444, I have never asked that exact question of a custom smith in the league of Linebaugh et al, but I have a good idea why. The lack of a sideplate increases the rigidity of the frame immensely over a design like the Smith and Wesson typical frame. Additionally Rugers are currently produced, cheap, can have a single action trigger that is pure, have a good grip frame for heavy recoil, are readily available off the shelf and are hell for stout. They are PLENTY strong for anything sane and probably beyond that a little ways even. The massive forces of firing are contained by the cylinder primarily, with the frame only needing to provide a thrust surface (recoil shield) and a stable mounting for the cylinder, hence the machined bar stock cylinders. If the truth was known the Ruger frames, even though cast, could probably be trimmed by 50% and still contain any reasonable load. The additional material provides a safety margin and some added weight for taming recoil.
Smith and Ruger: Startling Revelation
- Thread starter StrikeEagle
- Start date
- Status
444,
Off set bolt stops.
Colt and Smith (on the Anaconda and the .500 S&W- I'm not sure, I never looked that close at them) place their boltstops in the center of the frame, Ruger off sets theirs. Like a chain and the weaskest link thingie, the weakest part is the thinnest. Offsetting the bolt stops allows the thinnest part to be NOT over the chamber proper.
If I'm not mistaken, Linebaugh used an Interarms Virginia Dragoon early on because of it's size;forged frame. I could be wrong on that,,,,it may have been Casuall.... I know it was one of the "big boomers".
Anyhow, the whole Smith vs Ruger on the merits of which is *stronger*, to me is a silly one. Bottom line to me is if you *have* to push something *that* hard, you're using the wrong thing to begin with. Either go up to a larger caliber or use a rifle.
Kinda like me pulling a 6 horse trailer with my Honda. Yeah it'll do it on a flat for short time, but it's going to tear it up.
MrAcheson
Member
We need to define what you mean by strength then. A casting will always be easier to machine than a similar forging because of porosity issues and the difference in grain structure. However this is not strength. Strength is the amount of load it can take before it breaks or yields. I can't see a 2x difference in performance for similar parts of reasonable sizes. For it to be that bad, the casting would have to be extremely porous. I could be wrong, but I really don't think I'm this wrong.
Actually a forging is easier to machine than a casting. The material is predictable and stable.
In a typical casting the grain structure resembles a pile of rice, going every which way. This lowers density and strength. Think 2x4 for forging, the grain is all uniform and going the same way. Think particle board for casting, grain going all directions.
In a typical casting the grain structure resembles a pile of rice, going every which way. This lowers density and strength. Think 2x4 for forging, the grain is all uniform and going the same way. Think particle board for casting, grain going all directions.
mbrosch
Member
Six is hard to beat
I notice that most people I talk to seem to think that handguns are only defensive weapons or for competition. Although most of the time this is true, there are times when a man may choose a handgun over a rifle because of constraints on size or weight. Like me for instance. I would love to hual my 7mm Mag around in the plane with me but, alas, not to be. I own an STI 1911 that is undoubtable the finest combat pistol ever devised, but its not what I need as a down and dirty handgun for my survival pack. What I have to do is select the smallest, lightest most powerful, most accurate, most reliable survival gun I can reasonably afford to purchase and shoot. My buds are competitive shooters and they all shoot 8 shot S&Ws. I would too if I wanted to compete, but these guys have well over a grand in there guns (sometime much more) and they have to load their ammo with soft primers just cuz they have the actions lightened to the point that normal ammo wont even fire.
I paid $250 for my Ruger Security Six and the thing is a machine. It's indestructable and accurate. If I have to toss it or if it's lost or stolen I'll miss it, but not as much as a $1500 performance center Smith with all the bells and whistles.
StrikeEagle has come to the same conclusion I have. The Ruger "Six" was a great utility revolver that can hold it's head up around S&W, or anyone else. I wouldn't trade mine for a gun costing twice the price, even if I could find one that cheap.
I notice that most people I talk to seem to think that handguns are only defensive weapons or for competition. Although most of the time this is true, there are times when a man may choose a handgun over a rifle because of constraints on size or weight. Like me for instance. I would love to hual my 7mm Mag around in the plane with me but, alas, not to be. I own an STI 1911 that is undoubtable the finest combat pistol ever devised, but its not what I need as a down and dirty handgun for my survival pack. What I have to do is select the smallest, lightest most powerful, most accurate, most reliable survival gun I can reasonably afford to purchase and shoot. My buds are competitive shooters and they all shoot 8 shot S&Ws. I would too if I wanted to compete, but these guys have well over a grand in there guns (sometime much more) and they have to load their ammo with soft primers just cuz they have the actions lightened to the point that normal ammo wont even fire.
I paid $250 for my Ruger Security Six and the thing is a machine. It's indestructable and accurate. If I have to toss it or if it's lost or stolen I'll miss it, but not as much as a $1500 performance center Smith with all the bells and whistles.
StrikeEagle has come to the same conclusion I have. The Ruger "Six" was a great utility revolver that can hold it's head up around S&W, or anyone else. I wouldn't trade mine for a gun costing twice the price, even if I could find one that cheap.
dogngun
Member
CAN'T WE JUST GET ALONG TOGETHER...
I have loved the feel and craftsmanship of Smith & Wesson revolvers for over 30 years. Today I own 5 of them.
BUT...My "night time" gun is a Ruger Speed Six, 2 3/4" stainless.
I think the "Six" series is on par with the S&W in most areas, a bit different, not worse, trigger, and the Ruger is built like a dump truck - solid, made for work,about indestructable. I think it takes 20 years or so of shooting just to break a Ruger's lockwork in.
I recently got an L-Frame Smith that reminds me of my 4 previous "Six" series Rugers, but I think the Smith has the better balance and weight distribution, and it's the best .357 mag revolver I ever shot.
Of course, this is all personal preference, and I know many who love the GP100's.
Both companies make excellent revolvers, just a little different.
Mark
I have loved the feel and craftsmanship of Smith & Wesson revolvers for over 30 years. Today I own 5 of them.
BUT...My "night time" gun is a Ruger Speed Six, 2 3/4" stainless.
I think the "Six" series is on par with the S&W in most areas, a bit different, not worse, trigger, and the Ruger is built like a dump truck - solid, made for work,about indestructable. I think it takes 20 years or so of shooting just to break a Ruger's lockwork in.
I recently got an L-Frame Smith that reminds me of my 4 previous "Six" series Rugers, but I think the Smith has the better balance and weight distribution, and it's the best .357 mag revolver I ever shot.
Of course, this is all personal preference, and I know many who love the GP100's.
Both companies make excellent revolvers, just a little different.
Mark
MCgunner
Member
I shot a Security Six a little loose (not bad, coulda easily been tightened back up) with really hot handloads over the years. They weren't near as strong as the GP100, but the frame design is inherently stronger than any side plate revolver for sure. Mine was exceedingly accurate with .357, but sort of mediocre with .38s that normally shot very well, target accurate in other revolvers. I did a trigger job on the thing and the trigger was AWEsome, ultra smooth DA pull. I shoulda kept it, but this guy offered me a NIB Blackhawk for it and by that time it was a little loose anyway and already out of production. I bought it in 1976 new at Gibson's discount in Lake Jackson, Texas for $180. It was a nice stainless gun and the Blackhawk is blued, but the Blackhawk is a LOT more accurate and can handle the fire breathing .357 stuff without effort. The Blackhawk is a far stronger design.
I now have a Taurus 66, not as good a trigger as the Security Six after I worked it over, but more accurate with .38 and just as accurate with .357. It's a nickeled gun, not stainless. But, on the whole, it shoots better. I probably should work the trigger on it, but I'll leave it alone, is pretty good as is. It is the most accurate DA revolver with four inch barrel I've yet owned. It puts wadcutter .38s into an inch at 25 yards. Gotta love that!
I had a M19, blued 66. Nice shootin' gun, nothing to get excited about in accuracy, but plenty adequate. I fed it mostly .38s because of the reputation. I bought it used, traded it away, and don't really miss it all that much. But, it handled recoil better than that Security Six. It sat higher in the hand and really had a lot of muzzle jump when it fired with hot loads. The M19 stayed a little closer to on target, was easier to get back on target with.
I guess my point is, between the two, six of one, half dozen of the other. I've not owned a DA .357 four inch yet (I've always had to have one in my collection just because) that I really didn't like. I have now owned S&W, Ruger, Taurus, and Rossi. That Rossi is one I really miss. It was quite light, easy to carry, a little smaller than K frame, only about 30 ounces, light on the hip and easy to carry, yet it had little muzzle flip and a nice rubber grip to absorb recoil. It had a more muzzle biased weight distribution due to it had a full lugged barrel. It was very sweet to shoot, handled a mile diet of .357s that were pretty warm and never got loose. That one I shoulda kept, but it wasn't a tack driver, though 2.5" groups at 25 yards will do just about anything that needs done. It did shoot wadcutters better'n that, too, under 2" at 25 yards.
Of all the revolvers I've owned in the past, believe it or not, that Rossi is the one I miss the most. It was just such a handy design and I sorta like the unfluted look of the cylinder. It would have made a good carry gun, but Texas had no CCW back then.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, my biggest use for a handgun, other than CCW and range fun, is just to wear outdoors in the woods, on my place, whatever. I've potted a few rabbits, shot a few snakes, but it's there when I'm outdoors. That's what that Rossi was so good at, light on the hip, always there. Heck, even shot a Javelina with it. Had my rifle with me, but couldn't resist taking the shot with the handgun considering the range.
I now have a Taurus 66, not as good a trigger as the Security Six after I worked it over, but more accurate with .38 and just as accurate with .357. It's a nickeled gun, not stainless. But, on the whole, it shoots better. I probably should work the trigger on it, but I'll leave it alone, is pretty good as is. It is the most accurate DA revolver with four inch barrel I've yet owned. It puts wadcutter .38s into an inch at 25 yards. Gotta love that!
I had a M19, blued 66. Nice shootin' gun, nothing to get excited about in accuracy, but plenty adequate. I fed it mostly .38s because of the reputation. I bought it used, traded it away, and don't really miss it all that much. But, it handled recoil better than that Security Six. It sat higher in the hand and really had a lot of muzzle jump when it fired with hot loads. The M19 stayed a little closer to on target, was easier to get back on target with.
I guess my point is, between the two, six of one, half dozen of the other. I've not owned a DA .357 four inch yet (I've always had to have one in my collection just because) that I really didn't like. I have now owned S&W, Ruger, Taurus, and Rossi. That Rossi is one I really miss. It was quite light, easy to carry, a little smaller than K frame, only about 30 ounces, light on the hip and easy to carry, yet it had little muzzle flip and a nice rubber grip to absorb recoil. It had a more muzzle biased weight distribution due to it had a full lugged barrel. It was very sweet to shoot, handled a mile diet of .357s that were pretty warm and never got loose. That one I shoulda kept, but it wasn't a tack driver, though 2.5" groups at 25 yards will do just about anything that needs done. It did shoot wadcutters better'n that, too, under 2" at 25 yards.
Of all the revolvers I've owned in the past, believe it or not, that Rossi is the one I miss the most. It was just such a handy design and I sorta like the unfluted look of the cylinder. It would have made a good carry gun, but Texas had no CCW back then.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, my biggest use for a handgun, other than CCW and range fun, is just to wear outdoors in the woods, on my place, whatever. I've potted a few rabbits, shot a few snakes, but it's there when I'm outdoors. That's what that Rossi was so good at, light on the hip, always there. Heck, even shot a Javelina with it. Had my rifle with me, but couldn't resist taking the shot with the handgun considering the range.
johnny blaze
Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2006
- Messages
- 381
I have owned Smiths and Rugers in many different models and calibers.
I have never seen a Ruger that has a better trigger pull than a Smith right our of the box.
Also, I have never seen a Ruger that was more accurate than a Smith out of the box.
And as far as strength, I have never blown up a Smith. But I will have to admit, the Ruger is beefier than a Smith, but why does a person need the extra beef?
I have never seen a Ruger that has a better trigger pull than a Smith right our of the box.
Also, I have never seen a Ruger that was more accurate than a Smith out of the box.
And as far as strength, I have never blown up a Smith. But I will have to admit, the Ruger is beefier than a Smith, but why does a person need the extra beef?
IMO, both brand are several notches below what they use to be. I've had a huge list of problems with new-in-box Ruger GP 100s (and a few other models) recently purchased. I've also got a new S&W 686+ -6 with TERRIBLE action. I'm not impressed with either maker's current state of quality control. In fact, I just sent a letter in to Ruger regarding all the recent problems I've had with their products.
I like the Ruger design better, but its been at least 5 years since they've put out a respectable and consistent product, IMO. Unfortunately, the way I see it, there is NOT a well made double-action revolver these days. Its hit and miss with both S&W and Ruger at present.
I like the Ruger design better, but its been at least 5 years since they've put out a respectable and consistent product, IMO. Unfortunately, the way I see it, there is NOT a well made double-action revolver these days. Its hit and miss with both S&W and Ruger at present.
Which is best?
From watching top shooters shooting in DA mode (Jerry Miculek), and from my own experience shooting DA, I would have to say that Smiths were made for DA work. It really isn't just the smoothness; its the way they lock-up, and the leaf main spring, which seems to keep the pressure equal throughout the pull.
I've had five Security Six's, a couple of GP100's and many Smiths. While it is true that the Ruger is generally stronger, I wonder just how much is enough, and how much is simply overkill. The K-Frame Smiths had forcing cone erosion with hot light weight bullets, but the L-Frames and the N-Frames hold up well for most applications.
Although I would prefer the Rugers for the hottest of loads, I will generally be more fond of the Smiths. If I shoot hot .357's, I go with one of my older Mod 28's. If I have to shoot anything hotter that that, I'm not comfortable with it anyway.
If I wish to shoot DA for pleasure or keep one for protection, it will be with a K-Frame Smith. Smooth...
If I wish to hunt deer with a revolver, it will probably be a Smith 25 or 29. Not too powerful, but certainly accurate and quiet deadly.
If I wish to hunt something dangerous, and I need the power, it will be a Ruger Super Blackhawk hands down.
Steel rams at 200 yards? Ruger's your gun.
Dobe
From watching top shooters shooting in DA mode (Jerry Miculek), and from my own experience shooting DA, I would have to say that Smiths were made for DA work. It really isn't just the smoothness; its the way they lock-up, and the leaf main spring, which seems to keep the pressure equal throughout the pull.
I've had five Security Six's, a couple of GP100's and many Smiths. While it is true that the Ruger is generally stronger, I wonder just how much is enough, and how much is simply overkill. The K-Frame Smiths had forcing cone erosion with hot light weight bullets, but the L-Frames and the N-Frames hold up well for most applications.
Although I would prefer the Rugers for the hottest of loads, I will generally be more fond of the Smiths. If I shoot hot .357's, I go with one of my older Mod 28's. If I have to shoot anything hotter that that, I'm not comfortable with it anyway.
If I wish to shoot DA for pleasure or keep one for protection, it will be with a K-Frame Smith. Smooth...
If I wish to hunt deer with a revolver, it will probably be a Smith 25 or 29. Not too powerful, but certainly accurate and quiet deadly.
If I wish to hunt something dangerous, and I need the power, it will be a Ruger Super Blackhawk hands down.
Steel rams at 200 yards? Ruger's your gun.
Dobe
There is just one other thing
Rugers are just so God awful ugly. I know that should have anything to do with anything, but it seems that Bill could have designed just a little bit of graceful lines in his DA revolvers.
Dobe
Rugers are just so God awful ugly. I know that should have anything to do with anything, but it seems that Bill could have designed just a little bit of graceful lines in his DA revolvers.
Dobe
Last edited:
Interesting story 'bout that warning message
I heard, but don't know if it's true, that the warning message on every Ruger barrel was a court settlement. It seems that a certain pistolero shot hmself with an old model Ruger single action. I don't know the particulars, and again I'm not really sure this story is true.
Anyway, in the settlement he demanded in lieu of cash or perhaps in additon to cash, that Ruger would place a warning on every firearm they sold from then forward. I heard it was called the 10 million dollar warning.
Perhaps just another internet myth.
Dobe
I heard, but don't know if it's true, that the warning message on every Ruger barrel was a court settlement. It seems that a certain pistolero shot hmself with an old model Ruger single action. I don't know the particulars, and again I'm not really sure this story is true.
Anyway, in the settlement he demanded in lieu of cash or perhaps in additon to cash, that Ruger would place a warning on every firearm they sold from then forward. I heard it was called the 10 million dollar warning.
Perhaps just another internet myth.
Dobe
pcf
Member
Any handload that will destroy a Smith will destroy a Ruger. Either will safely and reliably handle any SAAMI spec load and then some. If you think you need the supposed strength of the Ruger to safely handle your hand loads, please do your fellow shooters a favor, shoot by yourself.
After 5,000 trigger pulls both are pretty darn smooth and sweet shooters. Security six never felt right in my hands.
MCgunner
Member
Actually, I normally do.
smokemaker
Member
Some of us prefer Dan Wesson's over either brand.
Dobe:
1)Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder!
2)No gun manufacturer can be said to have a complete line-up of guns that are all BEAUTIFUL! This includes Smith & Wesson! Although I love the classic beauty of most of their older revolvers-there are still some that are ugly also!
3)Most everybody likes the looks of an S&W Model 66 K-frame .357! Well, if you look closely at an 4-inch stainless Security Six, you will see a strong resemblance to the S&W Model 66(Combat Magnum)! IMHO, the Security-six is a beautiful revolver! However, the small, Ruger service grips originally installed on these guns didn't help it in the looks department! However, with Ruger wood target grips, these guns are just as pretty as any Model 66!
1)Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder!
2)No gun manufacturer can be said to have a complete line-up of guns that are all BEAUTIFUL! This includes Smith & Wesson! Although I love the classic beauty of most of their older revolvers-there are still some that are ugly also!
3)Most everybody likes the looks of an S&W Model 66 K-frame .357! Well, if you look closely at an 4-inch stainless Security Six, you will see a strong resemblance to the S&W Model 66(Combat Magnum)! IMHO, the Security-six is a beautiful revolver! However, the small, Ruger service grips originally installed on these guns didn't help it in the looks department! However, with Ruger wood target grips, these guns are just as pretty as any Model 66!
Judah Ben-Hur
Member
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2003
- Messages
- 127
I wonder if Ruger could get away with a "scroll thingie" hanging under the barrel. Then, when you got bored shooting, pull it down and read a few paragraphs.
That God awful scribe turns me away from them in a heartbeat.
That God awful scribe turns me away from them in a heartbeat.
My conclusions from this thread that will not die
- Rugers are phat. Adding the excess poundage to the excessive verbiage, god-awful ugliness, and questionable trigger pull are too many detriments for me. The only thing they have going for them, imho, is cheapness, but I'm not even sure they're cheap any more?
- I was always one who would rather have one nice gun than half a dozen cheap guns. Rugers always remind me of something built for a price, not to meet some need, like a properly designed piece would be.
- People that load above book specs are not people I want to associate with, at least on the firing range.
MCgunner
Member
I had a security six that was better than any Smith I've ever fired. I did a trigger job on it to get it that way, though, which is quite easy to do with a security six. I suspect the SS in question may have had a trigger job done to it down the line somewhere. These guns slicked up super easy and had phenominal triggers once it was done.
As for competition, I've seen Taurus revovlers in competition. Does that make 'em better'n a Smith?
Competitors are faddish like the rest of the shooting world. If Ruger wanted to sponsor Jerry Mikuleck, say, and offered him more than he gets from Smith and Wesson, I bet he could win with one, you reckon?????There's lots of gunsmiths that build fancy dan PPC revolvers from K frames. I don't know if any of 'em work with Rugers, just don't. I do think that a fine, winning (depending on the shooter) Ruger could easily be built, just that no one does it. They all work with Smiths.
Yes, the Ruger design is a lot more rugged than a side plate revolver. I appreciate this in the Rugers for real world uses.
Not that I get too crazy with handloads, but I've got some hot ones. I don't need any more friends, though....
I really liked the Hogues I put on mine.
wanderinwalker
Member
I have sitting in front of me 3 boxes of .357 and .38 ammo recieved from an estate sale. (Actually went with a firearm, but it is gone now.) Two are boxes of .38 Specials loaded with AA #5 powder. Only about a grain or so OVER MAX! And then there's a .357 load loaded at 3 grains over max with 2400. Listed muzzle velocity is 1300-fps, which sounds a bit low...
If anybody here loads like this, please shoot them up BEFORE you die. The rest of us are stuck disposing of these bombs.
FWIW, I had a Super Blackhawk picked up from the same estate owned by the same gentleman. Needless to say, I think it is the only example of a Ruger single action revolver I've ever met that was battered heavily to the point of looseness.
If anybody here loads like this, please shoot them up BEFORE you die. The rest of us are stuck disposing of these bombs.
FWIW, I had a Super Blackhawk picked up from the same estate owned by the same gentleman. Needless to say, I think it is the only example of a Ruger single action revolver I've ever met that was battered heavily to the point of looseness.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll