What's better in .44 magnum, Ruger or S&W?
- Thread starter Viper99
- Start date
I thought that was because nobody cared if they blew up a Ruger.
Seriously, I think that the SRH and SBH may be more suitable for super hot loads, but the SBH needs a Belt Mountain pin to do so.
I do not load anything beyond published load data, which is pretty conservative anyway. I doubt that you are going to shoot a new Smith "loose" with any responsible loads. My Smiths have thousands of magnum level handloads thru them with no issues. If I need more power than the 44 mag brings to the table I will use a 30-06.
FrankenMauser
New member
You can trust whomever you want. ...Even Taurus, if you choose.Dragline45 said:
You have no idea how much testing I've done, nor my contacts within the gun world. If you choose to dismiss me as a moronic internet "expert" that's fine. ....Not that I ever claimed to be such.
And, yes, I AM saying that they may be intentionally implying that the load is unsafe in S&W firearms, simply to make more sales to "Ruger" owners.
Many, many gun owners buy ammunition with the mentality of a 16 year old boy. If it's bigger, badder, louder, sicker, more gnarly, and dangerous!?! ...."well that's the one I want!!!"
In today's world, it is absolutely, positively suicidal for a company to put out a product that, if the warning and your opinion are to be believed, would cause the destruction of 30% (or more) of the tools that it could be used in and possibly maim or kill the operator.
Buffalo Bore sells some stout loads.
They also sell highly disappointing loads, poor customer service (blaming customers for quality control issues), and a huge amount of HYPE.
That's good to know, but I don't plan on pushing the loads to where I would expect the gun's strength to be challenged. With this type grip and with smallish, senior citizen hands, there is only so much recoil I care to tolerate. I like to do two cylinders and call it a day, moving to another caliber or having saved the cannons for last during a range session.
My Smith 657s are no way as strong as my Ruger Flat Top. None of them will ever see ammo like Buffalo Bore, but I do have some BB for my 45 Colt Redhawk. I tried a couple rounds and thought better of it. If I was at risk of encountering a buffalo or a bear, it might come in handy.
Here's your enlightenment.
There are no revolvers that are not "made for shooting lead bullets". In fact, there are some revolvers that require only lead bullets (balls).
There is only one handgun I know of, currently that REQUIRES jacketed bullets, and the maker is very clear about that. The Desert Eagle, due to its gas system is not for lead bullets.
Some combinations of cartridge and gun do not get peak performance from lead bullets. Some do.
You don't need a custom gun to shoot lead bullets. (You might want to get some work done on a particular gun to optimize it for a particular bullet, but that is a specific case.) Most folks customize the ammo, rather than the gun.
Everything has limitations, and frankly, capacity beyond what you need and use is wasted. Nice to have, IF you ever need it, but only IF you need it.
The .44 Magnum was designed around shooting 240-250gr lead bullets. Does fine with jacketed ones, too. The current popularity for shooting heavy / long for caliber bullets is a relatively new thing. And the opinion that these bullets are needed, and, conversely that the standard weights are ineffective is an internet fiction.
If you want to shoot ammo that does not fit in a S&W, don't BUY a S&W. It's really that simple.
Sure, Rugers are stronger than S&W, but if one fails at 15% overpressure, and the other at 27% (numbers for illustration only) is there a practical difference? The absolute strength to fail is, and should be a moot point for the gun owner.
DURABILITY, on the other hand, can be a concern. And on that matter, opinions vary widely. Some seem to believe that no matter what, and home many you shoot out of it, the pistol should last forever with no repair / maint. needed. And if you don't get this, the gun is somehow inferior.
Others recognize that the guns are machines, and machines that operate wear. If you haven't paid for the gun several times over in the cost of ammo before it needs a tune up, then you have something for concern. Otherwise, in my opinion, you don't.
Part of the "lead" issue may derive from the current method of rifling that S&W uses, which people have found is not as compatible with lead overall as the older rifling.
