NEW SP101 4" .357 Mag

[deadduck357]

Ruger has released another 4 inch barreled SP101 revolver, this model is chambered in .357 Magnum – it was sent to me for T&E review.

With the 5 shot cylinder this revolver maintains a slim profile.

Remington, Winchester and Speer ammunition was accumulated for the test.

Head group is 5 rounds of Rem. UMC 38 Spl. FMJ at 3 yards, offhand.

All torso groups are 5 rounds at 7 yards, offhand.
Left: Rem. UMC 357 Mag – Right: Speer Gold Dot 357 Mag.
Center: Win. USA 38 Spl +P

20 yards from bench

While this is a handy sized revolver it doesn’t let you forget about full power .357 Mag. loads; the .38 Spl. ammo was quite pleasant to shoot. As for just 5 rounds, that should get you out of a bind while hiking on a trail or as a backup when hunting without the unessential weight.

for full review - http://lead-slinger.com/ruger-sp101-357-magnum

 

[I_Like_Pie]

This gun + a good set of Badger grips would be just about a perfect replacement for a K-frame.

 

[roaddog28]

This gun + a good set of Badger grips would be just about a perfect replacement for a K-frame.

It might be but until it gets a track record I will continue to shoot my Model 19 and 66.
Howard

 

[I_Like_Pie]

This gun + a good set of Badger grips would be just about a perfect replacement for a K-frame.

It might be but until it gets a track record I will continue to shoot my Model 19 and 66.
Howard

The SP has been around for 20+ years. Certainly not as long as the K-frame, but that is enough track record to be a credible option...no?

I suppose that one could argue that this is a "New" gun and there may be some kinks to work out, but the only difference between this and the gamut of other SP guns is the barrel and sights....

Don't get me wrong....last count I had more than 20 k frame pistols scattered around the man room. Love them, but this is a serious contender at a very good price.

 

[mattsbox99]

I got the 4" .22LR with a Wolff spring set its a very good gun. I imagine this has the same awful trigger that the .22lr has, so the $10 Wolff set would make this a very good gun.

My local dealer ordered in 10 of them. I was on the list before I even asked about them!


Thanks for the review DD!

 

[Triggernosis]

One thing it has going for it over the S&W K-frame is that it's at least 7 oz. lighter....and a tiny bit smaller.

 

[mattsbox99]

And don't forget the SP doesn't have any phony locks on it.

 

[Triggernosis]

And don't forget the SP doesn't have any phony locks on it.

It has one on the hammer, doesn't it? But at least it's not glaring like a shiny azzhole like on the S&W.

 

[ACM73]

My sp101 doesn't have any lock on it, I don't believe this one does either.

 

[rangerbob]

One good thing about this Sp101 is that there exists an identical 22LR understudy for economical training. Sorta like a S&W M15 & a M18, or a M14 and a M17. It should sell well. Bob! 8)

 

[Triggernosis]

My sp101 doesn't have any lock on it, I don't believe this one does either.

Outstanding!

 

[Knuckles]

Very Nice!... way to go Ruger! (clapping)

 

[deadduck357]

Nope, no lock that I'm aware of.

 

[tcolt45]

very nice.

 

[Smee781]

Were the grips pulled and checked to see if there was a lock?

 

[dipper]

They should have just added the sights to the 3" version IMHO.
My 3 inch is one of my favorite revolvers... adding another inch to the barrel doesn't do much for me but I do like the sights.

 

[Carry_Up]

The SP101 is meant to be a smaller carry-sized revolver. It comes in 2" and 3" barrel lengths, which are appropriate for the intended use. Another clue that it is intended for carry use is the 5-shot cylinder and small frame and grip size. That much seems clear to me.

So why now extend the barrel to 4"? The GP101 fills that need just perfectly and has the standard 6 shot cylinder and full sized grip and frame. I don't understand the thinking, other than to easily "create" a new model that incidentally does not make sense.

Why do all the standard gun mag reviews include a target showing the accuracy of the gun? Ever seen a review with shots scattered outside the entire target? No, of course not. Are we saying that somehow the SP101 is much more accurate now that 1" has been added to the barrel? What about a valid comparison between the 4" barrel model and the 2" barrel model?

In any case, a carry gun is a short range - often handshaking distance - firearm. Target accuracy is of no concern and the suggestion that it is important patronizes to the reader.

How about a little information on the fit and finish, trigger pull weight and smoothness (or lack thereof)? And as an added bonus, let's see a photo looking down the sight radius of the gun or at the barrel-to-frame junction. Did they get the barrel screwed on square? Does the front sight lean to the right like all 4 of mine do?

carry_up

 

[Triggernosis]

As long as I can't see it, I don't care if it has a lock. That S&W lock with it's "off" and "on" and an arrow stamped is just plain vulgar!

 

[dipper]

The SP101 is meant to be a smaller carry-sized revolver. It comes in 2" and 3" barrel lengths, which are appropriate for the intended use. Another clue that it is intended for carry use is the 5-shot cylinder and small frame and grip size. That much seems clear to me.

So why now extend the barrel to 4"? The GP101 fills that need just perfectly and has the standard 6 shot cylinder and full sized grip and frame. I don't understand the thinking, other than to easily "create" a new model that incidentally does not make sense.

Why do all the standard gun mag reviews include a target showing the accuracy of the gun? Ever seen a review with shots scattered outside the entire target? No, of course not. Are we saying that somehow the SP101 is much more accurate now that 1" has been added to the barrel? What about a valid comparison between the 4" barrel model and the 2" barrel model?

In any case, a carry gun is a short range - often handshaking distance - firearm. Target accuracy is of no concern and the suggestion that it is important patronizes to the reader.

How about a little information on the fit and finish, trigger pull weight and smoothness (or lack thereof)? And as an added bonus, let's see a photo looking down the sight radius of the gun or at the barrel-to-frame junction. Did they get the barrel screwed on square? Does the front sight lean to the right like all 4 of mine do?

carry_up

An extended more detailed version of my point/thoughts exactly.

 

[Rumrunner]

Carry_up
As far as a carry gun for ccw you are right a 4" barrel is not needed as "handshaking" distance may be right. But as a Kit gun, camping gun or trail gun whatever you want to call it the extra inch and sights can help a lot. Also many states require 4" for hunting.
As far as accuracy comparison between 2 and 4 inch barrels, put them in a Ransom rest and I doubt you see a difference. But add 2" sight radious and the better sights you will see a difference almost guaranteed.
The only thing I see that Ruger did wrong was not bring it out a year after the original SP was introduced.

 

[DPris]

There is NO lock on the gun.

As far as what the SP was "intended to be" goes, it was intended to make money for Ruger, and if it does more of that with the addition of a 4-inch barrel & adjustable sights, then it has achieved its intended function.

I find the idea that the SP HAS to be a 2 or 3-inch gun with small fixed sights & HAS to be for snub-nosed concealed carry or range plinking very....short-sighted.
(Not to mention very short-barreled. )

I've had a customized 3-incher in .357 for several years, very nice gun.
Too big to be a pocket gun, sights aren't good enough or mateable with different loads to get decent (as in a GOOD sight picture or a fast one) accuracy with in a hurry.
The critter probably hasn't been outside the house in several years.

A lightweight .357 with full 4-inch ballistics and very visible & very adjustable sights to dial in to a 180-grain bullet (not what the fixed-sight snubs are regulated for) has a lot of appeal to me as a trail gun and a spare ATV gun.

And- fit & finish is very good on this sample here, barrel not canted, DA trigger off my scale but very smooth, SA breaks at 5.5 pounds outa the box.
Very nicely done, like the new GP I have here. Some of Ruger's best work I've seen in a long time.

Gun mags including target photos?
I can answer that one for you- editors tend to insist, they think readers like to see 'em.

Denis

 

[Blackmore]

The SP101 is meant to be a smaller carry-sized revolver. It comes in 2" and 3" barrel lengths, which are appropriate for the intended use. Another clue that it is intended for carry use is the 5-shot cylinder and small frame and grip size. That much seems clear to me.

So why now extend the barrel to 4"? The GP101 fills that need just perfectly and has the standard 6 shot cylinder and full sized grip and frame. I don't understand the thinking, other than to easily "create" a new model that incidentally does not make sense.

Why do all the standard gun mag reviews include a target showing the accuracy of the gun? Ever seen a review with shots scattered outside the entire target? No, of course not. Are we saying that somehow the SP101 is much more accurate now that 1" has been added to the barrel? What about a valid comparison between the 4" barrel model and the 2" barrel model?

In any case, a carry gun is a short range - often handshaking distance - firearm. Target accuracy is of no concern and the suggestion that it is important patronizes to the reader.

How about a little information on the fit and finish, trigger pull weight and smoothness (or lack thereof)? And as an added bonus, let's see a photo looking down the sight radius of the gun or at the barrel-to-frame junction. Did they get the barrel screwed on square? Does the front sight lean to the right like all 4 of mine do?

carry_up

An extended more detailed version of my point/thoughts exactly.

Yet another evolutionary model which - even with the kit/trail gun argument - doesn't make a lot of sense and will result in some sales to Ruger loyalists and create another hole to fill for collectors.

Why can't Ruger do something revolutionary like the Taurus 992? 4 different models on the excellent Tracker frame with interchangeable 9 shot double action cylinders in .22 LR and .22 WMR. If Ruger had made these I'd buy a 6.5" blued one in a New York minute. Instead - as much as I love the concept and want to buy one - I find myself on the fence because of Taurus' hit and miss QC.

 

[Laker]

Why would they put a lock under the grip?

 

[roaddog28]

This gun + a good set of Badger grips would be just about a perfect replacement for a K-frame.

It might be but until it gets a track record I will continue to shoot my Model 19 and 66.
Howard

The SP has been around for 20+ years. Certainly not as long as the K-frame, but that is enough track record to be a credible option...no?

I suppose that one could argue that this is a "New" gun and there may be some kinks to work out, but the only difference between this and the gamut of other SP guns is the barrel and sights....

Don't get me wrong....last count I had more than 20 k frame pistols scattered around the man room. Love them, but this is a serious contender at a very good price.

I agree with your statement. I would of rather Ruger bring back the Security Six. With what Ruger has learned on making revolvers since they discontuned the Security Six, I feel they could make the Six again and not lose money.
My take,
Howard

 

[Rumrunner]

I love the Security Six and its offspring, but I think that Ruger learned that at best it was a break even deal and they moved ahead with the Redhawk series and then moved on to the SP/GP/SRH guns. As much as we may like the Security Six, it probably wont be manufactured again.
There are 2 posts going on about the new SP101 right now in the revolver section. I mentioned in the other about having custom work done on my 3" SP101 in the other post. For about $100 to $150 more I could get the new 4" SP. I have decided to have the adjustable sights and other work done to my 3" instead. Reason why is that I have a 4" GP100, and have just put a Red Dot sight on it. I dont plan on switching back and forth with it like I can do much easier with my 44 Redhawk. So instead of a 4" SP101 I think I want the 3" version with the sights and other extras.
It will be my travel companion in the deer timber when checking trail cams, shed hunting, on the quad, etc.
I am getting great accuracy with 180 grain lead bullets out of my GP. As mentioned above, with the adjustable sights on the SP, I should be able to adjust the sights as needed for these heavy loads, or adjust to my 38 loads.

 

[Triggernosis]

Why can't Ruger do something revolutionary like the Taurus 992?

Revolutionary? A .22/.22 Mag. that weighs 40 oz.! Good lord, that's enough steel to make two .22's out of!

 

[Jeff Quinn]

The new 4.2 inch SP101 is a good 3/4 pound lighter than the 4.2 inch GP100. That places it into a different class, and bridges the gap between the 3 inch fixed-sight SP and the 4.2 GP. It makes for a dandy Kit Gun in areas where more than a 22 rimfire might be needed. The new SP101 Kit Gun is also a good size and weight to use as a hunting gun, and it does have the accuracy to back it up.
Full review and video here:
http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-SP101-357.htm

 

[NuclearMeltdown]

If I buy another double action revolver, it will be this one. I've been wondering for a long time why this wasn't made, and here it is. I'm sure others (though not everyone) were thinking the same thing.

 

[Jeff Quinn]

Were the grips pulled and checked to see if there was a lock?

Jeff

 

[ACM73]

And what is the best improvement one may ask?? The "read the instruction manual" billboard is now on the underside of the barrel instead of on the side like on my 2.25 in version... I have to say I'm jealous of that feature!