Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Anyone else prefer Ruger over S&W?

Discussion in 'Handguns: Revolvers' started by InkEd, Feb 23, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. InkEd

    InkEd Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2,575
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    I own several revolvers made by both. The general consensus that S&Ws are a little more refined and Rugers are more rugged IMHO seems to be mostly true.

    However, I have noticed that with the exception on the 442 over the LCR; I seem to just prefer the Ruger offering over the S&W equivalent. I think it's because they just feel more "natural" in my hand.

    BOTH are excellent guns BUT I just seem to like the Rugers better. Anyone else just like them better?
     
  2. JEB

    JEB Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,053
    Location:
    Douds, IA
    im with ya!

    ive shot a few smiths and they did shoot good, but they were not any more accurate than the rugers ive shot. rugers are built like tanks, made in America, and they dont have that stupid little lock on them. ruger will get my dollar for sure!
     
  3. 9mmepiphany

    9mmepiphany Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    18,515
    Location:
    northern california
    That's funny, because the only Ruger I prefer over a S&W is the LCR over the M442...well I did prefer the Security-Six over a M19
     
  4. BADUNAME37

    BADUNAME37 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,434
    I think those two are comparable.
    I would never purchase Taurus, but that is just me.
     
  5. 1goodshot

    1goodshot Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    168
    Location:
    chandler,Az
    I used to like my 442 better than my sp101, till it rusted, Now Im going with the Ruger, the 442 will just sit in the safe untill I can afford to have it refinished.
     
  6. CajunBass

    CajunBass Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2005
    Messages:
    5,633
    Location:
    North Chesterfield, Virginia
    I don't think one is any better than the other. I tend to buy Smith & Wesson now, but they're all the older guns, and I admit that I'm buying them as much for the name as anything. I don't think a Model 19 is any better than a Speed-Six. I had a couple of Speed/Security Sixs back in the day and although they were good guns, I always knew I bought them mostly because they were less expensive than Smith & Wesson or Colt. That doesn't make them bad, it just means they weren't what I thought I REALLY wanted, and I always knew it. I don't know which I would have chosen if the price had been the same.

    But I was never disapointed with a Ruger. They shot great!
     
  7. BADUNAME37

    BADUNAME37 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,434
    Actually, my very first pistol was a single action Ruger 6" barrel, blued. Back then, you could wear anywhere, and I did, it was always on my hip in an Uncle Mikes hip holster. I put thousands and thousands of rounds through that gun and when I traded it, it looked good as new!
     
  8. BossHogg

    BossHogg Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    689
    Location:
    Arkansas
    I like Ruger it's just that they are limited on choices. I'm in the market for a 45 acp double action revolver. I'm thinking it be a S&W just because they're so many more to choose from. 45 acp Redhawks don't turn up around here often.
     
  9. wow6599

    wow6599 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,417
    Location:
    Wildwood, MO
    Yes, but remove that little IL on the S&Ws and................
     
  10. teumessian_fox

    teumessian_fox member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Messages:
    227
    Location:
    Staying ahead of the Big Dog
    That's like axing me which I like best, steak or lobster. I like both. They're both equally good when used for the purpose for which they're designed.

    However, I don't own any Smiths with the lock. So, that might be a different variable.
     
  11. Lucky Derby

    Lucky Derby Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,142
    Location:
    Colorado Rockies
    My order of preferance:
    1. Pre-Lock/Pre-MIM S&W and/or Colt
    2.Ruger
    3.Pre-Lock/MIM S&W
    4.Taurus/Rossi
    5.Current S&W
    6.RG

    Note that I have never purchased, nor will I ever purchase anything below #4
     
  12. InkEd

    InkEd Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2,575
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    Cajun bass nailed it on the head! I think they are different BUT even. I would pay the same money for them even. (Please don't raise Ruger prices though!) They are both awesome firearms.

    Regarding .45acp Redhawks, I don't see them much either. The .45lc is standard production and you can use .45lc (obviously), .45autorim and .45acp with moonclips if you have it customized. I don't know how much it would cost. However, if you were looking at a high-end 625 like the Jerry Miculek model THEN for the difference in price; you could probably get Gemini Custom (or another Ruger specialist) to do the work. Another option would be a .454 Super Redhawk. You could do all of the above AND .454Casull. That's if you really have a preference for the Ruger. Personally, I would still probably just opt for the 625 though. Seems alot easier choice to me.

    Lastly, I am starting to think that I may be the ONLY person who favors the 442 to the LCR. It seems even die-hard S&W fans prefer the LCR. Oh well.
     
  13. earlthegoat2

    earlthegoat2 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Messages:
    4,514
    Location:
    SE GA
    As with any good debate, there is no right answer.

    Im going to just throw out some opinions from my own experience for you all to munch on.

    First of all Ruger does have a product line for all the same product lines as smith and wesson as far as revolvers are concerned as long as we take into consideration the recent past as well.

    As a rule, the Rugers are just as reliable, heavier, and have inferior triggers from the factory. To me, a Ruger is an unrefined S&W and the prices of each will agree with that. For better or worse Rugers will take a pounding before they need to be serviced or if they ever need to be serviced. For these reasons, Rugers are very popular today. The average shooter will take strength over finish if the price is right and it is.

    For the icing I will say: On this forum I constantly run down S&W. I am not a fan of anything they made after 1999. The quality is terrible, the marketing lies. ALL they have is a name anymore.

    That said I have 3 Smiths and will probably get more but they will be pre 1999.

    Today Rugers are a better firearm and a better value. You cannot go wrong by choosing Ruger over Smith these days.

    If it was 30 years ago I would say differently.

