Overall quality: Ruger or S&W

Status
Not open for further replies.

Goldsworthy

Member
Joined
May 19, 2010
Messages
11
This is frustrating...

I thought I was going to go the S&W route when I started reading negative ink about S&W quality (on the decline etc.)

What are your thoughts on the current quality of the Smith revolvers? Is Ruger any better in this department?

thanks
 
IMO smiths have a better trigger. Ruger are built like a tank. I have Super Redhawk. u cant go wrong with eirher.
 
I have bought 4 new Revolvers in the past couple of years - Ruger GP100, SP101 and a S&W 686 SSR Pro, 637.
The S&W 's are far better in fit & finish, they have better triggers, they feel better in the hand & they have a stupid a** lock.
The Ruger's are big and bulky, but they work. I don't know that i could ever wear out a S&W or Ruger.
Given the fact that only a few S&W revolvers are avaliable w/o an internal lock, I think that Ruger wins with some by default.......to each is own.
They are both good manufactures of revolvers, but I think S&W still makes them better.......even with the stupid IL. YMMV
 
I have both Ruger and S&W...

For conceal carry I like the new Ruger LCR with +Ps and the SP101 with 357 magnums. For hunting wild boar and deer , I sometimes use the 357 magnum Blackhawk with great effect. I do not shoot my S&W revolvers as much any more. I prefer the Ruger guns. I have 6 Rugers and 5 S&W .
 
Ruger. The trigger on my new GP100 was much better than I see on the net.

Plus, Ruger revolvers are lock free (GP100 and SP101) and have one piece barrels. :)
 
Both have CNC machine work which mandates disassembly & cleanin at the least !

Of course there`s always exceptions !

$.02 worth
 
Quality control on both can vary but Rugers tend to be more rugged. Smiths usually have lighter, smoother actions. The Smiths have been relegated to the position of Hobby Guns for non-critical use because of the possibility of spontaneous lock engagement.
 
The S&W is going to be more refined, though that is less true of the latest variety. Except for L and X frame, they're lighter built than the comparable Ruger models. RUgrs are good guns, if not a little rough around the edges. Factory triggers are gritty, and the finish is "industrial". Pick the one that best suits you.

I always felt safer shooting a Ruger with heavy loads--the metal always appeared to be heavier in the Ruger.

It is, partly out of necessity. Ruger frames are cast, not forged. This requires a bit more material to equal the strength of the S&W. However, Ruger's more than compensate for the slightly weaker material. It only needs to be 20-30% more, but is often 50%+ in the critical areas (top strap, namely)

Strength/frame size (being largely proportionate) breaks down something like this, from smallest to largest:

-S&W J-frame

-Ruger SP-101*

-S&W K-frame*

-Ruger -Six series

-S&W L-frame and Ruger GP-100

-S&W N-frame

-Ruger Redhawk/SRH

-S&W X-frame


*The K-frame is not stronger than an SP-101, but larger for the 6 round capacity.
 
that is like asking what is better, potted meat or deviled ham.

Once you've tasted steak you don't really care about the debate
 
As I completed my search for an upgraded CCW, the finalists for me were the Ruger SP101 and S&W 638 +P 2 1/2". I've spent a lot of time in shops handling these and others, given them a close personal inspection and the S&W quality is still there. (I have prelock S&Ws that are flawless.)

Lock removal and re-finishing of the frame with a custom plug are very easy tasks that take around 10 minutes from start to finish. There is no reason to even consider the lock when making a buy decision. The day you buy the gun, the lock is gone. In terms of quality, the Rugers and Smiths are on a par, but I like the S&W trigger feel more.
 
Smith lock up?

The Smiths have been relegated to the position of Hobby Guns for non-critical use because of the possibility of spontaneous lock engagement.

Mec, I like most have read the assorted Internet reports of Smith’s spontaneous lock engagement problems, I have never seen this happen, I don’t know one person who this has happened to, nor have I received any in person report that someone witnessed a spontaneous lock up.
Understand that I’m not looking for an argument about this, but do you have any creditable first hand information about the unintended locking of S&W revolvers? If so please share them with us.
 
Mec, I like most have read the assorted Internet reports of Smith’s spontaneous lock engagement problems, I have never seen this happen, I don’t know one person who this has happened to, nor have I received any in person report that someone witnessed a spontaneous lock up.

+1

I've never witnessed it or personally known anyone who it's happened to. The range I used to frequent saw it once on a 329 PD firing full loads. That's a .44 Magnum that weighs 2 ounces more than an SP-101.

that is like asking what is better, potted meat or deviled ham.

Once you've tasted steak you don't really care about the debate

Colt's "quality" over S&W or Ruger is skin-deep. Literally. They have more delicate lockwork than either, and there is no evidence to suggest that they're more accurate or possess any other tangible superiority. I like Colt's just fine, but if given the choice between an L-frame Smith or an I-frame Colt for a gun I'll have to keep and keep running for years to come, I'll take the Smith.

PS-

My worked 686 no dash has a smoother action than any Colt I've found to date, factory or smithed :D
 
Both are modern production handguns.

Unless you seriously plan on stretching the performance envelope in any one aspect there's little difference.
 
Traditionally S&W has always had the edge in fit, finish and overall quality. These days, the gap is quite narrow, if it even exists. That said, I've always preferred older S&W's for my DA guns and Rugers for my SA's. Although I'd rather have any Ruger than a late model S&W.

Colt's quality has varied wildly over the last 50yrs. However, the current Colt SAA is a very well made sixgun and head and shoulders above anything currently available from Ruger or S&W. It's just not as good as a USFA but still costs more.
 
but do you have any creditable first hand information about the unintended locking of S&W revolvers? If so please share them with us.
As a matter of fact yes. The most widely known example can be found on Banes Blog. Michael Bane dismissed the reports of this phenom as internet nonsense until he bought a 629 pd and had it happen to him. Far from being a S&W basher, Bainis the media rep for the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
These thing occur with regularity and are not confined to one model of revolver.They either lock up very tight and require manipulation of the key or lock up partially and become operative after light fiddling with the hammer such as this one:
attachment.php

That occured twice when a friend shot it with magnum loads at a meet in Arkansas.
Several people I trust have had problems with this lock. Still, the tendency is to shout "Liar, Liar!" until the internet expert experiences it for himself.
 
Last edited:
Quality?

Hard to say.

Fit and finish? S&W. Even today.

Trigger? Ruger DAs have come a long way from their darkest lawyer-driven days. The old ones weren't bad, either. In between, they sucked.

Desirability? I own zero Ruger DAs because they make zero DA revolvers that I have wanted, when it came down to spending the money. They're bulkier and heavier than equivalent Smiths. See other posts for discussions of whether bulky and heavy necessarily translates into stronger.

A 7.5" Super Redhawk has its merits, should I go bigger than .44 Magnum, but otherwise, when I have compared guns to purchase for carry and real-world use, the Smith in any given niche has always been a better fit for what I have wanted. The .357 LCR might appeal to me, too, if I want a relatively cheap lightweight .357, but I have that niche bracketed already by a lighter .38+P and a steel .357.

I have SA Rugers. THOSE things are solid, and all my magnum handload testing happens in those. They're fun range guns, and my long-barrel SBH has serious hunting potential, too. The fit and finish aren't the best, but they're adequate for what the guns offer and what they cost. The triggers plain suck. I'll have to have them 'smithed at some point, but I keep forgetting to do it until I shoot the guns the next time.:)
 
These thing occur with regularity and are not confined to one model of revolver.

That's a 329 in the picture, also.

I don't doubt that this does happen in some circumstances, and that it may happen somewhat regularly on a 329 with real .44 loads (something I don't plan on buying).

It sure hasn't happened, nor has there been any hint that it would, with serious .44 Magnum handloads in my 629 Mountain Gun, or with my .38 Airweight. These are the only "lock" Smiths I own, and I don't love the lock. But I still don't see the evidence that this happens "with regularity", and while it may not be "confined to one model", I don't see the evidence that it happens with any regularity on S&W revolvers other than those in a particular class: ultralight magnums.
 
I've had new examples of both within the last two years. I think that are both high quality firearms and have good customer service. The best trigger was a performance center S&W. The new Ruger GP100s have better triggers than the newer 686s. The S&W J frames tend to have better triggers than the SP101s. This has been my observation from owning several examples of each and shooting buddies guns.

My recomendation. If you want a full size service or target revoler on a budget, get the GP100 every time. Less money, better triggers on the new ones, and equally good quality. If you have the money, get a Smith Performance Center. A lot more attention to detail and worth the money IMO.

My two "pro series" S&W have not had any better triggers than regular series ( and 1 was down right horrible). I would skip the pro series unless you like the styling.

Best one of the bunch is the early Smith Model 67. It is a very sweet shooter and my wife's carry gun.
 
Rugers are very well made and are tanks... you won't go wrong with a Ruger.

My personal preference is pre-lock, pre-MIM, pre-two piece barrel S&W's. The older S&W guns are much better quality builds, parts and design then the new ones. Individual examples will vary, but if you stick to the used market you ought to find something very nice that will last a lifetime.

The price on the older S&W's will generally be a lot better than buying new as well...

YMMV.
 
I had two Ruger revolvers.

1 the RH .44 magnum that I learned to shoot magnums with and traded for an AR.

2 the GP100 which I traded and promptly got bad after having seller's remorse.

I have handled other 357's .... and they feel so ... unsubstantial.
 
.357 is an "unsubstantial" cartridge. I like it, .38 and .357 are what I handload most, but part of the appeal is that revolvers chambered in these calibers are not necessarily beasts. They are the smallest calibers commonly used in centerfire revolvers in 2010. These calibers put practical defensive power in my pocket, daily -- but for a bigger trail gun I'll take .44, and in the world of handgun hunting, .44, .454/.460, .475 and .500 are the rounds of choice. Those who like something a little different seem interested in .44 Special, .45 Colt, .45 ACP, .41 Magnum, all bulkier than .357.

You can always get an 8-shot N-frame .357. That way, you get "substantial", and you also get more capacity.:)
 
Last edited:
until he bought a 629 pd and had it happen to him

If the picture is the revolver in question, it's not a 629. It's the same 25 ounce 329 I mentioned before. Very different animal (by almost a pound, in terms of weight).

don't know why you assume that I was alluding to Colt.

Just seemed logical. Where DA revolvers are concerned, S&W-Colt-Ruger are Dodge-Ford-Chevy. If a guy is knocking two of them, he usually prefers the third and unmentioned make. I stand corrected on the inferrence (though I stand by my statement regarding quality)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top