S&W revolvers > Rugers?

spi 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?
Click to expand...
Attested by whom? It's common knowledge that ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, castings are inferior in strength. That's why barrels are never made out of castings.

And if you think that "advanced" technology necessarily makes a better product, I can't agree with you. A Kia may be more advanced than a Rolls Royce because it uses more "high tech" plastics and less old-fashioned wood and leather, but that does not make it a better car.
 
capp325 said:
Attested by whom?
Click to expand...

By me:

spi said:
Actually that's a misperception. Properly cast carbon steels have similar mechanical properties to worked alloys.
Click to expand...

By Cocked&Locked:

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.
Click to expand...

And if that ain't enough for you, look at the properties of steel in various publications:

Properties of Cast carbon steels:

http://www.key-to-steel.com/Articles/Art98.htm

Processed alloyed steels:

http://efunda.com/materials/alloys/...fm?ID=AISI_4130&prop=all&Page_Title=AISI 4130

Their properties are very near the same. Check out 4140 too. Just about the same. Etc, etc, etc...

capp325 said:
It's common knowledge that ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, castings are inferior in strength. That's why barrels are never made out of castings.
Click to expand...

"Common knowledge"? Common knowledge among old wives and idiots. Barrels are never made out of castings, hmm? Castings have been used to make barrels from pistols to cannon for over 500 years.

capp325 said:
And if you think that "advanced" technology necessarily makes a better product, I can't agree with you. A Kia may be more advanced than a Rolls Royce because it uses more "high tech" plastics and less old-fashioned wood and leather, but that does not make it a better car.
Click to expand...

Well, that's so. But I'll remind you again, we aren't talking "better", we're talking more advanced.
 
Almost 20 years ago, it was a toss up between a stainless Ruger .357 (GP101?) or a 686. I bought the 686 based on trigger feel and the balance of the gun. The Ruger just didn't have the smoothness or 'refinement' the 686 had. I'm not the type of person who likes buying a firearm and sending it to a gunsmith for work unless it's a warranty claim. My 686 is still 'stock' other than the Pachmayr grips. FWIW, there are a lot of used 586/686's out there for less than the cost of a new GP100. Toss in the N framed .357's into the mix and, IMHO, there is no reason to buy a new GP100. I'm sure the GP100 is a fine handgun and, as such, will have its own following. I'm not in that following. To each, their own.
 
Rudy H said:
Casting is not a new/20th century procedure. In fact lost wax casting has been used for thousands of years.
Click to expand...

Yes, the ancient Egyptians, and maybe even people before them, did lost wax casting Rudy.

But they sure as hell did not do high fidelity investment castings under vaccum in neutral atmosphere using induction melted precision steel alloys under inert gas shields, with a high degree of uniformity.

You can do a lost wax casting with some plaster of paris in a home fireplace. I've done it. It is in no way the same as what is neccesary to investment cast steel industrially, and to compare the two is disingenuous.
 
johNTO said:
....my $0.02, buy what you want. Ask yourself if the difference in cost is going to make a difference to your lifestyle 6 months down the road.
Click to expand...

I'm not a wheel gun guy, but I agree with johNTO. Ask yourself what you really want and how long you want to have it with you. If you just want something that's fun and you know your going to sell it in a year or 2, then go cheap. If you want something that gives you joy just picking it up (as well as shooting) now and 5, 10, 15 years from now, then follow your heart and not your wallet.
 
RePete said:
Well, I like Smith's.

Waiting for the paperwork for the 7th revolver, a 625 N-Frame. I have 6 L-Frames.
Click to expand...


6! thats not fair, I only have a couple of N frames and a J, you should send me one to balance out my lockup!
 
