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.