Rugers, on the other hand, shoot lead just as well now as they ever did.
Which is typically classified as "just fine".
Denis
Rugers, on the other hand, shoot lead just as well now as they ever did.
Which is typically classified as "just fine".
Denis
stagpanther
New member
I shoot mostly WFN lead cast out of my revolvers--even some of my pistols. You do need to know a bit more about things like rifling, how the bullet seals to the bore and what velocity is appropriate for the bullet hardness--but other than that not really a "yes/no" proposition as far as I can tell (except maybe how it feeds/headspaces in some weapons).
The S&W will come with a better factory trigger but still requires a trigger job due to frivolous U.S. law suits.
Buy whichever fits your hand best, but, as mentioned, ain't no revolver as strong as a Ruger. They tend to have grip frames made for people with normal sized hands too. Smith's tend to have excessively large frames that no change of grip will fix.
8" barrels are for hunting. If you're hunting, it'll help. Ruger Superredhawks come with longer barrel than that, but still have the same grip size as a GP100.
Buy whichever fits your hand best, but, as mentioned, ain't no revolver as strong as a Ruger. They tend to have grip frames made for people with normal sized hands too. Smith's tend to have excessively large frames that no change of grip will fix.
8" barrels are for hunting. If you're hunting, it'll help. Ruger Superredhawks come with longer barrel than that, but still have the same grip size as a GP100.
stagpanther
New member
What an absolutely whacky coincidence--while I was writing the above message up popped on my messages notification from Gallery of Guns that a new special edition Davidson 41 mag stainless SBH hunter was available. : )
One less one available!
One less one available!
Cosmodragoon
New member
I think Ruger's greater durability has been adequately reflected here. Of course, for normal use it shouldn't matter and either are likely to outlast their owners. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think some Rugers are strikingly beautiful but in .44 I've got to give it up to S&W. Someone mentioned the Stealth Hunter and I'll admit to drooling over that one at the gun shop. Problem is that it's expensive. With extra cash, you can either get special models or custom work on either that change the debate. On basic stock models, the best comparison I've heard is that Smith and Wesson is the pretty girl and Ruger is her smart/funny friend.
WVMountaineer
New member
Different stokes for different folks but, the prettiest of them two pistols you just linked isn't wearing the Smith and Wesson brand.
That settles it. Ruger DA's look better, are stronger, and probably cheaper. This is a no brainer from this laptop.
If I ever need a needle nosed, thin, penciled barreled paper weight, the S&W might suffice. When it's time to buy a man's gun, I'm buying the Ruger.
God Bless fellas.
That settles it. Ruger DA's look better, are stronger, and probably cheaper. This is a no brainer from this laptop.
If I ever need a needle nosed, thin, penciled barreled paper weight, the S&W might suffice. When it's time to buy a man's gun, I'm buying the Ruger.
God Bless fellas.
That totally ignores all the chamber reaming being done, as clearly recommended by others. I did mine based on a magazine article, Brian Pearse, I believe. Shooters also size their bullets to suit the gun's bore. They recut the forcing cone to reduce lead splatter in that area.
My first experience was my Ruger Redhawk 45 Colt, which had chambers that would only be suitable for jacketed bullets (.451). It is now reamed to .4525.
I had to buy a Smith 625PC to replace the 625, which was just too much in requiring lead removal. The PC has button rifling. Let's ask why Smith did that, when Jerry Miculek transitioned to lead bullets.
And that totally ignores this statement, from the same post..
I've had dozens (literally) of revolvers that shoot lead bullets just fine with no work done to them. This includes Rugers that everyone says you have to ream.
Maybe its just a point of view thing, but to me, there is a difference between "not being able to shoot lead" and "not getting best possible performance from lead".
There are a LOT of people today who shoot lead bullets, but not as many of them cast their own as they used to. They buy their bullets from a commercial caster. Which means that, for them, its easier to "fit the gun to the bullet" rather than do what casters did in the old days, which was "fit the bullet to the gun".
