Ruger VS S&W newb questions.
- Thread starter Chainsaw.
- Start date
Ruger makes a stronger revolver , thats was not allways the case , they use a investment casting process unlike S&W that uses a machined billet of high tensile stainless . The nature of investment casting has improved dramaticlly over the years .
That was not allways the case , late 70's security and speed six line were investment cast , I don't believe they were as strong as the S&W were , I seen many a frame and cylinder failure in the early Ruger revolvers .
You can't go wrong with either company but if you are loading hot I would say Ruger .
That was not allways the case , late 70's security and speed six line were investment cast , I don't believe they were as strong as the S&W were , I seen many a frame and cylinder failure in the early Ruger revolvers .
You can't go wrong with either company but if you are loading hot I would say Ruger .
9x18_Walther
New member
That's good to know. I'm in the market for a 29 and as you described, the general consensus is that the 29-1s and -2s had some weaknesses.
When the first commercial Model 29 came out in 1957, shortly after they had to give the ejector rod a reverse left thread since the ejector rod screw would loosen under recoil.
Design era school of thought matters
you make some very good, and sound points, Jim.
Allow me to suggest we use "strength" for blow up, and "durability" for service life terms.
Allow me to add a couple of other points, for some background...
S&Ws are essentially the ultimate refinements of their 100year old + revolver design. In that era, people generally did not shoot the way we shoot today. DA shooting was (again, generally) considered "emergency use only". Rapid fire, particularly extensive rapid fire simply wasn't commonly done.
Some people knew, and did prove otherwise, but it took decades for these ideas to catch on generally, and when they finally did, lo and behold, SOME S&Ws had issues with the "new" style of play.
Big frame S&W have proven to wear more from rapid fire, get that big heavy cylinder spinning at speed, slammed to a sudden stop to fire, things get a bit more stressed than lighter guns (cylinder locking bolt, hand, etc).
Hell for stout working SA though.
RUGER designs are all from within the last 50 years or so. AND, designed from the get go to use Ruger's cast frames, etc. Yes, cast is not as "good" in some ways as forged, but cast can match forged in operation, when done right.
Ruger does it right. Bigger, thicker metal (to compensate for the weakness of the casting process) compared to forged, and if you are going to have to go bigger anyway, why NOT make it a feature? Rugers are overbuilt (some massively) AND, their internals were designed for today's school of thought, and shooting habits, having the benefit of being able to look at what S&W (and everyone else) did, and had done, for decades, and is essentially still doing.
come down to it, they are all machines. Beautiful machines, but still machines. And there is no free lunch. Use them enough and they will wear out. I never will, either brand. Most of us won't. If you are someone who will, get it tuned up, or replaced when needed, and enjoy life.
I've never been much of a fan of Ruger DAs, I like S&W more.
Ruger SA? best there is for me, better than the Colt, by far. (but, they're bigger and heavier!
)
I know you can wear out a S&W. It takes a lot (by my standards, but it can be done) I'm pretty confident you can wear out a big Ruger, but how many generations of active shooters that will take, I cannot say.
If that is your main concern, buy a Ruger. If something else is more important (and for me it is) buy what makes you happy. (also want to add I will not buy any of the S&W with the lock hole in the sideplate. I don't like the changed look, and I loathe the history behind it. Have several older guns that will keep me going until I take the big dirt nap for good, so S&W can do whatever they want with their new models, but until/unless they make them the way they did, I'm not in the market for any new ones.)
you make some very good, and sound points, Jim.
Allow me to suggest we use "strength" for blow up, and "durability" for service life terms.
Allow me to add a couple of other points, for some background...
S&Ws are essentially the ultimate refinements of their 100year old + revolver design. In that era, people generally did not shoot the way we shoot today. DA shooting was (again, generally) considered "emergency use only". Rapid fire, particularly extensive rapid fire simply wasn't commonly done.
Some people knew, and did prove otherwise, but it took decades for these ideas to catch on generally, and when they finally did, lo and behold, SOME S&Ws had issues with the "new" style of play.
Big frame S&W have proven to wear more from rapid fire, get that big heavy cylinder spinning at speed, slammed to a sudden stop to fire, things get a bit more stressed than lighter guns (cylinder locking bolt, hand, etc).
