Ruger vs S&W for quality and reliability

Not to hijack your thread, I'll be starting another one concerning Ruger's and Smith & Wesson's Post-sales Customer Service.

sodacan said:

Who, besides me, thinks ruger DA revolvers are among the ugliest guns made? We're not talking, quality, strength or any other attributes, just looks.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%, especially the Super Redhawk. I have a Redhawk Hunter with wood grips that isn't too bad. To me comparing a Ruger double-action and an S&W double-action for looks is like comparing a pickup truck to a sports car. They both have their places.

My .44 magnums: S&W 29-2, Colt Anaconda, Ruger Redhawk, Ruger Super Blackhawks.

I own both, enjoy both and believe both mfrs make fine sturdy revolvers.

But I just like the "look" of S&W revolvers more than Ruger.

I own both, like both, and find that both S&W and Ruger manufacture very good guns more often than not. I prefer Smith's for double action. Rugers own the single action market in terms of value. I recently aquired a new S&W Model 60-15 (stainless 3" bbl. adj. sights) in 357. What a great shooter right out of the box. Much smooter trigger than my SP101 3 inch, and I shoot the S&W much better, probably due to adj. sights, but that is just my story, your results may vary.
As to trigger, in my experience Smith's are superior. Rugers are rugged and I think because they make them a big chunky based on the casting process used. Smiths are forged steel so generally seem a bit more svelte. Rugers are a good value, but Smith's more refined. Sort of a Chevy vs. Ford argument. I'm happy to own both makes. Think both in their own way are pretty good looking too.

I have owned, carried (extensively), and instructed with both. I have never had either a Smith or a Ruger fail at the range or on the line. Minor differences in engineering do not translate to differences in longevity. Differences in grip geometry will mean that each shooter will favor one or the other but "feel" is subjective in nature.

Dan Wesson Model 15s, however, are a different story.

A real measure of quality would be an accurate PPM ( parts per million) of returned guns, defects or failures.

I would say Ruger makes VERY robust and strong ( maybe stronger ) guns than S&W but for the most part S&W guns feel better in my hands. Ruger has investment casting down to a science and value per dollar ruger is hard to beat. I own both and enjoy both but personal preference is much different than perceived or imagined quality or defect issues for either brand.

They are both good in my opinion, but as a rule Rugers make better clubs if you do not have ammo.

I had a chance to buy a Security Six...man, the thing was robust, but like many have stated, the aesthetics just seem off.

vito said:

I posted a similar question on the Ruger Forum, and not unexpectedly got a lot of comments that said Ruger made a more durable revolver than S&W, and others who also said that S&W quality has gone downhill since the 1980's. I guess I don't shoot such a volume of ammo from any of my guns to the point that I can tell which is holding up better than another, but my impression on fit, and feel is that my S&W revolvers are a bit higher quality than comparable caliber Rugers. My only concern would be with newer Smiths that have the internal locks vs a Ruger without a lock. I have a newer 640 where I was able to get a gunsmith to remove the internal lock, but I would hate to have to do that for every new gun that I buy, so I am thinking about my next gun being a Ruger. I wonder what the general opinion is of Ruger revolvers by readers of this forum.

Click to expand...

Rugers and S&Ws are both built well and very strong. Rugers appear "thicker" due to the casting, but S&Ws are forged and in one study (H.P. White Labs maybe?), the Ruger 44 Mag blew its cylinder before the S&W using grossly overloaded ammo.

If there is any weakness, it is in the location of the cylinder stop notches. If you are using factory ammo, or even all reasonable reloads, it is of no concern. With overloads, however, opt for a model with offset notches, such as the 7 shot L frame or the 5 shot J frame.

I wish to stress, before everyone goes into a panic, or unleashes streams of vitriolic hatred, that the S&W cylinders are fine on all models for all factory ammo and for all reloads that are within the guidelines given in the reloading manuals.

Another valid area of concern is how you shoot. The S&W action is more conducive to the straight through double action trigger pull, while the Ruger is more conducive to the practice of double action "staging."

Finally, if you are the next Jerry Miculek, get the S&W as it has a faster trigger return. Jerry Miculek says that the S&W action is the ONLY one (and he has tried them all) that his finger speed cannot beat. And that is saying something.

For reliablity I think they are both right in there.

Where the S&W lost some points was during the "bad years" when they were run by less hardy management. Some of the calibers like the 44 mag too got pushed past it designs by target and silhouette shooters with extremely heavy loads. The Smiths were designed more as carry and service revolvers in those years.

My own story of coming to the S&Ws is this.

I started with Colts. When I had the older Colts - Officer Model Targets, Pythons, and Detective Specials - the S&Ws felt very different in my hand.

One was that I was that I always seemed to be shooting a revolver with a different frame size, and many of the S&Ws I shot had big grips on them. Beings I never had any problem with the Colt triggers, I felt like I must be a Colt guy.

Along in there I acquired a few Rugers. The first being a Super Red Hawk 44 Mag and then a GP 357, a SP 101, and finally a New Model Super Blackhawk 44 Mag. I found I shoot the Super Red Hawk and the GP very well. And the other two very poorly, so they were gone soon. I also had some trouble with the Super Blackhawk. To be fair, I also have had some problem with a early 500 S&W, which S&W took care of right away.

I said I have to at least own and try a couple of Smiths. I got a Model 19 from the 1960s, then a Model 15, a Model 17, and a Model 29. Hmmmm.... for some reason I was shooting them better and I found the more I shot them, the better I liked them. It was the end of the Colt revolvers for me.

So now my "nice " revolvers are the S&Ws and I shoot them better than I ever thought. I have yet to have a problem with any of them ( except the 500). I use the two Rugers though but now the SR Hawk feels a bit different . Surprsingly the GP feels more like a S&W.

When I check out a new handload I use the Rugers. One is they might be a touch stouter. But more of it is I dont want to stress my older S&Ws if the load is not right yet. In a newer S&W it doesnt bother me at all. What I am really saying is "if" there was problem I would rather wreck one of the Rugers than my S&Ws.

For some maximum loads I go the Ruger for the reasons mentioned, and that in the 44 it has a longer cylinder. I could easily do with this one Ruger SRH. And I probably will as my son is coming around on the revolvers vs autos, so I will let him take off with the GP. Not my Smiths.


From a reliablity standpoint I think they both make good, stout, and reliable revolvers. If you have a problem with a new revolver, either will stand behind their product. Taken as a group they are equal. I do notice that Ruger seemed to have more recalls on their newer autos like the LCP etc.

While it is not a reliablity related item per se, there are more options for Smiths out there. Whether it be grips , sights, etc . And the S&Ws have factory gunsmithing available for some changes. I saw Grant Cunningham was recommending the Rugers ( because they didnt have any locks ) for some custom work.... but try to get on the backlog list . It is YEARS long now. So overall ownership edge probably goes to S&W.

So with reliablity being equal, and considering pleasing and value and overall ownership , the Smiths all the way for me now.

vito said:

I posted a similar question on the Ruger Forum, and not unexpectedly got a lot of comments that said Ruger made a more durable revolver than S&W, and others who also said that S&W quality has gone downhill since the 1980's. I guess I don't shoot such a volume of ammo from any of my guns to the point that I can tell which is holding up better than another, but my impression on fit, and feel is that my S&W revolvers are a bit higher quality than comparable caliber Rugers. My only concern would be with newer Smiths that have the internal locks vs a Ruger without a lock. I have a newer 640 where I was able to get a gunsmith to remove the internal lock, but I would hate to have to do that for every new gun that I buy, so I am thinking about my next gun being a Ruger. I wonder what the general opinion is of Ruger revolvers by readers of this forum.

Click to expand...

I always prefer a forging to a casting, not saying castings can't be good, but the extra finesse and couple of ounces between a Smith and a Ruger make all the difference, I like the way a Smith feels in my hand, in contrast the Ruger Redhawk felt like a post hole digger. I have had several Rugers, most good shooters, the only one I really miss was the 1961 44 flat-top, with the recessed cylinder, it was far more comfortable to shoot than the 5.5 inch stainless super black-hawk, and far, far more accurate. I traded it in a moment of weakness for a Colt New Frontier, in 45 LC with an ACP cylinder, they are both gone, and a couple of 27-2s have replaced them both, no regrets on that, but I do miss the flat-top...... Billy Magg

My experience: I've bought three new guns in the last year or so.
The Ruger SR22P went back to Ruger with a broken slide stop.
The S&W 642 went back to S&W with a yoke gap big enough to fit a popsicle stick in.
The Ruger New Bearcat Shopkeeper (got a week ago) is about to make a trip back because 2 positions won't fire at all (light hammer strikes due to recess in cylinder being too deep) while the other 4 positions fire maybe half the time. (Rem golden boy works a little better than the Win bulk pack). I'll be posting a review of that new shopkeeper once I get it working. It's a stainless bearcat with a 3" barrel and a birdshead grip.

Which is 'better'? "Both", or "Neither", depending on how you look at it.

So there you have it. I'm 3 for 3 in new guns going back to the shop.

That said, I would still pretty much only buy S&Ws and Rugers.

If I didn't have S&W

If I didn't have S&W, I'd have Ruger.

Kind of like blondes/brunetts/redheads, if you want to add Dan Wessons to the mix, I have them all and over the years some minor problems with them all, as a rule the S&W's and DW's have a better fit and finsh, the Rugers are strong as hell, as are the big frame DW's. If it is a question of accuracy the DW's have and edge there. I enjoy them all. If you could still buy new Colts they would be in the mix also.

No firearms that are "built-like-a-tank" need apply here.

I had a model 66 a while back. Always wanted a revolver and got a great deal on that one. Didnt shoot it much though, so I sold it about 2 years ago. Got to missing having a revolver, so I went looking for another one. Prices were way up, so I expanded my search and found a good deal on a GP100 4" stainless.
Liked the gun a lot. Shot great, even heavy loads were fairly tame with the weight of the gun.
But I never could quite get over the overall look of it. It just isnt finished very nicely. Well, its finished like its supposed to be, but they are just more blocky than Smiths are.
Nothing wrong with it, but I gotta like just about everything about my guns, or whats the point?
So, recently I sold it, and bought a 686.

Of course had I gotten a 3" GP100 instead of the 4", I might not have bothered.

Would one last me longer than the other? Nope. I dont shoot thousands of rounds a year through one pistol, and even if I did, Id bet they would both still outlast me.

Some guys are revolver guys, some guys are Smith guys and some are Ruger guys.
I found out Im a Smith guy....but I also know that there is nothing at all wrong with a Ruger.

Now I did pick up one of new the Ruger 22 revolvers with the interchangeable cylinders in the local shop sometime last year with the idea of purchasing it. It failed in the store on the first cocking. Maybe it was buggered by a customer before me, or it was just bad.

After that is when I bought the Model 17 No Dash. That was a good purchase.

6 Sigma, Process Mgmt, . . .

cal50 said:

A real measure of quality would be an accurate PPM ( parts per million) of returned guns, defects or failures.

I would say Ruger makes VERY robust and strong ( maybe stronger ) guns than S&W but for the most part S&W guns feel better in my hands. Ruger has investment casting down to a science and value per dollar ruger is hard to beat. I own both and enjoy both but personal preference is much different than perceived or imagined quality or defect issues for either brand.

Click to expand...

Great Comment: I wonder if the big gun mfg'rs use process science, 6-sigma and the like; does S&W? Seems like a natural for them, but to use the technology effectively takes great leadership, staying power and a firm belief that 1st time quality, each and every time (within the desired defect tolerances) are the only way to ensure great market performance and margins, high customer customer/loyalty and outstanding customer support.

Brand loyalty seems to run high in the firearms customer base, but the market is somewhat oligopoly-like and there aren't a lot of new entrants seriously storming the walls - so I don't know about satisfaction and loyalty. I admit I'm new to shooting, but customer sat. and support seems spotty based upon anecdotal information here and in other forums.

As for quality, the external signs are mixed and I'm guessing the quality records of the big mfgr's are as well. If otherwise, they would be crowing about their quality track records to create enhanced market differentiation. That's not evident from my point of view.

I like the look and feel of the S&W 617, 686, and model 67, of which I own the 1st two and covet the 3rd and 627 too. I also love my Sig P220 45 ACP Equinox - seems better finished and smoother than any S&W I've handled/shot to date (YMMV).

Thanks for the perspective - great conversations here in the forums.

R

At the moment I own two Ruger revolvers and one semi-auto. I have a 75 vintage Blackhawk 45 colt/45 acp convertible that I have several thousand rounds through without any problems. A stainless Super Blackhawk in 44 magnum of a newer vintage that is also an excellent shooter with no problems. And a SR1911 I bought in September of 2012 that I have over 4000 rounds through without any problems whatsoever! All of my S&W revolvers are pre-1980 and are all of superb quality too! And excellent shooters to boot. Also own a couple Taurus revolvers that have been reliable so far.