Ruger vs S&W Revolvers

I wanted to see what you guys think about this one, before I go any further this is a Yankee Marshall video. Now I know why people say he don't know what he's talking about. I actually like quite a few of his videos and there are quite a few things I see eye to eye with him on but he is dead wrong on this one. Its funny how I made multiple comments and explained very intelligently, why he's wrong but also right and never got a response.
According to Yankee, Rugers are not stronger than S&W revolvers, S&W makes the stronger more durable revolver period, . I do like S&W revolvers and wouldn't hesitate to own one but Yankee obviously forgot alot of history and has a bias for S&W.
My answer was, it's not that one brand is better or stronger than the other it's that certain models are going to be stronger than other models.
A GP100 or Security Six vs a 686 is basically a wash.
Redhawk vs 686, the Redhawk forsure.
Redhawk vs N frame, Redhawk forsure and I say this because the 45 colt N frames can't handle the Ruger/TC level loads. He does mention "Ruger only loads" and how that only applies to 45 colt cause it's built with 44 magnum frame and cylinders. What he leaves out is that there isn't any S&W in 45 colt that can handle such loads.
A Security Six vs a Model 19, no contest the Six series is better and a lot stronger than any 357 K frame. The Six series is what made S&W introduce the L frame. Lets not forget about all those cracked forcing cones. But please tell me more about how S&W makes the stronger revolver.
SP101 vs J frame (wether 38 only or 357) the SP101 everyday and twice on Sunday.
J frame vs LCR I have to give that one to the J frame.
LCR vs the newer Bodyguard revolver, the LCR is definitely better. S&W can't give the newer Bodyguards away. To clarify I mean the polymer frame Bodyguard 38 meant to compete with the LCR, not the original whatever model number Bodyguard with the humpback.
Another interesting point, back when law enforcement still carried revolvers there was a magazine article and Ruger, Colt, and S&W were all asked about the use of 38+p and +p+ in their revolvers. Ruger was the only one that approved the use of +p+ ammo without any restrictions. I'll post a link to that article as well.
I pointed all of this out over a few different videos Yankee made on the subject. I even said "you're right to an extent but you're wrong too". It's model specific not brand specific but even still most times Ruger does make the stronger revolver. It doesn't have anything to do with sideplates or lack thereof, it doesn't have anything to do with casting vs forging. Rugers ARE stronger and more durable. S&Ws might look a tiny bit nicer and that's a debatable personal taste kind of thing but that's it. The 686 is probably just as durable as the GP and Six series, but that's because it had to be!
My Security Six from 1974 locks up and shoots like it's a new GP, I can run as many full blown 125 grain magnums as I want and it will keep on going like the energizer bunny. Try doing that with a model 19 from that time frame and eventually its going to have issues.
I'm done ranting, just wanted to make sure I wasn't losing my mind on this one.

Aww, come on. Let's do Ford or Chevy...

Or charcoal vs. gas.

Life's far too short to waste any time whatsoever on that pompous, opinionated jackass, or his video's...

I stopped listening right after I heard the "Yankee"

BULL'S-EYE said:

Life's far too short to waste any time whatsoever on that pompous, opinionated jackass, or his video's...

Click to expand...

What's hilarious is he has another video from a few years ago, I believe it's about a Match Champion GP if I remember correctly could have been the 10mm GP, and he describes it as "Ruger tough" in his own words .
I do like some of his videos and agree with him on some stuff but this is one time he makes himself look dumb. I stated facts and got ignored. I'm not going to say there aren't S&W models that are stronger than Ruger models but that's just it, it's not that one brand is better or stronger, its that certain models are stronger and more durable than others.
My Security Six vs Model 19 comparison got a reply from someone else stating "who cares about 50 year old guns" well alot of people do. I was in the market for a 4 inch 357 I could afford and the Security Six fit the bill. Had there been a Model 19 for the same price (wether vintage or new production) I would have picked the Security Six anyway knowing what I do about the K frame magnums and their forcing cone issues.
I also highly doubt Ruger would have told anyone they could use +p+ in their 38 revolvers without restriction if the guns couldn't handle it. There's a reason Ruger was the only company that said that!
I like S&W revolvers alot make no mistake about that, but there is a lot of evidence that proves Yankee is full of on this one.

Well … some of my shooting buddies like their S&Ws. I tease them that folks who USE their guns choose Ruger. People who LOOK AT their guns buy Smith and a container of Renaissance Wax. I mean really ….. waxing your gun?!

Anyway, I flop out on the bench my firearm and ammo.
They unpack gun, screwdriver, lock-tite, extra side plate screws and on and on …….

dannyd said:

I stopped listening right I heard the "Yankee"

Click to expand...

I hear ya , I know he's not exactly the most liked gun channel on YouTube but this one takes the cake.
He did have one video I really agreed with and I guess that's kind of why I expected better from him. Basically it was his response to people saying 9mm+p is just as good as 357 magnum. He took a chronograph, a few 9mm pistols and a few 357 revolvers with different barrel lengths and proved his point. Some of the 9mm+p loads when shot out of 5 inch barrels got into 357 snub nose territory, but with the same or similar barrel lengths the 357 blew the 9 out of the water.
Not trying to start a caliber war, I like and do carry 9mm but the numbers don't lie.

Ruger is more durable but Smith is more ergonomic in my opinion

This is an old argument, and maybe there is no winner.

Ruger advertised back in the day, their DA revolvers had no side plate, so their revolver is stronger than S&W.

Simultaneously, S&W advertised their metallurgy was better, so their revolvers were stronger in spite of the the side plate and overall being a slimmer, trimmer revolver.

I've shot many of both and never had a frame failure with either.


But that all said, I preferred my Security/Speed Sixes over a S&W at the time, but I now prefer a 686 over any GP100.





.

hittman said:

Well … some of my shooting buddies like their S&Ws. I tease them that folks who USE their guns choose Ruger. People who LOOK AT their guns buy Smith and a container of Renaissance Wax. I mean really ….. waxing your gun?!

Anyway, I flop out on the bench my firearm and ammo.
They unpack gun, screwdriver, lock-tite, extra side plate screws and on and on …….

Click to expand...

Exactly!
I like S&Ws don't get me wrong but there is fact based evidence that Rugers are stronger. That article on the 38+p and +p+ really drove the point home for me.

I prefer Charcoal, Ford (I have a Chevy Silverado) and if one were to compare .357's the K isn't the one, I'd pick an L frame any day. I had a very early Redhawk and a 29 and I made the mistake of putting a Redhawk barn burner the 29 and I had to beat the empty out with a dowel.

To me S&W revolvers are the best DA's made, not for their strength as they and Rugers will handle any factory load made, but because I shoot them better than Ruger DA's... simple.

Dry fire a S&W …. Clinks like shutting the door on an old Chevy Chevette.
Dry fire a Ruger ….. thud like shutting the door on a Lincoln.

My very first gun - ever - was a S&W M29, 8-3/8" barrel that I bought for IHMSA Silhouette shooting. Beautiful gun.

But I bought it new in 1988 and that period of S&W was not their greatest in terms of quality. Those in IHMSA that shot revolvers (as opposed to T/C's and XP-100's) chose Ruger Blackhawks or Dan Wesson over S&W by about 20 to 1. Why? The M29's had a reputation of going out of time and of throat erosion. The common belief was that S&W designed the M29 with the thought that the average owner wouldn't put more than one box of .44 mag rounds through it in its lifetime.

As for mine, within the first 500 rounds I did see throat erosion, flame cutting of the top strap, and some timing issues if you pulled the hammer back very slowly (I always shoot single action). But now, with over 2000 rounds through it of my mild magnum loads, it shoots accurately and is not getting worse.

I do believe the Rugers overall are stronger and, back then, of higher quality. S&W has improved its quality since the 80's, however.

WAYNO said:

This is an old argument, and maybe there is no winner.

Ruger advertised back in the day, their DA revolvers had no side plate, so their revolver is stronger than S&W.

Simultaneously, S&W advertised their metallurgy was better, so their revolvers were stronger in spite of the the side plate and overall being a slimmer, trimmer revolver.

I've shot many of both and never had a frame failure with either.

Click to expand...

I don't think there is a winner either, I really think it's model specific not brand specific. A 686 vs GP100 are probably even, J frames and LCRs are probably even, slight edge to the j frame only because they usually retail for less. I can get a new 642 or 442 locally for $430, a new LCR would cost me $650.
There are instances where Rugers are more durable, (excluding the LCR because it wasn't around back then and its not built for it) 38 special only Rugers being able to handle 38+p+ without restrictions is one example. The Six Series vs K frames is another example. The frame and cylinder wasn't a failure point with K frames but the forcing cones certainly were. In S&Ws defense they weren't built for heavy use with magnums, the pitch from Bill Jordan to S&W was make a k frame in 357 for law enforcement, practice should be with 38 special but it should be able to handle 357 when it counts.
The Sixes we're built from the ground up to handle magnums but they were a direct competitor to the k frame.
I do know the ads you're talking about but there is one issue I have with that. The 686 was introduced because of the Security Six and the K frame forcing cone issue. Compared to a GP100 yeah the 686 is probably slimmer or whatever but I'm willing to bet the Security Six is smaller than the 686 yet just as durable. I don't have the 686 but a buddy of mine does. Next time I see him I'll bring the Six and compare the two.

Forgot to add: I choose Mary Ann over Ginger.

…. And Bailey over Jennifer …..

gnappi said:

I prefer Charcoal, Ford (I have a Chevy Silverado) and if one were to compare .357's the K isn't the one, I'd pick an L frame any day. I had a very early Redhawk and a 29 and I made the mistake of putting a Redhawk barn burner the 29 and I had to beat the empty out with a dowel.

To me S&W revolvers are the best DA's made, not for their strength as they and Rugers will handle any factory load made, but because I shoot them better than Ruger DA's... simple.

Click to expand...

I agree, the k frames aren't the ones to compare at all. I was just putting similar models against each other.
I really think it's more about specific models than it is about brand. When it comes to new models especially the 686/L frame vs the GP then yes 100% it should come down to which one you shoot best. Either one will last forever I'm sure.

"Life's far too short to waste any time whatsoever on that pompous, opinionated jackass, or his video's."

^^^^^^^^^ THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Best response so far.

".....AND THE BEAT GOES ON......."