Ruger Stronger Than S&W?????

J

justicentyme

Inactive
On occasion I read someone here or elsewhere state that a Ruger is stronger than a comparable S&W, that it will last longer and that it can digest hotter loads better.
In one recent thread it is a GP100 being compared to a S&W 686.
Another recent thread compares a S&W 640 to a Ruger SP101.
I am wondering where those who make those statements get their FACTS?
Is it because the Rugers are bigger physically that people believe this?
I would think that most people who have been around firearms for any length of time would be aware that a forging is much stronger than an investments casting and that size is NO indication of strength in a handgun.
In 1986 when Ruger introduced the GP100 they ran an ad in some of the gun magazines where they showed the bare frame of a GP100 next to a S&W L-Frame. In the ad they made the claim that the Ruger was ‘beefier’ and insinuated that therefore it was stronger. Some savvy ad man at S&W came quickly came up with the S&W ‘Burger and Shake’ ad. Ruger promptly stopped running their ad.
svr.jpg

(Please excuse the picture quality. The poster is almost 20 years old and had been handled roughly.)
In the last 35 years I have owned several of both brands. In the last few years alone I have bought or traded for nine Ruger revolvers so I have had some exposure to both brands.
If there are indeed DOCUMENTED FACTS that Rugers are stronger (not bigger) than comparable S&Ws it would be interesting to see them posted.
With the millions of pages of data on the internet it should not be too difficult to find evidence of the ‘Ruger is stronger’ statement if it exists.
Unsubstantiated opinions are meaningless to all but those who hold them.
Like Joe Friday always said, “Just the facts”.
Thanks
JNT
 
Im not a reloader but dont some or most manuels have "RUGER ONLY" loads?That in itself should be proof enough.Most ammo companys try out their new loads in rugers.Besides that poster is 20 yrs old like you said.Thats back when S&W wasnt using MIM parts,which ruger still doesnt.Im not knocking S&W at all ive owned a few and still have one.
 
Without really destroying the revolvers, we would never know.

Now if someone want to volunteer their Ruger and S&W for some destructive tests, it'll bring a closure to this issue.
 
More Data???

bishop1198
“Im not a reloader but dont some or most manuels have "RUGER ONLY" loads?”
Thank you for your input.
I am a reloader (since 1967) and I just took a brief glance at 9 reloading manuals. Of those five, 'Lyman Pistol & Revolver Handbook', 'Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook', 'Speer #11', 'Sierra Handgun Manual #3' and 'Nosler #4' call out Ruger or T/C Contender loads for the 45 Colt. This is obviously because there are many old and replica single anction revolvers chambered for this cartridge. Any high pressure load would not be safe in such guns.
I could not find ANY reference to Ruger only loads in common chambering. Could you please give me a reference for them?

“Most ammo companys try out their new loads in rugers”
Could you please share your source for that statement?
I am not making a dogmatic declaration that a Ruger is not stronger. I am merely asking for DOCUMENTED and VALIDATED data that supports such a claim.
Thanks
JNT
 
I have never seen any evidence to back up the claim that rugers are stronger than S&W. Regardless of what some reloading guides say. I'd really have to see some HP white or other scientific laboratory testing before I'd believe that claim especially in similar sized revolvers like the 686 an GP 100.

What I have seen though is Rugers, S&W and Colt revolvers blown up in reloading mishaps. When revolvers where king, up until the 80s, it was fairly easy to find a gunsmith or gunstore that had some example laying around with a blown topstrap, cylinder or both. No doubt by individuals that bought into the my gun is stronger BS.
 
I have Rugers and Smiths. Rugers are built like tanks. but there is one thing that both guns can't escape and that is top strap cut! Ruger did have a gun in 357 max. But the top strap cut was so bad they stopped making the gun. Top strap cut is from the gasses that come from the gap between the cylinder and barrel. The hotter the round the more top strap cut you get. All revolvers have to deal with this issue. I did read somewhere that a ruger in 357 max was only good for about 1000 rds
 
a forging is much stronger than an investments casting
Click to expand...
Not true. There are a ton of variables involved. Virtually any of these variables can have far greater impact on the strength of the part than whether it was forged or cast.

It's getting closer to the truth to say that if you use similar alloys and everything is tightly quality controlled, the forged part will probably be a bit stronger, but even that's not always true. There was a study done awhile back which showed that for some applications (rifle receivers was what they studied), the "grain" of a forged part provided a focus for cracking. In that case the practical strength of the cast part was actually greater. Also, I believe that Caspian Arms sells both forged and cast version of one of their parts (racegun frame) and notes that they have fewer returns on their cast frames.
people who have been around firearms for any length of time
Click to expand...
Now we're getting to the part of the statement that is the most true. It was once very accurate to say that cast parts were inferior to forged in terms of strength. So many people who have been around firearms for a long time probably still think it's true.

BTW, the S&W 686 and the GP100 are virtually identical in size and weight so the idea that the Ruger is stronger doesn't come from it's being bigger or heavier. This isn't really hard evidence, but it seems like I recall hearing that some of the smaller ammo makers use the GP100 to develop loads because of its remarkable strength.

