Hope this isn't a loaded question!
- Thread starter 2old2know
- Start date
Help Support Ruger Forum:
contender
Ruger Guru
Many years ago, there was a advertising campaign between S&W & Ruger. It was centered around the same thoughts you are thinking. I recall that S&W was suffering a bit due to the strength of their revolvers vs Rugers.
Rugers current comments such as "Rugged, Reliable, Ruger Firearms" is spot on.
No doubt, the Rugers are stronger built.
Rugers current comments such as "Rugged, Reliable, Ruger Firearms" is spot on.
No doubt, the Rugers are stronger built.
5of7
Hunter
I have always considered the Ruger revolver to be a sturdier gun than the Smith, and economically, a better buy for the dollar.
I have also always considered the Smiths to be better finished and all-round "nicer" guns....with a few exceptions. 8)
I have also always considered the Smiths to be better finished and all-round "nicer" guns....with a few exceptions. 8)
smith1961
Blackhawk
5of7 said:
Darn good way of putting it! I love both! Ruger for the Blackhawks and rifles. Smith for the Semi auto and pocket guns. N frame Smiths are "sexier" than say the Redhawks, but we know which one is stronger.......That said I don't know too many folks trying to blow up their guns
wesm
Bearcat
I think of my S&W 66-1 as a Corvette and my GP-100 as a Chevy Z-71.
Both will get me from A to B. The Smith is sleeker and more finely tuned. Nicer trigger. But the GP is more rugged and therefore my "daily driver". I had the 66 first, but got the GP when I started handloading. Much less concerned about damaging my GP by a hot load..
Both will get me from A to B. The Smith is sleeker and more finely tuned. Nicer trigger. But the GP is more rugged and therefore my "daily driver". I had the 66 first, but got the GP when I started handloading. Much less concerned about damaging my GP by a hot load..
varminter22
Single-Sixer
I love the Blackhawk and Single Six revolvers.
But for a double action revolver, S&W far outshines the Ruger - in my humble opinion.
The "built like a tank" Ruger DA revolvers are definitely strong. But then, the S&W are just fine strength-wise and easier (in my opinion) to carry and smooth up.
When it comes to competition, I think there is a reason why most prefer S&W.
But for a double action revolver, S&W far outshines the Ruger - in my humble opinion.
The "built like a tank" Ruger DA revolvers are definitely strong. But then, the S&W are just fine strength-wise and easier (in my opinion) to carry and smooth up.
When it comes to competition, I think there is a reason why most prefer S&W.
Not a fair comparison, pinned Smiths come from Smiths best era, not like the new garbage they are marketing. New Smith to new Ruger? No question, Ruger any day, all day long. Just got a 12 production GP100 myself, but an older pinned Smith? I do believe I'd take the Smith juts on resale value alone, old Smiths are crazy expensive!
I have older S&W, Colts & Rugers. I've always considered Rugers to be sturdier. Colt & S&W used to advise, in the owners manual, against a steady diet of magnums in the .357 mags. But never saw that advice mention in Ruger manuals. I was further convinced when I began reloading and saw loads listed for Ruger, TC, & Freedom Arms only. Also some Corbon, Triton, & some other ammo manufacturers specifying only Ruger, TC, & Freedom Arms. Cosmetically & for smoother actions, S&W & Colt beat Ruger, IMO. But Ruger actions are not terrible. Not complaining, just comparing.
jgt
Buckeye
In that time period my answer to that question was: "You can buy a Ruger and put two or three hundred dollars worth of gunsmithing into it and it will be as nice as any Smith & Wesson." Today I buy Ruger single actions and would never part with my Smiths but would not buy a new one today. Ruger's 1911 is as fine a bottom feeder as they get. Ruger's shotguns have always been top notch and their Rifles are fine rifles. There is one aspect of Rugers that is often overlooked when comparing these two. That is the intent of the manufacturer to appeal to the Market. Rugers were intended to be guns that were affordable, rugged, and reliable. This concept helped spawn a whole industry of custom gunsmithing and aftermarket parts. These type guns have done for the gun industry what hot rodding did for the auto industry.
trouble said:
You're entitled to your opinion but calling new S&W guns garbage is simply BS. People with far greater knowledge than you will tell you that while they may lack the hand polishing of earlier models, they are made of stronger materials held to tighter tolerances.
Strong?? Don't know anything that matches the raw strength of the S&W Model 500s. One of their engineers told me he thought it would take 130,000 psi to take one apart. Don
DonD said:
As you're entitled to your foolishly blind opinion sir, new smiths are pure garbage and I'm a S&W guy and have been for a long time, I've had MANY smiths go through my hands in the past 20 yrs so my opinion is based on what I've seen NOT blind emotion. BS is what folks like yourself spout off.
22/45 Fan
Hunter
Funny, you can find threads here making exactly the same claim about Rugers, that the current ones have very poor QC and finish compared to those from "back in the day", when ever that was.trouble said:
As far as inherent strength, the pinned and recessed Smith all predate the current L-frame and, as K-frames, they aren't as strong as a GP-100. The L-frames are.
