Author Topic: Smith and Wesson compared to Ruger (Read 7594 times)

navyneil · « **Reply #30 on:** May 09, 2007, 01:15:36 PM »

I have owned and used both. The trigger and accuracy of the S&W is much better. My comparison is 629 vs super red hawk.

The other big thing is the construction. Why is the ruger so much bulkier?? Because it is a cast handgun, vs forged.

casting = cheap
forging = more expensive

just my .02$

Lloyd Smale · « **Reply #31 on:** May 10, 2007, 12:21:27 AM »

if you look in my safe probably 3/4s of the handguns in it are either rugers or smiths. There both good for there intended uses. I have need for both for what there good at but for out of the box quality in fit and finish and even accuracy id take a smith hands down.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #32 on:** May 10, 2007, 02:42:31 AM »

navyniel , Cheap in what way ? i also own both , when i shot 6 rounds thru. my 629 classic that i had used hundreds of times thru. my redhawk not Super redhawk it locked up the cyl. and damaged the frame . so strength is not how to mesure cheap . bulky in what way ? again size does matter , ruger is thicker and stronger , since many other gun builders are going to cast parts why is it bad ? S&W is making plastic guns now talk about looking cheap ! I won't bore ya with springs and other improvements ! read stronger , last longer !
Look at it another way how many changes have S&W made to the mod.29 ? look at the crane area and see the 629-? ,
then check how many changes ruger made ! if S&W wasn't playing catch up and trying to make their gun stronger and less exp. and catch up to ruger why the changes ?
Its great you like S&W it is a fine gun but to call a Ruger cheap shows short sightedness and a lask of knolege of the firearms industry as a whole !
If you must apply labels traditonal would look good on S&W and inovative or cutting edge would suit Ruger nicely !
Ya know if ya look at the companies you see the difference , Mr Smith and Mr Wesson bought a pattent and slowed down the industry for the length of the pattent ( bored thru cyl. ) , Mr Ruger on the other hand has brought one inovation after another to the industry ! To S&W's credit it seems they are more inovative today than anytime before ! And to Ruger they are living up to the standards set by Mr. Ruger !
Oh yea if by chance you play golf check out who made the big berther clubs possible ? and S&W made power built clubs !
NUFF SAID !

Lloyd Smale · « **Reply #33 on:** May 10, 2007, 07:12:03 AM »

what is golf??? is that one of those games i see the girls out whacking those balls that make such fun handgun targets!!!!!!!!!!! Worse thing is the play that dammed game on some of the nicest rifle range property around!!

nomosendero · « **Reply #34 on:** May 10, 2007, 07:58:23 AM »

They are different is how I would put it. I have both too. Smith has done some things to make their 629 stronger & they are strong, still I would not call a gun cheap if that "cheap" gun, (Redhawk) will handle a stouter load than the "good" gun (Smth 629). That being said, I favor some of the newer Smiths, but they both can serve you well.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #35 on:** May 10, 2007, 08:10:58 AM »

Lloyd Smale , I read about it in a magazine ! Why hit something away then walk after it ?

Lloyd Smale · « **Reply #36 on:** May 10, 2007, 12:49:55 PM »

its ok just dont come out of the closet here

454Puma · « **Reply #37 on:** May 10, 2007, 07:19:30 PM »

S.B.
No the Puma is for a Rossi 454 lever! As for as S&W's go I've shot many just will not own one!! Yes I'm a Ruger man through and through!!

safetysheriff · « **Reply #38 on:** May 13, 2007, 02:56:16 PM »

Quote from: navyneil on May 09, 2007, 01:15:36 PM

The other big thing is the construction. Why is the ruger so much bulkier?? Because it is a cast handgun, vs forged.

casting = cheap
forging = more expensive

just my .02$

nn'

you can't put two pounds of 'shtick' into a one-pound bag !

that's why Ruger's are bulky, and why they don't have 'side-plate' construction holding the cylinder frame together with screws !

the Ruger is not a cheap revolver, both because of its metallurgy and its innovative engineering!

