SP101 22lr which is better cylinder loose or tight?

[Muddy Creek]

Looking at four different SP101's in 22lr at local gun shop.

A new April 2015 production is equally loose in all 8 holes when locked up.
2 others had some holes tight and some loose made middle 2014.
1 is tight on 7 and loose on just 1. It is Feb 2014.

I have heard for accuracy they need to be tight.
I have heard on the new revolvers they aren't tight anymore so the cylinder can move a little so the bullet feeds properly and doesn't shave lead and therefore they need to be loose.

I have heard some guys say their SP101's are accurate and others that they are horrible.
I have a feeling the difference may lie in the tightness/looseness of the cylinder.
(Besides the fact the factory trigger pull is so stiff)

ARG....Which is better... loose or tight?

THANKS

 

[RetiredTwice]

Don't know which would be better but I think a tight alignment is important, emphasis alignment.

Never see SP 101s in any of the LGSs. Ordered one in 22 and have had some problems that I am working to troubleshoot. Currently have to clean every 100 rounds or it doesn't cock. This occurs in both single and double action. Heading to the range shortly to try different ammo as this is the most likely cause.

 

[OldePhart]

If you're talking about the BC gap then tighter is better but it needs to be at least about .002 or .003 to avoid binding as the cylinder heats up and carbon builds up. .005 to .007 is probably ideal, maybe even a little bit wider if you're shooting a lot and shooting double action (so you don't get drag as the cylinder face gets carboned up).

BC gap does have some affect on velocity, and therefore point of impact, but I've seen tests indicating it's not as significant as tradition claims. In any case, varying BC between chambers will probably have a slight impact on group size, how much is hard to say.

Far more important is how the chambers line up with the forcing cone. I'd check each chamber for concentricity with the barrel and reject any that aren't near perfect on all chambers. (Shine a small flashlight across the cylinder face and look down the barrel, looking for an even circle of cylinder face around the barrel opening, with the action locked up, on each chamber.)

 

[RetiredTwice]

I could not reply to your PM. Guess I do not have enough posts. Sorry.

I will keep you informed as to how different ammo performs.

So far, about 900 rounds of Remington Golden Bullet: have to clean every 100 to 125 rounds or the cylinder will not turn unless I open the cylinder and select a different round.

Same thing with Remington velocitors except only 100 round and the problem occurred at about 75 rounds.

Currently, I am concentrating on a new MK III Hunter. Really bad trigger, over 6 pounds, and so much creep that it really wasn't creep but drag. A NRA certified instructor thought the safety was on.

I replaced the Magazine Disconnect with a BAM bushing and installed a VQ target sear. Some minor interior polishing took care of a few scratch marks on the frame interior. Trigger pull is now 1 lb 13.9 oz with a standard deviation of 1.5 oz (20 pull average). After another 300 rounds, everything is sweet.

I will clean the SP101-22 this week and try Federal AutoMatch this weekend.

Thanks for your response.

 

[Mobuck]

I don't think I'll be buying any NEW Rugers for a while.
Although I'm a big Ruger fan, it just seems there are too many OOPS in quality control at the present time.

 

[Rick Courtright]

ARG....Which is better... loose or tight?

Hi,

Reading a neighbor's Browning O/U shotgun owners manual about 50 years ago, I recall Browning talking about how their guns were built intentionally tight. Their claim was it was better engineering practice to let the gun "wear in" over time than to immediately start "wearing out." Despite being tight, those guns used to be as close to 100% reliable as any I've ever seen.

IF the company has the QC methods and practices in place to build a gun like they did (remembering a lot of the work on those Belgian shotguns involved hand fitting back then!), I'd agree. I sold one of my two Browning trap guns with close to 125,000 rounds thru it, and while it was very smooth by then, there wasn't a bit of noticeable play or looseness from wear. In Ruger's case, though, tight or loose seems to be luck of the draw. They'll send a gun out that's so loose it rattles and the very next one off the line will be too tight to even function properly. There appears to be no plan there, just sloppy production controls that can lead to excessive tolerance stack.

The one big advantage of "tight" over "loose" is that if the gun needs smithing from the get go, it's a lot easier to take metal off tight spots than put it back on loose ones. So you pays your money and you takes your choice. That's one reason to ONLY buy a new Ruger you're able to inspect personally before starting the purchase procedure: at least you can check it for some basic function and consistency of feel!

Rick C

 

[Pat-inCO]

ARG....Which is better... loose or tight?

Yes.