Which one is stronger?

Ruger is known for very durable weapons, but there is simply no comparison between the N-frame S&W revolvers and the SP101. Entirely different designs and characteristics for completely different applications.

Best regards.

__________________
Life of the party until 8:00PM

What Lobo said! I'm holding my 3" SP101 in one hand and a 4" 28 in the other. I don't see how you could possibly compare.

BTW, I LOVE my SP for an everyday carry.

The GP100 is designed to compete directly with the L frame, and the SP 101 is a smaller gun than that. It is just about halfway in size between the J and K frame S&W's.

Like others said, strong gun, but not an N frame.

How can you compare a SP101 to a N frame?? Totally different size of guns for different use! I have had a N frame and currently have a SP101 and a S&W Mod. 66 K frame. Now if you are talking about thickness between cylinder walls SP 101 vs a K Frame the SP101 probably is thicker. But still 2 totally different sizes of guns a 6 shot vs a 5 shot! Personally I like all of them why compare!!!

As others have implied, no comparison. It's not even an apples to oranges thing, more like apples to loaves of bread.

Dave

__________________
RSVN '69-'71
PCSD (Ret)

+1 on what everyone said so it all depends on what you want to use it for ? The N frame S&W's can and will do anything The SP 101 will do in a bigger package so if concealed carry is your intended use get the SP. If you want it for the range, hunting or home defense then either would do but I'd get the model 28 in 4 inch barrel or 27-2 with 3.5 inch barrel.

The cylinder width on an SP101 is .01" thicker than a J-frame. In other dimensions, it is largely between a J-frame & a K-frame. For measurements, see here:

The Ruger SP101

An SP101 cylinder is 1.349 vs 1.71 for an N-frame (Smith).

Not a good comparison.

What, are you nuts?

The Smith and Wesson N frame is the strongest known
DOUBLE action platform for the 357 cartridge known to man.

To ask such a question on the Smith and Wesson forum,,
are you looking for a fight?

Reserved ,regards ,AlleN-Frame

Hmmm, as has been pointed out ,Ruger made a Redhawk in 357 magnum.
I was not aware of this ,and have never seen one.

Egg on my face ,,Regards Allen Frame

__________________
NRA cert.instructor&R.S.O.

SP-101......a solid, reliable, affordable revolver. However, there clearly is no comparison to any 'N' frame Smith. The Smith is smooth, fitted, finished, solid, beautiful, balanced, and.........well, I don't want to sound arrogant........really beyond comparison.

Allen, hold your fire long enough for me to type a few sentences. Now I'm comparing a utility hunting gun to an elegant piece with the best DA & SA trigger pulls of all big bore DAs, but contrasting Redhawk safe .45 Colt reloads to permisible N frame .45 Colt reloads does not lead me to believe a 27 is stronger than a .357 Redhawk!

I suspect your suggestion that Marshall 357 picked the smallest Ruger .357 so he could sit back and watch a lively discussion is correct.

Gil

It's always interesting to me how these types of threads most often turn into arguments. I've owned both brands and they are both well made handguns and I would never say anything bad about the Ruger's I've owned as they were built like tanks and went bang every time. That said I sold them all and went with S&W revolvers because I liked them better in the end.

As others have stated the SP 101 is a fine revolver but not as strong as an N frames and Ruger's GP 100 would have been a closer gun comparison to an N frame.

Sounds like somebody doesn't know their rugers, SP and a N frame? Why don't we compare a J frame to a super redhawk.

uh as the other guy pointed out- likely the redhawk in .357 will blow the n frame smith away for strength any day...

I believe your statement is in error and more nutz

Yeah apples and oranges. You have to get into the red hawk frames or at least black hawk for a fair comparison. The 101 is closer to a beefed up J frame maybe even stronger than a K. At least in the ball park.

I have a 5" 27 that I carried in uniform. Super
Red hawk is the only pistol I have handled that is in the same class.

I believe ya can compare the two as the sp is known to be a strong bugger for sure and maybe the original poster knows frame sizes etc. Some of ya may be assuming he did not and may be wrong. There is no rule anywhere that I know of that says you can only compare similar items...

I guess that is why ruger is #2 and not trying to hard to be #1 because they just don't have the hump to make it to the top .
Plus Allen isn't always right on, his statement is a little over rated, its only 99 % of the time .

Nope I was only asking which gun was stronger, I hear all this talk about how Ruger can shoot Hot Magnum loads,with no problems and they are built like tanks.So I just wanted to know if,a 27 or 28 S&W was as strong as a Ruger. Nothing more.

I am not aware of anyone who has shot a controlled test of each to determine which blows up first.

That said, I think any of the three will hold up over the long haul with any reasonable load.

One thing that should be remembered is that the location of the locking notches is a big factor in determining the point at which a cylinder will fail.

Herb Belin of S&W told me at the SHOT Show that a 7 shot L frame cylinder will not fail as quickly as a 6 shot due to the location of the locking notches.

For that reason, some believe the 5 shot J frame cylinders are less likely to fail with magnum loads than a 6 shot K frame.

That said, the N frame is certainly plenty heavy for any reasonable load. I will remind everyone that the original load for which the 357 Magnum was built in 1935 was 158 grains at 1510 fps (8 3/4 inch barrel), and NONE of the current magnum loads even approach that (at least from the major manufacturers).

Get whichever revolver suits your needs, and shoot it as often as you like. I would bet that if you keep it and take care of it, you will hand it down to your heirs while it is still in pretty good shape.

Ruger makes the GP100, which weighs around the same as a Model 27 (40 0z vs 41 oz). I'd say it is stronger, more by design features than extra metal. But the N-frame gun isn't known for having problems shooting 357s. Neither is the L, and I think the K frame was a bit unfairly maligned.

Design features like where the cylinder locks up, where the notches are cut, how the barrel fits into the frame, etc are important parts of how strong a gun is. The problem with the K frame wasn't that the frame lacked metal, but that the forcing cone wasn't symmetrical and was a bit too thin in one spot. Even so, lots of folks fired 15,000+ rounds thru them without problems. If you buy commercial ammo, that is about $4000 in ammo to possibly break a $600 gun...that S&W will fix for you if you bought it new.

I have a J-frame, smaller and lighter than the SP101. With Pachmayr grips, I don't think twice about shooting 100 rounds of full 357 ammo thru it. With the service grips I usually use...I last about 5 rounds before crying like a baby. If I ever shoot it loose or break it, I'll ship it to S&W for repair.

I also own a Ruger Alaskan in 44 Mag. FWIW, I think both companies make outstanding guns. Different, but outstanding. So if anyone ever owns a Ruger or S&W that they want to give away, let me know and I'll try to provide it a good home - SP101, GP100, J-frame, K,L, or N-frame, I'll take your donations.

Thanks thats what I wanted to know

The SP 101 is a nifty little .357 Magnum revolver. If I was to purchase my first Ruger revolver it would likely be an SP 101. The one or two I've tried were smoother from the factory than Ruger's larger double action revolvers. I'd likely go for a K-Frame Magnum of some sort though over an SP 101.

I do know that the hackneyed phrase "built like a tank" is wearisome in the extreme. Wouldn't it be nice if Ruger revolvers' reputed sturdiness could be otherwise described?

I taught CCW classes for 10 years and when the subject of "what gun" came up my comment about Rugers was always: When stronger and uglier guns are built, Ruger will build them.

They screwed it up though when they came out with the LCR. Got the uglier part right but there are numerous reports of them breaking. Can't count on anybody any more! (LOL)

Dave

__________________
RSVN '69-'71
PCSD (Ret)

You could be more specific, the rugers all use cast frames, the smith's are forged frames. Thicker doesn't always mean stronger. I think the wall thickness of the cylinder would be the crucial factor, you take a cylinder made in a diameter to chamber .44 mag and punch little .357 holes in it and you got a hell of a strong cylinder. Look at all that meat in the 27 cylinder or a blackhawk or redhawk. The large frame .357's are probably the most overbuilt revolvers you can own no matter the make.

Although, the N-frame M27/M28 are very strong revolvers, there is no comparison in strength to the Redhawk .357. A picture is worth a thousand words. The photo below shows my nickel M27-2 compared to my Redhawk .357 with their cylinders swung open. Also take note of the offset cylinder bolt notches on the Redhawk .357:

I carried a Model 27, 3.5 inch barrel for years and while I admire Ruger in many ways, they ar not in the same ballpark...

The area of the forcing cone is much meatier too.

Are you forgetting the Redhawk in .357?

Oh, I see that has already been covered....

Well said. Usually these type of threads stray off the originial subject. The subject is S&W 27 or 28 vs Ruger sp101. The answer is the N frame is stronger because the N frame is a bigger frame gun. The sp-101 is not as strong because the sp101 is a small frame. A better comparsion is a sp101 vs a J frame or a sp101 vs a K frame.

The subject the Ruger redhawk and N frame is a wornout subject and not related to this thread.
Howard