Ruger or Smith and Wesson?


June 26, 2003, 03:06 PM
I've asked around in other forums trying to see what a good .357 to buy is, I shopped around and I've found two that I can't decide between, a Ruger GP100 6" and an S&W 686 8". :confused: Could you all tell me which one you like and why? Maybe even let me know of another .357 one that you like.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ruger or Smith and Wesson?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
June 26, 2003, 03:23 PM
If I wanted a long-tube .357, I'd be happy with either of those. The Smith would have a better trigger (or, at least, every stock 686 I've ever handled has had a better trigger than every GP I've ever handled). The Ruger might be slightly more robust.

Sorry, dude, you're going to have to make a command-level decision on this one.

June 26, 2003, 03:26 PM
Thanks man, I've been asking around for 2 or 3 days now, no one can convince me which one is better. I know this is the last thing you should go by when buying a gun but I'm gonna have to go with the one that looks better, I'm gonna have to go with the 686. Thanks alot, but in any case, as soon as I get some extra money I can also buy the Ruger.:D

June 26, 2003, 03:27 PM
BTW, your name is Eric H.; name's Eric H. too, Eric Houser; that's what I go by anyway, just thought it was funny.

June 26, 2003, 03:44 PM
I prefer Smith's, but Ruger's aren't bad. For general purpose, I also prefer a 4" to maybe 6" barrel. For hunting or target, that 8" might be better.

June 26, 2003, 03:46 PM
The general feeling is that the Ruger is somewhat stronger and the Smith usually has a better trigger. What will be your primary use? That 8 inch tube is long and heavy.


June 26, 2003, 04:07 PM
I like the S&W's because there is just so much fine tuning you can do w/ that trigger ;)

June 26, 2003, 04:22 PM
I have the 686 4 inch.
The longer barrel version will most likely have just as nice a trigger out of the box.:cool:

Jim March
June 26, 2003, 06:08 PM
The balance of the GP100 6" with the short shroud is amazing. Stable, but fast-handling. If part of what you want for a "woods gun" is something that can clear leather and point quick for cougar, boar or black bear at bad breath range, the 6" Ruger short-shroud will handle a lot better than that 8" S&W.

Other issues: if it's a wilderness survival gun, the Ruger is tougher and can be field-stripped without tools if it gets dropped in gunk or something.

If I was taking one gun deep into the woods to "do everything", it wouldn't even be a question as to which was more likely to get me home in one piece.

June 26, 2003, 06:53 PM
I have owned both at the same time back in the late 80's. The 686 was a 6" and the GP100 was a 4" stainless version. The Smith definitely had the better single action trigger - crisp and creep free. I shot the same loads through both guns , did not have special super duty Ruger loads. If I needed more than what the 357 offered in power I could go up to 44 mag or 444 Marlin. Both were extremely accurate. Probably would take a Ransom Rest or mounting a scope and using a benchrest to see which was more accurate - and then only with certain loads. To fire a few groups with a load or two and then to declare one being more accurate would not be a real test of the revolvers true accuracy potential.

The Ruger takedown to me was a pain in the rear. For cleaning purposes on the Smith you remove one screw and the cylinder/yoke assembly slides out and then separates. The Ruger yoke/cylinder slides out and does not separate once you have it out.

I liked the Smith's rear sight better - had much more precise feeling adjustments. Plus you can use the same tool to adjust both windage and elevation , where with Ruger you have to use two different size screwdirvers. I liked the Ruger front sight better , black serrated ramp. The Smith bubble gum insert front sight was like some kind of hold over from the Dirty Harry days. The GP 100 grips fit me very well - probably one of the reasons I was able to shoot it nearly as well as the Smith despite the less than ideal single action trigger pull. I like the double actions of both guns although I fired the Smith far more than the Ruger in double action.

With that said today my only 357 revolver is a 686. Still would not mind having a GP100 to compliment the 686 like I did 15 years ago! Both good guns!

June 26, 2003, 07:00 PM
You can use my method when I faced that choice. Get both! :)

However, I like the Ruger better.

June 26, 2003, 08:27 PM
That is a great quote man.

Standing Wolf
June 26, 2003, 09:36 PM
I'd save my pennies for a pre-agreement Smith & Wesson. I don't do business with companies that seek to subvert the Bill of Rights.

