Another Ruger SP-101.
This post started out as a reply to another one about an SP-101. After spending some time on the reply, I got timed out and it wiped out the post. Bummer; back to square one. I figured that since I was going to do it over again, I might as well make it a stand-alone post.
Above is a picture of a Sturm, Ruger SP-101 that I own. This one is in .32 H&R magnum caliber. It’s kind of a funny story about how I came to own this revolver.
Over the years, I have owned a number of .32 caliber revolvers, .32 S&W Long, .32-20, and .32 H&R mag. I like .32 revolvers for dinking around, but they are not enormously popular with most shooters.
Around 1990, I bought my first revolver in .32 mag. It was a Smith & Wesson Model 16-4. This model was a re-introduction of a K frame .32 target revolver that Smith & Wesson had made previously from 1947 to 1974. During that time, production of what was called the K-32 Masterpiece (later the Model 16) was limited to 3,630. The later Model 16-4 was made from 1990-92, and total production of all barrel lengths was about 8,800. These low numbers perhaps indicate the lack of popularity of this caliber. Actually, the original K-32’s were .32 S&W Long, a cartridge once favored by some target shooters and one that is still popular in Europe. The later Model 16-4 was chambered in the more powerful .32 H&R Magnum. My Model 16-4 had a four inch barrel, and this was only made for one year in 1990.
I owned my Model 16-4 for a few years, then sold it. I don’t even remember now why I sold it. It went to an old guy who was driving truck for us at the time. Later, I regretted having sold it and tried to buy it back from this man. In the meantime, he had given it away to his son and it was gone. After that, I looked around for another, different one, and by that time collector interest in the gun had set in and they were trading for almost three times what I paid for mine new. You’d think that gun enthusiasts had taken all leave of their senses when it comes to what they will pay for some Smith & Wessons, but there you have it.
After I had given up the search for another Model 16-4, it came to my attention that Ruger was making their SP-101 in .32 mag in addition to the more numerous .38’s and .357’s. I stumbled across one in .32 mag at a guns show and bought it for a fair price, used but unfired in its plastic carrying box. Later, I called the Ruger factory to see how many of these revolvers they were making in .32 mag. The Ruger employee I talked to checked their records and told me they were making about 400 to 500 per year, if I remember correctly. That makes it a fairly low production gun, but it will never be collectible like the Smith & Wesson Model 16-4.
The Smith & Wesson Model 16-4 was a thing of beauty, as guns go. I don’t know when Smith & Wesson changed over to mostly CAD/CAM production work, but this gun had the look of having had a lot of hand fit and finish work done on it. Very deep, rich blue finish, nice fancy target stocks in beautiful wood, wonderful trigger pull right out of the box. Unlike the older K-32 Masterpiece, the newer 16-4 had a barrel underlug. Before I owned my 16-4, I never liked the look of the underlug (like the more numerous Model 586 had). After hefting this revolver, and shooting it, I came to realize that the underlug was functional, not just for looks. The added weight of the lug makes the gun feel better in the hand and makes it point better. The only other guns that I had owned prior to this with an underlug were Colt Pythons. Everything about those was nice but I never owned a Colt .357 without an underlug to compare it to. I later bought a Smith & Wesson Model 586 as a result of my liking the underlug on the 16-4.
The Ruger SP-101 can’t hold a candle to the Smith & Wesson in appearance or even “coolness.” The trigger pull is clunky and awful, but could be improved with a kit, I am told. The Ruger is a rugged little gun that will easily last several lifetimes and if it needs repair, there isn’t a company in the gun business that I know of that has better service than Sturm, Ruger. Unless you do something to botch a gun up, Ruger will usually repair a broken gun of theirs for free for as long as you or anybody else owns it. Wearing one out might be a different story, but it’s difficult to wear a Ruger out.
Ruger is one of the few companies in the gun manufacturing business that doesn’t have money problems. One reason for this is that they were the first company to use modern manufacturing techniques to cut down cost and increase production (and reliability). Maybe because they are a newer company, they were able to get into this mode sooner and more easily. For another thing, Ruger makes guns people want to buy, keeps up with the market, makes them well, and does it at a fair price.
As an aside, I recently read about the business situation with Colt during WW2. In WW2, just about any kind of factory could make money. This was considered a gold era for manufacturers; even brassiere factories made defense goods for the government. Yet at Colt’s, due to mismanagement and labor troubles they lost money during much of the war.
Comparing Ruger with Colt and Smith & Wesson can’t be done without considering the styles of the different enterprises. That’s why we see the different end product, Ruger being rugged but often not fancy (with many exceptions, like their single shots), and Colt & Smith (until more recent times) often being highly polished and more desireable. Ruger makes money, Colt & Smith often have struggled.
For all of their efficiency in manufacturing, I wish Ruger would be a little more consistent in the manufacture of the wooden grips on their single actions. I don’t think I have ever seen two pair that were exactly alike, and the variations in the way they fit from one new revolver to another ought to me an embarrassment to the company. Many people like to change their original factory grips on Ruger single actions (maybe for this reason), but I’d like to keep to the factory originals.
As to the .32 H&R magnum caliber, Ruger is instrumental in keeping it alive. This cartridge was originally designed by the old Harrington & Richardson Co., along with Federal Cartridge Corp. The original H&R company is long gone now, along with their rather shabby little revolvers that this cartridge was originally chambered in. Since then, other companies have made revolvers in this round. The various corporate manifestations of Charter Arms, Smith & Wesson, Ruger, and Taurus have made or are making weapons in this caliber. Ruger offers the SP-101 and single action cowboy guns in it. Federal is the only company making .32 H&R mag ammo and it has gotten pricey, sold in those little boxes of 20 with expensive, shiny bullets on the ends. The .32 mag is a good one for reloaders, the main problem being that most people who would want to shoot it (like women who want a defensive gun in a smaller caliber) aren’t reloaders.
I should mention that Ruger also makes the SP-101 in .22 Long Rifle. I like these little .22’s and considered buying one once. I decided not to, as they have the same crummy actions as their larger-bore cousins. I figure that a .22 should have a better action, as it is more apt to be used for target shooting, unlike a larger-bore concealment gun. I think part of the reason that later Ruger actions are like they are is because they incorporate that hammer bar that Harrington & Richardson invented. This is all part of the Ruger good business style, to change over to the most positive type of built-in safety that they could incorporate. That way, their legal counsel could point to the old style action, then point to the new style of action, and say, “We did all we could to change it.”
Login
Register
FAQ
