Colt Vs. Smith Vs. Ruger

Who makes the most desirable revolver?

  • Total voters
    66
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well,

Colt. Terribly disinterested, disengaged management that have already trashed the company to the point where no one takes their new designs seriously. How Colt, confronted with the single largest resurgence of Cowboy Shooting can absolutely bungle their participation in designing and manufacturing products for that market is astonishing...and unforgiveable. Their recent history is about to be another Harvard Case Study that should properly chronical their decent to the lowest depths of mismanagement. In short, sell your company to foreign control and have a wholly disinterested and talentless CEO and you have...today's Colt. disgraceful. The M16 contract..the COLT M16 contract? Now made by a better builder in Maine.
The Python was a masterpiece, it is gone. The Colt SA, is gone in any real sense of the word, the Colt automatics have long been surpassed. DOA. Want to see a great "Colt" see U.S. Firearms, they get it.

S&W. Back from the dead? After selling you , me and everyone you know short. Yep, I am old enough to remember S&W and Clinton, and if you can't or won't remember it, shame on you. New management you say? If that works for you....don't forget your key, it fits in that little lock. Perfect.
Great craftsmanship? Yep. Great designs? some. But, I have a memory and when the chips were down S&W sold us out. It was THAT important and S&W decision was THAT bad. They won't do that again? No culture to stop them.

Ruger. Good designs made from good materials, if not a bit ugly. But, priced at the right price points and a range of products that are, if nothing else, practical. Ask the best builder in the world, Hamilton Bowen, what he choose for Strength of design and materials when Big Bore is the topic and out the window goes Colt and S&W. One if left with Rugers. Sure, there is always the .500 S&W Magnum. Its right in the dealers case next to the really, REALLY, REALLY BIG Bowie knife. Just watch the dealers face when you ask to see it. He knows.. Nope, I'll go with Ruger. Good culture, good designs, fair pricing, supportive of the industry, history of fairness and active support.

Fun, huh?
 
To paraphrase what Dhart said:

"Colts are very cool and Rugers are very dependable, but Smiths are Smiths".

In that case, I'll take "very dependable"! ;)
 
It seems to me

It seems to me that question on this posting is someone vague. I have seen two different viewpoints to the same question. I answered the poll "Colt" as a matter of overall history and quality of their revolver throughout time (SAA, Python, Official Police, Trooper III, Detective Special, Cobra etc.) not just today. Me and others are answering based on history, whereas other people in here are answering based on current production and quality (in that area, I would have to say S&W because Colt doesn't make revolvers anymore except SAA)

I think the question needs to be rephrased to get a better poll result.
 
"Who MAKES the most desireable revolver?"
The correct answer is NOBODY. :(
As already explained Colt and Smith & Wesson have gone to hell in a handbasket. Ruger? Rugged and reliable. A utilitarian firearm that gets the job done. But its got no soul.

Now if the question was "Who MADE the most desirable revolver?", then I'll go with Smith & Wesson. Ah, those classic lines, the bottomless blue and that slick action were a joy to own. :D Thankfully, there are plenty of them on the used market. ;)
 
Me I like and own all three.The only trouble is if it says Colt the Price doubles.Did you see where Colt doesn't want ammo makers to use the word Colt it now would be just.45 LC,and will take them to court????
 
I voted Ruger.
I won't throw any of them out of my safe, but the question seems to be aimed at current production.

The Rugers are tough, accurate, and IMO good looking. I also like their single actions.
I like S&Ws a lot. Subjectively, they look better. They lost the #1 spot with me because of a philosophical point, the lock, and the fact that I prefer a blued revolver.
Colt, well, they don't make much of anything anymore it seems.
 
Colt has become huge joke! :barf:

Colt made a basic S.A. wheelgun in the late 90s for cowboy action shooting but still wanted nearly $900.00 for it. The Ruger's single actions where about half the price and even more dependable than the Colt. :D
 
Well, rugers now have that stupid lock. Springfield is putting one on their XD, and so are some others. Do I detest it, YEP! But...I won't single out S&W for doing something that other makers are doing also. Will I buy a lock S&W? Maybe, but Id rather have a nice, minty smith as a safe queen, and have a lock S&W for using (won't use it for personal protection, mind you). They should have at least put it in a place that wasn't on the side of the frame (my biggest complaint), maybe inside the grip, or on the bottom of the grip, where it wouldn't have really been obtrusive. The fact the the company is now American owned again, I will support them. If they make another deal with the devil, or sell to a non-American buyer, I will again not even consider buying new from them again.
 
IIRC to even see the forthcoming Ruger lock, which is now only on the Vaquero, one has to remove the grip. I suspect that Ruger has seen all of the grief S&W gets and will make its revolver lock very easy to remove or permanently disable by the end user, and invisible in every case. If S&W would move the lock to the grip, they'd sell a lot more revolvers for just getting rid of the hole in the frame.
 