Hell for stout working SA though.
RUGER designs are all from within the last 50 years or so. AND, designed from the get go to use Ruger's cast frames, etc. Yes, cast is not as "good" in some ways as forged, but cast can match forged in operation, when done right.
Ruger does it right. Bigger, thicker metal (to compensate for the weakness of the casting process) compared to forged, and if you are going to have to go bigger anyway, why NOT make it a feature? Rugers are overbuilt (some massively) AND, their internals were designed for today's school of thought, and shooting habits, having the benefit of being able to look at what S&W (and everyone else) did, and had done, for decades, and is essentially still doing.
come down to it, they are all machines. Beautiful machines, but still machines. And there is no free lunch. Use them enough and they will wear out. I never will, either brand. Most of us won't. If you are someone who will, get it tuned up, or replaced when needed, and enjoy life.
I've never been much of a fan of Ruger DAs, I like S&W more.
Ruger SA? best there is for me, better than the Colt, by far. (but, they're bigger and heavier!
)I know you can wear out a S&W. It takes a lot (by my standards, but it can be done) I'm pretty confident you can wear out a big Ruger, but how many generations of active shooters that will take, I cannot say.
If that is your main concern, buy a Ruger. If something else is more important (and for me it is) buy what makes you happy. (also want to add I will not buy any of the S&W with the lock hole in the sideplate. I don't like the changed look, and I loathe the history behind it. Have several older guns that will keep me going until I take the big dirt nap for good, so S&W can do whatever they want with their new models, but until/unless they make them the way they did, I'm not in the market for any new ones.)
If you are really looking to go over .44mag, see if you can try before you buy. The Smith X frames (.460, .500 not sure about a .454) are BIG guns and IMHO not something you want to pack around on your hip all day. I am sure the Ruger counterparts are no lightweights either. It sounds like which ever way you go you want stainless.
Pond James Pond
New member
Big-bore, capable of throwing a heavy bullet really rather fast from a portable frame?
Redhawk 4" in .45Colt.
I have the same gun in .44Mag and heartily endorse it but if I could have found one, knowing what I know now, I'd have been very tempted to go with the .45.
If I'm not mistaken the , moniker Ruger-only was born out of the non-Colt safe .45 Colt rounds.
Compare:
I have a load that will throw a 300gr bullet at 1200fps (although I don't use that load). It is probably approaching max loads. I might be able to get it to 1300fps if I wanted to.
There is a TFL member whose Redhawk can propel a 340gr bullet up to about 1350fps. He (assuming gender) can do this with lower pressures than my .44!
Bigger bullet, faster, lower pressure. That is worth a look IMO.
It may not be a bruiser .454, .460 or .500 but it is still fantastic performance in a useable, real-world package. More useable than those big-shots if in a smaller package.
Now, if that doesn't pique your interest there is the .480 Ruger....
Redhawk 4" in .45Colt.
I have the same gun in .44Mag and heartily endorse it but if I could have found one, knowing what I know now, I'd have been very tempted to go with the .45.
If I'm not mistaken the , moniker Ruger-only was born out of the non-Colt safe .45 Colt rounds.
Compare:
I have a load that will throw a 300gr bullet at 1200fps (although I don't use that load). It is probably approaching max loads. I might be able to get it to 1300fps if I wanted to.
There is a TFL member whose Redhawk can propel a 340gr bullet up to about 1350fps. He (assuming gender) can do this with lower pressures than my .44!
Bigger bullet, faster, lower pressure. That is worth a look IMO.
It may not be a bruiser .454, .460 or .500 but it is still fantastic performance in a useable, real-world package. More useable than those big-shots if in a smaller package.
Now, if that doesn't pique your interest there is the .480 Ruger....
silvermane_1
New member
and as James Pond eluded too at the end of his post Chainsaw, the 480 Ruger, and in the Ruger Super Redhawk(the 6 shot model), is the most powerful 6 shot commercially made revolver in the world, because it can shoot 400+ grain bullets around 1300 fps through the 7.5" bbl., also i been told that the SRH can be loaded with 1 ounce(440ish grains, IIRC) bullets something that a 44 mag can't do (and 45Colt/454 Casull, IIRC), so the 480 is something to consider as well, also the 480 "eclipsed" the 44 mag as the most powerful round that the "average" person can shoot.
