Smith and Ruger: Startling Revelation

Status
Not open for further replies.
StrikeEagle,

I pretty much agree with those who favor Smith's over Ruger's. Personally, I think that the 686 is as fine an American revolver as has ever been produced (Yes, including the Python). That being said, both the Six line of Ruger revolvers and the GP's are excellent revolvers.

It sounds like either you really shoot that Ruger very well, or the 66 is really a dog. Let me give you some advice. Every once in awhile, you run across a revolver that, for whatever reason, you just seem to hit whatever you're aiming at. Other guns you really have to work at it, but this one just puts the bullet on target. If you have found a gun like that, meaning that the 66 is not a dog you just shoot the Ruger that much better, don't sell it!. You will regret it. I know because I had a GP 100 like that. Sold it and have been kicking myself ever since.
 
Ohhhhh.... You want a BEEFY .357 revolver that's going to stand up to those handloads. Well now son, you just give up that Ruger and wrap your mitts around a pre-81 Smith and Wesson Model 27 or 28.

THEN you'll know what a real .357 feels like.

I wouldn't trade my Model 28 for any Ruger. Butter smooth trigger pull, excellent balance, still locks up strong as a safe, and if I ever run out of ammo for it, it'll put some real nice dents into the forehead of anything coming after me.
 
News Flash

Rugers are dimensionally beefy because they're investment castings....but
they are hellishly strong. That's been one of Ruger's main claims to fame.

Smith & Wesson revolvers have never been known for strength because they're not particularly strong revolvers...but they are exceptinally
FINE revolvers. At least, they used to be. Even during the Black Bangor
Punta era, there were some good ones to be had. Not on a regular basis, but often enough. I had a few very nicely done "Puntas".

Ruger, by contrast, has had a name for making a Rough and Tumble
revolver that was rugged, affordable, and wouldn't break your heart if it got scratched. Many were astoundingly accurate, but generally, the accuracy could be best described as adequate for the purpose.

Now that Rugers' prices have come into line with the norm...and Smith has fallen by the wayside with the MIM lockwork and the (horrors!) frame-mounted firing pins, it seems that neither has any particular edge over
the other...except the Rugers are still hellishly strong.

As for me...I'll stick with the "real" Smith & Wessons for that touch of class...

Cheers!

Tuner
 
Ruger or S&W

I once was a Ruger purist. I started shooting Rugers as my DA revolver of choice. My first one was a Security Six. I dry fired that gun so much that I snaped two trigger rebound springs. But through all of that dry firing and of both Rugers and Smiths, I have come to a conclusion.

Smiths have an inherently better DA pull. Now, I realize we have all had exceptional Rugers with great trigger pulls, but there is a reason that a Ruger DA will not be as smooth as a Smith. A Ruger locks-up long before the hammer is in full rear position. This causes the cylinder to lock while the trigger being pulled for the remainder of the stroke.

This insures that it is very unlikely that a Ruger will go out-of-time. Unfortunately, this is not the best condition for DA shooting, especially fast/accurate DA shooting. Both Rugers and Smiths are left-hand-wheelers. As you aim down the barrel, the cylinder rotates to the left. As the Ruger quickly stops for the lock of the cylinder catch, the momentum does not. The trigger is still being pulled, and you must conscienceously hold and/or readjust against the leftward torque. Of course one can always "stage" the trigger. This is not recommended by the better DA shooters, but it works for slower shots.

The Smiths lock up just before the hammer falls. This means little or no torgque in the cylinder ( at least no sudden stop ). This timing issue is a big deal with competive shooters. This is the reason that most competive DA shooters use a Smith. Now the negative side. For this delicate timing ( cylinder locking just prior to hammer drop), Smith pays the price of losing its timing far easier than a Ruger. On a Ruger, there is little chance of loosing timing to the point that there is an actual danger. The cylinder locks up so far in advance, that there is plenty of room for wear. Not so on a Smith.

I have both. I prefer the Smith for DA work, but I have put many-a-round downrange DA mode with a Ruger


Dobe
 
There is a very crude rule of thumb that says a forged steel part of x dimension is equal in strength to a cast steel part of 2x dimension. In other words, if you cast it, you have to make it twice as thick to be as strong as a forging. So Ruger's "heft" and "bulk" may give some folks peace of mind but they really don't make for a stronger gun.

