CAJUNLAWYER
Member
Looks like Ruger's way is much more better than Smiths.
S&W and Ruger ...
- Thread starter rfd
- Start date
cowboy4evr
Member
If you like Rugers and are happy buying them , then do so . But let's remember , they don't have the work history behind any of them compared to Smiths . Smiths have fought in wars , numerous times . They have , in Law enforcement kept not only this country safe but countries around the world safe , for decades and decades . Ruger doesn't have that history /reputation . They make fine hand guns , but they still have their shortcomings and no one has ever referred to a ruger as " art " . So don't go " bashing " my Smiths .
Last edited:
HOUSTON RICK
Member
One bright morning in the middle of the night, two dead boys got up to fight, back to back they faced each other, drew their swords and shot one another, if you do not believe these lies are true, ask the blind man, he saw it too. (Thank you David Covington where ever you are!)
kbm6893
Member
To compete with the 686. Gun buyers see smith has a bigger and tougher .357 so Ruger has to offer one. The GP is also cheaper to make than the Six was. Bill Ruger was once quoted as saying "we never made a dime off the Six guns".
There is no doubt that the GP is stronger than the Six. I doubt anybody other than a seriously heavy shooter would ever need that extra strength. Most people shoot mostly .38 anyway. I know I do. For shooting paper, why bother with .357? It's also heavier and doesn't point or handle nearly as well. My Service Six fits like a glove into a model 10 holster.
And I have seen both used GP's and 686's out of time in gunshops. Course, they weren't priced as if they were out of time! Neither model is indestructible. And I've owned 2 GP's and 2 686's. I wish I still had them. The kind of shooting I do, my great grandkids woukd have been able to shoot them.
Last edited:
kbm6893
Member
Except the problem was solved with a much heavier gun. The Six will shoot .357 as it was designed to do, but still be k frame sized. That's why bill Jordan invented it. K framed sized and .357. He said it was a peace officer's dream.
kbm6893
Member
I'm not bashing. I've owned at least a half dozen. 3 66's, a 19, 2 65's, and a 13. Great guns. Miss the 19 the most. Tripled my money on it when I sold it but still miss it. Man, it was perfect.
But I contacted Smith several times over the years. Email and phone. Got different people every time. They all said the same. Limit use of .357 and only shoot bullets over 140 grains. I sent my 65 in for Work and spoke to the armorer. He told me to stay away from .357 entirely since they no longer have barrels.
kbm6893
Member
/u/JimMarch's review of the Ruger GP100
u/nabaker
3 million years from now, an intelligent upright descendant of the modern cockroach will be able to dig up a stainless GP100, put new springs in it, roll up some ammo and blow away another intelligent upright cockroach that "did him wrong".
Seriously, the GP100 is rock-solid tough. It's very similar in size/task/etc. to the L-frame S&Ws like the 686, and about $200 cheaper. The S&W will probably have a slightly better out-of-the-box trigger and might be a hair more accurate, but the differences will be minor.
The GP100 has no sideplates that can blow out, it has a firm second latch at the crane that locks the cylinder in place out there and is otherwise tougher than a similar S&W. The GP100 was also designed to be field-stripped by the user. The manual tells you how, and under one of the grip panels is a steel rod meant to be used as a takedown tool. This can be a major advantage in rough country or anywhere you're around salt water; if the gun is exposed to mud, seawater or anything else nasty you can do a full takedown and cleanup before any damage sets in.
Full takedown of an S&W is a lot messier and S&W considers it a "gunsmith proposition". You CAN do it, but you need more tools and a decent book on S&W innards. Ruger on the other hand tells you right in the manual how to do a total takedown, and if you lose that the manual is available as a free PDF on Ruger's site.
This easy takedown also means it can be home-brew gunsmithed, including full spring kit upgrades to help the trigger pull or fine-polishing the SIDES of the hammer and trigger surfaces inside, to reduce friction (again, improving the trigger feel for cheap, just some "sweat equity" involved). DO NOT mess with the sear surfaces (the places where the hammer and trigger make contact) unless you know what you're doing.
A spring kit will include two or three levels of mainspring tension. The best possible accuracy happens when you use a medium or even heavy spring and mirror-polish the gun's innards until you get a dead smooth feel. The best DA revolver trigger I've ever felt period was a GP100 that had lived as a range rental for about a decade, had seen a really massive round count, was still in perfect shape and just from repeated fire, had a dead smooth trigger people would pay big bucks for if applied to anything else.
The GP100 is the smallest "real 357" in that you can shoot balls-out full-house stuff by Buffalo Bore, Grizzly Ammo or Doubletap Ammo in large doses if you want, and be able to control that sort of load one-handed. Any smaller size 357 and trust me, you can't.
u/nabaker
3 million years from now, an intelligent upright descendant of the modern cockroach will be able to dig up a stainless GP100, put new springs in it, roll up some ammo and blow away another intelligent upright cockroach that "did him wrong".
Seriously, the GP100 is rock-solid tough. It's very similar in size/task/etc. to the L-frame S&Ws like the 686, and about $200 cheaper. The S&W will probably have a slightly better out-of-the-box trigger and might be a hair more accurate, but the differences will be minor.
The GP100 has no sideplates that can blow out, it has a firm second latch at the crane that locks the cylinder in place out there and is otherwise tougher than a similar S&W. The GP100 was also designed to be field-stripped by the user. The manual tells you how, and under one of the grip panels is a steel rod meant to be used as a takedown tool. This can be a major advantage in rough country or anywhere you're around salt water; if the gun is exposed to mud, seawater or anything else nasty you can do a full takedown and cleanup before any damage sets in.
Full takedown of an S&W is a lot messier and S&W considers it a "gunsmith proposition". You CAN do it, but you need more tools and a decent book on S&W innards. Ruger on the other hand tells you right in the manual how to do a total takedown, and if you lose that the manual is available as a free PDF on Ruger's site.
This easy takedown also means it can be home-brew gunsmithed, including full spring kit upgrades to help the trigger pull or fine-polishing the SIDES of the hammer and trigger surfaces inside, to reduce friction (again, improving the trigger feel for cheap, just some "sweat equity" involved). DO NOT mess with the sear surfaces (the places where the hammer and trigger make contact) unless you know what you're doing.
A spring kit will include two or three levels of mainspring tension. The best possible accuracy happens when you use a medium or even heavy spring and mirror-polish the gun's innards until you get a dead smooth feel. The best DA revolver trigger I've ever felt period was a GP100 that had lived as a range rental for about a decade, had seen a really massive round count, was still in perfect shape and just from repeated fire, had a dead smooth trigger people would pay big bucks for if applied to anything else.
The GP100 is the smallest "real 357" in that you can shoot balls-out full-house stuff by Buffalo Bore, Grizzly Ammo or Doubletap Ammo in large doses if you want, and be able to control that sort of load one-handed. Any smaller size 357 and trust me, you can't.
cowboy4evr
Member
" Built like a tank " , is very deceiving indeed . The rugers are cast frames . Take one to a metallurgist and have him look at it under a very high power microscope . He will tell you that it's very porous , large grain and resembles volcanic rock . Pound for pound , forged is better . Or did smith and colt both get it wrong ?
There's a gentleman that posts here from time to time that is a retired LEO . We discussed the model 19 . He told me that his 19 saw a steady diet of 158 gr 357 magnum loads running from 1200-1400 fps . After 15,000 rounds it needed some attention and went back to the factory . He shot exactly 6 rounds of 38spl in all that time .
Rugers are clunky , they have horrible actions and look even worse . Like I have said before , they don't have much of a track record so there's really no comparison to smiths . I would not trust my life to something with no real track record . I sent a model 13 in for some light maintenance a couple of yrs ago . The pins that keep the extractor star aligned were missing on the back side of the cylinder . They fixed it and set the timing . I couldn't of been happier .
There's a gentleman that posts here from time to time that is a retired LEO . We discussed the model 19 . He told me that his 19 saw a steady diet of 158 gr 357 magnum loads running from 1200-1400 fps . After 15,000 rounds it needed some attention and went back to the factory . He shot exactly 6 rounds of 38spl in all that time .
Rugers are clunky , they have horrible actions and look even worse . Like I have said before , they don't have much of a track record so there's really no comparison to smiths . I would not trust my life to something with no real track record . I sent a model 13 in for some light maintenance a couple of yrs ago . The pins that keep the extractor star aligned were missing on the back side of the cylinder . They fixed it and set the timing . I couldn't of been happier .
American1776
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1,770
- Reaction score
- 4,271
I don't think anybody is "bashing" the S&W. I was pointing out the differences between Rugers and Smiths. The yoke tube design and lock work of the Ruger lends better to heavy magnum use compared to the S&W before endshake goes beyond spec.
The S&W does have better balance and ergonomics. I'm not a big fan of Ruger's use of a grip stud. A K-frame S&W will go 100,000 rounds of standard 38 wadcutters before repairs are needed. It will not do that with magnums. Nor would an L-frame.
The Ruger's design will withstand magnums much better than a S&W. The S&W will have better ergos and balance.
They are different, that's all
Timing
So far, thankfully, the only revolver that I have had go out of time is a Taurus 82. Taurus currently has that in Miami and has for the last three months, but I have faith that I'll get it back eventually and it will be in time. I would certainly give S&W the same chance to make it right if one went out of timing.
So far, thankfully, the only revolver that I have had go out of time is a Taurus 82. Taurus currently has that in Miami and has for the last three months, but I have faith that I'll get it back eventually and it will be in time. I would certainly give S&W the same chance to make it right if one went out of timing.
Lou_the_welder
Member
I love these Ford vs.Chevy threads!
I broke a Redhawk 44 mag and a kgp-100(gp-100 but in stainless) both from the force cone and the kgp's frame after I was done with it, as per a letter from the factory deemed it, "frame is damaged also and not useable...."
But, what do the kiddos say? Ymmv, or yummy.
Btw. I've already put enough rounds through a smith to tell it will never get damaged like a ruger.
Some pics of damage. Final cracks were lost in different mobile device.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
I broke a Redhawk 44 mag and a kgp-100(gp-100 but in stainless) both from the force cone and the kgp's frame after I was done with it, as per a letter from the factory deemed it, "frame is damaged also and not useable...."
But, what do the kiddos say? Ymmv, or yummy.
Btw. I've already put enough rounds through a smith to tell it will never get damaged like a ruger.
Some pics of damage. Final cracks were lost in different mobile device.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
I like both my Smith's and Ruger's. Especially like the shorter S&W pull even though my GP100's trigger pull is longer but silky smooth.
With that said I recently witnessed a Dan Wesson 715 digest a double charge of Universal. The cylinder was stuck as the new brass flowed into the works. Owner came back next week shooting the same gun. He said he hammered the cylinder out with a rubber mallet and hammered on the extractor until the deformed (new Starline .357) brass case came out. All was good and gun still shoots like a ******* laser and lockup is just as tight as before.
Damn I'm impressed!!!
With that said I recently witnessed a Dan Wesson 715 digest a double charge of Universal. The cylinder was stuck as the new brass flowed into the works. Owner came back next week shooting the same gun. He said he hammered the cylinder out with a rubber mallet and hammered on the extractor until the deformed (new Starline .357) brass case came out. All was good and gun still shoots like a ******* laser and lockup is just as tight as before.
Damn I'm impressed!!!
No one else picked up on the comment Ruger makes about utilizing a centuries old manufacturing process from the "Far East"- are they admitting to knocking off Chinese technology?
Astute observation.The Chinese invented gunpowder along with many other things. Now who else is guilty? LOL
A forged machined part has a "tighter" grain structure than an identically sized investment cast part.. that forging is a more elastic part than the investment casting which may be "harder"..
The forged part may or may not wear more depending on the heat treating/hardening process of each part,, making it harder may also lead to "embrittlement"?
In the grand scheme of things the forging will resist cracking slightly better than an investment casting, so in order to prevent those types of failures, Ruger redesigned many of those mechanisms, such as offset bolt indexing of the cylinder and more parent material in areas such as the "forcing cone"..
The model 29 is a rather svelte minimalist 44 Magnum, while the Ruger Redhawk is rather more robust in size and weight..
I've shot both, and don't care for the Redhawk, I much prefer the Smith and Wesson, but my favorite 44 Mag of all time was an original 3 screw Flat-Top from about 1961..
sadly, I traded that beautiful revolver for a prettier Colt New Frontier with a 45 Colt/45ACP cylinders
I love these Ford vs.Chevy threads!
I broke a Redhawk 44 mag and a kgp-100(gp-100 but in stainless) both from the force cone and the kgp's frame after I was done with it, as per a letter from the factory deemed it, "frame is damaged also and not useable...."
But, what do the kiddos say? Ymmv, or yummy.
Btw. I've already put enough rounds through a smith to tell it will never get damaged like a ruger.
Some pics of damage. Final cracks were lost in different mobile device.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
and here Lou the Welder has well illustrated the heavy use/abuse that many six guns have been/will be subjected to...
obviously there's a great deal of "throat erosion" from heavy loads, possibly a "timing issue" as much of that erosion is off center on one of the barrels, while the other has erosion evenly all the way around...
both Ruger and Smith and Wesson revolvers can be destroyed by over exuberant loads, particularly in large quantities..
I will say one of the most accurate revolvers I ever shot was a GP-100, and that little 44 Flat Top, well, I'm still kicking my own butt..
That 44 was the only Ruger that ever brought me to tears,,, but Smith and Wessons, particularly of a certain vintage, particularly N frames, (Reg Mag, 38/44 Outdoorsman,, heck, any 5 Screw N Frame from the 30s, 40s, 50s, even four screw and three screws from the 60s
they have a mojo that really is difficult to replicate,, I have an early Colt New Frontier that also is gorgeous,, art work, heck, that Flat Top was gorgeous too...
Forging does not cause a "tighter" grain structure. That is a misconception. You can not "tighten" up metal structures. What your looking for is a smaller grain size. Interestingly enough forging itself actually increases the size of grain structure as you get grain growth above a steels critical temp and forging is done well above that. This grain growth can and needs to be reset before hardening and tempering.
I believe this step was the "magic" improvement in heat treat that allowed for improved strength for magnums etc over earlier guns. Hardness and toughness are NOT the same. Hardness and toughness are dependent and on type of structure. Usually martensite (harden steel) that is tempered is "tougher" than pearlite (non harden) even though they can be the same hardness.
A good file is made from 1095 steel. So is the cable on a crane! But, but, but. Its all in the heat treatment and the geometry.
Steel used in investment castings will have very coarse grain cause by the temps needed to pour metal. But, that investment casting can be normalized just like a forging to reduce its grain size.
Many people even those who have worked with it for a long time have many misconceptions about it. It is prevalent in the knife makers world. Such tings as edge packing, increased flexibility of the steel, steel molecules, etc do not exist. All steels have the same elastic modulus, they do not compress, and steel structure is more like a crystalline matrix structure than anything else. The carbon atoms move around in the iron structure to form different types of "crystals" , They do not bond on a atomic or molecular level like say carbon and hydrogen to form hydrocarbons or oxygen and hydrogen to form water. Steels all have the same amount of flex under a given load. This is a constant (elastic modulus). What you can change is the elastic limit. How and when the steel will fail from either permanent distortion of breaking.
The show Forged in Fire kind of gets me. Typical of new type people live TV. They never show, a normalization cycle or any sort of tempering. If you take a forged blade from critical to quench and don't at least do a snap temper it, it will shatter very easily. Not only that a good blade tempering cycle for most forge able steels is in the 400-450 f range with 2 2 hour cycles. Yes time dependent as well as temp. Anything else will not be optimum.
If you really want to know what is going on with metal I suggest reading some actual metallurgy text books.
I believe this step was the "magic" improvement in heat treat that allowed for improved strength for magnums etc over earlier guns. Hardness and toughness are NOT the same. Hardness and toughness are dependent and on type of structure. Usually martensite (harden steel) that is tempered is "tougher" than pearlite (non harden) even though they can be the same hardness.
A good file is made from 1095 steel. So is the cable on a crane! But, but, but. Its all in the heat treatment and the geometry.
Steel used in investment castings will have very coarse grain cause by the temps needed to pour metal. But, that investment casting can be normalized just like a forging to reduce its grain size.
Many people even those who have worked with it for a long time have many misconceptions about it. It is prevalent in the knife makers world. Such tings as edge packing, increased flexibility of the steel, steel molecules, etc do not exist. All steels have the same elastic modulus, they do not compress, and steel structure is more like a crystalline matrix structure than anything else. The carbon atoms move around in the iron structure to form different types of "crystals" , They do not bond on a atomic or molecular level like say carbon and hydrogen to form hydrocarbons or oxygen and hydrogen to form water. Steels all have the same amount of flex under a given load. This is a constant (elastic modulus). What you can change is the elastic limit. How and when the steel will fail from either permanent distortion of breaking.
The show Forged in Fire kind of gets me. Typical of new type people live TV. They never show, a normalization cycle or any sort of tempering. If you take a forged blade from critical to quench and don't at least do a snap temper it, it will shatter very easily. Not only that a good blade tempering cycle for most forge able steels is in the 400-450 f range with 2 2 hour cycles. Yes time dependent as well as temp. Anything else will not be optimum.
If you really want to know what is going on with metal I suggest reading some actual metallurgy text books.
Last edited:
That was the source of the magic spells to produce magic swords,, Say the spell correctly while you are tempering the sword and u get a much better sword.
What was lost to history was that the spells were actually timers.
What was lost to history was that the spells were actually timers.
Vulcan Bob
Member
In my previous post here I did say the K frame was not the ideal platform for the .357 Magnum cartridge and I stand by that, I've seen a few split forcing cones. I do own four M-19's that only get fed 38-44 level loads in them. For S&W .357 Mag shooting I use the L and N frame revolvers.
I agree that the model K frame 13, 19 and 66 357s are not the optimum platform for the 357, neither is the 640 J frame. UNLESS, your looking for a smaller package that will handle some magnums and a lot of 38s. Its all about compromise.
I have a pre model 28 Highway patrolman, and it needed some end shake shims when I got it. I suspect it had the barrel changed out at one time because there is no serial number on the barrel. Doesn't mean N frame are not a good 357 platform. I doubt anyone is going to say an N frame Smith isn't as strong as a Ruger Security Six. Round count takes its toll on everything.
May be a x frame 357 would last a few million rounds.
Last edited:
Similar threads