Pond James Pond
New member
I think this is the crux of the issue with .480 Ruger, based on what I've read and people's accounts. Its biggest advantage was also its undoing.
People think big-bore they often think .44Mag. If they think bigger-bore they probably think .454, 500 etc.
They get pulled in by the mad ft-lb, fps values where the .480 Ruger doesn't match up but may not realise that those same performance figures mean that the shooting experience may not be "very pleasant". They buy and shoot and think "WOW!! That is powerful. That is also enough for today: my fingers are numb"
The .480 appears to give the "That is powerful" feedback although not to .454/500 levels but the advantage is it is still in the category that you can shoot a few cylinders without adopting a rictus grimace before every shot!
Real-world experience trumps spec sheet figures, IMHO, especially when very little walks away from a well-placed .44mag to begin with.
I have had the privilege to run a few rounds threw a .480 and all I could say was wow ... LOL . That gun was a heavy hitter compared to my .454's , If I was in Grizzly territory I would have one but I stopped at S&W 500 is plenty of fun for me . Run what you brung and hope you brung enough .
Had this Super Red Hawk done years ago , I think Ruger copied my build and made the Toklat , I like my full barrel better than the sides of the barrel machined off .
Had this Super Red Hawk done years ago , I think Ruger copied my build and made the Toklat , I like my full barrel better than the sides of the barrel machined off .
Last edited:
Ruger Only....
You aren't mistaken, but you need a little more background information to fully understand.
Today, the term "Ruger Only" is often misapplied. If you wish to be correct, "Ruger Only" loads are ONLY in .45COLT. Not in any other caliber.
And while at one time completely accurate, today there are Rugers that will not safely handle the "Ruger only" loads.
"Ruger only" loads came along shortly after Ruger introduced the .45 Colt BLACKHAWK revolver. At that time, there was no REDHAWK, no, Super Redhawk, and no Vaquero or New Vaquero. There was only the (new model) Blackhawk.
Handloaders quickly found out that, compared to the Colt SAA, the Blackhawk was hell for stout, and would safely take loads well above the safe max for the Colt gun (and clones).
this data began showing up in magazines and reloading digests in the mid 70s, and by the 80s was actually being put in its own section in some reloading manuals. (Ruger & T/C Contender).
This happened because of the combination of two things, the .45 Colt cartridge had the physical room in the case to be uploaded above its black powder pressure origins, AND the Ruger Blackhawk was the first gun, bigger and stronger than the Colt single action to be offered to the general public in .45 Colt caliber.
These loads probably should have been called "Blackhawk only", but its a bit late for that now. At the time they were developed, the only gun that would take them was a Ruger, and there was only one Ruger that would do it, the Blackhawk.
As time went on, Ruger introduced new guns, the Redhawk, (later the Super Redhawk) and the Vaquero. The massive Redhawks could also handle the Blackhawk only loads, and so could the (original) Vaquero, which is essentially a new model Blackhawk with a Colt style fixed sight frame. The (original) Vaqueros use the same large (.44) size frame.
So now you have 4 different Ruger .45colts that will handle the "Blackhawk Only" level loads, and "Ruger Only" becomes fixed in the lexicon.
Move forward a few more years, and Ruger throws in a ringer, the "New Vaquero" in .45 Colt.
Ruger dropped production of the Vaquero (44mag size frame gun), and replaced it with the NEW VAQUERO, a smaller, Colt frame sized gun. The New Vaquero will NOT safely handle "Ruger Only" .45 colt loads!!! Even though is it a Ruger, it is not as big and strong as the (44 frame) Blackhawk and Vaquero.
The New Vaquero is considered to be in the same strength class as the Colt SAA (and clones). You can push a 250gr up to a bit over 1000fps (depending on barrel length) but that is about the MAX for that gun.
Ruger caused a LOT of confusion when they replaced the Vaquero in their line up with the New Vaquero, because while the names are very similar, the guns are quite different, something easy to see when they are side by side, but difficult to tell which is which in conversation.
Vaqueros say "Vaquero" on the frame. New Vaqueros say "New Vaquero" (both words) on the frame. But in conversation, many people only say vaquero, which, without more context doesn't tell us which gun they are talking about, for certain.