    Ruger as a company is a step ahead of S&W with their single actions too. Their company has planned for the future where Smith is just riding on the laurels of the past.

    I have used and worked on both Smiths and Rugers for what most would consider a short time but having that kind of exposure to that many different guns allows you to make some opinions and draw some conclusions on the matter.
     
  14. Fishman777

    Fishman777 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2007
    Messages:
    520
    Smiths vs Rugers...

    Here is my answer from a similiar post a few years ago:

    I like Smiths, but I think that Ruger DA revolvers are better designs for a few reasons:

    1. Solid frame
    2. Modular trigger assembly - easy to work on.
    3. Modular grip frame allows a lot more flexibility when selecting after market grips. You have a lot more flexibility with the sizes and shapes of aftermarket grips with the Rugers.
    4. The front sights can be changed in about 5 seconds
    5. Triple locking cylinders (this is the feature that I like the most) - Smith's have the ejector rod as the third locking point. Ruger adds a crane latch to secure the crane more robustly. Ruger's triple locking cylinder maintains better alignment between the cylinder and the barrel.
    6. Ruger DA revolvers with triple locking cylinders almost never go out of time.
    7. Ruger ejector rods just eject the spent brass. They also don't unscrew or bend during shooting.
    8. No internal lock in Ruger DA revolvers.
    9. The cylinder "notches" are offset.

    The downside of these guns is that they aren't generally cleaned up very well at the factory. With a little time and effort, these problems are easy to overcome. There is also a lot of information printed on the barrels. This doesn't bother me, much.

    Ruger DA revolver designs aren't perfect, but they are the best revolver designs in my opinion.

    Rugers can be cleaned up to be Smith or Colt-like, but Smiths and Colts will never be as strong as a Ruger.
     
  15. Thaddeus Jones

    Thaddeus Jones Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,006
    In brand new revolvers, I prefer Ruger.

    For used, I prefer pre lock, pre MIM S&W's. TJ
     
  16. george29

    george29 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,311
    Location:
    Land of Entrapment
    For the last few years I have been consolidating my guns (fewer and fewer as time goes by) to a one caliber variety which was all my handguns would be either a .44 or a 22.
    Then I inherited dad's M&P 1905 and his Colt 1903. Later I found that my 2" Taurus .44 (magnum)
    was getting too heavy to CCW in my pocket (my preferred carry method) so I traded it for a 642. There went my consolidation theory. So I got rid of my SBH for a Model 13 3"
    traded a gentleman my .44 ammo for his .38/.357 and am in the market for a 5.5" Vaquero in 357.
    My two Smith's are for everyday, the Vaquero will be for extra insurance for mountain carry with Ruger only loads.
    What I'm getting at in being so long winded is that there is a place for both Ruger and S&W in a practical collection. The 642 in my pocket, the 13 in a chest holster the Vaquero (still not bought) for truck gun etc.
    Next project is probably to swap the 642 for a 640/LCR to be 357 capable if the need arises.
    As time goes on, I find that having multiple calibers for SD is impractical considering that with current politics, we may not be fighting for our gun rights but our right to buy ammo or components to manufacture them ourselves.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2011
  17. Starter52

    Starter52 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,688
    Location:
    Northeast USA
    The only Ruger I prefer over a S&W is Ruger's .22 auto pistol. It's a winner. The Security-Six is a good gun but I prefer a Model 28.
     
  18. nofishbob

    nofishbob Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    395
    Location:
    Copper Canyon, TX
    I am very price conscious, unfortunately.

    Rugers seem to offer more value in most cases.

    If S&W priced their guns as low as Ruger does, or vice versa, then the "Which is better?" discussions would be more straightforward.

    When comparing the two makes, many times the S&W will be a little nicer, but then I always ask: "Is it $200 nicer, $300 nicer, etc".

    Most times the answer is "No".

    My recent purchases include one gun from each company. The S&W, while costing more than twice as much as the Ruger, had to go back to S&W right out of the box for quality issues.

    Bob
     
  19. XxWINxX94

    XxWINxX94 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    Messages:
    754
    Location:
    C(r)ook County, Illinois
    for the newer stuff, I agree Ruger seems a better bang for your buck. For the old, collector/Hand Ejector models I like Smith better than Ruger. If I had a choice to have a newer Ruger vs. a vintage S&W, I would say S&W hands down.
     
  20. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    8,931
    Location:
    Californicated Colorado
    New Rugers and old Smiths; that's what I like.


    Well... old Rugers are cool too!
     
  21. Bush Pilot

    Bush Pilot Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,597
    ^ what he said.
     
  22. Hunt480

    Hunt480 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    Messages:
    445
    Location:
    Georgia
    I beleive the Rugers are a tougher quality no doubt about it. IMO the X frame Smiths are the only revolvers they make that are as tough as a Ruger. I will have to say a Smith has the better factory trigger as anyone can plainly see but a Ruger trigger can be tuned just as well. I guess I'm saying we need a Ruger with a Smith trigger. I'm not selling my Smiths or Rugers no time soon.
     
  23. ColtPythonElite

    ColtPythonElite Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,362
    Eh, the cylinders turn the wrong way on both of them...
     
  24. bikemutt
    • Contributing Member

    bikemutt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,892
    Location:
    Renton, WA
    I was initially skeptical of Ruger coming from the shotgun side of things, just did not like anything about them.

    On the handgun side though I'm impressed with everything about them and as of now see no reason to pay extra for the S&W pistols.
     
  25. NMPOPS

    NMPOPS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    284
    Location:
    Arizona
    I've always liked the Security Six and Speed Six but never took to the GP100. Too big. The Security Six will fit a holster made for a M-19
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page