Ruger vs Smith and Wesson Revolvers
- Thread starter ATN082268
- Start date
Lost Sheep
New member
The never-ending question
I have owned a couple of Smiths and my friend owns a S&W 500 which he loves. I own one Colt double action revolver and several Rugers (SP101s, Sixes, GP100, Redhawk and Super Redhawk and three Dan Wessons (having stupidly sold my pistol pack a few years ago.)
Thanks for asking our advice. Here are my thoughts:
I have found S&W to have generally better double action triggers than Rugers. Single action, the difference is not so noticeable, but S&W gets the nod there, too. That is box stock. Polishing the action can do wonders for any gun.
But I prefer Rugers. Here's why:
I owned two S&W revolvers in my past. Model 28 6" Highway Patrolman .357 Magnum and a K-22 Masterpiece 6" 22 rimfire. When I took the sideplate off the .22, I saw all those small parts inside (comparing it to my Dan Wesson, which had about half the number parts as the Smith.) I lubed the inside lightly, put the parts that sprang out back in and never opened it up again. I traded them off shortly thereafter. The Dan Wesson, in addition to having fewer parts, seemed to have more robust parts as well. Ruger parts are even more robust than the Smith or the DW. I like that.
Undeniably, the Smiths are beautiful guns, but Rugers have their own style of beauty. And, "Beauty is as beauty does." However, My Dan Wessons have lock times that other guns can only dream of.
Nobody seems to ask about Colts, especially their snake series (Diamondback, Python, Anaconda). I have a Colt Trooper (.357 Mag) with a double action trigger smooth as warm butter and better than any of my Smiths or Rugers. None have had any action jobs.
Springs. The Rugers use coil springs. The Smith uses a single leaf as the mainspring. Coil springs are more durable. The Ruger Redhawk's lockwork is unlike any other revolver ever made. It uses a single spring to power the hammer AND the trigger return. This may make it a little harder to tune than a gun with separate springs, but if you like a unique gun, it is one. The Ruger GP100, Super Redhawk and SP101 use coil springs, too, but a different lockwork than the Redhawk. Ruger Sixes (Security Six, Service Six and Speed Six are Ruger's first double action revolvers and are quite strong .
On the strength question, about 25 years ago, S&W made a big deal about the relative merits and strength of forged frames (S&W) vs investment cast frames (Ruger). Yeah, forged has an edge in strength-to-weight and strength-to-size ratios. But that edge has shrunk and, considering Ruger's frames are one-piece frames without sideplates, the design was always inherently stronger (opinion alert). And Ruger doesn't just make Ruger guns. They make frames for other gunmakers and investment cast parts for many other industries. Bill Ruger was a pioneer in investment casting post-war and Ruger still is a player in the industry. Meanwhile, many S&W parts are using MIM Casting technology. Go figure.
Anyhow, a little extra weight has its own advantage in a heavy-recoiling gun.
Happy shooting.
Lost Sheep
I have owned a couple of Smiths and my friend owns a S&W 500 which he loves. I own one Colt double action revolver and several Rugers (SP101s, Sixes, GP100, Redhawk and Super Redhawk and three Dan Wessons (having stupidly sold my pistol pack a few years ago.)
Thanks for asking our advice. Here are my thoughts:
I have found S&W to have generally better double action triggers than Rugers. Single action, the difference is not so noticeable, but S&W gets the nod there, too. That is box stock. Polishing the action can do wonders for any gun.
But I prefer Rugers. Here's why:
I owned two S&W revolvers in my past. Model 28 6" Highway Patrolman .357 Magnum and a K-22 Masterpiece 6" 22 rimfire. When I took the sideplate off the .22, I saw all those small parts inside (comparing it to my Dan Wesson, which had about half the number parts as the Smith.) I lubed the inside lightly, put the parts that sprang out back in and never opened it up again. I traded them off shortly thereafter. The Dan Wesson, in addition to having fewer parts, seemed to have more robust parts as well. Ruger parts are even more robust than the Smith or the DW. I like that.
Undeniably, the Smiths are beautiful guns, but Rugers have their own style of beauty. And, "Beauty is as beauty does." However, My Dan Wessons have lock times that other guns can only dream of.
Nobody seems to ask about Colts, especially their snake series (Diamondback, Python, Anaconda). I have a Colt Trooper (.357 Mag) with a double action trigger smooth as warm butter and better than any of my Smiths or Rugers. None have had any action jobs.
Springs. The Rugers use coil springs. The Smith uses a single leaf as the mainspring. Coil springs are more durable. The Ruger Redhawk's lockwork is unlike any other revolver ever made. It uses a single spring to power the hammer AND the trigger return. This may make it a little harder to tune than a gun with separate springs, but if you like a unique gun, it is one. The Ruger GP100, Super Redhawk and SP101 use coil springs, too, but a different lockwork than the Redhawk. Ruger Sixes (Security Six, Service Six and Speed Six are Ruger's first double action revolvers and are quite strong .
On the strength question, about 25 years ago, S&W made a big deal about the relative merits and strength of forged frames (S&W) vs investment cast frames (Ruger). Yeah, forged has an edge in strength-to-weight and strength-to-size ratios. But that edge has shrunk and, considering Ruger's frames are one-piece frames without sideplates, the design was always inherently stronger (opinion alert). And Ruger doesn't just make Ruger guns. They make frames for other gunmakers and investment cast parts for many other industries. Bill Ruger was a pioneer in investment casting post-war and Ruger still is a player in the industry. Meanwhile, many S&W parts are using MIM Casting technology. Go figure.
Anyhow, a little extra weight has its own advantage in a heavy-recoiling gun.
Happy shooting.
Lost Sheep
I've owned both. As well as Colts, Dan Wessons, Taurus, and several other revolver manufacturers offerings.
I prefer Smith & Wesson, but I freely admit that it's a matter of looks more than anything else. A Smith & Wesson probably has a better trigger, but to tell you the honest truth, I really can't tell a lot of difference in them stock out of the box. At least not enough to say I like one better than the other. They're just different.
Rugers might be stronger. Doesn't matter to me. I don't hot load ammo, and I'll never shoot any gun enough to worry about wearing it out <shrugs>. Toss up there.
So it comes back to looks for me. I think the current Ruger D/A revolvers are ugly. They are great guns, no doubt, but I look at my guns a lot more than I shoot them. I'll never buy a GP 100, Redhawk/SuperRedhawk/SP 100 for that reason and that reason only.
Oh...I said I had owned Rugers, and I have. The old Speed/Security-Six models. If Ruger still made those, the choice would be a lot harder.
I prefer Smith & Wesson, but I freely admit that it's a matter of looks more than anything else. A Smith & Wesson probably has a better trigger, but to tell you the honest truth, I really can't tell a lot of difference in them stock out of the box. At least not enough to say I like one better than the other. They're just different.
Rugers might be stronger. Doesn't matter to me. I don't hot load ammo, and I'll never shoot any gun enough to worry about wearing it out <shrugs>. Toss up there.
So it comes back to looks for me. I think the current Ruger D/A revolvers are ugly. They are great guns, no doubt, but I look at my guns a lot more than I shoot them. I'll never buy a GP 100, Redhawk/SuperRedhawk/SP 100 for that reason and that reason only.
Oh...I said I had owned Rugers, and I have. The old Speed/Security-Six models. If Ruger still made those, the choice would be a lot harder.
I also have owned a M-17.22 and a m-28 with a 6" barrel and still have them. If I only fired 1,000 rds a year out of the M-17 it would have more than 20,000 rds thru it, but I shoot more than than 1,000 rds. I've shot a brick at a session at times. (you should bring a brush). I purchased my first Smith in 1970, a 3" M-36 with a coil main spring and have owned many Smiths since. I currently own six Smith revolvers. I have never 'broke' one. I have never heard of a main spring breaking, altho I'm pretty sure it has happened. I shot a friends early Redhowk and never had the urge to run out and buy one. I own three Colt revolvers and a tuned action is a joy but still not as good as a worked over Smith.
This is information only, but I have always preferred a Smith and Wesson revolvers.
This is information only, but I have always preferred a Smith and Wesson revolvers.
g.willikers
New member
It's Ford vs Chevy.
I've always preferred the S&W, probably mostly out of habit, familiarity and the large parts availability and after market sources.
I've always preferred the S&W, probably mostly out of habit, familiarity and the large parts availability and after market sources.
madmo44mag
New member
I’m a Ruger guy.
They have proven their strength and durability.
They may not be the prettiest girl at the dance but they are reliable.
They have proven their strength and durability.
They may not be the prettiest girl at the dance but they are reliable.
Better trigger pulls on Smiths.
Toughest revolvers ever by Ruger. The Ruger will absorb more abuse than any other make of revolver and keep on working. This was proven by the Colorado State Troopers and some agency in Texas. Both agencies dragged different revolvers through the desert. Only the Ruger worked.
