SP-101 design changes

Help Support Ruger Forum:

Mjolnir

Bearcat
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
17
Don't know if this is news to anyone, but if interested, the SP-101 has undergone some changes:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/therealmjolnir/

Basically, Recoil Shield on breechface, with crosspin, is gone. Replaced by screw-in retainer from rear.

Ejector ratchet has changed from traditional pinned to S&W-style shaped edges.

As well, noticed brushed finish is a finer grit, perhaps? Glossier, less coarse striations/swirls in finish (stainless).
 

Jimbo357mag

Hawkeye
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
10,195
Location
So. Florida
I knew about the funny angles on the ejector used to line it up when returned to the cylinder instead of the locator pins but I didn't know about the others. Thanks. :shock: :D

...Jimbo
 

Flash

Buckeye
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
1,164
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
I can't believe nobody chimed in on this. Doesn't is seem that the firing pin collar modification could be an avenue to something other than facilitating? Perhaps rim fire and center fire going into the same frame?
 

Knuckles

Buckeye
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
1,217
Well' I have been preaching for a couple years now that Ruger does not take full advantage of "caliber possibilities" in many of there gun lines.

I will wait and see. :?
 

rhatimi

Bearcat
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
94
I already knew about the Ejector Ratchet being redesigned to get rid of the alignment pins. But what exactly do the Cross pin, Recoil shield (around the firing pin), and Firing pin retainer (for the new) do :?:
-Thanks
 

Mjolnir

Bearcat
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
17
My guess is it gets rid of one part (the retainer pin); the rear retainer, a new part, is balanced out by getting rid of the old part (the recoil shield)...

...and gets rid of one machining operation (drilling the hole for the pin); machining threads for the retainer is balanced out by not having to counterbore the breech face, and crimp the recoil shield...

...cost cutting measures?

Someone also mentioned facilitating rimfire/centerfire caliber offerings in the future.

Where is Mr. Coffeepot?
 

lkrl

Bearcat
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
9
Location
Scranton Pa
Interesting...Mine has the old recoil shield, old ejector ratchet, no crosspin, has the firing pin retainer, and a real smooth and shinny finish. Could be new frame and older cylinder? Series 574-13***
 

BigBlock1

Bearcat
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
16
knuckles":35jhiimr said:
Well' I have been preaching for a couple years now that Ruger does not take full advantage of "caliber possibilities" in many of there gun lines.

I will wait and see. :?

I think everybody has as long as Ruger has been in business. I don't know why they remain so stubborn on this issue... :roll:
 

welder

Buckeye
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
1,813
Location
western ky usa
I sent an e-mail to the "Tell the CEO" thing on Ruger's site last week about the SP101 and as yet have not gotten a reply. I just asked if he ever saw a bigger selection of calibers in the future for it. I know there are alder ones out there and I want a 3" in 9mm., but don't want to pay 600.00 plus. I would gladly buy one in .22LR and think it could be a 9 shot easy? .22 mag maybe?
 

maxpress

Buckeye
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
1,280
Location
Central Washington
I sent an e-mail to the "Tell the CEO" thing on Ruger's site last week about the SP101 and as yet have not gotten a reply. I just asked if he ever saw a bigger selection of calibers in the future for it. I know there are alder ones out there and I want a 3" in 9mm., but don't want to pay 600.00 plus. I would gladly buy one in .22LR and think it could be a 9 shot easy? .22 mag maybe?
_________________

put me down for a 10mm/.40s&w.

i honestly wonder if this is trying on to fix some bugs with the .327fed since it was such "big advertising" on rugers part.
 

Bear Paw Jack

Hawkeye
Joined
Dec 19, 2001
Messages
9,589
Location
Alaska, Idaho USA
22/45 Fan":92xhbjip said:
welder":92xhbjip said:
I would gladly buy one in .22LR and think it could be a 9 shot easy? .22 mag maybe?
Only if the put REAL adjustable sights on it, not the windage-only useless one they put on past SP-101s in .22LR.

+1 They really need a good set of sights. They already have the Bearcat for people who don't need good sights.
 

BigBlock1

Bearcat
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
16
welder":38xh6czi said:
I sent an e-mail to the "Tell the CEO" thing on Ruger's site last week about the SP101 and as yet have not gotten a reply.
You're never going to get a reply from the CEO of Ruger. I believe they specify that right next to where you can email "him". (though I doubt the actual CEO ever reviews them)

It is however great for people to CONTINUOUSLY remind Ruger of how many calibers they're missing out on and how easy it would be to convert their current frames....
 

BigBlock1

Bearcat
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
16
Bear Paw Jack":2vi9dsl0 said:
+1 They really need a good set of sights. They already have the Bearcat for people who don't need good sights.
The difference between single and double action on a .22 is HUGE. Ruger doesn't even sell a DA .22, which is down right stupid. They make multiple autos, rifles, and SAs in .22 to choose from. :roll:

Even if it had bad sights I'd LOVE to have an 8-9 shot SP22. I'd even pay Smith prices for it.
 

Tarheel

Bearcat
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
27
Location
Chattanooga, TN
So what's the bottom line....

1) Improvements?
2) Cost savings, that don't have any negative effect on performance or strength?
3) Cost savings, with some potential downside?
4) ???

And in any case, does anyone think that there a better CC .357 out there? I'm about to get two of these for my wife's and daughter's Christmas presents.......
 

Carry_Up

Single-Sixer
Joined
Dec 22, 2007
Messages
374
Location
Phoenix, AZ
On the subject of the ejector star; I have wondered if there was a way to improve the sloppiness. For one thing, the fit of the ejector rod in the cylinder is terrible, which causes most of the trouble. For years, S&W made the ejectors just like that, with pins. But their ejectors were a very close fit in the cylinder. With a sloppy fit ejector rod, the ejector return spring rotates the ejector star when you push on the lever; when the star re-seats it does not always find its home position. Those curved surfaces cam the star back in place - or at least they are supposed to work that way. The only thought I had about keeping the star from rotating was to install a set of 2 return springs which are wound in opposing directions, one inside the other.

Carry_Up
 
Top