Looking into getting a revolver chambered in .357 w/a 3 inch barrel as a woods carry gun. Settled on either the Model 60 or the SP101. The SW weighs 23.6 ounces & the Ruger weighs 27 ounces. Never shot .357 before, but like the idea of the slightly heavier gun for recoil mitigation. Problem is, every Ruger revolver I look at is rough finish-wise and it bothers me. I like the look of the Smith, but it’s lighter. Anyone shoot .357 out of both these revolvers before? Does the small difference in weight make much of a different w/regard to recoil? I’m planning to carry while backpacking so don’t want to go w/anything that weighs more.
SW Model 60 vs Ruger SP101
- Thread starter BillyBudd
- Start date
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
Why are you limiting yourself to smaller frame revolvers for a "woods gun"? I'd go for something bigger if conceal ability wasn't a big concern.
I love Smith & Wesson revolvers. I've had very good luck with mine. That being said, the SP101s are built like tanks. They're probably stronger than the Smith, and better suited to a heavy diet of 357. I don't think you could wear either out though.
Comes down to getting the one you like. They're both great guns
I love Smith & Wesson revolvers. I've had very good luck with mine. That being said, the SP101s are built like tanks. They're probably stronger than the Smith, and better suited to a heavy diet of 357. I don't think you could wear either out though.
Comes down to getting the one you like. They're both great guns
If it were me, I’d go with the Ruger on this one and not worry so much about the weight. They are as Limiting myself to J-frame mostly b/c I cover a lot of miles over fairly rough terrain and carry a lot of gear (probably too much), so I’m looking to add as little additional weight as possible with a carry gun but still have one that’s relatively comfortable to shoot. I’ve carried a G43 in the past & the weight was fine but looking for something more powerful.
I’ve handled a GP100 & it’s definitely not something I want haul through the woods when covering a lot of ground.
I’ve handled a GP100 & it’s definitely not something I want haul through the woods when covering a lot of ground.
S&W Fan
.475 A&M Magnum
Then you’ve answered your own question.
oc shooter
.223 Rem
not a fan of Ruger so it's all smith for me been shooting a 686 for better than 20 years never a hick up
Steal2B
.700 Nitro Express
The GP100 is much more substantial than an SP101. The GP100 is more on par with the SW 686.
Steal2B
.700 Nitro Express
It does but the SP101 is still snappy with hot 357 in comparison to a GP100 or 686. I would recommend the Hogue grips with 357 in an SP101 to tame it a little.
I suppose I'm at least somewhat qualified to tackle this one because I have owned one of both models, but I'm also finding it a bit difficult to come up with a useful perspective because, even with hands on expereince with both, I would say the differences that come to mind are pretty much just the ones that you already know. I also don't really disagree with anything I've seen said here. I don't own either anymore, but that wasn't based on not liking them; rather just that I've sometimes had to sell/trade and that's what went.
As a matter of personal preference, I would say that I regret trading away the model 60 more than selling the sp101. I personally found the 60 to be just a little bit slicker in design and also a bit more.. comfortable I guess, perhaps based on the slightly different weight distribution/balance. As much as I'd agree that the Ruger is better for handling tons of firing of all-out hot .357, I'd also consider that if it were my intention to do that then it wouldn't be a revolver of this frame size and weight that I'd want to do that with anyway. I would not see the 60 ever having an issue with the amount of firing hot loads I'd ever want to do with it. Neither are especially fun for that (for me anyway). I love firing .38spl out of .357 guns that are very slightly overbuilt for the job, so for range use that's what I'd be doing with a gun in this catagory anyway. For the most comfortable carry, balance, and general use I'd put to a j-frame type sized revolver, I'd prefer the 60 personally. Really just a matter of what feels right to you I think.
As a matter of personal preference, I would say that I regret trading away the model 60 more than selling the sp101. I personally found the 60 to be just a little bit slicker in design and also a bit more.. comfortable I guess, perhaps based on the slightly different weight distribution/balance. As much as I'd agree that the Ruger is better for handling tons of firing of all-out hot .357, I'd also consider that if it were my intention to do that then it wouldn't be a revolver of this frame size and weight that I'd want to do that with anyway. I would not see the 60 ever having an issue with the amount of firing hot loads I'd ever want to do with it. Neither are especially fun for that (for me anyway). I love firing .38spl out of .357 guns that are very slightly overbuilt for the job, so for range use that's what I'd be doing with a gun in this catagory anyway. For the most comfortable carry, balance, and general use I'd put to a j-frame type sized revolver, I'd prefer the 60 personally. Really just a matter of what feels right to you I think.
Deplorable Me
.700 Nitro Express
S&W 686 plus; 3". (7 shot)
S&W Fan
.475 A&M Magnum
686 would be a great choice as well. It’s much more comparable to a Ruger SP 101 than the model 60 .
