Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: AZRedhawk44 on December 08, 2011, 12:58:26 PM
-
No, not an S&W thread.
Got an email from Ruger's promotional people. They have released a 4.2" SP101 .357.
http://www.ruger.com/products/sp101/models.html
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ruger.com%2Fproducts%2Fsp101%2Fimages%2F5771.jpg&hash=90cb37928ce6918992fad6224dc29550be4c6b3b)
-Adjustable sights, fiber optic front sight
-~30 ounces
Their email labels it as a perfect "kit gun" for back country exploration. I pretty much agree. Revolvers are chambered in magnum handgun cartridges that offer higher sectional density and velocity than most autopistol cartridges, resulting in better protection against predators and/or better success in handgun hunting.
But, the 686 and GP offerings today exceed the 40 ounce envelope. When I'm hiking in the back country, it's not like my daily CCW routine where a 30 to 45 ounce handgun isn't that big of a deal. Back in the mountains, I'll have anywhere from 15 to 50 pounds of gear on my back. And if I can carry a 25-30 ounce magnum handgun instead of a 40-45 ounce one, I will.
Even if current Smiths didn't have the wind-up-toy sides, the unobtanium J-frames are too light in their sub-20 ounce category, and the sight radius too short for use as a kit gun. Belly gun? Sure. But if I am stranded and need to pop squirrels, rabbits and fowl for food for a few days... I want more sight radius than a 2" snub.
I've got a Smith M65 K-frame .357 that is my equivalent of this gun (as well as a 3" SP101), so I'm not likely to buy one.
But I like it.
I've long been saying that the L-frame sized guns are too big, between the increased height from grip to top of cylinder (the bore height in relationship to the wrist), and weight.
When I carry a revolver, it isn't for capacity. So, a K-sized frame with a decent barrel puts the bore lower in my grip and enough steel around 5 .357 rounds to send some hot ones down range if needed.
Without having seen one in real life, I still say: Well done, Ruger. You've filled a gap in the market with this one.
-
A 4.2" in the new .32 Federal Mag. would be even more "perfect" other than .32 Fed Mag is an ammo that has yet to "make it" as a common offering in the market indefinitely.
Unless you need it to be do-all for black bear, .32 Fed Mag has the same energy as common 125gr .357 loads, and is much flatter shooting, and perceived recoil being more akin to a .38, to to a different recoil curve on the graph, making it better for small game harvesting, and they can get one more of them in the SP101 frame. And presumably, the extra 1.14" of barrel length would give it a few more FPS.
-
AJ, there's no way I'm going to go out and spend perfectly good money on a .327 revolver and shoot the same things I can shoot with a .38 special.
If small game is your game, more power to ya, but capacity is just about meaningless. 5 shots or 6, it don't much matter to the game-bagger.
I care about price, and power. For me, that comes down to .38 for price (especially reloaded), and .357 for power.
I carry .357mag or .45acp as a minimum in the back country, or step up to land of the .44's if the situation calls for it. And I believe more in momentum and cut diameter than hollowpoint expansion or energy numbers.
-
Wow, what a diff an inch of barrel makes in the way a gun can look! Me likey!
As for the .327/.357 debate, why not just get one of each?
Brad
-
No, not an S&W thread.
Got an email from Ruger's promotional people. They have released a 4.2" SP101 .357.
http://www.ruger.com/products/sp101/models.html
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ruger.com%2Fproducts%2Fsp101%2Fimages%2F5771.jpg&hash=90cb37928ce6918992fad6224dc29550be4c6b3b)
-Adjustable sights, fiber optic front sight
-~30 ounces
Their email labels it as a perfect "kit gun" for back country exploration. I pretty much agree. Revolvers are chambered in magnum handgun cartridges that offer higher sectional density and velocity than most autopistol cartridges, resulting in better protection against predators and/or better success in handgun hunting.
But, the 686 and GP offerings today exceed the 40 ounce envelope. When I'm hiking in the back country, it's not like my daily CCW routine where a 30 to 45 ounce handgun isn't that big of a deal. Back in the mountains, I'll have anywhere from 15 to 50 pounds of gear on my back. And if I can carry a 25-30 ounce magnum handgun instead of a 40-45 ounce one, I will.