June 26, 2003, 09:56 PM
Ok, I haven't been into this stuff very long; I keep hearing about this agreement S&W made with the anti-gun people, could someone tell me what it is?:confused:

June 26, 2003, 10:44 PM
Since the poll results are so close (slight edge to Ruger), both are about the same size & weight, Ruger's cost less and are considered to be somewhat more durable than the S&W - the logical choice would seem to be Ruger.

4v50 Gary
June 26, 2003, 10:46 PM
Ruger. Tougher design.

Leaky Waders
June 26, 2003, 11:20 PM
I chose a 686...mines 4" though and very accurate.

If I were choosing between those two models I would most likely choose the ruger due to the barrel length - all things being equal.

I own quite a few rugers (just none of their double action revolvers). I think they are both good guns.

Before you buy you may want to check Jim March's revolver check out link - it's awesome.


PS I posted a link to the agreement issue in your other post.

Ala Dan
June 27, 2003, 12:44 AM
but I voted for the Smith & Wesson 686 (six shot) model!

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

June 27, 2003, 08:34 AM
I still dislike S&W for political reasons!!

June 27, 2003, 08:46 AM
Ok, but from now on when you vote, only vote on the quality of the gun, don't let anything the companies have done affect that.

June 27, 2003, 11:22 AM
My favorite is the S&W 686, 6 inch. Excellent trigger, single and double action.

Rant "ON"
As far as RKBA goes: What about Bill "no citizen needs more than a 10-round mag" Ruger? The difference is that S&W made front page headlines and Bill Ruger screwed us on the sly. You can't tell me Smith and Wesson is any more or less guilty of greed motivated politics than Ruger! ALL of the big gun companies are playing this game. FOLLOW THE MONEY!
Rant "OFF"

June 27, 2003, 11:25 AM
I own a 4" GP-100 and a 4" 686. Frankly, I like that Ruger better.

June 27, 2003, 01:43 PM
Just got back from a lunch session with my 686 4".
It's such a pleasure to shoot, & balances so well...
Boy, it's hot out there! The barrel & cylinder were heating up from the sun, not the .357's! Now, problem is, I need to clean it tonight!:eek:

June 27, 2003, 01:48 PM
Then how about you vote on it for me man, thanks.

June 27, 2003, 03:42 PM
I just reread your original post, and if you find a good used N frame Smith, with a 3.5" to 5" barrel, I'd really suggest you look closely at it. If it is in good mechanical condition, just put good grips that fit your hand, and then take it shooting. These can be really sweet shooters and hard to beat.

The same can be said for the K & L frames as well, shortening the barrel to include the 3"ers.

December 26, 2006, 05:31 PM
This is an interesting topic, and I keep hearing people voting for the Ruger because it is "stronger". I'm no expert in these guns, but what makes the Ruger stronger and the S&W weaker??

I may have to make a decision like this in the future.

December 26, 2006, 06:02 PM
Faced with a similer choice recently, I chose a 686+(seven shot) 6" . Why ? Just because of the that +. I liked the idea of having an extra round. I tend to prefer smith triggers from what I've toyed with in the store. To be fair though, I only have smith revolvers, and no rugers to compare them to in my stable.

December 26, 2006, 06:12 PM
As posted earlier I was planning on ordering a Taurus 66 with a 6in Bbl. Found a good deal on a GP100 in Blue with 6 inch Bbl. Only $80.00 more than the Taurus and NIB. For the extra fitting work that goes into the Ruger It was worth it. I'm not all that enamored with Name Recognition as an added expense for a firearm. Browning and S&W are high on the list of Brands that charge extra for the name IMHO.

December 26, 2006, 06:22 PM
Go here and scroll down to the article "What Revolver Should I Buy?" for the answer:

December 26, 2006, 06:55 PM
The Smith & Wesson :cool:

December 26, 2006, 07:29 PM
shoot them both and go with what feels better they are both good pistols

December 26, 2006, 07:38 PM
Always go with the smith.

December 26, 2006, 07:44 PM
I agree with "Mio" above. :)

December 26, 2006, 08:26 PM
Find a nice used 6" 686-4. You won't be sorry!

December 26, 2006, 08:48 PM
Having owned both, flip a coin.:neener:

They are both really nice guns, and will last you for a long time.


December 26, 2006, 09:09 PM
One thing to remember - people are often comparing older (pre-lock) Smiths vs. older Rugers. New vs. new, the triggers are quite comparable from what I've heard.

