Ruger SP-101: 3-inch or 2-inch?

[Confederate]

I've seen both guns side-by-side and yes, there's a difference. Hard to describe but it's heft and balance. Ruger's not going to make two guns where there's no real difference, and yes, there's little doubt that the 3-incher for most people will be the way to go. But I think the 2-inch can be carried more easily in many cases. I have a 3-inch Rossi and a 3-inch Speed-Six. I LOVE 3-inchers as a rule and generally I don't like 2-inchers. I like Ruger's 1.87-inch LCR even less. There's no way a revolver should have less than a 2-inch barrel under any circumstance. But I do like the 2-inch SP-101 and it's one of the only 2-inchers I have (the S&W 60 is the other one).

 

[skidder]

I love my 2.25. Nice size for the back pocket when going for walks with the misses. The 2.25 is definitely in the "snub" category, and more of a specialized weapon. I look at the 3" as more of a "general purpose" weapon. I think everybody should have at least one snub in their arsenal.

 

[357 Terms]

My hammerless 2.25 101 is appendix carried, just dissapears and carries great IWB.
the 3in would be a little more uncomfortable.

 

[Auf Grosser Fahrt]

Strictly from an aesthetics angle, I prefer my SP101s in 3 inch.

 

[tightgroup tiger]

Ham, I will definately do that straight away.

thanks.

 

[Confederate]

The 3-incher is only an ounce heavier than the 2-inch, and that's about the weight of a stamped envelope and two pages of paper. And the 2-inch model is actually a 2.25-inch, so it's a three-quarter of an inch difference.

I know heavy barrels make shooting a bit easier, but I hope that those skinny barrels will one day make a return in style, particularly in 6-inch .357 barrels. In other words, Ruger should make a 6-inch model that's as strong as a bull but with a barrel like the old S&W Model 10s. You just don't need heavy target/competition barrels on guns you carry out hiking and camping. I had a friend who killed a rabid cougar one day in a remote area of Utah. He used a heavy Dan Wesson and was inspecting fence posts on his father's ranch. But he was riding around in a truck and kept the gun on his seat when he wasn't actually walking around. He loved the gun, but didn't enjoy carrying it with it's heavy 6-inch barrel.

Bill Jordan was the one who recommended to S&W that they ought to get the weight of these guns down so people could carry them. Once he and Skeeter Skelton were dead it's like everyone lost their minds and began seeing how heavy they could make medium-framed .357s. But they made Model 60s and SP-101s for those who wanted lighter guns. These aren't very good trail guns, however, and only hold five rounds. Anyway, maybe fashions will change and one day skinny barrels will make a return.

 

[whalerman]

Not questioning you, Confederate. But how can a half inch of steel weigh the same as an envelope and two sheets of paper? Does the frame change on the 3" model? I'm not quite believing Ruger's stat sheet on weights with these two models. I am interested in what everyone said about the feel and balance of the 3" version. But up here in NY we can't get enough choice to compare much of anything.

 

[PabloJ]

Since it's not pocket carry gun I prefer 3" or 4" length on steel framed revolver especially with magnum cylinder. Longer barrel (6"+) would be suitable for hunting or silhouette use especially when coupled with adjustable rear sight unless the gun was to be provided with handgun scope or electro-optical sight then shorter barrel would be fine.

 

[Rexster]

I prefer the notably better (for me) balance of the 3.06" version when shooting, with better results on-target, especially when there is no time to obtain good focus on the sights. I am sure the longer sight radius contributes to accuracy, when I use the sights, because sights have become fuzzy at my age.

When carrying, there no notable difference for me between the two with IWB or OWB carry. (I use Milt Sparks VM2 for IWB, and Sparks PMK for OWB.) Obviously, the longer SP101 is less of a pocket gun than the shorter one, but it takes a substantially deep pocket to hide even the shorter SP101.

I like to have BOTH versions!

Edited to add: I find the weight difference to not be of importance, so much as the balance. The additional weight of the longer one is, however, at the muzzle, where it can best contribute to mitigating recoil. With my formerly strong-side wrist joint now thoroughly scrambled with age and over-use, every bit of recoil mitigation helps.

 

[lloveless]

I bought a 3 inch sp. Shoots nice and carries well in an IWB from Ken NUll. My son has the same gun in a 2 inch barrel. I prefer mine and it is a great outdoors/trail gun to boot. I carry 125 gr HP around town and 125 gr jsp in the woods or 158 gr lswc over 13.5 grs of 2400. In black bear country I carry Corbon 200 grainers.
ll

 

[powwowell]

Three inch barrel.
1) Looks better.
2) More accurate. Longer sight plane.
3) Handles better. The weight of the extra inch helps with less recoil with 357 magnum loads.
4) Still very concealable.
5) cause I said so. : )

 

[Gary A]

I own and have owned several sp101, including the 3 inch version. Some years ago it was very hard to find a 3 inch version and now most people on forums choose it over the 2.25 version. Curious, since I think it's pretty clear that over the years, Ruger has sold far more 2.25 than 3.06 sp101s regardless of which version is more popular on forums. I like em all but overall have come to prefer the vanilla 2.25 inch barrel with hammer.

 

[mgmorden]

Don't own one myself, but since I prefer 4" on most of my wheelguns, 3" would work better. The sight radius feels cramped on the snubbies.