Author Topic: pistol sights question (Read 601 times)

rlvip · « **on:** May 26, 2004, 01:14:22 PM »

Hi, I am planning to get either a sw 60 or an sp101 in the near future. Preferab;y with a 3 in. barrel for ccw. Are adj. sights worth having as on the Smith or is the fixed sight on the Ruger better. The Ruger seems to have abetter trigger pull and will last foever. I will have round butt combat grips on whatever I get. Also, are these fixed sighted .357 mags rregulated for any particular load? ( shoot to point of aim at certain distance.) I hand load all my ammo , but I don't really care to waste too much time and components trying to find loads that don't work. Any help is appreceiated. I also noticed that the hammer is cut away on some of the smiths at the base. Looks like a weake spot to me. Any trouble with these? Thanks in advance...

CJ · « **Reply #1 on:** May 26, 2004, 06:54:06 PM »

For CCW most people will go fixed sights to avoid snags and for comfort. Most will also go two inch instead of three. For combat distance fixed sights are not usually a problem. The cut off hammer spur I think you are referring to is also to prevent snags and pokes in the belly. All that said, my first CCW was a three inch S+W in .38 I bobbed the hammer on. When the wife started shooting I had to put a full hammer back in cause she liked it that way.
The benefits of three vs two inch are
1 slightly longer sight radius
2 very slightly increased velocity
3 little less apparent muzzle flip {to me and the misses at least}
minuses are
1 tougher to find holsters for
2 little less concealable
I dont see much difference in point of impact between 125gr and 158gr out to 15 yds, at 25 its noticable.
Ive never shot heavier or lighter bullets so I cant comment. The Ruger will absolutly outlast the Smith in heavy shooting, but you just may be the first person I ever heard prefer the Rugers trigger. But I have not bought a new Smith in at least 6 years so that may have changed.
Best of luck.

Old Griz · « **Reply #2 on:** June 05, 2004, 05:13:39 PM »

:cb2: The wife carries a 3" SP101 and we both love it. However, it did need a trigger job. To me it's a lot easier to shoot than the Smith J frames. BUT if you care to move up to a 2.5" or 3" K frame S&W M65 (non-adj.), or a M66 (adj.) then you have a gun that isn't difficult to conceal, and one that is very comfortable to shoot as well. I do recall the writers of the gun mags described the M60 in .357 as "punishing" to shoot when it first came out.

Old Griz · « **Reply #3 on:** June 05, 2004, 05:21:28 PM »

:cb2: I guess what I should have added was that Ruger developed the SP101 to be a small heavy hitting gun. To compete with it (cuz there wasn't anything like it on the market that I recall) Smith just beefed up their J frame .38s to shoot .357s. I think a ot more thought and engineering went into the Ruger product. If you hold both of them you'll see that the grip on the Ruger brings your hand closer to the center axis of the bore. This is good. Makes it easier to handle the felt recoil. The only other small revolver with this excellent grip angle is the Colt Detective Special. Unfortunately, it's no longer made. (Saw a used one the other day for sale, and it was more expensive than when it was new.)

Sorry, my 2¢ worth.

leverfan · « **Reply #4 on:** June 05, 2004, 07:56:10 PM »

I tried out both the S&W 60 and the Ruger SP 101, and my wife and I both prefer the S&W 60 with 3" barrel and adjustable sights. It's perfectly comfortable and controllable, even with full power 357 mag loads. Our gun has a better trigger than any double action Ruger I've tried, the sights are very good, and it's a bit lighter, which makes it easier to carry. The Ruger's extra weight may soak up a bit of recoil, but my 125 grain reloads over a full charge of H110 don't hurt a bit out of the S&W. The flash is something to see, though, so I expect I'll be switching to a powder with a little less fireball effect, maybe VV N110. It probably comes down to personal preference, so you should shoot both, if you can. With the right leather and carry method, adjustable sights and hammer spurs aren't a problem, either.

papajohn428 · « **Reply #5 on:** June 06, 2004, 02:25:49 PM »

rlvip, if the gun is to be carried concealed, you're probably gonna hate those adjustable sights pretty quick if the gun is carried close to skin. I had one of those M-60's in three inch (357) and still have the scars on my hip from carrying it. Now all my carry guns are of the fixed sight variety, and even my aging eyes do okay with them. If I'm shooting at longer ranges the bigger sights help, but who shoots a snubby past 50 yards?

If I want to do some serious long range shooting, I'll use a different gun!

As for the recoil, if you plan on shooting 38's in it most of the time, I'd take whichever gun fit me best. Shooting the M-60 with 357's wasn't that bad, but I finally quit doing it because I think they're just too hard on such a neat little gun. The Ruger has strength to spare. And the Ruger will be heavier to lug around, but will make up for it when fired, lots easier to control in rapid fire.

Hope this helps

PJ

leverfan · « **Reply #6 on:** June 10, 2004, 08:43:21 PM »

Quote from: Old Griz

:cb2: I guess what I should have added was that Ruger developed the SP101 to be a small heavy hitting gun. To compete with it (cuz there wasn't anything like it on the market that I recall) Smith just beefed up their J frame .38s to shoot .357s. I think a ot more thought and engineering went into the Ruger product. (snip)
Sorry, my 2¢ worth.

I could be wrong, it wouldn't be a first, but I believe the Ruger SP101 was introduced in 1988 as a .38 Special that could handle +P rounds, not a purpose-built .357 magnum. It, like most Ruger handguns, was grossly overbuilt for the round it chambered, easily allowing Ruger to cut the chambers a little longer for the .357. In other words, Ruger just altered their 38s to shoot 357s, same as S&W. The Ruger is, no doubt, the stronger of the two, but the S&W is more comfortable to handle (for me and the Mrs., anyway), as well as being easier to pack all day. In fact, my wife and I spent about 2 hours today firing at a variety of targets with the M60, as well as a few others, and it continues to be our favorite snub nose, despite the many that we've owned and shot.

Old Griz · « **Reply #7 on:** June 11, 2004, 09:42:50 AM »

:cb2: Yes Sir, you are right. I stand corrected.

The first models were .38s. The first .357s couldn't handle anything larger than 125-gr. bullets, and then the cylinder was lengthened to handle all .357 loads.

Thank you leverfan!