Coil spring vs. leaf. pro's, coil springs are more durable, and easier to mass produce., con's, leaf springs can be made to produce a more linear feel (ie. no stacking or increase of resistance over travel) and provide a faster lock time. The most expensive hand made firearms still use leaf springs due to their greater accuracy potential, and ussually include a spare

Casting (as ruger does it for frames) vs machined, Mechanical difference less than 1%, ruger could cast barrels if they wanted to, it's not as economical as the traditional method.

Grip mounting? either style you could beat a yak to death with and not harm the gun, who cares? It's personal taste. I'm a smith fan but I've always like the look and feel of the grips on the gp series, and they cushion recoil very well, I really prefer them over the straight black grips on my 629 and 625.

Balance/feel? personal again, I prefer smith, but don't mind the gp's with a
4" barrel, longer they feel kinda clublike to me, but they are stronger than any smith made with the possible exception of the new X frames...

Your going to have a good handgun with either. If i had to pick one to last the rest of my life in the wild it would be the ruger. It's a tougher design. But the smith is a smoother one, and easier to shoot acurately and hold their value better. If I was going to buy a ruger, I'd have to look at taurus too, and i'd probably buy one of them instead....:D
 
Rudy H said:
. I would much rather have a Thompson submachine gun rather than an Uzi anyday.
Click to expand...


Which is sort of funny, the UZI is a far superior weapon. The Thompson is made like a Cadillac, costs like a Cadillac, weighs like a Cadillac, and doesn't deal with real life very well. Besides, who needs a smg that weighs more than the rifle it replaced? The MP 40 was a stamped weapon and it is an excellent design, the mg 42 was a stamped welded design, and it's still in use today. You can't compare fit and finish to functionality. The luger is arguably one of the most involved handguns ever mass produced, but the P-38 was a far better hand gun. Quality of manufacture doesn't grantee a good product, just a well built one.

Shoot an UZI and a Thompson side by side, you'll want the uzi in your corner.

For that matter, the MP5 is probably the best smg in the market today, and it's a stamped and welded design, talk about controllable!
 
Cocked&Locked said:
Which is sort of funny, the UZI is a far superior weapon. The Thompson is made like a Cadillac, costs like a Cadillac, weighs like a Cadillac, and doesn't deal with real life very well. Besides, who needs a smg that weighs more than the rifle it replaced? The MP 40 was a stamped weapon and it is an excellent design, the mg 42 was a stamped welded design, and it's still in use today. You can't compare fit and finish to functionality. The luger is arguably one of the most involved handguns ever mass produced, but the P-38 was a far better hand gun. Quality of manufacture doesn't grantee a good product, just a well built one.

Shoot an UZI and a Thompson side by side, you'll want the uzi in your corner.

For that matter, the MP5 is probably the best smg in the market today, and it's a stamped and welded design, talk about controllable!
Click to expand...
turn the lights out and then talk to me about the mp5 vs the uzi- but the rest of your comments about the thompson are correct- it's big, heavy( about 12 pounds-the example i examined) and cumbersome in tight spaces-
as far as contollability goes, it's about even up mp5 vs uzi as the uzi is about 2-3 pounds heavier- and that's all in the bolt- in mag exchange and cocking the uzi is superior in that hand finds hand with the uzi and the charging handle is on top vs the mag up front and so is the charging handle on the mp5, plus the stock folds on the uzi for tight quarters , making it just a tad more compact
 
FWIW
I shoot and competed with a S&W 625 in IPSC for 3 years, no problem withthe gun, I had owned more Smiths than any other brand, eevn had a Colt Python, but a standard mdl 19-4 was more accurate than the Python. I presently own 2 Rugers, both BlackHawk, because they are stonger than Smith when it's time to play with full loads in .44 or .45, but I used to have a Mdl 29 with 4 inch barrel, and with the right load, this gun can equal the accuracy of any ruger. I had heard a rumor concerning the GP100 that QPP used to have. That after 50 or 60 rounds of fast shooting, the metal was expanding so much that the cylinder won't turn, fact or ?? Nice looking, sleek trigger For me nithing beat Smith&Wesson
 
