Ruger vs S&W Revolvers. Which is better?
- Thread starter freenokia
- Start date
LockedBreech
New member
They both have outstanding reputations for customer service.
Texas Range Ammo
Inactive
the best advice was from stepmac
They're both great.
Pick the one you like. I've shot'em both,,, alot.
Get one,, but 2,000 rounds through it.
all good.
They're both great.
Pick the one you like. I've shot'em both,,, alot.
Get one,, but 2,000 rounds through it.
all good.
Revolver fans usually have both. The older Smiths were a little more refined, mainly because their actions required hand fitting. Rugers with their solid frames are theoretically stronger--but what'll blow up either one will blow up the other. A competitive shooter or commercial range owner who rents out both brands may find that Ruger revolvers will take more abuse or use before repair is needed. A steady diet of full house magnum loads in .357, .41, or
.44 magnum will cause either brand to wear rapidly.
So, in the long run, which will last longer? Doesn't matter because in the long run we'll all be dead.
.44 magnum will cause either brand to wear rapidly.
So, in the long run, which will last longer? Doesn't matter because in the long run we'll all be dead.
Both are great revolvers. Smiths often get the nod for out-of-the-box fit, finish and trigger, though Rugers tune up very nicely. Rugers are renowned for their durability, but Smiths are plenty durable, too. The bigger difference, IMO, are design differences:
1. Newer S&Ws use a single screw/plunger assembly to hold the cylinder/crane in, which is one of their weak links - with enough hard use & reloading, it can bend. Bend enough, and the cylinder won't shut, or will even fall out of the gun. I've seen both happen (though to be fair, it's been on competition guns that see lots of very hard use). The GP100 doesn't use such a system, and it's impossible to even removed the cylinder/crane assembly until the trigger assembly's been removed.
2. Another S&W weak link is their ejector rod: It not only turns as the cylinder turns, but it's also used to lock the front of the cylinder in place. If the rod gets bent a bit, even a little, it can bind against the retaining plunger under the barrel as the action cycles, which will obviously affect the smoothness of the action and the gun's accuracy. The GP100 ejector rod, in contrast, doesn't turn with the cylinder, nor is it used to lock the front of the cylinder. Instead, the front of the cylinder is locked in place by a mechanism that links the crane to the frame, closer to where the actual force is being generated.
Other GP100 niceties include:
3. Front sight: The GP100 (at least the adjustable sight version) comes with an interchangeable front sight. Some S&Ws come with interchangeable sights, but most don't. Though they can be converted, it'd take some milling by a gunsmith (read: time & $$) to accept the Weigand base.
4. Reach to the trigger: I'm going by memory, but IIRC, the reach to the trigger seemed shorter on the GP100, so one can use grips with a covered backstrap to reduce recoil, while still having a manageable trigger reach.
So, what are/were the GP100 cons?
1. Ruger won't sell certain parts, so if a piece of unobtainium breaks, you'll have to send the gun to Ruger for repair. and if you send it back to Ruger, they'll send it back in factory configuration. No biggie if your gun is stock, but if you've spent money to tune & modify it, it can be a hassle, I suppose.
2. Historically, the fit and finish of Rugers weren't up to that of S&Ws, and the factory action's typically been rougher. The good news is they respond well to some basic smoothing & tuning. I've shot several tuned GP100s that were as smooth as silk.
1. Newer S&Ws use a single screw/plunger assembly to hold the cylinder/crane in, which is one of their weak links - with enough hard use & reloading, it can bend. Bend enough, and the cylinder won't shut, or will even fall out of the gun. I've seen both happen (though to be fair, it's been on competition guns that see lots of very hard use). The GP100 doesn't use such a system, and it's impossible to even removed the cylinder/crane assembly until the trigger assembly's been removed.
2. Another S&W weak link is their ejector rod: It not only turns as the cylinder turns, but it's also used to lock the front of the cylinder in place. If the rod gets bent a bit, even a little, it can bind against the retaining plunger under the barrel as the action cycles, which will obviously affect the smoothness of the action and the gun's accuracy. The GP100 ejector rod, in contrast, doesn't turn with the cylinder, nor is it used to lock the front of the cylinder. Instead, the front of the cylinder is locked in place by a mechanism that links the crane to the frame, closer to where the actual force is being generated.
Other GP100 niceties include:
3. Front sight: The GP100 (at least the adjustable sight version) comes with an interchangeable front sight. Some S&Ws come with interchangeable sights, but most don't. Though they can be converted, it'd take some milling by a gunsmith (read: time & $$) to accept the Weigand base.
4. Reach to the trigger: I'm going by memory, but IIRC, the reach to the trigger seemed shorter on the GP100, so one can use grips with a covered backstrap to reduce recoil, while still having a manageable trigger reach.
So, what are/were the GP100 cons?
1. Ruger won't sell certain parts, so if a piece of unobtainium breaks, you'll have to send the gun to Ruger for repair. and if you send it back to Ruger, they'll send it back in factory configuration. No biggie if your gun is stock, but if you've spent money to tune & modify it, it can be a hassle, I suppose.
2. Historically, the fit and finish of Rugers weren't up to that of S&Ws, and the factory action's typically been rougher. The good news is they respond well to some basic smoothing & tuning. I've shot several tuned GP100s that were as smooth as silk.
A place Bill apparently avoids if at all possible.
I have both and would be hard pressed to pick one over the other. I guess if a model 19 and a GP-100 (or one of my security six's) were laying on a table and I had to choose one to carry while crossing the Gobi Desert Or some other out of the way place I would pick the security six or the GP-100. But a good flap holster would make either one OK for the trip.
Well only one of them makes both SA and DA so it is really no contest on which is better 
I prefer Rugers. Smiths have better triggers and the blueing is better, but I like stainless revolvers. I do not think the finish on the stainless ones are too far apart and I happen to think the six series Rugers are the best looking ones ever made. They "look strong and elegant"
I also like the fact that I can handload to a littler higher levels.
The reputation of both of them is great. So good in fact, I wouldn't use it in my determining factor. You will be taken care of with either
I rather have a stronger, more rebust investment cast than a weaker forged. I put function over outdated inaccurate sterotypes
I prefer Rugers. Smiths have better triggers and the blueing is better, but I like stainless revolvers. I do not think the finish on the stainless ones are too far apart and I happen to think the six series Rugers are the best looking ones ever made. They "look strong and elegant"
I also like the fact that I can handload to a littler higher levels.
The reputation of both of them is great. So good in fact, I wouldn't use it in my determining factor. You will be taken care of with either
I rather have a stronger, more rebust investment cast than a weaker forged. I put function over outdated inaccurate sterotypes
Last edited:
Ruger & Smith
I have one of each in 41 magnum; Love em both !!
Smith is dbl action, Ruger is sngl action
The Smith has a better trigger, the Ruger has a better grip.
Accuracy they are about even, I don't shoot real heavy loads, so recoil is not punishing
215 grn swc @ 900-1000 fps for plinking
215 swc @ 1300 fps for hunting and
210 grn jhp @ 1300 fps also for hunting
Great shooters and lots of fun !
I have one of each in 41 magnum; Love em both !!
Smith is dbl action, Ruger is sngl action
The Smith has a better trigger, the Ruger has a better grip.
Accuracy they are about even, I don't shoot real heavy loads, so recoil is not punishing
215 grn swc @ 900-1000 fps for plinking
215 swc @ 1300 fps for hunting and
210 grn jhp @ 1300 fps also for hunting
Great shooters and lots of fun !
If you buy an old revolver
and send it in which one will take better care of you? have heard a lot of good stories on the net about Ruger CS about old guns. As I say don't know anything myself but wanting a 1/2 lug revolver and found a M&P and a Model 10 used of course and missed a Security Six by about 2 hrs which I really wanted. Being new to handguns so if I bought one with a problem which would give me better CS?
Quote:
Which customer service is better? To me that means a lot. Never sent one back so far so I don't know.
Quote:
The reputation of both of them is great. So good in fact, I wouldn't use it in my determining factor. You will be taken care of with either
and send it in which one will take better care of you? have heard a lot of good stories on the net about Ruger CS about old guns. As I say don't know anything myself but wanting a 1/2 lug revolver and found a M&P and a Model 10 used of course and missed a Security Six by about 2 hrs which I really wanted. Being new to handguns so if I bought one with a problem which would give me better CS?
Quote:
Which customer service is better? To me that means a lot. Never sent one back so far so I don't know.
Quote:
The reputation of both of them is great. So good in fact, I wouldn't use it in my determining factor. You will be taken care of with either
As far as customer service, I can offer you examples of each. My first experience with S&W customer service was when I bought a used 1076 with a non-functional decocker. I sent it back to S&W and not only did they fix the decocker, but they also put a new set of grips on it free of charge. The second experience was when my 629 broke its firing pin shooting factory ammo. I called S&W, they sent me a prepaid FedEx label, and I had a fully functional revolver back in less than two weeks.
My dad has dealt with Ruger CS on his LCR. He bought the gun new and, when dryfiring, the trigger didn't always want to fully reset (he'd have to push it forward with his finger). He called Ruger and they sent UPS to the house to pick the gun up. Within two weeks, dad had a fully functional LCR back.
So, based on my dad and my experiences, I think that both have excellent CS and that in this particular respect, they're even.
My dad has dealt with Ruger CS on his LCR. He bought the gun new and, when dryfiring, the trigger didn't always want to fully reset (he'd have to push it forward with his finger). He called Ruger and they sent UPS to the house to pick the gun up. Within two weeks, dad had a fully functional LCR back.
So, based on my dad and my experiences, I think that both have excellent CS and that in this particular respect, they're even.
This thread is not going anywere. Between S&W and Ruger it come down to personal choice. Both are well made. Both have excellent customer service. I have both. Neither one is the clear cut best in my opinion.
