Anyone else prefer Ruger over S&W?


February 23, 2011, 01:09 AM
I own several revolvers made by both. The general consensus that S&Ws are a little more refined and Rugers are more rugged IMHO seems to be mostly true.

However, I have noticed that with the exception on the 442 over the LCR; I seem to just prefer the Ruger offering over the S&W equivalent. I think it's because they just feel more "natural" in my hand.

BOTH are excellent guns BUT I just seem to like the Rugers better. Anyone else just like them better?

If you enjoyed reading about "Anyone else prefer Ruger over S&W?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
February 23, 2011, 01:46 AM
im with ya!

ive shot a few smiths and they did shoot good, but they were not any more accurate than the rugers ive shot. rugers are built like tanks, made in America, and they dont have that stupid little lock on them. ruger will get my dollar for sure!

February 23, 2011, 02:05 AM
That's funny, because the only Ruger I prefer over a S&W is the LCR over the M442...well I did prefer the Security-Six over a M19

Friendly, Don't Fire!
February 23, 2011, 02:30 AM
I think those two are comparable.
I would never purchase Taurus, but that is just me.

February 23, 2011, 06:51 AM
I used to like my 442 better than my sp101, till it rusted, Now Im going with the Ruger, the 442 will just sit in the safe untill I can afford to have it refinished.

February 23, 2011, 06:54 AM
I don't think one is any better than the other. I tend to buy Smith & Wesson now, but they're all the older guns, and I admit that I'm buying them as much for the name as anything. I don't think a Model 19 is any better than a Speed-Six. I had a couple of Speed/Security Sixs back in the day and although they were good guns, I always knew I bought them mostly because they were less expensive than Smith & Wesson or Colt. That doesn't make them bad, it just means they weren't what I thought I REALLY wanted, and I always knew it. I don't know which I would have chosen if the price had been the same.

But I was never disapointed with a Ruger. They shot great!

Friendly, Don't Fire!
February 23, 2011, 07:02 AM
Actually, my very first pistol was a single action Ruger 6" barrel, blued. Back then, you could wear anywhere, and I did, it was always on my hip in an Uncle Mikes hip holster. I put thousands and thousands of rounds through that gun and when I traded it, it looked good as new!

February 23, 2011, 10:03 AM
I like Ruger it's just that they are limited on choices. I'm in the market for a 45 acp double action revolver. I'm thinking it be a S&W just because they're so many more to choose from. 45 acp Redhawks don't turn up around here often.

February 23, 2011, 10:18 AM
Yes, but remove that little IL on the S&Ws and................

February 23, 2011, 10:27 AM
That's like axing me which I like best, steak or lobster. I like both. They're both equally good when used for the purpose for which they're designed.

However, I don't own any Smiths with the lock. So, that might be a different variable.

Lucky Derby
February 23, 2011, 10:38 AM
My order of preferance:
1. Pre-Lock/Pre-MIM S&W and/or Colt
3.Pre-Lock/MIM S&W
5.Current S&W

Note that I have never purchased, nor will I ever purchase anything below #4

February 23, 2011, 10:51 AM
Cajun bass nailed it on the head! I think they are different BUT even. I would pay the same money for them even. (Please don't raise Ruger prices though!) They are both awesome firearms.

Regarding .45acp Redhawks, I don't see them much either. The .45lc is standard production and you can use .45lc (obviously), .45autorim and .45acp with moonclips if you have it customized. I don't know how much it would cost. However, if you were looking at a high-end 625 like the Jerry Miculek model THEN for the difference in price; you could probably get Gemini Custom (or another Ruger specialist) to do the work. Another option would be a .454 Super Redhawk. You could do all of the above AND .454Casull. That's if you really have a preference for the Ruger. Personally, I would still probably just opt for the 625 though. Seems alot easier choice to me.

Lastly, I am starting to think that I may be the ONLY person who favors the 442 to the LCR. It seems even die-hard S&W fans prefer the LCR. Oh well.

February 23, 2011, 10:58 AM
As with any good debate, there is no right answer.

Im going to just throw out some opinions from my own experience for you all to munch on.

First of all Ruger does have a product line for all the same product lines as smith and wesson as far as revolvers are concerned as long as we take into consideration the recent past as well.

