Revolver frames

This is what I was getting at Handy:
Ruger's chosen shape is both larger and heavier than S&Ws, as well as more mechanically advantageous
Click to expand...
"More mechanically advantageous" equals better design/engineering!

As to your allegations of "larger and heavier," when we check the detailed specs of each model (GP100 and 686 in their standard four-inch configuration), we the following:

GP100 - weight 40 ounces and overall length 9 5/8 inches
686 - weight 40 ounces and overall length 9 5/8 inches

So, it appears the Ruger is neither "larger" nor "heavier" than the 686, but the design is more "mechanically advantageous."

When you start comparing actual numbers, it appears that Ruger achieves greater strength (generally acknowledged) for the same size and weight of a handgun. That certainly argues for better design and engineering, does it not, Handy?
 
Titanium is very strong. It is also more brittle than steel, and will crack vs bend. Also there are dis-similar material issues as well. Mix ti and aluminum parts with the wrong lubricants, and they bond together! I think this is a non-issue in handguns however. As we say in the bicycle world, steel is real! :)
 
Could it be that the ruger is bulkier but yet weighs the same as the smith because cast is less dense than forged?
forgings are cast before they are forged to make them stronger, then machined, then heat treated. It's an extra step to make them "compressed castings".
 
RJay- Please reread my post. I never said cast was no good. I said that pound for pound forged is stronger and I will stand by that claim. Cast parts are physically thicker and heavier to equal the strength of a forged unit. Compare a S&W frame to a Ruger frame to see this difference. The S&W can be thinner because it's forged.

I don't know anything about tanks or tubine engines. But if they use cast parts it's to save money and if they used forged parts the engines could be made more compact with the same strength.
 
Could it be that the ruger is bulkier but yet weighs the same as the smith because cast is less dense than forged?
Click to expand...
Or could it be that they really are about the same size, and the Ruger is not as "bulky" as you perceive? Could it be the steel in the Ruger (regardless of manufacturing method) is of just a little higher quality than steel in the 686? Could it be that the combination of the better design and engineering of the Ruger that Handy mentions coupled with slightly higher quality steel account for the fact that the GP100 is overall stronger and more durable than the 686? Maybe the real problem is more cosmetic/perceptual in nature (appearance) than of substance?
 
JC,

Why do you do this? You just compared two guns that are designed to be heavy with full underlugs to absorb recoil. But if we look at compact 5 shot .38s, we see that Ruger's smallest offering is 25% heavier than the S&W 37LS in all steel.

Mechanical advantage is one element in engineering. I listed quite a few other ones already. In this case, the HUGE design genius of the Ruger was eliminating the side plate. This was done in large part to make an easily castable shape. It is superior, but I don't think Ruger was the first to use this design. The S&W continues to use a very effective, if weeker, design that has worked well for more than a century. It isn't ideal, but it is effective, and may have something to do with why more shooters prefer the action of the S&W.

If the Ruger was "better", it would have the size, weight and trigger action of the S&W as well.


Jkwas, I'm surprised that a bike guy would call Ti brittle. It isn't. Ti bikes, in particular, have better spring and feel than steel, and also last longer because those Ti alloys can take more cycles without work hardening. Done right, Ti is a natural spring. I ride mostly Ti bicycles, prefering them to steel, aluminum and carbon.

Steel is real, but Ti is... even more real.
 
I would go right past the ruger and head for the taurus or smith, which is also forged. I have more faith in forged than cast
Click to expand...
funny I have no faith in tuarus. stake my life on a ruger.
 
You just compared two guns that are designed to be heavy with full underlugs to absorb recoil.
Click to expand...
Primarily because I was thinking about the GP100 and 686--and you and no one else identified any specific models--just the generalization that Rugers are heavier and bigger (which is clearly not the case).

BTW, when I compare the SP101 to the Model 60 (a far more apt comparison than the one you chose to make), there is a 3.0 oz difference in weight (25.5 vs. 22.5)--about half you quoted 25% difference in weight (and at least some of that weight is accounted for in an extra 1/8 inch of barrel and a more robust cylinder. I don't think anyone has any doubt the SP101 will hold up far better to a steady diet of hot .357 Magnum loads than the Model 60.
 
