S&W vs. Ruger Comparisons

S&w 686


hands down, nuff said.

I heard that it's possible to get an S&W without the lock built in, do you just ask them to leave it out, or does their custom shop do it, or do you take it to a smith and does that invalidate the warranty?

I don't own any Rugers (yet), but my impression is that Rugers are known for their combination of strength, rugged construction, and affordability. With the affordability, though, comes an action and finish that's rougher than a S&W. As far as durability, a Ruger may be tougher in an absolute sense, but a Smith is plenty tough enough.

I like Smiths, but that's just me. They seem to feel better in my hand. I wouldn't feel deprived if I had a Ruger.

One thing I like about my Smith is the ability to easily remove the cylinder/crane assembly with one screw for an easy & more complete cleaning. Again, I don't own any Rugers, but I understand it's not so easy with a Ruger.

Nope...you are stuck with the lock on new S&W. New S&W revolvers are just a shadow of their past quality...or so many of the "Old Guard" say. Older S&W...well, you take a chance. Could be shot out, damaged...need tweaking/tightening...might just look pretty and remain a safe queen that certainly hold their value. Me...I'm going with a new Ruger. This is an all bussiness revolver. Many on here will say that all Rugers are "works in progress". No problem. Since my life will depend on the weapon I choose...I'll spend the money on gunsmithing and perfect the Ruger large frame. The weapon below...without the porting...and definitley add the "moon clip" deal is my present target:

http://www.geminicustoms.com/RugerGP100.html

Smith and wessons were designed to be carried (j and k frames). Rugers are known for their brute strenght, but their actions leave a lot to be desired. Rugers, for me, are just too and heavy for concealed carry. I did handle a used sp101 that had an action job and almost bought it, but it was just too big and heavy for concealed carry.

For a house gun either will serve you well.

I want a reliable, no nonsense, durable gun that's economical

Click to expand...

Sounds like a Ruger GP100 to me.

Based on the posts on THR, S&W and Ruger seem to be the preferred choices for .38 and .357 revolvers. The Ruger revolvers appear to be less expensive, so I'd like to know why owners choose one over the other. The criteria may be build quality, range of accessories, etc.

Click to expand...

Both are fine revolvers. S&W's tend to be a bit better finished and come with a somewhat better trigger, although a little work on a Ruger will take care of that.

IMHO and conventional wisdom has it that Ruger's are a more strongly constructed handgun. You will find ammunitions producers often specifying that their hot loads should only be used in a Ruger. I own both, shoot both, and like both. FWIW

I prefer the S&W because I like the feel of the trigger MUCH better and I shoot them a lot better as a result. DA I find smoother and lighter in the Smiths, and the SA mode is amazing! The trigger kind of breaks before you think it should, which I find helps my accuracy a lot.

To me, that is the biggest and most important difference. Fit/finnish might be a tad better on the Smiths, but is more than acceptable on the Rugers. Both are plenty strong, and will hold up to many full house rounds.

Well, with 1,000 rounds through my 642CT, I can't wait to buy a 686. The Smith and Wesson is an outstanding revolver and will serve you well. I have liked the Ruger revolvers I've fired, (Redhawk, Blackhawk, Security 6, GP100), but I love Smith and Wessons. I don't think you can make a wrong choice - both will serve you well, but in my opinion, S&W is the better choice...

As for the lock, it's been hashed and rehashed ad nauseam - it's a non-issue brought on by much hype. Again, 1,000 rounds and my lock is where it was when I purchased it - off. You can have a gunsmith remove it, but it's pointless....Go forth and buy a Smith and Wesson - you shall not be sorry... Good luck with your choice!

Check out the Ruger GP-100 with 3" barrel. May fit your needs. Rugers rule!
I have a Ruger KGP-161 and SP-101, both in 357 mag. The 357 mag can also shoot 38 spl but one in 38 spl can not shoot 357 mag.
I also have a SP-101 in 32 H&R mag.

