Ruger Stronger Than S&W?????

Screwed in ejectors and screwed on sideplates make the S&W weaker by design than Ruger's more modern, solid frame. That is not to say the S&W is weak, only that it faces certain design liabilities in terms of endurance that a Ruger never will. Now with MIM in their revos, Smith's ad about using "more expensive forgings" would be a laugher today

BTW, Ruger's IC process makes jet engine parts that are subjected to stresses far greater than any handgun will ever receive so I give no weight to the "forging is stronger than casting" argument.
 
I know more than just a few very revolver shooters who put handloads through their Rugers that they won't put through their Smith & Wessons.

A friend of mine has a hunting load in .44 Mag. that churns out 1,500 fps. with a 310-gr. hardcast bullet. He won't tell me exactly how he does it, but I'm pretty certain he's duplexing, or even triplexing, his powders.


He's got better than 1,000 rounds of that ammo through his Ruger Super Redhawk without any signs of undue wear.

The Smith 629 he tried running them through a few years ago didn't fare so well. It essentially started coming apart at the seams after a few hundred rounds. What convinced him to stop were the egg-shaped chambers...
 
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."
Click to expand...

The reason for this is that ruger was not making revolvers 100 years ago like S&W and Colt, and the folks at speer can't control what revolver some one might use like say a 1920 vintage S&W, or a 1910 Colt SAA.

Also note that these revolvers are single actions they dont mention that it would be OK to shoot them in an Sp-101 or a Gp-100 do they?????

When I compare my 686 and my sp101 or GP 100 I look at the thinest part of the frame which is where the barrel screws in and the topstrap above the forcing cone. There aint too much difference in thickness in that weak spot.

Every blown up revolver I have ever seen had the cylinder split and the topstrap let go, So I dont see how the presence or lack of a side plate makes any difference, all of the stress is at the junction of the front of the frame and the topstrap.
 
The sideplate allows the frame to flex more.

The Ruger Blackhawk is superceeded by the Super Blackhawk and Super Redhawk in strength.

S&W's use of a ball detent against the end of the extractor rod is not the best way to secure the cylinder yoke. The one used by Ruger or Taurus is much better.

If you want to know which is the stronger handgun, why not compare the manufacturer's proof loads. E-mail the manufactures and ask what pressure they proof test their various firearms.
 
The sideplate allows the frame to flex more
Click to expand...

Nope sorry I don't buy it Its gonna flex at the weakest spot where the metal is thinnest, thats where they always let go as well.

But if you have a pic of the back of the frame letting go on a revolver I'd sure like to see it.
 
Clemson,

I'll play...

I personally would rather carry a busted S&W than a brand new Ruger.
Click to expand...

Take them both out of the box, and after a few hundred rounds thru each... that's what you'll have!! :D
 
"Also note that these revolvers are single actions they dont mention that it would be OK to shoot them in an Sp-101 or a Gp-100 do they?????"

Uhm...

Given that the SP-101 and GP-100 are NOT made for .45 Colt, that's a rather moot point.

It also doesn't take into account the fact that S&W and Colt have both made .45 Colt revolvers after WW II, which are much stronger (heat treating) than their earlier counterparts.
 
"S&W's use of a ball detent against the end of the extractor rod is not the best way to secure the cylinder yoke. "

Technically, it doesn't secure it -- it helps align the cylinder. Realistically, it's not necessary.
 
People should quit bringing up the "reloading manual" statements. In the first place; the only place you see those warnings is on the older cartridges due to the fact that many old guns are still out there. The only thing that "Ruger warning" means is that those particular loads are only suitable for modern revolvers capable of handling the loads, and not old Colt single actions. When it comes to casting versus forged; there is no doubt that a forged part has greater density than a cast part; it is simply a porosity issue; thus the Rugers have to be made thicker to have the same (or more) strength than a gun that is forged. Which is stronger? Who knows and why should we really care? Both will work for their intended purpose. Personally, I prefer the trimmer forged product, and their triggers.
 
Cut from Buffalo Bore website

Heavy .45 Colt +P Printed Order Form


Item 3A: 325 gr. L.B.T.- L.F.N. (1325 fps / M.E. 1267 ft. lbs.)
(Big game up to 1000 lbs.) Per Box of 50
$59.99
Order Now! Per Box of 20
$27.99
Order Now
Item 3B: 300 gr. Speer J.F.N. (1325 fps / M.E. 1170 ft. lbs.)
(Big game up to 1000 lbs.) Per Box of 50
$59.99
Order Now! Per Box of 20
$27.99
Order Now
Item 3C: 260 gr. J.H.P. (1450 fps / M.E. 1214 ft. lbs.)
(Big game up to 350 lbs.) Per Box of 50
$59.99
Order Now! Per Box of 20
$27.99
Order Now
Item 3D: 300 gr. Speer J.F.N. (1200 fps / M.E. 959 ft. lbs.)
(Loaded to shorter length 1.585 inch specifically for Freedom
Arms Model 97 .45 Colt - Big game up to 800 lbs.) Per Box of 50
$59.99
Order Now!