As a rule, the Rugers are just as reliable, heavier, and have inferior triggers from the factory. To me, a Ruger is an unrefined S&W and the prices of each will agree with that. For better or worse Rugers will take a pounding before they need to be serviced or if they ever need to be serviced. For these reasons, Rugers are very popular today. The average shooter will take strength over finish if the price is right and it is.

For the icing I will say: On this forum I constantly run down S&W. I am not a fan of anything they made after 1999. The quality is terrible, the marketing lies. ALL they have is a name anymore.

That said I have 3 Smiths and will probably get more but they will be pre 1999.

Today Rugers are a better firearm and a better value. You cannot go wrong by choosing Ruger over Smith these days.

If it was 30 years ago I would say differently.

Ruger as a company is a step ahead of S&W with their single actions too. Their company has planned for the future where Smith is just riding on the laurels of the past.

I have used and worked on both Smiths and Rugers for what most would consider a short time but having that kind of exposure to that many different guns allows you to make some opinions and draw some conclusions on the matter.

February 23, 2011, 12:23 PM
Here is my answer from a similiar post a few years ago:

I like Smiths, but I think that Ruger DA revolvers are better designs for a few reasons:

1. Solid frame
2. Modular trigger assembly - easy to work on.
3. Modular grip frame allows a lot more flexibility when selecting after market grips. You have a lot more flexibility with the sizes and shapes of aftermarket grips with the Rugers.
4. The front sights can be changed in about 5 seconds
5. Triple locking cylinders (this is the feature that I like the most) - Smith's have the ejector rod as the third locking point. Ruger adds a crane latch to secure the crane more robustly. Ruger's triple locking cylinder maintains better alignment between the cylinder and the barrel.
6. Ruger DA revolvers with triple locking cylinders almost never go out of time.
7. Ruger ejector rods just eject the spent brass. They also don't unscrew or bend during shooting.
8. No internal lock in Ruger DA revolvers.
9. The cylinder "notches" are offset.

The downside of these guns is that they aren't generally cleaned up very well at the factory. With a little time and effort, these problems are easy to overcome. There is also a lot of information printed on the barrels. This doesn't bother me, much.

Ruger DA revolver designs aren't perfect, but they are the best revolver designs in my opinion.

Rugers can be cleaned up to be Smith or Colt-like, but Smiths and Colts will never be as strong as a Ruger.

Thaddeus Jones
February 23, 2011, 12:43 PM
In brand new revolvers, I prefer Ruger.

For used, I prefer pre lock, pre MIM S&W's. TJ

February 23, 2011, 01:27 PM
For the last few years I have been consolidating my guns (fewer and fewer as time goes by) to a one caliber variety which was all my handguns would be either a .44 or a 22.
Then I inherited dad's M&P 1905 and his Colt 1903. Later I found that my 2" Taurus .44 (magnum)
was getting too heavy to CCW in my pocket (my preferred carry method) so I traded it for a 642. There went my consolidation theory. So I got rid of my SBH for a Model 13 3"
traded a gentleman my .44 ammo for his .38/.357 and am in the market for a 5.5" Vaquero in 357.
My two Smith's are for everyday, the Vaquero will be for extra insurance for mountain carry with Ruger only loads.
What I'm getting at in being so long winded is that there is a place for both Ruger and S&W in a practical collection. The 642 in my pocket, the 13 in a chest holster the Vaquero (still not bought) for truck gun etc.
Next project is probably to swap the 642 for a 640/LCR to be 357 capable if the need arises.
As time goes on, I find that having multiple calibers for SD is impractical considering that with current politics, we may not be fighting for our gun rights but our right to buy ammo or components to manufacture them ourselves.

February 23, 2011, 03:44 PM
The only Ruger I prefer over a S&W is Ruger's .22 auto pistol. It's a winner. The Security-Six is a good gun but I prefer a Model 28.

February 23, 2011, 04:45 PM
I am very price conscious, unfortunately.

Rugers seem to offer more value in most cases.

If S&W priced their guns as low as Ruger does, or vice versa, then the "Which is better?" discussions would be more straightforward.

When comparing the two makes, many times the S&W will be a little nicer, but then I always ask: "Is it $200 nicer, $300 nicer, etc".

Most times the answer is "No".

My recent purchases include one gun from each company. The S&W, while costing more than twice as much as the Ruger, had to go back to S&W right out of the box for quality issues.