I have both Ruger and Smith and Wesson revolvers. As everyone else has claimed the triggers on Smiths are better, but you should know that both brands improve greatly with shooting and dry firing. If we're comparing apples to apples, than the Ruger GP100 should be compared to the S&W 686. The Ruger can be completely taken apart by the owner following instructions in the Ruger manual. That may or may not be important. Both are similar in size and weight and while many claim that the Ruger is stronger where is the proof and if you are shooting factory ammo or sensible reloads it doesn't matter. The one place that the Ruger has it over the Smith is the grip, especially the 3" version. But that's my hand talking. I still prefer the Smith.

I've bought 4 Smiths with the MIM parts and the dreaded lock. Never had a problem and the workmanship is first rate when compared my older Smiths. Even my last Smith acquisition a model 22-4 has a beautiful polish and blue. Don't let the winers discourage you.

You need to handle both and choose the one that you like best because you can't go wrong with either.

You can also decide that you don't need the noise and blast of the .357 and choose a revolver chambered in 38 special. IMHO for civilian use the old 38 is all you need when loaded with the FBI load or the new Speer 135 grain load.

So far the only locks Ruger has done are on the SA series, and to their credit they do it right. The Ruger lock is unobtrusive, downright invisible unless you decide otherwise with a drill, and has zero instances of accidental engagement so far. I own a New Vaquero with that lock and can attest that it's not a problem. Ruger will likely do something similar on the DA line eventually.

S&W locks have been auto-engaging. Not often, but enough to be worrisome.

DA Rugers can be detail-stripped much easier than an S&W. Rugers are tougher, better engineered overall, just...not as slick right off the bat. They smooth out in time or can be slicked up at reasonable cost.

You can also decide that you don't need the noise and blast of the .357 and choose a revolver chambered in 38 special. IMHO for civilian use the old 38 is all you need when loaded with the FBI load or the new Speer 135 grain load.

Click to expand...

Agree.

I would find a range that rents guns, or ask some folks with a variety of guns to shoot them.
Gun fit to you is the key here. Actually shooting a variety allows one to see, feel and experience a lot of things, just handling one does not.

I believe in the dedicated .38spl, and I believe in OLDer Police Trade ins, such as Model 10, Model 64 Smiths

Another great used Police Trade in is the Ruger Six series.

You mentioned the primary use was home protection.

Another "suggestion" for dedicated 38spl is it being a more lower pressured round and therefore better on the ears if fired indoors than a .357 loading.

Try before you buy please.

All guns once fired, are used guns...

Well, I don't think you can go wrong with either, really. I am the new owner of a S&W 66-1 that was a gift from a friend, and I really like it. I also happen to be a fan of most Ruger products, and thus I have a penchant for Rugers too. If I had a wad of money in my pocket, I would most likely go to the Ruger, for the following reasons:

1. Ruger is stronger. You won't have to worry about strength in the Smith either, but the Ruger is still a stronger gun.

2. Ruger is cheaper. You can argue the whole "How much is your life worth" argument all you want, but in this case, that argument is pointless. You do not get any better (or worse) gun with the cheaper Ruger than you do with the more expensive Smith. The Ruger may be a tad less smooth initially, but it's not enough to make me spend the extra money. On the used market, this argument has much less merit, for obvious reasons.

As far as caliber goes, I am a fan of going .357 simply for the versatility aspect. I don't disagree one iota with the idea of having dedicated calibers, but if you really only plan on having one gun (or at least one gun of this type), I really think it makes more sense to go the way of versatility.

SM, I also happen to agree with you and Ron in PA about the .38. I think it has gotten an undeserved bad rap over the years, but properly loaded, I think it is an excellent choice for a SD round.

Rugers are good but if it's a DA revolver, mine will have S&W on it.

My GP100 doubles as a lower forty-eight woods gun. I love the "overbuilt" feeling of the Ruger. Smith makes great firearms but, for some reason, the Rugers just feel right. My next gun *will be* one of the new 4" Ruger Redhawks.

You can go with the small or large grip on the GP - it changes the feel of the gun dramatically.





