SP101 .327 troubles

[Chubbs103]

I posted on another forum, but I'm cranky so I'm sharing.

On the other forum I noted that I was sending a 4" SP101 in .327 Fed back to the mother ship. Somehow, when I looked at it at the shop, I missed that the barrel was over torqued (quite visible looking down on top of where the barrel mated with the frame).

I decided to shoot it. Way right. I was almost out of rear sight adjustment. It leaded badly. Five cylinder throats were .309, and one was .308. I'm not sure I would have run full strength 45,000psi jacked rounds through this gun.

When I spoke to the customer service rep on the phone, he asked if I saw any pressure signs. I explained I had only fired .32H&R. His response was the bullet diameter was the same. If it was fine with the .32H&R, it should be fine with .327 Fed. I explained 20,000psi probably makes a difference.

Ruger had it two weeks. They replaced the barrel. Surprisingly, they replaced the cylinder. New one has three cylinder throats at .313 and three at .312. Better.

It came with a test target. 1" group fired at 7 yards. Group is centered 2" right. New barrel is visibly canted left, but not as bad as the original.

I'm going to shoot it and see how it does at 25 yards. It is probably going to bug me unless/until Ruger tries again.

 

[robertrwalsh]

If the new barrel is visibly canted left and the old barrel also had some mating issues I wonder if the face of the frame where the barrel screws in has some issues. Just a thought.

 

[6string]

Ruger has had ongoing cylinder throat issues for at least a few years. And, they know it.

Ruger buys long bars of steel round stock from which they cut, turn, and chamber cylinders. The supplier is a bit lackadaisical about the manufacturing process. The steel has lots of localized variations in hardness. As a result, there is often a couple thousandths of an inch throat variation, and occasional chatter marks.
Personally, I would prefer an undersized cylinder that I could ream and/or lap in order to open them to correct diameter. That is, if the basic raw material was worth the effort. I’m not going to waste my time or money fixing problems like that.
Ruger might only get one or two customers per thousand who care or notice these things. So, easier to deal with a couple complaints on an individual basis. Too bad they still can’t get it right.

There’s another thread going on right now about so-called “target” .22s. The various “Marks” of Ruger has come up with several comments about the lousy factory trigger. They cite the usual “lawyer” or “liability” excuses. But, the fact is, they could build a gun with a better trigger, or better cylinder throat diameters, or straight barrels, etc.
But, they won’t.

Not to pick on Ruger. They’re hardly the only culprit.
It’s just the rampant mediocrity that has swept through the entire American retail firearms industry.
The gluttonous appetite amongst consumers for plastic carry pistols, and the like, that can be haphazardly assembled from buckets full of parts, literally, at a cost of pennies per dollar retail price-wise, has had a negative effect impacting any type of meticulous workmanship or scrutiny.

I don’t think Bill Ruger, who loved classic firearms designs, would be a happy guy if he were around to see what’s happened to his company or their products.

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

Ruger has had ongoing cylinder throat issues for at least a few years. And, they know it.

Ruger buys long bars of steel round stock from which they cut, turn, and chamber cylinders. The supplier is a bit lackadaisical about the manufacturing process. The steel has lots of localized variations in hardness. As a result, there is often a couple thousandths of an inch throat variation, and occasional chatter marks.
Personally, I would prefer an undersized cylinder that I could ream and/or lap in order to open them to correct diameter. That is, if the basic raw material was worth the effort. I’m not going to waste my time or money fixing problems like that.
Ruger might only get one or two customers per thousand who care or notice these things. So, easier to deal with a couple complaints on an individual basis. Too bad they still can’t get it right.

There’s another thread going on right now about so-called “target” .22s. The various “Marks” of Ruger has come up with several comments about the lousy factory trigger. They cite the usual “lawyer” or “liability” excuses. But, the fact is, they could build a gun with a better trigger, or better cylinder throat diameters, or straight barrels, etc.
But, they won’t.

Not to pick on Ruger. They’re hardly the only culprit.
It’s just the rampant mediocrity that has swept through the entire American retail firearms industry.
The gluttonous appetite amongst consumers for plastic carry pistols, and the like, that can be haphazardly assembled from buckets full of parts, literally, at a cost of pennies per dollar retail price-wise, has had a negative effect impacting any type of meticulous workmanship or scrutiny.

I don’t think Bill Ruger, who loved classic firearms designs, would be a happy guy if he were around to see what’s happened to his company or their products.

It's called building to a price point.

 

[44wheelman]

"It's called building to a price point." I agree. You want better, you gotta pay...aka: Freedom Arms.

Around 2016 I bought 2 Single Sevens (both bbl lengths). One had .015" bbl gap, the other .010". Sent the .015" gun back... it was returned .011". Factory spec is .012" or less.

Never fired them, one day I'll fix them or sell them. After my debacle with a brand new single ten; it was my last Ruger! (sent back twice for binding up; it never left the gun shop where I had it ordered. Owner sold it to someone else; it still had a hitch in the action.)

 

[Chubbs103]

Funny you should mention Freedom Arms. I've been looking hard at a .41M 97. I might shift to a 5.5" .327 first.