Ruger vs S&W for quality and reliability

[nipperdog]

Just bought a S&W 63-5 because I felt that my Ruger SP-101 was too heavy for a 22 woods gun, and I wanted something a little more compact. I may never pick up the Ruger Again.They both shoot well, but IMO the S&W is a nicer looking Revolver.

 

[stantheman86]

Some people eat some humble pie sometimes, these guys are like "any real wheelgun shooter has a Freedom Arms, those Ruger Blackhawks are junk" and then you tell them Freedom Arms gets their frames from Pine Tree Casting (owned by Ruger) and there's an Elephant in the room.....

Ruger never tried to take over the "gun game" market for DA revolvers, they went after the LE market in the 1970's with a very basic , durable revolver. It was well known if you needed a gun that would eat the X ring at 25 yards with a silky smooth trigger you didn't go for a Ruger.

From what I hear Grant Cunningham will work miracles on a GP100, taking the action and accuracy to awesome levels. But few people are willing to pay $2,000 for this work on a GP100. Those that do say he is simply amazing.

You have to know what you're getting, and every manufacturer fills a "niche" and realizes they can't compete with other companies who already fill that niche, it's not worth the cost. You won't see S&W making Single Action revolvers, and you won't see Ruger making finely fitted $2,000 match grade 1911's, no one would buy them, that niche is already filled by high end 1911 makers like Ed Brown, etc. Taurus has the "cheap gun"market, they are raising their prices and are going to price themselves out, Ruger has the "basic indestructible working man's gun" market although they are starting to encroach on S&W's territory with the relatively expensive Wiley Clapp and Match Champion revolvers. S&W was the "higher end" revolver market, competing with Colt. S&W focuses more on cranking out plastic autos now.

 

[Tanners Owner]

Ain't no horse to dead to beat!, so I'll join in with my 2 cents worth.

I have several S&W revolvers, M10, M15, M24, M63, M686, M625JM and M627pro. All serve me well. I shoot the 625 in IDPA and the 627 in USPSA with no issues, long as I ensure the ammo primers are seated properly ( had an issue at a match w/ factory ammo w/ high primers- I reload exclusively now)

I've had several Ruger revolvers, and only have a GP100 (Wiley Capp) and love it. Will be shooting it at tomorrow's IDPA match. The others were sold (before I got any smiths) to fund some quality shotguns 20 or so years ago......

No QC issues w/ any of them- maybe I'm lucky?

While I sense there is a greater reporting of QC issues, it might not be any higher than it was before we had the internet where we can post it for all to see. I just don't know if it's any better or not, all I know is I've been very satisfied w/ my wheel guns S&W and Ruger, over the past couple of years.

 

[shouldazagged]

F-150 versus F-250? Can't go far wrong with either.

 

[1coyote]

I have shot several 686 and 625 revolvers and think they are great. But when I was in the market for a 357 last month, it came down to a 686 or a GP-100. Had they been closer in price, I would have went with the S&W. I got a deal on the Ruger so I bought it and then spent another $8 on a Wolff spring kit. Talk about a keeper!! I'll have that GP-100 for a long time.

 

[jtcarm]

I've owned a couple of Security Sixes and just never could get past that trigger. I can't get past the tank appearance of the GP100.

That said, the absolute tightest revolver I've ever seen is my Redhawk. At full cock, there is no detectable play in the cylinder. But it may as well be an SA. I don't think I've ever shot a live round DA,. That single coil spring is just doing too dang much.

The only gun I've ever had to send back to the factory was a Ruger S45N (5 1/2 .44 mag SA) when the barrel unscrewed itself. I thought I was going to do the same with a Bisley .44 mag I bought new in 1994. Some sort of white stuff like baking soda kept showing up right at the top of where the barrel/cylinder met. I dunno what it was, unless some blueing salt was trapped in the threads. It finally went away. That's not to say S&W lemons don't exist, just that I've never owned one.

I'm no engineer, but, in IMO, a coil spring on a DA will always stack as it's compressed, and can never equal the even pull of a leaf main spring.

I love Ruger SAs, but like S&Ws, they've undergone some near-unforgivable changes. I consider the xfer bar as bad as the IL, maybe worse so far as screwing up a good gun. At least Smith kept the same basic lock work.

Three screws are better, Flat Tops are best. The new model SAs seem accurate enough, but I can't take the clanky sound of the action, the heavy, creepy triggers, and the hammer fall that looks slow as molasses and heavy as a ton of bricks vs the Old Model.

Save for my Dad's 1911a1 and a Walther PPKs, there's nothing but Smith & Ruger wheel guns in my safe.

 

[stantheman86]

I'm thankful to have choices, if you want to own only Smiths, you can do it. If you love Rugers, than you can buy them all day. If you're like me and love both, you are free to do so. I'll even put the bag on my head and say I own a few Taurus revolvers that aren't too bad.

If I want to put them all through the same hole at 25 yards, I have my worked over 10-6 that's frighteningly accurate, as well as my 64-7 that will make a golf ball size hole appear on a target at 15 yards in DA.

If I want to shoot a 3 lb. coffee can full of blue whistler .357's once a week I have my GP100's, if I want to put bunches of .44 Magnum through a revolver and not have to worry about keeping a round count I have my Redhawks.

 

[Dan Christopher]

I have owned both, although now my only revolvers are S&Ws.

As others have said, S&Ws generally have the better fit and finish to them. The strength advantage most definitely goes to the Ruger, no question.

I will also say that accuracy wise the S&Ws ( at least the ones I own or have owned) are superior. My S&Ws have all shot equally well with my handloads in various power levels. From mild to wild, the groups have all been good.

The Super Redhawks I've owned did not shoot my plinking loads good at all. With the hotter handloads the accuracy improved dramatically. This leads me to think that Rugers need hotter loads to really shoot well, whereas S&Ws shoot well with everything.

 

[wolfe2701]

In the past year and a half. We have purchased 3 ruger sp101 3 inch 357 mags and 1 S&W 686 no dash 4 inch and 2 S&W 686P one a 6 inch and one a 3 inch. All of the rugers had to have new springs and trigger work to get to a 10 pound pull. All of the rugers had metal shavings left in them. All of the rugers had to have different grips put on them (stock grips tore our hands up). After all of the work the rugers work great one I carry most of the time. The smiths well we just shot them and still do.
Since rifles are not part of this discussion I wont tell you about the problems with 2 of rugers rifles. I do not think that I will buy anything else from ruger.

 

[CO_Kid]

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.

Abso-dang-lutely!

Both are fine guns. Can't go wrong with either. Rugers are Mack trucks. They'll eat any amount of ammo in their caliber that you could ever hope to scrounge up. Some of the toughest guns ever made.

Smith L frames are pretty tough themselves. In my opinion, Smith has the better trigger, and are much better looking. When you close your eyes and think of a DA revolver, a Smith is probably the one you'll think of (maybe a Python, but that's a thread for another day). Ruger's bluing isn't near as polished and "mirrored" as Smith's. Ruger's frame is void of screws to pop out, especially on the cylinder latch. There's a thread recently where a member here lost the cylinder latch to his 19. Won't happen on a Ruger.

Bottom line is, you can't go wrong with either.

 

[rwsmith]

General impression....

I get the general impression that Ruger has had a few years of good quality whereas S&Ws have a lot of problems getting a gun that works well right out of the box, BUT they will fix it.

QC in gun manufacturers seem to go up and down but the better brands turn out a minimum of real lemons.

 

[OLDSTER]

I own post 1990 examples of both Ruger and S&W revolvers, and enjoy them equally. However none compare to my 2 pre-1980 Model 28-2s

 

[eTripper]

In my opinion, and that's all it is; a comparison of this type is like comparing 'apples to oranges', they are both 'fruit' and that's it. Certainly, choice is based on any number of considerations: fit and finish, accuracy, reliability, intended purpose, and finally ergonomics. I don't think any one brand is any more 'superior', or 'inferior' to the other. Usually, you get what you pay for. Although, reputations can be over-rated too. As others have said, Ruger gets points for being built like tanks, and Smith's accuracy is legendary. I currently own, and use both brands, but I don't like one over the other. If Ruger; would catalogue the GP-100 in 10mm, it might tip the scale in their favor, but Ruger does not/will not listen to their 'customer base'. My other revolvers are Freedom Arms, and Dan Wesson's; and those, are in a different category altogether.

 

[mazer]

I like both!!! You should own both! Heck, maybe get a rifle in the same caliber!!!!

 

[BigBill]

The Rugers are my first choice for many years. The very strong and can handle very stout loads, "but" so did my 357 python. I won't shoot my stout loads out of my s&w.

 

[gen3guy]

I would not hesitate to get a new Smith revolver if I wanted or needed one. I think the IL gets too much attention. It's like your appendix. It's just there, even though you don't need it. All of my S&W firearms are at least 20 years old. None of them have ever failed or required repair. That speaks for itself. I have 2 Ruger firearms that have required repair. Both were about 15 years old at the time. Ruger did a perfect job on both repairs and didn't charge me a dime. That also speaks for itself. I don't understand the comments about Ruger's engineering being inferior. I have experience that says otherwise. Ruger and Smith are different from one another. Not worse.

 

[slabside2]

The odds of getting a good one that doesn't have to go back for repair are about 75% for both companies and it seems like that number gets less and less every year. If we are talking revolvers I had to send 3 smiths back and no Rugers. I guess Smith's just don't like me.

 

[K-framer]

I can't (and won't) denigrate either brand as regards quality or reliability. But, I can make a few observations which I think are pertinent. I've had two Ruger SP101's, actually up until a few weeks ago...and through which I put, collectively, more than 1500 rounds. The first was a 2" 357 mag, made in 1994. The second was a 3" 38 spl., made the first year of production, 1989. The 1989 gun was certainly the better of the two.

One, the barrels on both the SP101's were over-torqued. The 2" gun shot consistently left, no matter what (and yes, I tried everything to make sure it wasn't me - it wasn't). The older 3" gun was much better, almost correct, but not quite.

Two, the chamber throats on both SP101's were absurdly tight, something like 0.355". So, I had to open both cylinders up to proper size to handle standard 0.357" dia. bullets. The barrels were OK, between 0.355" and 0.356".

Three, the forcing cones on both guns were cut at only about 5 degrees, which is fine for jacketed bullets, but plays havoc with cast bullets. I never found a combination that wouldn't lead the forcing cones. The 2" gun would lead up like crazy, even though the timing was spot on. The 3" gun would lead less, but still enough to be a pain. I polished the FC's on both until they shined like a mirror, but they still leaded. The FC on the 2" gun was incredibly long, more than 1/2" before the rifling started. The 3" gun had a more "normal" configuration. In retrospect, I should have had the FC's re-cut to 10 or 11 degrees.

I had no other problems with either SP101 - but those things were enough.

I ended up trading the 2" SP101 for an S&W 64-3 in great condition, which I converted to a 3" HB/RB (it was a 4" HB/ SB).
Shoots much better than either of the SP101's....and handles any loads I feed it, just like my 3" Model 10-8, without any issues. The barrel and cylinder dimensions on both of the K-frames are perfect for 0.357" dia. bullets....and very consistent with each other, at that.

I kept the 3" SP101 a while longer, then traded it for a 442-1. The 442 also eats any load (cast or otherwise) without issue. Again, the barrel and cyl. diameters are correct, right out of the box.

In fact, ALL of the S&W's I've had have been correct, "right out of the box", in this regard.

All of this PROVES nothing. But, it did make an impression on me. Not that Ruger quality is low, no, not at all. I would say the opposite. But, there was something to be desired in the QC, or technical design....if both guns, early production models but 5 years apart, both exhibited the issues detailed above.

I would not discourage anyone from buying a Ruger. As these were older guns, perhaps the newer ones are better (that was NOT the case with the two I had, though). I would simply offer a caveat for those considering a Ruger, an SP101 in particular. You should perhaps be prepared to "fix" certain details, in order to get the gun to shoot as well as many S&W's do, right out of the box.

 

[John R]

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.

I agree with this, Ruger's are built like a tank, the older Smith's are a fine example of how a revolver should be made.
The new Smith's, not so much.

 

[Officerblue]

For revolvers Ruger or Smith and Wesson make great guns. I have owned and own several Rugers and several Smith and Wesson, never once have I had a problem with either manufacturer. For quality I've seen some Smith and Wesson's that were outstanding and top-notch. And the same goes for Ruger. I also believe for revolvers you can't go wrong with either Smith and Wesson or Ruger. In fact my Colts, Rugers and Smith and Wesson's are all like works of art to me. These revolvers I believe represent the best American made.