Ruger vs S&W Revolvers. Which is better?
- Thread starter freenokia
- Start date
I love my two Ruger's I have. The SP101 & GP100. That said I would not give you 2 cents for a s&w with that dumb ass lock! I do have an old mold#36 s&w its ok does not have that dumb lock. I would never buy ANY gun with a lock like that. But thats just me I wont let them ram it down on me & make me pay for it.
I've owned both. I prefer Smith & Wesson, but that is only because I like the way they look better. I'm not sophisticated enough to tell one from the other as far as who has the better trigger. They feel different, not better or worse. If one shoots better than the other, I'm not good enough to tell it. I don't worry about which one is stronger because I'm not going to load anything hot enough to tell the difference. There is no chance on this earth that I'd ever wear either one out.
Neither one of them has made a lot of (centerfire) guns in the last 30 years that I'm interested in, but Smith & Wesson has made more. I do have a couple of newer Smiths from the 80's and 90's, but they are still the "classic" style.
The Ruger GP 100 or the Sp 101 have never interested me for some reason. To be fair neither have the "L" frame (586/686) or the "J" frame Smith & Wessons. Nothing wrong with them. They just don't appeal to me.
Sorry to the Ruger fans, but I've never seen a Ruger that looked like this.
Neither one of them has made a lot of (centerfire) guns in the last 30 years that I'm interested in, but Smith & Wesson has made more. I do have a couple of newer Smiths from the 80's and 90's, but they are still the "classic" style.
The Ruger GP 100 or the Sp 101 have never interested me for some reason. To be fair neither have the "L" frame (586/686) or the "J" frame Smith & Wessons. Nothing wrong with them. They just don't appeal to me.
Sorry to the Ruger fans, but I've never seen a Ruger that looked like this.
LockedBreech
New member
Do you have any facts to back up that hyperbole, or just a very strong and rudely stated opinion? Not an auspicious first post.
I've owned both. I prefer Smith & Wesson, but that is only because I like the way they look better. I'm not sophisticated enough to tell one from the other as far as who has the better trigger. They feel different, not better or worse. If one shoots better than the other, I'm not good enough to tell it. I don't worry about which one is stronger because I'm not going to load anything hot enough to tell the difference. There is no chance on this earth that I'd ever wear either one out.
Neither one of them has made a lot of (centerfire) guns in the last 30 years that I'm interested in, but Smith & Wesson has made more. I do have a couple of newer Smiths from the 80's and 90's, but they are still the "classic" style.
The Ruger GP 100 or the Sp 101 have never interested me for some reason. To be fair neither have the "L" frame (586/686) or the "J" frame Smith & Wessons. Nothing wrong with them. They just don't appeal to me.
Sorry to the Ruger fans, but I've never seen a Ruger that looked like this.
That is a gorgeous wheel gun! I like the looks of the Ruger Service/Security Sixes, but wow, that one is a stunner.
L_Killkenny
New member
Agreed. I've seen some dang nice guns from both companies but some of those Smiths just define class. Unfortuntly, almost all of them that do that are from past generations. You go to about any gun shop or show and look at current models from both companies and IMO one isn't finished or designed any better looking then the other.
I'm a Ruger fan myself. They've made their niche by producing working man's guns. Do I honestly think they are as good or as classy as the Smiths? Heck no. But I can get close enough without spending as much to make me happy.
Pick your poison and dance with who brung ya. Both will dance just fine.
Gats Italian
New member
When even the most "fixer upper" Bangor Punta era S&Ws are coveted over the modern ones, the company has an image problem with its new models.
Yes, that's a 3", 27-2 from IIRC, 1978. I've owned a lot of other ones over the years, including a "pre-27" but this one is the only one I kept when I reduced my inventory.
The biggest reason I don't care for the more modern Smith & Wessons is they're almost all stainless steel. I just don't care for stainless, no matter when it was made. I had both a 21-4, (44 Special) and a 25-14, I think it was in 45 Colt that I liked, but they got purged in the great drawdown. Both were "modern" guns, both had the internal lock and both were as well made as anything else I've ever owned. Shot just as well too. Both were made since 2000 anyway.
I'm not going to be drawn into another lock debate as I've already circled that tree more times than I care to remember. Instead, I will simply reiterate my point that one's opinion carries much more weight with me when said person refrains from sophomoric name-calling like "Hillary Hole" or "Smith & Clinton".
Ruger vs S&W which is better?
Better for what? Better how? This question is very important to me. I have to find out for myself. I have a S&W Model 57 but needed to get a Ruger Redhawk to compair the two. I just bought one. Now I will find out for myself. before I start, I am sure the deer, bear or intruder will not know which one dropped them in their tracks! The rest is just personal preference and thats it!
Better for what? Better how? This question is very important to me. I have to find out for myself. I have a S&W Model 57 but needed to get a Ruger Redhawk to compair the two. I just bought one. Now I will find out for myself. before I start, I am sure the deer, bear or intruder will not know which one dropped them in their tracks! The rest is just personal preference and thats it!
Currently I have a Pre model 10, and Pre model 36 Smith, as well as a 686+
Ruger Redhawk .44, and .22 SP101.
All are built like tanks.
All three Smiths have better triggers. Inferior Rugers? Probably not. But the fit and finish are better on the Smiths, as the price tag will show you if you purchase one.
Ruger Redhawk .44, and .22 SP101.
All are built like tanks.
All three Smiths have better triggers. Inferior Rugers? Probably not. But the fit and finish are better on the Smiths, as the price tag will show you if you purchase one.
New S&W revolvers come with a small key (some people describe it as a "skate key" because that is what it resembles though many younger people may have never seen nor heard of a skate key) that, when inserted through the hole in the left side of the frame and turned, engage an internal locking mechanism that blocks the movement of the hammer and thus locks the action of the revolver. With the lock engaged, the cylinder can still be opened to load and unload the revolver, but the trigger cannot be pulled, the hammer cannot be cocked, and the revolver cannot be fired. A description of the device can be found on pages 15-17 of S&W's current revolver owner's manual.
http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson2/upload/other/S&W_Revolver_Manual_01-30-2011.pdf
Sorry, I should have addressed this earlier. I like the Ruger Speed/Security Sixs also. Back when you could still walk into a gun store and buy a brand new one in the yellow cardboard box, I owned several of them. Not because I thought they were "better" than a Smith & Wesson, but because they were less expensive. I don't think I gave up anything to a Smith & Wesson back then. I don't think you would today either. The only thing wrong with them is, Ruger worked hard to made a worse standard grip than the Smith & Wesson Magna. They succeeded.
Thank goodness for Pachmyer.FairWarning
New member
For functionality, either is great, although in some cases Rugers may take a bit more extreme abuse (not enough difference to matter to most). Rugers absolutely have me won over with the Blackhawk series for vintage style and durability, especially if you want .45 Colt.
In terms of sex appeal and future resale value for most models, I have no doubt S&W wins hands down. You'll never see a mainline production Ruger having the kind of cache that old Smiths have. But since Rugers have less resale value, you end up getting lots of bang for the buck.
In terms of sex appeal and future resale value for most models, I have no doubt S&W wins hands down. You'll never see a mainline production Ruger having the kind of cache that old Smiths have. But since Rugers have less resale value, you end up getting lots of bang for the buck.
Microgunner
New member
S&W trumps Ruger in every catagory they mutually serve with the exception of that crumby little S&W 22a.
Rugers are over priced for investment cast in my opinion.
Rugers are over priced for investment cast in my opinion.
oldgunsmith
New member
The SP101 is definitely easier for me to hold onto & shoot heavier loads than the S&W J frame.