S&W 640 -vs- Ruger SP101
- Thread starter afdrookie
- Start date
Mastrogiacomo
New member
I have the SP. It's a heavier gun than the Smith, but it's reliable, handles heavy loads better and, unlike the 640, doesn't come with an internal lock.
As noted the SP is a couple of ounces heavier than the 640. The SP also has a full length ejector rod to extract .357's. The Ruger has a stronger front lockup at the crane vs. end of the ejector rod if that matters. The 640 has an enclosed hammer so can be fired in a pocket without the hammer getting caught (don't know how well one's skin and clothes would do next to the b/c gap but if desperate one might not care!).The newer Smiths have the locks. All the .357 J frames have MIM parts vs. cast for the Ruger in the action. Both have a frame mounted firing pins. Both have a coil mainspring. As to action smoothness some claim one and some the other has the smoother action. The Ruger locks up the cylinder way before the Smith so will give a different action feel. Both can be tuned to about the same trigger pull weight which due to lack of leverage will be heavier than a medium frame gun. Best thing to do is compare them side by side.
I was lucky enough to purchase a 640 before the rediculus safety locks...I love mine...I like it because it is snag free, and can be shot from inside your pocket if the need ever arose...it is also more accurate than I thought it would be. I have even considered getting another, but the new locks have turned me off.
I love Rugers and have several. Have plans to buy more. But the 640 is a special gun. My 640-1 is a perfect pocket gun and WAY more accurate that you would believe over the internet. I would look around and buy a used older 640. I would never buy one with a stupid hole in the sideplate either. Not going to buy a new Smith EVER until they come up with a new design that doesn't jump out and hit me in the eye every time I look at my revolver. Revolver = traditional = no empty hole in sideplate!
Gregg
Gregg
threefivesevenmag
New member
Both Winners.
I have a 640.
It is very accurate at intended distances, more so than my 642 (but that gun is still accurate at close ranges as well). I haven't shot it past 7 yards yet, but I kept every round fired in the center of the target, very few flyers.
Even with heavier .357 magnum loads it wasn't too much to handle, but I would prefer .38 +P for faster follow ups.
I have handled the SP101, but never fired one. It is a good gun as well. It felt very good in my hand. I figure both would give you more mileage than you can put into it in a lifetime, key-hole lock or none.
Handle both if you can. Both are great. The 640 wins if you are going for more of a pocket carry application. I also just prefer Smiths, even with locks. Oh well, just my .02
I have a 640.
It is very accurate at intended distances, more so than my 642 (but that gun is still accurate at close ranges as well). I haven't shot it past 7 yards yet, but I kept every round fired in the center of the target, very few flyers.
Even with heavier .357 magnum loads it wasn't too much to handle, but I would prefer .38 +P for faster follow ups.
I have handled the SP101, but never fired one. It is a good gun as well. It felt very good in my hand. I figure both would give you more mileage than you can put into it in a lifetime, key-hole lock or none.
Handle both if you can. Both are great. The 640 wins if you are going for more of a pocket carry application. I also just prefer Smiths, even with locks. Oh well, just my .02
had both
I once had an early 101, pre magnum. I now have a 640 early model. Before I got rid of the 101, I had removed the spur from the hammer, so you got about the same effect as a 640. This was before Ruger offered a bobbed hammer. At least with the Ruger, you don't have to look for good grips. Overall the grip on the Ruger works as nicely as some of the rubber grips on the 640. But maybe they come from Smith with rubber boot grips now. Used to be J frames came with little wood grips. If you bought an old used Smith snub you might have to pay to upgrade grips. I liked the black sight on the Ruger. On the Smiths I have to paint them. I was also really impressed with the accuracy of the Ruger. And the balance. You can probably get about as good from Smiths at 25 yds. but it takes more concentration or practice, except at a couple yards, for defense work. I did run into the phenom of the Ruger being a little touchy about trigger reset. I was doing some fast action cycling in DA and got a problem where the action sort of jammed. I am not sure if it was from not fully resetting, but I read in GUN TESTS (I think) where they saw it too. Back in the early 90's. Might not be a big problem. The Ruger certainly is a nice range plinking gun, with the accuracy, sights, grips and weight to soak up +P recoil, but have no experience in combat with it!
I once had an early 101, pre magnum. I now have a 640 early model. Before I got rid of the 101, I had removed the spur from the hammer, so you got about the same effect as a 640. This was before Ruger offered a bobbed hammer. At least with the Ruger, you don't have to look for good grips. Overall the grip on the Ruger works as nicely as some of the rubber grips on the 640. But maybe they come from Smith with rubber boot grips now. Used to be J frames came with little wood grips. If you bought an old used Smith snub you might have to pay to upgrade grips. I liked the black sight on the Ruger. On the Smiths I have to paint them. I was also really impressed with the accuracy of the Ruger. And the balance. You can probably get about as good from Smiths at 25 yds. but it takes more concentration or practice, except at a couple yards, for defense work. I did run into the phenom of the Ruger being a little touchy about trigger reset. I was doing some fast action cycling in DA and got a problem where the action sort of jammed. I am not sure if it was from not fully resetting, but I read in GUN TESTS (I think) where they saw it too. Back in the early 90's. Might not be a big problem. The Ruger certainly is a nice range plinking gun, with the accuracy, sights, grips and weight to soak up +P recoil, but have no experience in combat with it!
I had a 640. Only sold it because I couldn't manage acceptable accuracy with it, even shooting .38 Special. I don't blame the gun. It was a very nice revolver. If you can manage, it's a fine choice.
I have a SP101 3" in .38 Special, but I can't give you a range report yet because I haven't shot it. I intended to use .38 Special as my carry load, so it didn't matter than I didn't have the ability to shoot .357 out of the gun. It's heavier than the 640, with a longer sight radius, which means I *should* be more accurate with it. We'll see.
jmm
I have a SP101 3" in .38 Special, but I can't give you a range report yet because I haven't shot it. I intended to use .38 Special as my carry load, so it didn't matter than I didn't have the ability to shoot .357 out of the gun. It's heavier than the 640, with a longer sight radius, which means I *should* be more accurate with it. We'll see.
jmm
I currently own, or have recently owned, carried and fired a S&W 640, Ruger SP-101, and a Taurus 650 and 651. All of them work well and have been good performers for me. I have no problem in relying upon and carrying either revolver.
If you at all anticipate any pocket carry, then go for the 640 or the Taurus 650 or 651. In my view, the SP-101 is somewhat too large and heavy for pocket carry.
On the issue of quality control, every manufacturer can turn out a lemon from time to time. You can see posts complaining about all three manufacturers if you look long enough. The odd thing, however, is that there are fewer complaints related to functionality of the SP-101, although many people complain about the fit and finish. In my opinion, the S&W and Rugers of today are not as well-made as the models that I bought new in the 1980's. All of my Taurii were manufactured in 2004 and I bought them new, so I have no previous models to compare them too.
I have approximately 18 handguns in my safe right now, and the ones I carry most frequently are either the 650 or titanium 651. Make of that what you will.
If you at all anticipate any pocket carry, then go for the 640 or the Taurus 650 or 651. In my view, the SP-101 is somewhat too large and heavy for pocket carry.
On the issue of quality control, every manufacturer can turn out a lemon from time to time. You can see posts complaining about all three manufacturers if you look long enough. The odd thing, however, is that there are fewer complaints related to functionality of the SP-101, although many people complain about the fit and finish. In my opinion, the S&W and Rugers of today are not as well-made as the models that I bought new in the 1980's. All of my Taurii were manufactured in 2004 and I bought them new, so I have no previous models to compare them too.
I have approximately 18 handguns in my safe right now, and the ones I carry most frequently are either the 650 or titanium 651. Make of that what you will.
Stephen A. Camp
Staff In Memoriam
Hello. I have had exceptionally good luck with the SP101. If interested, here are some personal observations:
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Ruger SP101 Report.htm
Best.
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Ruger SP101 Report.htm
Best.
+1 for the Ruger. They offer a concealed hammer version. I have both (well sp-101 and S&W 60) and like them both. But, I give the edge to the Ruger for ruggedness. My Smith has begun to slip just a tad in timing. I have owned the Ruger for about two years longer and seriously have NEVER had any problems with them. They are tank tough. But the Smith has a smoother trigger.
I think the SP has an advantage in the grip. They are great for recoil and you can get inserts to make them look good. Check out www.lettgrips.com
I think the SP has an advantage in the grip. They are great for recoil and you can get inserts to make them look good. Check out www.lettgrips.com