Rugers' hold up better because they were better designed and formulated than Smiths'. the .44 Mag' cartridge is STILL one of the 'baddest' handgun cartridges around.

don't you feel better now that we're past the part about "casting?"

ss'

Lee Robinson · « **Reply #39 on:** May 14, 2007, 03:43:52 AM »

I owned a S&W model 629 5" Classic in SS several years ago. It was a very accurate and well built gun, and I recall shooting 20 oz coke bottles with it out from 100 yards when resting on a bench or sitting on the ground leaning back on a tree. The sight had some play in it and if memory serves me correctly the rear sight was cast and broke. I replaced it with a millett sight. Also, over time I recall the cylinder getting more play in it. I shot Federal Premium hunting ammo which is pretty stout 44 mag loads as didn't reload at the time. Sold the gun and the guy that has it loves it...says it is one of the best guns he has ever owned. He shoots 44 specials out of it mostly.

I also bought a S&W ladysmith for my wife in 357 caliber with a 2 1/8" barrel. That gun too seems accurate for its length, but the lock up isn't as tight as is on my CC Ruger SP 101 which has a 2 1/4" barrel and is also very accurate. There is no doubt in my mind that both guns are great firearms, but if my life depended on it I would choose the ruger due to reliability. For self defense, reliability is the most important factor. If I was going to hunt with one and couldn't choose another (I have a Freedom Arms for this) then I would still go with the Ruger but I would order a single action and when I had the money send it to Linebaugh to tune it up and do a trigger job on...and if I could afford it I would get a 357 or a 44 converted into a tight tollerance 45 colt. Out of the box accuracy for a hunting gun I can't compare the two as I haven't owned a Ruger in a hunting cailiber, just CC types...and for CC types I found accuracy to be very good and on par with the S & W...much better than my old Sig Arms semi-auto that I sold.

I also played with a few colt revolvers and like them a good bit as well, but I don't think they would be as durable either.

warrior1 · « **Reply #40 on:** June 02, 2007, 02:29:38 AM »

i've got both and shoot both. ruger is it all the way. S&w are a total disappointment.
with a ruger , if i want to shoot light i can and if i want to shoot heavy no problem.
with a smith if i want to shoot light i can, if want to shoot heavy i have to buy a ruger .

S.B. · « **Reply #41 on:** June 02, 2007, 04:59:55 AM »

warrior1, you list some of the fallacies that the internet has spawned about these two brands of revolvers. Measure the outside diameter of both types of revolvers cylinder and they come out the same.
I don't know if your familiar with John Linebaugh's website but, it makes good reading and is very informative.
Don't believe all the rumors on the net, opinions are like other parts of the human anatomy, everyone has one?
I personally don't have a problem with either one of these brands but, can see where everyone is different and has the right to personal opinions about them.

opinions://www.customsixguns.com/writings/heavyweight_bullets.htm

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #42 on:** June 03, 2007, 05:24:29 AM »

S.B. which did you mesure ?

S.B. · « **Reply #43 on:** June 03, 2007, 06:14:20 AM »

My model 57 and my Ruger OM Blackhawk both .41 magnums? John Linebaugh also states, on his website, he measured the cylinders from a 25-5 Smith and a Ruger .45LC and they are the same. John is a firm beleiver of balance in loading ammunition. Not over loading to acomplice the job at hand. He builds some of the biggest baddest handgun going.

Lloyd Smale · « **Reply #44 on:** June 03, 2007, 08:48:16 AM »

S.B. has a point that is often overlooked a smith will not blow up using ruger level loads. they may not be as strong but its not in cylinder strenght that they have there weekness. What will happen with a smith and just about any double action gun using heavy loads is they will shoot out of time. If you read hamilton bowens book he even questions whether a redhawk will stand up to a steady diet of 500 linebaugh or .475 linebaughs. The newer smiths are a more durable gun then people give them credit for and like SB said they will outlast you with sensible loads. If a guy needs more then factory level 44 mag in a 44 then why not just buy something more powerful. YOur can get a redhawk in 454 probably cheaper then a smith 44. My comments about prefering a smith stand for me. take out a N frame smith and shoot it. It will be well fitted well finished and id about bet a dime to a dollar a tack driver. take the ruger and there will be rough edges. alot of them sound like a rattle when you shake them. The clunk and rattle when you dry fire them in da and a smith will usually be as smooth as silk. AT LEAST THE OLD ONES. Some of the new ones can stand a little stoneing but thats usually all it takes. I hear this all the time on the internet. "WHY BUY A SMITH WHEN YOU CAN GET A RUGER THATS STONGER" i have to ask what the hell you plan on doing with this gun. Home depot allready sells hammers if you need one.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #45 on:** June 04, 2007, 01:32:49 AM »

S.B. then check out the redhawks !
And for the record , i shot 6 rounds in a 629DX , loads that are max for the ruger in a loading man. and the cyl. locked up ,
gun was ruined , frame was streached , but the cyl didn't blow up !

