I'd like to buy a .357/.38 special as a present for my brother for casual target shooting. Can anyone compare for me the handling qualities, accuracy, reliability, fit & finish, overall quality of a 6" barrel S&W wheel gun versus a Ruger Vaquero or other style Ruger sixgun? On the Ruger, Bisley grips seem to make sense; how do they handle? Finally, I recently bought my first sixgun, a S&W 19-5, in nearly new condition; anyone know about when it was built? Thanks Much
.357 Magnum S&W or Ruger; comparison?
- Thread starter topflan
- Start date
Check out this web page it's a partial listing of model changes.
http://www.handloads.com/misc/Smith.Model.Changes.asp
______________________________
An old west lawman once said when asked why he carried a .45, "because they don't make a .46"
http://www.handloads.com/misc/Smith.Model.Changes.asp
______________________________
An old west lawman once said when asked why he carried a .45, "because they don't make a .46"
Sir William
New member
I will always buy a S&W over a comparable Ruger. A GP-100 6" is a decent revolver and durable. A S&W is usually a slicker package all the way. A S&W 19 or 66 is a great revolver. I bought a nickel one in 6" form myself. Install a set of Pachmayr Gripper rubber grips and enjoy. Ruger single actions are reliable and durable. The Bisley grip is comfortable for me.
It's all up to personal preferance. S&W and Ruger are the only two companies I will purchase handguns from due to their quality and outstanding customer service. You have made very wise choices in companies to buy from.
I am a big S&W revolver (and auto for that matter) fan. If you get a S&W, I would recommend, and this is only my opinion, a K-frame like you bought. I find the L-frames a little awkward. They just don't feel right to me. I prefer fixed sighted S&W's, like the 65, but the 66 would be an excellent choice (SS version of your M19). But, S&W has announced they are discontinuing the K-frame .357mag, so you will probably have to buy a used one (which I mostly do anyway).
When it comes to a Ruger Vaquero, stay away from the "case hardened" versions. I've had 3 of them, and my friends have all had them, too. All three of us have had problems with the finish. If you sweat on them and don't clean them until later on in the day, the fake "case hardened" finish flakes off and causes a rust spot. The SS version looks great, though.
When it comes to Ruger DA revolvers, I have very limited experience. But, that experience has been excellent. I shot my friend's 3-1/4" SP101. All I can say is "I want one, very badly". It's right between the J and K-frame S&W, which is perfect for CCW IMO. It will probably be my next purchase.
I know I've thrown a lot of my opinions at you, and not really given you an answer. Basically, I don't think you can go wrong with any of them. Both are great companies to do business with.
I am a big S&W revolver (and auto for that matter) fan. If you get a S&W, I would recommend, and this is only my opinion, a K-frame like you bought. I find the L-frames a little awkward. They just don't feel right to me. I prefer fixed sighted S&W's, like the 65, but the 66 would be an excellent choice (SS version of your M19). But, S&W has announced they are discontinuing the K-frame .357mag, so you will probably have to buy a used one (which I mostly do anyway).
When it comes to a Ruger Vaquero, stay away from the "case hardened" versions. I've had 3 of them, and my friends have all had them, too. All three of us have had problems with the finish. If you sweat on them and don't clean them until later on in the day, the fake "case hardened" finish flakes off and causes a rust spot. The SS version looks great, though.
When it comes to Ruger DA revolvers, I have very limited experience. But, that experience has been excellent. I shot my friend's 3-1/4" SP101. All I can say is "I want one, very badly". It's right between the J and K-frame S&W, which is perfect for CCW IMO. It will probably be my next purchase.
I know I've thrown a lot of my opinions at you, and not really given you an answer. Basically, I don't think you can go wrong with any of them. Both are great companies to do business with.
Well let me the antidote to the man who will only buy Smiths.
I will only buy Rugers or pre-nipple lock S&Ws.
The GP-100 is generally considered to be more durable than the L or K frame Smiths.
No MIM
Rollmarked instead of laser etched.
Did I mention they have no bellybuttons in the frame?
Field and detail strippable without too much difficulty and no screws to bugger up.