Keep it coming

This is great! :) I was so tired of caliber wars. Time for a truce. :p

ps. Handy, I ride steel and carbon, but I wouldn't turn down a Ti bike, Especially that Litespeed blue ridge!;)
I have a taurus and a ruger, I plan on a smith and wesson soon, and probably a rossi for good measure.
Hope I didn't offend anybody too much.:)
 
The model 60 is another 2 oz heavier because it has a larger grip frame than the 37. The Ruger doesn't even have a grip frame!

The generalization works until either company purposely hangs an extra weight on it. You just happened to choose the 686, instead of the 620, which has no full underlug and is 37 oz, right? Right.

And an SP-101 will take more .357 shooting, if it is chambered for it. But the numbers I quoted were for the .38 +P only version. The lightest, smallest 5 shot compact Ruger makes, and it is 25% heavier than the lightest all steel S&W, and still heavier than the eqivalent Smith with a full underlug (model 60).


This is a general trend, as Ruger's auto pistols have enormous, heavy cast slides and frames, too.



Jkwas, I've got two Lightspeeds. Wouldn't buy a carbon frame - hate to wear out bikes and carbon still delaminates with time and use.
 
You just happened to choose the 686, instead of the 620, which has no full underlug and is 37 oz, right?
Click to expand...
Nope, I chose the 686 because it is the most similar to the GP100 (and its direct competitor for the past twenty years)--Ruger currently only catalogs a GP100 with a full underlug. Unlike you, I did select similar models and did not attempt to fudge the figures. The SP101 and Model 60 are similar models (even though the SP101 has a slightly longer barrel is much stronger than the Model 60). BTW, most see SP101's (and GP100's) lack of a grip frame as evidence of a better (and stronger) design.

When we get right down to comparing similar weapons (and there's not a whole lot of them), when it comes down the weight and size of the frames, there's not a whole lot of difference between Ruger and S&W.

I think you pretty well summed up the original intent of my involvement when you made the following statement:
The S&W continues to use a very effective, if weeker, design
Click to expand...
 
What does the grip frame have to do with the ability to fire heavy cartridges? It's for attaching the grip, which Ruger does with a screw, instead. Yet, their guns are still the same OR heavier, despite missing this big chunk of steel.
 
Handy, it has absolutely nothing do with the ability to fire cartridges, but it is generally considered a design improvement. Having both, I'm not sure there is any less steel in the Ruger than the S&W--it is just shaped differently with the S&W appearing bigger because there is a lot more empty space in the S&W grip frame.
 
The Ruger has a grip frame. It is designed differently than the grip frame of a S&W in that there's not a backstrap or frontstrap per se. I'm not sure there's any less steel in the Ruger grip frame than in the S&W grip frame--it's just shaped differently.

We can go on splitting hairs for a half dozen pages, Handy, or you can face the fact that you made a couple of sweeping generalizations. One of which was correct (but you don't like):
Ruger frames are stronger because of their shape. Period.
Click to expand...
and one of which wrong, and you cannot support:
they are heavier and larger
Click to expand...
When we compare similar, competing models like the GP100 and 686, we do indeed find out the Ruger design is stronger (or the S&W is "a very effective, if weeker [sic], design"), and that there is NO difference in weight and size.
 
Last edited:
OBTW Handy the 60 is heavier thatn the 37 because th 37 is aluminum and the 60 is SS.


Hey guys If you ever get a chance to look at a cast piston rod and a forged piston rod you will see that you are both saying the same thing. just from different sides.

A forged piece will be a little more sleek than a cast piece for the same strength with the same materials.
Both types will have a grain to them and how the piece is forged or cast will determine what type of grain it will have. A forged piece can force the grain to follow certain portions of the item. A good casting will have the pouring sprew and risers positioned in the right places and it will have some of the grain characteristics due to casting flow, it will just not have the compression that a forged piece has.
 
That was a mistype on my part. The model I was speaking of was the 36LS, which is 20 oz, or 5 oz. less than the Ruger. The 37 is 15 oz., but made of aluminum.

The numbers were right, the model wrong.


I could have brought up the 60LS, which has the full underlug of the regular 60, but weighs 21.5 oz.
 
I think we all know Rossi makes the best and strongest revolvers......


Just kidding - from jkwas' original post you had to know this was going to become a S&W v. Ruger debate.

Carry on gentlmen....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top