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #46 on:** June 04, 2007, 01:50:02 AM »

Quote from: Lloyd Smale on June 03, 2007, 08:48:16 AM

S.B. has a point that is often overlooked a smith will not blow up using ruger level loads. they may not be as strong but its not in cylinder strenght that they have there weekness. What will happen with a smith and just about any double action gun using heavy loads is they will shoot out of time. If you read hamilton bowens book he even questions whether a redhawk will stand up to a steady diet of 500 linebaugh or .475 linebaughs. The newer smiths are a more durable gun then people give them credit for and like SB said they will outlast you with sensible loads. If a guy needs more then factory level 44 mag in a 44 then why not just buy something more powerful. YOur can get a redhawk in 454 probably cheaper then a smith 44. My comments about prefering a smith stand for me. take out a N frame smith and shoot it. It will be well fitted well finished and id about bet a dime to a dollar a tack driver. take the ruger and there will be rough edges. alot of them sound like a rattle when you shake them. The clunk and rattle when you dry fire them in da and a smith will usually be as smooth as silk. AT LEAST THE OLD ONES. Some of the new ones can stand a little stoneing but thats usually all it takes. I hear this all the time on the internet. "WHY BUY A SMITH WHEN YOU CAN GET A RUGER THATS STONGER" i have to ask what the hell you plan on doing with this gun. Home depot allready sells hammers if you need one.

Great post Lloyd.

S.B. · « **Reply #47 on:** June 04, 2007, 02:10:16 AM »

I don't disagree with what happened in your case but, I've heard similar horror stories with Rugers? If the frame was stretched then I would have to "guess" that you must of been way over the normal pressure specs? Why do you want to go above the normal range of pressure anyway? What are you hunting that you need this type of ammunition? I've read many account on this forum about Alaskan hunter and backwoodsmen who use S&W handguns and load ammo to normal specs, and they live in an area of our country where they are dealing with the danger of BIG bears. daily. S&Ws will shoot any SAMMI speced ammo without problems, if the gun is unaltered and in good working order. Just because a manual lists the loads you shoot as MAX for a Ruger doesn't mean they're OK or within SAMMI specs?
Do you have the capability to accurately check the pressure developed in your handloads to confirm what's going on?
As Lloyd implied, if you need more power, don't load your ammo up, get a bigger caliber gun?

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #48 on:** June 04, 2007, 07:36:31 AM »

I agree with not over loading , the loads were ok for the redhawk but not the S&W it was my fault for trying them , my point is the ruger is stronger , as far as loads in wild places what does that have to do with anything , we loaded hot when shooting IMHSA , the ruger could take it the S&W could not a very simple fact ! But don't take my word check out old match results and notice the lack of S&W on the line at a time when they were king , and make no mistake plenty of rugers had problems just not as many or related to the frame or cyl. ,my super blackhawk had to have the screws tightened every 10 shots and many had ejector rod housings fall off , to look at it another way when S&W went to more powerful rounds they built a stronger gun ! So if a handy 44 is what ya need with factory loads either will work if ya want a bit more then ruger gets the nod ! but be honest if a gun will take higher pressure then at normal pressure it should last longer !

Lloyd Smale · « **Reply #49 on:** June 04, 2007, 08:38:55 AM »

I guess ive never seen 44 mag loads in any manual dedicated just for rugers. I havent bought a loading manual in a while though and could be mistaken. Only dedicated ruger loads ive heard about in 44s have been the buffalo bore stuff for the redhawk and they are marked that way because of the bullet lenght. I would have to guess that if 6 rounds of any 44 mag ammo stretched your frame. that load was not in any reloading manual and was definately a loading error. I personaly have shot 29s loose and know what it takes to do it. What it takes is a pretty good number of 300 grain loads loaded to over 1200fps and if any 44 is pushed much harder then that your talking proff load pressures that shouldnt be used in any gun and even after quite a number of those loads i had absolutely no frame stretching whatsover it was just a matter of retiming the gun and putting a new barrel on it because the forcing cone was shot out of it. The forcing cone wear was from shooting jacketet 180s out of it for years at velocitys i wont mention either. Bottom line is if you actually had frame stretching in that gun count yourself one lucky sob because you were about a prayer away from wear a facefull of gun!!

