Overall quality: Ruger or S&W

[Guillermo]

though I stand by my statement regarding quality

while the rumors of Colts being delicate are unfounded this is not the thread to discuss it

I too will stand by my statement that Smith and Wesson used to make fine revolvers.

For her 15th birthday I gave my daughter a pinned 4 inch model 19. It is an outstanding weapon that she will get years of enjoyment from and pass down to her children.

The newer Smith revolvers that live here (, my wife's 2.5 inch 686 and my 4 inch 686) cannot hold a candle to it. The 19 has better fit, better finish, better action as will as some nice features.

 

[ArmedBear]

Yeah, the old Smiths are some nice upscale toys, refined and wonderful just to mess with. I like them. I also like single malt Scotch, for similar reasons.

But the more-recent 642 that rides around in my pocket has perfect fit and finish, it has functioned flawlessly, and the trigger is pretty nice, too.

 

[badbart]

I broke my .357 python over 20 years of shooting hot loads, nothing exceeding what the reloading manual says and my redhawk is holding up fine no problems.

 

[Guillermo]

I have had a Taurus break, an old Smith, a Ruger. They are mechanical devices and none are perfect.

They are getting much LESS perfect as time goes by.

When my current wife bought her 686 it had to go back to fix a factory defect. During the same time a friend bought a 686 that had a horrible crane/frame fit and he immediately brought it back to the shop. The one that McBride's replaced it with had the barrel on crooked so the front sight was slightly askew.

The last 3 new Smith revolvers that I have touched had factory defects.

I do not know about Ruger but my experience with S&W is that their quality control is worse than Taurus'. (the last two Taurus' that lived here lived up to expectations)

 

[rd2007]

Yes, if you want good quality, a Ruger or S&W will do you just fine.

 

[Goldsworthy]

Thank you for your replies

 

[Jim K]

Rugers have more metal, and more weight, but no greater strength. Some Ruger fans claim that Rugers are so strong there is no way one could blow up no matter what the load, or suffer damage of any kind no matter what is done to them. They are wrong.

Jim

 

[Confederate]

Smith & Wesson has cut too many corners in my opinion. And for every corner they cut, they pass the savings on to YOU!

Ha! And if you believe that, I have some land in Florida....

Actually, S&W revolvers keep going up while the quality remains fairly constant. The MIM parts work, but are unattractive, and the stainless steel frequently looks like it was sandpapered. The lock malfunctions are surprising given that most gun manufacturers hire people called engineers who are supposed to ensure that things like that don't happen. Anyway, I couldn't believe the rear sights S&W is putting into many of its top line of guns. They look like they were designed in Russia and made in China. I also don't like the pin-in front sights. The old integral front sights are much more beautiful. Oh, and let's not forget the rubber grips S&W is including with its revolvers. Yes, yes, they're comfortable and can be carried in the rain, but I always liked the wood grips I got with my 686 and 629.



This may not be the horse pistol that the Ruger is, but it's gorgeous
and the craftsmanship is top rate.



This first-issue S&W 686 is one of
the finest .357s ever produced. It is
beautiful and the craftsmanship can
be seen in a glance.

Having said that about S&W, Ruger uses investment casting and does pass its savings on to the customer. Their revolvers are exceptional and their engineers don't get their degrees from diploma mills. Gritty triggers? Perhaps, but dry fire them 300 times and they slick up in a hurry. I had an unfired Security-Six in my safe and it was grittier than the one I shot. I ended up giving it to a friend and now if you were to see it, you'd swear it's a different pistol altogether. It's as slick as mine is because it's had some attention. It's been handled a lot, dry fired and shot, and it is slicker than many of the new S&Ws I've seen. My friend can make it better by putting in a lighter spring, but the grittiness is all gone.

Rugers are fine pistols, but while the Redhawk is okay, the SuperRedhawk is a bit too big and heavy for my taste. I definitely recommend the somewhat smaller 629 for its ease of carry.





These Rugers were made back when people wanted guns that
were easier to carry. Being lighter, they could pick up on moving
targets much easier than modern production revolvers. But Ruger's
quality has remained top-notch.


