts vs forged parts. Just wondering as to the new machining of the hammer. I've been searching and any discussion about the new hammer ends up in the weeds with people debating the different technologies and changes in MIM and casting.

 

[deac45]

If it's MIM, less metal is used which equals less $$ to manufacture.

 

[98Redline]

While I am not a fan of MIM parts, deac45 is correct.
The potential advantage is a lighter hammer meaning faster lock time.

 

[arfmel]

I'd prefer to pay an extra $10 to have the older, slower traditional looking non-skeletonized hammer. The new one looks like they copied the design from a shoddy pot metal toy cap-gun I had as a kid. It's not like an SP-101 is an Olympic Free pistol that will benefit from a few milliseconds faster lock time.

 

[Rocdoc]

Reminds me of a Wrangler hammer

 

[protoolman]

I like the older solid hammer too. The head armorer at Ruger once told me the first thing they do with a returned revolver is put the full power springs back in because everyone puts in lighter springs which result in slower lock time and light hammer strikes. Based on that I would say Ruger went skeletonized mim for cost reasons. They wouldn't have been worried about lock time.

 

[Pat-inCO]

Do you like the way it shoots . . . or not?