CURRENT Production Ruger and S&W


PDA






InkEd
January 23, 2011, 11:19 PM
Do you think that the CURRENT production Ruger revolvers are as good as (or better than) the CURRENT production Smith&Wesson revolvers?

If you enjoyed reading about "CURRENT Production Ruger and S&W" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
klcmschlesinger
January 23, 2011, 11:24 PM
I didn't vote but I really like both. I am a revolver guy and own double revolvers for both. Love them both. You will get some answers about quality over the years, and that is true, at certain times quality does fail, but today, to me, both are pretty damn good.

chicharrones
January 23, 2011, 11:26 PM
I was hoping for a "both" vote option as well. :D

nofishbob
January 23, 2011, 11:51 PM
I think your poll is slanted towards S&W...why no option for "Ruger is better"?

My small sample (one of each) shows Ruger quality far ahead of even S&W's Performance Center products.

Bob

klcmschlesinger
January 23, 2011, 11:53 PM
Thanks for the support chich. With that stance I usually get bashed bad and real quick.

HelterSkelter
January 23, 2011, 11:55 PM
ruger > smith and wesson therefore, yes ruger is as good as smith and wesson.

that's like asking is a mercedes as good as a lexus?

InkEd
January 24, 2011, 12:04 AM
If you answer YES than you think Ruger IS as good (or better) than S&W.

If you answer NO than you think Ruger IS NOT as good (or better) than S&W.

Also, We are talking ONLY about the CURRENT production revolvers.

Hope that clears up an confusion about the voting options.

788Ham
January 24, 2011, 12:10 AM
Reading a lot of the comments on the threads on here, I'm going to have to lean toward the Ruger. With S&W having some problems, fit and finish, this is my reasoning. I've had both, currently own just a Smith, but it was purchased NIB 26 years ago, never had any problems with it. I never had any problems with the Ruger either, other than my ex sold it without my knowledge, and I couldn't get it back, the Ruger, not her!:cuss: The Rugers have always been beefier on the top strap than the Smith, Smith hasn't ever corrected this, JMHO.

CraigC
January 24, 2011, 12:12 AM
They are at least as good. S&W used to exhibit much better fit & finish but unfortunately it no longer holds true. I'll buy new Rugers all day long but the only new S&W that appeals to me is their AR. Of which I already have one.

BlayGlock
January 24, 2011, 12:22 AM
Better trigger on both GP and LCR than on 686 and J-Frames. Similar build quality with edge going to Ruger IMO.

dashootist
January 24, 2011, 12:48 AM
I have a hard time liking Ruger's progressive trigger pull.

dallascj
January 24, 2011, 01:18 AM
The trigger pull on my S&W's and my Tauruses are better than my Rugers. The finish on the Rugers is also rougher than the other brands. I have lots of tool marks on both of my SP101's. Ruger is a solid dependable gun, but not as refined as my others, IMHO.

Thaddeus Jones
January 24, 2011, 11:30 AM
I voted "yes" as that was the only choice you provided that was close to the truth.

New Rugers are actually BETTER than current production S&W's, IMO.

With Ruger, for a reasonable, affordable price, you get a revolver without internal locks, two piece barrels or any of the other idiotic cost -cutting "innovations" from S&W.

Ruger revolvers can be used for serious purpose. I would not consider a S&W IL revolver for ANY serious purpose. TJ

InkEd
January 24, 2011, 12:38 PM
It clearly states "or better" in the OP.

HGUNHNTR
January 24, 2011, 12:47 PM
I wish we could combine "old style" triggers and craftsmanship with modern metallurgy, regardless of brand.
I just purchased a couple older Smith revolvers, the differences are remarkable.

