Ruger vs S&W Revolvers

[Snake45]

I used to have friends who would RAVE to me about Ruger's factory repair/customer service.

I'd say, "I have S&Ws. I have no idea what their customer service is like, because I've never had to return one."

 

[OMCHamlin]

I honestly think that people on both sides of the aisle can make a case that their pick is best, based on focusing on certain points of superiority inherent in either brand. I have owned more than several examples of each, both have much to recommend their products. While I'll acknowledge that Rugers are stronger, both in theory and historical practice, I do believe that I prefer the way S&W DA revolvers feel in my hand, and their (tuned) action to Rugers, that was at least precisely up to the day they decided they had to put an internal lock on them. With exceptions for only their non-lock bearing revolvers in production today (642/442), all current S&W cylinder guns are dead to me, so there is that.
And of course, without a doubt, Ruger is lead dog between the two on single action revolvers...

 

[mirglip]

I love them both. They are the main two serious revolver manufacturers. Colt is worthy too but not nearly as prolific as Smith and Ruger and more expensive.
I like S&W for lightweight and ergonomic and I like Ruger for value and built like a tank. As far as recent and current production is concerned, I would have to go with Ruger.
I see a lot of interesting revolvers by other manufacturers at gun shows...I look at them and say "but it ain't a Ruger or Smith". The other makes are OK if you plan to shoot 2 boxes through them in your lifetime.
Ruger beats them all for high round count.

 

[OMCHamlin]

I love them both. They are the main two serious revolver manufacturers. Colt is worthy too but not nearly as prolific as Smith and Ruger and more expensive.
I like S&W for lightweight and ergonomic and I like Ruger for value and built like a tank. As far as recent and current production is concerned, I would have to go with Ruger.
I see a lot of interesting revolvers by other manufacturers at gun shows...I look at them and say "but it ain't a Ruger or Smith". The other makes are OK if you plan to shoot 2 boxes through them in your lifetime.
Ruger beats them all for high round count.

I agree, and although they never really made it very big, I would have sure loved for CZ to have continued to produce the Dan Wesson 715 .357 Magnum pistol pack. I have heard nothing but good from owners of the Dan from any of their several "eras" of production.

 

[dannyd]

I purchased Rugers because they were cheaper in price, never owned a S&W, so don't know anything about them.

 

[RC44Mag]

Recently decided I was finally getting a .357 revolver. My two contenders were a GP100 and 686 S&W. It was an easy decision, a new 686 came home with me. A smooth work of SS art that handles the stoutest underwood and Buffalo Bore loads, I know, I ran multiple boxes of them recently. Nothing wrong with the Ruger just the S&W edged it out in my opinion. The $75 rebate offered by S&W for their larger framed L, N and X revolvers didn't hurt because I was going to get the Smith anyway.
$50 rebates on the J framed.

 

[vito]

If I recall, part of his argument was that the S&W are forged, and the Rugers are cast, and that the heavier metal of the Rugers is to make them similar in strength to the S&W.

In any event, I own two S&W revolvers. One, a Model 19, 4 inch, nickel that I bought new in about 1986 remains what I consider about the perfect handgun in terms of feel, looks and reliability. I hardly ever shoot it, but it is the only gun I own to which I have any sentimental attachment. I also have a S&W 642 that I often carry in a Desantis Nemesis pocket holster that for me, is the perfect lightweight pocket pistol. I own more Rugers than S&W, but these two S&W are keepers.

 

[gnappi]

I used to have friends who would RAVE to me about Ruger's factory repair/customer service.

I'd say, "I have S&Ws. I have no idea what their customer service is like, because I've never had to return one."

I second that!

 

[Bigbore5]

I second that!

I've never returned either one to find out either way. But I will also add that I have only bought one recent version new from each of them. A 642 and an SP101. Both immediately came apart to correct the horrible triggers, clean out the crap the factory left in them from manufacturing, deburr what should have been done at the factory, and polish up the parts left rough.

I haven't had to do that with the Charter Arms ones that cost considerably less than either of them. Both companies need to get their s@#t together on quality control.

 

[magnum0710]

I've never returned either one to find out either way. But I will also add that I have only bought one recent version new from each of them. A 642 and an SP101. Both immediately came apart to correct the horrible triggers, clean out the crap the factory left in them from manufacturing, deburr what should have been done at the factory, and polish up the parts left rough.

I haven't had to do that with the Charter Arms ones that cost considerably less than either of them. Both companies need to get their s@#t together on quality control.

Which Charter do you have? I had the opportunity to buy a Mag Pug for $299 but I passed on it. Mainly because I'm in the middle of paying off a Speed Six.

 

[Bigbore5]

19 total. My current favorites are a mag pug 3" and a Bulldog Target, but they all get shot.

I will admit my daily carry is a S&W 36. But it's from 1969 when they still used gunsmiths instead of assemblers to build them.