Again, one of my biggest gripes is that the corners S&W cuts results in money going into the pockets of S&W, not the customer. In a day when inflation is supposed to be very modest, S&W prices have gone up like a rocket. One gunstore near where I live wanted $960 for a 4-inch 686! How much would it cost if the hammer and trigger were hard chromed, the stainless steel professionally finished and the front sight a part of the barrel?

 

[Guillermo]

he lock malfunctions are surprising given that most gun manufacturers hire people called engineers who are supposed to ensure that things like that don't happen.

Too bad they decided to hire drug addicted retarded spider monkeys that made the locks turn forward on the same backward axis of the gun's recoil.

It is the most moronic design ever devised. Taurus had the good sense to have their storage lock work perpendicular to the recoil of the gun.

 

[los]

I recently purchased my Model 40. It was shipped out of the Smith factory in June/09.

I think the overall quality is outstanding down to the polished nickle finish...

 

[bflobill_69]

This is interesting. I have felt for a while that S&W's newer guns just were'nt near the quality they were 30-35 years ago (but then again what is?). I have seen some of the "classic" line and performance center revolvers that were beautiful however. I do not own a Ruger, but have been fortunate to fire many freinds.

I have always been biased toward S&W's triggers, but have grown to see the beauty of Rugers rugged design.

Shoot em both and determine what YOU like better. Best advice I can give.

Bflobill69

 

[skoro]

Overall quality: Ruger or S&W

I think they're both quality revolvers. I just happen to prefer S&W, but that doesn't mean they're better.

 

[oldbear]

That occured twice when a friend shot it with magnum loads at a meet in Arkansas.
Several people I trust have had problems with this lock. Still, the tendency is to shout "Liar, Liar!" until the internet expert experiences it for himself.

As I said no intention of starting an argument and most certainly no intention of calling anyone a liar, I was just requesting information. Thank you for providing it.

 

[XxWINxX94]

I'd go with the S&W. They've had it down-pat for 100+ years. Not saying Ruger's are bad, I just like the Smith better in any size/style/frame.

 

[fds5116]

And once we figure this out, let’s settle, once and for all, the questions regarding: ... Corsair vs. Hellcat, ...

kernel,
Corsair, of course.
Cheers,
Frank

 

[oldfool]

As a matter of fact yes. The most widely known example can be found on Banes Blog. Michael Bane dismissed the reports of this phenom as internet nonsense until he bought a 629 pd and had it happen to him. Far from being a S&W basher, Bainis the media rep for the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
These thing occur with regularity and are not confined to one model of revolver.They either lock up very tight and require manipulation of the key or lock up partially and become operative after light fiddling with the hammer such as this one:

That occured twice when a friend shot it with magnum loads at a meet in Arkansas.
Several people I trust have had problems with this lock. Still, the tendency is to shout "Liar, Liar!" until the internet expert experiences it for himself.

yes, that's ONE, legit
and still waiting to hear about #2 on another thread right here

 

[Rodentman]

FWIW I have a 329NG and have run many full-house loads thru it with no IL issues. The cylinder has some nice burn marks on it, but the 29oz gun has never malfunctioned. That's after I replaced the FP due to light strikes.

My Ruger RH and SRH .44 mags have never had an issue.

I must say however, that my 1976 28-2 HP P&R reflects fit and finish not evident in S&W's current line up. They simply don't make them like that anymore.

It's my favorite.

 

[oldfool]

irrespective of my sig line, anybody who really thinks it is A vs Z instead of A or B is just into woobies or just overthinking it

(or mebbe hates a dead man who sold a lot of revolvers and would prefer folks didn't think they needed a 13 round mag...
or mebbe still hates a company who rightly went bankrupt for making a deal with satan, and exists no more)


buy what fits you hand best
shoots lots
enjoy

unless you luck into a real nice S&W 80's vintage k-frame, of course
(or mebbe a similar vintage ruger "six" series)

 

[gmh1013]

Smiths new are WAAYYYY overpriced IMHO...Rugers are in a sweet spot for what you get.
Smith has that G-D lock but a slightly better trigger...but the QC just is not what they were just even 15 years ago...I would only by a used one now.
Rugers ....like my SP.357 is built like a Panzer tank and will out last me many times over.
I just changed out the spring and that improved the trigger by DA 20-25 percent
.....it was a cheap fix and too about 15/20 mins.
Im looking at a 6 inch GP100 tomorrow but may end in Divorce if I buy another gun/pistol.

 

[Confederate]

Wow. The only thing that would make this gun perfect is if it
had a lock and rubber grips!!!!!! (I think I can see
myself in it!)


.

 

[rebobo2]

Greetings Frank:

Marine or Navy? There are those who swear the Corsair was an angel, heavily armed of course, for what it did for the Marines in the Pacific....

Back to revolvers: Smiths are getting real expensive and I don't like it. Like an idiot I sold off my early model 686 and got a 620 with the two piece barrel. The gun shoots fine, but the plastic-looking hammer offends me. I agree with the poster who said that S&W's cost-cutting isn't being passed back to the consumer. I don't like to get bent.

Smith's latest marketing ploy, to me, resembles SIG's. Keep flooding the market with new models and variations of old models and jack up your prices. Quality is no better than before, and frequently substantially worse, but the prices are outrageous. Don't want to start a SIG-bashing session boys, but I'm getting fed-up with paying lots more for lots less. Glock and Ruger have kept their retail prices reasonable. Why can't the others? Yes, a SIG or Smith should cost more than a Glock, but I'm talking about the proportional increases in prices for these manufacturers.

I'd go with the Ruger, personally. 10 years ago when you were getting a substantially fancier revolver with a Smith over a Ruger, I would say get the Smith, but these days, no way. Why should a 686 be at least $200 more than a GP100? In my town, anyway.

CHeers,
Steve

 

[S&Wfan]

LOS' Model 40 in bright nickle plate stands testament to what S&W has done through the years.

I'd kindly suggest you consider a third option too . . . and that is in finding a pristine vintage S&W to your liking. They ARE around and they ARE great guns. The pristine ones are also generally a little cheaper than buying a new gun of the same basic model, and many have not been fired since leaving the factory!

Case in point is my latest "new" (to me) S&W revolver. It is their "Cadillac" model, the top strap checkered Model 27-2 (this specimen is from 1970) and virtually brand new. Truly, they don't make 'em like this anymore . . . even the new fancy versions of this basic gun that's offered through Horton, etc.

Again . . . this gun was cheaper than buying the same gun new . . . and it is a nicer gun by far. So . . . here it is, original "Magna" style S&W stocks and all that are serial numbered to the gun! Yep . . . new . . . forty years ago and GORGEOUS . . . AND cheaper than new too!

Checkered top strap, a Model 27 stand out feature! . . .

 

[btg3]

With 2 Smiths, 2 Rugers, and a Colt in my safe, I find myself wanting to sell the Rugers and Colt to buy another Smith -- all are .38spl/.357.

Regarding the internal lock, it's not rocket science to remove them -- which relegates that issue to one of aesthetics, rather than reliability.

 

[RyanM]

On the subject of triggers, in my experience, Ruger's lockwork makes the springs easier to change out for lighter ones. The end result of a $10 Ruger trigger job may not be as good as a $100 S&W trigger job, but it beats the crap out of a $10 S&W job.

 

[mossytrigger]

I really wish I had photos to back this up, but the handguns in question had to be auctioned to pay for my dad's funeral (it was ten years ago, so please no sympathies). After thousands of hot bear rounds through each, the redhawk was virtually unchanged, and the 629 mountain pistol had a very slight, but visible, twist in the frame. And, as far as the trigger goes, the Redhawk in .41 my dad gave me to carry when I was out fishing (10 years old at the time) had I think $15 into the trigger and was magnaported. It says something for Ruger that a boy (responsible, trained, but still a boy) crawling through creeks and brush all day and getting generally filthy could draw and put 6 rounds in a v8 can out to 25 yards every time. Now I'm thirty, and as far as I can tell rugers are still tanks that do everything I need them to do, including allowing me to pay my bills should I buy another.