Why Ruger is better than Smith & Wesson

[BlayGlock]

In my humble opinion
I know sneaky right...
And as it specifically referes to the Smith 686 vs the GP100.

Recently I decided to start shooting IDPA SSR division and I posted a question about which revolver I would be better off with. After all the great answers and much soul searching (and waiting on my pusher..er gun dealer to get a GP100 in) it came down to this: which one feels better in the hand.
There are countless forums comparing these two fine revolvers. The forums I read came down to the consensus that it was really 6 one way 1/2 dozen the other, that they were comparable in accuracy, fit, finish ect.

So I took both of them (NIB) out of the case and held them.

Hands down the Ruger had the better trigger, even the proprietor agreed that this was the case.
It also had a better balance in my hand.
It also has a more solid build to it, not that the 686 wouldn't last you.
It was $250 cheaper. That’s a lot of clams. Or ammo.

So if you are like me and have been agonizing over this particular decision, go with the GP100, and used the extra on ammo for polishing your skills for IDPA.

 

[Blue Brick]

1+ Ruger.

 

[jad0110]

I almost went with the GP, but interestingly I found that the 4" 686 balanced better in my hands. To each his own.

As for strength, both are pretty freakin' durable. I've got a feeling that you'd have to abuse the crap out of either of them to get Magnum related breakages. The GP has the edge in sheer beefiness (and a stronger lockup system), while the Smith has slightly superior metalurgy (not that there is anything wrong with the Ruger's - that tidbit came from a metalurgist BTW.)

Enjoy your GP! The fact that the GP and the 686 are such strong rivals seems to enhance the apeal of both.

 

[BlayGlock]

I agree, I honestly beleive that when choosing these two it will come down to what feels the best to you. You cant possibly go wrong with either of them.

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

But, the Smith will always have a higher resale value, and is much nicer looking. The Ruger looks like a mule; strong, but ugly, while the Smith looks like a beautifully groomed Clydesdale; strong and good looking.

 

[JackOfAllTradesMasterAtNone]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

I'll take Mule-Strong over "Pretty" any day. To me the Ruger looks more like the Clydesdale. The Smitty, more like a sure footed Morgan. Kinda like a Chevy pickup that rides like a car.

Built FORD tough! That's a RUGER for ya!

-Steve

 

[wyocarp]

I'll take Mule-Strong over "Pretty" any day.

Okay, as long as we are talking about guns.

 

[Fishman777]

+1 on the Ruger...

I like Smiths, but I think that Ruger DA revolvers are better designs for a few reasons:

1. Solid frame
2. Modular trigger assembly - easy to work on.
3. Modular grip frame
4. The front sights can be changed in about 5 seconds
5. Triple locking cylinders (this is the feature that I like the most) - Smith's have the ejector rod as the third locking point. Ruger's triple locking cylinder maintains better alignment between the cylinder and the barrel.
6. Ruger DA revolvers with triple locking cylinders almost never go out of time.
7. Ruger ejector rods just eject the spent brass. They also don't unscrew. There was a recent thread about a "Smith" with this problem.
8. No internal lock in Ruger DA revolvers.
9. The cylinder "notches" are offset.

The downside of these guns is that they aren't generally cleaned up very well at the factory. With a little time and effort, these problems are easy to overcome. There is also a lot of information printed on the barrels. This doesn't bother me, much.

Ruger DA revolver designs aren't perfect, but they are close, in my book.

All this being said, I would love to get custom shop Smith and Wesson revolver. Maybe some day.

 

[JackOfAllTradesMasterAtNone]

OK, Plus 1 for the Smitty DA revolver for one thing. An active manufacture Custom Shop.

Minus 1 in that regard for Ruger.

-Steve

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

Another plus for Smith- If you do need to have service, they will pay shipping both ways for guns made since 1989, Ruger won't for any gun over 1 year old.

 

[WardenWolf]

Ruger is probably the current reigning revolver king in terms of quality and affordable mass produced models. They have some of the finest, toughest revolvers currently produced.

 

[BlayGlock]

There is also a lot of information printed on the barrels

I know right It is like an entire page out of the manual.

 

[LTR shooter]

I imagine when I am long gone my 686 will still be going strong by who ever comes to own it. Pretty much to me it comes down to hitting what you are aiming at , I do this with better with my 686 than any other 357 revolver I have owned - GP100 included. But the GP is no slouch either. I'm sure there are many folks out there where the GP is the gun that does it for them. That's fine by me too.

I get a lot more satisfaction at the range shooting what ever I happen to bring that day - be it a Ruger or a Smith or both , than bashing someone's choice in a revolver.

 

[BENELLIMONTE]

I own both Ruger and S & W revolvers, pistols and Ruger longarms. Both companies weapons have had issues where I needed to interact with customer service depts. Both companies came through with 100% satisfaction for me. Qualitatively I think the Ruger revolvers are built stouter/stronger than S&W. On the other hand I have been more satisfied overall with the quality of my S&W pistols compared to my Rugers. In the final analysis, both are high class companies that turn out high quality firearms at a price that the "working man" can afford.

 

[Big Daddy Grim]

Have them both, both are great but I know if I ever have to beat some one over the head I'll choose my Ruger heavier and not as pretty.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Yep, and Taurus is better than both.

 

[memphisjim]

in days past i would have argued till i was blue that s&w was better
rugers are good though
the safety lock on the s&w has allowed me to agree with going for the ruger

 

[denfoote]

Yer bleed'in batty!!!!

No Ruger tops this!!!

 

[madcratebuilder]

I own both Ruger and S & W revolvers, pistols and Ruger longarms. Both companies weapons have had issues where I needed to interact with customer service depts. Both companies came through with 100% satisfaction for me. Qualitatively I think the Ruger revolvers are built stouter/stronger than S&W. On the other hand I have been more satisfied overall with the quality of my S&W pistols compared to my Rugers. In the final analysis, both are high class companies that turn out high quality firearms at a price that the "working man" can afford.

I couldn't agree more, but you well never satisfy the Ruger bashers or the Smith bashers. It's that mines better than your mentality, left over from the playground at grade school.

 

[gmh1013]

I think the QC of S&W's has gone waayyy down in the past few years.
I wont be buying anymore new ones.
I did pick up a SP101 at a gun show
new for 425 bucks last year.
Its built like a panzer tank, nothing not to like.

 

[18DAI]

If you are comparing new Rugers to new S&W revolvers, than yes I agree.

My preference is still S&W pre lock revolvers.

 

[svtruth]

I have a GP100

and love it dearly, but if you ever run across a Model 19, buy it! Shooting it, even just holding it, is an esthetic experience.

 

[PzGren]

When you get Jerry Miculek to agree, you can PM me.

 

[Clarence]

Both are great revolvers, but I prefer S&W's. I have never found a revolver that I like as well as my N-Frame S&W's.

 

[2ndamd]

+1 on the Ruger GP100.
Tricky post title