I want a revolver with the finish of a colt, trigger smmoth like a S&W, and with the ruggedness of a ruger....at the price of a taurus....


That would be a desireable gun, but it will never happen. Till then I will buy guns that fit the bill based on the particular gun's desirable traits, not so much the maker.....of course, availability being a desirable trait, along with affordability...colt goes out the window.
 
I was just at the range this past weekend. A friend of mine brought his S&W 686 6" with him. I had my 6" Ruger GP100. He paid $489.00 for the S&W and I paid $349.00 for the GP100. I am the type of guy who doesn't mind spending more money for better quality, in fact I'd rather spend extra cash for something that is going to last (hence, I only drive Toyota). After shooting both guns, to be honest I noticed very minimal difference if any between the 2 guns. If anything, the Smith may have had a shorter smoother trigger and the Ruger just felt more comfortable and balanced in my hand.

So, if there is a difference in the Smith, it certainly isn't even close to a $140 difference!

Ruger all the way!
 
I like SnWs and Colts. Someday I hope to be rich enough to feed my Colt appetite.

250750.jpg
 
At the risk of hijacking this thread, which is not my intention... and I'm not trying to slam Hawkin, who's post I used here.

Hawkin said:
Colt. Terribly disinterested, disengaged management that have already trashed the company to the point where no one takes their new designs seriously. ...

S&W. Back from the dead? After selling you , me and everyone you know short. ... But, I have a memory and when the chips were down S&W sold us out. It was THAT important and S&W decision was THAT bad. They won't do that again? No culture to stop them.
Click to expand...
I seem to remember that S&W was, at the time of the Clinton/HUD agreement, owned by a British company and we all know how castrated the British Empire has become. But they capitulated to save the company from potential financial ruin at the hands of the anti-gunners and Clintonistas.

Hawkin said:
Ruger. Good designs made from good materials, if not a bit ugly. But, priced at the right price points and a range of products that are, if nothing else, practical. Ask the best builder in the world, Hamilton Bowen, what he choose for Strength of design and materials when Big Bore is the topic and out the window goes Colt and S&W. One if left with Rugers. Sure, there is always the .500 S&W Magnum. Its right in the dealers case next to the really, REALLY, REALLY BIG Bowie knife. Just watch the dealers face when you ask to see it. He knows.. Nope, I'll go with Ruger. Good culture, good designs, fair pricing, supportive of the industry, history of fairness and active support.
Click to expand...

Selective memory is a wonderful thing. You can support Ruger, who's owner Bill Ruger supported the ban on hi-cap magazines and also encouraged the assault weapons ban to protect the profits he was making on the "Mini 14/30" series. Ruger supported the bans to increase his profits and grab market share and not to avoid being ruined. You can support them, but not S&W?

I'm pretty tired of this whole "S&W sold us out" bovine scatology, especially when it's used selectively and Taurus, Ruger, et al are left out of it.

S&W is now American owned and built. People bemoan the MIM parts and other changes to keep the cost of production (and thus the retail prices) down. When S&W releases a "classic" gun for $950 MSRP half the voices say "No way!" Apparently lots of folks only give "lip service" to you get what you pay for.

Someone mentioned getting the fit & finish of a Colt, the trigger of S&W, the strength of a Ruger for the price of a Taurus. Surrrre. Would you work for S&W as a "master gunsmith" for $7.25 an hour? I didn't think so. And neither will any skilled labor. If you're not willing to pay for "old world craftsmanship" to get that fine fit & finish & trigger & steel do you expect a gunmaker to operate at a loss?

Better yet, why don't you start your own gun company, invest millions in CNC machine tools, more millions in hiring metalurgists, engineers and arms designers, a few more million in R&D and produce high-quality, superbly accurate firearms of your own? Of course, you have to sell them for a "fair" price -- no more than $400 per gun. Want to wager what investors and financial experts would say?
 
Well, rugers now have that stupid lock.
Click to expand...

abelew,

I am sorry, which Ruger revolver now has the lock? So far the only pistol I have seen from Ruger that has the internal lock is the new Mark III .22 hunter. Just curious.

.44mag
 
You can support Ruger, who's owner Bill Ruger supported the ban on hi-cap magazines and also encouraged the assault weapons ban to protect the profits he was making on the "Mini 14/30" series. Ruger supported the bans to increase his profits and grab market share and not to avoid being ruined. You can support them, but not S&W?
Click to expand...

O.K., I will take the time to argue over Bill Ruger later, for now lets talk about the present state of both companies. Bill Ruger is dead and Bill Ruger Jr is running things. So what is Ruger as a company doing for the American shooter today? Let's see, they are fighting (and winning) frivolous lawsuits aimed at taking away our gun rights by forcing the gun makers out of business. Knowing how expensive lawsuits can get, I am sure that the financial experts would have pushed Ruger away from such a position, but Ruger stood by the industry and us, not it's own interests of profit and market share. Ruger also makes large donations to the NRA, another group that supports mine and your rights. Bill Ruger himself has been celebrated by the NRA on many occasions, despite the assault ban issue. By comparison let's look at S&W...

S&W is now American owned and built.
Click to expand...

You are correct, but owned by a company that has publicly stated they will not reject the Clinton agreement because they are concerned about the financial impact of the lawsuits such a proclamation would generate. I don't know about you but that shows to me that the behavior didn't change when the company changed hands and citizenship, AGAIN. My question would be, what will happen the next time Smith and Wesson is sold? It seems to be a trend these days. I am sure that S&W also makes donations to the NRA, but so does every other manufacturer in some form or another. Ruger's participation with the NRA just seems to stand out.

In the end, I buy each and every gun that I can, but you won't find any post Clinton Smith's in my house. I wholeheartedly agree that there are too many people out there that don't pay attention to the politics of the companies they buy from. Have a great one.

.44mag
 
I totally agree that the lock on S&W's is irritating. But it's politically irritating. To be honest, I haven't ever touched the key, and right at this moment I couldn't tell you where it is. The keyhole is like having an acne scar. It's a drag, but what can you do?

Meanwhile, I have to judge any firearm by how well it shoots, how it feels in the hand, its fit and finish. S&W may have caved politically, but so haven't a lot of firearms companies. They are all walking the same thin red-and-blue line trying to balance politics, profits and public perception. It's tough to make deadly objects, while having to smooth over that fact for people who are offended and politically activated by the very IDEA that deadly objects exist. Yeah, sure the second amendment is as clear as the liberty bell, but it doesn't drive sales as dramatically as culturally timely marketing. If some bogus idea of "safety" is what's pushing our postmodern skinner-box buttons, then makers will try to harness those sentiments for profit. Is it wrong? Yes. Is it selling out? Yes. But the worst of it is that it assumes the American public is made up of brainless morons. Unfortunately, that's exactly what marketeers think. It's really up to us to prove them wrong, and so far we haven't. Almost every sales department begins from this kind of "worst-case-american" thinking.

In other words, in boardrooms across the nation, the consumer is perceived as an idiot. Of course we can't give them lethal weapons, without assuming that they're going to hand them to kids, have accidents while cleaning, wave them around and be careless and unsafe; or turn right to a life of crime because guns are magic corruptors of the soul.

Companies like S&W unfortunately take their eyes off of making the BEST guns, and put it onto selling the MOST guns. But that's not just a feature of the firearms industry. The dumbing down of the product, and insulting "worst-case american" focus group data is what's driving all kinds of companies to screw the pooch.
 
To me, the S&W lock is egregious because it is such an eyesore. BTW BillCA, there is no "classic Smith" currently made at any price. They even put that retard hole in the retro looking Thunder Ranch .44 Sp. and to add injury to insult put a huge freakin' gold colored billboard on the sideplate.

So let's recap for a moment:

By including the ugliest (most visibly annoying) lock on the market, even on PC revos, Smith cares not about its customers, who mostly don't want it, they care about the perceptions of antis.

By installing MIM anywhere they can get away with it, again even on PC revolvers, Smith is showing you how they care about your bottom line. :rolleyes: My bet is that they could get away with having an "economy" and a "premium line" if the spread for forged parts was not more than $75.00-100.00.

By discontinuing blue models with the exception of the Model 10, they are showing you how much they care about the environment rather than what one may actually want. However, they are also saying you are too lazy to not have a stainless or aluminum gun in a real defensive caliber.

Funny, I would have thought that an "American Owned, American Made" firearms company might speak American English and listen to its customers, actual and potential.

I'd like to buy a new Smith, HOWEVER:

I don't want a Scandium one, I'd like a blued steel one like the Model 19.
I don't want ANY with the idiot hole through the frame. I'd settle for a service whereby I could send it to the PC and get it expertly deleted and welded up if necessary. No chance because S&W loves their lock though no one else does.
I'd like to be able to buy forged parts and install them if the MIM wore too much or outright broke.
I'd like them to publically repudiate the Klintonista agreement. At least Bill Ruger is dead.

S&W has miles to go before I will even handle one of their new products in a shop. Right now, I know before I look that I won't want any of their offerings, primarily because they cater the details of their products to people who don't buy or shoot their revolvers.

I think anyone who buys a current production S&W is a dupe without equal as he or she is furthering the ruination of a once great product line. I'd rather see them out of business than producing "Made for Antis" revolvers. Again Ruger doesn't even begin to compare as the AWB is dead and Ruger actually fights rather than caves against gun lawsuits.
 
To discuss legal and political topics, please use the legal and political forum.

To call other posters names, please find another board.

To continue discussing your preference in revolvers please feel free to start another thread, as this one seems to have suffered terminal devolution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top