S&W 686 vs Ruger Sec. Six

[Steve C]

Originally Posted by GW Staar View Post
The Ruger is stronger....that's a well known fact.

I've personally seen 2 Rugers KB'd, seen pics of others on the net. One GP100 years ago by a guy that was an out of his house part time gun dealer who thought he knew how "strong" Rugers are. He sold the gun to a fellow employee, took him to shoot it and then gave him some of his "proof" loads to try. First round blew the cylinder and tore the top strap back. Had the gall to send it to Ruger to see if they'd replace it, of course they wouldn't. Didn't even have the decency to give the purchaser back his money.

The second was a Black Hawk .45 Colt that a guy brought into a gun shop I was visiting. He said he lent it to his grandson who brought it back in similar condition to the first one I described. Could only speculate that it was bad hand loads as the kid hadn't told him what ammo they where shooting.

 

[StretchNM]

Well, there you have it: Anecdotal "proof" that Rugers are made of cheap pot metal and will blow up when you shoot them.

 

[CraigC]

All I can say is that Ruger's marketing is effective. In reality, some Rugers are stronger than some guns of other makes. Others are not. For those that are, it is a known fact attributed to actual testing.

We know for a fact that large frame .45 Blackhawks are safe to 32,000psi.
We know for a fact that .45 Redhawks are safe to 50-55,000psi.
We know for a fact that mid-frame .44Spl's are safe to 26,000psi.
We know for a fact that mid-frame .45's are safe to 21,000psi.

The rest is just speculation and wishful thinking.

The more of his stuff I read the more I realized that he is like the guy at the gun shop that has six mags on his belt and two holstered guns to work the gunshop in my town of 6k people.

I agree 100%.

 

[Steve C]

Well, there you have it: Anecdotal "proof" that Rugers are made of cheap pot metal and will blow up when you shoot them.

Actually its just anecdotal "proof" that they are not "indestructible" as some insinuate nor are they necessarily "stronger" than the particular 686 model Smith. How strong they may or may not be is simple conjecture without any empirical comparative testing data.