The fact is that both guns are very strong. In most cases, Rugers are praised for being strong simply because that "bulk" led people to use heavy loads, in the belief that "a Ruger is super strong and will take anything". Not true, and I have seen more Rugers blown up than S&W's for that very reason.

In fact, both S&W's and Rugers (and Colts for that matter) are more than strong enough for any reasonable load in the caliber they are made for.

Jim
 
I started with a Security Six, involuntarily parted ways with it, and had a 686 given to me out of the blue (yes, for free) a few years ago. Although I've never owned a GP, I do have experience shooting them.

So what do I prefer? The Rugers. I find the whole bad trigger issue to be a smoke screen - if you can shoot, it doesn't matter as much as many would like to think (kind of like how good pool players can shoot well even with a crooked stick), and I don't find them to have bad triggers anyway. The Model 66 is too weak to digest the round it is built for, and although the 686 is a fine gun, I don't see how it offers anything that a GP doesn't in a cheaper, modular design. In a way, I view the GP as the final evolution of the practical sixgun (as opposed to the monster magnums and ridiculous fly-weight snub noses infesting my dealer’s cabinets).

Two things might tip the scales: a strong desire for (1) a seven shooter, or (2) a ported barrel. Only the Smiths have this, which sets those particular models apart from the Rugers.
 
Interesting topic!

I've never felt a Ruger that has a better single action trigger pull than a Smith. As for double action pull, I really could care less since 99% of my revolver shooting is single action. If I think I need to shoot faster than I can in single action, which is pretty fast, I'll use a semi-auto.

With the exception of the Mountain Gun by Smith, I would choose a Ruger over a Smith in the large bore guns unless it has to be a 3-4"bbl. When you get into 6" and above N frames, they and the Rugers are all big heavy guns and all heavy enough to shoot well. If the trigger is a concern, I can buy an excellent trigger for a Redhawk, spend less money than a N frame and have a gun I can shoot the really big boys with, if needed.

As for the J, K and L frames, vs the GP-100 and SP 101's, I'm glad we have both brands and options, I like them all! :D
 
I have been using "Sixes" hard continously since 1981. I have had the odd M10, 13, and 19 S&Ws but settled on the Rugers. Don't even want to speculate on the number of w/c and .357 rounds I have seen go downrange from Sixes but I think it would just about fill a dump truck. In all that time I saw one revolver go down. One. The thumb piece retaining screw backed out.

Give me reliability, first, last, and always. I always shot fast DA, and it was smooth enough. These guns are handy and fast, and six rounds of .357/125 is still serious power.

When I find a truly better life preserver I will buy it on the spot.
 
I am curious to hear from the Smith fans, if the Ruger GP is "dimensionally thicker" how is it that they can share leather with the 586/686? Why isn't the cylinder bulkier?

I think some people are confusing old sand casting with investment casting, on which the density can be manipulated through cooling techniques. In another regard, I think the solid frame of the Ruger is also responsible for some of its reputation for toughness. No sideplate and no screws holding things together can't help but be somewhat tougher.
 
Well you will note that far more, "What's wrong with my revolver?" threads contain S&Ws than Rugers.
Click to expand...
Yeah,,,,,but Smiths just plain look so darn good while they're going bad. ;)
 
There is a very crude rule of thumb that says a forged steel part of x dimension is equal in strength to a cast steel part of 2x dimension. In other words, if you cast it, you have to make it twice as thick to be as strong as a forging. So Ruger's "heft" and "bulk" may give some folks peace of mind but they really don't make for a stronger gun.
Click to expand...

I think you have nicely established that you know VERY little about how Rugers are made.
 
My first ever DA was my .454 SRH. It broke-in quickly to a very decent trigger (The SRH's share the same grip & lockwork as the GP-100's.). My second was my first ever S&W - a 625MG in .45 Colt. I was hooked... I bought eight new 2001 or later S&W's before I bought another Ruger DA. Only one S&W - a competition 625-8 .45 ACP with 5,000++ rounds through it, had to go back to S&W - and that was for a closing up b/c gap, which honestly could have been due to the fast reloads in competition (Fixed gratis!). Then, I bought my long time desired new .45 Redhawk - and back it went to NH the very next day. Back from Ruger after many replaced parts - and a lot of 'tuning' and range time there, it is still the absolute worst trigger, DA or SA, I have ever owned. The SRH is now as good as the worst of my S&W's. My favorite example of a great OEM trigger is my M10-11 2" - made 1/03 - with stock springs, no less... a real shocker.

Will I sell my .45 RH or .454 SRH? Maybe - and definitely before I sell my S&W's. They are still fun... but, my S&W's are more fun, dependable, and have more 'finesse'.

Stainz
 
Hi, C_Yeager,

Ruger revolver frames are not cast? I must have missed something along the way. AFAIK, Ruger revolver frames (as well as the CF auto-pistols that are not polymer) are investment cast, using the so-called "lost wax" method. The exact steel specification varies with the gun and the strength needed. The cylinders are made from round bar stock, the same as every other revolver maker uses, though different companies have slightly different specs for the steel. (Ruger .22 pistol frames are either stamped and welded together or made from polymer; receivers are steel tubing.)

Ruger has long been a pioneer in casting techniques, both for guns and other items. Their castings are among the best in the world and nothing like the cheap pot metal castings used in some old guns. But they are still castings and for size for size, weaker than a forging.

The fact that other guns have been made by casting without making them bigger does not mean that the castings are as strong as forgings, only that the original gun was over-engineered in the first place. Examples are the Springfield M1A rifles and various 1911 clones. Both guns were originally made from forgings, but were so over-built that castings are adequately strong.

Jim
 
Thank you all for a VERY interesting and informative discussion. Ok... maybe the Ruger isn't *better*... but I love it and it sure is a keeper. :D

many thanks,
StrikeEagle
 
Ruger has long been a pioneer in casting techniques, both for guns and other items. Their castings are among the best in the world and nothing like the cheap pot metal castings used in some old guns. But they are still castings and for size for size, weaker than a forging.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. But considering the post you made BEFORE you made this one:

There is a very crude rule of thumb that says a forged steel part of x dimension is equal in strength to a cast steel part of 2x dimension. In other words, if you cast it, you have to make it twice as thick to be as strong as a forging.
Click to expand...

It appears that maybe you don't agree with yourself too well.

The "2x" rule applies to those same cheap pot metal castings that you are now saying DOESNT apply to Ruger.
 
I got one like this, Jim.....

"It was just unreal. DEAD smooth, no stacking, it was like swinging opening a high-end Mercedes car door. That had been oiled daily."
************************************************************

On a "special order" (because no one here stocks the fixed sight GP-100) four inch stainless.

Absolutely the equal of any Smith I've handled, and that's been a bunch.


Moon:
************************************************************
"The Model 66 is too weak to digest the round it is built for, and although the 686 is a fine gun, I don't see how it offers anything that a GP doesn't in a cheaper, modular design. In a way, I view the GP as the final evolution of the practical sixgun (as opposed to the monster magnums and ridiculous fly-weight snub noses infesting my dealer’s cabinets)."
************************************************************

My sentiments also...except that we are no longer permitted to own those ridiculous flyweights or monster magnums here.:mad:

It's great to have a choice, and S&W certainly has made some fine revolvers.

Ruger modernized the concept and improved the revolver IHMO.;)
 
I own both. I appreciate both. If a P&R S&W is lying on a table next to a Security Six, I'm picking up the Smith. But part of that is just the knowledge of what is "worth more." If I can have either one for the same price, why wouldn't I take the Smith? All that said, I have a six inch Security Six in the bedroom that is loaded and ready. It is the official home defense gun in a house full of all kinds of older Smiths. I bought it back in 1982 and it is just too nice and too familiar to my hands to retire. And it has a wonderful trigger pull even though everything is stock. It was the only handgun I owned for years so it did a lot of dry fire. That double action can be easily staged and then fired just as well as single action. Even with the "wrong" hand. Got to love it. (My CCW gun is a S&W M296 though.)

In the real world, where I actually have to pay for my purchases, I tend to look at the Rugers first. (We're talking used guns here.) They will have such good prices on them. The Smiths will many times be priced like new guns. That's fine if it is a model you don't have but want. The Rugers are more often the "big bargain" on a particular table. If we are talking "bang for the buck" then the Ruger Six series wins. If we are talking classic design and craftsmanship, then the older P&R Smiths win. Now if we move up to today and keyholes in sideplates and MIM parts the outcome may be different. I STILL don't own one of the "new" S&W's. So far none of the "integral lock" models have appealed to me enough to overcome the bad features. (But a new M21 is coming soon. That might do it.)

And look at .44's. I love my 29's but I also have a 9.5" Ruger Super Redhawk. Yowza! What a cannon. If you want grace and balance the 29 wins. If you want to load miniature nuclear loads in .44 brass, the RSR is the way to go. Usually I run out of room for powder before the gun gives me any signs of pressure. That gun will flat out shoot and at very long distances as well. And it has a perfectly good single action trigger pull. Nice, nice gun.

Gregg
 
I for one agree with you.
As has been said, each individual gun is a world unto itself, so I can only speak for the ones I own.
I own perhaps two dozen S&W revolvers. About half have had some minor work done to them like trigger jobs. Most were done at the S&W Performance Center but a few have been elsewhere: one I sent to Jack Weigand.
I also have a 4" Stainless GP100.
I like the GP100 better in every way.
In these theoretical discussions we so often have about "If you could only own one handgun..........." I always pick my GP100.
And yes, the trigger is better stock than the S&Ws I have had tuned. Of course this is a personal evaluation, but since it is my decision to make....................
 
Hi, c_yeager,

I don't think I am contradicting myself, but perhaps I should have said "There is a very crude rule of thumb that says a high quality forged steel part of x dimension is equal in strength to a high quality cast steel part of 2x dimension." The 2x (approximate) rule does apply to Ruger, which is why their revolver top straps (the critical load bearing part of a conventional revolver) are about twice as thick as those of S&W's for the same caliber.

If Ruger frames were dimensioned the same as S&W's, I think Rugers would come apart pretty often.

I have no idea what factor to use in comparing high quality forging to some of the old cast pot metal used in the Spanish garbage guns made in the 1920's. Maybe 10x? Many of those guns were cast iron, not even steel, and there is no comparison with modern steel casting.

Jim
 
Sorry Jim but the 2x factor is way too high. I agree that steel castings should be beefier to be as safe as a similar forging. Castings have porosity issues that forgings don't after all. But twice as thick? Thats not even in the right ballpark. I'd place my money on about 10% thicker. Of course the specifics are going to depend on materials, heat treatments, etc. You might need to go as high as 25% thicker in some areas. Others may only need 5%. But twice as thick? The process would stop being cost competitive close to that point.
 
Does anyone recall those cute S&W ads comparing the L-frame guns and the GP-100? "Thick is better in burgers and shakes, but in guns", etc.

They stressed the strength of S&W's forged frames over Ruger's cast ones.

For what it's worth, when Elmer Keith reported on some blowup tests in .44 Magnums, the S&W held together better than the Ruger Super Blackhawk. I think someone named Kent Lomont maybe did the trials.

But, in real life, when we aren't using excessive handloads to TRY to damage the gun, the Ruger endures better than the Smith in longtime use with heavy legitimate loads.

Lone Star
 
"the S&W held together better than the Ruger Super Blackhawk."

I am not saying that I don't believe you. But I would have to see that to believe it. I find that information earth shaking.
 
Guys, Jim is a lot closer than anyone else on the strength of a casting vs a forging. Material, casting method and heat treat all play a tremendous role, but there is NO casting within 25% of the strength of a forged part in the same material with the same heat treat if they are of the same dimensions. It may not be double in some materials but it is close to double in most.

FWIW, I make my living in the metal cutting business.
 
Probably off the current topic since we are dicussing medium frame, double action revolvers, but when building monster handguns like the .475 or .500 Linebaugh etc, why do these gunsmiths use Ruger revolvers ? Redhawks and Blackhawks ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

300Whspr
  • Locked
Ruger's and Smiths...
2 3
Replies
62
Views
4K
old lady new shooter
O
stinger 327
  • Locked
Ruger GP-100 vs. Smith 586 and 686 both in .357 with 6 inch barrels.
2 3 4 5
Replies
108
Views
20K
Confederate
Confederate
H
  • Locked
  • Poll
New revolvers: Smith vs. Ruger. Which do you prefer?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
3K
Dogguy
D
D
  • Locked
smith 57 series
Replies
13
Views
773
Bob R
B
S
  • Locked
Trade a Ruger RST4 Pistol for an S&W 14-3(Good or bad trade)?
Replies
5
Views
1K
seeker_two
S
Back
Top