420Stainless
Member
Both work for me. No particular brand preference, just whichever model suits a particular want.
Ruger vs S&W
- Thread starter Mr Bernoulli
- Start date
- Status
Mr Bernoulli
Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2007
- Messages
- 120
what is investment cast vs forged? I feel the lock was fair game here cause I asked pros vs. cons so lets not get into a heated discussion about that... So hopefully that will be the end of arguing when and where to post it etc lol
sparkyguy66
Member
I'm not sure about the investment cast thing myself. It all comes down to personal preference, really, as both are very good quality handguns. I was raised on S&Ws, so I lean in that direction. I did own a Ruger, but it turned out to be a lemon and soured me on them a bit. I'm a big classic era(1945-1980ish) S&W guy, preferring pinned barrels and recessed cylinders over 7-shot safety-engineered revolvers. I posted these pics on here already(I think) but it gives you an idea as my favorite:
S&W model 27-2 c.1975 ,pinned&recessed, 5" barrel. Rugers are built like tanks, but this one is just as strong as any Ruger AND is gorgeous to boot.
S&W model 27-2 c.1975 ,pinned&recessed, 5" barrel. Rugers are built like tanks, but this one is just as strong as any Ruger AND is gorgeous to boot.
texas bulldog
Member
i own both and like both. i have a pretty simple guideline...
if i'm buying used...S&W. if i'm buying new...ruger. in my opinion, that is the best way to maximize the value i get for my dollar.
my primary carry piece is an SP101. yes, it's a bit heavy for its size. i don't much care for the lightweights, though i acknowledge that they are quite popular for CCW. so if we take those out of the equation, the SP101 is really just a couple ounces heavier than a model 36 or 60 (which i would also be happy to carry if i found the right deal on a used one).
if i'm buying used...S&W. if i'm buying new...ruger. in my opinion, that is the best way to maximize the value i get for my dollar.
my primary carry piece is an SP101. yes, it's a bit heavy for its size. i don't much care for the lightweights, though i acknowledge that they are quite popular for CCW. so if we take those out of the equation, the SP101 is really just a couple ounces heavier than a model 36 or 60 (which i would also be happy to carry if i found the right deal on a used one).
jack the toad
Member
As to revolvers, nothing wrong with Rugers but I much prefer S&W. especially for ccw.
The new LCR may be ok though.
The new LCR may be ok though.
Travis Bickle
member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2008
- Messages
- 476
Smiths tend to be more finely crafted and accurate, but Rugers tend to be tougher and more robust. If they were cars, Smith would be like the Ferrari and Ruger would be like a sturdy old Ford pickup truck. They're both good guns and you can't go wrong with either.
easyrider604
Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2008
- Messages
- 735
Yup. Have both and that above is spot on. Both do the job they were designed to do perfectly. Smith&Wessons (preMIM/lock) are thoroughbreds and Rugers are workhorses.
Both Ferraris and Smiths are more expensive than beasts of burden, of course.
Bigfro23
Member
I own both. Ruger & S&W. the Ruger SP101 which is my Concealed Carry abit weighty but ultimately the jobs done.... I also have a Smith and Wesson performance Center model 329, it's pretty large being a N frame revolver but given the oppurtunity with the Right Holster I'd carry it any day of the week... But for the Money Ruger would be the right choice....
Well said sparkyguy66, and welcome to the forum!
I am leery of those who wish to supress opinions which differ from their own. How else will new shooters learn about undesireable "features", if they don't read about it from other shooters.
They certainly won't hear about it from gunshop salesmen, nor brand loyal fanboys.
I am leery of those who wish to supress opinions which differ from their own. How else will new shooters learn about undesireable "features", if they don't read about it from other shooters.
They certainly won't hear about it from gunshop salesmen, nor brand loyal fanboys.
MCgunner
Member
Depends on what ya want it for. I've owned, do own both. I prefer Rugers for their reliable ruggedness. The triggers are a little stiffer, but easily fixed with a spring kit and some firing smooths 'em up. I wouldn't mind getting another SP101, awesome little .357. This time, I'd want the 3". It's no pocket revolver.
I'm waiting to check out the new LCR. Might be really nice. I don't think I'll get one anytime soon, have a little M85UL I really like, but might be interested in the future. Before I get one of those, I'll probably get a LCP, though. I have a hole in my carry collection that the LCP fits, very small .380 ACP. Right now, it's a sellers market and there are waiting lists for LCPs around here. I'm waiting to see if the market will saturate, maybe they'll over-produce. Might not be for a while, though.
All my current Ruger revolvers are SAs, 2 blackhawks and an Old Army. I've owned a Security Six and an SP101 for DAs, both good guns. I've owned a M19 and a M1917 Smith and still have a M10. I don't really care for the Smith and Wesson lock. The Taurus lock is on the hammer and gives no problems nor does it stick out while you look at it. That stupid S&W lock just bothers me and reports of it locking in lightweight revolvers, while they might be bogus, well, I can live without 'em. There are rumors I've seen that S&W is dropping the lock. I'm skeptical.
I'm waiting to check out the new LCR. Might be really nice. I don't think I'll get one anytime soon, have a little M85UL I really like, but might be interested in the future. Before I get one of those, I'll probably get a LCP, though. I have a hole in my carry collection that the LCP fits, very small .380 ACP. Right now, it's a sellers market and there are waiting lists for LCPs around here. I'm waiting to see if the market will saturate, maybe they'll over-produce. Might not be for a while, though.
All my current Ruger revolvers are SAs, 2 blackhawks and an Old Army. I've owned a Security Six and an SP101 for DAs, both good guns. I've owned a M19 and a M1917 Smith and still have a M10. I don't really care for the Smith and Wesson lock. The Taurus lock is on the hammer and gives no problems nor does it stick out while you look at it. That stupid S&W lock just bothers me and reports of it locking in lightweight revolvers, while they might be bogus, well, I can live without 'em. There are rumors I've seen that S&W is dropping the lock. I'm skeptical.
Last edited:
Looks like everyone recently ignored this question. For a detailed answer, you can google it or use Wikipedia - level answer, but I'll just gun-deck it for you: Very loosely, it's the difference between carving something from a solid rock (forged) or liquefying the rock and pouring it into a mold, like concrete (cast). Now, cast vs. forged steel are closer in actual strength than solid rock and concrete (hard rock, let's say!). But the analogy is valid.
I recently ran across a gif of this famous ad S&W ran in the 80s when Ruger started to say that because their guns were larger, they were stronger. S&W even went to print to challenge that. I understand Ruger never brought it up again...
photo credit to DarkStar at ar15.com...
punkndisorderly
Member
I think I'm going to be sticking with Smith from now on. I've now been burned two times in a row with Rugers.
MkIII purchased last year that had 1-2 jams per magazine full and had to be sent back. Came back from Ruger functioning 100% 3 MONTHS later with no appology or explaination of what they fixed.
Ruger Single Six in .32 H&R purchased on Saturday that has 2 tight chambers that won't allow the rounds to seat flush with the cylinder and binds up.
Used to be a complete Ruger fan several years ago. Now, most of their offerings seem fairly average when compared to the competition. Their line also seems very broad, but very shallow. If Ruger happens to make exactly what you want, you can save quite a few bills over a Smith. However, Smith is more likely to have a model exactly like you want.
MkIII purchased last year that had 1-2 jams per magazine full and had to be sent back. Came back from Ruger functioning 100% 3 MONTHS later with no appology or explaination of what they fixed.
Ruger Single Six in .32 H&R purchased on Saturday that has 2 tight chambers that won't allow the rounds to seat flush with the cylinder and binds up.
Used to be a complete Ruger fan several years ago. Now, most of their offerings seem fairly average when compared to the competition. Their line also seems very broad, but very shallow. If Ruger happens to make exactly what you want, you can save quite a few bills over a Smith. However, Smith is more likely to have a model exactly like you want.
MCgunner
Member
Rugers ARE stronger guns, like it or not. I prefer my Blackhawk for an outdoor carry to any Mountain Gun. The little Smith and even the SP101 are stronger guns than K frames, especially in the forcing cone area.
Yeah, I found this on the net, too.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/smith-wesson_dark.htm
I have and use both, or have used them heavily in the past. Both companies are fully capable of delivering non-functional products, but both have good reputations for making them right. Both companies have gone through periods when the triggers/actions tended to really need the attention of a gunsmith.
Anyone who thinks Rugers have rougher actions than S&Ws should go to a dealer and handle several of each today. The last few I have handled indicate Ruger is turning out VERY smooth DA revolver actions lately. The SP101 snubby I bought new about two years ago was very smooth but a bit heavy. The 3-1/16" SP101 I bought last month was even smoother and with a pleasing pull weight. Neither of these little revolvers need any 'smith's attention, nor for me do any stoning of the mainspring struts or DA surfaces, as I have done with older Rugers.
Not all "old" S&W revolvers are great. I came of age during S&W's Bangor Punta era, when actions were typically gritty, there would typically be gaps between the crane and frame, and overall fitting was poor. By the mid-1990's, S&W again made mostly great sixguns, and then, unfortunately, the era of MIM parts began. I am not here to debate whether MIM parts break or not. I do know that the typical DA trigger pull of the MIM guns I have handled are worse than that typical of a sixgun with forged parts. I can tolerate the keyhole, but if I buy myself a new L-frame, as I have been contemplating, I am going to pay the heavy premium to get a Performance Center version, which are still made with forged hammers and triggers.
Anyone who thinks Rugers have rougher actions than S&Ws should go to a dealer and handle several of each today. The last few I have handled indicate Ruger is turning out VERY smooth DA revolver actions lately. The SP101 snubby I bought new about two years ago was very smooth but a bit heavy. The 3-1/16" SP101 I bought last month was even smoother and with a pleasing pull weight. Neither of these little revolvers need any 'smith's attention, nor for me do any stoning of the mainspring struts or DA surfaces, as I have done with older Rugers.
Not all "old" S&W revolvers are great. I came of age during S&W's Bangor Punta era, when actions were typically gritty, there would typically be gaps between the crane and frame, and overall fitting was poor. By the mid-1990's, S&W again made mostly great sixguns, and then, unfortunately, the era of MIM parts began. I am not here to debate whether MIM parts break or not. I do know that the typical DA trigger pull of the MIM guns I have handled are worse than that typical of a sixgun with forged parts. I can tolerate the keyhole, but if I buy myself a new L-frame, as I have been contemplating, I am going to pay the heavy premium to get a Performance Center version, which are still made with forged hammers and triggers.
I just decided lately that I needed to get a new "trail gun" for when I'm in the boonies. I also wanted something different to carry every day for those days when I'm more in touch with my feminine side. (Wanting a new pair of shoes and all that).
So, I started looking for a carry revolver. S&W immediately came to mind. Beautiful workmanship. Nice balance. Great warranty. Good pointability. HIGH prices. (
)
So, I started looking elsewhere. I finished looking at a 3" Ruger SP 101 in .357. It was such a good deal I bought it.
Tough as a tank. Reliable. Great warranty. Points well and is light. Rougher in fit & finish than the S&W but that's OK for a daily carry piece. Besides it can be smoothed out over time. Best of all, it's a lot less expensive than the S&W.
IMO either weapon is a good one. Ruger, at this point in time, is a better deal for a "using" gun.
So, I started looking for a carry revolver. S&W immediately came to mind. Beautiful workmanship. Nice balance. Great warranty. Good pointability. HIGH prices. (
)So, I started looking elsewhere. I finished looking at a 3" Ruger SP 101 in .357. It was such a good deal I bought it.
Tough as a tank. Reliable. Great warranty. Points well and is light. Rougher in fit & finish than the S&W but that's OK for a daily carry piece. Besides it can be smoothed out over time. Best of all, it's a lot less expensive than the S&W.
IMO either weapon is a good one. Ruger, at this point in time, is a better deal for a "using" gun.
MCGunner said:
I, and most of us, would just like some PROOF instead of people just asserting it. Sure, there are random observations of one or another having a problem, but no one can point to any sample testing that in any way can say one is stronger than the other. What is a FACT is that one is made with stronger steel (but less of it) and one is made with weaker steel (but more of it). There are four variables in that equation to solve for before anyone can made an assertion.
Travis Bickle
member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2008
- Messages
- 476
In reloading manuals, many of the hottest loads are marked "Ruger only." There is a reason for this.
I have read in more than one place that S&W petitioned SAMII to lower the pressure std on the .357 rounds so that the S&W's wouldn't stretch so badly with full house ammo. SAMII complied and lowered the pressure std for .357 magnum ammo. Ruger, OTOH, built their frames to withstand full pressure magnum rounds without excessive stretch or failure. S&W does not recommend magnum ammo at the old SAMII pressures for their handguns. Ruger makes no such restrictions.
Rugers may not be as pretty as S&W's but when lasting performance at full pressure loads is what counts they are tops.
remingtondude58
Member
I like the button to release the cylinder on the ruger, because it is easier, being a lefty.
MCgunner
Member
Buy one and use it heavily with heavy loads for a couple of decades and get back to me. Nothin' like good old personal experience, I'd say.
It ain't just the material, it's the design. Rugers don't need no stinkin' side plate. The lock up is stronger, too. Check out how a Ruger DA locks, ain't just a couple of flimsy ball detents.
25 years on the 629 now, still going strong... Regular diet of magnums and hot 300gr loads and it hasn't fallen apart (or even worn measurably).
I believe you are talking about the K-frame, which was not designed as a .357 gun. S&W's purpose-built .357 guns are on the L and N frame. So you should compare apples to apples... I believe the standards are and have been 35k psi for quite a long time, actually before the K frame issue. You have read this information on an internet forum or where...?
Look, the bottom line is we are talking about a measurable, definable value. How much pressure to stretch a frame window, say, .005". This can be done really easily, yet no one has ever measured it. It's just WAY too much "I heard..." kinda comments. Proof. Bring me Proof. It may be true, but just prove it...
Last edited:
shiftyer1
Member
I own and am happy with guns from both companies. From a cutomer service standpoint I prefer ruger, I hold a grudge w/ smith.
greyling22
Member
I"ve got a security 6 and a smith 686. both with some trigger work done. smith has a better trigger and handles heavy loads more comfortably, but it's a heavier gun, and shows some gas cutting. The ruger seems like a stronger gun, has been shot a lot more (it's older) and has no cutting issues. I like them both, but I really want a stainless gp100. I'd trade the security 6 away toward it, but not the smith, so I guess that is where my preference lies.
Mike Honcho
Member
Both of these manufactures are top notch in my opinion. I own revolvers from both. I carry a Ruger SP101 chambered in .357 daily. The extra weight is minimal compared to the Smith snubs. It handles the recoil better in my opinion. As long as it's American, I'm all for it.
- Status