February 23, 2011, 04:45 PM
for the newer stuff, I agree Ruger seems a better bang for your buck. For the old, collector/Hand Ejector models I like Smith better than Ruger. If I had a choice to have a newer Ruger vs. a vintage S&W, I would say S&W hands down.

February 23, 2011, 05:00 PM
New Rugers and old Smiths; that's what I like.

Well... old Rugers are cool too!

Bush Pilot
February 23, 2011, 06:58 PM
^ what he said.

February 23, 2011, 07:45 PM
I beleive the Rugers are a tougher quality no doubt about it. IMO the X frame Smiths are the only revolvers they make that are as tough as a Ruger. I will have to say a Smith has the better factory trigger as anyone can plainly see but a Ruger trigger can be tuned just as well. I guess I'm saying we need a Ruger with a Smith trigger. I'm not selling my Smiths or Rugers no time soon.

February 23, 2011, 07:47 PM
Eh, the cylinders turn the wrong way on both of them...

February 23, 2011, 07:54 PM
I was initially skeptical of Ruger coming from the shotgun side of things, just did not like anything about them.

On the handgun side though I'm impressed with everything about them and as of now see no reason to pay extra for the S&W pistols.

February 23, 2011, 08:47 PM
I've always liked the Security Six and Speed Six but never took to the GP100. Too big. The Security Six will fit a holster made for a M-19

February 23, 2011, 09:50 PM
Comparing a GP100 to an L frame, I prefer the Ruger. I chose a 642 instead of an LCR.

Brass Rain
February 23, 2011, 10:04 PM
My order of preferance:
1. Pre-Lock/Pre-MIM S&W and/or Colt
3.Pre-Lock/MIM S&W
5.Current S&W

Note that I have never purchased, nor will I ever purchase anything below #4
You think current production S&W aren't as good as current Taurus or Rossi?

Arkansas Paul
February 23, 2011, 10:17 PM
I'm a little more of a Ruger fan, but that's because I like single actions.

February 23, 2011, 10:29 PM
Rugers are the best revolvers currently made, hands down. Older Smiths are like classic cars. They're classy, they're cool, and they're well-made, but their actual performance and specs aren't as good as modern cars. I like class, but I go with whatever works best. Smith's frame system honestly limits innovation because they're locked in to certain specs. There's nothing between J and K-Frame, or K and L-Frame, and there never can be because of their naming and design conventions. Ruger, on the other hand, is free to reinvent for each gun and come up with a grip that works best. While they do tend to reuse certain frame designs, nothing is forcing them to do so.

February 23, 2011, 10:34 PM
I only have 1 S&W at this time and it is a revolver. I have 2 rugers and have had several more in the past. I would buy another Smith in a heartbeat if it tickled my fancy. The main problem I have with the Smiths though is the price. I would like a nice model 586 or model 27 and used to have a Colt trooper MK IV. I would like a trooper MK III but again the prices on these guns is getting rather high. I am always looking though and will probably happen upon one of these sooner or later that I can afford.

I can't say I prefer the Rugers but I do like them and am a big single action fan. This fact rules out the Smiths and most Colts in many cases for me. But as I said earlier there are some models I would like.

I need to shut up now.

February 23, 2011, 10:47 PM
I'm like you Fishman777, I've changed my mind about S&W's too! After reading all of the hyperbole on here about sending the S&W's back for everything that is part of the manufacturing process, I'm definitely buying Ruger next go around! I've had a couple of Rugers in my time, traded for something else, and was I sorry! S&W used to make some danged nice revolvers, Eh, not so much anymore!

February 23, 2011, 11:31 PM
I own several Smith's and a Redhawk. I'm fortunate because most of the Smith's are hand-me-downs/gifts from my dad. He once gave me the option between a Smith model 29 or a Ruger Redhawk for Christmas several years back. I asked for the Redhawk. Why you might ask? My dad once told me that if the poop hit the fan and he had to choose only one firearm it would be the Redhawk .44 Mag 7.5in barrel. Young and impressionable I asked, "Why Dad?" He said, "Well, I can load down to a .44spl for practice and load max .44mag to put food on the table with iron sights." I didn't have many firearms at the time, and I wanted my end of world gun. My dad did many strange things in the Air Force and it kinda rubbed off on me.

All that being said, I love my Smith's. I adore my Model 625 model of 1988 5in barrel, which has been pictured on highroad. It's my go to centerfire revolver using Rimz full moon clips. All my Smith's are a pleasure to shoot, and I don't have to chase brass, big plus.

February 23, 2011, 11:39 PM
Thats a big NO here.

Hondo 60
February 24, 2011, 12:47 AM
Depends on what year we're talking about.

New stuff - 2011? YES - I'd take a Ruger over a S&W.
I like my SP101. The new S&Ws are :barf:

1960s, 70s even 1980 something, Big HECK NO I love my Model 10s, 36 & 66.

February 24, 2011, 09:57 AM
Over here, I guess. I've always preferred Ruger revolvers to Smith & Wessons.

February 24, 2011, 02:11 PM
Yes, prefer Rugers in general 6 days a week and twice on Sunday. :D

And, Smith and Wesson don't make single actions anymore. Even if they did, though, I wouldn't have one over a Blackhawk.

Problem with Ruger up to recently is lack of variety, but the LCR is a big step up there. :D Now, they need an exposed hammer version.

February 24, 2011, 03:26 PM
Sorry, it's a qualified NO for me...

I love my older S&W's. To me they are like a Swiss Watch. Everything you need and nothing you don't, many of the older models display fine design, workmanship, balance and attention to detail.

I don't feel the same about the new S&W's and the sell out lock, MIM parts, two piece barrels, etc.

As to the Rugers...they are like a Timex...takes a licking and keeps on ticking. I love their Single Actions and the strength of their designs, but feel their double actions lack the refinement of the older S&Ws.

When I buy double action revolvers I buy used S&Ws.
When I buy a single action revolvers I buy Rugers.
If I absolutely had to buy a brand new double action revolver it would be a Ruger.

February 24, 2011, 03:53 PM
Nope. I think DA Rugers are butt ugly. I also question this notion that they are stronger. Who says that? They are bulkier, but that's because cast frames must be thicker to be the same strength as forged steel.

I know Ruger owners love their guns but I prefer this:

Or this:

Or this:

Yes, all older Smiths. I don't like the new ones. But I would still prefer a new S&W to a Ruger

Blue Brick
February 24, 2011, 04:35 PM
+1 Ruger

February 24, 2011, 05:18 PM
Older Smiths were well crafted, tuned to make the most of their design. With heat treatment and less material to give lighter weight and dimensions.

But Ruger revolvers are tough, durable, and bulky.
They use plenty of material and the only thing keeping you safe is not a thin piece of metal that required a heat treatment done just so...
Many of their designs can be loaded way beyond the intended limits of a given caliber, and while it should never be encouraged and does not apply to all calibers it lets you know that within the intended industry standards it would be hard to have problems.
This means they are often designed to withstand so much more stress than necessary that they receive greatly reduced wear from normal use.
Long after other revolvers would have lost timing and required work the Ruger will still be going strong.

Another big factor is the grips, or rather the grip potential. The design on many Rugers facilitates more grip selection, from angle, distance to trigger, width etc.
So ironically even big bulky Rugers can often be handled better by smaller hands than many dainty refined S&Ws.
Yet a big grip can just as easily be used for larger hands. This means many Rugers can fit a wider variety of shooters well with a grip change.
They can also be set up to better replicate the grip angle or distance to trigger of autos with aftermarket grips, allowing easier transition between usage of revolvers and semi-auto pistols so a shooter does not need to dramatically adjust when changing platforms.

My nod goes to Ruger revolvers. If you want a revolver for a particular niche the Ruger is at or near the top of the list in each category.
From the Redhawks and Super Redhawks for superior strength and classic looks able to take even the strongest hunting loads which has given rise to the "Ruger only" loads.
To the GP100 for typical full size handgun use.
The SP101 for a carry .357 that can actually easily withstand a steady .357 Magnum diet without excessive wear.
The Old Army for one of the best most durable black powder revolvers made. Or their lineup of fine single action revolvers.
Some of their older designs like the Security Six have also withstood the test of time, and continue to work well.
The only vomit inducing addition is the LCR, but I guess it has its market, like those that want polymer yet a revolver instead of an automatic.

If you want a gun that will see less time being worked on by a gun smith and more time being shot, while tolerating more abuse, Ruger is the way to go.
If you want a fine watch that needs regular visits to the watchmaker, but has a perfect trigger from the factory and pretty lines then a Smith may be your preference.

February 24, 2011, 05:35 PM
If we limit this discussion to current production, Ruger easily gets the win on revolvers IN COMPARABLE PRICE RANGE.

The current sleeved-barrel, Hillary-hole Model 10 is an abomination. Who is buying Model 10's anyway? Only large agencies that are required to use .38 special for some draconian reason. Sportsmen sure as heck aren't buying them. MSRP is stupid-high on Abomination-Model-10's, but I bet agencies can get them on the cheap if they buy a bunch at one time, and are willing to wait for delivery.

For now, Smith and Wesson deserves the nod for autopistols, if for no other reason than market saturation. After all, Smith & Wesson is GIVING AWAY their M&P to departments in exchange for those departments' old Glocks. That's right,... just give up those old Glocks, and we'll give you brand new guns. We shall see whether this pans-out for Smith and Wesson. Strikes me as either profoundly desperate, or quite cunning. We shall see.

Otherwise, I have a Ruger crunchenticker that seems to function magnificently. Doesn't look especially sexy or "tactical," but dead-nuts reliable.

Better than an M&P???

February 24, 2011, 06:18 PM
I recently had a broken hammer stud on my S&W 649-1 Bodyguard after 800 rounds and less than 2000 dry-fires. No problems with my Ruger SP101 DAO after twice the rounds and probably four times the dry-fires (knocking on wood...). So I'll vote for Ruger.

February 26, 2011, 08:00 PM
I'll pick Ruger revolvers as well. The S&W revolvers I've seen just seem fragile by comparison, but very nice looking. Especially their blued guns.

With that said, I've been ogling a 642 lately. Nice light guns, just drop them in a pocket holster and go about your business.

I haven't seen the Ruger equivalent yet.

February 26, 2011, 09:06 PM
Eh, the cylinders turn the wrong way on both of them...

My Ruger Blackhawk seems to rotate the right way :) .

February 26, 2011, 10:21 PM
I tend to hold a grudge! Back in the mid-70's I bought a S&W Mod 19. Loaded up some rounds that had always been ok in my Ruger .357 Blackhawk. Fired a cylinder-full of them in the 19 and had ejection problems.

The problem: S&W made the "locking cuts" [not sure what they are actually called] on the OD of the cylinder directly over each chamber. When fired, the pressure was enough to actually expand the case and force the thin cylinder metal [between the 'locking cut' and chamber] outward into the 'locking cut'. This left outward dimples in each chamber which allowed every case from then on to expand into it and become difficult to extract.

Ruger makes their 'locking cuts' offset from each chamber making it essentially impossible for any problems. I own many Rugers, will never buy another Smith. I'm sure they make some fine handguns . . . but like I said, I hold a grudge.

February 26, 2011, 10:50 PM
I prefer Smith and Wesson, except in a snub .357. My preference in the snub magnum is the SP101, hands down.

February 26, 2011, 11:28 PM
I own both. I like older S&W revolvers and for new revolvers its Ruger.

February 27, 2011, 12:09 AM
With that said, I've been ogling a 642 lately. Nice light guns, just drop them in a pocket holster and go about your business.

I haven't seen the Ruger equivalent yet.
Ruger's "equivalent" to the 642? You mean the lighter, less-recoiling, less expensive LCR?

Joe Vaquero
February 27, 2011, 12:12 AM
I don't own a lot of guns, but they're all Rugers. I've looked at others, intended to buy others, but I always end up bringing the Ruger home. :D

February 27, 2011, 06:59 AM
I started with Rugers... but that has changed. My only Ruger revolver now is a SS Old Army bp c&b - but only because S&W doesn't offer such. Come to think of it, neither does Ruger now!

My metamorphosis to S&W began 9/02. Most of my S&W's have the dreaded IL - not a problem in my world. All but one of my current S&W's were bought new, too, so they represent their current, post 2001, production - and no QC issues, either. All of my Rugers, BH, Bisley BH, RH, SP101, SRH, SS, SSM, and Vaquero's alike, all bought new, over some years, and all had QC issues 'right out of the box'. Some were not totally repairable at home - most were at least functional after some TLC. The RH had to go home for a new cylinder, etc. I live in a Ruger-free zone - and I am much happier, even if I don't have every caliber ever made!

