S&W revolvers > Rugers?
- Thread starter mr00jimbo
- Start date
Cocked&Locked
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- S. Ontario
capp325 said:
no, if there is a difference (and there shouldn't be with the casting method ruger uses) it is less than a percent. for a 30-40% difference, the casting would have to look like an arrow bar. Castings can (and are often, don't know in rugers case, springfield does..) be forged to improve their mechanical properties. All thing being equal though, all the ruger revolvers are stronger than S&W's. Heavier too.
Cocked&Locked said:no, if there is a difference (and there shouldn't be with the casting method ruger uses) it is less than a percent. for a 30-40% difference, the casting would have to look like an arrow bar. Castings can (and are often, don't know in rugers case, springfield does..) be forged to improve their mechanical properties. All thing being equal though, all the ruger revolvers are stronger than S&W's. Heavier too.
Pretty much says it all.
capp325 said:I would also take a Ruger single action over a S&W single action...largely because S&W does not make single action revolvers
Actually they have and still do, check out thier Schofields and Number 3 SA revolvers. Of course, you'd be buying out of thier custom shop, which will make them pretty spendy, or buying antiques, which are even more expensive, but they are a nice (and comparatively delicate) revolver. - dan
Ruger double actions can be a pain in the *ss. S&W all the way for double action. Bill Ruger built his company on the reliabilty, strength and durablility of his single action BlackHawks and Super BlcakHawks. You can't go wrong with a Ruger single action.mr00jimbo said:
Ruger vs Smith
Don't discount the Ruger double actions, the GP's design is both innovative and functional. The Security-Six and Speed-Six are still very sought after revolvers in the used gun market. I'll have to admit that the Smith trigger in general is smoother, and in PPC competition I used a S&W K-frame. But one Grand Master shooter with a Security Six framed PPC gun, had a trigger that was unbelievable, so they are tunable, in the right hands.
Don't discount the Ruger double actions, the GP's design is both innovative and functional. The Security-Six and Speed-Six are still very sought after revolvers in the used gun market. I'll have to admit that the Smith trigger in general is smoother, and in PPC competition I used a S&W K-frame. But one Grand Master shooter with a Security Six framed PPC gun, had a trigger that was unbelievable, so they are tunable, in the right hands.
- Location
- Tucson, Arizona
Cast
colt and Smith were really hoping Rugers "cast" recievers would prove to be inferior. It didn't happen.
As for plastic, I don't care for it, but it seems that everyone is jumping on that bandwagon. The plastic frames are not better, but they are also not any worse.
colt and Smith were really hoping Rugers "cast" recievers would prove to be inferior. It didn't happen.
As for plastic, I don't care for it, but it seems that everyone is jumping on that bandwagon. The plastic frames are not better, but they are also not any worse.
Rudy H said:Most advanced does not mean best. More plastic in a gun is an advancement as far as production is concerned but rarely does it make for a better shooting gun. Also don't believe everthing you read.
I don't believe everything I read, Rudy. But thanks for the tip!
I have owned several Ruger and Smith and Wesson double action revolvers and I like them both; they are different and both really great guns - in my opinion.
Jeff/1911 said:I don't believe everything I read, Rudy. But thanks for the tip!
I have owned several Ruger and Smith and Wesson double action revolvers and I like them both; they are different and both really great guns - in my opinion.
The double
was once for what others say, the second for what I say. Of course I'm always right.
Hitzy said:The crappy cast grip extension on the GP100 that is held on by a double pin does not scream "advanced" to me....more like "cut corners".....
Does the 18th century flat mainspring and full metal frame of the S&W scream advanced to you then?
Come on, in the GP100, Ruger uses:
1. Compression springs not flat springs.
2. Molded grips not machined frames.
3. Cast components not machined components.
Flat out, and without question, the GP100 is 20th century engineering at it's best. The 686 is a 19th century holdover.
I mean seriously, suggesting that the partial tang attachment of the GP100 frame to grip is "cut corners" or "not strong" is like suggesting that the Remington 870 is "weak" because the frame isn't the full length of the stock.
That's assinine.
The GP100 is a better engineered, more advanced, stronger product. It just does not appeal to those who have magically slick trigger jobs and think that the best revolvers in the world were built before the 1980's, etc...
You seem to be equating cost cutting measures with technological advancement. Compression springs are the reason why Ruger has a poor trigger pull compared to the Smith. Cast components are weaker than machined components, all else being equal. And you can't be suggesting that a pinned grip is stronger than a one piece unit?spi said:
Personally, I'll take a properly made, "19th century holdover" over a modern bean counter-designed "engineering marvel" any day of the week.
capp325 said:
Ho boy, let's address this point by point:
capp325 said:
Well, that is often so. Better ways of doing things are often cheaper and easier than the traditional means.
capp325 said:
Well, that's a relative consideration. Personally, I don't find the trigger pull on my Ruger GP100 to be all that bad. But in any case, that's not the point. The point was that the GP100 is a more advanced mechanism than the S&W and that is a fact in this case. Compression springs are more modern than flat springs. It's assinine to think they are not.
capp325 said:
Um, it's been attested on these forums that is not true, and in fact even marginal research has disproved that. What are you talking about?
capp325 said:
:shrug: Nope. But I am suggesting that it is more than adequate, in the same way that I suggest that the polymer grip of a Glock is more than adequate.
capp325 said:
Groovy for you. The issue was whether or not the Ruger was more advanced than the S&W revolver. And it is. But keep poking your pinky up your S&W barrels anyway.
The only, and I mean only reason we see cast guns/parts and plastic frame #### is to make a bigger profit for the ####### making them. That's it. Nothing magical about it, nothing better about cast/plastic over forged other then it's cheaper to make which translates to more profit.
Sure it's modern, but it certainly in this case does not equate better, not even equal, mabey adequate for some but that's it.....
Sure it's modern, but it certainly in this case does not equate better, not even equal, mabey adequate for some but that's it.....
I don't know enough about revolvers to add anything worthwhile to this debate. However, I bought my GP100 based on the tremendous amount of positive reviews it gets online and from other shooters, the look of the gun, and the price point. All this pinned/one-piece cast/forged is just chest thumping bullsh*t to me. Kudos to Ruger for being able to release such a fine revolver for such an reasonable price point.
spi said:
Casting is not a new/20th century procedure. In fact lost wax casting has been used for thousands of years.
A lot of current guns use modern engineering. Metal stampings. I would much rather have a Thompson submachine gun rather than an Uzi anyday.
Strum Ruger has been succesful because they have been able to produce cheaper guns. The Mark I used metal stampings welded together to produce the frame rather than machining a block of metal like the other manufactures. A cheaper but decent, good value product. Not as refined (from a user perspective) but definitely more efficient to produce. If you are that tight on cash then buy a Ruger.
One of the biggest plusses for the S&W is the trigger feel. If you are trying for accuracy then this is an important consideration.
Ruger produces a very good product but the design philosophy is not to produce the best target shooting guns.
