New SP101 .22 LR Now Available!
- Thread starter ranger1
- Start date
gregs45auto
Single-Sixer
After seeing the new one, I will stick with the old model. greg
Colonialgirl
Hawkeye
"ACRYLICTNK"; A GOOD man to do business with; We've bought several pistols and rifles from him; Prompt shipments and no problems.
Pamela
Pamela
A
Anonymous
Negative post edited out.
Just received the 'official' notice from Ruger a few minutes ago. I think I'll wait a while to see how the reviews go before I plunk down any $$. Jeff you have one yet?
A
Anonymous
Negative post edited out.
Had mine for about 6 weeks.
It's a keeper. :)
I'm not a real fan of fiberoptics, and I may still swap this one out, but it's not bothering me as much at the moment as I thought it would.
I like the overall adjustable sight picture much more than the original inadequate versions.
Much superior to those on my .357 SP.
I've got Hogue wood on it, perfect fit in my hand. Balances well. El Paso Saddlery Tanker chest rig so it can ride high above the heavier artllery on my belt for ATV outings.
Heavy DA trigger may bother some, I won't be firing it much in DA, not a problem for me.
Denis
It's a keeper. :)
I'm not a real fan of fiberoptics, and I may still swap this one out, but it's not bothering me as much at the moment as I thought it would.
I like the overall adjustable sight picture much more than the original inadequate versions.
Much superior to those on my .357 SP.
I've got Hogue wood on it, perfect fit in my hand. Balances well. El Paso Saddlery Tanker chest rig so it can ride high above the heavier artllery on my belt for ATV outings.
Heavy DA trigger may bother some, I won't be firing it much in DA, not a problem for me.
Denis
A
Anonymous
Negative post edited out.
BC,
I don't recall insulting your integrity, you have a particular reason for insulting mine?
I've posted on this gun in an effort be helpful & provide some info for other members. People want to know, and having one of the guns in hand allows me to provide accurate commentary.
I've posted a bit too much, initially, since Ruger saw my early posts & asked me to hold off on further info till the announcement was official.
I genuinely like this gun, I've not been this interested personally in a new Ruger product for quite some time.
I get neither a paycheck nor free guns from Ruger.
You may not have been paying attention when the LCP came out.
I posted fully on the problems I found with erratic ejection on the first test sample sent on the Internet, and mentioned it in the print write-up.
Ruger, in my opinion, let the gun out too soon with inadequate testing.
I also posted, and mentioned in print, about the tiny frame correction made in the second sample sent that cured the problem.
You didn't see the emails back & forth between me & Ruger on the subject, but relations were strained for over a year after that.
I ended up buying the second sample, incidentally. As in paying for it. As in not a free gun.
Before that, when I wrote up the P345 I was sent, I laid out the last-round-feed-failure I encountered in the sample, and mentioned having to have my local gunsmith finish ream the chamber to improve reliability.
More recently, I wrote up an Ultra-Light Hawkeye & mentioned its rough action.
Ruger generally puts out a good product, but the company isn't perfect, none are. Neither is every single product it turns out. When I work with one, I mention whatever minor annoyances I find, no big deal.
With Ruger, those ARE typically very minor, and I've never had to cancel an article because a sample sent for review was a total piece of junk, as I have with other major names.
I own several Rugers, acquired because they're typically reliable, robust, and meet specific needs. I won't apologize for that.
Or for the 15 or so Colts that meet similar criteria. Or the 15 or so Smiths.
When I write products up, I have varying degrees of personal interest in them. I can set aside my own preferences on one I may have little interest in so I can write it up honestly & fairly for those who may have more interest than I do.
If I have absolutely no interest whatever, as with the Ruger tactical long guns, I simply don't bother to do anything with them in the first place. That doesn't mean I consider them inferior, I'm just not interested.
If a Ruger (or any other maker's) product does intrigue me, I'll try to cover it, if an editor'll give the go-ahead.
I also won't apologize for having my own preferences, for expressing those preferences, or for saying I REALLY personally like a given product, by any maker.
I have a nearly pristine Smith 34. The very first handgun I was allowed to carry at the age of ten on backwoods excursions was a 34. I got mine many years later out of a sense of nostalgia and the fact that I wanted a quicker loading .22 revolver than my 1975-ish Single-Six.
I REALLY like that Smith, but decided the finish is too nice to ding it up in carrying it regularly in the wilds, so it's saved for ceremonial shooting occasions where it can travel in a pistol rug.
When I first heard about the new .22 SP, it immediately drew my attention.
The configuration was near perfect for my needs. I REALLY like it, and again- no apologies for saying that. Gunwriters are not allowed to have likes & dislikes?
This one is so much improved over the original .22 SP that it appeals, when the original did not.
That barrel, the sights, the 8 shots, Hogue grips, all make it a totally new animal, and in stainless I don't have to worry about dents, dings, or bluing loss on a "prettygun".
My Rugers are workhorses, and this one should hold up over the rest of my lifetime quite easily & probably better internally than the 34 would with similar amounts of projected usage.
Ruger says the .22 SP is a much requested "bring back", people are paying a lot of attention to this one, and I've been passing on my opinions for those interested.
I've commented on the fiberoptics, not my first choice, but do-able.
I've stated the DA trigger's a bit on the heavy side.
Those are the only two things that I find mildly objectionable. Otherwise & elsewhere, I'm sharing my enthusiasm on a neat new Ruger product on a Ruger Forum in a thread I didn't start containing commentary and opinions by others, which I feel entitled to participate in.
If you find my positive impressions bothersome, ignore 'em.
Denis
I don't recall insulting your integrity, you have a particular reason for insulting mine?
I've posted on this gun in an effort be helpful & provide some info for other members. People want to know, and having one of the guns in hand allows me to provide accurate commentary.
I've posted a bit too much, initially, since Ruger saw my early posts & asked me to hold off on further info till the announcement was official.
I genuinely like this gun, I've not been this interested personally in a new Ruger product for quite some time.
I get neither a paycheck nor free guns from Ruger.
You may not have been paying attention when the LCP came out.
I posted fully on the problems I found with erratic ejection on the first test sample sent on the Internet, and mentioned it in the print write-up.
Ruger, in my opinion, let the gun out too soon with inadequate testing.
I also posted, and mentioned in print, about the tiny frame correction made in the second sample sent that cured the problem.
You didn't see the emails back & forth between me & Ruger on the subject, but relations were strained for over a year after that.
I ended up buying the second sample, incidentally. As in paying for it. As in not a free gun.
Before that, when I wrote up the P345 I was sent, I laid out the last-round-feed-failure I encountered in the sample, and mentioned having to have my local gunsmith finish ream the chamber to improve reliability.
More recently, I wrote up an Ultra-Light Hawkeye & mentioned its rough action.
Ruger generally puts out a good product, but the company isn't perfect, none are. Neither is every single product it turns out. When I work with one, I mention whatever minor annoyances I find, no big deal.
With Ruger, those ARE typically very minor, and I've never had to cancel an article because a sample sent for review was a total piece of junk, as I have with other major names.
I own several Rugers, acquired because they're typically reliable, robust, and meet specific needs. I won't apologize for that.
Or for the 15 or so Colts that meet similar criteria. Or the 15 or so Smiths.
When I write products up, I have varying degrees of personal interest in them. I can set aside my own preferences on one I may have little interest in so I can write it up honestly & fairly for those who may have more interest than I do.
If I have absolutely no interest whatever, as with the Ruger tactical long guns, I simply don't bother to do anything with them in the first place. That doesn't mean I consider them inferior, I'm just not interested.
If a Ruger (or any other maker's) product does intrigue me, I'll try to cover it, if an editor'll give the go-ahead.
I also won't apologize for having my own preferences, for expressing those preferences, or for saying I REALLY personally like a given product, by any maker.
I have a nearly pristine Smith 34. The very first handgun I was allowed to carry at the age of ten on backwoods excursions was a 34. I got mine many years later out of a sense of nostalgia and the fact that I wanted a quicker loading .22 revolver than my 1975-ish Single-Six.
I REALLY like that Smith, but decided the finish is too nice to ding it up in carrying it regularly in the wilds, so it's saved for ceremonial shooting occasions where it can travel in a pistol rug.
When I first heard about the new .22 SP, it immediately drew my attention.
The configuration was near perfect for my needs. I REALLY like it, and again- no apologies for saying that. Gunwriters are not allowed to have likes & dislikes?
This one is so much improved over the original .22 SP that it appeals, when the original did not.
That barrel, the sights, the 8 shots, Hogue grips, all make it a totally new animal, and in stainless I don't have to worry about dents, dings, or bluing loss on a "prettygun".