You're on pretty safe ground. Not many people buy several guns and blow them up to see which is stronger. So you can pretty much say what you want without too much danger of being contradicted. Doesn't mean it's true, just that it's going to be hard for anyone to come up with hard evidence to PROVE you're wrong.

Here's my unscientific evidence. A friend of mine and I both bought stainless steel revolvers chambered in .357magnum. They were virtually identical in size and weight and were bought around the same time. Over the next few years I put a few thousand rounds of full power 125gr JHP .357 magnum ammo through mine. He put a few hundred rounds through his--some .38, some magnum. He returned his a couple of times for factory warranty service because it shot out of time. Mine is still in essentially new condition with just a touch of top-strap cutting. Cylinder gap & endshake are unchanged as far as I can detect and it's never hinted at going out of time.

Care to guess who bought what? ;)
 
JohnK,

I think your testimony of comparative wear is more meaningful to the vast majority of shooters than the actual results of destructive testing. I am more interested in the useful life and warranty experience than in how much powder I can pack in before it goes KABOOM!
 
A local gun shop owner here in Indy used to work for S&W. While he was there, they tested a Python, a S&W whose model he didn't identify, and a GP100. They made the hottest .357 loads they could make and tested all 3,trying to get them to fail.
The Python blew up first, followed by the Smith. They never could get the GP100 to fail.

That said it all for me.
 
A Ruger revolver would last nearly forever in my hands, simply because with the trigger that's on most of them I'd never shoot it.

:D

And remember, Ruger=AWB!


Larry
 
This IS NOT to slam S&W's, as they are great revolvers in their own right, but do any of the handcannon revolver makers use Smiths for the basis of their monster revo's? My understanding is that they either use Rugers or build from scratch.

The first .357 SP101s were .38s reamed out to take .357 cases. Try that with another make.

Again, the other makers build wonderful guns, it's just that brute strength is not their forte.
 
I am a big fan of both Ruger & S&W revolvers, yet...

First the facts:

From Speer reloading manual #12:

pg566. 45 Colt for Ruger and Contender Only.

"These loads are intended for use only in Ruger Blackhawk and Vaquero revolvers, and the Thompson Center Contender."

Personally, I think Speer, like most recent publishers of reloading manuals, are conservative in the loads they list. Their max load in this section is for a 300gr UCSP at 1193fps using 23.0gr W-296. Compare to the max load on pg565:

260gr JHP at 941fps using 13.0gr blue dot.

Granted, the load for the standard .45 colt is probably super safe in any modern revolver, but I also believe the max "Ruger only" load velocity could be bested by 10%, based on my experience.

Something subjective:

In my Ruger Redhawk and Blackhawks, the pawl cut is offset from the
center of where the cylinder holes are bored in the cylinder, unlike my s&w's.
A local gun smith who is highly respected says it makes for a stronger cylinder that is less likely to bulge creating an extraction problem or worse.
 
The Smith design has two problems:

1) The Hand Ejector pattern (ALL S&W revos) was invented before magnum cartridges. Smith merely adapts the over 100 year old mechanism to whatever comes up. The mechanism has a hard time holding together with magnum loads. Only so much juice out of that orange.

2) They can't change it. It's the action Smith fans love. I'm sorry but Rugers truly have lousy trigger pulls. I have a Ruger rifle that had a FOUR stage trigger pull before it got worked on. I (or anybody) can slick up a Smith in 15 minutes with no spring changes. I think Rugers need to go see the gun doc because of the nature of their design.

Smiths maybe weaker than Rugers (and they are also smaller and lighter), but when was the last time you heard of a Ruger in a major competition shooter's hands bringing home the gold? Ruger owns hunting and hot loads. Smith owns gun games and precision shooting.

Both have their strengths and weaknesses.
 
Rugers haven't always had bad trigger pulls and I've got 2 to prove it - a '72 Single-Six and an '85 Service-Six. The first came with a 2-pound 1-ounce trigger and the second with a DA pull of 7 (I need to go home and look this up, but I want to say it's exactly 6.75 DA on a Lyman digital and a nice light, 2.75 maybe, SA.)

I actually bought a reduced-power spring kit for the Service-Six a few years ago and it made the pull heavier, a lot heavier.

John
 
S&Ws do have very nice trigger pulls, but I have absolutely no problems with the t.p.s on Rugers. I don't find them bad at all.
 
If everyone else is interested why don't we just do a test. If we get enough people to throw in say $20 we can get an answer. Say a 686 against a GP100. I bet we can find an FFL that will sell them to us at cost. We will need around 1k to pay for 2 guns, shipping, ammo etc. That's 50 guys throwing in $20. Or we could do a 629 vs Redhawk or we could go crazy and all pitch in $40 and do both. I'm game on the $40 both deal, would like to see real world tests by real world people.

I'll even do the testing if someone can come up with the ammo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top