alphabrace
Member
Which Smith frame is similar to the Ruger sp101?
sp101 is what Smith frame size?
- Thread starter alphabrace
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
OP
alphabrace
Member
Which Smith frame is similar to the Ruger sp101?
J frame (5 shot .357).
Smithboomer
Member
I don't own a SP101, but I've shot one. It seemed bigger than a J-frame to me.
More like a D-frame Colt (Detective Spl).
More like a D-frame Colt (Detective Spl).
HEADKNOCKER
Member
A Ruger SP101 is the same frame size as a D Frame Colt Detective Special which is Larger than a J Frame & smaller than a K Frame S&W..
Gary/Hk
Gary/Hk
SP-101 is actually slightly larger than a Colt DS. Significantly heavier too. Damn fine weapon. Noticably bigger than a J-frame, slightly smaller than a K-frame.
rdrancher
Member
Here are some comparison photos that I took of the SP101 and 642 j-frame (prior to fitting the grips).
The SP101 can be squeezed into some j-frame holsters (with an open bottom) and fits most Colt D-frame holsters well.
rd
The SP101 can be squeezed into some j-frame holsters (with an open bottom) and fits most Colt D-frame holsters well.
rd
Dot_mdb
Member
rdrancher,
Very nice photos.
Bill
Very nice photos.
Bill
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2003
- Messages
- 871
- Reaction score
- 234
Rugers are noticably thicker and bulkier than S&Ws or Colts.
VAdoublegunner
Member
Excellent comparison pics, rdrancher!
FWIW, a durability shootout between the SP101 and a S&W K-frame 357 mag would be interesting. Probably more directly relevant than frame size comparison. I have a feeling the SP101 would fare better for long term hard use durability. I'm not aware of too any problems with them shooting loose. Their forward crane extra lockup and beefy solid frame is a good engineering design. I've never been a fan of .357 Mag K-frames because of durability issues. S&Ws move to the L-frame corrected that shortcoming and led to 357 Mag revolver perfection.
FWIW, a durability shootout between the SP101 and a S&W K-frame 357 mag would be interesting. Probably more directly relevant than frame size comparison. I have a feeling the SP101 would fare better for long term hard use durability. I'm not aware of too any problems with them shooting loose. Their forward crane extra lockup and beefy solid frame is a good engineering design. I've never been a fan of .357 Mag K-frames because of durability issues. S&Ws move to the L-frame corrected that shortcoming and led to 357 Mag revolver perfection.
Sgt 127
Member
I think the SP101 would be a close match to the S&W C frame....
Stainz
Member
I always wanted a 4" .32 H&RM SP-101... then, a couple of years ago, I found one unshot LNIB. Previously, I had owned a myriad of SA & DA Rugers - this was the worst, QC-wise. Sure, it was 'improved' - with a lot of TLC. It was the straw, however - I finally said goodbye to all of my Rugers except for one - a c&b bp revolver. I bought more S&Ws with the moola I got from my Ruger sales.
The SP-101 I had was equipped with a cheesy windage-only adjustable rear sight. It was slightly larger than a J-frame, like a 60 or 63. It just didn't have the quality of construction, obviously from all of the burrs I had to ease, that a S&W would have. It was simple to break down - but needed it more often. The trigger was better than my only J-frame - a 642 - but only after new springs and a lot of work. The 642 is stock (It's my CCW - the .32 SP101 was for play.).
The 'last straw' with the SP-101 - and SA SSM I had in .32 H&RM - was the over-sized chambers. They worked the .32 brass - even at my plinker loads - making the SP-101's ejection difficult. The Hogue monogrip helped the grip - by comparison, even a 5" 63 - like the current one I want - needs a larger grip for my use, too.
It is decidedly smaller than my 2" 10 or, of course, my 6" 66 - and now my 4" 617 - my K-frame collection. So - put it between a J and K-frame. Better yet, put it back - get either a J-frame (60) or K-frame - you'll have a lot nicer revolver. I'm not opinionated, of course.
Stainz
The SP-101 I had was equipped with a cheesy windage-only adjustable rear sight. It was slightly larger than a J-frame, like a 60 or 63. It just didn't have the quality of construction, obviously from all of the burrs I had to ease, that a S&W would have. It was simple to break down - but needed it more often. The trigger was better than my only J-frame - a 642 - but only after new springs and a lot of work. The 642 is stock (It's my CCW - the .32 SP101 was for play.).
The 'last straw' with the SP-101 - and SA SSM I had in .32 H&RM - was the over-sized chambers. They worked the .32 brass - even at my plinker loads - making the SP-101's ejection difficult. The Hogue monogrip helped the grip - by comparison, even a 5" 63 - like the current one I want - needs a larger grip for my use, too.
It is decidedly smaller than my 2" 10 or, of course, my 6" 66 - and now my 4" 617 - my K-frame collection. So - put it between a J and K-frame. Better yet, put it back - get either a J-frame (60) or K-frame - you'll have a lot nicer revolver. I'm not opinionated, of course.
Stainz
Chubbs103
US Veteran
The size part of the equation has been covered pretty well, but the SP101 is just plain heavier than a J Frame. It is sized just a little too big and a little too heavy to comfortably pocket carry. I love my little Ruger though. It shoots way better than a snubby should. My wife is having trouble getting use to the Ruger trigger that "stages". She'll be gettering her own J Frame soon though.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