I'm pretty set on ordering a 686 (no Plus - not a real need for me, this is a range gun) from a friendly dealer if I don't run into a killer used GP100 at the next gun show - he has a better line on Smith products, so the difference only comes out to about $60 on my end.

I like the ability to ship the revolver to S&W's Performance Center down the road for their glass-bead finish and action job, and the lock doesn't offend me, so it's worth the extra cash.

December 26, 2006, 09:30 PM
This is an interesting topic, and I keep hearing people voting for the Ruger because it is "stronger". I'm no expert in these guns, but what makes the Ruger stronger and the S&W weaker??

There is no strength difference. If anything, I think metalurgists would suggest Smith's forged frames are stronger than Ruger's cast frames... but I think this is a nearly moot point as these both these guns should outlive you and your unborn children - and history has shown this to be true.

I think the "Rugers are stronger" myth comes from something you hear all the time: "They are built like a tank." Literally speaking, they are - the lines are all about function over form and when you see a Ruger, it looks and feels like a nice, strong tool - the kind you could have bouncing around in a tool box ready to shoot at any time.

For the Smiths, they have a nicer finish and more refined design. When you pick up a shiny new Smith, it feels almost as much like a piece of art as a tool and even though it is built to take all of the abuse of the Ruger, you don't want to throw it in a tool box. You want to lay it down on a soft velvet pad. Is it any less durable or any less of a shooter? No way.

The nice thing about the GP-100 and the 686 are that they are workhorses. BOTH guns will fire full-house hot magnums all day long and ask for more. I say pick the one that you think looks the best and balances the best in your hand. Six months after you buy it, you won't remember the price difference, you will just have a gun - so make it the one you want.

December 26, 2006, 09:43 PM
A used 686 in good condition will be better than the current offerings from either S&W or Ruger. It is likely to be better finished, it will have forged (not cast or MIM) parts, no lock, and have the firing pin on the hammer where it belongs.

Look for a 686-3 or 686-4.

December 26, 2006, 10:08 PM
"A used 686 in good condition will be better than the current offerings from either S&W or Ruger. It is likely to be better finished, it will have forged (not cast or MIM) parts, no lock, and have the firing pin on the hammer where it belongs."

About when did they make these changes?

Thanks for the clarification SJshooter ;)

December 26, 2006, 10:28 PM
I would find a nice, stainless steel, pristine Ruger Security-Six with a 6-inch barrel. I'm also fond of the older Smith & Wesson 4-inch 686s (not the current production).

This is an interesting topic, and I keep hearing people voting for the Ruger because it is "stronger". I'm no expert in these guns, but what makes the Ruger stronger and the S&W weaker??
The Ruger has a solid frame (no sideplate), more robust cylinder (with the cylinder notches between chambers, not over them), massive topstraps, and coil springs rather than leaf springs. The stainless finish also is generally better. The Security-Six had the benefit of weighing less than the 686 and being just as strong if not stronger.

December 26, 2006, 11:35 PM
I voted for the Ruger. I have one, it balances well and the rounds go where aimed.

December 27, 2006, 12:05 AM
Ruger. I own Smiths too, but when the Ruger went on its first range trip I knew I had a keeper. More accurate and fit's me perfectly with the small grip. The GP is my "Go To Gun" and has been for quite a while, this is box stock with no adjusting or tweaking at all.

December 27, 2006, 11:38 PM
"A used 686 in good condition will be better than the current offerings from either S&W or Ruger. It is likely to be better finished, it will have forged (not cast or MIM) parts, no lock, and have the firing pin on the hammer where it belongs."

About when did they make these changes? In 1998 S&W brought out the 686-5 with a MIM hammer & floating firing pin and MIM trigger.

December 28, 2006, 02:46 AM
not much experience with s&w.I do have a range buddy who swears by them but he too loves the feel of the GP100.Several good points have been made on here.If you can shoot both do so.Yes the older models of both seem to be built better.Personal choice and owner of GP100 6" full shroud SS.Love it for range and hunting use.Price was not a factor for me but last i looked the smith was going for an amount more.Good luck

December 29, 2006, 01:35 AM
I think it depends on which models you compare-the Ruger SP101 definitely has more steel at the forcing cone,top strap and cylinder walls than does a J frame Smith.

