Why are ruger/s&w revolvers almost always .38/.357mag/.44mag and not 9mm or .45?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Buck wrote a damned good post.

The only thing that I would change is a little clarification to this sentence. (it is accurate but could use a little more detail)

Fact is, most modern firearms produced today are as accurate and as reliable as any made 60 years ago.

please note that this is a general sweeping statement and exceptions DO exist.

Modern autos are MUCH more reliable than the guns of yesteryear.
Modern "premium" revolvers have suffered because of QC and cost cutting
Modern "budget" revolvers are much better due to computer manufacturing
 
Comparing a "special edition" of one manufacturer with a MSR of $1049 to a snubby that you can pick up at Academy Sports and Outdoors for 350 bucks is a strong evidence of non-judicial thought.
Sorry I don't own any other S&W or Taurus products. Would a closer comparison have been better, yes probably, but this is the best I've got. I was simply relating my experience and observations. These are the first of either brand I've owned (last of the Taurus). It's a safe bet your going to have more problems per 100 Taurus vs. 100 S&W products. Can Taurus make a good gun? Yes. But they still have quality challenges to resolve. It's not really a big secret and I'm certainly not the first to bring it up.

As to "Fan Boy" status, you're making a pretty big leap there. I suppose if I were to fall into that catagory for a brand, it would be for CZ or Springfield, neither of which is part of this discussion.
 
Overkill

Certainly I understand your point. And in reflection I was bordering on rude...please accept my apology for leaping so far.

I am not sure that Smith has a better "return rate" than Taurus....because Smith has fallen...very far.
This is because of their corporate strategy that went along with their decision to go to MIM parts.

Certainly we can agree that a new 627 filled with MIM parts, the lock and a crush fit barrel is not near the gun that a 1958 model 27 is with its hand fitted forged parts and a threaded and pinned barrel ....can't we?
 
Arghhhh!!!!! I feel even more confused now than I did before all of this lol!

Everyone telling me opposite things. Some saying s&w is beyond-godlike and that Taurus is a total joke, and then others saying the quality differences are nearly non-existant or even that Taurus is superior in qc than s&w these days.

Aye!!!!!!

I feel like I should just put on a ski mask and just run in there and grab whatever I can get my hands on and hope for the best!!!

(lol just kidding)

But seriously though, my head hurts! grrrrrrr

I wish I just had a boatload of money so I could just shrug and buy one of all of them, but alas, I don't, so I guess I'll just have to buy one at random and hope for the best, and if I happen to get one that sucks, then I'll just go cry in the corner uncontrollably for a few hours and become a vegan pacifist with a tennis racket for my home protection or something similarly horrifying lol. (just kidding)

sdflksdjklfgklsdgjklsdfkjgsdklg

::bangs head against wall repeatedly::

:banghead:

::collapses in a bloody stupor on the floor::

::hopes the cleaning lady doesn't find me lying here in this somewhat embarrassing state (pun intended (I'm LOOKING AT YOU CALIFORNIA!!! lol))::

etc etc
 
To be fair, the great majority of complaints about Taurus have been about their auto's, the revolvers have had far fewer problems.

I'd say this is generally about right, but I would add that some specific lines of revolvers have had or continue to experience QC issues. The Gaucho line of SAA clones, early titanium frame models and the 22 LR Model 94 come to mind. Others, like the Model 66, 85, various small frame steel and aluminum pocket guns (like the 7 shot 617) and 5 shot 44 special models are usually very highly regarded. All in all, I think it is safe to say that a good Taurus is a really nice revolver, but a bad one is about as bad as it gets. And while their customer service was quite bad for a long while (I experienced their Customer Disservice Dept 1st hand), from what I've been reading on line it has been improving somewhat in the last 6 months or so.

What is true is the revolvers aren't as refined as the S&W's or the Rugers, the trigger will be a little rougher (not orders of magnitude worse)

I haven't really found this to be the case. Some of the better Tauri's I've handled had DA triggers nearly as good as a typical S&W and better than a Ruger. My Model 66 had a very slick trigger with a decently clean break, with just a touch of stacking. Similarly, my .44 Special Model 431 is nearly as nice as many of my S&Ws. OTH, some are pretty darn terrible, such as the aforementioned model 94. And there does seem to be a pretty wild variance among guns in the same model many times (2 Model 605s in the same shop can have markedly different trigger/action quality).

One thing about Taurus though is that they do seem to depreciate faster than Rugers and S&Ws, so I'd recommend buying used. And if you carefully go through the revolver checkout, you should be GTG on whatever you choose.

And I say this as a certified S&W nut - not a snob, just a nut (there is a difference) :p . I own revolvers from S&W, Taurus, Ruger, Harrington and Richardson and Heritage Mfg. And I love them all. :cool: All have something to offer. For example, if you want a 7 shot lightweight .357 that can go in your pocket, the Taurus 617 might be the perfect answer.
 
Last edited:
Everyone telling me opposite things. Some saying s&w is beyond-godlike and that Taurus is a total joke, and then others saying the quality differences are nearly non-existant or even that Taurus is superior in qc than s&w these days.
Whenever this happens you can know that the truth is somewhere in the middle.
The best thing to do is go, look at them, feel them, and shoot them. And then decide how you want to spend your money.
 
If you want a 9 for carry, heck, there's plenty of 'em around, square revolvers, don't have to use moon clips, and have higher capacity. They're called Kel Tec P11s. That's what I carry, 11 rounds on tap of +P, almost as accurate as my .38 snubby and more powerful, 14 ounces, yet very controllable. Most people seem to think like I do, because there have been 9mm revolvers offered, and they didn't sell well. If people actually WANTED 'em and bought 'em, they'd still be making them. Look for used ones. Smith and Wesson, Taurus, and Ruger, I know, have offered 9mm at one time or another.
 
Most people seem to think like I do, because there have been 9mm revolvers offered, and they didn't sell well. If people actually WANTED 'em and bought 'em, they'd still be making them.

And that right there answers your original question. It is as simple as supply and demand. The demand for 9mm and .45 ACP revolvers just isn't strong enough to justify the expense of producing them. If the demand was there, so too would be the product.
 
::collapses in a bloody stupor on the floor::

if the cleaning lady finds you before the point of no return...head to a range than rents guns and try a bunch of them. Get friends to pull out their collection and let you shoot them.

Favorites will emerge.

And the process w be fun
 
If you are looking at revolvers, use the checklist that is stickied. It does apply to new guns as well as old. On a whim I picked up a Rossi from Academy as it was on sale and I wanted to do a test with it. I knew it would break and sure enough after cleaning it when I got home, loaded snap caps and dry fired, firing pin broke.

I sent it in for repairs, cleaned it when it came back did the same, loaded snap caps and within a few pulls of the trigger firing pin broke again. Rinse repeat. The gun came back did the test with snap caps and hasn't had a hiccup yet.

Rossi/Taurus same company, same warranty. If you buy new and the gun fails within a year they cover shipping both ways for repair. After a year you cover shipping to them. If you get it used and it is older than a year, you cover shipping, but it has a lifetime warranty so it does matter on what you are willing to put up with.

I have Rugers that haven't had a single problem, 2 blackhawks and 2 GP100s. Haven't had a smith but I don't feel like I am missing out on anything.

I find the more I look into a purchase and research any issues, read up on others experiences I have less of a hassle with a purchase. Like the Rossi, I knew it would break but I wanted to see how well the customer service of the company would be, yes it took multiple trips but I didn't have to pay an extra penny for it, and it was done in a timely manner.
 
You say you had to send in some of your tauruses that had issues. Could you elaborate on what the issues were, and also if they were taurus revolvers, or what type of handgun they were?
I had a Model 85 Ultralite bought at Cabellas slightly used for a daughters carry piece. I was never impressed with it's accuracy, but only shot it close up (15 yards) and it seemed ok. While fitting it with new grips, I shot it at 25 yards, and found the target keyholed. Taking the gun home, I found a transverse crack in the barrel. This particular model is not +P rated, so I figure the original owner probably abused it then traded it. I called Taurus, and they said send it. I said it may have been abused, and they said no problem. I made sure they knew I wasn't the original owner. They sent me a box to ship it back. It returned 5 weeks later, but with a new barrel and frame. Since then, never an issue.

Second issue was a cheap little .22 auto they make, I bought it in nickel and the plating was peeling in the barrel. This one was on me, I was shooting some very hot .22 out of it, specifically they say use standard velocity .22lr. Once again they send a box for me to ship it, it returned 5 weeks later with a new barrel. Since then, not a problem although it is fussy about the ammo it uses, use the right stuff and it's reliable.

So Taurus gets credit from me for supporting their product, but I know Ruger and S&W will also. I'd repeat that if Taurus fits your budget, then you will get your money's worth. They are a good starter gun if you aren't sure you want to invest a lot in a gun yet. I own guns from all three, if I had a budget that could stand a S&W or Ruger, then I'd buy one of them.
 
At least in the forums, it is clear that Smith/Wesson and Ruger are the revolver lines with the best reputations.

The two largest biases against the Smith and Wesson revolvers that you buy new are MIM (metal injection moulding) parts and the "lock."

On rare occasions you hear of a lock activating when it shouldn't, turning a revolver into a paperweight. It's probably not worth worrying about because it is so rare, but to some people a gun is a "must work" item, because if you need it the situation is--by definition--life or death.

If you're not in a hurry, you can watch for used S&W revolvers made before the lock was introduced. I don't deeply care about the lock myself, but I probably would attempt to buy a pre-lock revolver if I chose to go the S&W route. Just me personally buying into the bias and not being in a rush.

The MIM parts issue is sort of similar. If you inspect a particular revolver and it passes the checkout list well, and if it has a nice smooth trigger pull and release, then MIM parts is probably not an issue at all. You could experience some internal part wear out prematurely if you got a poorly made part, but the likelihood is low. Yes, pre-MIM parts are potentially better and have longer life, but S&W has been using the modern parts for many years now and they still have one of the best reputations in the business, so they must be working okay.

A great choice for a (new) range gun or home defense gun would be a S&W 686 (6-shot) or 686+ (7-shot) revolver. You have a choice of different barrel lengths, but I think 4 inch is a very nice length. About any used 357 mag revolver would be a good choice as well.

Ruger revolvers are the other most reputable brand. People in the forums sometimes complain about the manufacturing methods that Ruger uses (castings versus forgings for example) but general consensus is that Ruger knows how to do their metal-work. So while there may be theoretical improvements from different, more expensive methods it doesn't seem to actually be that way in practice.

The bigger complaint about Rugers is that people find their triggers to be less refined than S&W triggers. If you pull the trigger on a revolver, you want it to draw back smoothly and ideally the hammer fall would be a surprise, and many S&W triggers do that. Ruger triggers are generally considered not as smooth.

Still, this is not something to worry and stress about. You should pick up all the revolvers in the display case and try the triggers. You'll soon get a sense that some are "gritty," some are "smooth as butter," and some are in between. And you'll realize that some you'd be happy with and perhaps some you wouldn't.

In my case, I picked up a Ruger GP100 a few years ago brand new from the display case. I found the trigger to be very nice to my sensibilities, and I bought it right there and then. And I've been quite happy with it.

I think a GP100 would make an excellent home defense or range revolver. Again, I like a 4 inch barrel length as being just right.

I also have a 3.16 inch Ruger SP101 that I think that would make a good choice as well, if you wanted something smaller (potentially concealable). In general, smaller revolvers won't have quite as nice of triggers (because of design trade-offs they have to make for the size I'm told). And that's true of my SP101 (as well as some small S&Ws I've handled). It isn't as nice as my GP100. But that's not the same as bad. It just isn't as nice as my GP100 which isn't as nice as the nicest S&W 686s I have fired. But I'm happy with it.

A revolver from either company is likely to improve some with use, since the trigger will smooth out some over time as you use it and the internals become polished from wear. If you buy an older, used revolver then someone else will have taken the trouble to do the wearing in for you.

I'd have no problem buying a used S&W revolver, or a used Ruger for that matter. It just happened that new Rugers were in the window when I was looking, and I have a slight bias against the S&W "lock" that comes on new revolvers. I have from time to time handled quite nice used revolvers from both companies. I was very tempted by a Ruger Security 6 on one occasion, but I wasn't really looking for a revolver just then, so I let it go.

I've had friends with revolvers from other companies, and they've generally been happy. Perhaps I'm not a risk-taker, but I've wanted every gun I purchased to be something I would be happy with "forever." For me, I decided that a bit of extra $$$ for a S&W or Ruger revolver would go a long way towards guaranteeing that. They were a bit more expensive, yes, but not by nearly so much as the cost of the ammunition. You buy a gun once, you shoot it a long time.
 
Last edited:
S&W has been using the modern parts for many years now
MIM parts are more modern and COULD be better than forged...but not the way that S&W does it.

If you want to totally divert the thread I can explain it to you

they still have one of the best reputations in the business

yes...a lot of people remember the good old days.
 
I guess I haven't been around long enough to see Smith and Wesson's great demise, and I suppose I'm a tad bit biased, but I really can't fathom the idea that S&W and Taurus are equals.

I see Taurus as a copy cat generic gun manufacture whose products are directed towards the budget orientated crowd, and that's fine. It is what it is. I also have no doubt that people here have had outstanding experiences with Taurus products. As someone else mentioned, the model 66 and 85 have a long standing reputation for durability and reliability.

The problem I have with Taurus is their customer service reputation. Until they improve upon that, their super awesome no questions asked lifetime warranty becomes less a guarantee and more a mere sales pitch to get people in the door. This is why I think a lot of people, including the OP, are quickly directed away from their products, especially for a first time buyer.
 
I see Taurus as a copy cat generic gun manufacture

Got to give him this one. The 45lc/.410 revolver, AR's, 1911s and polymer framed autos (combined) make up the bulk of Smith's sales and all were developed by Smith.

A truly innovative company
 
Last edited:
Yes, pre-MIM parts are potentially better and have longer life, but S&W has been using the modern parts for many years now and they still have one of the best reputations in the business, so they must be working okay.

The key word here is "potentially". Some are, some aren't. Failure rates for non-MIM parts are about the same as for MIN. If MIM parts were no good, why would major reputable manufacturers use them, i.e. S&W, Colt, Kimber, etc. The use of MIM parts in Smith revolvers has been going on for years, the bugs worked out and the process refined. It is a proven process that other manufacturers agree on. That speaks louder to me than keyboard commandos reluctant to change. I think the decline of fit and finish on modern firearms(of all makes) at the same time of MIM introduction is part of the reason for the bad rep of MIM.

Ruger knows how to do their metal-work. So while there may be theoretical improvements from different, more expensive methods it doesn't seem to actually be that way in practice.

Must be why(sorry Ruger fan boys, according to a Ruger rep at my LGS) Ruger now uses MIM parts in some of their revolver trigger assemblies. They also use them in their new 1911.

MIM, like it or not is the future of affordable firearms. For those that fear them(like EFI vs carbs a few years back), older models are available....altho those same folks have driven the price up significantly because of their internet trashing of MIM. As more companies retool their plants, MIM or other similar processes will become the norm. MIM done right and used in the correct application are no different than milled/machined parts. This is the consensus from metallurgists tho......not internet gurus.
 
My GOD people! A thread asks why there are no 9x19s or .45ACP revolvers, why they're all .38/.357, and you idiots can't stay on topic, just HAVE to find a way to BASH TAURUS. Any opportunity you can find, ANY. I have simply NEVER seen any problem with Taurus that other makes don't have. Check 'em out at purchase, that's what i do with any revolver. At least there's a lifetime warranty. I'm about done with this forum. I've left it a few times, but this is just damned ridiculous.

At least in the forums, it is clear that Smith/Wesson and Ruger are the revolver lines with the best reputations.

The two largest biases against the Smith and Wesson revolvers that you buy new are MIM (metal injection moulding) parts and the "lock."

On rare occasions you hear of a lock activating when it shouldn't, turning a revolver into a paperweight. It's probably not worth worrying about because it is so rare, but to some people a gun is a "must work" item, because if you need it the situation is--by definition--life or death.



http://www.chuckhawks.com/smith-wesson_dark.htm

If you are looking at revolvers, use the checklist that is stickied. It does apply to new guns as well as old. On a whim I picked up a Rossi from Academy as it was on sale and I wanted to do a test with it. I knew it would break and sure enough after cleaning it when I got home, loaded snap caps and dry fired, firing pin broke.

Rossi has had this firing pin problem since the interarms years. I had it with a 971 I bought in the early 90s long before Taurus bought 'em. I sent that gun off, came back and busted on the second shot. Took it to a gunsmith and he fitted a K frame firing pin and it was a danged good gun after that. I used it in trade for a stainless .45 Colt Blackhawk. It was a good outdoor carry, though, fairly accurate and lighter than a K frame, decently strong gun, too. I now have a 4" nickel Taurus 66 that is an amazing gun, supremely accurate, transfer bar lockwork, very smooth and great DA, as good as my Smith K frames. It's a little heavier on the hip than that stainless Rossi. I sorta liked the weight of the Rossi as I carried the gun out west while hunting. It was accurate enough. I took a Javelina with it, head shot at 20 yards. Took lots of rabbits with it for camp meat over the years using .38s. Served me well.

I know of another Rossi of that era, a .38 M88 my friend has, that broke the firing pin. His got fixed on the first trip back to Interarms. So, yeah, Rossi has not fixed this problem in 20 years. If it happens, get a K frame firing pin installed, will have to be fitted, but will work. I've owned 7 Rossi revolvers, so 2 out of 8 examples I've personally known have had firing pin problems. Of course two of those had floating firing pins, the .22 caliber M511 I have now and the one that got stolen I had before this one. So, really, that's a 2 out of 6 sample of Rossis. I read about 'em still having this problem, so it sorta puts me off on buying another one. I have an old M68 I got for my step dad in 1981 in order to get my grandpa's M10 Smith away from him that my grandpa had willed me. I've got it now since my step dad passed away and it's a good shooting gun of really supreme built quality. None of the tooling marks and such some of my Rossis had in the early 90s. I've kept this one not only for memories, but it's a fine shooter. It's also a 3" gun which I like. It is just as accurate as that 4" M971 I used to carry, so it's rabbit killing accurate. :D I have a really nice, really accurate Taurus M85SSUL that I pocket carry a lot, have had it for 15 years, many thousands of rounds down the tube, very accurate little gun (3" groups at 25 yards off the bench). It's got the best out of the box trigger I've ever owned on any revolver.
 
Last edited:
Buck,

MIM parts could be superior. But they are not because of the way S&W manufactures them.

Here is the deal.

MIM can be made to any hardness. As you know, the harder metal is the more brittle.
Smith makes their MIM parts very hard for smoothness. The result is a brittle part.

Is there a better way? Sure. They could build a softer more flexible "core" and then put a thin, hard "veneer" over the top (not unlike the way that you can harden the "working" edge of a flexible forged part.)

S&W does not do that because of the cost.

BTW...MIM parts are more expensive to make...but S&W consider them ready for use when they pop out of the mold. A forged part requires more processing, thus raising the cost.

What does all this mean?
MIM parts "don't play well with others, can't effectively or dependably be polished (when hardened like S&W does) but still can be great for some applications.

The problem comes in when they have sharp edges or when the parts are thin, tapered or small. Unfortunately this is what you find in a revolver.

One other limitation of MIM. They don't take plating well.

The Miculek revolver (625?) has a hard chrome surface on the hammer to try to smooth up the action (which should tell you something right there). The plating comes off of these parts easily. (according to Grant Cunningham)

as to the statement
MIM done right and used in the correct application are no different than milled/machined parts.

Certainly the first half is right. MIM can be outstanding in the correct application. The 2nd 1/2 of the statement COULD be right if a multi stage process were applied.

I suggest that you do a little research so that when you speak to all these metallurgists that offer you advise you understand what they are saying and can ask the right questions. Then you can become an amazing internet guru...like me :neener:
 
Last edited:
@ :( I live in Cali :( :(

you have to understand to some a firearm is more than just a tool its an extention of certain manly parts
even worse for others they are brand loyal to a fault and yet others are simply brand only types that the mere mention of another firearm is an infringement on everything sacred in the house of "brand x"

if you are looking for an heirloom to pass down to family that will retain value do not go for anything short of the big names like S&W

if you are trying to get trigger time and learn to shoot a gun buy a taurus or something similar

alot of these guys have shot for 20+ years and they have a grasp for the finer details of higher quality pieces but they forget that YOU as a new shooter will only gain this knowledge by doing the same thing we all did... start with less expensive guns that simply work

once you get a few hundred thousand rounds out the pipes you will start to "feel" (as this is the ONLY good way to describe the learning experience) the things that need to make an action good vs. bad vs. great

another good deal of people just hold grudges against certain brands just like car guys who own camaros hate mustangs and vice versa... in the end they are all jealous of the guy with the viper but neither will admit it

my suggestion would be buy either a taurus or even a charter arms and spend the rest of what it would cost for a higher priced gun on ammunition and targets

in the end not one manufacturer makes pure perfection

you will get this in small price ranges all the way up to the extreme high end guns
smith guys hate taurus guys colt guys hate smiths and non of them hold a candle to the korth but if there was a gun slightly more expensive or fancier than the korth that group would hate the korth guys
 
Buck,


I suggest that you do a little research so that when you speak to all these metallurgists that offer you advise you understand what they are saying and can ask the right questions. Then you can become an amazing internet guru...like me :neener:

I have done my research my friend, and I understand what they are saying. I understand the process and I understand the limitations of the process. I accept the fact that they know more than I do because they do it for a living and the companies they work for are successful. Unlike a few folks here, I don't claim to know more than they, nor do I brag about being an internet guru. I accept the fact that modern manufacturing processes have to change in order for businesses to survive. I don't always like these changes, but I accept them. I also do not feel the need to belittle others in order to try and endorse my opinion.....IMHO, that is not "the high road". As I said in my first post to the OP....whenever ONE person in a thread aggressively trashes a particular brand, one needs to step back and take those comments with a grain of salt.
 
nor do I brag about being an internet guru

gee Buck...I was trying to use self deprecating humor so as to make sure you knew that it is a friendly conversation.

Sorry you missed that.


as to your statement
whenever ONE person in a thread aggressively trashes a particular brand, one needs to step back and take those comments with a grain of salt.

I had no idea that it was aimed at me.

Certainly I am not alone in my loathing of poor management. That I hate idiotic engineering. That my stomach turns when cost cutting comes at the expense of product quality, durability and reliability.

But even if I am the only one that reviles these things...none of that ire is directed towards the person that purchases and enjoys the product.

I am not sure as to whether I should apologize because I have offended you or give you a "lighten up francis".

After rereading my posts I am thinking that the latter is more appropriate. :neener:
 
Just my $0.02 - direct experience. Interested in the 327 Federal Magnum, so I bought a Taurus revolver as an 'inexpensive' way to try the cartridge. Firing the factory ammo, from cylinder the first, extremely sticky extraction. Had to beat hard enough on the extractor rod that it hurt my hand. Looked into the cylinder chambers, and apparently mine got made at the end of a shift - as a former machinist, it was painfully obvious that the chambers had been cut with a broken cold chisel. Ok, I exaggerate, it was just a broken reamer. But the chambers were so rough as to be nearly knurled. No wonder the brass was sticky.

Bought a GP-100 to replace the Taurus - started to get slightly sticky extraction at about 115 rounds, because she was hot and dirty by that time.

The Taurus is going back to the factory to see if I can get some real chambers - it's a more realistic CCW that the GP-100, but if the problem persists after the factory has had a chance to fix it, the M327 goes down the road.

That's my story, I'm sticking to it. And the 327 Mag, IMHO, is a pretty neat round.
 
The .38 Special, .357 Magnum, et al were specifically designed as revolver cartridges. Yes, .45 Auto revolvers have been around since 1917, but that was an adaptation made because there were not enough pistols to satisfy the demands of all-out war in a short time. Every 9mm Luger revolver, to my knowledge, has been discontinued for lack of sales, and I believe none are currently produced.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top