Ruger vs S&W Revolvers. Which is better?

I have several of both.

S&Ws are a bit lighter, can have their triggers DA pull tuned a bit better, and are slimmer.

The Rugers more robust.

For heavy field use I prefer the Rugers, for self defense the S&Ws.

Both can still perform the task of field use and SD.

Deaf
 
I think this is one of those questions that is too general. My choice would change depending on the specific model/caliber. In other word, it would be which specific model is best for me, both make fantastic revolvers.
 
Last edited:
Well, if we are talking single actions I have to go with Ruger. Not only does Smith not make single actions, but Rugers are really nice.

Double actions I have to give the nod to Smiths for fit and finish, but I really do love my sp101 over Smiths J frames. I think Rugers are a better match if you are using heavier loads more often.
 
I love both S&W and Ruger revolvers. If I were to buy new today, it would ONLY be Ruger.

I have had bad luck with S&W quality control on my last two S&W purchases. I have some older S&W revolvers that are butter smooth, but my recent ones left me fit to be tied.

My recent 627 PC 5 inch was shipped from the factory with a bent frame..! Yes, the barrel was threaded in crooked because the frame was bent. My 360 had a horrible timing issue. S&W fixed them both but it took over 60 days.

I have not a single issue with my recent Ruger purchases (Redhawk, SP 101). My LGS owner, great and honest guy, said he ships so many S&W revolvers back in the last year that he would personally pick a Ruger.

And yes, S&W triggers are smoother. On the other hand, you can make a Ruger trigger quite good, if not as good, as a S&W with a Wolfe Spring kit and an India stone. In fact, recent Ruger triggers are not as bad as they used to be.

The Rugers just seem to be built like a tank or a John Deere.
 
Personal preference.

In order :

Ruger
Everything else

S&W has no single actions, so have never went there....
 
OK, I'm stupid to the term. What's a "Hillary Hole"? I presume some kind of lock thingiemabob.
Click to expand...

It's a childish invective used by some to refer to the internal lock that S&W began incorporating into their revolvers in 2001. This was shortly after Tomkins PLC entered into the notorious "Agreement of 2000" with the Clinton Administration and the internal lock requires a small hole in the left side of the frame, hence "Hillary Hole".
 
I have both but I certainly don't like the internal locks on the newer S&W...I just find myself using my Rugers, SA as well as DA a lot more often.
 
It's a childish invective used by some to refer to the internal lock that S&W began incorporating into their revolvers in 2001. This was shortly after Tomkins PLC entered into the notorious "Agreement of 2000" with the Clinton Administration and the internal lock requires a small hole in the left side of the frame, hence "Hillary Hole".
Click to expand...

People are still beating the dead horse called Bill Ruger for his minor role in an equally dead AWB.

Smith's betrayal of the 2A lives on to this day. There is no reason for the Clinton era lock to be on those revolvers as S&W sells some snubbies using the lack of a lock as an attractive feature.

To me, that looks as if Smith likes the lock marring their wares.
 
SgtLumpy said:
Does Ruger engrave their "lawyer warning" stuff on their revolvers like they do on some (all?) of their other guns? For some that's a big turn off.
Click to expand...

Ruger has now switched the engraving to the bottom of the barrel. They have listened to the consumer, and made this change because people have complained about it.

I own both, and cherish both
 
I was making the same decision recently, chose the Ruger GP100. A shooting buddy has a nice Smith 681, wanted one too, but all I found were well used and $$$. Considered a new Smith 686, but didn't want to deal with the internal lock, removal, plugging hole...

Opinions were that the Ruger was good, trigger not as nice, but easy to improve with a trigger job. So I went with the Ruger, did a trigger job on it, installed lighter trigger and hammer springs, very happy with end result. In direct comparison with buddy's 681 at the range, I preferred the Ruger's DA trigger. Link to thread for details:

http://rugerforum.net/ruger-double-action/62312-thought-i-had-bum-gp100-did-trigger-job.html

Good luck with your decision OP.
 
codefour said:
And yes, S&W triggers are smoother. On the other hand, you can make a Ruger trigger quite good, if not as good, as a S&W with a Wolfe Spring kit and an India stone. In fact, recent Ruger triggers are not as bad as they used to be.
Click to expand...

I have a Ruger Security Six and really like it. I was thinking of getting a Wolfe spring kit for it to make the trigger lighter but I read somewhere that the Wolfe kit doesn't help the Ruger trigger nearly as much as it does the Smith.

Any thoughts?
 
I prefer Rugers. Generally I think S&W has better finish and triggers, but Rugers are tougher and while the triggers aren't generally as good as S&W, they're not bad either.
 
I have one of each and love them both...

S&W K-22
Ruger sp101

I got the S&W used from my father and he had purchased it used. It has a butter smooth trigger and is capable of shooting much better than I.

The Ruger was purchased barely used and the trigger has smoothed out through a lot of dry firing and putting about 300 rounds of live ammo down range. It is also a great shooter.

I don't think you can go wrong with either!:D
 
S&W-circa 1908 design and manufacturing techniques.
Ruger-1960s design and manufacturing techniques.
The Ruger is easier to disassemble for cleaning I found improving the trigger pull on my Security Six a matter of buying an aftermarket spring set and installing it if that is a consideration. I recommend getting one of each,shoot them regularly for say 10 years,then decide.
 
You literally cannot lose with either.

Here's some random thoughts on the subject:

1. The vaunted "strength" of the Ruger is merely it weighing half a pound more than the Smith. I personally have had 2 Rugers' timing go sloppy - one Blackhawk, one Redhawk. Also broke the transfer bars on them from frequent dry-firing. Why, you ask? They had miserable, terrible triggers, and I needed frequent practice to master them. I never did this with any Smith, because they had such great triggers to begin with.

Both Rugers were fine revolvers - but any revolver will need maintenance eventually regardless of make. Ruger saw fit to replace my Blackhawk's laser-accurate .45 Colt cylinder with one of their klinkers having the too-small exit holes, so it patterned like a shotgun after that. The trigger had become wonderful with use, so they replaced everything there too and it was once again like puling a hoe over gravel. I was so irritated by this behavior that I sold both revolvers. I finally wised up and bought a Super Blackhawk 10.5" last summer and it is the bee's knees.

2. The infamous "Hillary Holes" on my Smith and Wessons (boy does that sound mature) have never once caused a malfunction. Ugly? Hell yes. But you guys are going to the trouble of removing them? Really? I simply can't comprehend the tizzy some folks work themselves into regarding the former owners' political leanings. It's like the hubbub over the addition of a cross-bolt safety on a certain lever action rifle ... honestly, who really gives a crap. Seems like some gunnies have a borderline-OCD resistance to change. Would it be great if Smith stopped putting them on there? Yep! Are there tons of non-hole used S&W's for reasonable prices in my area? Nope! No real choice for me, so I just buy new and ignore the lock that I never use.

Seriously though, either gun is great and I plan on buying more of both brands.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top