SP-101 again ...... ejector rod slop

[P95Carry]

I was aware of this before I got my SP ... but I am curious as to how you other Ruger owners (SP-101 mainly) perceive this.

I feel that mine is especially sloppy ... it even rattles if i shake the piece and yet ... it does its job just fine. Guess this sorta thing bugs me a bit as an engineer ...... but would like other SP owner's take on this.

 

[c_yeager]

Its supposed to do that. Im sure someone else can provide you with the WHY. But, all of them do it and it seems to be how they are built. Ive never even heard of it becoming a problem for anyone.

 

[Tom C.]

Ruger can be somewhat exasperating at times. Clever designs that allow manufacturing slop. With the Blackhawk, slop in the cylinder can be pretty well eliminated by substitution of a Belt Mountain cylinder base pin. Slop in the ejector rod on the 101 doesn't cause any problems, except for the noise. I would think the ejector rods are cut from rodstock and are very uniform. The crane is an investment casting and could be subject to greater fluctuations in hole size. If you want to tighten it up, swap out the crane.

 

[TonyB]

More important than that is does your cylinder have play...either side to side of front to back???Mine is tight as anything.....I don't really worry about the ejector rod rattle(although I didn't really even notic it,now you got me thinking about it,I'll have to check it out)

 

[P95Carry]

More important than that is does your cylinder have play...either side to side of front to back???Mine is tight as anything.....

Ditto here Tony ... in fact I think my piece needs many hundreds more rounds/dry-fires to help ease it all off!

The rod deal tho ... I can live with it of course ..... and accept it ....... but guess the mind keeps going back to the sweet S&W ejector rod feel!!

 

[TonyB]

I had the cylinder of a s/w mod.38 actually fall out while I was loading it once
the cylinder and crane fell to the floor........a loose screw was to blame,but after that I never had any trust in that gun...sold it.

 

[P95Carry]

That lil screw on right above trigger Tony is IMO about the most important one to check on Smith revo's ..... second only to ensuring ejector rod is screwed up tight and stays that way.

 

[9mmepiphany]

the ejector rod on the sp101 isn't nice and tight as those on a smith or colt...or even the security six family...because it doesn't work directly on the ejector star (that is what causes the other's rod to be held firmly) the ruger design actuates the lockup and ejection process through levers...that is also why your ejector rod doesn't turn with the cylinder .

it bothered me enough that i sold my sp101...that and the weight

 

[Quickloader]

P95Carry

I second 9mmepiphany for the technical explanation.

Once I appreciated the concept it didn't bother me, you could see it as a performance issue warranting reliability when the gun would be extremely dirty.

I completely understand your engineer’s feelings, I had them too in the first place when I started with my GP100 and saw all the "as cast" surfaces and the "machining and filing only as much as needed" points.

After I learned how reliable and good shooting these Rugers are out of the box and what you can make out of them with a little patience, regarding cosmetics and tune ups, I wouldn't give away any of them!

Quickloader

 

[James Bondrock]

I used to own a GP100 and currently have an SP101. They both had/have "sloppy" ejector rods. On this design, the ejector rod does not lock up the cylinder, nor does it even turn with the cylinder. So play here does not matter, unless the rod is about to fall off or something.

 

[JohnKSa]

The reason the ejector rod is tight on the S&W revolvers is because it is the forward lockup point for the cylinder.

The Ruger design locks the front of the crane directly to the frame which means that the ejector rod doesn't need to be tight.

In fact, it's not really the ejector rod at all, if you look at the way the cylinder assembly goes together it should really be called the ejector rod extension.

To work, it needs to operate the actual ejector rod (the part that actually connects to the star) but not get in the way of the forward locking mechanism. Since the forward locking mechanism is actuated by the actual ejector rod, you can see why this means that there must be some looseness and play in the "ejector rod extension". i.e. it must reliably operate the ejector rod (to eject) while at the same time not getting in the way of the ejector rod (when it is actuating and releasing the cylinder locking mechanism.)

Personal preference is a perfectly valid reason to get rid of a gun. If you don't like a part to wiggle then the GP100, SP101, and Super Redhawk aren't the guns for you.

On the other hand, if you think that the loose part is automatically evidence of low quality or poor function, in this case, at least, you are mistaken.

 

[P95Carry]

Always accepted it John ..... and have had several Rugers ... but the SP is way more sloppy than my SRH ...... tho of course scale is smaller!

I can live with it of course .. but just curious as to how much it ''bothers'' others. The Smith system can ''spoil'' a guy!

 

[Roger Williams]

It never bothered me a bit. The ejector rod's only job on your Ruger is to push out the spent casings. Does it do that ok?

I have handled a LOT of Ruger DA revolvers and they are all like that. They all rattle around a little bit. It's just because the ejector rods aren't attached to anything like they are on a Smith. If you sell it and buy another one, it will be like that too. (Found that out the hard way!)

I know how ummm, ahem, "anal" engineers are (my father is one), but really the SP101 is a great gun, and they ALL rattle. Just go shoot the thing and be happy knowing you got one of the toughest little revolvers out there!

 

[JohnKSa]

I can live with it of course .. but just curious as to how much it ''bothers'' others. The Smith system can ''spoil'' a guy!

Actually, the forward lockup of the crane to the frame is one of the reasons that all of my revolvers are Rugers, not S&W. I've always thought that putting the lockup out on the end of a relatively long rod and then only using a ball-bearing detent was a poor engineering solution.

In a sense, then, I guess the floppy ejector rod is part of why I buy Rugers. To be perfectly honest, I'd never considered that the looseness of the rod might bother some people until I read this post...

 

[Jim March]

Another vote here in support of on-crane lockup. It really is a better system than the S&W. Through and through, the Ruger DA concepts are the best out there, bar none. The only reason Pythons are better is the hand-fitting involved but from a plain engineering POV, the whole Ruger DA mechanism is a masterpiece...easy takedown, no sideplate to blow out, locks up both fore and aft of the cylinder, etc.

 

[TonyB]

Once again.....Listening to Jim March I realize that I got a great gun totally by accident!!!!I got the SP because my Dad has Security 6 that he refuses to give to me and we had Rugers as a kid and I liked them....I did do the Revolver check out when I bought it...but I'm no expert...glad I chose well......thanks for your insight on this board JIM