Ruger vs S&W for quality and reliability

vito · Apr 12, 2013

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.

Jayhawkhuntclub · Apr 12, 2013

Well I've owned a number of both over the years. I think both can be a bit hit and miss as far as fit and finish. They both produce the occasional lemon. The Ruger LCR has as good or better trigger than any DA Smith I've ever owned. However, as a whole Smith triggers are excellent and better than Rugers on average. Ruger has done a better job of making their locks less "in your face". And there are still some Rugers that are lock free. Both have great warranty service. Generally I prefer the aesthetics of Smiths over Rugers, but there are exceptions. But I love 'em both. I guess my bottom line is why not enjoy both if you have the funds.

Arik · Apr 12, 2013

Rugers are great revolvers. Very robust and durable. Their SP101 is as tough as they come (also the GP). The SP with a 2-3 in barrel is a bit bigger then a model 36 and is not small enough for a pocket gun considering it only holds 5 but you can put whatever 357 rounds you want through it. They are sturdier then a K frame if you wanna shoot a lot of high pressure 125gr 357.

There is some talk of S&W quality going down hill but i find a lot of it to be just internet BS. Some guys are stuck in the past and complain about no pinned barrels and no bluing, internal locks....bla bla bla....Fact of the matter is there could have been just as many problems back in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s...but no one had the internet to spread their story internationally.

If you dont like the lock you can always remove it.

In reality both are great and you cant go wrong with either.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

MikeyB · Apr 12, 2013

I have Rugers and Smiths. Both make great revolvers.

wproct · Apr 12, 2013

I own revolvers from both companies, and like them very much. When I buy a Smith & Wesson revolver I try to find a very clean used non-lock model. Truthfully it has more to do with the frame profile etc rather than the lock itself. Both actions are strong enough, you just have to handle and try each as they do have a very different feel in their actions. Between my GP100 and my 686, if I had to sell one I really don't know which one it would be, and that's the truth!

snowman · Apr 12, 2013

Arik said:
Their SP101 is as tough as they come. . . The SP with a 2-3 in barrel is a bit bigger then a model 36 and is not small enough for a pocket gun considering it only holds 5 but you can put whatever 357 rounds you want through it. They are sturdier then a K frame if you wanna shoot a lot of high pressure 125gr 357.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Sir,

I have pocket-carried my SP101 for nine years as a CCW. It conceals fine there, as long as one doesn't have the 3" version, and uses the stock grip. Some think it's too heavy, but I don't notice that either. I completely concur with your assessment of the gun otherwise.

Regards,
Andy

Mike SC Hunter · Apr 12, 2013

Moot point. Both are good. Great argument starter though.

Infidel_319 · Apr 12, 2013

That's Like Asking Which Flavor Is Better, Cherry Or Grape, Both Favorites.

Lenny_D · Apr 12, 2013

Both manufacture well built guns. Both are made in the US. One uses castings and one uses forgings. I personally feel Smiths are more pleasing to the eye but I certainly wouldn't turn down a deal on a Ruger. Your choice and you can't go wrong with either one.

Len

Breechloader · Apr 12, 2013

My opinion is that Ruger super redhawks are built stronger than s&w n-frame's of the same caliber. The s&w has a better stock trigger than the super redhawks thou.

I would rather have S&W revolvers for other calibers.

I am sure some would rather have Rugers.

18DAI · Apr 12, 2013

It was post 2001 S&W revolvers, with their IL's and MIM parts - not to mention ugly designs - that led me to discover Ruger revolvers.

The Ruger GP100 is a fine revolver. Especially in its 3 inch variant. Hope this helps! Regards 18DAI

Cpo1944 · Apr 12, 2013

I once did a very unscientific comparison of my Colt Python, Ruger Gp-100, and S&W 686.
Result was They are all good the only difference in them was the price.

redlevel · Apr 12, 2013

Simple.

Pre 1980 S&W revolvers for double action.
Ruger revolvers for single action.

I prefer old-model Rugers, but they aren't as numerous as are the S&Ws of earlier manufacture. The NM Ruger single actions benefit greatly from spring replacement.

Redlegvzv · Apr 12, 2013

I am a Ruger guy and a Smith & Wesson guy. I would be hard pressed to say that one company makes better revolvers over the other. My Ruger GP100 is a superb but my son's 686+ is too. I like the SP101 .357 better than comparable Smiths, but then again Ruger does not make anything comparable to the superb S&W 627 and 625.

Great comment on this thread that the shortcomings of the pre-1980s revolvers are less well known because there was no internet!

Both companies seem to have mastered the fit-and-finish issue because customers demand it:

QuickDrawMcGraw · Apr 12, 2013

They Are' what they Are!
.. I Like, Enjoy, & Respect them both Equally*

~ Joe

gmiller0737 · Apr 12, 2013

I have a few of both, On The Blued Models S&W seems to have a Better Polishing Job/Finish Stainless Models seem to be about equal in the Finish Department,Most Gun's are mid 80's production,Newest S&W is mid 90's S&W Model 60-7,As Far as Durability I haven't had problems with any of them.

Cal44 · Apr 12, 2013

I just bought a new Ruger Super Blackhawk -- a 44 magnum single action in stainless steel.

It's been a great gun so far. A good work gun.

Came with no lock.

Less money than a 629 I bought a couple months ago.

But stronger -- there are Ruger-only loads out there than a 629 can't handle.

Both S&W and Ruger have their place.

My Ruger is like a Ford F-150 pickup.

And the S&W 629 is like a Buick or Cadillac.

Then there is my Freedom Arms which is more like a Bentley.

Dave

LimaCharlie · Apr 12, 2013

They are all good. I collect 1911s, S&W double-action revolvers, Ruger single-action revolvers, and anything by Colt.

Rugers are build a little stronger than an S&W and some of their guns have slightly longer cylinders. The Ruger only rounds take advantage of both. The S&W double-action revolver feels and looks better to me and they usually have a better trigger.

I have newer S&W revolvers with the lock including a 460XVR and some .357 magnums that I often carry. I have never had one of them lock up on me. I carry an extra S&W lock key on my key ring just in case it ever happens. I won't carry a modified gun for self-defense.

rwsmith · Apr 12, 2013

They are both

Both make top tier revolvers (with the exception of some companies that make ultra hand-made jobs). I think Ruger and Smith are the best revolvers for us common folks.

sodacan · Apr 12, 2013

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.

Ruger vs S&W for quality and reliability

US Veteran

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Absent Comrade

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

US Veteran

Member

Member

Similar threads