ruger vs s&w

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, actually a fellow I used to work with had his 686 shoot out of time more than once before he had 1000 rounds downrange. It was repaired under warranty each time at no charge to him. That was using only factory ammunition and I'm being very liberal on the round count. I doubt it had anywhere near that many rounds through it.

Not worn out, I guess, but still requiring professional service.

Didn't hurt my opinion of the revolver though--I bought it when he decided to sell. ;)
 
gudel said:
so, they say ruger is stronger. has anyone here actually have had their s&w worn out after short amount of rounds?

I'd seriously hope not lol.

We are talking about longer term durability than a "short amount of rounds", though I guess it depends on what your definition of "worn out" is. It's not as if you are going to destroy a smith or anything, but given enough full house loads, you are more likely to find a Smith's timing to be off, or the sideplates to get loose. That's not worn out imo (not even that huge of a problem), but it's also not as likely to happen to a Ruger (except for loose sideplates... which would be impossible on a gp100).

This might be why the boutique ammo mfr's use a GP100 to test their hot loads; and why it gets my vote (ymmv).
 
Put me in the "whatever fits your hand" camp. I don't think you can go wrong with either a Ruger or a S&W.

That said, if you want to carry concealed, the GP100 is pretty big ... even in its 4" version. If concealment is your highest priority, take a look at a 2.25" SP101. And if you want to compromise between concealment and "shootability," consider the 3" SP101. It's concealable, but the 3" sight radius might make it a bit more shootable than the 2.25" version. Both are available in .357, and they are as solid as, if small than, the GP100.

Sorry. Just re-read your post indicating you don't like the 2 or 3 inch barrels. So 4" GP100 would be my recommendation.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top