Old School Ad. Ruger vs SW

[SnidelyWhiplash]

Volkswagen used to tickle my sense of humor.

One of the best ads ever...simple and gets the point across...

This is a mock ad done very well but also gets the point across...

 

[Drm50]

I was 14yrs old when I got into handguns heavy. 1st quality revolver was a Ruger Single-6. When I got big bore bug went Ruger SBH. About same time I got a NIB K22. This made me want S&W 29-27-ect. At the time early 60s the price of a Ruger BH was much less than S&W and about 1/2 Colt
SAA price. That's why I ended up with one of each Ruger BHs. When I got Security-Six it wasn't in same class as a S&W 19. Didn't keep it long. Last new Ruger DA revolver I bought was a GP, same deal- not a S&W. I liked my old Ruger SAs, but gave up on them with the New Model.
The only thing holding me back of going all S&W when teenager was money. Later I dabbled in Colts, owning all the popular models. I liked the
Python & Diamondbacks but the S&Ws edged them out. The only regrets I have about getting rid of the old Rugers and Colts is money, not as favorite
shooters.

 

[gnappi]

I find the S&W ad to be immensely funny!

Same here, AND it put a stop to Ruger's foolishness. More than one student of mine made comments about it.

As it is, the Ruger Redhawk IS an immensely strong revolver. I owned a RH in .44 mag and 629 (IIRC no dash) at the same time and the truth be told there WERE some barn burners I'd shoot in the RH that I'd not shoot in the 629.

PS. I shot the RH to where an old oak tree at anything beyond 40 yards or so was safe! I loaded so hot I even dented the transfer bar from the firing pin whacking it back into the cupped face of the hammer!

So does STRONGER REALLY matter? Maybe... that is if you wanna shoot the gun till it's no longer serviceable. Today my 629-4 is sufficient for my needs.

 

[Walter Rego]

I remember those ad wars well. And every time I saw the Smith & Wesson ad it made me hungry. I got Ruger's point. But the L frame was and is a better gun. At least up until certain changes were made that I won't mention. I own a no dash Model 586 and it is an outstanding piece of machinery.

I had long kicked myself for selling an early Dan Wesson Model 15-2VH .357 that just seemed to hit whatever I pointed it at without concentrating much upon the basics of marksmanship. The first time I fired my 586 it was the same kind of experience. S&W got it right with the L frames.

 

[wproct]

I was born about 4 years before Sturm Ruger came into being, and I have always felt a connection with Ruger as being a relatively new American designed firearm with William B Ruger at the helm. Ruger soon developed a more complete line of handguns and the Single-six and Blackhawk single action revolvers really appealed to me. I don't think one is necessarily better than the other, I like them both.

 

[toddimusnimski]

Any of you PNW folks remember Rainier Beer commercials? For example the guy on a motorcycle with the sound effects of: Rayyyyyy Neeeeeerrrrr Beeeeeeerrrrr.... as he headed off into the distance. Or the frogs croaking rain-ear, rain-ear.

Classics! Also Kingdome vendors Bill the Beerman and Rick the Peanut Man chasing the wild Rainiers. Still memorable ads 40 years later - plus lots of others on Youtube, uncovered at the Washington State Historical Society.

Check out the Northwest's greatest ads as you've never seen them before. - YouTube

Todd

Added: Back to the topic, I've always appreciated the styling of the S&W over the Ruger revolvers but they are a good product and they do have their own following.

 

[RetCapt]

I have always wondered about the factual basis to the claim that Rugers need to be thicker than S&Ws due to investment cast parts.

The Ruger Six series, and the Smith K frames, are very close in size and weight. They both fit in the same holsters, and except with wadcutters, can use the same speed loaders. So the additional bulk has to be, at the most, very minimal. One of my PPC revolvers is built up on a Ruger Police Service Six. That is a fixed sight revolver, so the top strap appears, without measuring, to be the same or closely similar to the fixed sight Smith K frame top strap. I have seen it written that the heavier top strap on the adjustable sight Rugers is to allow for the placement/protection of the adjustable rear sight assembly.

So, given the above, I would expect the Ruger Six series to be as robust as the K frame, but no more than that given the size/weight similarity. But history has proven the Ruger Six series to be far more robust than the K frames, not just equal.

I have seen this issue discussed countless times, but this apparent contradiction has never been addressed.

If anyone has some specific documented factual information, other than opinion or hearsay, I would be most interested.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I own both Smiths and Rugers. In my opinion, but often debated, the Smith L frame is an ideal revolver. I consider it to be the best .357 Smith has ever manufactured. It is my favorite Smith.

 

[SnidelyWhiplash]

Given equal quality…an investment casting needs to be thicker as it has no grain and tends to be porous compared to a forging. Where the thickness may be similar…it's the solid, no side plate frame that gives added strength.

Also…a forging can stretch with use…which can be measured. An investment casting doesn't stretch…it fractures when overstressed or has a possible bubble in the casting.

I'm not disparaging investment castings in any way. Ruger does it to a very refined level. Also…I hear of no one disparaging Freedom Arms revolvers which have investment cast frames.

As said before…two different methods of accomplishing the same thing.

 

[rwsmith]

Reminds me of AMC cars......

I have a 3 inch GP100 in 44 Special because the 696s had developed the Hilary Hole, and I would have none of that nonsense. After a Bowen rear sight, and Wolf springs, the chunky GP100 is a good gun. It's a Clydesdale. Smiths are Thoroughbreds.

Do you remember when Armalite and Springfield Armory were going at it? Springfield proclaimed to be giving you a bunch of upgrades at no extra charge. In response, Armalite said if you buy one of their rifles, they would give you a $10 toaster. It was hilarious!

I still have the toaster…..

...if you bought one you got a portable TV. I had to run out and buy one because I needed a TV.


To stay on topic. Ruger Security Six = DGG*

* Darn Good Gun.

 

[RMFnLA]

Years ago one of the gun tags, I think Guns & Ammo, did a blow-up contest with a Model 29 and a Super Blackhawk.

The Ruger let go first.

 

[stansdds]

Decades ago, when I had a Dan Wesson 15-2 and a Colt Python and was looking for a do-it-all 357 that would be tougher than nails and withstand the gajillions of handloads using H-110/W-296 that I envisioned, I ended up drinking Ruger's Kool-Aid. The Python went away as did the Dan Wesson and I bought a 6 inch full underlug stainless GP-100. I did have to do a little polishing of the double action engagement surfaces to get a smooth DA pull, but I have no regrets about my decision. I ended up not loading a gajillion rounds of hot 357 ammo, especially after buying a 44 Magnum Ruger Super Redhawk. I will say that the Ruger GP-100/Super Redhawk factory grip did fit my hand exceptionally well, far better than S&W's oversize target stocks.

 

[SnidelyWhiplash]

This was about thirty years ago...some friends and I did a side-by-side comparison of the Ruger Redhawk (can't remember if it was a Super Redhawk or standard)...a Smith Model 29 and a Colt Anaconda.

Our impressions were subjective and certainly not exhaustive...but we felt the Anaconda was the more accurate...the Ruger the stronger built and the Model 29 had the best trigger and handling. The differences were not much and as I said...subjective. Basically...whatever floats your boat and all were more than adequate for whatever task could be asked of them.

We didn't have any Taurus, Dan Wesson or other makes to work with...just what we owned between us.

 

[Dave686]

I've had that S&W ad in my photos for years. I have S&W and Ruger both, but think that ad is funny….and spot on.

I'd like to have that Ruger ad in higher resolution if someone has it??

 

[RetCapt]

Given equal quality…an investment casting needs to be thicker as it has no grain and tends to be porous compared to a forging.

This is the first I have read that an investment casting has no grain. So I did a little searching on the internet.

The usual caveat applies that anyone can be an expert on the internet, including any of us. With that said, I ran across such a discussion on Quora, posted by an individual named Shantanu Srivastava who lists his profession as a mechanical engineer. In his post he discusses the differing grain structures in investment castings including illustrations.

I know porosity is a problem with investment castings, but I have read that the various manufacturers have, as the technology has advanced, been able to get around that issue.

Then there is the well documented situation where Browning went from forged to investment cast frames for the Hi-Power shortly after it came out in .40 cal because the forged frames would not hold up to the higher intensity round.

I do agree that a solid revolver frame should be stronger than a revolver frame with a side plate. Of course for a revolver frame to fail, the cylinder, being the pressure vessel, first has to fail.

 

[RetCapt]

Years ago one of the gun tags, I think Guns & Ammo, did a blow-up contest with a Model 29 and a Super Blackhawk.

The Ruger let go first.

I recall that too. I cannot now find it on the internet. What I do recall is that the Ruger cylinder let go before the Smith cylinder. That is surprising in that the Smith cylinder is smaller in diameter and has the bolt cuts directly over the chambers.

But I don't think that is a forged vs cast issue. From what I have read in the past, both Ruger and Smith machined their cylinders from bar stock. If that were the case, then the question would be why the Ruger failure. What I have never seen discussed is the possibility of material differences. I would bet that that test sent the Ruger engineers running back to their drawing boards.

That of course begs the question of why, as I have read, there are 'Ruger only' loads in some of the reloading manuals.

 

[SnidelyWhiplash]

Some years ago at a range...I was about to leave and suddenly something hit the ground next to my foot. I looked to my right and there stood a guy holding his hand which was bleeding. He had his S&W Model 629 blow off nearly half the cylinder...injuring him and sent pieces flying and nearly hitting me.

Range people tended to his injuries...minor...but his revolver was ruined. It turned out he was shooting handholds...his or someone else's I don't remember or he didn't say. He must have loaded a round double charged which overstressed the cylinders ability to handle it.

I'm guessing if he had been shooting a Ruger or any other make with those handloads the gun would have grenaded.

 

[Protocall_Design]

I'd say the S&W grenaded - blew up. That is the failure mode of revolvers. Most of the shrapnel goes sideways, the person holding the gun is usually not badly injured, or not at all injured.

 

[RetCapt]

SnidelyWhiplash and Protocol Design,

Agree with your most recent posts.

I think a suitably inspired reloader can come up with rounds that will grenade any firearm. At that point I don't think forged vs cast counts for much.

For my CCW classes, to emphasize my point of using the correct ammunition, I collected photographs of grenaded revolvers. I think all brands and models were well represented.

I also agree on the shrapnel going sideways. In looking at photographs of blown revolvers, the failure is (obviously) with the chambered round. The damage to the top strap appears to me that the top strap, prior to failure, was enough of a barrier just long enough to direct the grenade forces from upwards to sideways, as that is the path of least resistance.

I have no experience in this area. Given my line of work, I either fired duty rounds, the Treasury Dept 38+p, and then the equivalent in .40 cal once we went to semi-autos, or wadcutters for competition. I had no interest of firing higher horsepower rounds for recreation.

Once we went to the issue Model 66s, we were required to carry those, not personally owned revolvers. But our manual had an interesting semi-loophole. We could carry a back up firearm, regardless of caliber, provided we could qualify with it. I had a very close friend who carried a 3" 625. He asserted, with great enthusiasm, that the .44 spl loads were far superior to the "sissy" Treasury .38+p loads we were issued and had to carry in our issue duty revolvers. I would respond that if he truly felt that way, then he should shoot himself in the foot with the duty load and tell me it did not hurt. That its how these discussions always ended.

I have frequently related that we had numerous problems with the 66s, which gave me justification to switch to the 686s when they became available to us. One of the reasons for my great respect for the L frames is that the issues with the K frames went away with the transition to the 686s.

But even before the opportunity for that transition came available, I was impressed with the L frames. I had owned and carried a S&W model 28, rather than a model 19, because I wanted the extra strength of the N frame. My last personally owned revolver was a model 27, which I still have. I would not have had either if the L frames had been available then.

That is my experience and opinion, but I don't run anything other than factory loads.

 

[SnidelyWhiplash]

He asserted, with great enthusiasm, that the .44 spl loads were far superior to the "sissy" Treasury .38+p loads we were issued and had to carry in our issue duty revolvers. I would respond that if he truly felt that way, then he should shoot himself in the foot with the duty load and tell me it did not hurt. That its how these discussions always ended

While I love the .45 ACP round I also know that any round is gonna hurt...I realize that someone high on drugs may not feel it as much it simply makes proper placement more important.

What I have told some who constantly whine about bullet size one way or the other is ask them...given a choice, would you rather be hit by a baseball at 1200 fps or a bowling ball at 850 fps? Not counting the momentum factor...they're both gonna hurt.

 

[RetCapt]

While I love the .45 ACP round I also know that any round is gonna hurt...I realize that someone high on drugs may not feel it as much it simply makes proper placement more important.

I think that is the essence of it. I have always emphasized shot placement above all else in my training.

Close on the heels of that comes follow-up shot placement, whatever it takes to neutralize an assailant. And those follow-up shots must also be quickly and accurately placed.

Where I worked was a major gang area. They are only brave in packs. One had to plan for that, which meant carrying sufficient payload to accommodate all the assailants.

Transitioning from revolvers to semi-autos, with their greater capacity, greatly enhanced that defensive ability. One thing we did find though was that the newer troops initially tended towards spray and pray with the semi-autos. It took a certain amount of critical target review to get the point across that rate of fire meant nothing if hits were not achieved.

The old revolver hands, who were accustomed to six rounds and then having to reload, were long since conditioned on shot placement and looked at the semi-autos as just more shots to be placed.