Toughest revolvers ever by Ruger. The Ruger will absorb more abuse than any other make of revolver and keep on working. This was proven by the Colorado State Troopers and some agency in Texas. Both agencies dragged different revolvers through the desert. Only the Ruger worked.
I have numerous Smiths and numerous Rugers. Both are superb, so any differences are fairly nominal in my opinion.
Smiths are the hot girl you try to date and make out with in the backseat of your car.
Rugers are the girl who you marry and who has your kids.
Just kidding. I don't think you can go wrong with either. In terms of looks I can't see how anyone can fault either Smiths or Rugers. My recent pickup of a Ruger SP101 .357 3" is a case in point:
Smiths are the hot girl you try to date and make out with in the backseat of your car.
Rugers are the girl who you marry and who has your kids.
Just kidding. I don't think you can go wrong with either. In terms of looks I can't see how anyone can fault either Smiths or Rugers. My recent pickup of a Ruger SP101 .357 3" is a case in point:
Whirlwind06
New member
I own both, I like both brands.
A couple years ago I checked out both a new GP100 and 686 at the same time. I really could not tell that much of any difference between the triggers. My older Smiths have better trigger compared to the Six series I own.
I think there is more that can be done to make a S&W trigger really sweet. The GP trigger work is pretty much fluff and buff, shim it and play with the springs.
I do agree that Rugers are stouter, but for most owners that will have very little difference.
A couple years ago I checked out both a new GP100 and 686 at the same time. I really could not tell that much of any difference between the triggers. My older Smiths have better trigger compared to the Six series I own.
I think there is more that can be done to make a S&W trigger really sweet. The GP trigger work is pretty much fluff and buff, shim it and play with the springs.
I do agree that Rugers are stouter, but for most owners that will have very little difference.
Last edited:
I think perfection in a double action revolver is the model 10
Not much has really changed since it was introduced. Ruger's have the benefit of about fifty years more advanced design, but that really was from a standpoint of easing manufacture rather than making a superior gun.
Both are premium guns and quite good.
Not much has really changed since it was introduced. Ruger's have the benefit of about fifty years more advanced design, but that really was from a standpoint of easing manufacture rather than making a superior gun.
Both are premium guns and quite good.
The Ruger really doesn't have fewer parts than the S&W, nor are they larger or more rugged. (Without counting sight parts, each has about 60 parts, with some variation for the model.)
The Ruger DA revolvers are very strong, but not really stronger than the equivalent S&W guns. The fact is that no matter what their respective fans may claim, both makes are good guns, and both will give excellent service, probably longer than anyone here will ever need them.
FWIW, I have never seen an S&W flat mainspring break; they are actually under very little strain. I can't say it hasn't happened, but it must be a very rare occurrence.
Jim
The Ruger DA revolvers are very strong, but not really stronger than the equivalent S&W guns. The fact is that no matter what their respective fans may claim, both makes are good guns, and both will give excellent service, probably longer than anyone here will ever need them.
FWIW, I have never seen an S&W flat mainspring break; they are actually under very little strain. I can't say it hasn't happened, but it must be a very rare occurrence.
Jim
Micahweeks
New member
I've owned numerous examples from both manufacturers. These days, I own more Rugers (3 GP100s and 2 SP101s and a Blackhawk). I've owned a 686 no dash and several 2 and 3 inch Smiths over the years. The Rugers, to me, seem to wear in better over time, but maybe that's just me. I've liked both. The Rugers "feel" sturdier, and those "Ruger only" loads exist which tend to make me believe there's at least some merit to the claim. But, I've been happy with both and wouldn't hesitate to buy either. I don't run hot ammo, so I don't worry about the fight over sturdiness. The rear sight on Smiths is better, though. I'd say that with confidence. The adjustable sight on Rugers can be kind of pitiful.
I've owned and/or extensively shot enough of both to be pretty well acquainted with both makers' lines (S&W J, K, and N-Frames as well as Ruger LCR, SP101, Security Six, GP100, Redhawk, and Super Redhawk). Honestly, while I prefer S&W, I freely admit that it's more a matter or personal preference rather than anything subjective as both are excellent revolvers.
While I don't think that one is necessarily better than the other, there are some rather tangible differences is their shooting and handling characteristics. Probably the most talked about is the trigger with many saying that the S&W's trigger is "better". While I don't think that one is necessarily better than the other, there is a difference that will influence opinions. The main difference that I notice is that the Ruger's trigger "stacks" more noticeably just before it breaks while the S&W's seems to have a more consistent weight all the way through the pull. Some people like stacking, and some don't.
Another difference that I notice is that the two brands seem to sit differently in the had. The Ruger seems to sit further forward and lower while the S&W seems to sit further back and higher. Which is better depends a lot on the size and shape of your hand and what sort or recoil impulse you're more comfortable with. I have large hands with long fingers and the S&W fits me better. My dad, on the other hand, has large hands too but he has broader palms and shorter fingers and is fit better by a Ruger. Also, the S&W, all else held equal, seems to have less perceived recoil but more muzzle climb while the Ruger's muzzle moves less but the recoil seems sharper.
The cylinder latch also works differently and the S&W's "push forward" cylinder latch seems more natural for my long fingers than the Ruger's "press in" type though both are quite easy to get accustomed to.
Finally, the two types to have a different appearance about them. I freely admit that a large part of my preference for S&W is based upon their look. Most people who know me would describe me as "old fashioned" or "old school" and the S&W's more classic lines just appeal to me more. Also, Ruger seems to have moved towards full underlug barrels on many of their models which I don't find aesthetically pleasing.
Most of the other things that are debated are, IMHO, overblown. While Rugers can, in many cases, digest more powerful ammunition than a comparable S&W, most people have no need for that level of power and won't shoot much such ammo due to excessive recoil and cost. So long as one stays with normal factory ammo (i.e. not boutique ammo makers like Buffalo Bore, Underwood, Double Tap, or Grizzly) and/or handloads within the parameters set by a reputable reloading manual, either brand will, by and large, digest more rounds than most would care or be able to afford to shoot.
While I don't think that one is necessarily better than the other, there are some rather tangible differences is their shooting and handling characteristics. Probably the most talked about is the trigger with many saying that the S&W's trigger is "better". While I don't think that one is necessarily better than the other, there is a difference that will influence opinions. The main difference that I notice is that the Ruger's trigger "stacks" more noticeably just before it breaks while the S&W's seems to have a more consistent weight all the way through the pull. Some people like stacking, and some don't.
Another difference that I notice is that the two brands seem to sit differently in the had. The Ruger seems to sit further forward and lower while the S&W seems to sit further back and higher. Which is better depends a lot on the size and shape of your hand and what sort or recoil impulse you're more comfortable with. I have large hands with long fingers and the S&W fits me better. My dad, on the other hand, has large hands too but he has broader palms and shorter fingers and is fit better by a Ruger. Also, the S&W, all else held equal, seems to have less perceived recoil but more muzzle climb while the Ruger's muzzle moves less but the recoil seems sharper.
The cylinder latch also works differently and the S&W's "push forward" cylinder latch seems more natural for my long fingers than the Ruger's "press in" type though both are quite easy to get accustomed to.
Finally, the two types to have a different appearance about them. I freely admit that a large part of my preference for S&W is based upon their look. Most people who know me would describe me as "old fashioned" or "old school" and the S&W's more classic lines just appeal to me more. Also, Ruger seems to have moved towards full underlug barrels on many of their models which I don't find aesthetically pleasing.
Most of the other things that are debated are, IMHO, overblown. While Rugers can, in many cases, digest more powerful ammunition than a comparable S&W, most people have no need for that level of power and won't shoot much such ammo due to excessive recoil and cost. So long as one stays with normal factory ammo (i.e. not boutique ammo makers like Buffalo Bore, Underwood, Double Tap, or Grizzly) and/or handloads within the parameters set by a reputable reloading manual, either brand will, by and large, digest more rounds than most would care or be able to afford to shoot.
I like both S&W and Ruger. When I first started shooting back in the late sixties the only brand I could afford was a Ruger or H&R. I did not have much money back then. Colt and S&W were out of my budget. I have always considered Ruger as the "working mans" hand gun. They are reliable, tough and will normally last longer without doing internal work on them. S&W is my favorite as far as the way they look. When I was able to afford more I owned about twelve S&W revolvers. All different frame sizes. I liked them all but I still went to the range either with my Blackhawk or Police Service Six. I also had a single-six for years that I took to range along with the other two.
In the last two years I have reduced my collection from twenty five to four revolvers. They include my Blackhawk, Police Service Six, SP101 and my S&W model 10. For me I guest I am "old school". I like value and durability. This why I have owned more Rugers than S&W.
In the last two years I have reduced my collection from twenty five to four revolvers. They include my Blackhawk, Police Service Six, SP101 and my S&W model 10. For me I guest I am "old school". I like value and durability. This why I have owned more Rugers than S&W.
highpower3006
New member
I too, have owned both Rugers and Smith and Wessons. Both will do the job they were intended to do, that is, throw bullets down range. Personal preference being what it is, some like Rugers and others like Smiths.
You can't go wrong with either.
The argument that there are less parts in a Ruger than in a Smith and therefore less trouble prone, is somewhat specious as the S&W action is pretty robust in it's own right. The fact that the Ruger may be able to take more pounding is also largely a non issue and would be somewhat model specific. A Redhawk is a super strong revolver, but unless you plan on shooting a steady diet of REALLY heavy loads, an N frame Smith will last for years with normal use. A GP100 is no doubt a tough gun and will take a pounding, but to me they are somewhat homely. and I don't like the balance on them.
Heavy magnum loads are hard on your hands (at least they are on mine) and after the novelty wears off, it becomes much more fun to shoot reduced loads for general target shooting and plinking.
How they fit in your hand is something only you can determine and you will have to shoot both to find out. I have sold all my Rugers except for a Single Six and a lone New Model Blackhawk. All my double action revolvers are S&W now as they just seem to fit my hands better.
You can't go wrong with either.
The argument that there are less parts in a Ruger than in a Smith and therefore less trouble prone, is somewhat specious as the S&W action is pretty robust in it's own right. The fact that the Ruger may be able to take more pounding is also largely a non issue and would be somewhat model specific. A Redhawk is a super strong revolver, but unless you plan on shooting a steady diet of REALLY heavy loads, an N frame Smith will last for years with normal use. A GP100 is no doubt a tough gun and will take a pounding, but to me they are somewhat homely. and I don't like the balance on them.
Heavy magnum loads are hard on your hands (at least they are on mine) and after the novelty wears off, it becomes much more fun to shoot reduced loads for general target shooting and plinking.
How they fit in your hand is something only you can determine and you will have to shoot both to find out. I have sold all my Rugers except for a Single Six and a lone New Model Blackhawk. All my double action revolvers are S&W now as they just seem to fit my hands better.
bedbugbilly
New member
I have owned and do own both - I like both - both make excellent revolvers. My favorite DA Smith is my 1952 M & P - 5" - excellent shooter. My CCW that I usually carry is a Smith Model 36. If I didn't have that, I'd probably be carrying a Ruger SP101. My favorite SA is my Ruger New Vaquero. I own more than a couple of each brand and am happy with all of them. Ruger is rugged and they offer good customer service. Smith does also. To me, it boils down to personal preference, what feels good to you and what you can afford.
Pair of Dan Wessons, pair of Taurus, pair of Rugers and one Colt and a slew of Smith & Wesson make many range trips with me and every one of them has had many hundreds of rounds through them.
In the end, I like the Smith & Wesson revolvers the most because I enjoy shooting double action all of the time and the Smith & Wesson has the most consistent, predictable and enjoyable double action pull.
If it's all "looks," my one single Colt (six-inch stainless King Cobra) is probably the winner. If it's outright durability, I'm not sure -WHO- wins because none of them give me fits, but I suppose you could make a pretty decent argument that Smith & Wesson knows what they're doing because the oldest of the group is a 97-year old Hand Ejector and it runs always.
Accuracy? Dan Wesson has a phenomenal reputation, but I'm a little bit leery that my Taurus Model 66 might actually win the showdown if all of them are in the race.
But if we're shooting for cash on the table, I'm probably going to grab my S&W Model 10-10 with 4-inch heavy barrel, former issued Ohio Dept of Corrections revolver. The armorer who controlled this particular workhorse actually scratched/scrawled a three-digit number on the bottom outside of the trigger guard. Any gun lover would cry if they saw the tragic marking on it, but it shoots like a house afire.
In the end, I like the Smith & Wesson revolvers the most because I enjoy shooting double action all of the time and the Smith & Wesson has the most consistent, predictable and enjoyable double action pull.
If it's all "looks," my one single Colt (six-inch stainless King Cobra) is probably the winner. If it's outright durability, I'm not sure -WHO- wins because none of them give me fits, but I suppose you could make a pretty decent argument that Smith & Wesson knows what they're doing because the oldest of the group is a 97-year old Hand Ejector and it runs always.
Accuracy? Dan Wesson has a phenomenal reputation, but I'm a little bit leery that my Taurus Model 66 might actually win the showdown if all of them are in the race.
But if we're shooting for cash on the table, I'm probably going to grab my S&W Model 10-10 with 4-inch heavy barrel, former issued Ohio Dept of Corrections revolver. The armorer who controlled this particular workhorse actually scratched/scrawled a three-digit number on the bottom outside of the trigger guard. Any gun lover would cry if they saw the tragic marking on it, but it shoots like a house afire.