Even if current Smiths didn't have the wind-up-toy sides, the unobtanium J-frames are too light in their sub-20 ounce category, and the sight radius too short for use as a kit gun. Belly gun? Sure. But if I am stranded and need to pop squirrels, rabbits and fowl for food for a few days... I want more sight radius than a 2" snub.
I've got a Smith M65 K-frame .357 that is my equivalent of this gun (as well as a 3" SP101), so I'm not likely to buy one.
But I like it.
I've long been saying that the L-frame sized guns are too big, between the increased height from grip to top of cylinder (the bore height in relationship to the wrist), and weight.
When I carry a revolver, it isn't for capacity. So, a K-sized frame with a decent barrel puts the bore lower in my grip and enough steel around 5 .357 rounds to send some hot ones down range if needed.
Without having seen one in real life, I still say: Well done, Ruger. You've filled a gap in the market with this one.
When I saw the thread title, I knew that's what it was about.
It is interesting hardware. I suspect most people that want a revolver for practical purposes won't be bothered by having 5 shots instead of 6. I'm unlikely to get one (that niche is covered), but I hope Ruger does well with it.
-
When I saw the thread title, I knew that's what it was about.
It is interesting hardware. I suspect most people that want a revolver for practical purposes won't be bothered by having 5 shots instead of 6. I'm unlikely to get one (that niche is covered), but I hope Ruger does well with it.
SP-101s chambered in .327 are six-holers.
Brad
-
That's a nice revolver, and Ruger makes sweet wheelguns (I have two). But I gotta say I'm really interested in a 5" or 6" Rhino for the "kit gun" niche. It's also ~30 oz, has the sixth .357, and is just really neat.
-
That's a nice revolver, and Ruger makes sweet wheelguns (I have two). But I gotta say I'm really interested in a 5" or 6" Rhino for the "kit gun" niche. It's also ~30 oz, has the sixth .357, and is just really neat.
Interesting.
Have you considered the fact that the Rhino has the same vertical sight convergence concerns as an AR?
The bore is about 1.5 inches or so below the sights. That introduces problems with close-range sight convergence, on top of the challenges of long-range sight convergence. And exaggerated arc above line-of-sight for mid-range sight convergence.
Not saying it's unusable, just that it introduces different problems that most handguns don't have.
And when your target is a squirrel or a bunny, it's the difference between food in the pot and a critter that escapes to bleed out in some knothole or burrow.
-
No. I hadn't. I'd be interested in seeing how bad it is. Even for food, I don't see myself taking more then about a 50' pistol shot at a squirrel or bunny.
Also, I grew up and did most of my outdoors stuff in AK, so my kit naturally falls to that AK-centric stuff (which will get you some looks in FL, let me tell you). In my experience you don't shoot squirrel and bunny you snare them. Indeed, the one time that I needed my protection gun for food, it was a caribou that donated. Couple inches difference in poa/poi is less critical there.
Not that your reasoning is invalid, it actually makes sense, it just wouldn't occur to me from my outdoor experience.
-
SP-101s chambered in .327 are six-holers.
Brad
And despite the hype and the numbers I have no desire for a .327.
-
How about a regular production mid-frame single action .357 ??? ;/
-
You mean like the ones they're making now?
Nevermind, I thought the 50th Anniv model had been made a regular item.
Chris
-
I'd like the .22lr version of this gun. I already have a 3" SP101, but this looks cool.
-
Want.
Rumor has it there might not be any legal speak on the barrel either. That'd look sharp.
-
I'd like the .22lr version of this gun. I already have a 3" SP101, but this looks cool.
They're re-introducing the 4" SP101 in .22LR now, too. Visit the site. It's listed.
http://www.ruger.com/products/sp101/models.html
Ooh, the .22 model has a half-lugged barrel. I like that. I think the full lugged barrels nowadays are silly.
I sold my Taurus 94 last year to get a Browning Buckmark, but I might augment the Buckmark with a .22 Ruger SP101. Don't care for the 8-shot capacity... I'd rather have 6, or even 5. It'd be a revolver-trainer. The previous .22 SP101 was a 6-shooter, I think, and making this one an 8 shot gun introduces compatibility problems when shopping for speedloaders.