These Heavy .45 Colt +P loads are safe in all LARGE FRAME Ruger revolvers.
(includes Blackhawk, Super Blackhawk, all pre-2005 Vaquero, Bisley, Redhawk)

These Heavy .45 Colt +P loads are NOT intended for the New Model Vaquero (small frame).

These loads are also safe in all modern Model 1892 leverguns
as well as all Winchester & Marlin 1894's
 
Buffalo Bore part 2

.44 Magnum +P+ Printed Order Form


Item 4D: 340 gr. LBT-LFN GC . (1478 fps / M.E. 1649 ft. lbs.)

Per Box of 20
$28.99
Order Now

NEW HEAVY 44 MAGNUM +P+

This new load is designed for only certain revolvers that have the cylinder length to handle it. They are as follows. Ruger Red Hawk, Taurus Raging Bull and Dan Wesson Revolvers. Suitable rifles include T/C Encore, "modified" Marlin 1894, Winchester 1894, any rifle with a falling block action and the Handi Rifle.

What do we mean above by “modified” Marlin? Marlin (for an unknown, not well thought out reason) is using a very slow rate of twist (1/38 inches) on their 1894 chambered in 44 mag. Because of this slow rate of twist, the heaviest bullet that the factory Marlin will stabilize is about 270grs. Other firearm makers that chamber for the 44 mag all use a much faster rate of twist so that their guns will stabilize and therefore accurately shoot bullets over 300grs. Many folks today want their 44 magnums to be able to utilize the heavy 300gr. and heavier bullets—Marlin has not figured this out. If you want decent accuracy out of our new +p+ load in a Marlin, it will need to be rebarreled with a twist rate of roughly 1/20 inch. I have Dave Clay rebarrel all my Marlin 1894’s with a faster twist barrel. A 44 magnum that wont accurately shoot 300gr. or heavier bullets is useless to me. Call him at 817-783-6099 for pricing.

You may have noted that we did not include the Ruger Super Black Hawk or the Freedom Arms model 83 as revolvers that we recommend for the +p+ load. Both of these revolvers are certainly strong enough for this load, but they have cylinders that are short enough to cause concern for this long nosed +p+ load. If you will take care to rotate any unfired rounds when you reload your revolver, you may use our +p+ load in these two revolvers, remembering that your failure to rotate the unfired rounds will result in crimp jump and will eventually tie your revolver up as the bullet nose protrudes beyond the cylinder face and hits the back of your barrel.

This load brings a level of power to the 44 mag. that has never before been known.

The below velocities tell the story.

5.5 inch factory stock Red Hawk--1401 fps
7.5 inch factory stock Red Hawk--1478 fps
 
No modern Smith & Wessons mentioned in there. If you go to the Buffalo Bore website you will also find that the 357 loads are fine in the S&W guns. The big stuff (44 & 45) are where they drop off.
 
Cut from Cor Bon website

CorBon has given the 45 COLT cartridge hunting loads worthy of the designation: Magnum. These are true high performance loads with the attached +P as an additional caution. In the appropriate modern hunting pistol, our .45 COLT Magnum lods give near 44 Magnum performance with markedly less recoil.
This is NOT plinking ammo, this load should only be used in those guns that have the steel to handle the power. Guns in .45 COLT that are built on heavy duty frames, such as the Ruger, Freedom Arms, Colt Anaconda, and Thompson-Center Contender will handle this load with authority. This load is NOT intended for handguns such as older Smith & Wesson, Colt Single Action Army, or the Colt clones imported single action revolvers. Common ense needs to prevail! THIS IS NOT COWBOY AMMO!
 
Again no mention of S&W

Guns in .45 COLT that are built on heavy duty frames, such as the Ruger, Freedom Arms, Colt Anaconda, and Thompson-Center Contender will handle this load with authority.
 
Older vs Newer S&Ws

Read Enhanced folks, the late production 629s (dash -4 and above) have the enhanced package as do later and rarer 625s. Linebaugh hiself has some extraordinary loads for the old long colt in the new S&Ws.
By the by John, your buddies over at sixgunner actually did a side by side Smith vs Ruger strength test some years ago using progressive hot loads......the ruger blew before the Smith!
Crazy hot loads like 454 Casull level in the Ruger Redhawk aside because only a handfull of loonys do that sort of thing, comparisons with industry standard pressures will/do show that both the N frame and the Ruger will normally out live the individual shooters.
 
"I personally would rather carry a busted S&W than a brand new Ruger."

Why not just put a brick in your pocket? It would be less expensive and more useful. :D

John
 
Read Enhanced folks, the late production 629s (dash -4 and above) have the enhanced package as do later and rarer 625s. Linebaugh hiself has some extraordinary loads for the old long colt in the new S&Ws.
By the by John, your buddies over at sixgunner actually did a side by side Smith vs Ruger strength test some years ago using progressive hot loads......the ruger blew before the Smith!
Crazy hot loads like 454 Casull level in the Ruger Redhawk aside because only a handfull of loonys do that sort of thing, comparisons with industry standard pressures will/do show that both the N frame and the Ruger will normally out live the individual shooters.
Click to expand...

Let's read John Linebaugh's own words off of Sixgunner's site shall we. I have included an excerpt regarding the above comments as well as the link to the entire article. Read at your leisure. Thank you.

This article contains proof pressure data from H.P Whites lab that Sixgunner used to test the Model 29 and the Ruger Super Blackhawk. Here is the excerpt:

H.P Whites lab reports states that the Ruger Super Blackhawk was destroyed in a controlled test at approximately double that Pressure. (80,000 CUP) The Smith and Wesson Model 29, also in .44 magnum caliber showed comparable results. Today we have stronger guns chambered for the .44 magnum (Redhawk prime example) but the Model 29 S&W and the Ruger Blackhawk gave life to the .44 magnum cartridge. The strength and design of these guns satisfied the industry at the time (1955) and the standards were set from these firearms.
Click to expand...

You can read on and see that John Linebaugh never mentions a S&W gun again in this entire article, but tells how he chose the Ruger Blackhawk frames to build his custom .45 Colt loads on that were producing well over 52,000 CUP and they handled just fine. With such a well respected and knowledgeable custom gun builder as this, when he chooses to use a product, it speaks volumes of his confidence in it. Keep in mind he could have chosen the Model 29. Here is the link to the article on Sixgunner's site:

http://www.sixgunner.com/old_model/linebaugh/dissolving.htm

After looking around I finally found a site for Linebaugh Customs on Sixgunner's site. Take a look at it, I can't seem to find the words Smith and Wesson on it anywhere. Here is the link:

http://www.sixgunner.com/old_model/linebaugh/services.htm

More of John Linebaugh's words on Ruger and Smith strength, the article is linked below the excerpt, please read it:

It may surprise many but the cylinder on the S&W .45 Colt is the same diameter as the Ruger Blackhawk. The webs (between chambers) and outside chamber wall are also the same. So basically the Ruger and S&W cylinders are identical in strength and dimension. We recommend handloads for the Rugers single action in .45 Colt caliber to 32,000 PSI levels.

While the S&W will take these loads safely such loads will greatly shorten the life of your gun. The frames on S&W are not heat treated thus are pretty soft. With loads that exceed what the gun can comfortably handle the frame stretches immediately lengthwise and then springs back. This all causes battering and soon your gun has excessive endshake. I don't know how long it takes to wreck a N frame S&W with heavy handloads but Jeff Cooper printed one time he saw a model 29 go out in the realm of 1,000 hot handloads if I remember correctly. I would agree that serious damage could be done in this amount of shooting with too heavy a handload.
Click to expand...

In general, the S&W may not be the strongest sixgun. We know other models will shooter harder and faster
Click to expand...

To read the entire article go here:

http://www.handloads.com/articles/default.asp?id=12

In the opinion of a custom gunsmith who knows much more that this lot, the Ruger is stronger than the Smith in design and build. I am sure there will be more comments from the Smith crowd, please enjoy and I look forward to the discussion. Have a great night.

.44mag
 
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."

The reason for this is that ruger was not making revolvers 100 years ago like S&W and Colt, and the folks at speer can't control what revolver some one might use like say a 1920 vintage S&W, or a 1910 Colt SAA.
Click to expand...

Master,

This reason would fly if Speer had not taken the time to write out which specific make and model pistols would safely handle this load. If a Smith and Wesson was capable, I am sure it would have been listed with it's specific make and model info. That statement was made to appease the lawyers and keep the company from liability regarding those vintage guns you described. Have a good one.

.44mag
 
This is a good heated debate. Though I like smith and wesson, and plan on getting the 327 model. (in which Ill shoot .38+p's, mostly) . I love all 3 of my .357 magnum revolver rugers. 2 1/4 inch sp101, 6 inch Gp100, and my latest 3 inch gp100. all stainless, reliable , tough as nails. I love shooting the hottest magnum loads I can out of them. even the little sp101.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top