As Wooderson said above, which era are you comparing? I'd take older Smiths with mirror bluing and silky triggers over a Ruger. But today's Smiths can't compare in quality of manufacturing to a Ruger. And with the cost difference, you can get a trigger job on your new Ruger and still come out cheaper than a new Smith!

January 1, 2007, 02:41 PM
I have trouble loading a GP100's cylinder with a speed loader. The distance between the edge of the cylinder and frame in relation to the grip seems to be a bit tight. I have no trouble with S&W's. Maybe my technique needs work; dunno.

January 1, 2007, 02:48 PM
The Ruger's strength is needed in the big bore magnum category. The Smith is plenty for mere 357s. How many blown up 686s have we seen here? None.

So, why carry an chunky, over engineered GP100 when you can have a svelte 686?

Just to dig up some historical dirt here, Smith jumped in bed with the antis in the 90s but Bill Ruger also said no man needs more than a 10 rd clip or some such.

They're all sell outs.

January 1, 2007, 02:54 PM
You buy a handgun that fits your hand. If the Smith fits use it. If the Ruger fits better use it. Whatever you get make sure you PRACTICE.

That will mean more than the engineering of the gun.

I have both and my personal preference is for the Ruger because of handfit.

October 29, 2009, 11:25 AM
Ruger hands down... customer service is capitol for me. Why buy something that costs more, that has a skimpier track record, that the company which produces it fights you tooth and nail to have it fixed? I will say that the smiths have a trigger you can fall in love with right at the gun shop. The rugers Do Not. However, fixe this issue with 15$ to the door from wilson combat. Just my opinion.

October 29, 2009, 11:57 AM
Kind of an odd poll. I prefer Ruger to S&W, but prefer 6" to 8", but prefer 686 to GP100. A real "apples to oranges" comparison, to me.

October 29, 2009, 12:09 PM
Lazarus thread.


October 29, 2009, 12:32 PM
I continue to be impressed with the Ruger quality.

Arkansas Paul
October 29, 2009, 12:37 PM
This is just my opinion, but if I'm ever faced with a choice in revolvers of Ruger or anything else, I'm taking the Ruger. That is if the prices are in the same ballpark.

October 29, 2009, 12:57 PM
Had to make the same choice about a month ago.....went with the Ruger after having fired both at my range.

Ruger is a little beefier, costs less and the trigger is fine.

October 29, 2009, 01:39 PM
I voted Ruger. They are both great guns but the Rugers are cheaper, spend the difference on ammo. Also while it used to be true that Smith almost always had better triggers, that is not the case on the newest production. Either way it is nothing a $50 trigger job couldnt fix if you had to and you would still come out ahead.

October 29, 2009, 01:46 PM
03, 06, and now 09. A very durable thread indeed. ;)

October 29, 2009, 05:26 PM
Does the 8-inch 686 come with a bayonet mount? Training wheels? I can't imagine why anyone would want a handgun with an 8-inch barrel, but to each his own. To me, such guns have the worst attributes of rifles and handguns.

The 686 is, in my view, the best revolver S&W ever made. It's got great balance, superb accuracy, decent trigger and tolerances that put it in the Colt Python class of revolvers. As good as the Rugers are, and as accurate as they are, I don't think they're quite as accurate overall.

For a field gun, I'd take a 6-inch 686.

October 29, 2009, 05:42 PM
I had a GP 100 and liked it, although I sold it because it was too heavy and I couldn't hit anything with it. Also had a smith (different gun). Sold it but for different reasons (light gun was crappy to shoot. Too much recoil).

Ended up with a Taurus. Now I have 2 Taurus revolvers. Can't say enough good things about them considering I bought them both for less than one new smith costs.

October 29, 2009, 06:00 PM
I'm no expert in these guns, but what makes the Ruger stronger and the S&W weaker??
As stated, the Ruger has a solid frame, more robust parts and can be field stripped using only the rim of a bullet case. Yes, a GP-100 is "stronger" than a S&W 686, but unlike the 66, the 686 is strong enough.

Years ago, S&W ran ads attacking Ruger for using investment cast frames while theirs were forged. Now Smith also uses investment casting, and guess what? It's just as strong. But whereas Smith used to flash chrome their hammers and triggers, it now uses MIM parts, which is a corner I wouldn't have cut. Even so, the 686 revolvers remain winners in action smoothness and accuracy.

My personal preferance is that Ruger should have stuck with the Security-Sixes and Speed-Sixes. The combination of strength and weight were winning combos.

