Steel Ejector Rods

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sharper2112

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2017
Messages
79
I'm somewhat new to revolvers. I've had a Ruger LCR for about a year that my wife carries sometimes, and recently I acquired a Ruger SP101 357. I primarily shoot and carry 9mm, but I'm also a reloader and wanted to start loading some different cartridges in addition to the 9mm. Good excuse to buy another gun right? Lol Anyway, the SP101 is a chunk of steel and built like a tank (which I love), but I can't understand why they wouldn't put a steel ejector rod in a gun like that instead of the flimsy alloy or whatever material they use. Are all modern steel framed revolvers like that? Just a curiosity I guess
 
Alloy hammer as well. Simplifying manufacturing and cost savings I suppose.
Yea I guess. Seems like if 99% of everything else is steel the rod would be too; especially since that's something you might slam on if trying to do a fast reload. Thanks
 
Anyway, the SP101 is a chunk of steel and built like a tank (which I love), but I can't understand why they wouldn't put a steel ejector rod in a gun like that instead of the flimsy alloy or whatever material they use...
Must be something new. My SP101 (a few years old now) has a steel ejector rod.
Alloy hammer as well.
And a steel hammer too.
 
This made my day! :rofl: Zamac, or Aluminium? BTW, steel is also an alloy...
OP, what makes you think that the ejector rod is a non-steel part?

Well I'm obviously not an alloy expert (you got me there ) but it just seems like it's made of something different and less substantial to me. Maybe not though.
 
The ejector rod on the 101 is rather slim and flimsy feeling when the cylinder is open. I suspect this is why you (OP) were led to believe it is made of a different alloy. The two 101s I owned in the past, and all I have seen have had steel ejector rods.

Dave
 
My SP101 has a steel ejector rod and hammer. They all do. The flimsy feel of the ejector rod is what throws you off. But I do not hear of them breaking terribly often. In fact I have NEVER heard of one breaking.
 
Ok thanks everyone; I'm an idiot. However like many of you have said it's the flimsy feel of the rod itself that was throwing me off and making me think it was made of something else. I'm sure it's much more durable than it seems.
 
that's something you might slam on if trying to do a fast reload
I'm sure it's much more durable than it seems.

It shouldn't be "slammed" on at any point, including during fast reloads. Matter of fact, other than getting depressed straight down to eject empty cases, it shouldn't be exposed to much any stress. And just in case, it's shrouded when the cylinder's closed.
 
It shouldn't be "slammed" on at any point, including during fast reloads. Matter of fact, other than getting depressed straight down to eject empty cases, it shouldn't be exposed to much any stress. And just in case, it's shrouded when the cylinder's closed.
Well yea that's what I meant; slammed straight down while doing a speedy reload. A good defensive revolver reload technique from what I've seen doesn't mess around with the ejection of cases. For example:

And you're right, it's not gonna be under any stress 99.9% of the time. Compared to the solid steel on the rest of the gun though it just seemed more flimsy to me is all. It's nothing I'm worried about; was just a curiosity
 
You did notice that the outside visible forward section of your SP's ejector rod is only a hollow steel casing, right?
The actual steel rod itself's inside.

Quite different mechanism from a solid S&W or Colt ejector rod.
Denis
 
You did notice that the outside visible forward section of your SP's ejector rod is only a hollow steel casing, right?
The actual steel rod itself's inside.

Quite different mechanism from a solid S&W or Colt ejector rod.
Denis

You're exactly right. It was that hollow casing I was talking about when I said it seemed flimsy. I suppose I was thinking that whole piece should be solid too for some reason. I'm new to revolver world so forgive me. Ha ha
 
Ruger's used that ejection system since the 1980s, and the reason the "rod" you see is hollow is because the actual ejection rod itself is offset as a part of the stronger front-end lockup that Ruger uses.

Quite different from the solid rods used by the other revolver makers.
All components of the Ruger ejection system are steel, and it's not necessary to baby the gun.
I've used the system on GPs, SPs, and Reds since 1988 & I punch the rod on ejection just like I do a Smith or Colt.

If you're new to Rugers, you may discover there are two primary causes of small rattles inherent to the DA revolvers- one is that ejector rod casing, the other is the transfer bar.
Just an FYI in case you notice them & wonder if it's normal.
Denis
 
Ruger's used that ejection system since the 1980s, and the reason the "rod" you see is hollow is because the actual ejection rod itself is offset as a part of the stronger front-end lockup that Ruger uses.

Quite different from the solid rods used by the other revolver makers.
All components of the Ruger ejection system are steel, and it's not necessary to baby the gun.
I've used the system on GPs, SPs, and Reds since 1988 & I punch the rod on ejection just like I do a Smith or Colt.

If you're new to Rugers, you may discover there are two primary causes of small rattles inherent to the DA revolvers- one is that ejector rod casing, the other is the transfer bar.
Just an FYI in case you notice them & wonder if it's normal.
Denis
Thanks for that info; very informative. I've actually had the gun apart and replaced the main hammer Spring and trigger reset Spring (although I put the factory TRS back because I liked it better) so I've seen what you're talking about with the transfer bar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top