My Rugers are workhorses, and this one should hold up over the rest of my lifetime quite easily & probably better internally than the 34 would with similar amounts of projected usage.
Ruger says the .22 SP is a much requested "bring back", people are paying a lot of attention to this one, and I've been passing on my opinions for those interested.
I've commented on the fiberoptics, not my first choice, but do-able.
I've stated the DA trigger's a bit on the heavy side.
Those are the only two things that I find mildly objectionable. Otherwise & elsewhere, I'm sharing my enthusiasm on a neat new Ruger product on a Ruger Forum in a thread I didn't start containing commentary and opinions by others, which I feel entitled to participate in.
If you find my positive impressions bothersome, ignore 'em.
Denis
A
Anonymous
Negative post edited out.
And I'm simply saying that the tone of your post sounds exactly like you're implying I'm expressing a positive opinion because I'm paid to.
That's more than merely touching a nerve, it's a direct insult on more than one level.
Once that's done, you & I agree on nothing.
Denis
That's more than merely touching a nerve, it's a direct insult on more than one level.
Once that's done, you & I agree on nothing.
Denis
zippo9
Bearcat
Well said Denis!
Boxhead
Buckeye
Mmmmm, I'll stick with my M63.
HardBall
Bearcat
As soon as the announcement email from Ruger hit my inbox, I picked up the phone and called my favorite dealer and told them to order me one- now that I've got a catalog/model number to give them.
I am now waiting on both my new 77/357 rifle and this neat little SP101 to come in.
I just need a holster for the 4.2"SP101...
I am now waiting on both my new 77/357 rifle and this neat little SP101 to come in.
I just need a holster for the 4.2"SP101...
mattsbox99
Hunter
I like it, and appreciate your reviews and comments Dennis.
Ruger Redhawk
Single-Sixer
Boxhead said:
I was thinking the samething.I'd be all excited if Smith started making them again. I'm glad I have one I got in the late 70's or so. Sorry I just can't get excited about the SP in 22.
Jake Bauer
Bearcat
Love it. Got to have one.
surveyor47
Single-Sixer
Sir,
My experience with Mr. Pries is that he is a very straight shooter. I believe that your incinuation is both unwarranted and inappropriate. I have had a number of differences of opinion with other members of this forum, but I always respect them as people.
The SP101 22LR is EXACTLY what I want. I have written the CEO on a number of occasions and asked for this configuration. Apparently a number of people agree with me. This is a gun that could give S&W a real run for their money and completely blow away Taurus. If you can afford one, I suggest that you buy it. I certainly intend to do so.
My experience with Mr. Pries is that he is a very straight shooter. I believe that your incinuation is both unwarranted and inappropriate. I have had a number of differences of opinion with other members of this forum, but I always respect them as people.
The SP101 22LR is EXACTLY what I want. I have written the CEO on a number of occasions and asked for this configuration. Apparently a number of people agree with me. This is a gun that could give S&W a real run for their money and completely blow away Taurus. If you can afford one, I suggest that you buy it. I certainly intend to do so.
bearcatter said:
jazzman
Single-Sixer
I have been waiting for this to be released for years. I will step up and order one from my local dealer. I believe I will like the sights if they help my aging eyes.
Jim
Jim
A
Anonymous
Negative post edited out.
CraigC
Hawkeye
Damn Bearcatter, you are on a roll! Burning bridges left and right. IMHO, your insults lobbed at Dennis are completely uncalled for and you are now showing your true colors. Are you really gonna completely alienate yourself on this site because you don't like one new Ruger offering that EVERYBODY h as asked for???
GaryA
Single-Sixer
I'll be buying the one Bearcatter passes on, no problem. I doubt Ruger will notice.
Sal1950
Blackhawk
bearcatter said:
BC,
I don't know what it is about this weapon that set you off (a very nice new option all-in-all) but you really are over the line on this. You're attacking the gun and everything to do with it all over the forums.
If you really don't like it that much just let it go, you've said enough already.
Sal
Dwight
Bearcat
Actually it holds 8 rounds;DPris said:
But does anyone know if they will Roster it for California sale in the near future?? It seeems very popular and many online retailers are out of stock already but I am sure "Ruger is gearing up for the initial popularity.
CraigC
Hawkeye
Pretty sure he was referring to the S&W model 63 referenced in the previous post.Dwight said:
Similar threads