Less expensive up front and unlikely to ever go back to the factory.
Comparable aftermarket support for anything that is important.
The trigger, which is the only thing the Smith fans can really harp on in reality, is easily polished up, though it will always feel "different" because it is internally.
And I like the cylinder catch better too.
What I like about pre-agreement Smiths are the lack of an internal lock and the wide variety of models available. I also tend to like the J frames a little better than the SP-101, as the latter is really a belt gun, and Ruger doesn't really make a good N-size framed weapon suitable for self defense, like the 625, 610, or 29, though the new Alaskan is hopefully the promise of something broader in that market segment.
I will only buy Rugers or pre-nipple lock S&Ws.
The GP-100 is generally considered to be more durable than the L or K frame Smiths.
No MIM
Rollmarked instead of laser etched.
Did I mention they have no bellybuttons in the frame?
Field and detail strippable without too much difficulty and no screws to bugger up.
Less expensive up front and unlikely to ever go back to the factory.
Comparable aftermarket support for anything that is important.
The trigger, which is the only thing the Smith fans can really harp on in reality, is easily polished up, though it will always feel "different" because it is internally.
And I like the cylinder catch better too.
What I like about pre-agreement Smiths are the lack of an internal lock and the wide variety of models available. I also tend to like the J frames a little better than the SP-101, as the latter is really a belt gun, and Ruger doesn't really make a good N-size framed weapon suitable for self defense, like the 625, 610, or 29, though the new Alaskan is hopefully the promise of something broader in that market segment.
44mag@ucnsb.net
New member
Ruger or Smith
I have found in my experience selling guns that there are two kinds of people. Those who chose a gun on how it looks as long as it functions adequately and those who choose a gun on how it functions, but looks are not a concern. If you buy a gun on how it looks as long as it functions adequately, then buy a Smith. A Smith will look good, and will function for most needs. If you feed it standard pressure ammunition only, I doubt you will ever be unhappy with a Smith. You would be smart not to feed it a steady diet of extremely heavy full power loads. While a diet of standard +P ammo may be o.k. for these guns, in my experience many see wear over time. If you buy a gun based on how it functions, buy a Ruger. The Ruger may not be as pretty, slick, or as light as the Smith, but you won't be wearing it out with anything but loads that would blow the cylinder out of a Smith. You can feed a Ruger a steady diet of anything manufactured in it's caliber range and can quite often exceed standard loading data if you reload (of course always use caution, this is not for the foolhardy). I personally own 5 Smith's and 4 Rugers. I can tell you that as far as Customer Service goes, in our shop, we often direct our Smith owners to a gun smith to have repair work done, less time and money issues compared to Smith and Wesson. All of our Ruger repairs go straight back to Ruger. I cannot speak well enough of their product support. I have yet to see a customer who was not happy with what they got back from Ruger. I can tell you that Ruger has only once charged one of my customers for a repair. It was $150.00 and that was for a replacement gun, as he had damaged his with a serious miscalculation during reloading. Good luck with either gun you buy.
.44mag
I have found in my experience selling guns that there are two kinds of people. Those who chose a gun on how it looks as long as it functions adequately and those who choose a gun on how it functions, but looks are not a concern. If you buy a gun on how it looks as long as it functions adequately, then buy a Smith. A Smith will look good, and will function for most needs. If you feed it standard pressure ammunition only, I doubt you will ever be unhappy with a Smith. You would be smart not to feed it a steady diet of extremely heavy full power loads. While a diet of standard +P ammo may be o.k. for these guns, in my experience many see wear over time. If you buy a gun based on how it functions, buy a Ruger. The Ruger may not be as pretty, slick, or as light as the Smith, but you won't be wearing it out with anything but loads that would blow the cylinder out of a Smith. You can feed a Ruger a steady diet of anything manufactured in it's caliber range and can quite often exceed standard loading data if you reload (of course always use caution, this is not for the foolhardy). I personally own 5 Smith's and 4 Rugers. I can tell you that as far as Customer Service goes, in our shop, we often direct our Smith owners to a gun smith to have repair work done, less time and money issues compared to Smith and Wesson. All of our Ruger repairs go straight back to Ruger. I cannot speak well enough of their product support. I have yet to see a customer who was not happy with what they got back from Ruger. I can tell you that Ruger has only once charged one of my customers for a repair. It was $150.00 and that was for a replacement gun, as he had damaged his with a serious miscalculation during reloading. Good luck with either gun you buy.