Smith & Wessons are more refined and prettier, Rugers are tank built working guns. Both are good............ except S&W's quality control on new revolvers has gone to shit. I still like S&Ws though.
If the OP is after a hard hitting yet convient to carry gun perhaps the S&W 327 "pugnose" is worth a look?
If the OP is after a hard hitting yet convient to carry gun perhaps the S&W 327 "pugnose" is worth a look?
Doc8404
.450/400 Nitro Ex
do you have to use the included moon clips?
No you do not, moon clips are optional
Xae289
.223 Rem
So I have a couple of each of S&W and Ruger including an SP101 in 22LR.
I've had quality issues with both.
The SP101 I got had pretty rough fit and finish. The adjustable rear sight had too short of a spring so it barely had any click adjustment. I installed a longer sight spring meant for a Ruger SBH so that it actually was click adjustable within a useful range. The sight also had lots of lateral play in the sight channel, so I had to shim it with two 0.003" shims to get it stable. The internals were extremely rough with burrs, tool marks, etc. Because they are so rough, they are also very easy to improve with very little skill or effort. I did a little deburring, some light polishing, and swapped two springs. It's definitely my highest round count firearm. It has a great trigger with my tuning and it can shoot sub-2" 8-shot groups at 25 yards with its favorite ammo. It is ultimately a well-made gun, Ruger just didn't seem interested in finishing making it.
As far as my S&Ws, the fit & finish issues were much more minor. On my 642, the cylinder release latch worked itself loose and fell off under the heavy recoil of Buffalo Bore 158 gr +P loads. I make a point to tighten it whenever I clean it, but it's never come loose since. As far as my 629, it's even more minor. The overtravel stop pin was cut so short that it didn't eliminate any overtravel. That's perfectly in spec for the factory despite being advertised as a feature, so I fitted a pin to it correctly myself as part of a trigger job.
Both are good guns. The S&W will either be great out of the box or you caught a lemon and can send it back to the factory to fix it on their dime. It will be a great gun to be carried often and seldom fired after a few extended range sessions to learn the gun and make sure it works right.
The Ruger will likely have good bones, but will be rougher around the edges. If you can live with that or are willing to clean it up, you'll have a more durable firearm with a little more weight to manage .357 recoil and which will be a pleasure to shoot .38s.
I've had quality issues with both.
The SP101 I got had pretty rough fit and finish. The adjustable rear sight had too short of a spring so it barely had any click adjustment. I installed a longer sight spring meant for a Ruger SBH so that it actually was click adjustable within a useful range. The sight also had lots of lateral play in the sight channel, so I had to shim it with two 0.003" shims to get it stable. The internals were extremely rough with burrs, tool marks, etc. Because they are so rough, they are also very easy to improve with very little skill or effort. I did a little deburring, some light polishing, and swapped two springs. It's definitely my highest round count firearm. It has a great trigger with my tuning and it can shoot sub-2" 8-shot groups at 25 yards with its favorite ammo. It is ultimately a well-made gun, Ruger just didn't seem interested in finishing making it.
As far as my S&Ws, the fit & finish issues were much more minor. On my 642, the cylinder release latch worked itself loose and fell off under the heavy recoil of Buffalo Bore 158 gr +P loads. I make a point to tighten it whenever I clean it, but it's never come loose since. As far as my 629, it's even more minor. The overtravel stop pin was cut so short that it didn't eliminate any overtravel. That's perfectly in spec for the factory despite being advertised as a feature, so I fitted a pin to it correctly myself as part of a trigger job.
Both are good guns. The S&W will either be great out of the box or you caught a lemon and can send it back to the factory to fix it on their dime. It will be a great gun to be carried often and seldom fired after a few extended range sessions to learn the gun and make sure it works right.
The Ruger will likely have good bones, but will be rougher around the edges. If you can live with that or are willing to clean it up, you'll have a more durable firearm with a little more weight to manage .357 recoil and which will be a pleasure to shoot .38s.
I love the fit, finish, and overall look of an older Smith Model 60 over my Ruger SP101 .357. That said, I love the rugged feel of my SP101. It was my first carry gun, and I don’t think I will ever sell it. I added a night sight to it and Hogue grip, and hand polished it to a mirror finish. It stays with me.
Biggest problem with the SP101 I see is that it really is too bulky and heavy for a mere 5 shots, a 6 shot version would be much more compelling. Now that I think upon it the Colt King Cobra is SP 101 sized and holds 6 shots, that is the small frame .357 to get I think.
www.handgunhero.com
The King Cobra listed in that comparison has a 3" barrel but 2.5" models are available.
The King Cobra sits in an interesting space, it is slightly larger and heavier than the SP101 but is slightly smaller and similar in weight to a S&W K frame.
The new Colt revolvers have much better fit and finish than Rugers and it would seem better QC than S&W revolvers, a 2.5" King Cobra would make an excellent woods gun, 6 round capacity, compact size and not terribly heavy for an all steel revolver.
Frankly I'd like to see Smith & Wesson do a scandium and titanium PD type L frame with a 7 shot cylinder and 2.5" barrel. That would make an excellent carry revolver.
Ruger SP101 2.25" vs Colt King Cobra size comparison | Handgun Hero
Compare the dimensions and specs of Ruger SP101 2.25" and Colt King Cobra
www.handgunhero.com
The King Cobra listed in that comparison has a 3" barrel but 2.5" models are available.
The King Cobra sits in an interesting space, it is slightly larger and heavier than the SP101 but is slightly smaller and similar in weight to a S&W K frame.
The new Colt revolvers have much better fit and finish than Rugers and it would seem better QC than S&W revolvers, a 2.5" King Cobra would make an excellent woods gun, 6 round capacity, compact size and not terribly heavy for an all steel revolver.
Frankly I'd like to see Smith & Wesson do a scandium and titanium PD type L frame with a 7 shot cylinder and 2.5" barrel. That would make an excellent carry revolver.
Last edited:
Hochulsucks1234
.357 mag
I never owned the revolvers you are comparing, but figured I could still add some context if you wanted to try something else. I have a S&W 686 with the 6" barrel. Wouldn't carry that in the woods because its a bear. I suppose the 3" model is much better to manage, but still a large frame revolver.
For woods carry I got the Colt King Cobra with the 3" barrel. To me its perfect. Colt just had to come out with a 22lr version that has been catching my eye (and wallet).
For woods carry I got the Colt King Cobra with the 3" barrel. To me its perfect. Colt just had to come out with a 22lr version that has been catching my eye (and wallet).
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
You guys are much more disciplined than I am.
I have a nice collection of revolvers, and I don't think I planned the purchase of any of them. Typically, the seed is planted when I see them in the store. Then I go home and obsessively think about it, research it, and go back to buy it...if nobody else snatched it up first.
I have a nice collection of revolvers, and I don't think I planned the purchase of any of them. Typically, the seed is planted when I see them in the store. Then I go home and obsessively think about it, research it, and go back to buy it...if nobody else snatched it up first.
That's kinda what happened to me when I casually checked out some small frame revolvers at the LGS for possible pocket carry. I handled a few, liked the 640/38 and ended up with the exotic 340PD. Now I'm going round and round over what kind of full size .357 I want to get while constantly reminding myself I need to scope a 10/22 target and Galil, get a better stock for the 10/22 and I really want to Volquartsenize my Ruger Mk IV.
JaguarJaguarGolf
6.5 Creedmoor
I have a 3” Model 60. It is shootable with.357 magnum ammo if you use very big grips, you will not want to shoot it all day long, but it can be done. With compact grips shooting .357 can get painful.
I like to have a .357 in the woods, but I would go with a 4” Model 19. I’m ok with my 4” Model 10 with +p+ hardcast.38 sp
I like to have a .357 in the woods, but I would go with a 4” Model 19. I’m ok with my 4” Model 10 with +p+ hardcast.38 sp
I read somewhere recently during my research that Rugers are basically parts kits that they assemble for easy shipping. Thought it was funny. The one I looked at in person had a whole lot of lateral movement in the hammer. Appreciate you sharing your experiences with both brands.
maverick52
.223 Rem
That what happens to me too. Only difference is I will shop the best price online and ship it to my ffl. I feel bad to the LGS but their markup is way too high for me.
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
I like the older ones. Most of mine are 1970's vintage. The quality is still awesome, but they haven't gotten collectable prices yet.
Its hard to shop around for the used stuff. There are others out there, but condition comes into play along with price. If you pass on one you like, you might not find another for quite a while.
Xae289
.223 Rem
Mine also has some lateral play in the hammer. Haha, Ruger isn't quite all that bad, but the truth from what I've seen is that at least their revolvers are made rugged and "good enough". They work and often very well, but they aren't refined pieces.
Ruger has always been a company that focuses on making durable but cheap guns. You don't buy a Ruger to ogle and marvel at, you don't sit in front of the TV while fondling a Ruger. You buy a Ruger to shoot and abuse and put away wet and dirty and not thunk about it until you need it again. You treat a Ruger like you'd treat a hooker.
It's why I don't generally like Rugers other than their .22 offerings but I do respect Rugers.
It's why I don't generally like Rugers other than their .22 offerings but I do respect Rugers.
To me most Ruger Pistols are butt-ugly, but generally indestructible. Revolvers are classy, and also indestructible, the .22 Pistols have evolved from the original design of 1950.
The SP101 has the same lockwork of the GP100: I owned a SP101 and it was heavy and rough compared to my GP100, and with a little polish and a Spring Kit it sweetend right up. It's heavier and more robust than the Smith, but the trade off is weight and sharper edges opposed to the smoothness of the S&W. Carried a lot, shot a little: the S&W is the winner, Beaten, abused, shot with gawd-awful loads, the Ruger can't be beat. Personal preference my friend, personal preference.