Ruger vs Smith and Wesson Revolvers

Strength, durability, and reliability all go to the Ruger.
Click to expand...

I hear this, or some variant of this, a lot. And, it may even be partially true, but...everytime I hear it, part of me asks "SO FREAKIN' WHAT?".....

Strength: is a "so what?" to me, because NOTHING I do, have done, or even remotely contemplate doing will approach the strength level of the guns. While it might be nice knowing that a S&W will blow up at X, and a Ruger will blow up at 2X it doesn't have any practical advantage for me.

Likewise durability. In any kind of normal use, even including competition, by the time you wear the gun out, you will have spent several times the cost of the gun in ammo. EVERYTHING wears out if you use it, and most of us won't ever come close to actually wearing out either gun from actual use.

Reliability: I don't bury my guns in the mud, or drag them through the desert behind a truck. Testing under extreme conditions really doesn't prove anything about operation under normal conditions. Show me a HISTORY of S&W failing and Ruger not failing under NORMAL conditions, THEN you have a valid claim, but not until then.

I really love many of the Ruger products. However, their DA revolvers never did much for me. I have a number of S&Ws, and Ruger Blackhawks/Vaqueros. Don't have any Ruger DA revolvers. Never much liked them, I prefer the S&W. (and I am not including current S&W with the lock and MIM parts, I don't like, or have, any of those, either).
 
real gun said:
That's because 357 is not really a "major" caliber except in someone's technical sense.
Click to expand...

Okay, what do you consider a major caliber, and in what sense other than a technical sense?
 
I consider major calibers as those that start with a 4 and have a bullet weight of at least 180 gr., a very non-technical definition, except that larger bores and typical bullet weights have no trouble calculating into the Major power factor range.
 
Functionally, they're just about equal in my somewhat limited experience. Either is a good choice.

Early on, I just developed a preference for the S&W. That said, I'd never be disappointed to carry a Ruger.
 
Strength, durability, and reliability all go to the Ruger.
Click to expand...

If that is true, then why does S&W give the original owner a lifetime warranty, whereas Ruger gives absolutely no warranty with a new gun, written or implied?


A tank may be stronger than a Indy car, but outside the battlefield, it's toughness, weight and bulk are nuttin' but a detriment. Shoot enough of either and it seems failure rate for either is about the same. So, one can shoot over SAAMI spec'd loads outta a Ruger for a longer period of time before it needs to be fixed than a similar S&W. Why the need to go over SAAMI, other than just because you can. They make bigger calibers now than the old .357s, .44s and .45 Colts. One does not have to hot rod those calibers anymore to make them something they are not.
Ruger makes some fine firearms, I have several. But being purdy and finished nicely generally ain't one of their attributes.....neither are their triggers. They are what they are. They used to be considerably less expensive than a S&W and why they became so popular. Nowadays, their DA revolvers are very similarly priced. Might be the reason you see so many more new Ruger DA revolvers in the sale case as you see new Smiths, and you can find them online, whereas the Smiths are like hens teeth.

SWad.jpg
 
real gun said:
I consider major calibers as those that start with a 4 and have a bullet weight of at least 180 gr., a very non-technical definition, except that larger bores and typical bullet weights have no trouble calculating into the Major power factor range.
Click to expand...

Interesting definition. I would be willing to bet that the power factor of my bunnie fart minor caliber .500 S&W Mag would easily best 99.999% of your "major" calibers.
 
Hands down, I like Smith and Wesson Revolvers, new and old, better than Ruger Revolvers. IMHO, there's noting special about Ruger revolvers. S&W, otoh makes some fine revolvers.
 
More smiths than I care to count. 4 Ruger DA revolvers and a handful of assorted Colts.

Smith, to me, has the greatest trigger of all of them. And, the K frame is the pinnacle.

Rugers have decent triggers. Not as "refined" feeling to my S&W calibrated trigger finger. But very usable.

Colts stack. I can't stand Colt triggers. I went through 3-4 Pythons years ago determined to appreciate the superior DA trigger. Never happened for me.

In pure durability, the Ruger Six series may have a slight edge over a Smith K frame. The L frame and the GP series are about the same. Colts are structurally sound, but, the trigger mechanism is a tad more delicate and much harder to have repaired these days.
 