As to the .45 Colt matching the .44 Mag and doing it with lower pressure, this is one of (what I call) "tricks of physics". Slightly lower pressure per square inch / cm (or what ever unit of measure you use), over a bigger surface area (the base of a .45 vs. a .44 bullet) yields equal (or possibly even greater) overall force.
SO the bigger bullet (same weight) goes as fast, with "less" pressure. The "pressure" (total force or energy) is actually the same, but because it is spread over a larger surface area, it gives us a lower pressure number per square inch.
Hope this helps.
(and if you aren't confused enough now, I can keep going,...)
You aren't mistaken, but you need a little more background information to fully understand.
Today, the term "Ruger Only" is often misapplied. If you wish to be correct, "Ruger Only" loads are ONLY in .45COLT. Not in any other caliber.
And while at one time completely accurate, today there are Rugers that will not safely handle the "Ruger only" loads.
"Ruger only" loads came along shortly after Ruger introduced the .45 Colt BLACKHAWK revolver. At that time, there was no REDHAWK, no, Super Redhawk, and no Vaquero or New Vaquero. There was only the (new model) Blackhawk.
Handloaders quickly found out that, compared to the Colt SAA, the Blackhawk was hell for stout, and would safely take loads well above the safe max for the Colt gun (and clones).
this data began showing up in magazines and reloading digests in the mid 70s, and by the 80s was actually being put in its own section in some reloading manuals. (Ruger & T/C Contender).
This happened because of the combination of two things, the .45 Colt cartridge had the physical room in the case to be uploaded above its black powder pressure origins, AND the Ruger Blackhawk was the first gun, bigger and stronger than the Colt single action to be offered to the general public in .45 Colt caliber.
These loads probably should have been called "Blackhawk only", but its a bit late for that now. At the time they were developed, the only gun that would take them was a Ruger, and there was only one Ruger that would do it, the Blackhawk.
As time went on, Ruger introduced new guns, the Redhawk, (later the Super Redhawk) and the Vaquero. The massive Redhawks could also handle the Blackhawk only loads, and so could the (original) Vaquero, which is essentially a new model Blackhawk with a Colt style fixed sight frame. The (original) Vaqueros use the same large (.44) size frame.
So now you have 4 different Ruger .45colts that will handle the "Blackhawk Only" level loads, and "Ruger Only" becomes fixed in the lexicon.
Move forward a few more years, and Ruger throws in a ringer, the "New Vaquero" in .45 Colt.
Ruger dropped production of the Vaquero (44mag size frame gun), and replaced it with the NEW VAQUERO, a smaller, Colt frame sized gun. The New Vaquero will NOT safely handle "Ruger Only" .45 colt loads!!! Even though is it a Ruger, it is not as big and strong as the (44 frame) Blackhawk and Vaquero.
The New Vaquero is considered to be in the same strength class as the Colt SAA (and clones). You can push a 250gr up to a bit over 1000fps (depending on barrel length) but that is about the MAX for that gun.
Ruger caused a LOT of confusion when they replaced the Vaquero in their line up with the New Vaquero, because while the names are very similar, the guns are quite different, something easy to see when they are side by side, but difficult to tell which is which in conversation.
Vaqueros say "Vaquero" on the frame. New Vaqueros say "New Vaquero" (both words) on the frame. But in conversation, many people only say vaquero, which, without more context doesn't tell us which gun they are talking about, for certain.
As to the .45 Colt matching the .44 Mag and doing it with lower pressure, this is one of (what I call) "tricks of physics". Slightly lower pressure per square inch / cm (or what ever unit of measure you use), over a bigger surface area (the base of a .45 vs. a .44 bullet) yields equal (or possibly even greater) overall force.
SO the bigger bullet (same weight) goes as fast, with "less" pressure. The "pressure" (total force or energy) is actually the same, but because it is spread over a larger surface area, it gives us a lower pressure number per square inch.
Hope this helps.
(and if you aren't confused enough now, I can keep going,
...)All very good arguments. Ive considered all the major players EXCLUDING the 460 and 500 as I just cant do the X frame. Its just to damn cartoonish. 454 was at the top of the heap with 480, 475 nipping at it heels. BUT, for now Im stuck on 44. Now obviously 44 is surpassed by these calibers if one cares to go for maximum KO.Its this simple. I have the reloading gear and components for 44 mag.
