Current Ruger Quality Surpassed S&W

In general, there's the attitude in manufacturing today that says "don't make it any better than it needs to be". Time is money and as long as the product still sells, there's no need to make it "better".

You can't compare today's firearms with the ones made by real craftsmen like S&W used to have.
Click to expand...

Old gag:

The optimist says the glass is half full.

The pessimist says the glass is half empty.

The engineer says the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

I think that's a lot more true now of the bean-counters who tell the engineers how to do their job, and the production supervisors how to do theirs.

I have never bought a new revolver. Some like new, others more extensively used. All but a couple have been Smiths and Rugers. The two "youngest" I purchased were built circa 1990. ALL the Smith and Ruger guns have been splendid weapons, with the edge for fit, finish and smoothness going very slightly to S&W. It really disheartens me to see so many reports of poor QC from both companies, and others as well. Since Remington bought Marlin, I see disturbing posts about the frequency of problems with the 39A and 336 that I've valued all my life.

Now I'm down to a 1990 Smith 640 EDC, a 1966 M10-5 house gun, and a forty-plus-year-old 39A, all of which are great. I wouldn't be buying new ones even if I could afford to. The good used ones are just too good.
 
I'll be the Pollyanna here and say I think they're both great. I have owned and my family has owned many flawless Rugers, mostly revolvers, and I have been blown away by my friend's M&P .40, 642, 686, and his M&P-15.
 
Does anyone else feel that on current production guns, Ruger quality is now superior to Smith & Wesson?
Click to expand...

Not in my experience. I feel that both manufacturers turn out good products. I've never had an issue with either company's firearms.
 
Don't currently own a S+W. I can say I was not impressed with my latest Mk. 3 .22
I had a Mk. 2 Govt. target, put many thousands of rounds through it with a misfeed or misfire very, very rare.

My new Mk. 3 was at least one misfeed per magazine, brand new out of the box. I jumped in online to a couple of the Ruger forums and discovered that misfeeding and stovepipes are very, very common with the Mk. 3

It's that pesky loaded chamber indicator. I disabled mine, and now the pistol runs like my Mk. 2.

If one follows the rules, a loaded chamber indicator is superfluous. As is a magazine safety, but since the gun is not for self defense I don't find that to be a big issue.

Ruger makes it very very easy to eliminate the loaded chamber indicator. Like they designed it that way? I have heard if ones feeds the pistol only mini-mags that it does not malfunction, (as much)

These days I shoot what ever .22 I can get, really, really hard to be picky. Even worse if your pistol is!
 
Yes, I believe they are. S&W used to build a better gun. They cost more but that was okay because they were better. No more. Now they just cost more. Ruger is still a better value and despite the whining of a minority, they build good guns.


Ruger has had too many recalls to say they have better quality
Click to expand...
Nonsense. If you look at actual numbers, Ruger is not even above average. They are also very quick to issue a recall when it's necessary. Most other makers only do so when they have to. Hell, that's when you can get them to actually admit there is a problem.
 
No more. Now they just cost more. Ruger is still a better value and despite the whining of a minority, they build good guns.
Click to expand...


Ha, sounds like you are the one whining. I will put this against any Ruger for fit and finish, not to mention the action.
 

Attachments

  • DSC00326s.jpg
    DSC00326s.jpg
    112.1 KB · Views: 52
"Now I'm down to a 1990 Smith 640 EDC, a 1966 M10-5 house gun, and a forty-plus-year-old 39A, all of which are great. I wouldn't be buying new ones even if I could afford to. The good used ones are just too good."

Awesome! My house gun is a 10-5 loaded with +P!!!
 
I think both used to build way better guns than what they do now. I still prefer a S&W to a Ruger in most cases. Both have good customer service(and both need it more and more these days).. It is a lot closer (IMHO), with the quality of both.
 
I will put this against any Ruger for fit and finish, not to mention the action.
Click to expand...
Are we comparing $750 production Rugers to $1000 Performance Center S&W's now???


Ha, sounds like you are the one whining.
Click to expand...
I don't whine, nor do I feel the need to put down another's choices to justify my own. Dollar for dollar, you get more from a new gun with Ruger. S&W has cheapened their guns with MIM parts, two piece barrels and atrocious lettering but the prices are still high. No thanks. I can buy whatever I want and can't bring myself to pay what S&W is asking for what they're offering. Sorry if that offends your delicate sensibilities.

Now if we're talking about older S&W's, that's a different story.
 
I owned an SR45 for about two weeks. I was not impressed. While I say that I don't particularly care for the M&P pistols either...Both companies use MIM parts. As far as comparing apple to apples. Give me the S&W 1911 over the Ruger 1911. I know it comes with a $300 higher price tag, but just my opinion. This is coming from someone that loves the Ruger 1911 and think it is the best pistol in Rugers lineup (IMHO) I have not been impressed with either company's ventures outside of their AR's or 1911's.

The wheel guns though, I like the fit and finish on the S&W's more. I think both companies need to get their act together as far as QC. I have seen flaws in new firearms that would have been unacceptable 20 years ago. But hands down when it comes to the rimfire pistols, Ruger still is king (IMO) with the MkIII(MkII is still my favorite).
 
Last edited:
I have a 2006 M77. It's a fantastic rifle. It will shoot MOA and slightly under with good factory ammo. Haven't seen a group bigger than 1.3 MOA with mediocre factory ammo. I haven't tried handloads yet, nor have I tried extremely cheap ammo yet. Good quality all around. My only small complaint is the trigger, which is tolerable, but not fantastic. (easily upgraded)

I don't own any S&W's they've always seemed like decent guns but it seems like Ruger has more "bang for your buck" than S&W
 
I have both and I ain't complaining...

You get what you pay for -
attachment.php
 
Dollar for dollar, you get more from a new gun with Ruger. S&W has cheapened their guns with MIM parts
Click to expand...

Ruger also uses MIM, so I guess that means they have also cheapened their guns. They ALL have to meet demand - they build the guns only as good as they need to - no more, no less. Besides, Ruger's casting means a heavier gun (which many liken to be built like a tank) to get the same strength as the S&W.

Personally, I feel Ruger started cheapening their guns when they discontinued the Security Six and cousins for their "new" offerings
 
Personally, I feel Ruger started cheapening their guns when they discontinued the Security Six and cousins for their "new" offerings
Click to expand...

Don't know if I'd go quite that far, but discontinuing the Security Six/Speed Six was as big a mistake in my opinion as Smith dropping the M19. I had a Security Six for a while--well-used when I bought it--that was a fine, solid revolver. I'm a great fan of Smith K-frames, but that was a sweet gun. Wish I hadn't sold it.
 
My two cents

Interesting discussion. My very first firearm I purchased for myself was a Ruger P90, and that was in 1995. (I think)
The last two I have purchased and one of those I actually picked up today, are S&W's. I picked up a M&P 40c today, cannot wait to fire it. Before that I got a S&W 686 6", bought that one around Christmas time. I love that one, probably my all time favorite.
I called Ruger customer service last year for the P90, they were very friendly. I sent it to them, they replaced a part free of charge and shipped it back to me for free. I have never had to call S&W yet.
I cannot say which is better quality, but if I had to make a choice. I would stick with S&W. Reason is rugers cost as much as S&W's now, and I have heard more problems and complaints (not a-lot but more than S&W) with rugers.
But I don't have to make that choice, I will just buy what I like. Not that it matters, but I am planning on making my next upcoming purchase a Umberti.

Ruger or S&W they are both good

Thanks

Jay
 
Why were there only 2 Rugers in last years IDPA World Shoot vs 113 S&W's (revolvers and autos)?

2 Ruger revolvers (only Rugers there - zero autos) vs 26 S&W revolvers.

Do you think it's because the world-class competitors prefer lower-quality guns?
Click to expand...
That's always an interesting example and often thrown in without any scrutiny. Fact is, S&W's have better actions, always have. They are better suited to fast action work and that is it. MIM technology makes for easier parts swaps and factory sponsorship certainly doesn't hurt. That doesn't make S&W's better, not by a long shot. Just different.

Look guys, I don't have an axe to grind. I don't have a late model DA from either maker so I really don't have a dog in this fight. I try to judge them based on their own merit, not my feelings. I'm a sixgun enthusiast, not a fanboy. Based on nearly 30yrs of experience of buying and selling dozens of revolvers and a couple hundred thousand rounds downrange, my impression of new S&W's is that they are no longer a step up from Ruger. They are comparable at best and still cost more. Ruger has always been a good working gun for the working man at working man prices. S&W has always been the more refined thoroughbred. I just don't believe that to be the case any more. S&W is still a more refined design, it's the execution I find to be lacking. Not to even get into the infernal lock. I have a bunch of older S&W's and consider them to be superior in every way. I would rather PAY for a Bangor-Punta era S&W than take a FREE new one.

Of course, anyone who owns a new S&W feels the need to defend them. So be it.

The Security, Speed and Service Sixes were good guns but discontinued because they were too expensive to manufacture. The GP, SP and Super Redhawk designs are easier to manufacture and thus, more profitable.
 
Well said newfrontier45.

Heck, last time I did a hands on, side by side comparo Taurus had surpassed S&W quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top