t-star said:
turn the lights out and then talk to me about the mp5 vs the uzi- but the rest of your comments about the thompson are correct- it's big, heavy( about 12 pounds-the example i examined) and cumbersome in tight spaces-
as far as contollability goes, it's about even up mp5 vs uzi as the uzi is about 2-3 pounds heavier- and that's all in the bolt- in mag exchange and cocking the uzi is superior in that hand finds hand with the uzi and the charging handle is on top vs the mag up front and so is the charging handle on the mp5, plus the stock folds on the uzi for tight quarters , making it just a tad more compact
Click to expand...

I was talking about old tech compared to new tech. Machining a block of steel compared to welded stampings. Not about the actual practical use of the gun. I don't care if the Thompson is not good tight spaces since I don't shoot in tight spaces.
 
dan belisle said:
"Shoot an UZI and a Thompson side by side, you'll want the uzi in your corner."

I have. Thompson is still a much cooler piece of machinery, end use funtionality be damned. I agree about the 40 and 42 though (like the 34 better to play with) - dan
Click to expand...


No arguement from me, thompsons are very cool, and if I could I'd have one, that being said, if my life was on the line, cool dosen't cut it.

the 34 is an awsome weapon, but back to the same issues, to expensive to mass produce....
 
The Ruger is the more durable of the 2. So using heavy reloads is viable. The Smith is a bit more refined. But a trip to the gunsmith and the Ruger will even more refined than the Smith. Then you have the best of both worlds. My stainless Redhawk shoots just fine. Better yet ! Buy both !:D
 
The bottom line is that most serious PPC competitors (and IDPA, IPSC, Bullseye revolver shooters) use Smith and Wessons. Colts are hardly seen anymore, and Ruger's are now and always have been practically invisible. Which leads to two possible conclusions:
  1. The fastest and most accurate revolver shooters in the world are dummies shooting the wrong gun. And spending more money to shoot the inferior revolver to boot.
  2. The trigger and ergonomics of the S&W really are that much better than the Rugers. Now modern how dated or modern the manufacturing method involved. Which is why the best revolver shooters in the world invariably choose S&W...

Is a Ruger stronger? Who cares - I have no intentions of pushing a revolver to the very edge of the pressure limits where that's going to make a difference. If I really need that much more power, I'll buy something in a more powerful caliber.
 
Scarecrow said:
What about Dan Wesson?
Click to expand...
I don't shoot handgun silhouette, but I have been told by some enthusiasts that the Dan Wesson's enjoy some popularity in that sport. Rarely seen in PPC or among Bullseye competitors who still shoot the revolver, however. Same thing: the trigger pull doesn't measure up.
 
Rick said:
The bottom line is that most serious PPC competitors (and IDPA, IPSC, Bullseye revolver shooters) use Smith and Wessons. Colts are hardly seen anymore, and Ruger's are now and always have been practically invisible. Which leads to two possible conclusions:
  1. The fastest and most accurate revolver shooters in the world are dummies shooting the wrong gun. And spending more money to shoot the inferior revolver to boot.
  2. The trigger and ergonomics of the S&W really are that much better than the Rugers. Now modern how dated or modern the manufacturing method involved. Which is why the best revolver shooters in the world invariably choose S&W...

Is a Ruger stronger? Who cares - I have no intentions of pushing a revolver to the very edge of the pressure limits where that's going to make a difference. If I really need that much more power, I'll buy something in a more powerful caliber.
Click to expand...

To say that Rugers are not used in compitition is B.S. and yes I do like to push my revolver to the edge like many other shooters. A trigger job is under $ 100.00 and now I have a better gun than the S/W
 
I have owned Smiths &Rugers. a couple of the Smiths did have to be re-tuned
I have never had to have my rugers re-tuned.Having said that.I prefer a Smith but would have any complaints about getting a Ruger.

regards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom