Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 48

Thread: I must have this one....

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by OlongJohnson View Post
    No, it would be something the GP series cannot be. Given that the SP101 is already bigger and heavier than a J frame or Taurus small frame, a Super SP101 just might take a bite out of the regular SP101's lunch. Perhaps a big bite. In any case, it would do away with any reason I might have for remembering that the Kimber and Colt Cobra exist. And I'd definitely sell all my .38-caliber K frames.
    A “Super SP101” as a six shooter would likely kill the OG SP101 since the LCR is out there now. Still though, I love the idea of the SP101 getting the extra round and really really being worth the weight penalty that carrying one comes with.

  2. #22
    Site Supporter OlongJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    "carbine-infested rural (and suburban) areas"
    Quote Originally Posted by OlongJohnson View Post
    Kimber's ad copy says the cylinder is smaller than its competitors, which at the time and in context seemed to be referring to J frames and the SP101. I don't have an SP101 or K6s to measure; it could be they were talking about the K frame, although if so, it certainly managed to confuse me, and I read and write at a high grade level. I'm not sure how big a circle it takes to keep six .38/.357 caseheads at or perhaps a hair over SAAMI max diameter from running into each other*, but it's annoying that the K6s doesn't use K frame speed loaders. The Taurus 856 does use K frame speed loaders. I kinda feel like the benefit of using K frame speed loaders would outweigh the downside of a few grams and a mm or two of cylinder diameter.
    I suppose if a Super SP101 (SP102? SP202? SP106?) adopted the cartridge circle of the K6s, then there would be two, which would favor development of speed loaders for that spec. And would apparently keep the cylinder a little smaller. As it is, the Kimber is about two ounces lighter, maybe more, than a comparably-speced SP101. The Ruger does look a heck of a lot better, though.

    Getting back on the topic of this thread, we should all start bugging Bowen, D&L, and any other likely candidate to come up with a replacement for the SP101 adjustable rear sight that isn't subject to the stock sight's wobbliness (assuming that it's the same design and will have the same shortcomings as the GP100 sight). A Bowen Rough Country on the revolver in the OP would be sweet.
    .
    -----------------------------------------
    Not another dime.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by David S. View Post
    How much bigger is the GP’s cylinder compared to the SP?

    I’d be interested in a 6 round SP, even if they had to limit it to .38 Special only for durability.
    From what I'm seeing online SP101 1.348" versus GP100 1.557"

    Some others:

    J frame
    1.306

    K6S
    1.39

    new Cobra
    1.398

    K frame
    1.446

    Security 6
    1.501

    L frame
    1.559

    N frame
    1.715

    Redhawk
    1.78

    Not sure how much that tiny fraction between an SP101 and the K6S makes but maybe just a hair too small for 6 shots?

  4. #24
    Site Supporter OlongJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    "carbine-infested rural (and suburban) areas"
    It's about 0.021" radius difference ("about" due to the difference in reported significant figures). If Ruger adopted the K6s cartridge circle diameter, I'd think it should be doable with slightly different machining of the frame window. Barrel centerline would have to offset slightly, but I don't see that being a problem.

    Biggest gotcha I see now would be how the Kimber places the stop notches well between cartridge holes. What this means is that the cylinder stop is moved way to the right side of the frame. In the sideplate removed photo on Lucky Gunner, it's evident that the stop bears against the side plate, not the frame. (At first glance, this seems like a weakness, but it's conceivable that the flexibility of the sideplate could act as a spring and absorb the impacts from rapid DA manipulation, reducing or eliminating peening of the notches, the stop itself, and the frame window.) Don't know if Ruger could get to the same stop location, so they may not be able to go as small on the cylinder OD even with the same cartridge circle diameter.
    .
    -----------------------------------------
    Not another dime.

  5. #25
    Site Supporter OlongJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    "carbine-infested rural (and suburban) areas"
    For those who might be a little confused, a single discussion has been going on in both this and the 640 Pro VS Kimber K6S thread about, "Wouldn't it be awesome if Ruger made a K6s-like gun based on the SP101?"

    That has led me to go down a rabbit hole on the K6s like I never have before, and I ultimately reached the same conclusion I have been at all along. To my eyes, that gun fell out of the old-growth ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down. There is hardly a single detail on it that isn't just ugly-ugly to me. I think with a couple weekends worth of free time with files and maybe some mill setups, it would likely be possible to give it some contours that weren't painful to look at without impairing its structural integrity. But I have other stuff involving revolvers and making chips that I'm a lot more interested in investigating.

    And then I come back to the OP in this thread, and that little Ruger simply looks perfect the way it is.

    I can't really say that either one would be a better choice than a 3953 in my pants, so choosing either, at least for me, comes down to aesthetics. There is no contest.

    I reached out to Bowen, and the man himself said if they can get caught up on production of their existing sights, they will at least look at making one for the SP101 factory adjustable applications. I'm not the first to ask. It probably wouldn't hurt if a bunch of y'all added to the signal...
    .
    -----------------------------------------
    Not another dime.

  6. #26
    Site Supporter OlongJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    "carbine-infested rural (and suburban) areas"
    I don't think we ever answered the question of where the pic in the OP came from. It was posted on Lipsey's FB page during SHOT.
    .
    -----------------------------------------
    Not another dime.

  7. #27
    The Nostomaniac 03RN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Im a buyer with 6 shots

  8. #28
    Site Supporter OlongJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    "carbine-infested rural (and suburban) areas"
    Unlikely to happen without a new frame casting, I reckon. Could happen, but unlikely.

    On my personal list of unlikely things I'd like to see Ruger do, a fixed-barrel PCC comes way ahead of that.
    .
    -----------------------------------------
    Not another dime.

  9. #29
    Site Supporter HeavyDuty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Not very bright but does lack ambition
    Damn but that’s sweet. And even a gold bead... I agree, add a Rough Country rear and this thing would be ideal.
    Ken

    BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
    revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”

  10. #30
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    America
    I have wished Ruger would bring back the security six series but maybe a better solution would be an SP101 with a 6 shot cylinder.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •