S&W revolvers vs. Ruger revolvers--and me

[Japle]

It's so much easier to get a great DA on a Smith than a Ruger. I can get a smooth pull on a Ruger, but nowhere near as good as I can on a Smith. Because of that one fact, I sold all my Ruger revolvers.
I currently own 11 S&W K, L and N frame guns in .22, .38, .357, .44 Mag, .45ACP and .45 Colt. I have never fired any of them SA. At least three of them have the trigger stops set so that they can't be cocked. If I ever have to sell those guns, I'll have to remember to correct that little "feature"!

 

[Tall]

Ruger Revolvers are the Timex's of the handgun world. Not the prettiest, not the best fit and finish, but takes a licking and keeps on ticking. For every 3 times a Smith has to go back timing repairs and endshake, the Ruger may have to go back for repairs one time. The prettiest girl is not always the prom queen.

Never had to do anything like that. You are dreaming.

 

[rsrocket1]

My favorite CCW a 9.5" SRH:

Nothing speaks more clearly than 240g @1500 fps

 

[IALoder]

I don't have a lot of experience with either, but I have shot both a 629 and SRH in 44 Mag. I have always thought the S&W 686 .357 with a 6" barrel is one of the coolest looking handguns ever made, but I have never shot one. I have shot a 6" 44mag 629 of my buddies a fair amount, and it's a pretty darn good pistol! I own a Ruger SRH 7.5" 44 Mag, and have been shooting the crap out of it lately, it's a great pistol! My preference is the Ruger, I don't notice any difference between the single action trigger pull on either gun, maybe my SRH has a good trigger or his 629 has a bad one, or both. I shoot better with the SRH, probably because 1.5" more barrel, and I put a Hogue G10 monogrip on it. Absolutely nothing wrong with the 629, it's a sweet gun, but I'll take a Super Redhawk first. That may change when I get a 6" 686.

 

[UncleEd]

..... Absolutely nothing wrong with the 629, it's a sweet gun, but I'll take a Super Redhawk first. That may change when I get a 6" 686.

I hope you'll be able to give the GP100 a test against the 686, be they new production or older models.
And you may well like the 686 better after a decent test. But either way, you'll be a happy shooter.

The only problem in comparing is how well one gun against the other has been "broken in." It would be unfair to compare a brand new 686, perhaps, against a well tuned or used GP100 and visa versa.

To repeat, either will probably make you a happy owner.

 

[Onty]

Revolvers with 4" to 4.2" barrels are not my cup of tea, mostly because I do not need CCW. If CCW, my preferred firearm will be VIS RADOM https://dygtyjqp7pi0m.cloudfront.net/i/13268/13828282_2.jpg?v=8CF5F367AA362D0 , although with better sights, something that a good smith could easily rectify. This pistol is quite slim, yet just about right for any 9x19 ammo. From what I've heard, it is on a par, except magazine capacity, with FN High Power, and doesn't need lighter pistol ammunition.

As for general shooting, my preference is revolver with at least 6" barrel. Standard 586/686 is fine, along with GP100 and Python, but, above all those is 686 Target Champion. However, in my age (69) I prefer something lighter if caliber is 357 Magnum. In that respect, the only two revolvers are interesting, S&W M19/66 (but with long hammer spur) and Ruger Security Six. Later one preferred above M19/66 because it is considerably stronger and more durable revolver. Just my .2 cents.

 

[gilgsn]

Hello. Here is my $0.02...
I have never owned a S&W but shot a few, and like them. Actually, I am looking at a couple 19s, a 13 and a 586 right now, all well used up but the price is right.
Both Colt & S&W have a long history behind them. Ruger is the new kid on the block.
To me, nothing beats the Colt SAA for ergonomics and looks. Colt has produced historical landmark handguns like the 1851 Navy, SAA, 1911 and Python. Their design blend utility and art. After the (old) Python, things went a bit downhill.
Smith & Wesson has also produced very good looking and very functional revolvers, though their look and function hasn't changed over the years and models. They found a winning design and stuck to it, I have no problem with that. When I think "combat revolver" I picture a S&W, well, maybe next to a Manurhin MR73...
Ruger on the other hand, to me, produces tools, with less consideration to aesthetics, except the Blackhawk (I have a 4-5/8 .41Mag), but that is an exception since it is of course inspired from the SAA. It is not a Single Action Army clone though, to be clear. The other models look, for lack of a better word, slightly weird... Let's just say that their design isn't "timeless" like Colt or S&W... As a tool they are excellent.
It all depends on what you want to do with your gun. If I wanted something to carry in the woods, I'd take my Blackhawk. For self defence, a S&W 357. My SAA is something I will keep for the rest of my life as a functional historical piece of art. A Colt SAA clone would serve the same function as a Blackhawk, albeit slightly less capable.
You pick the best tool for the mission and that's what you end-up with. That's why I own different brands. I can appreciate a fine revolver just as much as a Glock, another historical landmark gun. Each has a job to do, and yes, sometimes that job is just to make you happy
Gil.

 

[barnfrog]

I only own a couple handguns, but if I acquire them like I have acquired long guns I will probably only own one example of a caliber at a time. Case in point: just last week I traded my late 70s Blackhawk .357/9mm towards an early 80s Model 19. Never could get the Ruger to group well even after trying several different powder/bullet combinations and it leaded up very quickly with factory lead ammo. If the dealer hadn't had the Smith in the case I was going to have him send the Ruger back to have it looked at. Instead, I upgraded (in my opnion) for about $200 after all was said and done.

I will probably stick with Smiths, ideally with the three Ts on all of them. I'd really like to add a Model 57, and as an exception to my "one example per caliber" rule a Model 27 would be nice, too.

 

[gilgsn]

ideally with the three Ts on all of them

Hi, what's that?
Gil.

 

[earlthegoat2]

I have fancies of running nuclear loads in my revolvers so I like to keep a Redhawk handy.

 

[Barmcd]

Hi, what's that?
Gil.

I think it’s target trigger, target hammer and target sights.

 

[barnfrog]

I think it’s target trigger, target hammer and target sights.

I thought it was target trigger, hammer and grips, but I could be wrong. Maybe there are four Ts.

 

[CraigC]

Never had to do anything like that. You are dreaming.

Let me know when I can push a 355gr cast bullet to 1350fps in a S&W or Colt. I'll wait.

My favorite "crappy" hunting revolver.

The crappy way it shoots.

The crappy loads it eats for breakfast that would reduce a S&W or Colt to shrapnel.

A crappy Ruger finish.

The crappy custom guns that are built on Rugers and nothing else. Sorry but no one spends +$5000 to polish a turd.

 

[IWAC]

I have both makes the OP mentioned.

My personal observations:

1: I think overall fit and finish goes to the Smiths. I’ve had to send several new Rugers back for issues straight out of the box to include early model Single 7 loading gates needing to be widened (2 separate guns). Base pins jumping on .45 Colt New model Vaqueros (2 separate guns) as well as one or two other things I can’t currently remember. Didn’t put me off on the marque. Was an inconvenience at first and guns have performed flawlessly since.

On

In the already mentioned posts above...Dan Wesson, the forgotten stepchild. Often overlooked because of its on and off again production, bankruptcies and ownership changes. I have two in .357 Mag. The oldest 6-inch (swapable barrel from Monson, Mass) version is easily the most accurate revolver I own or have shot. I also have a pistol pack (also out of Monson, Mass) that's never been shot that I'm positive would also be in the running for this honor. Surprisingly the DW also has the tendency for the cylinder to bind early in a shooting session. I have yet to try and determine if it's the powder I use as, unlike the SW 617 that only uses factory ammo due to it being a .22, the DW runs on my handloads.


Yup, agree 100%, especially about the Dan Wesson.

 

[Onty]

Craig, load second from the left:

Seems to me it has unusual crimp, not standard roll crimp, but bellow case edge. Is that because crimp groove on that bullet is too far from the bullet tip for proper OAL length of whole round?

 

[Rubone]

Been more of a S&W guy due to the triggers. Smith and Wesson revolvers always felt more refined in the little details. Rugers are tanks. My 44 Mag Redhawk, if I could have found a smaller grip in rubber, I would have ended up keeping it.

Shot a 1974 mfgr Ruger Blackhawk in 45 LC this weekend. Used 0.454 cast bullets and it is wonderfully accurate. Ruger still makes a great single action.

I have one just like it I've had since '74, with the ACP cylinder as well. One of my favorites, and I tend to be a S&W guy..

 

[Rubone]

Please clarify something for me. Is a Rosco basically a cheap no name revolver like a Saturday Night Special only bigger?

Roscoe, Gat, Heater, etc....

 

[CraigC]

Craig, load second from the left:

Seems to me it has unusual crimp, not standard roll crimp, but bellow case edge. Is that because crimp groove on that bullet is too far from the bullet tip for proper OAL length of whole round?

That's the Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ load. They crimp the piss out of `em. Two on the right are Grizzly Punch bullet loads, 270gr and 300gr. Can't remember what the far left one is but I'm pretty sure it's a handload.

 

[Onty]

That's the Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ load. They crimp the piss out of `em.

I see their point. With such heavy bullet and "nuclear" load, comes heavy recoil, with tendency of pulling bullet forward. Yeah, that basically double crimp is much stronger than standard roll crimp, thus holding bullet better.

We always learn something new. Great reason to be on the forum.