Ruger vs Smith and Wesson Revolvers
- Thread starter ATN082268
- Start date
Driftwood Johnson
New member
+1
The much vaunted opinion that Ruger coil springs are more rugged than flat springs relates to single action revolvers like the Colt SAA. The flat springs that tend to break in that design are the trigger/bolt spring and the hand spring.
Other than the hammer spring, all the springs in a S&W are coil springs anyway. I too have never seen a main spring (hammer spring) break in either a S&W or a Colt SAA or clone. The only time I ever had a flat hammer spring break was on an Uberti replica 1873 rifle, and that is because Uberti hammer springs are notoriously poorly finished. Horizontal grinding marks are left on the springs and mine snapped right on a stress riser caused by the grinding marks.
silvermane_1
New member
well i like Rugers, see my sigline 
, but i will admit that S&W are nice revolvers, but i have reservations about the internal lock of the newer S&W revolvers, and the problem with older K-Frames forcing cones when it comes to light and fast 357 mag loads.
, but i will admit that S&W are nice revolvers, but i have reservations about the internal lock of the newer S&W revolvers, and the problem with older K-Frames forcing cones when it comes to light and fast 357 mag loads.I've worked slicking-up triggers/actions on all three DA revolver makes and the only DAs I own are S&Ws. They are not only the most "tunable" DA actions, but the easiest to work on. Ruger DAs are most difficult to tune because the action can't be observed in-motion, as parts are smoothed and tested.
I haven't worked on Dan Wessons in many years, but back then I found many hard particles when honing that scratched rubbing surfaces. Heating parts red, then cooling slowly allowed smoothing with out the hard carbon particles causing problems. After polishing, Casenit surface hardening prevented wear and reduced friction.
While I don't care for either DW or Ruger DA's, Ruger Single-Actions are very tunable and I've been able to get pull weights down and balance trigger springs to provide nearly zero backlash on Blackhawks, at least ones made several years ago. I probably tuned over 30 used in IHMSA competition years ago, including two of my own.
My 10" Super Blackhawk was absolutely wonderful to shoot and was capable of 3" groups at 200 meters (with iron sights).
I haven't worked on Dan Wessons in many years, but back then I found many hard particles when honing that scratched rubbing surfaces. Heating parts red, then cooling slowly allowed smoothing with out the hard carbon particles causing problems. After polishing, Casenit surface hardening prevented wear and reduced friction.
While I don't care for either DW or Ruger DA's, Ruger Single-Actions are very tunable and I've been able to get pull weights down and balance trigger springs to provide nearly zero backlash on Blackhawks, at least ones made several years ago. I probably tuned over 30 used in IHMSA competition years ago, including two of my own.
My 10" Super Blackhawk was absolutely wonderful to shoot and was capable of 3" groups at 200 meters (with iron sights).
1. Rugers use investment cast frames. I prefer forged.
2. (Totally subjective) Ruger DA revolvers are just about the ugliest things ever made by Man.
But I should add that I asm not enamored with with post-1982 S&Ws. Mine are all older models.
I wouldn't consider doing this to a Ruger. Would be like trying to put a cocktail dress on Rosie O'Donnell.
2. (Totally subjective) Ruger DA revolvers are just about the ugliest things ever made by Man.
But I should add that I asm not enamored with with post-1982 S&Ws. Mine are all older models.
I wouldn't consider doing this to a Ruger. Would be like trying to put a cocktail dress on Rosie O'Donnell.
I've been carrying and shooting revolvers a long time.
In Mar '74 I got into LE and we were given the choice of Smiths or Colts, later they started accepting Ruger's.
In the 70s seems like the Colt Python was the go to revolver for class. I had two over the years. Love the looks but for some reason they didn't fit. I just couldn't shoot them as well as the Smiths.
I tried a couple Ruger's, same thing. I just didn't get the warm fuzzies I got with the Smiths. Again I just shoot the Smith's better.
I always went back to my Model 28 Service revolver. Even late in my career when the department started allowing Semis. I love and can shoot Colt 1911s, but some how it just didn't fit police work like the '28. Besides we had to deal with large animals, which the 357 handled better.
I always came back to Smiths. My '28 had taken a lot of abuse over the last 40 years and keeps shooting and keeps shooting well.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with Colts or Ruger's, they just don't fit me.
Back in the day PPC was quite popular. Smith's ruled the roost in that game.
No longer in LE, but I still shoot a lot. PPC is gone, (or at least around here). So I shoot USPSA and other action type matches. Yes semis rule there, but I still keep coming back to revolvers. I can shoot them, but six rounds just don't compete with 15-18 rounds in speed type matches so I don't always do well. If they went by Hit Factor, I could hold my own, but its about speed more then hits so I'm down a bit on the list.
I run Ladies SD classes through the winter months. I advise the students not get any handgun until they try as many as possible. Between me and my assistant instructors we provide all kinds of handguns, revolvers and semis for the ladies to try so they can pick what fits them and that they can shoot.
Seeing what these ladies end up picking makes me want to start selling Smith J-frames. The 642 is by far their number one choice over any other revolver or semi.
Don't take this as me shooting down Rugers or colts. Its just Smiths fit me and I shoot them better.
If we all liked the same thing we'd all be fighting over my wife.
In Mar '74 I got into LE and we were given the choice of Smiths or Colts, later they started accepting Ruger's.
In the 70s seems like the Colt Python was the go to revolver for class. I had two over the years. Love the looks but for some reason they didn't fit. I just couldn't shoot them as well as the Smiths.
I tried a couple Ruger's, same thing. I just didn't get the warm fuzzies I got with the Smiths. Again I just shoot the Smith's better.
I always went back to my Model 28 Service revolver. Even late in my career when the department started allowing Semis. I love and can shoot Colt 1911s, but some how it just didn't fit police work like the '28. Besides we had to deal with large animals, which the 357 handled better.
I always came back to Smiths. My '28 had taken a lot of abuse over the last 40 years and keeps shooting and keeps shooting well.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with Colts or Ruger's, they just don't fit me.
Back in the day PPC was quite popular. Smith's ruled the roost in that game.
No longer in LE, but I still shoot a lot. PPC is gone, (or at least around here). So I shoot USPSA and other action type matches. Yes semis rule there, but I still keep coming back to revolvers. I can shoot them, but six rounds just don't compete with 15-18 rounds in speed type matches so I don't always do well. If they went by Hit Factor, I could hold my own, but its about speed more then hits so I'm down a bit on the list.
I run Ladies SD classes through the winter months. I advise the students not get any handgun until they try as many as possible. Between me and my assistant instructors we provide all kinds of handguns, revolvers and semis for the ladies to try so they can pick what fits them and that they can shoot.
Seeing what these ladies end up picking makes me want to start selling Smith J-frames. The 642 is by far their number one choice over any other revolver or semi.
Don't take this as me shooting down Rugers or colts. Its just Smiths fit me and I shoot them better.
If we all liked the same thing we'd all be fighting over my wife.
The triggers on my GP100 and Alaskan were excellent from the factory. Only my tuned K18 trigger, done by Grant Cunningham, feels better. The Ruger triggers were better than my factory stock S&W 625, 66, and others out of the box. Several guns at the LGS from both S&W and Ruger had **terrible** triggers. Test the trigger before you buy regardless of manufacturer.
The trigger pull, action, and every fitted part seem to be at another level on the S&W. That said, some of my S&W guns other than Performance Center have been reworked for trigger jobs, cylinder cramp when hot, rough forcing cones, and tight throats.
My Rugers usually need trigger refinement and throat reaming.
I will be shooting more DA now, so will become a better judge of triggers in that mode.
My Rugers usually need trigger refinement and throat reaming.
I will be shooting more DA now, so will become a better judge of triggers in that mode.
I do not share this opinion excepting with the SA trigger on S&W DA revolvers. Rugers have very decent SA triggers, but the SA triggers on my 686 and 627 are simply fantastic. Otherwise, though, I am finding the fit-and-finish on my Rugers to be quite comparable to the S&W revolvers.
I have to say that I really prefer the Ruger SR series over the M&P series of semi-autos. I do like my S&W Shield, but the SR series tends to have much better triggers and the disassembly design on the Ruger SR series is much better. MUCH better.
How about all the corners that could have been beveled, relieving the guns of such a blocky appearance and sparing holster wear? Also, how about the brushed, industrial grade finish. I rather like it as easier to maintain, but the finer finish of the S&W SS strikes me as higher quality. Not a fan of the newer bead blast though, but I have it on a gun or two and plan to acquire the new 66.
I shot my 5" GP100 yesterday and was reminded how nice a gun it is to shoot. I am going to get that cylinder beveled though and maybe some other surfaces.
S&W guns are smoother, better balanced, fit and finish is better, Better sights on some, S&W makes a lot of different models. Rugers are good solid guns but don't compare with S&W. Totally different designs. Shoot a S&W 625 for a year then swicth to the Ruger-------------- No wait, there ain't no Ruger. Ok, shoot a model 17 for a year--------No wait------------------------------------------.
Dragline45
New member
For smaller snub revolvers I prefer S&W, for large bore revolvers I prefer Ruger, for a couple reasons. Rugers can handle a steady diet of heavy loads longer than a S&W of similar size. Also I absolutely despise the lock, and while it has been rare for these to engage on their own, it is more likely to happen with big boomers like the .44 magnum than it is on a .38 special J frame. While out of the box S&W triggers tend to be better, a little work and the Ruger's are right up there with them.
S&W stainless revolvers have the absolute worst, lazy, crappy, sloppy finish I have ever seen on any gun, especially one at it's price point. Alot of the examples I have seen are random brush marks with no rhyme or rhythm. The brushed finish doesn't blend well from one part of the gun to the next due to the varying degrees of pressure used when applying the brushed finish, as well as the uneven sloppy direction of the brushed finish. It's like a 5 year old with a coloring book coloring in a picture every which way. They would be better off bead blasting instead of attempting their pathetic attempt at a brushed finish. From these pictures you can tell they dry brushed these revolvers, any quality gunsmith who knows how to give a proper brushed finish will use a dab or two of oil before attempting any brushing, whether it be with scotchbrite pads, wet-dry sandpaper, etc..
S&W stainless revolvers have the absolute worst, lazy, crappy, sloppy finish I have ever seen on any gun, especially one at it's price point. Alot of the examples I have seen are random brush marks with no rhyme or rhythm. The brushed finish doesn't blend well from one part of the gun to the next due to the varying degrees of pressure used when applying the brushed finish, as well as the uneven sloppy direction of the brushed finish. It's like a 5 year old with a coloring book coloring in a picture every which way. They would be better off bead blasting instead of attempting their pathetic attempt at a brushed finish. From these pictures you can tell they dry brushed these revolvers, any quality gunsmith who knows how to give a proper brushed finish will use a dab or two of oil before attempting any brushing, whether it be with scotchbrite pads, wet-dry sandpaper, etc..
Last edited:
Rugers are unexciting revolvers that are solid working guns. The trigger characteristics in D/A mode are not as good as on S&W revolvers , neither can they be tuned to the same extent.
I have four Ruger D/A revolvers, well over a dozen S&W's, a 1972 Colt Python and a 1961 Colt OMM, as well as eight Korths.
Besides the Korths from 1969 on, I vastly prefer the S&W D/A characteristics over Ruger and also over Colts. I also clearly prefer the S&W D/A over pre-1969 Korths.
I have four Ruger D/A revolvers, well over a dozen S&W's, a 1972 Colt Python and a 1961 Colt OMM, as well as eight Korths.
Besides the Korths from 1969 on, I vastly prefer the S&W D/A characteristics over Ruger and also over Colts. I also clearly prefer the S&W D/A over pre-1969 Korths.
buckhorn_cortez
New member
"Were" is the operative word. Twenty or twenty-five years ago, Smiths were a better revolver, but if you purchased and used some of their current offerings it's a completely different story.
They now use MIM parts in the trigger action. I could not find a gunsmith that was willing to do anything with the actions but change springs. Meaning tuning the trigger like you used to be able to have done on a Smith is a thing of the past.
The Jerry Miculek 625 I purchased had to have the barrel crown redone AND the cylinder retimed from the factory. The trigger pull, after some work is 5.5 pounds SA and 7.5 pounds DA. The gun is allegedly one of their "elite" pistols that represents the best they make ....yeah...bad barrel crown and cylinder timing from the factory.
The S&W .460 trigger was so bad on DA it maxed out my trigger pull gage at 14+ pounds. After some work, it's a miserable 9.5 lbs DA and 7.5 lbs SA.
The Ruger Super Redhawk Alaskan that I purchased at the same time has a far better DA and SA action than the Smiths.
But, none of the triggers are nearly as good as the used S&W circa 1980 model 629 - that, from the factory, has a trigger that is 6.5 lbs DA and 5 lbs SA.
Don't conflate what Smiths "used to be" with the pedestrian pistols they turning out today.
From my latest experiences with both S&W and Ruger - the Ruger is functionally a better pistol.
Here is a good comparison....
66-1 and Security Six both from the mid 70s. They both shoot good, and though the trigger on the 66 is slightly better, that is all that is better (both tip the scales at 35 oz). Strength, durability, and reliability all go to the Ruger. When it comes to a go to gun for any purpose, its the Ruger that rides shotgun. The Smith is like nice "crystal" or "china", pretty to look at and nice to bring out on special occasions. Resting so nicely on the mantle for everyone to see. The Ruger is like that white "corningware" we had in the 70's and 80's, used every night and would never break when dropped on the kitchen floor.
66-1 and Security Six both from the mid 70s. They both shoot good, and though the trigger on the 66 is slightly better, that is all that is better (both tip the scales at 35 oz). Strength, durability, and reliability all go to the Ruger. When it comes to a go to gun for any purpose, its the Ruger that rides shotgun. The Smith is like nice "crystal" or "china", pretty to look at and nice to bring out on special occasions. Resting so nicely on the mantle for everyone to see. The Ruger is like that white "corningware" we had in the 70's and 80's, used every night and would never break when dropped on the kitchen floor.