ADKWOODSMAN
January 24, 2011, 12:58 PM
Having purchased from both, a Mod 57 4" .41 Mag from Smith and a pair of Vaquero Bisleys .357 from Ruger, they seem as good as any of my older read 60's guns.

roaddog28
January 24, 2011, 06:16 PM
Today a new Ruger is a better value than a new Smith in my opinion. For example. A new Ruger GP100 4 inch stainless steel can be bought in California for around $559. A new S&W 686P 4 inch goes for $759. The difference is $200. Compare the revolvers side by side and most people would agree there is not $200 worth of difference. The triggers on both revolvers are good. At one time Smith had the better trigger. Not anymore. Some people will say the finish is better on the Smith but I don't see that much difference. I guess paying more for a internal lock hole on the side of the revolver is worth extra money but I don't. So, for $200 more a person gets one extra round and a internal lock. No thanks for me. I would buy the GP100 everytime.
Howard

ArchAngelCD
January 25, 2011, 03:43 AM
Ummm, just a note, Rugers also have internal locks. BUT, they were smart enough to hide them!

Waywatcher
January 25, 2011, 12:03 PM
Ummm, just a note, Rugers also have internal locks. BUT, they were smart enough to hide them!


Some do, some don't.

GP100s, & SP101s do not have any ILS.

New Vaqueros, LCR, & LCR .357 do have ILS.

Other models I'm not sure of, but I think most of the 'older' products do not, like the _____hawk revolvers SA and DA.

Thaddeus Jones
January 25, 2011, 12:05 PM
The brand new GP100 and brand new SP101 I examined this past Saturday did not have any internal locks - hidden or otherwise. TJ

Guillermo
January 25, 2011, 12:24 PM
I thought Ruger hid them under the grips?

You have to drill the grips to use them.

Can anyone clarify?

MCgunner
January 25, 2011, 01:19 PM
Actually, IMHO, Rugers are far and away BETTER than new production Smiths. But, I am definitely NOT a Smith and Wesson fan boy.

Guillermo
January 25, 2011, 01:22 PM
IMHO

HA!!!

when has your opinion ever been humble?


:neener:

MCgunner
January 25, 2011, 01:35 PM
It's my new years resolution, to be humble. :D But, I never keep those resolutions very long.

Guillermo
January 25, 2011, 01:52 PM
I never keep those resolutions very long

it has been almost a month (tapping foot)

Blue Brick
January 25, 2011, 05:23 PM
+1 Ruger

kludge
January 25, 2011, 05:51 PM
I didn't vote because, actually I think current Rugers are BETTER than current S&Ws.

outerlimit
January 25, 2011, 08:48 PM
Current Smith's are pretty sad for the asking price. Even the older Rossi Interarms import "clone" j-frames are nicer than the current Smiths. And no internal lock.

I'm with the previous poster who stated the only thing of Smith's that currently interests me is their AR's when they are at a decent price.

Other than that, they seem to produce some pretty mediocre stuff these days at a premium price. One statement always comes to mind when I think of Smith.. "resting on its laurels".

MCgunner
January 26, 2011, 10:28 AM
Hey, they're copying Taurus, now. I see where they've come up with their version of "The Judge". :rolleyes:

Lucky Derby
January 26, 2011, 12:32 PM
I think your poll is slanted towards S&W...why no option for "Ruger is better"?

My small sample (one of each) shows Ruger quality far ahead of even S&W's Performance Center products.

Bob
This. Current S&W is overpriced and not nearly as good as they once were. I own quite a few pre-lock pre-mim S&W.
If I were going to buy a NEW revolver now, it would be a Ruger, even if price was the same or more than S&W.

mnhntr
January 26, 2011, 12:41 PM
Yes they are better, IMHO. If I were buying for heavy duty loads it would be a Ruger either new or old. If I were buying for a good carry gun or medium duty weapon it would be and older S&W 66 686 or 29, or for fun hunting or target shooting maybe a 648, 617, or 625. Just my opinion but S&W quality has gone down hill fast.

If you enjoyed reading about "CURRENT Production Ruger and S&W" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!