One of those Smith VS Ruger questions
- Thread starter Gillis2
- Start date
- Location
- West Quebec
Have both but the Smiths has more appeal to me..
Cocked&Locked
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- S. Ontario
forged is stronger, but only along one axis. forging aligns the crystal structure of steel but only in one direction. In the other axis it will be weaker. Cast, as ruger does it, will be slightly weaker in the axis in question, but stronger in the other two. When you take into account that ruger uses more metal in their frames (ie they build tanks) they are a good bit stronger but heavier. If you want to beat a gun with extra heavy loads all the time buy a ruger. If you shoot standard with some magnum buy a smith for a lighter handier pistol. Smith's will wear out, and i've had at least one repaired for a stretched frame. Rugers won't buy they are boat anchors.
I'd be happy with either, but if i had to wear it on my belt all day long it would be a smith. That and i own 1 ruger, 3 colt, and over a dozen smith revolvers.....and to take to the range i take a smith
I'd be happy with either, but if i had to wear it on my belt all day long it would be a smith. That and i own 1 ruger, 3 colt, and over a dozen smith revolvers.....and to take to the range i take a smith
Hello Gilbert,
You can't afford to buy enough ammo to destroy any of these revolvers. GP is overbuilt for what it shoots, but I like S&W better. I also did experience trigger finger pinching with GP (Google is your friend) while it never happened with any of the S&W wheelguns.
Your car's engine block is cast. You think it's strong enough?
The whole cast vs forged debate is nonsense. You will never loads either one of 'em hot enough for how the thing was made to make any difference. Both are made to use SAAMI spec ammo anyway.
The whole cast vs forged debate is nonsense. You will never loads either one of 'em hot enough for how the thing was made to make any difference. Both are made to use SAAMI spec ammo anyway.
The Ruger, as I understand it, locks up more positively than the Smith. The Ruger is thicker but they weigh the same.
Generally the forged vs cast thing is confusing to me. I am pretty sure every brand, including Ruger, uses forged 1911 slides, but some make cast frames to save money. Though Caspian's cast frame is just as good apparently.
On the other hand, Browning Hi Powers with cast frames are stronger than forged...
Generally the forged vs cast thing is confusing to me. I am pretty sure every brand, including Ruger, uses forged 1911 slides, but some make cast frames to save money. Though Caspian's cast frame is just as good apparently.
On the other hand, Browning Hi Powers with cast frames are stronger than forged...
I've had both and both are excellent revolvers, although all my Smiths are/were of the older "service revolver" (70's stuff) variety, so I have no experience with the newer Smiths.
The double action trigger on the older S&W's is definitely much better, but that does not equate to Ruger having a bad trigger - they're a good trigger but quite different from the older
S&W's. I had the Ruger Redhawk 5.5 inch barrel and that is one beefy gun, but when your pushing 240 grain 44 magnums down the tube it's nice to have a big beast like the Rehawk to
mitigate some of the recoil. I've also had the S&W Model 66 (4 inch) Combat Magnum which had the sweetest double action I have ever tried and just a really nice looking gun. Personally,
I tend to favour guns that are aesthetically pleasing to look at - which is probably why I feel that revolver development reached its peak in the 1970's with the S&W service revolvers - for
me the most beautiful revolver (without a doubt) is the S&W Model 15-3 (4 inch) Combat Masterpiece with service stocks. Definitely a masterpiece. So if you don't need something to handle massive
recoil, I'd say a 1970's Smith and Wesson revolver with the original wood stocks is the nicest revolver you could buy - purely a class act.
The double action trigger on the older S&W's is definitely much better, but that does not equate to Ruger having a bad trigger - they're a good trigger but quite different from the older
S&W's. I had the Ruger Redhawk 5.5 inch barrel and that is one beefy gun, but when your pushing 240 grain 44 magnums down the tube it's nice to have a big beast like the Rehawk to
mitigate some of the recoil. I've also had the S&W Model 66 (4 inch) Combat Magnum which had the sweetest double action I have ever tried and just a really nice looking gun. Personally,
I tend to favour guns that are aesthetically pleasing to look at - which is probably why I feel that revolver development reached its peak in the 1970's with the S&W service revolvers - for
me the most beautiful revolver (without a doubt) is the S&W Model 15-3 (4 inch) Combat Masterpiece with service stocks. Definitely a masterpiece. So if you don't need something to handle massive
recoil, I'd say a 1970's Smith and Wesson revolver with the original wood stocks is the nicest revolver you could buy - purely a class act.
X2. I can afford to buy new S&W revolvers and carry a 7.5" Ruger SRH .454 Casull for work but for shooting pleasure I want an old, blued S&W revolver.
smith is number 1 sold my gp100 after 100 rounds cylinder jammed closed with dirty ammo....never happend with a smith which had 5000 rounds down pipe or more.....dont even think about the gp100.....the cylinder release is weird too
yes pretty sweet for sure
Hey gdawg:
If those stocks are original, then that little sweetie would be of 67 - 68 vintage. Very, very nice... Did you refinish the stocks, or is that original?
Either brand is quality, the old models are classy. Unless you're blowing thousands of full house loads through I would be more concerned with which one fits your hand better.
I hand smaller hands and both the N-frame and Redhawks had just too much reach from the back strap to the trigger to get a proper (and comfortable grip).
K and L frame are great for me as long as the only grips I use leave the backstrap exposed, I did find a slight but noticeable increase in the GP-100 and that is why I stayed with S&W. I haven't held the Alphas but am guessing they would be comfortable as well.
S&W has one of the best, if not the best triggers on the market as well.
I hand smaller hands and both the N-frame and Redhawks had just too much reach from the back strap to the trigger to get a proper (and comfortable grip).
K and L frame are great for me as long as the only grips I use leave the backstrap exposed, I did find a slight but noticeable increase in the GP-100 and that is why I stayed with S&W. I haven't held the Alphas but am guessing they would be comfortable as well.
S&W has one of the best, if not the best triggers on the market as well.
The old girl is holding up very well, isn't she? Shoots like a dream I'll bet. The .38 Special isn't appreciated much anymore, but I think they're a joy to shoot - especially out of a fine
piece of craftsmanship like your model 15...