October 29, 2009, 06:36 PM
In the 6" I'd have to say Ruger.

October 29, 2009, 06:47 PM
I thought necromancy had been outlawed by the Guild.

I didn't understand the need to "pick a side" in 2003 and I haven't gotten any smarter in the intervening six years.

If "versus" threads is what the internet is about, Gore can have it back.

October 29, 2009, 07:29 PM

All I can say is no lock

Yeah, Im one of those guys.

Monster Zero
October 29, 2009, 09:02 PM
I'd go with the Ruger myself because it's next to indestructible. Plus a 6" barrel would come closer to "general purpose" than the 8" on the Smith.

Honestly, I'm not that big a fan of extra-long barrels on handguns, say more than 6". Seems to me that if you really need that long barrel, you may as well get a rifle.

You can always get a trigger job on the Ruger. Seems like there are instructions for such a thing around here somewhere, too.

October 29, 2009, 09:04 PM
Both are great brands - you wont go wrong with either.

October 29, 2009, 09:57 PM
I have 2 Davis tuned 586's a 4" and a 6" and love them.

October 30, 2009, 01:14 AM
can someone give the difference in weight and size between the two with similar barrels?

October 30, 2009, 04:17 AM
Does the 8-inch 686 come with a bayonet mount? Training wheels? I can't imagine why anyone would want a handgun with an 8-inch barrel, but to each his own. To me, such guns have the worst attributes of rifles and handguns.

I assume that used 686 has a 8 3/8 barrel to be exact -- S&W seems to love 8 3/8" (on .44 Mags & their X-Frame beasts).

Apparently, S&W would agree that such a barrel is excessive for a .357 since I'm not aware of them making any .357 over 6" in recent times, just as Ruger stops at 6" for their GP-100. I'd say 6" is plenty as well. That's hardly a petite gun.

Last November I bought a new GP-100. I went with Ruger because it cost $150 less than a S&W 686. I examined both and could not see any advantage that would justify such a price difference. They are virtually identical in terms of size & weight. That was the first (and so far) only gun purchase. A friend who is very much into guns (being a handloader, expert marksman, and owner of 20 guns) thought Ruger was the obvious choice. He owns a 686 himself, but only because he got it used for a really great price. He said that if buying new, he'd go with the Ruger as he's very pleased with the four Ruger guns he owns, including their Super RedHawk .44.

Given that this debate of S&W vs Ruger has managed to rage on for 6 years and several pages, I gather that both are fine choices. If there was an obvious winner this debate would have been over back in 2003 when it started.

October 30, 2009, 10:21 AM
I was the first respondent to this thread back in '03. :) I own .357 Magnum revolvers by both Ruger and Smith & Wesson (pre-lock, of course). (I sold the Colt King Cobra that I had.)

Nowadays, if new guns were the only thing on the table, I'd go with the GP-100. I've been increasingly impressed with their quality.

Since my first reply to this thread in '03, I actually bought a S&W .357 with the lock, and had the lock self-engage when I oafishly knocked the unloaded gun off a counter onto the hardwood floor. Since this is precisely the sort of rough treatment that my force-on-force training has shown me that a defensive firearm is likely to have to swallow and come up shooting, I decided that the gun was not for me and traded it away (at a loss, of course). I have nothing against pre-lock S&Ws, but - if we're looking at new guns in this Lazarus thread - I'd now say go with the Ruger.

October 30, 2009, 12:45 PM
S & W 686 6 - "Ruger GP 100 6" - Weapons fantastic. Best shots just for S & W - Robustness and reliability for the RUGER GP 100. Sales of the RUGER are good to the point of being a "cult". I voted GP 100 - ... I'm in love :) :)

By A

October 30, 2009, 12:54 PM
I voted for the GP100 because it is the only one of the two in the poll that I have actually owned. Nothing against the Smith... I really enjoy my little J-frame so I am sure the 686 is nice. But the Ruger is almost 1/2 the price of the Smith (only paid $400 for mine lightly used), and it really is a gun that will last you for a lifetime. I can't really say anything bad about the GP... it's all business.

October 30, 2009, 01:44 PM
To look fancy, a 686.
To look like you mean business, a GP100.

I prefer the GP100 over any other revolver. Mainly because I prefer the look and feel, and the overall functionnal innovations it shares with it's grandfathers the SIX series over the S&W.

October 30, 2009, 02:25 PM
I hear people say "the gp-100 doesn't have the 'graceful lines' of the s&w"
I don't know what they mean, when talking about the new s&w's. they don't have "graceful lines" either. The new ones look fat....

October 30, 2009, 02:36 PM
IN MY OPINION ONLY... The Smith quality is slowly on the decline and the Ruger is holding steady if not climbing. I would always say ruger unless you can afford the smith performance center package.

October 30, 2009, 02:39 PM
I've shot a friend's 686 8 3/8". It's not a carry gun, but I love shooting the thing. If I ever see one for sale for a sane price, I'm going to buy it.

It's a uniquely wonderful firearm for target shooting, or perhaps some hunting.

But the Ruger is almost 1/2 the price of the Smith (only paid $400 for mine lightly used)

I bought a nice pre-lock square butt 686 for $350 in a gun shop a few months ago. I did get lucky, though...

Put some Ahrends cocobolo smooth tactical grips on it, and my wife loves the thing. I do, too, but surprisingly, she even prefers it to a Model 10, despite its considerable heft.

Somehow, if it ever comes to that, someone looking down the barrel of the 686 will probably assume that the one holding it "means business.":D

I like the Smiths. I can grab a J,K,L or N and they all feel similar. Same controls, same basic feel, just different size and weight.

The Ruger works fine, though. I just can't practice with a 686 and have the skills transfer over without any adaptation to a Mountain Gun. And no, the heavy, bulky Redhawk 4" ain't the same as a Mountain Gun for carry, and it is pretty ugly.

October 30, 2009, 03:03 PM
Im a BIG Ruger fan but Smith's are nice too ,I own a ss 6 inch gp and its a blast to shoot even with hot 357's.
As so many have said you just can't go wrong with either gun.

October 30, 2009, 08:24 PM
I forgot about the performance center.
you can get your gun worked over. including non-MIM parts put in.

In that case....KGP/GP-100 doesn't compare

October 31, 2009, 03:40 AM
In the survey wins GP100 - GP100 Champion in sales - in savings Champion GP100 - IMHO these are all good reasons for buying a RUGER GP100 - RUGER FOREVER ;) ;) ;)

By A

charlie echo
March 17, 2012, 12:54 PM
The general feeling is that the Ruger is somewhat stronger and the Smith usually has a better trigger. What will be your primary use? That 8 inch tube is long and heavy.

Seems that S&W offers more selection than Ruger?
So, we should compare a "N" or "L" frame vs. GP100: so, consider pound-for-pound or weight class comparisons?

Yes I did dig up a zombie-thread. :)

357 Terms
March 18, 2012, 07:44 AM
Wow! this poll is still open after 9 years.

I voted GP100.

March 18, 2012, 10:13 AM
And after 3 years, even I am still here to confirm what I said in October 2009. ;) ;)
I have a GP 100 for four years and a 627 V8.
The RUGER, the frame has "L" while the S & W, has the frame "N".
The GP 100 revolver is a "generic", that fits all.
The 627 V8 is a revolver used only to make the races.
Although the Smith & Wesson is a product of the PERFORMANCE CENTRE, the click of the trigger RUGER remains the best. :o :o


March 18, 2012, 10:48 AM
I voted GP100 because you didn't have the Security Six up there. It's a tough revolver.

Take a look at them before you decide, I know of NO ONE who has had one and didn't like it.


el Godfather
March 18, 2012, 12:29 PM
By mistake I voted SW686. Damn touch screen phones.

Thaddeus Jones
March 19, 2012, 12:22 PM
Ruger is the only current production revolver I will purchase.

I'm a long time S&W guy. I haven't seen a handgun from the current company calling itself S&W worth over eleven years! The "performance center" is no longer a guarantee of anything other than an exhorbitant price tag. They are no longer even in their own facility, but located on the factory floor.

I've read for years how S&W triggers were "better than Rugers". That may have been true at one time, but no longer. Don't take my word for it. Go down to the LGS and test them side by side for yourself.

S&W now has triggers only a lawyer could love. :)

March 19, 2012, 03:42 PM
I'll buy Ruger for things no one else makes - the #1 rifle, the Blackhawk and so on. But a double action service revolver in .38/.357? S&W all the way.

(oops, did not see how ancient this thread was. I'll still take a new S&W trigger over any from Ruger though.)

If you enjoyed reading about "Ruger or Smith and Wesson?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!