2ndamd
Member
"yes they are"
+1 to this quote.
+1 to this quote.
Are Rugers REALLY stronger than S&W's?
- Thread starter Carbon_15
- Start date
- Status
Of all people, Beretta offers a single action revolver, of the Colt style - that has four clicks, loads with the hammer at half-cock, and can be safely carried fully loaded because it has a transfer bar safety. Not too shabby for someone who wants it all...
www.cdnnsports.com
Call the company if you want prices.
SnWnMe
Member
Smiths are stronger. Have you ever seen a 100 year old Ruger?
telecaster1981
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2006
- Messages
- 297
I'd say this whole S&W vs Ruger debate is much akin to the AK vs AR debate. In practical application, there's not really any apprecialble difference. But, if strong/reliable makes you feel warm and fuzzy, get the Ruger. If refined and smooth turns you on, then get the Smith. You can't go wrong with either...
SnWnMe
Member
Woohoo. You get a cookie.
How We can ALL get along...
This argument is so silly, and causes so many unnecessary wars. It reminds me of religion. Let's lay down a few facts:
1) Rugers are cast, not forged
2) Forged steel, per unit volume, is stronger than cast
3) S&W steel is always forged.
4) Rugers on average are larger than S&W's.
5) No conclusive judgments can arrive from the above facts.
Beyond that, in 100 of these nasty and brawling discussions, no one has proved a point.
A larger Ruger per caliber does not mean it's stronger than a comparative S&W. Conversely, forged doesn't always trump cast if you ignore dimensions.
Can we agree to stop hating? I'm so sick of this, and have made unnecessary enemies trying to explain it.
Basically, if you cast a Ruger into the same dimensions, EXACTLY, as an S&W, then you have a weaker gun. But Ruger casts them slightly larger to make up for the known metallurgical qualities to compensate for that. This induces some, who haven't read something about metallurgy, to presume that Rugers are by default stronger.
I would like anyone who has blown up any frame size, model, or caliber of S&W or Ruger to start posting, as long as they can provide:
1) Make, model, and year of manufacture
2) Round used, manufacturer and bullet type
3) All reloads excluded to control for pressure and consistency
I think if we do this in any analytic way, we wont' find any compelling case either way. But that's my bias, and the raw data can be posted here, so it's not like I can control the data and skew it.
And of course, if you can't document the gun and ammo, it doesn't count. We want 1st hand accounts, not 2nd hand info.
Predictions: No, there is no uniform pattern. Cast is cheaper to do. You compensate by making it a little larger. Forged is expensive and flashy, you make it as efficient as possible.
They will work out as equal once we document the failures per frame, cast vs. forged, between the guns. This is a non-issue, I believe. But let's document it and prove it if any one can do so.
I'll go first:
Rugers and S&W's owned in the same caliber:
1) Ruger: New Model Blackhawk, .357, 6.5".
2) s&W: Various k, L, and N frame, 2.5", 3.5", 4"
Any failures in either with commercial ammo:
None
Degree of micrometrically measured frame wear in either:
None.
Here's my first entry. Looking for failures or similarly documented frame wear and tear.
I am mainly interested in putting this crap to bed since we are arguing about the two finest quality revolvers made. What we should be doing, is arguing that that there are only two "quality" revolver manufacturers in the world. They are 90 or less miles apart in New England, and we should support Both! Taurus, other rip-offs, and late comers to the game are not worth our American buying dollar, and why are we hacking at each other and letting others in? Buy S&W, buy Ruger, I don't care. Buy American, stop buying foreign junk at a lower cost, and support our economy and workers.
Ok, rant mode at the end off, sorry.
This argument is so silly, and causes so many unnecessary wars. It reminds me of religion. Let's lay down a few facts:
1) Rugers are cast, not forged
2) Forged steel, per unit volume, is stronger than cast
3) S&W steel is always forged.
4) Rugers on average are larger than S&W's.
5) No conclusive judgments can arrive from the above facts.
Beyond that, in 100 of these nasty and brawling discussions, no one has proved a point.
A larger Ruger per caliber does not mean it's stronger than a comparative S&W. Conversely, forged doesn't always trump cast if you ignore dimensions.
Can we agree to stop hating? I'm so sick of this, and have made unnecessary enemies trying to explain it.
Basically, if you cast a Ruger into the same dimensions, EXACTLY, as an S&W, then you have a weaker gun. But Ruger casts them slightly larger to make up for the known metallurgical qualities to compensate for that. This induces some, who haven't read something about metallurgy, to presume that Rugers are by default stronger.
I would like anyone who has blown up any frame size, model, or caliber of S&W or Ruger to start posting, as long as they can provide:
1) Make, model, and year of manufacture
2) Round used, manufacturer and bullet type
3) All reloads excluded to control for pressure and consistency
I think if we do this in any analytic way, we wont' find any compelling case either way. But that's my bias, and the raw data can be posted here, so it's not like I can control the data and skew it.
And of course, if you can't document the gun and ammo, it doesn't count. We want 1st hand accounts, not 2nd hand info.
Predictions: No, there is no uniform pattern. Cast is cheaper to do. You compensate by making it a little larger. Forged is expensive and flashy, you make it as efficient as possible.
They will work out as equal once we document the failures per frame, cast vs. forged, between the guns. This is a non-issue, I believe. But let's document it and prove it if any one can do so.
I'll go first:
Rugers and S&W's owned in the same caliber:
1) Ruger: New Model Blackhawk, .357, 6.5".
2) s&W: Various k, L, and N frame, 2.5", 3.5", 4"
Any failures in either with commercial ammo:
None
Degree of micrometrically measured frame wear in either:
None.
Here's my first entry. Looking for failures or similarly documented frame wear and tear.
I am mainly interested in putting this crap to bed since we are arguing about the two finest quality revolvers made. What we should be doing, is arguing that that there are only two "quality" revolver manufacturers in the world. They are 90 or less miles apart in New England, and we should support Both! Taurus, other rip-offs, and late comers to the game are not worth our American buying dollar, and why are we hacking at each other and letting others in? Buy S&W, buy Ruger, I don't care. Buy American, stop buying foreign junk at a lower cost, and support our economy and workers.
Ok, rant mode at the end off, sorry.
Shade00
Member
I suggest that everyone just buy Rugers and S&Ws and just shoot the heck out of all of them. Can't go wrong either way. And I kinda doubt you'll blow either up anyway...
ceadermtnboy
Member
I agree that both revolvers are great! We are so luckey to have S&W and Ruger competeing for our business. I would hate it if either one went out of business. Most people own both, and A sturdy Ruger revolver makes a great truck, hunting, night drawer gun and most people would rather carry the lighter better desingned for carry S&W. No matter how you slice it BOTH manufactures revolvers will be there to hand down for several generations.
seeker_two
Member
As long as we're arguing about cast vs. forged, does anyone want to start a "Taurus vs. Charter 2000" thread?....
I've owned all but the C2....never had any problem with any. But I would buy used before buying new.....b/c any of them would last long and well with proper maintenance.
I've owned all but the C2....never had any problem with any. But I would buy used before buying new.....b/c any of them would last long and well with proper maintenance.
I have been reading this thread and at first was of the opinion that I would not enter the fray. But what fun is it to sit on the sidelines. Actually, I like both Rugers and S&W revolvers --- I own more S&W's, but thats because they are (IMO) more fun to shoot (read into that a better trigger).
Are Rugers stronger as the starter of this thread asks?? --Absolutley!!!!!!!! Any engineer (and I'm not an engineer) given the specs on the Rugers and the S&W's could prove to anyone with half a brain that the Ruger is the stronger revolver (read that -- can shoot full power loads over a longer period of time without self-distructing). But----------the S&W's are more fun to shoot. And to me that is the bottom line as to why I own more S&W's.
Now, let me say this, I DO NOT OWN ANY OF THE NEWER S&W's with the "LOCK" ---- I simply refuse to buy a gun with a political solution to a problem that does not exist. I do own a Model 29-6 that has a MIM hammer and trigger --- and it is "sweet", great trigger pull, smooooooth and crisp -- I like it!!!! But , I fully realize that a Redhawk would be able to shoot "hotter loads" without needing a re-build. But, when I'm hunting elk or muley's in Colorado or Montana, where something meaner than a black bear may want to knaw on my leg, I have the S&W with me ---- doesn't matter that the Redhawk is stronger, the S&W is accurate (I shoot it well) and lighter to carry.
I don't handload (I'm too lazy) so the hot loads don't enter into my decision about what to buy or shoot, but I do shoot the guns I enjoy "A LOT". Bottom line both Rugers and S&W's are great guns. You can argue till the cows come home but you won't come to a conclusion that will satisfy everyone!!! ie.... Ford vs. Chevy, Vanilla vs. Chocolate, VOLS vs. BAMA , etc......
Great thread. I enjoyed entering the fray................. gotta go get another beer!!!!!!!!!
Are Rugers stronger as the starter of this thread asks?? --Absolutley!!!!!!!! Any engineer (and I'm not an engineer) given the specs on the Rugers and the S&W's could prove to anyone with half a brain that the Ruger is the stronger revolver (read that -- can shoot full power loads over a longer period of time without self-distructing). But----------the S&W's are more fun to shoot. And to me that is the bottom line as to why I own more S&W's.
Now, let me say this, I DO NOT OWN ANY OF THE NEWER S&W's with the "LOCK" ---- I simply refuse to buy a gun with a political solution to a problem that does not exist. I do own a Model 29-6 that has a MIM hammer and trigger --- and it is "sweet", great trigger pull, smooooooth and crisp -- I like it!!!! But , I fully realize that a Redhawk would be able to shoot "hotter loads" without needing a re-build. But, when I'm hunting elk or muley's in Colorado or Montana, where something meaner than a black bear may want to knaw on my leg, I have the S&W with me ---- doesn't matter that the Redhawk is stronger, the S&W is accurate (I shoot it well) and lighter to carry.
I don't handload (I'm too lazy) so the hot loads don't enter into my decision about what to buy or shoot, but I do shoot the guns I enjoy "A LOT". Bottom line both Rugers and S&W's are great guns. You can argue till the cows come home but you won't come to a conclusion that will satisfy everyone!!! ie.... Ford vs. Chevy, Vanilla vs. Chocolate, VOLS vs. BAMA , etc......
Great thread. I enjoyed entering the fray................. gotta go get another beer!!!!!!!!!
Master Blaster
Member
As long as we are comparing apples and pomegranites here. I would like to mention that a Smith X frame is much stronger than any ruger DA revolver. When Ruger chambers their DA's for 500 S&W or 460 S&W let me know.
madcratebuilder
Member
+1 Well said, sir.
Both Ruger and S&W make great firearms. Own many of both, I don't think of one as 'better' than the other, just different.
Clipper
Member
Years ago, Hornady introduced their 'Frontier' rifle loads for .44mag rifles...On the box was the very specific warning that the Ruger super blackhawk was the ONLY handgun rated to handle those loads...
doc2rn
Member
Dry fire a Ruger GP100 all day long, no problem. Do the same with the S&W you will be replacing parts sooner rather than later.
GP100 stayed in the tool chest but the 686 paid for the GP and left plenty for ammo.
GP100 stayed in the tool chest but the 686 paid for the GP and left plenty for ammo.
Matt-J2
Member
Throw a S&W and a Ruger into the ring and let em fight it out. I bet the Ruger wins. 
Frizzman
Member
I have had both types and like them both. I don't load so hot it stresses the guns. It seems logical that the Ruger design involves more modern engineering from the ground up. The S&W's evolved from designs that were made way before the very high pressure loads of the last 50 years. My first revolver was a Ruger Security Six and I still have it. It digested a good many very hot .357 loads when I was younger and more reckless. It remains none the worse for wear. If I had fired that many hot magnums with a K-frame, I imagine it would have needed repair. An N-frame or L-frame maybe not. I also have a .45 Colt Blackhawk that has seen some hot loads in the distant past and it is fine.
I have learned not to try to blow them up with too many too hot loads. Its not good for me or the revolvers. I do think the lack of a useless hole in the side of the Rugers makes them appeal to me more. My $.02
I have learned not to try to blow them up with too many too hot loads. Its not good for me or the revolvers. I do think the lack of a useless hole in the side of the Rugers makes them appeal to me more. My $.02
MCgunner
Member
Yeah, and it weighs more than an M1A. Thanks, but I'll take a rifle.
How about a Linebaugh custom? Probably cost less. Heck of a lot easier to carry. I got absolutely less use for a X frame, than a J frame with a lock.
My TC contender is lighter and easier to carry, even with a 2x scope on it. Hell, my M7 Remington ain't any heavier or harder to carry!
KBintheSLC
Member
True, but only if they are cast in a centrifuge. You might not be able to see the voids... they are usually microscopic, on the molecular level. Forging is essentially compressing the molecules, so is casting in a centrifuge. However, plain old investment casting using nothing but gravity will never yield the tight molecular pattern of a forged metal.
I know this because I used to work as a metallurgical QC supervisor at a a major steelworks fabrication plant. I have worked with just about every cast and forged steel you can imagine. The fact is simple, only centrifugal casting will produce the same molecular density as forging. All of the other speculative opinions are just that. Don't believe me? Take a cross cut of each to a high powered microscope like an SEM and you will see.
Now I am not saying that Ruger's are weaker than Smith's... that is just not true. However, much of their strength could be attributed to being over-built... not that the metal itself is stronger.
Feanaro
Member
doc2rn said:
Someone should tell my 10-9 to quit working, it seems to be under the impression that thousands of dry firings haven't hurt it.
- Status