I do own a Smith - a sweet little 642/CT that goes most anywhere. For the intended CCW pocket use, nothing Ruger had compared. The SP101 is great but like a brick in comparison.

You know? For inside home defense, there is nothing wrong with a .38+p either...

Heh. I have both. Honestly it sounds like for your purposes a Ruger Sp101 with 3"bbl, or a Gp100 with either 3 or 4 inch bbl would suit your needs very well. A S&W would also do as well. Are you looking to buy new? If economy is the order of the day, look at the older, used S&W's. A model 10, 586, 19, 15 etc... would be darn near perfect. They are indeed very durable, and will almost definitely cost less than $350 in really nice condition.
However, as others have mentioned, the Rugers are super strong for their sizes, can be very easily cleaned, and are a tremendous value.
For what it's worth, I have both a S&W AND a Ruger on opposite sides of my bed.

I have both. Since you are new to the revolver game, I'd say you will be most happy with a 3" Ruger GP100. Dry fire it a bunch and the trigger should smooth out a lot. Still won't be as smooth as the Smith 686. It just depends on your budget and your valuation of things. I prefer Colts overall and in the past always chose a Colt over a Smith even if I had to pay more.

I use my 3" GP100 as my house HD gun. I shoot it just fine at the range out to 25 yds. I generally don't shoot it out past 10 yds. It is not hard to get reasonably proficient with shooting it at that range.

Over time, buy one of each! It really doesn't matter which you acquire first, as S&W and Ruger are both good, if examined carefully before purchase. I have several Rugers, SP101, GP100, and Speed Six, in .357 mag. My S&W revolvers are a J-frame M430 .38 and an N-frame M58 .41 mag. The Rugers are used for daily carry.

At one time I had both a S&W 586 and Ruger GP100, both blued .357 Magnums with 4" barrels. I liked them both and they were both quality guns. The trigger was slightly better on the 586, even after the GP100 had smoothed out from lots of dry and live firing. I thought the rear adjustable sight on the GP100 was flimsy so I replaced it with a Bowen Rough Country sight and it was a big improvement.

I now own both a S&W Model 10 (current production) and Ruger GP100, both blued .38 Special with 4" barrels and fixed sights. The rubber grips the factory installs on the Model 10 feel pretty good and are quite functional, but I replaced them with a set of Ahrends that I like much better. The factory grip on the GP100 is very good (IMO), but I have a hybrid ivory/hardwood grip made by Lett that looks great. Both these guns are great shooters -- very accurate and easy to shoot well. However, they are in line for action jobs because they are both a little "tight" and the triggers could be a bit lighter.

Most of my guns are S&Ws with the GP100 being the only exception. But the GP100 has become a classic in its own right and I think it is a well-engineered revolver. Try examples of both and see which you like better. I would rate S&W's customer service top notch, but Ruger is probably very good as well.

All that's a long way of saying it boils down to personal preference. Heck, get one of each!

both are excellent choices and are plenty stout for what you want to use them for. while i pocket carry a SW 642 on a daily basis, i prefer the GP for a full size house/woods/range revolver. i just like the way it feels in the hand.

One thing I hear over and over again is that the trigger/actions on S&Ws are better than on Rugers. I do not find that that is consistently the case with new examples.

Recently I've seen new S&Ws with really poor triggers and new Rugers with fairly decent triggers. If you want really good quality in either brand you'll have to do a lot of dry firing or have it tweaked.

I find that by doing some hunting you can find really nice .38s at bargain prices. Not so likely in .357 magnum.

In your case, I'd suggest finding a NIB or nearly new Smith (pre-lock) or Ruger (pre-GP). Cost wise, the specific gun you shoud seek out is a Ruger Security Six made between the mid 70's and mid 80's. The triggers on rugers back then are as good as current production Smiths and they can still be found for well under $400 on Gunbroker and other places.

I don't think you can go wrong with either one. I ended up with the GP100 and love it:



But I think I'd be just as happy with the S&W. I'd try to rent or borrow both at the range and see which you prefer. I plan on purchasing a S&W 642 for a CCW, they seem extremely popular.