Is there proof that Ruger revolvers are stronger than S&Ws?

mr00jimbo

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Location
GVRD
I own neither a Smith & Wesson revolver, nor a Ruger revolver, so I am not brand loyal. In fact, I own a Ruger 10/22 (my second one, too) and no S&W.

But the Buffalo Bore ammunition thread got me thinking. I often hear people talk about the Ruger revolvers as if they're built much more robustly than Smith & Wessons.
That could be true, as I often hear companies making Ruger only loads for their ammunition, and testing their hot loads with Rugers.

I know the K-frame .357 Smiths had a reputation to come loose with too much .357 and the L-frame was built to address these deficiencies.

And people say the Gp100, Red and Black hawks are beastly revolvers that can handle things that would kill a Smith.

Anyway, is there any proof that Rugers are stronger?

Comparable Smith and Ruger revolvers tend to weigh around the same amount, the former is forged and the latter is cast, and usually forged is known to be stronger. But as they say, the proof is in the pudding. It looks as if the Rugers are physically thicker .

Anyways before I ramble on too much on this one, is there proof Rugers are stronger, and why? Is it the metal composition, or a stronger design, or...?
 
Ruger has the solid frame, while S&W has the side plate. Ruger has triple locking cylinder while Smith has the ejector rod as the third locking point. In theory Ruger's triple locking cylinder maintains better alignment between the cylinder and the barrel. I never heard about Ruger DA revolver with triple locking cylinder going out of time. My S&W did that (older K frame). Ruger ejector rods just eject the spent brass. They also don't unscrew. No internal BS lock in Ruger DA revolvers. I still prefer the older S&W revolvers for the trigger and handling characteristics, but I'm going to keep at least one Ruger GP 100 in my collection.
 
None what so ever. Rugers are cast, and to achieve the same strength as forged parts they have to be thicker. Forged steel parts are stronger for the same weight. The reason the K frame .357's had issues with constant use of 357 is that they were primarily designed as 38's with the ability to fire 357's. Way back when, police would frequently train with 38 Special ammo and carry 357's for duty.
 
I like both Ruger and Smith & Wesson handguns but I do not know of any Ruger handgun that will handle the 460 or 500 smith and Wesson Cartridges. The X frame S&W is a real beast.
 
Years ago S&W did have a model called or classified as a 'triple lock'. I think for the most part it was found to not really be that much of a contribution to the strength or accuracy of the revolver. As such and because of cost considerations that feature was dropped.

I have a couple of both makes of revolver and not having had poured eccessively hot loads through or abused either, I'd be hard pressed to say which, if any, is stronger.

Mention has been made of the K-frame Smiths shooting loose with hot 357 loads. I did have some issues with a model 66 I had and a friend had similar experiences with a model 19.
 
I dont think the smiths were really weak designs but we are talking about loads outside of Published data and specs that these guns were not built for. As stated above the triple lock is not necessary and costs a little more so it was done away with by S&W. Ruger however advertises their guns as handling such loads and the triple locking mechanism ensures the gun stays tighter than any smith which might be taking such loads.

As far as Rugers and PPC guns go it is just not as easy to get the same kind of double action trigger out of the Ruger and that is about the only reason for not seeing them in PPC matches.

The Smiths are more like a fine over under wheras the Rugers are more akin to the pump actions such as the 870. They both have their place.
 
I like both Ruger and Smith & Wesson handguns but I do not know of any Ruger handgun that will handle the 460 or 500 smith and Wesson Cartridges. The X frame S&W is a real beast.

Does Ruger chamber any revolvers for those cartridges? Obviously S&W made the X-frame for them. I think the only valid comparison is between guns built for the same calibre, e.g. some .44Magnum loads are, according to the ammo maker, only to be used in Rugers so they think the S&Ws may be affected by the heavier recoil. The K frame not handling lots of .357Magnum isn't necessarily indicative of general weakness in S&Ws since they didn't build it for that. Does anyone complain of .357Magnum breaking an L frame?

My S&W Model 17 doesn't speak to my Ruger Redhawk unless first spoken to, but I think that's a calibre thing.

When I decided I wanted to try a .44Magnum I did some research and the Ruger reputation for greater strength was a factor for me because I knew I'd be buying used so I thought it would reduce the chance of getting a gun that had been shot "loose". (Another thing was that Ruger says all their .44Magnums will fire .44Special, but S&W doesn't say the same about theirs, so I was sure to have that flexibility if I went with a Ruger. Not such a big deal since I would be reloading, but it's still something.)
 
Well although its not a comparison between the Smith and Ruger I can tell you that my Ruger Super Redhawk 454 Casull did not like any of the loads my Freedom Arms handles without blinking an eye. I have a 629 and I think it is strong enough to handle some heavy cast loads. I will be casting a 310gr. WFNGC bullet for it and working up a load.
One thing to remember is how often do we shoot Max loads in our guns? I know I don't and I have the guns to handle them.
 
Does Ruger chamber any revolvers for those cartridges? Obviously S&W made the X-frame for them. I think the only valid comparison is between guns built for the same calibre, e.g. some .44Magnum loads are, according to the ammo maker, only to be used in Rugers so they think the S&Ws may be affected by the heavier recoil. The K frame not handling lots of .357Magnum isn't necessarily indicative of general weakness in S&Ws since they didn't build it for that. Does anyone complain of .357Magnum breaking an L frame?

My S&W Model 17 doesn't speak to my Ruger Redhawk unless first spoken to, but I think that's a calibre thing.

When I decided I wanted to try a .44Magnum I did some research and the Ruger reputation for greater strength was a factor for me because I knew I'd be buying used so I thought it would reduce the chance of getting a gun that had been shot "loose". (Another thing was that Ruger says all their .44Magnums will fire .44Special, but S&W doesn't say the same about theirs, so I was sure to have that flexibility if I went with a Ruger. Not such a big deal since I would be reloading, but it's still something.)

True enough and I didn't mean to infer that it was. S&W's intent on using the K-frame I think amounted to a judgement call and utilizing a smaller existing frame as a platform for something a little lighter. I've never had or heard of a problem related in chambering models on the N-frame in 357. I've never had one but the L-frame sounds to be a reliable frame development, sufficient in size and strength to handle a steady diet of heavy 357 loads. My Python seems to ve very close in size to the S&W L-frame.

I know for the most part with the Smiths, 44 SPL shooting in their 44 Mag and 38 SPL in firearms chamberes for 357 Mag, perhaps not stated but not a problem. By S&W not advertising that flexibility I can only venture a guess that it may be a item they're cautious about because of a possible liability issue. 'Apparently' with a lengthy diet of cast bullet SPL loads, then going to Magnum loads without a good cleaning of the cylinder before doing so, can lead to 'problems'. With the interchange of shooting SPL and Mag loads I've never experienced any problems related to that issue in any of my handguns, reguardless of make, but apparently some have.
 
Well just a couple random sources here from google(pressure data is a pain to find it seems...or else I'm searching wrong).

S&W 500 at 90k psi bulged the cylinder and proof load is 71k psi
Ruger SRH 454 proof load is 93.5kpsi and no word on what it takes to blow it.

http://www.vincelewis.net/50magnum.html

http://www.go2gbo.com/forums/index.php?topic=17791.0

I'm sure more google time would answer this better. Really the proof loads should be the same in a given caliber between manufacturers at something like 140% of normal load. The question is just how much they exceed this. Personally I think Ruger goes out of their way to exceed it.
 
Some articles talking about various firearms strengths and some highlights from them(use link for full article). Take it for what you will.

http://www.handloads.com/articles/default.asp?id=12

The toughest and best built by far are the Ruger Blackhawks and Bisleys. These are fine hunting and utility guns and in 4-3/4" barrel length make what could be considered by many the ultimate packing gun.

The Colt SAA and New Frontiers are the ultimate packers and offer power levels with safe handloads to handle any game in the lower 48 states.

The price of the base Colt keeps lots of shooters from enjoying these fine guns. One of the best priced and balanced packing power packages we have today is the Smith and Wesson Mod 25-5 in .45 Colt.

This gun has a few drawbacks but they can be worked around or repaired to the point that in my opinion, it becomes my favorite all around packin' gun.

It may surprise many but the cylinder on the S&W .45 Colt is the same diameter as the Ruger Blackhawk. The webs (between chambers) and outside chamber wall are also the same. So basically the Ruger and S&W cylinders are identical in strength and dimension. We recommend handloads for the Rugers single action in .45 Colt caliber to 32,000 PSI levels.

While the S&W will take these loads safely such loads will greatly shorten the life of your gun. The frames on S&W are not heat treated thus are pretty soft. With loads that exceed what the gun can comfortably handle the frame stretches immediately lengthwise and then springs back. This all causes battering and soon your gun has excessive endshake. I don't know how long it takes to wreck a N frame S&W with heavy handloads but Jeff Cooper printed one time he saw a model 29 go out in the realm of 1,000 hot handloads if I remember correctly. I would agree that serious damage could be done in this amount of shooting with too heavy a handload.

The bearing surfaces on the front and rear of the cylinder in the DA guns just aren't as massive as the single action guns and the lock-up system isn't near as rigid as the single action base pin system.

In short, several small parts can't be expected to stand up as well as a few heavy parts. So now I've proven we have a inferior design, that requires less powerful handloads to "keep it alive" and a design that is going to wear out sooner than a SA even with care and handling. I'll give a few reasons why I like the S&W 4" so much.

http://www.handloads.com/articles/default.asp?id=1

The second half of this argument is power. Properly loaded the 45 Colt is capable of surpassing the mighty 44 magnum in the right revolvers. What constitutes the "right" revolver? There are several available either new, used or soon to be offered. The Ruger Blackhawk or Bisley first comes to mind, its the pistol that first gave 45 Colt shooters a strong enough platform to experiment with this grand round. Dan Wesson 45 Colt revolvers can sometimes be had on the used gun market, this is a super strong revolver with all the accuracy that Dan Wessons are famous for. Possibly my favorite though is the 45 Colt Anaconda from Colt. This new chambering for the Anaconda gives us a terrific platform for this caliber. While the Anaconda looks like a Python on steroids it's actually based on the much more durable King Cobra lockwork, so its got more than enough strength for increased loads. Taurus also chambers the large frame Raging Bull in 45 Colt to compliment their medium version. This massive piece is basically a 6 shot version of their 5 shot 454 Casull, again more than strong enough for these loads. Finally one that isn't available just yet but hopefully will soon is the Ruger Redhawk in 45 Colt. With all of Rugers famous strength this one has been long awaited. *Update: Since writing this Ruger has started producing the Redhawk in 45 Colt, along with the Super Redhawk in 454 Casull*

http://www.customsixguns.com/writings/dissolving_the_myth.htm
DISSOLVING THE MYTH

Bear in mind that to discover the potential of any cartridge requires a strong modern well made firearm to contain and fire the round safely. The main argument against the Colt .45 is that there are thousands of "unsafe" Colt SAA blackpowder revolvers out there just waiting with mouths open to swallow your new high pressure reloads. This is a fact of life but I assume the reader of this report is a safe, intelligent person and experienced handloader. This entire report is based on facts proven in the popular and strong Ruger Blackhawks and Bisley models chambered for the .45 Colt Cartridge. I have felt a need for a long time to set the record straight as to the full safe potential of this fine gun and round. This material is not about Colt SAA, Dakotas, or any other import. These are fine guns in their own realm, but require safe, carefully assembled handloads of much LESS PRESSURE than we are talking about in the Ruger Revolvers.

AGAIN, ALL THE INFORMATION IN THIS REPORT PERTAINS "ONLY" TO NEW MODEL RUGER SINGLE ACTION BISLEY OR BLACKHAWK REVOLVERS.

How strong are the Ruger Blackhawk and Bisley model revolvers? Reports from the prestigious H.P White laboratory prove to us that most American Made revolvers offer approximately 100% safety factor with current Industry standard pressure level ammunition. Example: The .44 magnum is loaded to 40,000 CUP (Copper Units of Pressure). H.P White's lab reports states that the Ruger Super Blackhawk was destroyed in a controlled test at approximately double that pressure. (80,000 CUP) The Smith and Wesson Model 29, also in .44 magnum caliber showed comparable results. Today we have stronger guns chambered for the .44 magnum (Redhawk prime example) but the Model 29 S&W and the Ruger Blackhawk gave life to the .44 magnum cartridge. The strength and design of these guns satisfied the industry at the time (1955) and the standards were set from these firearms. By careful measurement and a little simple mathematics we find that the Ruger Blackhawk in .45 Colt caliber is approximately 80 % as strong as the Blackhawk in .44 magnum caliber. Some may argue that the .45 Colts usually are fitted with fluted cylinders while the new .44 Rugers are nearly all unfluted. Exceptions to this rule are Flatop .44 magnum Rugers, THE GUN THAT WAS MADE FIRST BY RUGER FOR THE .44 MAGNUM ROUND. Lately Ruger has produced some special run of guns in .44 Magnum chambering that again have the fluted cylinder feature. Also a few early Bisleys were fitted with FLUTED cylinders in .44 caliber. However most were unfluted roll marked cylinders. But the most important factor we have found here is there is very little difference in strength between a fluted and non-fluted cylinder. The strength of the cylinder can vary more from the quality of the material and the tensile strength of the part due to different points of hardness. When steel is heat treated it can easily vary a couple of points. This is only a few thousand pounds of tensile strength but this is likely to mean more to absolute strength than the difference in the design of the part in the argument between "fluted" or NON-Fluted". The important fact is that the initial part (in this case the cylinder) was OVER ENGINEERED to account for these variables. They are amply strong to safely handle any safe load. To DEFINE SAFE: ANY LOAD THAT DOES NOT EXCEED THE INDUSTRY'S RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM OPERATIONAL PRESSURE.. In the case of the .44 magnum, this is 40,000 CUP. Not to exceed 43,500 ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM.

The Ruger Blackhawks and Bisley models chambered for .45 Colt are approximately 80% as strong as the same Ruger chambered for .44 magnum. This means we can load the .45 Colt to 80% of the pressure of the .44 Magnum round and still maintain the 100% safety level. 80% of 40,000 is 32,000.

To check our findings we again turned to H.P White Labs and their findings paralleled ours. Ruger Blackhawks in .45 Colt caliber were destroyed in controlled test conditions at approximately 60,000 CUP pressure levels.

We went further on our own here and purposely destroyed several cylinders with loads that were later pressure tested in Industry Standard Pressure barrels that proved pressures were in the area of 60,000 CUP. Now that we know just how strong the guns are we are working with perhaps you figure you can heat up the a loads a bit. Such "logical thinking" jaspers will get a REAL LOAD. Overloading often times does no visible harm, but stress and fatigue go unnoticed till something lets go. In this era when shooters and hunters are looked over very critically we need safe responsible hunters, shooters and HANDLOADERS. THIS MEANS YOU!

FRAME STRENGTH

Here at Linebaugh Custom Sixguns we build some of the most powerful handguns in the world. All of our guns at this time are built exclusively on the Ruger Blackhawk frames. (Ruger Super Blackhawk, Blackhawk and Bisley models are all identical. All frames in the new model that was introduced in 1973 are the same.) In all of my findings the first part to let go in a revolver is the cylinder. I have tested cylinders from purposely bulging them to total destruction. In all cases the frames were not damaged until the cylinder totally failed. When a firearm is fired there is pressure on the base of the bullet to propel it out the barrel. There is an equal rearward thrust against the case head and thus transferred onto the action of the firearm. This is known as CASE HEAD THRUST. Case head thrust is CHAMBER PRESSURE x THE SURFACE AREA OF THE DIAMETER OF THE REAR OF THE CHAMBER. I won't go into great detail but a 45 Colt at 32,000 CUP chamber pressure exerts just under 3 tons of pressure on the back of the frame. A .44 magnum at 40,000 CUP chamber pressure exerts just over 3 tons of pressure on the back of the frame. Basically the same.

When we fire one of our .475 or .500 caliber revolvers we hit the Ruger frame with approximately 5 tons of pressure, (thrust). This duplicates the thrust of a .458 Win Mag. In testing and building over 200 major caliber revolvers on Ruger frames we have never yet had a frame move,stretch or bend. They are very tough. The cylinder is the first part to let go.
 
Last edited:
Not long ago, I acquired a 4" Ruger GP 100. Not that I 'needed' it but it's like new, the price was right and will be a good 'big brother' for another recent acquisition, an SP 101, SS in 22LR.

IMG_1328.jpg


It 'feels' like a weighted model 19 or like a similarily sized L-frame. I've only acquired it a short while ago, as such, I haven't shot it all that much, ;)yet:p. A point I've made mention of previously, a major difference of note is the trigger pull/let off. Nowhere near as 'crisp' as the single action let off of a S&W.
 
I had a range officer once tell me that a Ruger will last 10 times as long on the range as a range gun than a S&W will. This was his word, and I have no evidence to show that but it made me think.....
 
Well although its not a comparison between the Smith and Ruger I can tell you that my Ruger Super Redhawk 454 Casull did not like any of the loads my Freedom Arms handles without blinking an eye. I have a 629 and I think it is strong enough to handle some heavy cast loads. I will be casting a 310gr. WFNGC bullet for it and working up a load.
One thing to remember is how often do we shoot Max loads in our guns? I know I don't and I have the guns to handle them.

What do you mean by "didn't like"? Did it bulge? Ring? Blow?
By the way, my GP100 recently shot the 2500th full power magnum load. No issues whatsoever.
 
Re 460/500 S&W revolvers in order for S&W to finally be able to outperform the performance of a Ruger they had to build a behemoth of a handgun one that is so big and fugly that as far as I am concerned they should be classed in the side show section of a gun case...

:p
 
Re 460/500 S&W revolvers in order for S&W to finally be able to outperform the performance of a Ruger they had to build a behemoth of a handgun one that is so big and fugly that as far as I am concerned they should be classed in the side show section of a gun case...

:p

OUCH!! I agree;), to a 'degree':p. Pretty it ain't but if I had the option to use a handgun as the firearm of choice on 'BIG' game, the 500 S&W would be front and center. I don't think a double action revolver is the best platform/choice for the cartridge in the field hunting but it isn't available in something along the line of a BFR, at present. So, if you want the caliber, choices are somewhat limited:).
 
Re 460/500 S&W revolvers in order for S&W to finally be able to outperform the performance of a Ruger they had to build a behemoth of a handgun one that is so big and fugly that as far as I am concerned they should be classed in the side show section of a gun case...

:p

460 S&W 8.38" barrel = 72.5oz, 15" long
Ruger SRH 454 7.5" barrel= 53oz, 13" long

1.5lbs of steel goes a long way apparently... :p (and the Ruger is a 6 shot, not a 5 like the S&W)
 
Back
Top Bottom