Which is more durable: 2.5" S&W 66 or 2.25" SP101

C

catmath 1911

New member
I am in the market for a a wheelgun, and I have narrowed it down to these two choices. Both revolvers are new, current production, and with all things being equal, which would last longer with a diet of .357 rounds? I have heard that a S&W 66 has a limited life span ( ~10,000 rnds) with .357, is this true? How does the ruger hold up with magnum ammunition? This will be my first revolver, so I want to make it a good one.

Thanks,

catmath 1911
 
You really cannot go wrong with either one, but my preference is for the SP101. Mine has a 2 1/4" barrel, but it is available with a 3" tube also.

Although I do not have any substantiated proof, I would estimate that you could shoot at least 1,000,000,000 rounds of magnum ammo through an SP101 before you would notice ANY wear whatsoever;)
 
SP101 is cheaper in price, more durable in quality.

Ruger is (as best I have been able to ascertain) the only revolver manufacturer that states in the Owners Manual that unlimited dry firing will not damage the revolver.
 
The Ruger is more durable.

I would rather have a 2.5 inch M19 or M66, an older one (pre-MIM) with the firing pin mounted on the hammer.

I like trigger-pull better on the older K-frame S&W's.
 
I've owned the Smith & Wesson 2.5" model 66, and I'm here
to tell U it's one fine handgun; but I'm sure the Ruger is just
as equally impressive. I would think that a pre-agreement
model 66 would have a slight edge due in part to a smoother
double-action.:cool: :D :)

FootNote: The Ruger may be more durable, but the
Smith & Wesson is a much "smoother" weapon.

Regards,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
 
Last edited:
Considered the same choices a few months back. The Ruger is built like a tank. The Smith has the best trigger and is the easiest to tune, in my opinion. I ended up with a S&W Model 686 with a 2.5" barrel. Best of both worlds. I got the seven shot.
 
It's a guess, but Ruger. Don't really know of anybody wearing out either one, but Ruger's reputation of EXTREMELY durable guns doesn't seem to have any hype involved.... :D
 
Ruger owners all brag about how durable their Rugers are, makes 'em feel better about the ugly finish and not-so-smooth trigger/action.

I have had Rugers, but also every other major brand, and am yet to wear any of them out.

Of the two revolvers you list I would suggest the S&W, pre-agreement of course. Realistically, there is little chance you will wear it out, so even if Ruger is more durable, so what?

The S&W will be finished nicer and have a better trigger than the Ruger.

The 1,000,000 round thing mentioned earlier is one man's opinion, and I think its a big over-estimation. No disrespect intended, by that, I just dont think that claim can be backed up.
 
Out of these two...rough choice. Id still have to say the Ruger is tougher. The S&W has the better trigger and is easier to tune..or I should say 'easier to tune to perfection". I have a tuned SP and its a keeper.
Who says it wont shoot a million rounds...as long as you replace parts that wear out....:D
Shoot well
 
Ruger is the stronger gun for sure, when you hold them side by side it's easy to see why. The 5 shot 101 is nearly as big and heavy as the 6 shot model 66.

That said I'd ask how likely is it your really gonna shoot 10,000+ full power 357's through a snub nosed gun. It's not really most peoples idea of fun ;) Still I have seen a couple of K-Frames go well past that mark and be fine, and it's not really like they just explode at 10,000 rounds or need to be thrown away. Usually a trip back to the factory for tuneup (done free of charge everytime I've seen one sent in) will make you good to go for another 10,000 or more.

As for quality control issues everybodies got'em these days. I was hearing so much about S/W's slipping QC here that the last gal at the office who asked my advice on a handgun I suggested Ruger instead of S/W. Her brand new 101 was spittiing so much lead by the end of qualification that they made her finish up on the line alone after everyone was done just so she could get her certification before sending it back to Ruger. She won't be seeking my advice on guns anymore:o

Take none of the above as Ruger bashing, nice guns and I know several people who love thiers. Just suggesting you have two good choices here.
 
I was in a similar situation and took the Ruger SP101 w/2.25" barrel. Great gun most accurate snub I have fired.
 
I have been well pleased with my 2 1/2" 686 L-Frame Smith. It gets fed a steady diet of Remington's 158gr. SJHP with no ill effects and is comfortable in hand.
 
The one .357 I like the most was a 3 inch S&W M66. After about 5k rounds of full magnum loads, the action was loose and it developed a hairline crack in the forcing cone. I sold it to a guy that said he have it fixed up. I have a friend that has been shooting his SP101 for a lot of years and it's holding up well. That said, I really would like another 3 in. M66. I'd just baby it a little more. I'm sure there are guys that have had them hold up better than the one I owned.
 
The Ruger is probably more durable, but it's not like the S&W is going to fall apart. Have you considered a Smith M60? I took my 66 and 60 to the range yesterday (link to pic below) and the little guy shot circles around the 66. I just had a trigger job done on the 60 and it is really sweet now, maybe a touch better than the 66... and I didn't think that was possible.
 

Attachments

  • revolv3.jpg
    revolv3.jpg
    68.1 KB · Views: 143
They're both good pistols and the trigger on the SP101 shouldn't be confused with older Ruger triggers, but it's still no S&W trigger. That said, how tough do you realistically need it? I'd take a better S&W trigger that will go only 20K rounds over a Ruger that's advertised to 100K. Have you priced 100K rounds of .357 lately? If I'm lucky enough to have the bucks to afford 20K rounds of ammo, I'll just buy another gun ... already did.
 
I've owned both.

If you're REALLY going to shoot and carry magnum ammo, get the Ruger. It's heavier, and the factory trigger is just mediocre, but it's buitl very well, and you can always get a spring kit for the Ruger.

That being said, I have kept my S&W because 1) I shoot .38 +p out of it 2) it's trigger is easily tuned 3)it's trimmer and lighter.
 
Have both guns. Both have had trigger jobs. The S&W trigger is still the better trigger, but the difference is less than when the guns were stock. I much prefer the M66, but this is a 4" version vs. a 3" SP-101. The M66 is an older hammer mounted striker, which I like when using light springs. So, my approach would be to use the gun that I shoot the best and repair it should the thing break. I'm looking for an N-Frame S&W. I would think that it would be even sturdier. Handle the guns. Find a way to shoot them and forget about which one is most sturdy. After shooting all of my small and medium frame revolvers, I have come to the conclusion that I will like the feel and balance of a large frame 4" more than any revolver that I own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top