MCgunner
Member
I've shot my GP100 and a 686 side-by-side and have to say, I'm more impressed with the ruger....
3. Ruger is built sturdier
Totally false. The Ruger may be thicker, but that is because it HAS to be - it is cast and not forged, like a Smith is.
BS, total BS. The Ruger is stronger because of design. It has no side plate. Investment casting is weaker, provide me with proof! Where's the engineering or metallurgical papers to back you up?
Smith and Wesson's strength is half of Ruger from the start because it's half a frame with the other half covered up by a plate. Then there's the superior crane locking system.
If Ruger has a fault, it's that they OVER design and OVER build their guns. They're heavy for their application. Do I really NEED a 27 ounce snubby .38 or .22 4" or .32 mag? NO, but it's nice in the .357 magnum. Ruger lacks variety.
Back to the smith is crap thread, now.