Ruger or Smith and Wesson?

Ruger or Smith and Wesson

  • S&W 686 8"

    Votes: 140 40.3%
  • Ruger GP100 6"

    Votes: 207 59.7%

  • Total voters
    347
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is an interesting topic, and I keep hearing people voting for the Ruger because it is "stronger". I'm no expert in these guns, but what makes the Ruger stronger and the S&W weaker??

I may have to make a decision like this in the future.
 
Faced with a similer choice recently, I chose a 686+(seven shot) 6" . Why ? Just because of the that +. I liked the idea of having an extra round. I tend to prefer smith triggers from what I've toyed with in the store. To be fair though, I only have smith revolvers, and no rugers to compare them to in my stable.
 
As posted earlier I was planning on ordering a Taurus 66 with a 6in Bbl. Found a good deal on a GP100 in Blue with 6 inch Bbl. Only $80.00 more than the Taurus and NIB. For the extra fitting work that goes into the Ruger It was worth it. I'm not all that enamored with Name Recognition as an added expense for a firearm. Browning and S&W are high on the list of Brands that charge extra for the name IMHO.
 
shoot them both and go with what feels better they are both good pistols
 
One thing to remember - people are often comparing older (pre-lock) Smiths vs. older Rugers. New vs. new, the triggers are quite comparable from what I've heard.

I'm pretty set on ordering a 686 (no Plus - not a real need for me, this is a range gun) from a friendly dealer if I don't run into a killer used GP100 at the next gun show - he has a better line on Smith products, so the difference only comes out to about $60 on my end.

I like the ability to ship the revolver to S&W's Performance Center down the road for their glass-bead finish and action job, and the lock doesn't offend me, so it's worth the extra cash.
 
This is an interesting topic, and I keep hearing people voting for the Ruger because it is "stronger". I'm no expert in these guns, but what makes the Ruger stronger and the S&W weaker??

There is no strength difference. If anything, I think metalurgists would suggest Smith's forged frames are stronger than Ruger's cast frames... but I think this is a nearly moot point as these both these guns should outlive you and your unborn children - and history has shown this to be true.

I think the "Rugers are stronger" myth comes from something you hear all the time: "They are built like a tank." Literally speaking, they are - the lines are all about function over form and when you see a Ruger, it looks and feels like a nice, strong tool - the kind you could have bouncing around in a tool box ready to shoot at any time.

For the Smiths, they have a nicer finish and more refined design. When you pick up a shiny new Smith, it feels almost as much like a piece of art as a tool and even though it is built to take all of the abuse of the Ruger, you don't want to throw it in a tool box. You want to lay it down on a soft velvet pad. Is it any less durable or any less of a shooter? No way.

The nice thing about the GP-100 and the 686 are that they are workhorses. BOTH guns will fire full-house hot magnums all day long and ask for more. I say pick the one that you think looks the best and balances the best in your hand. Six months after you buy it, you won't remember the price difference, you will just have a gun - so make it the one you want.
 
A used 686 in good condition will be better than the current offerings from either S&W or Ruger. It is likely to be better finished, it will have forged (not cast or MIM) parts, no lock, and have the firing pin on the hammer where it belongs.

Look for a 686-3 or 686-4.
 
"A used 686 in good condition will be better than the current offerings from either S&W or Ruger. It is likely to be better finished, it will have forged (not cast or MIM) parts, no lock, and have the firing pin on the hammer where it belongs."

About when did they make these changes?

Thanks for the clarification SJshooter ;)
 
I would find a nice, stainless steel, pristine Ruger Security-Six with a 6-inch barrel. I'm also fond of the older Smith & Wesson 4-inch 686s (not the current production).

This is an interesting topic, and I keep hearing people voting for the Ruger because it is "stronger". I'm no expert in these guns, but what makes the Ruger stronger and the S&W weaker??
The Ruger has a solid frame (no sideplate), more robust cylinder (with the cylinder notches between chambers, not over them), massive topstraps, and coil springs rather than leaf springs. The stainless finish also is generally better. The Security-Six had the benefit of weighing less than the 686 and being just as strong if not stronger.

orig.gif
 
I voted for the Ruger. I have one, it balances well and the rounds go where aimed.
 
Ruger. I own Smiths too, but when the Ruger went on its first range trip I knew I had a keeper. More accurate and fit's me perfectly with the small grip. The GP is my "Go To Gun" and has been for quite a while, this is box stock with no adjusting or tweaking at all.
 
duvalhunter said:
"A used 686 in good condition will be better than the current offerings from either S&W or Ruger. It is likely to be better finished, it will have forged (not cast or MIM) parts, no lock, and have the firing pin on the hammer where it belongs."

About when did they make these changes?
In 1998 S&W brought out the 686-5 with a MIM hammer & floating firing pin and MIM trigger.
 
GP100

not much experience with s&w.I do have a range buddy who swears by them but he too loves the feel of the GP100.Several good points have been made on here.If you can shoot both do so.Yes the older models of both seem to be built better.Personal choice and owner of GP100 6" full shroud SS.Love it for range and hunting use.Price was not a factor for me but last i looked the smith was going for an amount more.Good luck
 
Ruger Strength

I think it depends on which models you compare-the Ruger SP101 definitely has more steel at the forcing cone,top strap and cylinder walls than does a J frame Smith.

As Wooderson said above, which era are you comparing? I'd take older Smiths with mirror bluing and silky triggers over a Ruger. But today's Smiths can't compare in quality of manufacturing to a Ruger. And with the cost difference, you can get a trigger job on your new Ruger and still come out cheaper than a new Smith!
 
I have trouble loading a GP100's cylinder with a speed loader. The distance between the edge of the cylinder and frame in relation to the grip seems to be a bit tight. I have no trouble with S&W's. Maybe my technique needs work; dunno.
 
Lazarus thread.

The Ruger's strength is needed in the big bore magnum category. The Smith is plenty for mere 357s. How many blown up 686s have we seen here? None.

So, why carry an chunky, over engineered GP100 when you can have a svelte 686?

Just to dig up some historical dirt here, Smith jumped in bed with the antis in the 90s but Bill Ruger also said no man needs more than a 10 rd clip or some such.

They're all sell outs.
 
You buy a handgun that fits your hand. If the Smith fits use it. If the Ruger fits better use it. Whatever you get make sure you PRACTICE.

That will mean more than the engineering of the gun.

I have both and my personal preference is for the Ruger because of handfit.
 
Ruger hands down... customer service is capitol for me. Why buy something that costs more, that has a skimpier track record, that the company which produces it fights you tooth and nail to have it fixed? I will say that the smiths have a trigger you can fall in love with right at the gun shop. The rugers Do Not. However, fixe this issue with 15$ to the door from wilson combat. Just my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top