Interesting definition. I would be willing to bet that the power factor of my bunnie fart minor caliber .500 S&W Mag would easily best 99.999% of your "major" calibers.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, if determined to argue.
 
Because a Ruger is larger/thicker than the S&W you can't assume it's actually stronger. The Ruger is a casting and I think they added bulk to make it a little stronger. Don't mean it's a stronger gun than a S&W. I'll take a S&W over the Ruger every time. The Ruger is a good gun, maybe as good as the Smith, but it'll never have the trigger or the feel of the S&W.
 
"If that is true, then why does S&W give the original owner a lifetime warranty, whereas Ruger gives absolutely no warranty with a new gun, written or implied?"

I think if you went to a Ruger forum you'd have to go through several hundred postings praising Ruger customer service before you'd find a criticism. They seem to go with the principle of "We made it, we'll fix it." They don't appear to care how old it is.
 
On another note, I went last week to the range and they let me take 4 rentals to the range. A GP100, a SP101, a 686, and a small S&W 357.

My new GP100 came today. The 686 was a good gun, no doubt about it. But it just came down to feel and the GP just felt right. I can't really explain it in technical terms.
 
Details

I have never had parts fall off a Ruger Redhawk, but have had S&W cylinder latches, ejector rods and one replaceable front sight come off. You do need to do a "walk around" on a S&W revolver. I have had three on which the cylinder free spins in reverse. Now they have endurance packages that cured all these problems. I carry S&W guns for self defense and have to work much less to get good long range target groups due to a quicker lock time and slightly lighter trigger, factory to factory. If I were to take one on a dedicated hunting trip without gunsmith support, I'd consider the Ruger first. If near civilization, I'd take the S&W for a deer hunting handgun. I load my Rugers up a lot more often than down. I typically use two classes of loads in my S&W N frame guns, except for 45 ACP/AR, one for target and one for hunting or self-defense. Is this necessary? I don't know but I am satisfied lots of heavy loads aren't the best choice in a S&W. I did retire one S&W 629, after 500 cast bullet loads of 8 grains of Unique and 240 grain bullets for close to a year, 25,000 +/-. I don't think you can wear out a Redhawk, but I could be wrong. The Redhawk .45 Colt cylinders are a bit large and some S&W chamber mouths are out of spec on earlier guns like the 25-2 but all in all they work fine. I went far enough to rebore a 5.5 inch 44 Mag Redhawk to 45 Colt, curing my angst and saving overworking my brass.
 
I own quite a few Rugers and S&Ws.

I also am very familiar with the internals of both.

Plus I have packed both types in CCW and in competition(and hunting.)

The Rugers are generally stronger and much easier to disassemble (if you drop your gun in the muck you will see just how easier it is with a Ruger.)

But.. the S&W revolvers do have better actions in terms of smoothness and are a bit slimmer.

I find the S&Ws better for CCW and the Rugers better for the field. That does not mean the Rugers are poor CCW gun NOR S&Ws poor hunting guns. Heck I'd use either one but they are a little bit better in their own specialty.

If I was to live in the Alaska wilderness... I'd pick a Ruger Redhawk. If to ply the back streets of Dallas every day and night, I'd pick my S&W 19 snub. But I would not lose sleep if I used my S&W 629 in Alaska and 3 inch GO-100 for the streets.

Deaf
 
I have had two rugers...both made trips to the factory for manufacturing problems. ...can't say the same about any of the smiths....

Accuracy was no contest, the smith's were way better.

2nd ruger (gp101) had a Crack on the hammer after 800 rounds...so much for legendary ruger toughness. It was fixed and both were sold.

Sad part was I wanted to like the rugers but they didn't want the love...lol.

All guns break but they should leave the factory ready to fire....
 
For years I have bought, shot, and loved both brands. One of the reasons is Ruger has not really made stuff like this:



And Smith & Wesson in recent year has not made stuff like this:

 
Well, I guess if I had the money I would buy new Smith's. But since I cant I have to compare the New Rugers I have purchased to the used Smith's I have.

I will Vote Smith, even my wore out used Model 19 is as sweet and smooth as butter. That trigger is something else.
Wish I could buy a new one.

But them again I like my Rugers too.
Ahhh you make my brain hurt. I dont want to choose.

100_9364_zps1cc99632.jpg


100_9590_zpsf5da8611.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top