Durability: ruger vs. s&w

Status
Not open for further replies.
enting, i'm assuming its your revolver, if not you're just using one example of a bad apple from ruger to dislike all rugers, if you like a can give you links to far more smiths and taurus' that have the same problem. every so often you get a bad apple, its no reason to give up on them all together.
 
I own and shoot both; both companies made quality firearms. I've come to know the customer service folks at S&W well through the years (a good lot, by the way). I'm happy to report that I've never had the opportunity to talk with anyone at Ruger's customer service/return depart.
 
If you're a persistent shooter, you're going to want a Ruger. They're more reasonably priced, I think, and a decent smith can make the action as smooth as glass. If you have a shot at an old Smith & Wesson, I'd grab it in a heartbeat, but if you're shooting a K-frame Smith & Wesson, it will easily go a few thousand rounds without problems. An NRA techie told me he had to retime his Model 19s about every 2,000 rounds of full house magnum loads. After about two retimings, the frame warping was so bad he just retired it. His Ruger Security-Sixes, however, which was his favorite .357, went through many, many thousands with no parts replacement. Skeeter Skelton said that he knew of two Security-Sixes that had each gone through 30,000 rounds were both still going strong. One had started to go a little out of time, but didn't need immediate service.

Lighter magnum rounds (125gr JHPs and lower) can eat up a forcing cone due to gas cutting. Leeching the carbon from the steel, it would develop cracks. Stainless steel, BTW, holds up to gas cutting substantially better than blued steel. The Rugers also have a solid frame design while S&Ws have side plates.

Despite all this, Rugers still sell less than Smiths because they're investment cast. If you shoot mostly .38s, the S&Ws will last virtually forever.

RugerSecurity-SixTrio_5.gif

Ruger_SS_Assembly_3.gif

Where the S&W has a side plate, the Ruger has solid steel
and a forcing cone that's far more robust.

Ruger_SS_Assembly_1a.gif

The modular design means that parts are easy to replace.

RugerCylinder_2.gif

The cylinder notch of the Ruger is not directly over the
chamber, which adds to the strength. The cylinder also is
beefier than the K-frame Smiths. The latch is also more
massive than the S&Ws.
 
The ruger will take more pounding with hot loads before it gets loose but the smith will take a load that wont frag it like a ruger will if you screw up and double charge a round. The smith will have a oval holes in the cylinder but it will have a cylinder in one peice.
 
Revolver Ocelot the ruger isn't mine but from a fellow countryman. I agree w/ you its just one example, nothing is perfect. I'm still planning to buy ruger sp101 & a ruger 10/22, but here in the Philippines you can't easily or sometimes impossible to return firearms w/ defects not like in the U.S. Do you know of bad batch/recall of ruger sp101 .357 like in the picture?
 
Posts: 2 here's a picture of broken ruger sp101http://pinoyguns.proboards.com/index...play&thread=131. link

With regard to Ruger barrels that have broken off like this, and they have included Redhawks, the problem was traced to untrained personnel and a manufacturing solvent or lube that, if left on barrels on days off before the guns were cleaned and assembled, could cause the barrels to crack and have this very result. Some may also have been overtorqued when assembled. Ruger needs better QC, as, often, do other makers. MOST of their guns, over the long span of time, have been very good. It does pay to hand pick them for best fit and finish, as with other brands. I found many Security-Six and related guns (Speed-Six, Service-Six) to have loosely fitted cranes. Probably had to do with cast parts and lack of hand fitting.

S&W has also had some barrel separation issues, some on guns intended for the Hong Kong police. Some US prison guard force also returned some such guns. I do not know if they had the recent two-piece barrels or other details.

Overall, both brands make good guns, but the current ethics and training of manufacturing personnel in most industries make personal, informed hand selection a good idea in ANY handgun.
 
I think the Rugers are probably stronger, but thats not to say the Smiths are weak. Its not to hard to find a working Smith thats over 80 years old.
 
ahh now I understand enting, I wasn't sure as every so often some will bash one brand over another and I was uncertain if this had been the case, I can see the fear in buying a revolver that should something go wrong you'd be unable to do anything about it.

its a very valid fear but in my opinion ruger would be the one least likely to expierience this problem, and if it did happen odds are by that point you'd have put 10k rounds through it and got your moneys worth.

good luck to you and I hope you get the chance to own any of the fine revolver makes mentioned here.

as far as a bad batch / recall of rugers the only model I have heard ever recalled by them was their new lcp, which if you got one pre ban you probably would be able to send it to ruger as the barrel was not required for the new parts to be added. but as for revolvers no, that just seems to be a spell of bad luck on that sp101
 
There is a misguided rumor that Rugers' are built like tanks and can handle anything. They have put out some clinkers, and I got one once. I bought a NIB Ruger Redhawk 44mag 7.5" barrel. After shooting a dozen or so moderate reloads and some factory ammo, the cylinder would not close. I sent it back to Ruger and about a month or so later it returned. About 1/3 of the face of cylinder had been milled and not reblued(looking horrible) and it still felt a drag for those ports affected. I traded it away soon after.
My point is, Ruger may make some heavy, solid revolvers, but they are not perfect..don't buy into the hype blindly.:scrutiny:
 
Firstly, let's get the facts straight. S&Ws, even the K-frame .357 Magnums, are designed to have a long life firing standard SAAMI specification loads. To purposely overcharge them, a la the 'Ruger/TC-only' loads is not advised (Check their manual!). It baffles me that folks always want to 'hot rod' a given caliber - when hotter calibers exist, if really needed.

Secondly, the S&W construction is not just tradition - it's timeless engineering - and strong. The only S&W I recall any history of frame stretching with was the early 29 - and that was a non-issue early in the 29's history. Both the 29's and 629's have had the benefit of endurance enhancements through the years, making current production the best yet. Recall that Ruger uses cast steel, which is cheaper, less dense, and weaker than hammer forged and heat-treated steel.

Let's compare apples to apples - the Ruger KGP-141 GP100 to the S&W #164222 686. Both are SS 4" 6-shot .357 Magnums. The Ruger can be found on page 78-9 and the S&W on page 31 of their respective 2009 catalogs. The massive full-shrouded Ruger weighs 40 oz and sells for merely $680 MSRP, while the liteweight S&W weighs but 39.7 oz while listing for the Kingly sum of $909. The GP100 sure looks heavier, not that a full-lugged S&W, like the usual 686, will ever look 'svelt'.

The K-frame admittedly did not allow a proper sized forcing cone for lite weight, ie, less than 125gr, hyper velocity .357 Magnums. Erosion was such that estimated barrel life's with that steady diet would likely require barrel changes by 40k rounds. That's a box of fifty every week for fifteen years. The increased width (.040") of the front strap of the L-frame permits a larger OD barrel/fc - more meat for the erosion under hyper velocity gas caused loss. The current replacements for the 65/66 .357 Magnums are the 619/620 - actual 7-shot L-frames, but like the 65/66 with their partial lugs.

My migration to revolvers from evil-bottom-feeders was via Ruger, having owned SS, BH, Bisley, Vaquero, SP101, RH, & SRH models, to name a few. I've had calibers from .22 rimfire to .454 Casull. Every Ruger, save that .454 SRH, came home as a 'work in progress', where I had to at the least clean up some poorly reamed holes or rough pawl channels. The 5.5" SS .45 RH had to go back - brand new - for a cylinder, hammer, & trigger - very poor QC. Once working, they were fun - and improveable, trigger-wise. Over-sized cylinder chambers had to be lived with. With my first S&W 9/02, my migration suddenly veered... until I became S&W-only last fall, selling my last Ruger - a MKII - to fund a 617.

The beauty of our fine nation has always been our freedoms. You have the freedom of choice - mine in handguns is clear - S&W revolvers, most with the 'dreaded' IL. You may choose as you wish. Both will go bang for a long time. Should service be required, even a call to Ruger is on your dime. S&W can be reached via an 800 number - and they will send you a pick-up slip for your firearm - and return it to your door, too - gratis. I didn't tighten the rear sight mounting screw on my 6" 629 after replacing my scope & rail recently - and lost said screw. A call to S&W CS yielded a replacement gratis in four days, including the weekend. A similar experience with Ruger required money and a wait.

I seem to fly the S&W standard a lot lately. I just wish I could afford more...

Stainz
 
That was an interesting discourse on "fact straightening."

The massive Ruger weighs three-tenths of an ounce more? Ouch.

The K-Frames didn't suffer from frame stretch on a diet of Magnums? That's news.

Some folks want to be able to shoot maximum loads regularly without having to move up.

You grossly overstate the strength of S&Ws. Ruger's castings are state of the art, used in high stress aerospace applications among other uses. Regardless of it being more inexpensive to produce, it results in a world class product. Besides, S&Ws are no more filled with hammer forged and heat treated steel than I am. The current lock work is MIM, a fancier take on sintered metal, aka "pot metal," and in any event, is only surface hardened, not thoroughly heat treated. S&W's traditional timing problems from wear are only going to get more frequent for having cheapened the lockwork.

All of that aside, the "traditional" build of the S&W is the very source of its less favorable toughness impressions versus the Ruger GP-100. The Ruger uses a milled forging for its cylinder and then makes up for any "deficiencies" in using an investment cast frame by making that frame a unitary whole. I'm pretty sure any engineer would tell you should you ask that one piece of steel, no matter whether that steel is forged or cast, is going to be tougher than two pieces of steel screwed together. This doesn't even dwell on the Ruger's offset cylinder notches, superior crane locking system, or unitary lockwork. There's no need make up things that say the L-frame is equally tough when it is not. Ruger had an unfair advantage in not being wedded to a design philosophy carried over from the dawn of the smokeless powder era.

From regularly reading this forum, the QC shoe is on the other foot of late. Most Ruger owners never need CS in the first place.

Who can S&W blame for the upsurge in popularity of the GP-100 and SP-101?

S&W. The Hillary hole isn't killing S&W, but it is limiting them or they wouldn't offer sprint runs of models without it. Also, they will never be able to out Ruger old Sturm Ruger. The 619/620 is a sick joke in the looks department, but it is probably the leading edge of S&W's total manufacturing sell out of the "old ways" in order to do things as cheaply as possible.

As many folks have discovered for themselves, a Ruger's trigger is a cheap and easy fix compared to overpaying for a Smith in the first place.
 
My 19-3 must be defective. It has over 3000 158 grain 357's and over 11600 38's through it. It times properly and locks up like a bank vault. The nickel finish is still bright, and intact. This particular 19-3 is one of my most accurate revolvers.

I also have a very nice Ruger GP100 4". The trigger is very nice, and it is a tack driver. If S&W had not been producing what it is, I might never have purchased the Ruger. Thanks Safety Wesson!
 
I am a .45 Colt man. I own Colts, Smiths, Rugers and a Taurus. All are fine guns. The Rugers are, hands down, the most overbuilt handguns I own. My 8-3/8" 25-5 weighs nearly the same as my 5.5" Redhawk. The frame is absolutely titanic. The Super Redhawk is even moreso, but I prefer the look and feel of the Redhawk. Also, Ruger's single actions are the only commonly available SA's that can handle full-bore magnum loads. The BFR is rare and costs twice as much, a Freedom Arms is even more expensive, and the Ruger Bisley is still a more comfortable design for prolonged shooting.

Don't get me wrong, Smiths are great fun, as are the rest of my wheelguns. But the only ones I can shoot hot loads in are the Rugers. A Hot .45 Colt out of a Ruger shames the .44 magnum easily, and encroaches on .454 Casull factory loads handily. The fact that I don't have to go to a behemoth like the Super REdhawk or Raging Bull is reason enough for me to hot load a .45 colt rather than get a larger (harder to find and more expensive) cartridge.
 
Damn, pizzagunner, that's some serious bitterness.:fire::D I won't address all your incorrect points of "fact", but :
First off, some K-frame 357's experienced "flame-cutting" of the top strap after years and years of constant over-use of shooting hot magnum loads. The rest of your post is questionable at best regarding "facts", none of which thought to ponder "If Ruger is so tough, so indestructable, why is resale almost on par with a Taurus compared to S&W resale?"
I'm not a fan of modern era S&Ws. I like them older, refined and continually increasing in value.:neener:
 
Hey sparkyguy66....

All K-frames shooting the smaller pills at magnum velocity will flame cut...sooner then later.

As to resale on a Ruger vs. Taurus...Wow.

Go find any Old Model Ruger .357 or Flattop and see how they compare to a similiar S&W in resale value. Think you have a real learnin' experience comin' your way....:evil:
 
Not to intrude on the heating rhetoric, but I'd like to thank Confederate for the "exploded" views of the Security-Six. Nice work!

Lone Star
 
gizamo, one word..gunbroker. Do some searches. Highest current price bid on for search of 'ruger 357' is $650. 'S&W 357' is $1100. Game..set..match.:neener:
 
To be honest (how many times have we heard that), I find the Ruger easier to work on (clean), but I like the lines of my Smith's. As for durability---shoot factory loads like the Smith's were designed for and they will both give you a lifetime of enjoyment. The Ruger's do seem to hold up better if you intend to feed them a steady diet of 'heavy' loads, especially in .44 Magnum.
 
Ruger makes the stronger da handgun. The design is simpler and stronger. This is a fact. A fella can argue against it and a fella can also be wrong.

Now that doesn't mean that a well cared for Smith can't last several generations. They have and can. With heavy loads they can shake loose sooner and will require a tune up.

Which does the shooter want most? Which feels best in the hand? Which does the shooter shoot best? What does the shooter want to do with the gun? What caliber is the gun and what purpose is the combination to be used for? These questions are actually more important, I think, in selecting one over the other than "Which is Stronger?".

tipoc
 
Hmm...

When I say that my Ruger GP100 is stronger than a Smith, I really think in terms of the triple locking cylinder.

Next time you see a GP100, and SP101, a Redhawk, or a Super Redhawk, take look at the front of the cylinder. I've gotta get back to work; I'm going to late for a meeting. Maybe I'll explain it later.

The solid frames make Rugers pretty robust, but the real issue is how the cylinder is secured.

If you investigate this further, you will see occasional timing complaints on the Smith and Wesson board. The opinions on these boards is that this will eventually happen, so it is no big deal. I've also heard about Smith ejector rods getting bent and even unscrewed. Ruger owners don't have to deal with any of these issues. I've never heard of a Ruger with a triple locking cylinder loosing it's timing, or having any ejector rod issues.

To me, this is what really makes Rugers more durable.
 
No bitterness. Just avoiding buying MIM filled Safety Wessons for objective reasons.

Who sells off their guns?:neener:
 
I think Smiths are more collectable, but that has virtually nothing to do with strength. If you don't think the K-frme had issues with the 125 grain .357 loads, tell that to Smith and Wesson. They obviously did, or they wouldn't have all but eliminated the K frame from production. I love my M19-4, but I won't pretend it is anywhere near as tough as a GP100.

Also, I think Smiths are more collectable out of nostalgia (which I suppose is what makes most things collctable) and the fact that they have huge numbers of variations. The world or Ruger collectors is alive and quite well, but unlike Smith, Ruger generally brings a gun out and keeps in in production for 20+ years. They may upgrade it or outright replace it (the Security Six was replaced bythte G100, the Mark II was replaced by the Mark III, etc) but Smith comes out with a dozen new configurations and twice as many distributor specials a year.

I'm not saying it is bad business, only that this increases their appeal to collector buyers. There are plenty of Ruger fans who wish they would bring out more variants on their wheelguns, but Ruger has been slow to embrace the idea. Then again, that my be one reason why Ruger has always turned a profit and Smith was on the brink of bankruptcy 15 years ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

E
  • Locked
How are Ruger GP100s more durable than S&Ws?
Replies
20
Views
2K
John Wayne
J
F
  • Locked
Ruger vs. S&W
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
Majic
M
N
  • Locked
Colt Diamondback -VS- S&W Mod. 34
Replies
9
Views
2K
nero45acp
N
T
  • Locked
S&W or Magnum Research BFR in 460 S&W?
Replies
16
Views
5K
Redhawk1
R
M
  • Locked
S&W vs. Ruger Comparisons
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
PcMakr
P
Back
Top