No, don't ever count me as a Ruger lover. My finest Ruger was a 1H in .458 Lott - my best Ruger revolver was my 7.5" .454 SRH - I miss both. The worst was a 4" .32 SP101 - like my similar caliber SSM - oversized chambers - just no excuse for it's sloppy finish work. I will admit that their current GP100's look pretty nice - still, too much bad history here.


February 27, 2011, 05:33 PM
We still own a pair of 4", stainless, Security-Six revolvers. One was made in the mid-702, the other in '78. They have been fired extensively with .357 Magnum rounds, and are still tight and in time.

I also own a pre Mk.I P85 that had had well over 10K through it, to include +P,+P+, and Uzi sub-gun ammo. Nothing has been replaced since the factory recall on the firing pin.

S&W revolvers were always at least 30% more expensive when bought new. They just never seemed to me to be 30% better.

I do find it a bit troubling that those who choose S&W are all talking about out-of-production guns, yet are mentioning current production Rugers all too often. Seems a bit dishonest.

February 27, 2011, 06:20 PM
Well, I don't fit your prototype for S&W, JR47. I bought a new 60 Pro last month - in January - and a new 3" 63 in November, with a new PC627 UDR both in early April and October. So - in less than a year - two new J-frames and two new Performance Center N-frames. I had to part with an old beauty of a revolver, among other things, but it was worth it. Perfect in every way functionally - all of them - just like my prior S&W's. Okay, there was the ill-fitting - and too small - Eagle boot grips on the UDR's - they had to go - some folks like them - not me. The last of my Ruger revolvers left 5/08, funding a new 627 Pro and 64. The last Ruger handgun, a decked out MKII, was sacrificed to fund a new 617 9/08. I am happy as a pig in deep waller - I have what I want - and enjoy - shooting. And... I shoot - I mean I shoot - a lot! I am blessed, no doubt. Of course, my long guns are now very few in number - and includea couple of .22 rimfire's - and a Puma M1892 in .45 Colt - everything else long is 'long' gone. But - I have the S&W's I wanted... happiness!


CSA 357
February 27, 2011, 07:52 PM
in a word..........nope

February 28, 2011, 05:26 PM
Ruger: for the durability. The same reason I go with a Honda over a Ford. I’m going to put countless rounds through my GP-100, and I need it to go bang every time I pull the trigger, just like I need my car to start every time I turn the key.

February 28, 2011, 05:41 PM
Having owned some nice older (50's-early 80's) S&W's and a couple of newer one's (2000-ish), I can honeslty say that very little S&W manufactures these days interests me.

Sold all my S&W's a while back. Got double actions covered with my Colts.

The ONLY new revolver I've ever purchased was a Ruger Blackhawk, and that one is a "keeper". I guess I'd vote Ruger. :)

March 1, 2011, 08:29 AM
A quick check of the gun safe indicates the score as S&W 14, Ruger 12. It appears I prefer S&W.:rolleyes:

One brand is not better than the other, it is different. The job you want to do determines the tool you use.

March 1, 2011, 08:37 AM
This thread is about comparing Rugers to Smith and Wessons. Why do some threads mention Taurus?

March 1, 2011, 05:09 PM
Why do some threads mention Taurus?

Because some people just can't shake their addiction to Taurus-bashing.

As to the poster with Performance Center guns. They had better be nice, as they cost several times what a stock Ruger does. Nor do they represent the standard production guns.

March 1, 2011, 05:45 PM
Not at all. The only Ruger I like is my 3" SP101. I prefer Smiths by a long shot. Ruger's toughness over the Smith is highly over-rated IMO.

March 1, 2011, 06:12 PM
I do NOW. Prior to the S&W lock, I didn't.

I'd buy a new Ruger. I'd never buy a new S&W revolver as long as they have the lock.

AZ Five seveN
March 1, 2011, 08:09 PM
Six hours ago, I watched a 77 year old man put 6 rounds of .357 magnum nearly through the same hole as the original at 30 feet. He was using a 50 year old S&W which has seen over 30,000 rounds fired through it.

I'm sold!

March 1, 2011, 09:22 PM
Ruger's "equivalent" to the 642? You mean the lighter, less-recoiling, less expensive LCR?

Now you have me interested. I'll have to check it out before I buy the 642.

March 1, 2011, 10:39 PM
I would think that was a good idea...and this coming from someone who has been carrying a tuned 642 for 15+ years

If you enjoyed reading about "Anyone else prefer Ruger over S&W?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!