 

[Skeet 028]

I've never had to send a S&W back to the factory. I've never had to send a Ruger back to the factory. I must say I do prefer Ruger SAs. I also have to say I prefer S&W DAs. I carried way back but carried an N(S) frame . I have Ruger DAs and admit I had quite a few. I only have 2 Ruger DAs now. I don't care about +P+(is there really a SAAMI spec for that)?. When it comes to 44 Mag I usually shoot a Ruger SA. But when I shoot 44s it's usually in a Smith. The VAST majority of all loads are not cutting edge mags...at least for 99 1/2% of us. I like Barn burners too but not all the time. The Rugers may be a stronger framed even cylindered gun. But that isn't the mark of a "better" gun. That term is subjective to the owner shooter. S&W triggers make Ruger look bad. I have a 101 that after about 1000 rounds is finally wearing in to a pretty fair trigger. I have a new in box 19-2 that is starting out with a great trigger. I have a S&W N frame 357 mag( called a M-27 later) that I have shot an easy 25,000 rounds through...and of course not all mag ammo. Trigger is still great. I was talking with John Linebaugh before he passed. I had found him a Bisley framed SBH. He told me to find another and he'd make me a 500 Linebaugh...I told him thanks but no thanks. He didn't use the S&Ws to make his big caliber guns. You all know the reason why. The big DAs made by Ruger and S&W are both just too big and too ugly for me and I have had SRHs and 500 X frames...Had!! I enjoy shootin 'em...not comparing 'em

 

[magnum0710]

I honestly think that people on both sides of the aisle can make a case that their pick is best, based on focusing on certain points of superiority inherent in either brand. I have owned more than several examples of each, both have much to recommend their products. While I'll acknowledge that Rugers are stronger, both in theory and historical practice, I do believe that I prefer the way S&W DA revolvers feel in my hand, and their (tuned) action to Rugers, that was at least precisely up to the day they decided they had to put an internal lock on them. With exceptions for only their non-lock bearing revolvers in production today (642/442), all current S&W cylinder guns are dead to me, so there is that.
And of course, without a doubt, Ruger is lead dog between the two on single action revolvers...

I'm not a fan of the internal lock either but I agree, there are definitely points on both sides. I wish they would make the 637 with no lock. Then again I doubt I'd buy any small lightweight 38 at this point.
I got a 38 to carry while my EDC was having issues and within a week I wished it was a 357 instead. Even if I'm carrying 38s I like having the ability to run hotter 38s and magnums if I want to. If I decided to try ankle carry a j frame or lcr would probably be a good choice for a back up.
I had the opportunity to buy a 360 PD for $700 during the pandemic, now it's going for around $1000. I'm still kicking myself over that one.

 

[magnum0710]

19 total. My current favorites are a mag pug 3" and a Bulldog Target, but they all get shot.

I will admit my daily carry is a S&W 36. But it's from 1969 when they still used gunsmiths instead of assemblers to build them.

I was really considering the 3 inch mag pug for a while, I like the high polish finish. They a have 3 inch mag pug in black nitride with an optic on it too.
I only passed because I owe $200 on my speed six still and would have had to trade 2 guns to get it. My ffl don't do layaway or I would've traded one of em in towards it and paid the difference later on.
How do you think the mag pug would hold up long term with heavy use of 357? Before I found the Speed six I was really interested in finding a budget revolver that would hold up to a high round count of 357.

 

[jules]

I like them all and all have issues from time to time. S&W has an issue with barrel canting/over clocked from the factory. The problem I have with this is QC saying it's within spec. Haven't see this on a Ruger but Ruger has had other issues. Not sure about the new Colt's but the older models are very nice and shoot well. My model 66 is about as good as it gets.

 

[mirglip]

If I recall, part of his argument was that the S&W are forged, and the Rugers are cast, and that the heavier metal of the Rugers is to make them similar in strength to the S&W.

Well that explains why S&W was better at making lighter weight revolvers. Ruger didn't effectively compete with the J frames until recently.
I prefer revolvers made in the 70's and early 80's. That's when the talent pool in the US peaked.
It takes a lot more talent to manufacture revolvers than semi-autos because of timing geometry and cylinder gap issues. Assemblers have to gunsmiths.

 

[Johnny-Baseball]

I'm SHOCKED!!!

SHOCKED I tell you, to read the strong preferences for Ruger by most of the members of this Ruger Forum. I truly thought folks joined this Forum solely to trash Ruger.

FYI, I own several Smiths and several Rugers. Like all of 'em. I've had troubles with none of them. Never sold any of my Rugers. Sold only one of my Smiths - the first one I ever owned (a police traded-in Model 66 w/4" barrel) - decades ago and regretted it from the moment after I pocketed the cash. Never made that mistake again.

Don't own any Ruger semi's. Own several Smith M&P semi's (like their feel). And I own several 1911-patterned pistols (none of 'em made by Ruger or Smith). Just 'cause.

I used to own a couple of Charter Arms pistols. Didn't like "em so I sold 'em. But I never trashed them in written or verbal conversation. I suspected my dislike arose due to personal preference.

So there.

 

[Star43]

I think the Yankee guy should have done his comparison piece on "Smith/Wesson vs Taurus" That's what he should have done. Heck those 2 were owned by the Same company for a while back in the 70's and there was some sharing going on between then. Just look at the revolvers from the 80's and 90's and they even look exactly alike. They even used the SAME model numbers a few times !!! So maybe that would have been a much better video for him to do and also would have been much more truthful !!

 

[harley08]

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.

New S & W revolves are CRAP! - My 357 S & W revolver blew up in my hand using .38 special factory ammo. (Note: Smith and Wesson would not do anything for me when this happened, they told me to send them $650.00 for a new revolver.) NEVER buy a Smith and Wesson revolver! -- Buy a RUGER!

 

[41Dude]

Stop it! The real discussion of which one is better..................

9mm or .45 acp ?