rromeo
Member
Comparing a GP100 to an L frame, I prefer the Ruger. I chose a 642 instead of an LCR.
Anyone else prefer Ruger over S&W?
- Thread starter InkEd
- Start date
- Status
Brass Rain
Member
You think current production S&W aren't as good as current Taurus or Rossi?
Arkansas Paul
Member
I'm a little more of a Ruger fan, but that's because I like single actions.
WardenWolf
member
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.
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.
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.
788Ham
Member
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!
sweater914
Member
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.
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.
Hondo 60
Member
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
1960s, 70s even 1980 something, Big HECK NO I love my Model 10s, 36 & 66.
New stuff - 2011? YES - I'd take a Ruger over a S&W.
I like my SP101. The new S&Ws are
1960s, 70s even 1980 something, Big HECK NO I love my Model 10s, 36 & 66.
RX-178
Member
Over here, I guess. I've always preferred Ruger revolvers to Smith & Wessons.
MCgunner
Member
Yes, prefer Rugers in general 6 days a week and twice on Sunday. 
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. Now, they need an exposed hammer version.
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.
Now, they need an exposed hammer version.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.
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.
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
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
Member
+1 Ruger
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.
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.
Last edited:
W.E.G.
Member
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???
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???
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.
Nanook
Member
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.
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.
dwood
Member
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.
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.
Deputy25
Member
I prefer Smith and Wesson, except in a snub .357. My preference in the snub magnum is the SP101, hands down.
roaddog28
Member
I own both. I like older S&W revolvers and for new revolvers its Ruger.
Howard
Howard
dayid
Member
Ruger's "equivalent" to the 642? You mean the lighter, less-recoiling, less expensive LCR?Nanook said:
Joe Vaquero
Member
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.
Stainz
Member
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.
Stainz
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.
Stainz
- Status