Besides the cost difference, one of the biggest advantages to cast bullets is that YOU determine the size needed for best use in your gun. When you use bullets from a commercial maker (and I do, too), you loose that ability. If your gun needs something outside the "standard" size, you either have to cast and size your own, or live with what you can buy.
Some folks still shoot pre-WII Colts with bore diameter spec of .454" rather than the current .451-.452" standard today (.45 Colt). Current cast bullets work, but they aren't the best possible fit.
Well then you don't need anything stronger than a Smith, but just cause the Smith is strong enough to do your self imposed limit doesn't make it as strong as the Ruger isnanuk said:
Also thread is about 44 Magnums which 44s have never had the problem 45 Colt chambered guns have.real gun said:
The eternal question of which is better, Smith or Ruger, always drags on & deteriorates.
The primary issues have been covered.
The Ruger DA was designed from the ground up in key areas specifically TO handle higher pressures & provide greater longevity. Both are design issues.
The Smith DA today is an evolved version of a design dating back to the end of the 1800s, when such high pressures were unheard of in revolvers. Tweaks & heat treating have improved on that old design, but tweaks & heat treatment can only go so far. The Smith's roots lay in a time when pressures were much lower and people rarely fired thousands of rounds through their guns.
The Ruger rarely goes out of time.
The Ruger can handle loads that the Smith can't.
The Smith is widely considered "prettier".
The Smith will tend to have a better trigger (although the Ruger trigger can be quite decent).
If you shoot high volumes of heavy loads, the Smith will tend to require re-work or re-build sooner than the Ruger will.
If you shoot rarely, and/or don't push it too hard, the Smith will probably outlast you.
The 8-inch + barrels (staying with the original guns asked about) can be quite accurate for hunting, and very awkward to carry or shoot much free-standing.
Scoped, either one would be quite accurate as a hunting gun.
If you don't need or want a heavier-duty launching platform, stay with the Smith.
If you do, go with the Ruger.
There IS a difference in strength & durability, whether some like to admit it or not.
And- none of this means the Smith is a "weak" revolver. It isn't.
It just isn't the equal of the Ruger in those two areas.
Denis
The primary issues have been covered.
The Ruger DA was designed from the ground up in key areas specifically TO handle higher pressures & provide greater longevity. Both are design issues.
The Smith DA today is an evolved version of a design dating back to the end of the 1800s, when such high pressures were unheard of in revolvers. Tweaks & heat treating have improved on that old design, but tweaks & heat treatment can only go so far. The Smith's roots lay in a time when pressures were much lower and people rarely fired thousands of rounds through their guns.
The Ruger rarely goes out of time.
The Ruger can handle loads that the Smith can't.
The Smith is widely considered "prettier".
The Smith will tend to have a better trigger (although the Ruger trigger can be quite decent).
If you shoot high volumes of heavy loads, the Smith will tend to require re-work or re-build sooner than the Ruger will.
If you shoot rarely, and/or don't push it too hard, the Smith will probably outlast you.
The 8-inch + barrels (staying with the original guns asked about) can be quite accurate for hunting, and very awkward to carry or shoot much free-standing.
Scoped, either one would be quite accurate as a hunting gun.
If you don't need or want a heavier-duty launching platform, stay with the Smith.
If you do, go with the Ruger.
There IS a difference in strength & durability, whether some like to admit it or not.
And- none of this means the Smith is a "weak" revolver. It isn't.
It just isn't the equal of the Ruger in those two areas.
Denis
buck460XVR
New member
Whether some like to admit it or not, .....this pretty much sums it up.
stagpanther
New member
Not entirely true--Worcester bullets will work with you to get the diameter, hardness and coating (if necessary) to fit your needs.
PS: I've heard the "unofficial" pressure limit for the bigger caliber SBH is around 60,000 psi--but good luck getting Ruger to admit that (I've tried ; ) ) Since I've recently been raked over the coals for "heard on the net" I would take that with a grain of salt.
Last edited: