Opinions wanted: S&W vs Ruger

[ArtyM]

If you can't lay your hands on the S&W's but you can on the Rugers, buy the Ruger's. I have owned both thru the years, got a nearly new Mini 14 and a 10-22 in the gun safe along with my K22 and my 325PD. All four great weapons, just depends on what you like. As for my little SP101 6 cylinder .22LR being a "pig" I strongly disagree. Built like a tank and I never shot any of my DA revolvers in anything but single action mode. So it is not as accurate as my K22 but plenty accurate for what it was built for. I love S&W's but I love Ruger too.

Reb

I wouldn't buy a revolver without trying it first. I would want to check how tight the lockup is, cylinder clearance and the trigger. I have owned Smiths and Rugers. Both are good guns, but I won't buy a car without a test drive.
I have seen very different triggers from 2 samples of the same gun. Personally, I would rather buy new.
I put 10,000 rounds through a 6" model 19 years ago, with only 1000 of them magnums. By then, the gun was spitting and was a flame thrower. The barrel/cylinder gap was over spec. I don't know if a Ruger will last any longer than a 686, but they are good guns.

 

[scooter123]

In the medium and large frame DA revolvers I think that you will have to look long and hard for find anything better than a Smith & Wesson. In large part because that old fashioned leaf mainspring is still the most "stack" free way to provide power for the hammer. As a result it's rather simple to tune the medium and large frame S&W revolvers to a very smooth 8 to 9 lbs with 100% reliability. So, I would strongly advocate choosing the 686 over the GP100. For a shooter the S&W will be a more pleasurable revolver to use.

For the 22 caliber I would go in the opposite direction. Because the S&W J frame is powered by a coil spring and it employs an older lockwork design that could be considered a bit lacking in trigger leverage. As a result for reliable function with rimfire ammunition you'll probably find that 12-13 lbs. in double action is as light as you can go and get decent reliability. Counter that with the SP101 which was designed using computer modeling with a goal of achieving a fairly light DA trigger. Granted, some may not consider 10 lbs. as light but when you compare it to a 13 lbs. trigger it will feel much lighter.

 

[shawn mccarver]

I guess my question is, in your opinion, are used pre-lock S&Ws worth a 30-40% premium over new Rugers?

I believe the S&Ws you describe, assuming equal condition, would be worth the premium. One important factor is that the Rugers are presently available, so you can get one any time you like (at least for now). The S&Ws, on the other hand, are more difficult to come by in that the particular ones you describe are no longer available in that configuration.

 

[3rdgeargrndrr]

I can stage my Gp100 extremely well and its built like a tank.
The Smiths, not so much. but the triggerson the smiths are all like butter in DA, whereas the GP has a REALLY long pull in comparison.
You can only tweak the ruger trigger so much before it has all sorts of timing problems. There are more parts to screw up on a ruger.

 

[M3Stuart]

You really have a choice between 3 .357's and 1 .22LR. Would depend on the barrel length of the 686 and SP101, but, most likely, I would choose the pre-lock 686 over either of the Rugers mentioned. I'd only buy the 63 if I wanted a .22 revolver.

It would also depend on the prices. You can get the SP101 any day. The Match Champion won't be around much longer. Meanwhile, they aren't making pre-lock 686's or 63's anymore.

 

[bmcgilvray]

Opinions wanted: S&W vs Ruger

I'm willing to own Smith & Wesson.

Don't believe in the supreme durability of the Ruger and the tired old cliché: "built like a tank." has grown wearisome. Don't like the feel of the Ruger action on their double-action models which all give the impression of being clunky. Any of several Smith & Wessons around here, having seen heavy use, have gone the distance with regards to durability. I'm uninterested in any more durability than they've exhibited.

I'm glad Ruger is around for someone else.

 

[MTKTM]

Wow, it sounds like prices have shot up a bunch since about 2011-12 when I bought my last pre-owned S&W!! I am clearly out of touch with the current market.

I own both a 63 and an SP-101 in .22. Both are fine guns, but as others have stated, there is a much finer more jewel-like quality to the 63. The trigger is also much better. That said, I like the SP a lot and am not afraid to use it at times and under conditions where I might not want to use the 63. It also holds 8 rounds as opposed to 6, if that matters.

I personally have never cared much for the GP Rugers, too massive for my tastes, but definitely rugged.

 

[XAVMECH]

This will be of no help...

Both are fine revolvers. Most of my growing collection are S&W revolvers. I admire the construction and craftsmanship of my pre-lock guns. They're in my safes. There's a Glock 19 on my nightstand this morning, and snub SP101 in my truck's vault.
When I'm in the back country hiking, there's an L or N frame in my holster... I long to be the person who has only one gun - but doubt if that day will come If I had to pick one revolver out of all of them, Ruger, Smith or Colt, I do believe my 686 might be it.

 

[federali]

A better Design?

While I'm a fan of S&Ws, Ruger has wisely put the chamber indexing notches in the beefier section between chambers while on most, or all six-shot S&Ws, the indexing notch is right at the thinnest part of the chamber wall.

Ruger offers a more modern design with fewer moving parts. I also think they're stronger the Smiths and would be the wiser choice for people who push their hand loads to maximum pressures.

 

[DarylLawman]

Smith and Wesson for sure

I'm in an unusual situation and would like the opinions of S&W owners.

I have a chance to acquire 2 pre-lock S&Ws (686 & 63). Both are used but in great condition and come with original boxes, etc. This deal would be done online so initially "sight unseen" but would have an inspection period on at least one of them.
As I was about to pull the trigger on this, a great deal came my way on 2 new Rugers (GP100 Match Champion, SP101) in the same calibers as the 2 S&Ws. I've held and shot both models (via rentals) and like them.

I guess my question is, in your opinion, are used pre-lock S&Ws worth a 30-40% premium over new Rugers?

The guns would be shooters, not safe queens, although the S&Ws might see less use because, IMO, they have the potential to increase in value.

Feedback is greatly appreciated.
Thanks.

I like the Smith over the Ruger...I only like Ruger in the Six Shooters Cowboy Guns

 

[G-Mac]

I bought one of the very first GP-100s in 1986. I'll bet it shoots just as good as that "Match Champion". I put Executioner's stag grip panels in the original rubber grips...looks better than those butt-ugly stippled grips the "Match Champion" comes with. Yes, I like my old GP-100....but I own more Smiths than Rugers.

 

[DR505]

Well, how did they shoot? I settled on S&W for Double Action and Ruger for Single Action. Here are my .357 and .22 plinking guns:

6" Model 686-3 CH

4" Model 17-6

And a Ruger for good measure:

Vaquero .45 Colt

 

[Doubless]

Well, after having read through all one hundred posts or thereabouts, I have to weigh in. And although I am a dedicated Smith fan, here we go:

There are things you can do with a Ruger that you can't do with a Smith, mainly, shoot them forever and never hurt them. Smiths will shoot loose eventually; I don't think you will ever shoot a Ruger loose. And for those who think a Ruger trigger cannot be helped, I would beg to differ. I just sold a 7-1/4" Redhawk in 41 mag that had every bit as good a double action trigger as any Smith I ever got hold of. It was that good... I don't know who did the job, but it was exquisite.

I have shot my Smiths and my Rugers, and I cannot see any difference in accuracy. Period. I WILL say this: I took my 357 Redhawk years ago and loaded two full grains of AA #9 above the top jacketed load listed and seated my own hard cast 180 atop it The resulting five shots were one ragged hole at 50 yards. As I went up in powder charge the groups kept getting tighter, so I kept going... I sincerely believe my Smith Model 19 would have locked up with that load. And again, I love Smiths. I own probably 25 of them... they just aren't as strong as the Rugers are, and that just might protect us if we screw up and overload a round...

And as far as "investments", I respectfully request to disagree. I personally have tried recently to sell several collector grade or NIB revolvers on this site at prices well below what the market says they are worth, and I get low-ball offers. To me, banking on Smiths going up in value is betting on the come. Everyone wants a deal; nobody wants to pay fair market value.

Buy what you want/like, and forget about making any significant money on the guns. In all probability, you won't make enough on them for it to have any real impact on your cash flow situation.

 

[DR505]

I sincerely believe my Smith Model 19 would have locked up with that load. And again, I love Smiths. I own probably 25 of them... they just aren't as strong as the Rugers are, and that just might protect us if we screw up and overload a round...

Well now you are talking K frame...not what the OP was looking at. The L Frame, and more so the N Frame, are VERY strong guns. If you are making a load that will blow up a gun, you get what you deserve. If you need more power, get a .357 Maximum, or move to a .41 magnum.

My smoothest .357 magnum is my first; a 4" 27-3 that was my LE sidearm:

 

[Doubless]

DR, with all due respect, you miss my point. I wasn't trying to blow up a revolver; I have been handloading since 1980, am 60 years old, and have too much respect for a firearm to do that, as well as having a sincere love for my digits and my eyesight.

What I am saying is that a Smith will never stand up to what a Ruger will stand up to on a daily basis.

And last time I checked, I didn't have to choose among different frame sizes for a Ruger. They are ALL bull strong; not so with the Smiths.

I still love my Smiths, but there is a place for and something to be said for Rugers...

 

[DR505]

DR, with all due respect, you miss my point. I wasn't trying to blow up a revolver; I have been handloading since 1980, am 60 years old, and have too much respect for a firearm to do that, as well as having a sincere love for my digits and my eyesight.

What I am saying is that a Smith will never stand up to what a Ruger will stand up to on a daily basis.

And last time I checked, I didn't have to choose among different frame sizes for a Ruger. They are ALL bull strong; not so with the Smiths.

I still love my Smiths, but there is a place for and something to be said for Rugers...

Well, I never figured you were trying to grenade a revolver! I just don't see much benefit in hotrodding a cartridge, even if my Ruger can take it. I have multiple firearms, as do you, so would not want a "Ruger Only" round making its way into a Smith or Colt. Just because I can do something, doesn't mean I really should.

I have several Rugers myself...great firearms. I especially like their Single Actions. Here is a 10mm Vaquero that is in my stable:

It is true Rugers are all built tough...they cast them pretty thick. However, if you use any machine long/often enough, it will need maintenance. That includes Rugers.

One of the good things about Rugers is that they can double as roofing hammers, and you won't be too concerned if you do that!

 

[rwt1405]

The pre lock S&W's. However, if the Rugers had been Security Six, THAT would be a whole different story!

 

[jstanfield103]

I Love my S&W 686-3 6". But I Love the strength of the GP100 and SP101. I have the SP101 and on the Lokk out for a GP100. I Like the Rugers

 

[Knigge]

My revolvers are Ruger GP100, S&W 586, S&W 686, S&W 629 and a S&W 60LS.....why do you think i only got one Ruger

 

[RABULL]

I like both the S & W's and Rugers but this would be easy.... I would definitely go with the Smith & Wessons!