Ruger vs S&W

[Mr Bernoulli]

Hey guys do not mean to cause a civil war here lol but was wondering the pros and cons of both companies. I just got my CCW and have what I want in mind etc but was stuck between these two companies. Can you folks all give me your input and experiences to help me better decide?

 

[rhartwell]

I have guns from both companies. I say get what you like

 

[ArmedBear]

You're in "Revolvers" so I'm assuming you're asking about revolvers.

Ruger has announced a CCW-specific revolver (LCR). I have never seen one, and I don't know anyone who has. It's unorthodox, but I'm interested. I have and like a number of Ruger firearms.

However, as of today, the only company of the two that makes proven CCW revolvers -- lots of them, in many varieties -- is Smith and Wesson.

Ruger's SP101 might work, but it's still a heavy gun if you want it primarily to carry concealed.

 

[AllAmerican]

While both are recall specialists, Id say go with S&W.

 

[osteodoc08]

Really can't go wrong with either one. Both make stellar products with top notch CS to back it up IF you ever have a problem.....A BIG IF.

First hand, I have experience with a S&W Model 57 and a Ruger Blackhawk in 45 LC. Both are super tight and shoot better than I can. Between my father and I, we shot out the forcing cone on the M57 many years ago and S&W fixed it free and my father payed for a reblue. Best estimate is probably anyone's guess on the S&W (courtesy to the Dillon reloader) using mild to moderate loads with hard cast lead. It wouldn't be unusual to put 100-200 through it at a range session.

 

[keebitual]

I have had no problem as all with my Smiths.

I've handled recently side by side new smith 686's AND ruger GP100's

comparing NEW to NEW, they both feel solid and reassuring, however the Ruger's trigger feels much better to me.

I see alot of praise for both manufacturers on these forums. I think you cant go wrong.

On a side note. I did not like the S&W 340 at all, I had a hard time hitting a Paper plate at 30'

Be it Ruger or Smith my next CC gun will have greater than a 1 7/8" barrel.

 

[jgibbs]

I like my S&W snub nose that I got last year. But I have liked all of the Rugers that I shot as well. So, I guess I'm not that helpful.

 

[SeanSw]

As much as I hate to admit it, if I'm buying new and paying retail prices than Ruger gets the dosh. I was also unimpressed by the out of box trigger on my new S&W but it slicked up beautifully in due time and I have confidence their modern revolvers are also capable. Smith and Wesson is simply losing the price/performance battle and the internal lock is, in my opinion, an unacceptable manufacturing defect. Once they recall all guns manufactured with internal locks I'll know they're interested in my money again.

A Ruger sp101 is the #1 spot on my purchase list right now. I have three S&W revolvers (one Ruger) but am quite impressed with the modular design and think it's superior in many ways.

 

[ArmedBear]

The 442 is readily available without the lock, though I have not had any problems with my two S&Ws with the lock.

 

[Trekbike]

I've got both. For maximum concealment, the 642/442 is the better choice.

 

[BlayGlock]

If you are wanting a revolver for ccw Smith makes the 442 and 642. Ruger has the SP101, which I am a big fan of, however the trigger takes a while to smooth up. I think an airweight Smith would be your best best for a first time ccw weapon, because you will tend to carry it more if you can do so comfortably. However, the SP101 is much more fun to shoot because it does not recoil as bad since it is heavier. I know that you did not ask about this one, but I think you should also look at a Taurus 605.

 

[Hawk]

Given a case where both products are new production and both firms have something relatively similar, I like what Ruger has to offer.

However, when reviewing the last half dozen or so revolvers I bought, Ruger never once had a directly competing product. Not once.

This doesn't matter if you're looking for a 686/GP-100 or a heavy "J"/SP-101.

If, on the other hand, you're looking at 8 round .357s, alloy framed .45 ACPs, full sized double action .22RFs, a long-action .32-20 or any other non-plain-vanilla offering you may find yourself with no Ruger to use as a comparison.

The only real comparison to an alloy "J" right now is as scarce as Gold Labels.

I've already got a half-dozen mid-frame DA 6 round .357s. Adding a GP-100 to that pile would be like taking coals to Newcastle. But, an 8 round snubby alloy framed .357 - I don't have one of those.

I view Ruger as nice stuff - but not near enough of it. And, for the time being, nothing that I'm interested in.

 

[ArmedBear]

The only real comparison to an alloy "J" right now is as scarce as Gold Labels.

I don't know...

Unlike the LCR, I have actually seen and shot a Gold Label. Haven't seen one since, though.

 

[dagger dog]

I would have to consider the Ruger SP 101 in the new .327 Federal Magnum chambering you have the advantage of a small concealed carry plus the extra 6th shot, and the almost ballistic equivalent of the lighter .357 and .38 Special + P.

 

[ArmedBear]

Anyone seen .327 Federal ammo in the store?

Yes, the SP101 is "heavy," not compared to a GP100, but compared to S&W's common Airweights.

 

[sparkyguy66]

I buy used

I don't buy brand new revolvers, especially S&Ws. That infernal..err..internal lock sux, and all the MIM, hollow triggers, frame-mounted firing pins turn me off. Now, the OLD S&Ws are excellent weapons of superior quality and craftsmanship second to NONE!

 

[Hawk]

When I was doing the browser tab-2-step comparing models, I was rather puzzled why the SP-101 in .327 was only shown in 3-1/16" barrel - probably just temporary before the 2" comes on line.

But, it's almost a quarter pound heavier than the 3" 632 in .327 and a half inch longer.

As AB notes, I haven't seen ammo for either but these be funny times.
http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FAProdSpecsView?model=5759
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...selected=tech&isFirearm=Y&parent_category_rn=

Few S&W folk would consider the 632 to be either small or light but it slides under the SP-101 in most measures to be found in their respective specs - with the notable exception of the MSRP.

If we're looking for something to compare to the likes of 642s and 340s, we presumably will be waiting for RCR. As of today, that's like comparing 642s to Unicorn hooves. Hopefully that'll change in the near future.

 

[Hawk]

I don't buy brand new revolvers, especially S&Ws. That infernal..err..internal lock sux, and all the MIM, hollow triggers, frame-mounted firing pins turn me off. Now, the OLD S&Ws are excellent weapons of superior quality and craftsmanship second to NONE!

Hmm. 15 replies before the lock. Not bad. Not bad at all. There's hope we'll get a full page sometime before 2011.

Also, a sincere welcome to new member Sparkyguy66. If I may, I would like to refer you to a posting made by our Larry Corriea - pretty entertaining. Not surprising given as I understand he's now a full time novelist.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=3207736&postcount=1

 

[searcher451]

I've got a handful of Ruger revolvers and love them all; a couple of them are frequent range companions, in fact. In the decades (yes, you read that correctly) that I've owned them, I've never experienced a flaw of any type with any of them. I like the way they look, I like the way they fit my hand and eye, and I like the reliability. That's a tough combination to top.

I'm not saying that the S&W guns don't match up with the Rugers I own. I'm just saying that I'm glad I own the Rugers and always recommend them highly, based on years of positive experiences.

 

[sparkyguy66]

Thanx for the welcome, Hawk. I have been around here for awhile, though. As far as my ever-so-brief mention of the lock, I didn't believe it to be so noteworthy considering the rest of my post. But, since you want to bring it forward, yeah..I hate the lock. It's stupid, ugly, in the way and correctly allows a revolver enthusiast like myself as to what era said weapon is coming from so I can avoid. Sounds to me as the only ppl who hate to hear the gripe about the lock are the ppl who own them. Not sure if you're pointing to that other thread is some kind of coercing into not mentioning the lock, but I do as I please, and if you or anyone else doesn't like my posts don't read them.

 

[Confederate]

Ruger makes the strongest revolvers, and the least expensive, but S&Ws tend to be better in the trigger pull area and are a bit easier to carry.

Just go with the make and model that suits you the best.

I have a Ruger Speed-Six/Security-Six that I'm very fond of. S&W, however, makes some small, lightweight revolvers that are too light. A Model 60 .357 would be ideal for me, and after that a Security-Six stainless with a 2.75-inch barrel. The S&W 66 comes next and then it's off to auto land.



Ruger Security-Six.

 

[Hawk]

Sounds to me as the only ppl who hate to hear the gripe about the lock are the ppl who own them. Not sure if you're pointing to that other thread is some kind of coercing into not mentioning the lock, but I do as I please, and if you or anyone else doesn't like my posts don't read them.

No. It's just tiresome.

I don't use "ignore lists" it cuts me off from too much interesting stuff.

I wouldn't suggest that "drive-bys" regarding the lock be discouraged by fiat but where it's simply dropped into an existing non-related discussion, it's tiresome - it's not like we don't have sufficient threads related just to the lock.

So, what I'm considering is simply linking Correia's post every single time I see an unrelated "lock drive-by" posting until the membership at large grows weary enough of the tactic that either they or I give up - what do you think?

It's hard to get offended from Larry's post - it's actually very funny. I'd give up the enterprise if I got PM'd by a mod with a cease and desist but I suspect they're equally worn out and just waiting for someone to embark on such a venture.

I'm looking forward to it. You?

 

[madcratebuilder]

What's with ALL the Ruger vs Smith posts on all the forums lately? I've seen a dozen of them this week.

Smith is 'best' for some
Ruger is 'best' for others

Take your pick, or buy both, I did.

Why do so many people equate size to strength? Rugers have a heavier frame because they are investment cast, not forged, they need to be heavier to be as strong as a forged counterpart.

 

[CDW4ME]

Barami Hip Grip is available for Smith J frame, but not Ruger; that is my preferred way to carry a revolver, so I prefer Smith.

 

[sparkyguy66]

but where it's simply dropped into an existing non-related discussion, it's tiresome

This is where you are wrong. It is related to the discussion. The post is Revolvers: Ruger vs S&W. S&W implemented an internal lock on their recently produced revolvers. My point wasn't the lock specifically, but one of several(IMO) poor quality issues with newer Smiths. YOU separated the lock part from my points and made issue of it. To me, what's "tiresome" is some ppl trying to tell others what,where and when to post.