- Location
- The Orion Arm
I'll leave this here for discussion. I don't know if I'm buying these statements, because I thought Ruger was stronger because it was over built. Seems I was wrong
Internet Firearm BS : Ruger Stronger Than S&W
- Thread starter Melnibonean
- Start date
From what I've read over the years, the debate has mainly been around the 29/629 and Redhawk/Super Redhawk. I understand the problems with the Smiths were largely due to some mechanical/design factors in the early models (which have since been rectified e.g. with larger cylinder notches, internal mods to prevent things coming loose etc.), rather than due to metallurgical strength. Both the Smiths and Redhawks have had manufacturing problems which have led to major failures btw.
Frankly hard prove the Ruger is stronger, or that the Smith is as strong, without seeing some actual side by side destructive tests. I think the Ruger "myth" (if that is what it is) will probably continue though given, as this guy points out, there are some nuclear factory loads that can be shot in Rugers, and a lot of long time gun journalist with lots of experience express the opinion that the Rugers are stronger.
From a practical perspective, not sure I care which one is incrementally stronger. It is hard to argue newer Smiths can't take a beating after seeing dirtybarry's ongoing test. Most will never subject any of their guns to that level of abuse.
With the 357s, it is fact that the S&W K frame 357 revolvers were not designed for a steady diet of 357, but that is not the case with the L frames. I haven't read anything from an experienced shooter to journalist that has ever suggested GPs are stronger than the Ls.
Frankly hard prove the Ruger is stronger, or that the Smith is as strong, without seeing some actual side by side destructive tests. I think the Ruger "myth" (if that is what it is) will probably continue though given, as this guy points out, there are some nuclear factory loads that can be shot in Rugers, and a lot of long time gun journalist with lots of experience express the opinion that the Rugers are stronger.
From a practical perspective, not sure I care which one is incrementally stronger. It is hard to argue newer Smiths can't take a beating after seeing dirtybarry's ongoing test. Most will never subject any of their guns to that level of abuse.
With the 357s, it is fact that the S&W K frame 357 revolvers were not designed for a steady diet of 357, but that is not the case with the L frames. I haven't read anything from an experienced shooter to journalist that has ever suggested GPs are stronger than the Ls.
Some .44 Rem Mag Buffalo Bore Ammo states clearly on the label that the only pistol recommended for firing the ammo is the Ruger RedHawk and SuperRedHawk...S&W 29's need not apply. That's enough proof for me. Rugers are stronger than smiths (in the .44 Mag context.). YMMV 
Sherlock Gnomes
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- St.Catharines
Where's Dirty Barry... lol
Some .44 Rem Mag Buffalo Bore Ammo states clearly on the label that the only pistol recommended for firing the ammo is the Ruger RedHawk and SuperRedHawk...S&W 29's need not apply. That's enough proof for me. Rugers are stronger than smiths (in the .44 Mag context.). YMMV
I agree as the L frame was not originally designed to shoot 44mag, just modified to be able too. Now the X frame is equal to a Super redhawk.
so 'splain to me why s&ws go out of time with a CONSTANT diet of heavy loads- granted, most of us don't like all that smoke and thunder, but it's nice to have it when u want it- I've got 2 reds in 44 mag- a 7.5 and a5.5 and i'd give up a girly trigger for strength
I've also found there's a PRICE DIFFERENCE of several HUNDRED dollars when buying new/used over the "smith"- it seems smith owners are like Harley owners when it comes to selling- ie u pay thru the nose for the "name" and privilege of owning/ buying one
I've also found there's a PRICE DIFFERENCE of several HUNDRED dollars when buying new/used over the "smith"- it seems smith owners are like Harley owners when it comes to selling- ie u pay thru the nose for the "name" and privilege of owning/ buying one
Last edited:
I've shot factory loads out of my 629, I've shot my hand loads all with no noticeable wear. Certainly no timing issues. Smiths are tough, Rugers are tougher is all, over-engineered for sure.
vanderkalin
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Kimberley BC
That's a cheap shot dude. We paid more for our Harleys when we bought them, so don't expect a used shovelhead to cost the same as a used shadow. And my 51 pan/shovel is still going strong, and still looks good. Show me a shadow 20 years old that you can say both those things about.
i still say you pay thru the nose for the fact that it's a smith or a Harley- everybody is out to fleece everyone else, regardless of level- so it's up to you to make an INFORMED choice, whether it be gun or bike- the same can be said for cars, ie Cadillac vs chevy- or olds/buick- it's the SAME damned car, just rebadged
Was riding along on this one. Do you really thing that your Harley is superior because you paid more?
Most rice burners will eat a Harley's lunch will ease.
Same with pistols, why one's resale is higher, is not always because it's better.
I've 4 Old DA Colt's, they are somewhat problematic IMO. A Smith is a better gun...at least I think so.
But I cannot sound off on Big Rugers...no experience there.
Got an Old Magna that is an animal, but it's resale is minimal compared to a Harley...just marketing, no matter how you slice it. It worked on you anyhow.
You called?
Personally, I think the S&W 29-10s are a total piece of crap but with over 9k worth of some pretty hot rounds, my 629 is still in one piece more or less. The only Ruger revolver I've ever shot was a GP100 range gun with some mild reloads. It seemed fine.
mudgunner49
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
The 29 is an N-frame, the L-Frame is the 69 (only 5 shot)...
Some .44 Rem Mag Buffalo Bore Ammo states clearly on the label that the only pistol recommended for firing the ammo is the Ruger RedHawk and SuperRedHawk...S&W 29's need not apply. That's enough proof for me. Rugers are stronger than smiths (in the .44 Mag context.). YMMV
Have put a few boxes of this through my Redhawk, enjoy shooting some heavy .44M just for ####'s 'n giggle to finish off some range visits. Have worked up to some nicely warm hand loads too now, and it's all good. Went with a used RH as a)it was a couple hundred bucks cheaper as already mentioned, and b) well....that rep for being able to handle this stuff.
?? Not sure what you are seeing or where you are like looking but Smiths are not significantly more expensive nor are used models, with a few early exceptions, commanding a premium. Smiths and Ruger hit the same market. Colts, which aren't made anymore, are commanding the premiums.
Last edited:
Have put a few boxes of this through my Redhawk, enjoy shooting some heavy .44M just for ####'s 'n giggle to finish off some range visits. Have worked up to some nicely warm hand loads too now, and it's all good. Went with a used RH as a)it was a couple hundred bucks cheaper as already mentioned, and b) well....that rep for being able to handle this stuff.
Nice Bill! I'd like to try a cylinder of those. But only 1. Must be a handful
My GP100 4.2" weighs less than my 105.14MM 686. Not sure why folks thing Rugers are tanks. I prefer the modern design of the Rugers lock-up and trigger assembly. The Trigger on my Ruger is better than the 686 by a lot.
Both are great guns.
Take Care
Bob
Both are great guns.
Take Care
Bob
