[Mr Bernoulli]

Hey guys do not mean to cause a civil war here lol but was wondering the pros and cons of both companies. I just got my CCW and have what I want in mind etc but was stuck between these two companies. Can you folks all give me your input and experiences to help me better decide?

[rhartwell]

I have guns from both companies. I say get what you like

[ArmedBear]

You're in "Revolvers" so I'm assuming you're asking about revolvers.

Ruger has announced a CCW-specific revolver (LCR). I have never seen one, and I don't know anyone who has. It's unorthodox, but I'm interested. I have and like a number of Ruger firearms.

However, as of today, the only company of the two that makes proven CCW revolvers -- lots of them, in many varieties -- is Smith and Wesson.

Ruger's SP101 might work, but it's still a heavy gun if you want it primarily to carry concealed.

[AllAmerican]

While both are recall specialists, Id say go with S&W.

[osteodoc08]

Really can't go wrong with either one. Both make stellar products with top notch CS to back it up IF you ever have a problem.....A BIG IF.

First hand, I have experience with a S&W Model 57 and a Ruger Blackhawk in 45 LC. Both are super tight and shoot better than I can. Between my father and I, we shot out the forcing cone on the M57 many years ago and S&W fixed it free and my father payed for a reblue. Best estimate is probably anyone's guess on the S&W (courtesy to the Dillon reloader) using mild to moderate loads with hard cast lead. It wouldn't be unusual to put 100-200 through it at a range session.

[keebitual]

I have had no problem as all with my Smiths.

I've handled recently side by side new smith 686's AND ruger GP100's

comparing NEW to NEW, they both feel solid and reassuring, however the Ruger's trigger feels much better to me.

I see alot of praise for both manufacturers on these forums. I think you cant go wrong.

On a side note. I did not like the S&W 340 at all, I had a hard time hitting a Paper plate at 30'

Be it Ruger or Smith my next CC gun will have greater than a 1 7/8" barrel.

[jgibbs]

I like my S&W snub nose that I got last year. But I have liked all of the Rugers that I shot as well. So, I guess I'm not that helpful.

[SeanSw]

As much as I hate to admit it, if I'm buying new and paying retail prices than Ruger gets the dosh. I was also unimpressed by the out of box trigger on my new S&W but it slicked up beautifully in due time and I have confidence their modern revolvers are also capable. Smith and Wesson is simply losing the price/performance battle and the internal lock is, in my opinion, an unacceptable manufacturing defect. Once they recall all guns manufactured with internal locks I'll know they're interested in my money again.

A Ruger sp101 is the #1 spot on my purchase list right now. I have three S&W revolvers (one Ruger) but am quite impressed with the modular design and think it's superior in many ways.

[ArmedBear]

The 442 is readily available without the lock, though I have not had any problems with my two S&Ws with the lock.

[Trekbike]

I've got both. For maximum concealment, the 642/442 is the better choice.

[BlayGlock]

If you are wanting a revolver for ccw Smith makes the 442 and 642. Ruger has the SP101, which I am a big fan of, however the trigger takes a while to smooth up. I think an airweight Smith would be your best best for a first time ccw weapon, because you will tend to carry it more if you can do so comfortably. However, the SP101 is much more fun to shoot because it does not recoil as bad since it is heavier. I know that you did not ask about this one, but I think you should also look at a Taurus 605.

[Hawk]

Given a case where both products are new production and both firms have something relatively similar, I like what Ruger has to offer.

However, when reviewing the last half dozen or so revolvers I bought, Ruger never once had a directly competing product. Not once.

This doesn't matter if you're looking for a 686/GP-100 or a heavy "J"/SP-101.

If, on the other hand, you're looking at 8 round .357s, alloy framed .45 ACPs, full sized double action .22RFs, a long-action .32-20 or any other non-plain-vanilla offering you may find yourself with no Ruger to use as a comparison.

The only real comparison to an alloy "J" right now is as scarce as Gold Labels.

I've already got a half-dozen mid-frame DA 6 round .357s. Adding a GP-100 to that pile would be like taking coals to Newcastle. But, an 8 round snubby alloy framed .357 - I don't have one of those.

I view Ruger as nice stuff - but not near enough of it. And, for the time being, nothing that I'm interested in.

[ArmedBear]

The only real comparison to an alloy "J" right now is as scarce as Gold Labels.

I don't know...

Unlike the LCR, I have actually seen and shot a Gold Label. Haven't seen one since, though.:D

[dagger dog]

I would have to consider the Ruger SP 101 in the new .327 Federal Magnum chambering you have the advantage of a small concealed carry plus the extra 6th shot, and the almost ballistic equivalent of the lighter .357 and .38 Special + P.

[ArmedBear]

Anyone seen .327 Federal ammo in the store?

Yes, the SP101 is "heavy," not compared to a GP100, but compared to S&W's common Airweights.

[sparkyguy66]

I don't buy brand new revolvers, especially S&Ws. That infernal..err..internal lock sux, and all the MIM, hollow triggers, frame-mounted firing pins turn me off. Now, the OLD S&Ws are excellent weapons of superior quality and craftsmanship second to NONE!

[Hawk]

When I was doing the browser tab-2-step comparing models, I was rather puzzled why the SP-101 in .327 was only shown in 3-1/16" barrel - probably just temporary before the 2" comes on line.

But, it's almost a quarter pound heavier than the 3" 632 in .327 and a half inch longer.

As AB notes, I haven't seen ammo for either but these be funny times.
http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FAProdSpecsView?model=5759
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&productId=86957&tabselected=tech&isFirearm=Y&parent_category_rn=

Few S&W folk would consider the 632 to be either small or light but it slides under the SP-101 in most measures to be found in their respective specs - with the notable exception of the MSRP.

If we're looking for something to compare to the likes of 642s and 340s, we presumably will be waiting for RCR. As of today, that's like comparing 642s to Unicorn hooves. Hopefully that'll change in the near future.

[Hawk]

I don't buy brand new revolvers, especially S&Ws. That infernal..err..internal lock sux, and all the MIM, hollow triggers, frame-mounted firing pins turn me off. Now, the OLD S&Ws are excellent weapons of superior quality and craftsmanship second to NONE!

Hmm. 15 replies before the lock. Not bad. Not bad at all. There's hope we'll get a full page sometime before 2011.

Also, a sincere welcome to new member Sparkyguy66. If I may, I would like to refer you to a posting made by our Larry Corriea - pretty entertaining. Not surprising given as I understand he's now a full time novelist.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=3207736&postcount=1

[searcher451]

I've got a handful of Ruger revolvers and love them all; a couple of them are frequent range companions, in fact. In the decades (yes, you read that correctly) that I've owned them, I've never experienced a flaw of any type with any of them. I like the way they look, I like the way they fit my hand and eye, and I like the reliability. That's a tough combination to top.

I'm not saying that the S&W guns don't match up with the Rugers I own. I'm just saying that I'm glad I own the Rugers and always recommend them highly, based on years of positive experiences.

[sparkyguy66]

Thanx for the welcome, Hawk. I have been around here for awhile, though. As far as my ever-so-brief mention of the lock, I didn't believe it to be so noteworthy considering the rest of my post. But, since you want to bring it forward, yeah..I hate the lock. It's stupid, ugly, in the way and correctly allows a revolver enthusiast like myself as to what era said weapon is coming from so I can avoid. Sounds to me as the only ppl who hate to hear the gripe about the lock are the ppl who own them. Not sure if you're pointing to that other thread is some kind of coercing into not mentioning the lock, but I do as I please, and if you or anyone else doesn't like my posts don't read them.

[Confederate]

Ruger makes the strongest revolvers, and the least expensive, but S&Ws tend to be better in the trigger pull area and are a bit easier to carry.

Just go with the make and model that suits you the best.

I have a Ruger Speed-Six/Security-Six that I'm very fond of. S&W, however, makes some small, lightweight revolvers that are too light. A Model 60 .357 would be ideal for me, and after that a Security-Six stainless with a 2.75-inch barrel. The S&W 66 comes next and then it's off to auto land.

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh198/jriler/rugerga-32.jpg

Ruger Security-Six.

[Hawk]

Sounds to me as the only ppl who hate to hear the gripe about the lock are the ppl who own them. Not sure if you're pointing to that other thread is some kind of coercing into not mentioning the lock, but I do as I please, and if you or anyone else doesn't like my posts don't read them.

No. It's just tiresome.

I don't use "ignore lists" it cuts me off from too much interesting stuff.

I wouldn't suggest that "drive-bys" regarding the lock be discouraged by fiat but where it's simply dropped into an existing non-related discussion, it's tiresome - it's not like we don't have sufficient threads related just to the lock.

So, what I'm considering is simply linking Correia's post every single time I see an unrelated "lock drive-by" posting until the membership at large grows weary enough of the tactic that either they or I give up - what do you think?

It's hard to get offended from Larry's post - it's actually very funny. I'd give up the enterprise if I got PM'd by a mod with a cease and desist but I suspect they're equally worn out and just waiting for someone to embark on such a venture.

I'm looking forward to it. You?

[madcratebuilder]

What's with ALL the Ruger vs Smith posts on all the forums lately? I've seen a dozen of them this week.

Smith is 'best' for some
Ruger is 'best' for others

Take your pick, or buy both, I did.

Why do so many people equate size to strength? Rugers have a heavier frame because they are investment cast, not forged, they need to be heavier to be as strong as a forged counterpart.

[CDW4ME]

Barami Hip Grip is available for Smith J frame, but not Ruger; that is my preferred way to carry a revolver, so I prefer Smith.

[sparkyguy66]

but where it's simply dropped into an existing non-related discussion, it's tiresome

This is where you are wrong. It is related to the discussion. The post is Revolvers: Ruger vs S&W. S&W implemented an internal lock on their recently produced revolvers. My point wasn't the lock specifically, but one of several(IMO) poor quality issues with newer Smiths. YOU separated the lock part from my points and made issue of it. To me, what's "tiresome" is some ppl trying to tell others what,where and when to post.

[420Stainless]

Both work for me. No particular brand preference, just whichever model suits a particular want.

[Mr Bernoulli]

what is investment cast vs forged? I feel the lock was fair game here cause I asked pros vs. cons so lets not get into a heated discussion about that... So hopefully that will be the end of arguing when and where to post it etc lol

[sparkyguy66]

I'm not sure about the investment cast thing myself. It all comes down to personal preference, really, as both are very good quality handguns. I was raised on S&Ws, so I lean in that direction. I did own a Ruger, but it turned out to be a lemon and soured me on them a bit. I'm a big classic era(1945-1980ish) S&W guy, preferring pinned barrels and recessed cylinders over 7-shot safety-engineered revolvers. I posted these pics on here already(I think) but it gives you an idea as my favorite:
http://c3.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/58/l_432fb2a6f1d94fa88885265f5586d88e.jpg
http://c4.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/32/l_28d3f8ea7c95450f83070b70ccba3577.jpg
S&W model 27-2 c.1975 ,pinned&recessed, 5" barrel. Rugers are built like tanks, but this one is just as strong as any Ruger AND is gorgeous to boot.:D

[texas bulldog]

i own both and like both. i have a pretty simple guideline...

if i'm buying used...S&W. if i'm buying new...ruger. in my opinion, that is the best way to maximize the value i get for my dollar.

my primary carry piece is an SP101. yes, it's a bit heavy for its size. i don't much care for the lightweights, though i acknowledge that they are quite popular for CCW. so if we take those out of the equation, the SP101 is really just a couple ounces heavier than a model 36 or 60 (which i would also be happy to carry if i found the right deal on a used one).

[jack the toad]

As to revolvers, nothing wrong with Rugers but I much prefer S&W. especially for ccw.
The new LCR may be ok though.

[pps]

Get what you like. I still shoot the hell out of a rebuilt service 6. I ccw my 340PD scandium and occasionally (winter) my N frame 627. My father still ccw's his service 6 when he's not carrying his G23

[Travis Bickle]

Smiths tend to be more finely crafted and accurate, but Rugers tend to be tougher and more robust. If they were cars, Smith would be like the Ferrari and Ruger would be like a sturdy old Ford pickup truck. They're both good guns and you can't go wrong with either.

[easyrider6042004@yahoo.ca]

If they were cars, Smith would be like the Ferrari and Ruger would be like a sturdy old Ford pickup truck.
Yup. Have both and that above is spot on. Both do the job they were designed to do perfectly. Smith&Wessons (preMIM/lock) are thoroughbreds and Rugers are workhorses.

Both Ferraris and Smiths are more expensive than beasts of burden, of course.

[Bigfro23]

I own both. Ruger & S&W. the Ruger SP101 which is my Concealed Carry abit weighty but ultimately the jobs done.... I also have a Smith and Wesson performance Center model 329, it's pretty large being a N frame revolver but given the oppurtunity with the Right Holster I'd carry it any day of the week... But for the Money Ruger would be the right choice....

[Thaddeus Jones]

Well said sparkyguy66, and welcome to the forum! :)

I am leery of those who wish to supress opinions which differ from their own. How else will new shooters learn about undesireable "features", if they don't read about it from other shooters.

They certainly won't hear about it from gunshop salesmen, nor brand loyal fanboys.

[MCgunner]

Depends on what ya want it for. I've owned, do own both. I prefer Rugers for their reliable ruggedness. The triggers are a little stiffer, but easily fixed with a spring kit and some firing smooths 'em up. I wouldn't mind getting another SP101, awesome little .357. This time, I'd want the 3". It's no pocket revolver.

I'm waiting to check out the new LCR. Might be really nice. I don't think I'll get one anytime soon, have a little M85UL I really like, but might be interested in the future. Before I get one of those, I'll probably get a LCP, though. I have a hole in my carry collection that the LCP fits, very small .380 ACP. Right now, it's a sellers market and there are waiting lists for LCPs around here. I'm waiting to see if the market will saturate, maybe they'll over-produce. Might not be for a while, though. :rolleyes:

All my current Ruger revolvers are SAs, 2 blackhawks and an Old Army. I've owned a Security Six and an SP101 for DAs, both good guns. I've owned a M19 and a M1917 Smith and still have a M10. I don't really care for the Smith and Wesson lock. The Taurus lock is on the hammer and gives no problems nor does it stick out while you look at it. That stupid S&W lock just bothers me and reports of it locking in lightweight revolvers, while they might be bogus, well, I can live without 'em. There are rumors I've seen that S&W is dropping the lock. I'm skeptical.

[Oro]

what is investment cast vs forged?

Looks like everyone recently ignored this question. For a detailed answer, you can google it or use Wikipedia - level answer, but I'll just gun-deck it for you: Very loosely, it's the difference between carving something from a solid rock (forged) or liquefying the rock and pouring it into a mold, like concrete (cast). Now, cast vs. forged steel are closer in actual strength than solid rock and concrete (hard rock, let's say!). But the analogy is valid.

I recently ran across a gif of this famous ad S&W ran in the 80s when Ruger started to say that because their guns were larger, they were stronger. S&W even went to print to challenge that. I understand Ruger never brought it up again...

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd275/kamerer/S-W/ad_686vsgp100.jpg

photo credit to DarkStar at ar15.com...

[punkndisorderly]

I think I'm going to be sticking with Smith from now on. I've now been burned two times in a row with Rugers.

MkIII purchased last year that had 1-2 jams per magazine full and had to be sent back. Came back from Ruger functioning 100% 3 MONTHS later with no appology or explaination of what they fixed.

Ruger Single Six in .32 H&R purchased on Saturday that has 2 tight chambers that won't allow the rounds to seat flush with the cylinder and binds up.

Used to be a complete Ruger fan several years ago. Now, most of their offerings seem fairly average when compared to the competition. Their line also seems very broad, but very shallow. If Ruger happens to make exactly what you want, you can save quite a few bills over a Smith. However, Smith is more likely to have a model exactly like you want.

[MCgunner]

Looks like everyone recently ignored this question. For a detailed answer, you can google it or use Wikipedia - level answer, but I'll just gun-deck it for you: Very loosely, it's the difference between carving something from a solid rock (forged) or liquefying the rock and pouring it into a mold, like concrete (cast). Now, cast vs. forged steel are closer in actual strength than solid rock and concrete (hard rock, let's say!). But the analogy is valid.

I recently ran across a gif of this famous ad S&W ran in the 80s when Ruger started to say that because their guns were larger, they were stronger. S&W even went to print to challenge that. I understand Ruger never brought it up again...

Rugers ARE stronger guns, like it or not. I prefer my Blackhawk for an outdoor carry to any Mountain Gun. The little Smith and even the SP101 are stronger guns than K frames, especially in the forcing cone area.

Yeah, I found this on the net, too.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/smith-wesson_dark.htm

[Rexster]

I have and use both, or have used them heavily in the past. Both companies are fully capable of delivering non-functional products, but both have good reputations for making them right. Both companies have gone through periods when the triggers/actions tended to really need the attention of a gunsmith.

Anyone who thinks Rugers have rougher actions than S&Ws should go to a dealer and handle several of each today. The last few I have handled indicate Ruger is turning out VERY smooth DA revolver actions lately. The SP101 snubby I bought new about two years ago was very smooth but a bit heavy. The 3-1/16" SP101 I bought last month was even smoother and with a pleasing pull weight. Neither of these little revolvers need any 'smith's attention, nor for me do any stoning of the mainspring struts or DA surfaces, as I have done with older Rugers.

Not all "old" S&W revolvers are great. I came of age during S&W's Bangor Punta era, when actions were typically gritty, there would typically be gaps between the crane and frame, and overall fitting was poor. By the mid-1990's, S&W again made mostly great sixguns, and then, unfortunately, the era of MIM parts began. I am not here to debate whether MIM parts break or not. I do know that the typical DA trigger pull of the MIM guns I have handled are worse than that typical of a sixgun with forged parts. I can tolerate the keyhole, but if I buy myself a new L-frame, as I have been contemplating, I am going to pay the heavy premium to get a Performance Center version, which are still made with forged hammers and triggers.

[Rob P.]

I just decided lately that I needed to get a new "trail gun" for when I'm in the boonies. I also wanted something different to carry every day for those days when I'm more in touch with my feminine side. (Wanting a new pair of shoes and all that).

So, I started looking for a carry revolver. S&W immediately came to mind. Beautiful workmanship. Nice balance. Great warranty. Good pointability. HIGH prices. ( :what: )

So, I started looking elsewhere. I finished looking at a 3" Ruger SP 101 in .357. It was such a good deal I bought it.

Tough as a tank. Reliable. Great warranty. Points well and is light. Rougher in fit & finish than the S&W but that's OK for a daily carry piece. Besides it can be smoothed out over time. Best of all, it's a lot less expensive than the S&W.

IMO either weapon is a good one. Ruger, at this point in time, is a better deal for a "using" gun.

[Oro]

Rugers ARE stronger guns, like it or not.

I, and most of us, would just like some PROOF instead of people just asserting it. Sure, there are random observations of one or another having a problem, but no one can point to any sample testing that in any way can say one is stronger than the other. What is a FACT is that one is made with stronger steel (but less of it) and one is made with weaker steel (but more of it). There are four variables in that equation to solve for before anyone can made an assertion.

[Travis Bickle]

I, and most of us, would just like some PROOF instead of people just asserting it. Sure, there are random observations of one or another having a problem, but no one can point to any sample testing that in any way can say one is stronger than the other. What is a FACT is that one is made with stronger steel (but less of it) and one is made with weaker steel (but more of it). There are four variables in that equation to solve for before anyone can made an assertion.

In reloading manuals, many of the hottest loads are marked "Ruger only." There is a reason for this.

[Rob P.]

I, and most of us, would just like some PROOF instead of people just asserting it. Sure, there are random observations of one or another having a problem, but no one can point to any sample testing that in any way can say one is stronger than the other. What is a FACT is that one is made with stronger steel (but less of it) and one is made with weaker steel (but more of it). There are four variables in that equation to solve for before anyone can made an assertion.

I have read in more than one place that S&W petitioned SAMII to lower the pressure std on the .357 rounds so that the S&W's wouldn't stretch so badly with full house ammo. SAMII complied and lowered the pressure std for .357 magnum ammo. Ruger, OTOH, built their frames to withstand full pressure magnum rounds without excessive stretch or failure. S&W does not recommend magnum ammo at the old SAMII pressures for their handguns. Ruger makes no such restrictions.

Rugers may not be as pretty as S&W's but when lasting performance at full pressure loads is what counts they are tops.

[remingtondude58]

I like the button to release the cylinder on the ruger, because it is easier, being a lefty.

[MCgunner]

I, and most of us, would just like some PROOF instead of people just asserting it. Sure, there are random observations of one or another having a problem, but no one can point to any sample testing that in any way can say one is stronger than the other. What is a FACT is that one is made with stronger steel (but less of it) and one is made with weaker steel (but more of it). There are four variables in that equation to solve for before anyone can made an assertion.

Buy one and use it heavily with heavy loads for a couple of decades and get back to me. Nothin' like good old personal experience, I'd say.;)

It ain't just the material, it's the design. Rugers don't need no stinkin' side plate. The lock up is stronger, too. Check out how a Ruger DA locks, ain't just a couple of flimsy ball detents.

[Oro]

Buy one and use it heavily with heavy loads

25 years on the 629 now, still going strong... Regular diet of magnums and hot 300gr loads and it hasn't fallen apart (or even worn measurably).

I have read in more than one place that S&W petitioned SAMII to lower the pressure std on the .357 rounds so that the S&W's wouldn't stretch so badly with full house ammo.

I believe you are talking about the K-frame, which was not designed as a .357 gun. S&W's purpose-built .357 guns are on the L and N frame. So you should compare apples to apples... I believe the standards are and have been 35k psi for quite a long time, actually before the K frame issue. You have read this information on an internet forum or where...?

Look, the bottom line is we are talking about a measurable, definable value. How much pressure to stretch a frame window, say, .005". This can be done really easily, yet no one has ever measured it. It's just WAY too much "I heard..." kinda comments. Proof. Bring me Proof. It may be true, but just prove it...

[shiftyer1]

I own and am happy with guns from both companies. From a cutomer service standpoint I prefer ruger, I hold a grudge w/ smith.

[greyling22]

I"ve got a security 6 and a smith 686. both with some trigger work done. smith has a better trigger and handles heavy loads more comfortably, but it's a heavier gun, and shows some gas cutting. The ruger seems like a stronger gun, has been shot a lot more (it's older) and has no cutting issues. I like them both, but I really want a stainless gp100. I'd trade the security 6 away toward it, but not the smith, so I guess that is where my preference lies.

[Mike Honcho]

Both of these manufactures are top notch in my opinion. I own revolvers from both. I carry a Ruger SP101 chambered in .357 daily. The extra weight is minimal compared to the Smith snubs. It handles the recoil better in my opinion. As long as it's American, I'm all for it.

[MCgunner]

I believe you are talking about the K-frame, which was not designed as a .357 gun. S&W's purpose-built .357 guns are on the L and N frame. So you should compare apples to apples... I believe the standards are and have been 35k psi for quite a long time, actually before the K frame issue. You have read this information on an internet forum or where...?

Hmm, they still make J frames and in .357 Magnum. If the K frame is a POS, where does that leave a J frame .357 as compared to, say, the SP101 which is damned near indestructible and only a couple of ounces heavier? Why is The SP101 so strong compared to the J frame?

SUPERIOR DESIGN

In fact, I'd take an SP101 for strength over the heavier K frame. And, guess what, the original SP101 was designed as a .38. However, gun writers quickly understood that the strength of the gun screamed .357 and convinced Ruger to build one, and they sold so well, they were eventually redesigned to better handle the round's extra length. Those transitional SP101s would only handle the OAL of the 125 grain loadings because they utilized a frame that was designed for the .38. Ruger over-builds their guns that way, or did when Ol' Bill was alive.