Trail Gun: SP101 3" vs. the new 4.2"

[Old Fuff]

Defensive use of a handgun is usually, (but not always) a close-up and personal sort of thing.

What I call an Outdoorsman's Pack'n Piece may fill a different role, where targets can be small game on one hand, or deer sized on the other. You may also be called on to take longer shots.

The 4" model has a longer sight radius, and the adjustable rear sight can zero any load for whatever distance you choose, and readjusted if you change your mind. The longer length will give you a slight increase in velocity and penetration under circumstances where you need all you can get. Additional weight forward translates into better balance when taking longer shots.

Given your intended purpose I would lengthen the barrel to 5 or even 6 inches. As it is 4 is going to be the best you can do. I see 3 inches as being counter productive.

 

[76shuvlinoff]

Since I am leaning toward, and saving my nickles for, a 4" GP100 .357 for home non ccw gun. I have to ask why the SP101? I like the aesthetics of it but if not concealing it why not go to the GP100. Weight?

legit question, just trying to weigh all the options before I lay out cash.

 

[DPris]

Yes, weight & less bulk.
You get the same velocities as the four-inch GP, without the additional 10 ounces.
If it's just going to sit in the house, doesn't matter.
If it's going to travel on foot, it can.
Denis

 

[CraigC]

The 4" would definitely make a better trail gun. However, if I were intentionally going forth to hunt deer-sized game, a 4" .357 would probably be my last choice.

 

[MCgunner]

if I were intentionally going forth to hunt deer-sized game, a 4" .357 would probably be my last choice.

Why? My 2.25" SP101 would shoot 2" groups off the bench at 25 yards. The 4.2"er should be a 1" capable 25 yard gun, as good as i can shoot with irons. Of course, I guess, nobody makes a scope mount for it, yet.

 

[Old Fuff]

I don't know about you, but even in an area where they are pretty tame I haven't had much luck getting within 25 yards before they took off.

While it's unlikely I'd take a shot, my Outdoorsman Pack'n Revolvers will drop a deer at 100 yards if that was necessary. They all have 4 inch or longer barrels.

 

[Crowman]

For shooting, I'd upgrade to a GP100 for added weight to better manage the recoil from your .357 Magnum loads.

I do not enjoy actually shooting light revolvers with heavy loads. Has a negative influence on accuracy and shot placement. Plus, gives me carpal tunnel or some other such. For city/town carry, my personal CCW gun is a 386 Night Guard (24 ounces), so I know about recoil in light guns. I do practice enough to hit where I look; however, recoil will pull bullets unless firmly crimped and the muzzle flash especially in dim light is awesome, but not in a good way.

For woods carry, I prefer to go with a stainless revolver with enough weight to manage recoil so I can effectively place my shots. My preference is a Ruger GP100 with 4" barrels.

 

[DPris]

The recoil's not at all bad on the 4.2 SP, I found it quite livable with varying bullet weights.
Denis

 

[MCgunner]

Recoil has never been a problem with the SP101, but I guess maybe some folks are more sensitive to it. The GP100 could serve well as an anchor for your boat, though. We are talking primarily a TRAIL gun here, right? I mean, that's the title of the thread. I wouldn't wanna haul a 40 ounce plus GP100 around on a back packing trip, put it that way. I did it with a 6.5" blued Blackhawk, bad enough that I went back to medium frame DAs for trail duty. The SP101 is marketed for the hiker, primarily, or at least that's my take on it, but they're just as accurate for the hunter as any other 4" .357 revolver.

 

[Hondo 60]

To me the biggest difference is the sights.
Do you like the looks of the sights on the 4"?

That should answer your question.

 

[ECVMatt]

Great Choice, Can't wait to read you range report. I really like that one. I have a 3", so probably no reason to get the 4, but it is a nice pistol.

 

[Probie9]

Been gone a bit. I stand corrected on the 4" for hunting comment. I was thinking of Indiana laws. I've only lived here 2 years and haven't handgun hunted here yet.

 

[kludge]

If I wanted a 4" I'd just get a Security Six.

P.S. I also have a 2.25" SP101 and love it.

 

[Macchina]

If I wanted a 4" I'd just get a Security Six.

P.S. I also have a 2.25" SP101 and love it.

Why would you choose a Security Six (which are not currently produced so forces me to buy and deal with a used gun) over the SP101 for a trail gun? The SP101 is lighter, all stainless, and from what I understand is a bit stronger. The capacity (which I like at 5 with the smaller cylinder) is the only detractor I could imagine.

To me the Security Six seems like a great shooter, but the SP101 wins hands down when you start carrying it around in the field all day. Am I missing something here?

 

[Super Sneaky Steve]

A 3" GP100 might be just the ticket. An extra round, small enough for packin and you can get a better grip on it when the bear charges you.

 

[MCgunner]

I had a security six and an SP101. The SP101 is hands down the better, stronger design. GP 100 is heavy, too heavy for me to consider it as a trail gun.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

My wife is salivating over the 4" SP at the moment, and may well get one. Two other family members have the 3" SPs and like them. I have had and used Security Sixes for many years, and my favorites of the lot are the old lighter 4" barrels. They are strong guns, and the only "weak spot" is the forcing cone if a steady diet of 125 grain .357 loads are used. They will eventually erode and eventually start spitting. As an all-around field/holster/CCW/plinking gun they are very hard to beat.

I also have a Smith M60-4 3" FL in .38 Special that I prefer to the SPs. Had a .357 version of it (60-10) but the DA was rather poor and I traded it. Have a SS GP 4" which is a great gun but big and heavy in comparison.

Upshot is that the SPs are nice guns in 3 and 4" barrels--but the Security Sixes have a lot more carry miles on them.

To each his own.

 

[lloveless]

I had a security 6 with the 2 3/4 inch barrel, a gp-100 with a 4 inch barrel, and now a sp-101 in a 3 inch barrel, my son has the same gun , but with a 2 inch barrel. I Prefer the 3 inch barrel for hiking and ccw. I shoot 200 gr Corbons through it with out any problems. I am 61 and I've got arthritic hands. If I wish to hunt I have a Redhawk .44 mag that I prefer over the gp-100. I was going to get the 4 inch sp, but found out it was legal to hunt with the 3 inch inch in Tn (in case I walked up on a nice deer while scouting), and I just don't like fiber optics on a revolver.
ll

 

[MCMXI]

The SP-101 doesn't handle .357s well, not because they're not strong enough, but because they're fairly light.

I don't really agree with that statement. I shot my 3" SP-101 a few weeks ago using Remington Golden Saber 125gr JHP and the revolver was a joy to shoot in terms of minimal felt recoil and the POA/POI was spot on at 10 yards. I can see why many people like the SP-101 for concealed carry.

 

[kludge]

Why would you choose a Security Six (which are not currently produced so forces me to buy and deal with a used gun) over the SP101 for a trail gun? The SP101 is lighter, all stainless, and from what I understand is a bit stronger. The capacity (which I like at 5 with the smaller cylinder) is the only detractor I could imagine.

To me the Security Six seems like a great shooter, but the SP101 wins hands down when you start carrying it around in the field all day. Am I missing something here?

29.5 oz vs 33.5 oz. 4 oz isn't a "hands down" winner by any means, IMO.
20% more ammo, which you mentioned.
Security Six can be had in stainless.
I could probably save $200, even on a lightly used one.
And it just looks better.

I haven't held the 4" SP101, but the Six probably balances better too.

Anyone have any frame measurements to back up the "stronger" claim?

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=273265929

BTW, I have a 4" Six and a 2.25" SP101.

 

[biohazurd]

Though i think the 4" is a cool piece. I would have no use for it. For just a small increase in size with the gp100 you get one more round and a full size grip. (although you can get full grips for the sp.) Either way for the intended purpose of a trail gun ill take one more round. Now the new .22 sp101 that looks like a cool plinker!

 

[R.W.Dale]

As the owner of a 5" s&w model 60 I'm telling you guys that you just don't understand the joy that is holding and pointing a small j framed sized 357 with an actual barrel.

The best I can describe it is picture how much more pointable and packable a single six is than a super blackhawk. That's the difference between a security six and a 4" sp101

(Had both my sp was a 32)

posted via tapatalk using android.

 

[MCgunner]

I could probably save $200, even on a lightly used one.

The sued Sixes I've found around here were more than a new SP101 and i prefer the SP101 for its strength and superior grip system. The Hogue for the SP101 is awesome, perfect for control and round butt profile for concealment, though concealment is not an issue with a trail gun normally.

 

[KevininPa]

IMHO,....go for the.......

.........3 inch fixed sight. You already have firearms with fixed sights. And you don't plan on shooting over 25 yards. So stick with what you know. Still lotsa power. If you want a 4 inch Ruger, I'd go with the GP. Personally I like what I got. Security Six with a 2 3/4 and a Speed six in the same. Nice compromise. Six shots and not too much larger than the SP.

 

[Doug S]

I just bought the 3in. The salesperson, who is a friend of mine, tried to talk me into the 4in over the 3 because of the sights. I chose the 3in, because I wanted something a little smaller that could bridge the gap between range/trail gun, and ccw.