Pond James Pond
New member
Oh, please...as if I wouldn't be able to follow.
It's all very clear to me.
For the New Vaquero .22Mag is fine, but stick to .22Short in the Redhawks....
See? Crystal!
(seriously though, thanks for the abridged story of Ruger only. Good stuff.)
A solid, practical and perfectly capable choice!
That bit is key. Yes, the various.45's, .475's and the 500 all out perform the .44 by some margin but that doesn't mean that the .44 suddenly doesn't perform: something the specs crowd seem to forget. (and goodness knows I often lose an hour or three scrolling through calibres on Ballistics by the inch or Wikipedia!!)
Yes, I like the .45 Colt's potential for equal performance with more mechanical sympathy and the .480's credentials and uniqueness, but I am far from dissatisfied with my .44Mag.
I love it to bits. Large, hefty, robust bits.
Last edited:
mark.sweetser.75
Inactive
As someone who has a 454- go with the 44
9x18_Walther
New member
As much as I would never purchase a S&W 460, I do see the convenience in it's ability to chamber .454 Casull and .45 Colt.
The only problem is I don't think S&W makes the 460 is a short barrel configuration (excluding the Emergency Bear Survival Kit). I'd probably buy one if it didn't come with that silly kit.
X-frames though are too big in any holster.
The only problem is I don't think S&W makes the 460 is a short barrel configuration (excluding the Emergency Bear Survival Kit). I'd probably buy one if it didn't come with that silly kit.
X-frames though are too big in any holster.
Deaf Smith
New member
Chainsaw,
I have 'em both.
In fact several...
Plus not in the picture a Ruger Toklat .454. Of the two S&Ws shown, one is a Mountain Gun and the other a 4 inch 629-1 in .44 Magnum.
And...
Another Mountain Revolver (.44 magnum) and a 3 inch 625-3 .45 ACP.
And of course my favorite.. My 629-1 deer gun.
.
Which are better?
Both! But if you want to shoot ALOT of big bore, full power, and often, I'd get the Ruger Toklat.
Deaf
I have 'em both.
In fact several...
Plus not in the picture a Ruger Toklat .454. Of the two S&Ws shown, one is a Mountain Gun and the other a 4 inch 629-1 in .44 Magnum.
And...
Another Mountain Revolver (.44 magnum) and a 3 inch 625-3 .45 ACP.
And of course my favorite.. My 629-1 deer gun.
Which are better?
Both! But if you want to shoot ALOT of big bore, full power, and often, I'd get the Ruger Toklat.
Deaf
DirtyHarold
New member
For either gun you get, 44 or 454:
Which gun will wear out/break first? Most likely the Smith, although it wouldn't wear out in this life time.
Which gun will wear out/break first? Most likely the Smith, although it wouldn't wear out in this life time.
I own two 454's, and ONLY because they're requisite tools, otherwise I would not own one, as they're too, too everything. I love my 1996 S&W 357 as its so well built its art, but that's as big and as far back as I can vouch for Smith. My Ruger could not see more harsh abuse and it takes the licking superbly. $35 for a box of 20 rounds....
Buy the one you like the best. Both are strong and capable. I'd go .44Mag over .454 based on your original post.
I prefer .41 Mags and I have owned a total of 3, all bought used, one a Ruger and one a Smith. I sold the Ruger and kept the Smith. A little more refined, a little better trigger and plenty strong enough.
Enjoy whatever you get.
I prefer .41 Mags and I have owned a total of 3, all bought used, one a Ruger and one a Smith. I sold the Ruger and kept the Smith. A little more refined, a little better trigger and plenty strong enough.
Enjoy whatever you get.
jackmoser65
New member
I can do better than that and put you in touch with a nationally recognized gunsmith who has shot a bunch of them loose.
Fact is, S&W 44's are fine for shooters who only buy them to make noise at the range and only shoot a few hundred rounds in the gun's lifetime. For those who are more serious about their big bores, their inherent shortcomings become clear in as little as a few thousand rounds.
I've never shot one loose because I don't treat mine like .44 Magnums. I treat them like slightly stronger .44 Specials.
You'll have to be more specific than "Flattop".