When I started shooting in the late sixties a person had three choices. Colt, S&W and Ruger. The price of the Colts was way too much for my budget. S&W revolvers were great but I decided on a Ruger for my first revolver. Reason, great value for the money. Rugers are a "working mans gun". Its like picking a brand of car. Some people like Chevys and some folks like Fords. This thread has proven there is not a clear winner.
Howard
When I started shooting in the late sixties a person had three choices. Colt, S&W and Ruger. The price of the Colts was way too much for my budget. S&W revolvers were great but I decided on a Ruger for my first revolver. Reason, great value for the money. Rugers are a "working mans gun". Its like picking a brand of car. Some people like Chevys and some folks like Fords. This thread has proven there is not a clear winner.
Howard
I'd take a new GP-100 (or Redhawk) over a new S&W L-frame (or N-frame) but I'd take a pre-lock S&W over either. And for the folks who are so adamant on their superior moral high ground... it's not about the lock and it's not about the politics. The lock is simply a dead giveaway-like a neon light saying that it's a much newer MIM-filled revolver that simply doesn't arrive in my hands as as much gun for my money.
I owned one lock revolver and it was okay, but didn't rival any of the ones I've kept. I've seen a very good friend come up with a handful of lock revolvers and each of them is, IMO, inferior in double action trigger execution, every one of them. (the single action seems quite good...but I rarely shoot a DA revolver in single action)
As to the lock itself, it's almost hard to believe that Taurus implemented and executed a BETTER system for the same result than Smith & Wesson could manage. S&W should be embarrassed.
I'll also admit that like MANY folks, I'm nostalgic. Things from my formative years will nearly always hold a special attraction for me. So I love Smith & Wesson revolvers built from the early to late 1980's. They look and feel right to me. Earlier ones are terrific -- and later ones simply don't interest me nearly as much. And S&W revolvers with the ILS? They don't interest me at all.
I owned one lock revolver and it was okay, but didn't rival any of the ones I've kept. I've seen a very good friend come up with a handful of lock revolvers and each of them is, IMO, inferior in double action trigger execution, every one of them. (the single action seems quite good...but I rarely shoot a DA revolver in single action)
As to the lock itself, it's almost hard to believe that Taurus implemented and executed a BETTER system for the same result than Smith & Wesson could manage. S&W should be embarrassed.
I'll also admit that like MANY folks, I'm nostalgic. Things from my formative years will nearly always hold a special attraction for me. So I love Smith & Wesson revolvers built from the early to late 1980's. They look and feel right to me. Earlier ones are terrific -- and later ones simply don't interest me nearly as much. And S&W revolvers with the ILS? They don't interest me at all.
I own one Redhawk (1985) and one GP-100 (2010 or 2011) and I love BOTH of them, but prefer the double action of my K and L-frame S&W's, of which I own more.
The double action on my .44 Mag Redhawk is...interesting. It's got a nice, smooth, predictable DA pull, but requires a stiff tug to break. It seemed a bit odd to me, almost as if it was a bit abnormal or needed work. That is, until I tried a similar vintage .44 Redhawk owned by a friend, and his double action feels almost EXACTLY the same. When I'm used to it, I do fine with it.
The single action is also quite a tug, more than I'd expect from a DA revolver. But then...I grew up on K & L frames and all other double action revolvers feel different/abnormal/not quite as good.
The double action on my .44 Mag Redhawk is...interesting. It's got a nice, smooth, predictable DA pull, but requires a stiff tug to break. It seemed a bit odd to me, almost as if it was a bit abnormal or needed work. That is, until I tried a similar vintage .44 Redhawk owned by a friend, and his double action feels almost EXACTLY the same. When I'm used to it, I do fine with it.
The single action is also quite a tug, more than I'd expect from a DA revolver. But then...I grew up on K & L frames and all other double action revolvers feel different/abnormal/not quite as good.
Buford_Tannen
New member
I have to say Ruger & S&W each have pluses / minuses based on the purpose of the gun. My S&W 686 was smooth as could be new but the Ruger was a bit more jittery. On a single shot this really didn't make much difference. Both are keepers.
Dragline45
New member
I am going to have to lean towards Smith & Wesson, but I have absolutely nothing against Rugers. They both can get the job done, but Smith and Wesson's tend to do it with better triggers and fit and finish. Both companies make excellent guns so you really cant go wrong with either.
shootniron
New member
I like the look and feel of the Smith's better, but they are probably not the quality of the Ruger...with the possible exception of the 686.JMO
oldgunsmith
New member
The Rugers usually take more neglect or abuse & come out working. Not Rocket science. Compare the working parts inside & see which one, part for part, looks heavier duty & less breakable. If I only had one that had to last the rest of my life it would be the Ruger every time. If you want the most absolute reliability, leave the original springs in it. The only problems we've had on the range have been with aftermarket spring kits. They're more likely to go click instead of bang every now and then. If you're not strong enough to handle original springs consider doing hand exercises.