S&W vs Ruger revolvers

[jeeps]

The truth is forging are stronger and casting weaker and need to be thicker to =same strength as forging. Smith Wesson forgings thinner and stronger. Ruger beefy and fat castings to =same strength as forgings.Casting cheaper to make.

 

[TTSH]

Well, there is the old S&W and the current S&W. Hard to compare something you swear you wouldn't own.

Revolver-wise, these days I only buy older Smith & Wessons and brand new Rugers. Many reasons, unfortunately.

 

[gnystrom]

I own Rugers, S&W's and a Kimber revolver. My Ruger SP101 with 3" barrel is the only revolver I can shoot with either hand and qualify shooting 90% scores with ease. It is not beautiful, it does not have great sights, but it has had a superb trigger job that allows me to stage the trigger and control the shot.

 

[ABPOS]

Last week I went and fondled some wheelguns at my LGS. 3 of them all new. A 686+ 3"er, a Pro Series 60 3"er and a 2.25" sp101 DAO.

They ALL had way better triggers than my 442 and felt very good. I don't think I would consider the Ruger's any worse than the other 2. Well, the 60's was pretty light. The 686's smooth but a bit heavier. I think the 686 and SP101's trigger felt very similar. But I might not be very discerning. All I know is they all seemed infinitely better than my Stock 442.

Something about that 2.25" brick that seems so right. It balances nice. I think it definitely would feel a lot bulkier carrying than a J frame. And maybe even a K frame would feel a bit more svelte. But the weight isn't horrible on the SP101.

Anyways.... The lock does make a guy wonder about buying new Smiths. Although if you can take them out, why not just do that? I don't really care about the looks of plugging the hole there. If it works. But sure, would rather not have the lock to begin with.

 

[at_liberty]

Last week I went and fondled some wheelguns at my LGS. 3 of them all new. A 686+ 3"er, a Pro Series 60 3"er and a 2.25" sp101 DAO.

They ALL had way better triggers than my 442 and felt very good. I don't think I would consider the Ruger's any worse than the other 2. Well, the 60's was pretty light. The 686's smooth but a bit heavier. I think the 686 and SP101's trigger felt very similar. But I might not be very discerning. All I know is they all seemed infinitely better than my Stock 442.

Something about that 2.25" brick that seems so right. It balances nice. I think it definitely would feel a lot bulkier carrying than a J frame. And maybe even a K frame would feel a bit more svelte. But the weight isn't horrible on the SP101.

Anyways.... The lock does make a guy wonder about buying new Smiths. Although if you can take them out, why not just do that? I don't really care about the looks of plugging the hole there. If it works. But sure, would rather not have the lock to begin with.

Here we go...another lock thread.

 

[Drm50]

I can see the P51-P47 comparison. I have a hard time with this
explanation myself. My first quality revolver was a Ruger Single 6
it was a target pistol compared to H&Rs & IJs most of my buddies
had. I had a NIB m17 that I had got on a trade, had no interest
at all in DAs. I didn't want to shoot it because it would make a
used gun out of it for trading purposes. A buddy talked me into
shooting it and I never carried the Ruger again. That was 1964
I have went through stages since then but have never abandoned
S&W revolvers. The airplane thing is bugging me, what plane
can we designate to represent Taurus?

 

[Tanners Owner]

How about an albatross from WWI?

 

[mtnkln]

S&W triggers are truly a joy; both single and double action. They are also very handsome with beautiful lines and weight distribution. Ruger does have a strong crane lock up, but are not very refined revolvers. Never liked the grip peg vs full frame on Smith. As said above, each has their place.

 

[S.B.]

The Ruger is the Sherman Tank of revolvers,,,Real work horses that never quit!
Of course the Smiths are more refined!

In your analogy, you do realize that early Shermans were gasoline powered and blew up when hit by our enemies. Later versions went to diesel power and were much more reliable and durable.
Steve

 

[CarmelHP]

In your analogy, you do realize that early Shermans were gasoline powered and blew up when hit by our enemies. Later versions went to diesel power and were much more reliable and durable.
Steve

Most of these stories about the Sherman are now acknowledged to have been myths.

See: [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY[/ame]

and Ruger vs. Smith

See: [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PtMFQvQVdo"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PtMFQvQVdo[/ame]

I agree with the factual assertions in the second video but not necessarily some of the language used. Caution advised.

 

[S.B.]

Most of these stories about the Sherman are now acknowledged to have been myths.

See: Myths of American Armor. TankFest Northwest 2015 - YouTube

and Ruger vs. Smith

See: Internet Firearm BS : Ruger Stronger Than S&W! - YouTube

I agree with the factual assertions in the second video but not necessarily some of the language used. Caution advised.

OK, if you say so? Only thing I know is when much younger I worked in a machine shop with many of Patton's work horse men who claimed to have fought within these "gas bombs" as they called them(were there, did this).
Steve

 

[CarmelHP]

OK, if you say so? Only thing I know is when much younger I worked in a machine shop with many of Patton's work horse men who claimed to have fought within these "gas bombs" as they called them(were there, did this).
Steve

Did you watch the video at all?

 

[S.B.]

Yes I did do you really believe all you see or is on the internet? I'm just repeating what I was told by old soldiers who were there?
And I have no reason to doubt.
Steve

 

[CarmelHP]

Yes I didm do you really believe all you see or is on the internet? I'm just repeating what I was told by old soldiers
and I have no reason to doubt.
Steve

So, do you believe all the oldtimer BS you hear? Obviously you want to argue. I will not oblige further.

 

[johnnyappleseed]

I blew up a ruger sp101 in 357 magnum a couple of years ago.
Here's where half of the cylinder ended up.

 

[Sugar River]

The truth is forging are stronger and casting weaker and need to be thicker to =same strength as forging. Smith Wesson forgings thinner and stronger. Ruger beefy and fat castings to =same strength as forgings.Casting cheaper to make.

Oh man, I love this stuff! I'm crying I'm laughing so hard!

 

[Ron M.]

Ruger double action revolvers are really ugly. LOL

Actually, my 4 inch stainless Security Six is quite attractive. Especially when I stole it for $380 at a LGS. Okay, I am cheap, but it, and my GP100 .327 Magnum stainless are quality guns at a bargain price. No home invader would stare down the barrel of either and say "What, you couldn't afford a Smith? Sucker!" But I have more S&Ws than Rugers at this point. Smith's are works of art, Rugers are solid tools. Both get the job done.

 

[Ron M.]

I blew up a ruger sp101 in 357 magnum a couple of years ago.
Here's where half of the cylinder ended up.

That's your story and you're sticking to it...just kidding. Hope none of your hand was in the car...

 

[slabside2]

Shoot a Ruger LCR and you'll never go back to a Smith and Wesson newer notice I said newer J frame again.

 

[Bullzaye]

The airplane thing is bugging me, what plane
can we designate to represent Taurus?

Depending on how you personally rate Taurus...

If you believe they're decently built and generally work reasonably well...a Curtiss P-40 Warhawk?

If you feel that Taurus are kinda *meh*...mechanically okay, but not too stylish...a Bell P-39 Airacobra?

And if you dislike Taurus whole-heartedly and would only own one to use as a paperweight...a Brewster F2A Buffalo?

Tim