s&w fit and finish

[MJRW]

There was recently a post regarding differences between Rugers and S&Ws. One difference came up several times. It was said several times that the fit and finish of the S&Ws is better than Rugers. I don't see it. I look at my GP-100 and I see a well contoured gun. The lug is angled back very discretely. The cylinder release is well-fit and solid. The half circles on both sides of the gun behind the cylinder (what is that called?) to me is much more appealing than S&Ws. The part of the frame directly under the hammer and continuing into the grip frame is also very well contoured (what is this thing called?). I also prefer the solid looking frame of the Ruger over the screwed on side plate of an S&W. I even prefer the symmetrical extractor star and non-rotating ejection rod. And last, and most importantly to me, hammer and trigger. The S&W triggers and hammers are these multi-colored, no finish, look cheap parts. Ruger has a hammer and trigger that is solid and of the same finish as the rest of the firearm.

While S&Ws may have that nicer trigger, in my limited experience, the timing and lock-up appear better in Rugers.

Am I alone here in whole-heartedly disagreeing that S&W fit and finish is better than Ruger? Am I missing something (besides names of parts)?

edit: I will say that my 686-5 has much nicer rollmarks

 

[Ala Dan]

Greeting's MJRW-

Over the past year's, I've owned Ruger's and Smith
& Wesson's; and of those I've seen some mighty
nice firearm's. This includes some early S&W's and
more modern Ruger's; starting with a couple of the
firms Security-Six.*

I can honestly say, I haven't had a bad one from
either manufactuer! Most, including the -5's from
S&W have been excellent.

After reading the recent post from .22 luvr regarding
the S&W J-frame .357 magnum Sc's, I think I will wait
until all the problems are corrected! No sense in
paying over $600 for a revolver that's cylinder may
melt away due to excessive heat generated by
routine range use. At least, not in my book.

*FootNote: Does not include the very early SA Ruger's!

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

 

[P95Carry]

Those ''half circles'' = recoil shield!

I know what you are getting at .. and in many respects i think you are right. My Single Six for instance is a stainless steel work of art. I have always too liked the machined-from-solid Ruger frames and the inherent strength. Plus too there are many Smiths with cyl notches machined ''on center'' ...... the weekest part of chamber wall .... Rugers are invariably (that I have had) slightly off center ... against strength.

I think in the end it is down to some very small points indeed ..... some of the finsh is unseen ..... the ''engineering'' tolerances within. Rugers are good but, particularly with the older model Smiths, I think there is an ''edge''.

I do wish tho Ruger would not put all that ''safety'' garbage along a barrel .... disfigures it!!

 

[VictorLouis]

To me, what you're describing is features, or style

rather than anything to do with fit and finish.

Look at the seam between the Ruger trigger guard and frame. Compare that to the sideplate seam of a S&W. There are fine examples of either, but S&W's tend to be more of an even, precise 'hairline' vs. the Ruger. Look at the rear sight set down into the topstrap of the Ruger. Now, ditto the Smith. You should be able to see the Smith appears 'tighter' all-around, for lack of a better description. Those are examples of fit.

Look inside the frame window of your Ruger, particularly the breechface(front side of the recoil-shield) and under the top-strap. Usually, the finish is 'as-cast', rather than taking any extra time to polish down the porous surface and give it the fine, matte finish that you will see on a Smith. Also, look inside the channel of the underlug where the ejector rod rests. Pull the grips from each and look at the finish texture of the metal that the grips cover. You will see a smoother, even finish on the Smith.

Both make fine guns you can depend on. Truth be told, if I were forced to take a revolver into rough and tumble field conditions, it would likely be a

Rough
Under
Grips
Ejector, and
Recoil shield

I couldn't help myself.

 

[Gerald McDonald]

Multi color, no finish cheap look parts? You mean color case hardened? Never heard it described quite the way you put it. Please dont call it that in front of a Colt Model P lover.

I always thought where the notches were cut on the cylinder was a non issue on factory guns, might mean something if you got a Bowen or Linebaugh but I've never heard of one blowing because of it.

Ruger builds a fine, strong handgun, but short of some of the blackhawk models I have never thought of them as very stylish. Todays crop of Smiths is closer to Ruger than in past years but a good model 15, 19, 27 or 29 is head and shoulders up on style on Ruger. I dont think they quite approach some of the nice old Colts though.
Gerald

 

[Standing Wolf]

Many older Rugers weren't very well fitted and finished at all, whereas Smith & Wessons were. Nowadays, plenty of Rugers are very well fitted and finished, whereas Smith & Wessons and Colts are slapped together at the lowest possible cost.

Ruger has come a long way since I started buying guns.

 

[MJRW]

I tend to consider all aspects that don't necessarily affect reliability to be "finish" items. Many of the things I described seem like a better concept "fit" to me. The cylinder release on the ruger is part of the recoil shield. Whereas on the S&Ws it appears kind of slapped on the side. And the parts do look cheap to me when the rest of the gun is all shiny and smooth. I dunno, maybe its just me.

 

[Tamara]

Many of the things I described seem like a better concept "fit" to me.

What you seem to be describing is "styling" rather than "fit and finish". "Fit and finish" is quantifiable: tolerances between parts, smoothness of bearing surfaces, absence of toolmarks, et cetera.

"I like the shape of the underlug" is styling.
"There is a complete absence of toolmarks" is Fit and Finish.

The nicest Ruger I own doesn't come off too poorly when compared to my 296, is a little crude when compared to my 625-4, and looks like it was hewn with a flint ax when measured against my '52 M&P. Hand-fitting looks pretty when done right, but would make modern revolvers cost $1,000+ (think "Performance Center"...)

 

[CMcDermott]

S&W has very few blued guns left in their lineup, and that is where the fine finish reputation came from. S&W had probably the best finished guns made before the 1960's and QA started to slip. Look at an old 5-screw model or original Model 27 or Model 29 sometime, only Colt's Python can really be compared to it. The polishing was just mirror perfect, all lines straight that should be straight, flat surfaces flat, all curves smoothly rounded without any waves in them. Since the industry went to stainless steel and brushed/bead blasted finishes the difference between S&W and everyone else disappeared.

 

[Randy63]

The fit and finish on Smith & Wessons (and Colts for that matter) from the 30's through the 50's for the most part is a thing of the past hence the collectibility of these guns. America was much different then. The gunsmiths of that era were true craftsmen. People took pride in their work.

These days guns are assembled. The only exception I see now are the Colt SAA clones put out by USFA. I've handled a couple of these guns and was very impressed by their quality and beauty.

From a styling point a view the Ruger rubber grips with the wooden center are real attractive LOL

K22

 

[bountyhunter]

The poor finish of current SW's is a phenomenon of the post-boycott era and is directly related to it. SW does virtually no hand fitting to new guns and it shows. Look at SW guns made in the 60's and 70's and the parts are fitted like a Swiss watch. Even my 1995 vintage 686+ was a work of art. The new ones are hopefully a temporary glitch on the radar when QA standards come back up after SW recovers from the financial damage done by the idiots who tried to drive them out of business.

 

[Robert inOregon]

Look at SW guns made in the 60's and 70's and the parts are fitted like a Swiss watch.

The years of Bangor Punta/Lear Siegler (1965-1987) are some of the darkest days for this company. Its like calling an AMF a Harley during their tenure of that company.

 

[munk]

Bangor Punta...now, 'punta' sure doesn't sound good to me, and 'bang her' punta sound worse.


I have a bangor punta 41 that is one of the best shooter's I've ever had. Probably assembled from parts left over a previous administration.

.. ..... .

The underside of the top strap on a Ruger is rough. Who Cares? comes to mind, but the question was fit and finish. I like Rugers very much, perhaps better than Smiths, but the Smith is more elegant and finished.

To some extent, you can't seperate form from function from fit and finish. The Rugers seem more mechanically beautiful.


munk

 

[intimidator]

Resale Value

One measure of Gun desireablility is the resale value when you are ready to move up or on. My perception is that the S&W have gtreater resale value. Do others feel the same?

 

[P95Carry]

My perception is that the S&W have greater resale value. Do others feel the same?

I tend to agree Intimidator ...... broadly that is what i would expect ... certainly with the older ''classic'' Smith Models.

Welcome to THR BTW ..... enjoy.

 

[Gerald McDonald]

I agree on the held value, but it appears Ruger is closing the gap on some models.
Gerald

 

[munk]

I agree Ruger is closing the gap with some models indeed.

There was a time when Ruger was modestly priced and appealed to the working man. The appeal is still there but not the price. Though I have to say most of their firearms are a lot of gun for the money.

Retail Smith Revolver prices have hit the roof.


munk

 

[Sir Galahad]

I chose my Smith for, among other reasons, the fact it has, by far, better fit and finish than the Ruger and Taurus I looked at. And the trigger was a LOT smoother.

 

[Robert inOregon]

There was a time when Ruger was modestly priced and appealed to the working man.

In spite of the industries legal troubles, Ruger is still VERY modestly priced and tons of value for the money. Average price for their product is well under four hundred buck and those prices keep the attention of many that would have walked away long ago and spend their money elsewhere. Away from the shooting sports.

Now. Ruger as a Collectable? Unless that flaming chicken has "357 Maximum" written on the barrel, don't fool yourself, its about as collectable as a pet rock. These are utilitarian guns! Guns you throw in your tool box or tackle box. Mix in with all your other camping gear and toss on the hood of your hunting rig. Most people who own these guns can give a rat's butt whether their guns look pretty, have slicked-up triggers or if they shoot one inch groups at 25 yards. They just want a reliable product that works and reliable when they need it. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[munk]

Actually, I do not own a single Ruger revolver that will not shoot an inch or under at 25 yards with select loads. I've owned 6 Rugers, one with a damaged barrel I replaced, and all could do this. 3 single, and 3 double action.

Many things not considered collectable in their time have become so.

All my firearms are users. Finish is transitory. I need strength, dependability and accuracy.


munk

 

[Tamara]

Ruger as a Collectable? Unless that flaming chicken has "357 Maximum" written on the barrel...

...or has three screws in the side of the frame...

 

[Hal]

I always thought where the notches were cut on the cylinder was a non issue on factory guns

The location of the bolt stops is why there are such things as Ruger Only loads for the .45Colt that are unsafe in the Smith N frame.

 

[Robert inOregon]

.

The location of the bolt stops is why there are such things as Ruger Only loads for the .45Colt that are unsafe in the Smith N frame.

According to White laboratory, both the Blackhawk and N frame blowup at the same 80,000 CUP chambered in 44 Magnum and 60,000 in 45LC. Only the Redhawk and Super Redhawk have stronger and longer cylinders.

So much for that theory.

 

[munk]

Robert, where did you see that report?

If true, then all published load data for the 45 colt is incorrect regarding the N frame 45 Colt, as it is not included in the Ruger data. That data, (as in Speer, for instance) specifically mentions the single action Ruger, but not the N frame Smith.

It is not only the location of the bolt stop, but the extra material between chamber walls in the Ruger.

It would not be the first time the reloading industry was wrong, but I would like to see where this data came from.


munk

 

[intimidator]

Value or Name

In looking at a possible .44mag purchase, I have been looking at the Colt Anaconda since I was always impressed with the .357 Colt Python even tho I never owned one. I find this board does hardly acknowledge the existance of the Anaconda. Is this due to sky high prices or is it a quality issue?