Ruger SP101 Durability

[Varminterror]

The Cylinder is what sustains the pressure of firing, which is no different in material manufacture between Ruger or S&W.

And this actually proves my point that Rugers are not exactly built like tanks, don't you think? They are fine revolvers and I like them pretty much, but broad statements like "built like tanks" are pure BS - one should take account for the specific revolver he is talking to. An SP101 is no different in terms of longevity as a new S&W 60 magnum.

It would prove your point if the material manufacture were the only contributor to cylinder strength.

Rather, SP101’s ARE dimensionally different than S&W 60’s. The walls of the cylinder ARE thicker. As the portion of the revolver which bears the pressure of firing, they ARE stronger than 60’s. Even made from the same material, more material in the right places means more strength. Pretty straight forward.

 

[labnoti]

Thicker, stronger, but to what end? If the cylinder is heavier than a 60's, it will just bang on the stop and notches harder and weigh down the holster more.

 

[Gary A]

While the frames of an SP101 are cast, I believe the cylinders are forged.

 

[labnoti]

They're not forged, but machined from bar stock. Forging provides an advantage when there is a more complex shape like a frame, but cylinders are, well, cylinders. There isn't any advantage in re-orienting the grain around a corner, turn or bend in the shape. Similarly, rifling can be cold-hammer forged in a barrel, but the barrel itself is not forged but machined from bar stock, typically round bar also called rod.

Colt and S&W forge the frames, whereas Ruger uses investment casting. With heat-treating, both processes can result in a strong, high-quality frame. Ruger was a pioneer in the investment casting process and is regarded as very adept at it. Casting allows more complex shapes to be formed initially and results in less machine time to finish the frame. Forging affords better grain orientation for the shape, but the forging requires a lot more machine time to finish it because it comes from the forge with a lot more excess material that needs to be removed by cutting away and surface-finishing.

Strength comparisons are really irrelevant since there is no practical advantage of one over the other when done properly and Colt, S&W, and Ruger all have several generations of history of doing it properly. Because of this, it is other things entirely that really distinguish one revolver from another in practical terms.

 

[whatnickname]

As labnoti and others have pointed out, good quality handguns are built to last. I would add: “As ?long as common sense and a reasonable level of maintenance are applied.” Your hand is gonna wear out before you wear out the SP101. I own a couple of SP 101s. While I have fired the 357 with full power loads, I sure can’t call the experience pleasant...15 to 20 rounds of the hot stuff and my hand is darn sore. Set out to wear one out with who knows how many thousands of full power loads and I would like to buy a ticket to watch that event.

 

[Mizar]

Rather, SP101’s ARE dimensionally different than S&W 60’s. The walls of the cylinder ARE thicker. As the portion of the revolver which bears the pressure of firing, they ARE stronger than 60’s. Even made from the same material, more material in the right places means more strength. Pretty straight forward.

"Stronger" and "Built like a tank" are two different statements. I'm not arguing that an SP101 is stronger, only that it is not over engineered, built like a tank and such. People easily transfer their observations about large frame Ruger revolvers, especially the Redhawk/Super Redhawk which is in a class of his own so to speak, into the other products that Ruger offers. Here are my several points of concern:

- Both Ruger and S&W are members of SAAMI - they both use, more or less, the same testing protocols.
- Until we have the exact steels used for the cylinders for example, in both companies (not only the type of steel, but the exact composition) AND the heat-treating protocols, we can only assume which is strongly built, but without real data showing the exact differences.
- We don't have ".357 Magnum Ruger only" loads and don't have real data that shows that a Ruger SP101 is sufficiently stronger, only more or less anecdotal evidences.
- "S&W go out of time easily", "S&W not standing the abuse" and etc. While it is (generally speaking) true, do consider the following:
1. In 2016 S&W produced about 20% more revolvers than Ruger. Source: https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/03/24/is-sturm-ruger-still-the-biggest-gunmaker-in-the-u.aspx
2. In 2016, in USPSA Revolver division, "Of the handgun makes chosen, 97 percent chose S&W, with 3 percent selecting a Ruger.". Source: https://www.ssusa.org/articles/2017/6/27/top-handguns-for-uspsa/
It is natural that the more used and widespread brand will have more reports for timing/longevity issues, especially concerning the fact that they are used in competition. And we all know that this is the right place to test if a firearm is up to its name. Again, not talking Redhawk Vs. 629 and etc.

Again, I'm not bashing on Ruger revolvers, or claiming that they are of inferior design, but only pointing out that broad statements should be taken with a grain of salt and one should really consider all of the facts.

 

[mavracer]

For the record "built like a tank" is that a Japanese Type 95 or German Tiger?

 

[Varminterror]

I'd readily concede the large frame of the Ruger should not be the indicator of design strength, as the frame really isn't the point of failure in these revolvers.

But the mainpin of the SP101 is larger diameter than the S&W 60. The crane of the SP101 is thicker than that of the 60. The locking bolt of the SP101 is solid, while that of the S&W 60 is a thin, bent finger of steel. The forward cylinder lock up in the SP101 is secured on a shorter leverarm than that of the 60, supporting the front of the crane, rather than supporting the front of the ~2" long ejector rod. As has been discussed above, the cylinder walls are thicker, designed to sustain greater pressure, and the side plate of the S&W 60 most certainly weakens the frame (a nil effect, as the frame is not the load bearing component).

Whichever vernacular you prefer, "tank" or otherwise, it's foolish to deny the fact there are a great number of ways the Ruger SP101 design is stronger than that of the S&W 60. A tank is designed and built stronger than a passenger vehicle in a number of ways. The SP101 is designed and built stronger than the S&W60 in a number of ways. On a spectrum, the Colts were easier to shoot out of time than the Smith's, and the Rugers are harder to do so than the Smiths - on the spectrum of snubby DA revolvers, it's just silly to deny the Colts weren't as robust as the Smiths, and equally silly to deny the Smiths aren't as robust as the Rugers.

I've personally shot loose an S&W 60 Ladysmith, my first snubnosed revolver over 20yrs ago. I've not yet been able to do so with an SP101, despite my best efforts.

 

[TTv2]

They're not forged, but machined from bar stock. Forging provides an advantage when there is a more complex shape like a frame, but cylinders are, well, cylinders. There isn't any advantage in re-orienting the grain around a corner, turn or bend in the shape. Similarly, rifling can be cold-hammer forged in a barrel, but the barrel itself is not forged but machined from bar stock, typically round bar also called rod.

Colt and S&W forge the frames, whereas Ruger uses investment casting. With heat-treating, both processes can result in a strong, high-quality frame. Ruger was a pioneer in the investment casting process and is regarded as very adept at it. Casting allows more complex shapes to be formed initially and results in less machine time to finish the frame. Forging affords better grain orientation for the shape, but the forging requires a lot more machine time to finish it because it comes from the forge with a lot more excess material that needs to be removed by cutting away and surface-finishing.

Strength comparisons are really irrelevant since there is no practical advantage of one over the other when done properly and Colt, S&W, and Ruger all have several generations of history of doing it properly. Because of this, it is other things entirely that really distinguish one revolver from another in practical terms.

Correct, the only reason forgings are used is to reduce machining times on otherwise unimportant dimensions. What advantages forgings have over castings is there's no areas where a void can occur because the pressure of squeezing the metal into shape removes any trapped air bubbles or impurities, castings pretty much introduce voids as the metal cools, but if you have enough metal (which Rugers do) it can overcome these weaknesses and last a long time. You just end up with a bigger gun.

 

[ThomasT]

For the record "built like a tank" is that a Japanese T37 or German Tiger?

The T37 was a Russian tank, not Japanese.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-37A_tank

 

[mavracer]

The T37 was a Russian tank, not Japanese.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-37A_tank

Sorry had the right tank in my head just the wrong #.
Great catch though you really got me on that one.

 

[farm23]

I have no doubt S&W and Ruger revolvers are very well made. Is't the forcing cone an issue on some models?

 

[ThomasT]

Sorry had the right tank in my head just the wrong #.
Great catch though you really got me on that one.

Just having fun with you Mavracer.

 

[Varminterror]

Is't the forcing cone an issue on some models?

Thin cone, or “flat tire” cone S&W K-frames.

 

[mavracer]

Just having fun with you Mavracer.

All good, was just jabbing back don't know why my emoji didn't show up.

 

[mavracer]

They're not forged, but machined from bar stock. Forging provides an advantage when there is a more complex shape like a frame, but cylinders are, well, cylinders. There isn't any advantage in re-orienting the grain around a corner, turn or bend in the shape. Similarly, rifling can be cold-hammer forged in a barrel, but the barrel itself is not forged but machined from bar stock, typically round bar also called rod.

That's misleading, orienting the grain (making them all run the same direction) just gets rid of the small voids making it more dense. The bar stock they machine cylinders from is already (forged).

2. In 2016, in USPSA Revolver division, "Of the handgun makes chosen, 97 percent chose S&W, with 3 percent selecting a Ruger.". Source:

I doubt any of the Smiths are J frames, but I agree most of the timing issue rumors come from the days of PPC and extremely heavy DA use.7

 

[TTv2]

That's misleading, orienting the grain (making them all run the same direction) just gets rid of the small voids making it more dense. The bar stock they machine cylinders from is already (forged).

If it's made from bar stock, that means that the grain is uniform so it can be heat treated withing requiring annealing. Round stock is cheap compared to square stock, so there's no advantage to using a forging on something that's round and the small size of a cylinder.

Now, something that's of large size like a large pneumatic piston, where the piston head is one piece with the shaft, that's one instance where a round forging can make for a large reduction in machining times. Instead of having to cut off several inches in diameter, a fraction of an inch is needed to be cut off the diameter to make the piston run concentric.

Something small like a cylinder tho, those can be set up in semi automated lathes and the bar stock advanced with bar feeders to save machine time and allow operators more time to inspect instead of loading/unloading parts.

In forgings, the pressure of forming the metal into a shape adds work hardening to the metal, thus increasing hardness, but the main advantage is reduced time during machining operations, sometimes they're cheaper to buy than the stock too.

 

[mavracer]

If it's made from bar stock, that means that the grain is uniform

So forging isn't done to make the grain uniform?

In forgings, the pressure of forming the metal into a shape

So bar stock isn't formed under pressure?

You have a interesting (but very flawed) understanding of metallurgy.

 

[TTv2]

So forging isn't done to make the grain uniform?

So bar stock isn't formed under pressure?

You have a interesting (but very flawed) understanding of metallurgy.

Barstock gets rolled into shaped while it's hot, so the grains have an easier time being moved around. Basically, it's a less stress inducing process. Forgings are hammered into shape while they're hot, but the hammering action adds hardness due to the grain disruption.

I've taken metallurgy classes, you?

 

[mavracer]

Barstock gets rolled into shaped while it's hot, so the grains have an easier time being moved around. Basically, it's a less stress inducing process. Forgings are hammered into shape while they're hot, but the hammering action adds hardness due to the grain disruption.

I've taken metallurgy classes, you?

LOL
So one is heated and smashed into shape aligning the grains but the other is heated and smashed into shape aligning the grains.

 

[murf]

Sorry for the hijack but the misinformation on the subject gets tiring.

some pressure info I put together:

I found only a 1,000 psi drop in pressure from old to new. other calibers (44 magnum, 41 magnum) were pretty much castrated.

luck,

murf

 

[labnoti]

LOL
So one is heated and smashed into shape aligning the grains but the other is heated and smashed into shape aligning the grains.

What is a grain? What we're talking about here are actually martensite crystals and the grains are defined by the grain boundaries. Forging does not smash out voids, but it realigns the grain boundaries so that a part with an angle won't have a grain boundary perpendicular to the curve at which to cleave.

Nobody is forging revolver cylinders and aligning the grains around the chambers or the yoke boss. They're just drilling and reaming bar stock. You can argue that the bar stock was formed under the pressure of the rollers but this doesn't align the grains to the shape of the revolver cylinder.

With investment casting, the problem with current (modern) casting methods isn't so much voids from gas porosity, but controlling the growth of large martensite crystals or grains. Large grains mean large grain boundaries. An alloy has to be formulated and processes followed to avoid forming large grain boundaries. With forging, grains will be elongated and the boundaries oriented advantageously.

But again, this is academic and irrelevant to comparing the strength or durability of S&W and Ruger revolvers since neither lack sufficient strength and strength is not a distinction between the two, neither does casting or forging make either one more durable than the other.