.44mag
It's pretty much been summed up, but ;
S&W: better out of box trigger, generally a prettier gun.
Ruger: tougher than just about anything else on the market. Trigger needs work out of box (best trigger job for a Ruger: get a set of snap caps, and dry fire it 1,000 times, slicks right up).
As for S&Ws being weak, other than the whole forcing cone issue on teh K-fram .357s, there isn't much to this one.
S&Ws are produced to handle standard loads (and for loads have have a +p rating, for +p). With S&W stick to Federal, Winchester, Remington, Hornady and Speer, and you'll be just fine. Buffalo bore and Garret warn against using their ammo in S&Ws because it's loaded above SAAMI-spec.
Rugers, on teh other hand (except the new Vaqueros) are proofed at 30% above SAAMI-spec. That's why they're so tough.
So really, it isn't that S&W makes weak guns, but that people have gotten so used to the tanks that Ruger builds that most (if not all) other makes LOOK weak in comparison.
Oh, yeah, BTW, I like 'em both. S&Ws tend to be my carry guns, Rugers go hunting (I like the loudenboomer loads for hunting).
S&W: better out of box trigger, generally a prettier gun.
Ruger: tougher than just about anything else on the market. Trigger needs work out of box (best trigger job for a Ruger: get a set of snap caps, and dry fire it 1,000 times, slicks right up).
As for S&Ws being weak, other than the whole forcing cone issue on teh K-fram .357s, there isn't much to this one.
S&Ws are produced to handle standard loads (and for loads have have a +p rating, for +p). With S&W stick to Federal, Winchester, Remington, Hornady and Speer, and you'll be just fine. Buffalo bore and Garret warn against using their ammo in S&Ws because it's loaded above SAAMI-spec.
Rugers, on teh other hand (except the new Vaqueros) are proofed at 30% above SAAMI-spec. That's why they're so tough.
So really, it isn't that S&W makes weak guns, but that people have gotten so used to the tanks that Ruger builds that most (if not all) other makes LOOK weak in comparison.
Oh, yeah, BTW, I like 'em both. S&Ws tend to be my carry guns, Rugers go hunting (I like the loudenboomer loads for hunting).
zappadragon
New member
Ruger Gp100 4" its what I am saving up for.
Last edited:
I have a n00b question, when they say the guns are "proofed" with ___. Does that mean that they fire test loads through every gun, or just a sample of them?
Same here, when I buy a gun I want to get 100% out of them and mabee a little more. (Ask me about my 22-250 loads
) Everyone that I have talked to say's that Rugers will take loads that will turn a S&W into a paperweight. 
zappadragon
New member
Ruger Gp100 4" all the way. They look much better too IMO!
The K-frames are far from weak. They have a slight issue with but one bullet weight....125gr ammo. You can shoot hot stuff through them all day long, and it is doubtful you will ever see any wear. Shoot enought hot 125gr, and you will get some erosion and possibly stretch, but its doubtful.
The L-frame is every bit as strong as the GP Rugers. It will handle any load the Ruger will, and for just as long. I think the GP/SP Rugers are horrendous. Ruger really messed up when they dropped the comparitively svelte handling and looking Security/ Speed Six guns for the monsters.
The Smith is much more aestehtically pleasing, better handling, and better built, IMO. The Ruger trigger will never be as good as a Smith trigger, no matter whats done to it.
The L-frame is every bit as strong as the GP Rugers. It will handle any load the Ruger will, and for just as long. I think the GP/SP Rugers are horrendous. Ruger really messed up when they dropped the comparitively svelte handling and looking Security/ Speed Six guns for the monsters.
The Smith is much more aestehtically pleasing, better handling, and better built, IMO. The Ruger trigger will never be as good as a Smith trigger, no matter whats done to it.