Quote from: SHOOTALL on June 04, 2007, 01:32:49 AM

S.B. then check out the redhawks !
And for the record , i shot 6 rounds in a 629DX , loads that are max for the ruger in a loading man. and the cyl. locked up ,
gun was ruined , frame was streached , but the cyl didn't blow up !

hrminer92 · « **Reply #50 on:** June 04, 2007, 08:54:47 AM »

Do all the new S&W revolvers come with the key locks? How easy is it for that mechanism to get messed up and make your gun not fire? Do Rugers have similar built in devices?

I don't own either yet, but if both brands are still made in the US, that's a big plus for me.

S.B. · « **Reply #51 on:** June 04, 2007, 09:00:49 AM »

SHOOTALL , just what was the damaging load and what manual is it listed in? I'd have to agree with Lloyd on this one, if 6 rounds stretched your frame, something was wrong with the load not the gun??? Are you sure you didn't double load with a fast burning powder by mistake? I know IMHSA shooters were famous for loading hot stuff instead of being happy with status quo ammo.

S.B. · « **Reply #52 on:** June 04, 2007, 09:05:29 AM »

hrminer92, yes and yes. It not considered politcally correct to remove the locks.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #53 on:** June 04, 2007, 10:05:09 AM »

the hornady and speer both have T.C.and RUGER sections and state not to use them in any other gun ! i don't have the load data with me but will look for it tonight , pretty sure it was H-110 and couldn't over load not enough room in case , like i stated when shooting it in the super black hawk i had to tighten the 5 screws after 10 rounds and replace the screws every so often ! so far no problem with the redhawk , I knew better so i blame no one , the first shot was ok but by the 4th. the hammer was very hard to cock , the 6th was hard enough that it took both thumbs to pull it back , in the ruger the cases would drag after a few rounds so we figured it was the same thing , well the cyl would not open and the trigger would not work double action , dumb move on my part yep ! the funny thing in single action the trigger was still good !
this is a ford chevy thing , but the bottom line is the ruger is stronger and the S&W smother , the problem is you can't make the S&W stronger but with enough $$$$$$ you can make a ruger smother , ya just got to decide what ya want and what you can spend to get it ! I shoot a ruger in 454 now , I guess i just like the power not that i need it !
have any of those locks messed up and locked while shooting ?

Lloyd Smale · « **Reply #54 on:** June 04, 2007, 10:39:28 AM »

my guess is that if you were using 110 for sure you started out with a defective gun. What did smith say and do about it? Id never publish some of the loads ive run out of some of my guns in my follish young days but needless to say smiths saw 300s with full cases of 110 and ive never stretched a frame. Like i stated i did shoot one out of time and have since wized up to the fact that the power gained by running these bullets at 1300 vs 1100 is about nill and is nothing but the foolish macho battering of a fine weapon.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #55 on:** June 04, 2007, 10:50:37 AM »

i will try to find the data tonight , we shot some 300's but most were 240-260 grain sil bullets ! I didn't think it was defective gun but it was back when S&W was having problems !

S.B. · « **Reply #56 on:** June 04, 2007, 11:59:17 AM »

The only problems I can remember S&W having were the 29 cylinder moving back during firing? Has since been rectified by the enhancement package. Personally, I've never heard of a 29 frame stretching, before? I've owned a lot of them and shot some pretty stout stuff thru them. Again, sounds like an overload of (wrong) fast burning powder, ie: bullseye, 231 or the likes.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #57 on:** June 04, 2007, 02:16:35 PM »

I looked it up as best i can tell it was 25 gr H-110 as shown in the Hornady 3rd. addition , with either a Hornady 240 hollow pt or a tmj from speer or serria sil. bullet .
the load is a little over for the speer bullet but never gave a problem in the ruger , but did in the S&W ( my fault ) i advise against the load for a speer bullet or sierra .
Ok it was the loads for the 45 colt that had higher press. loads for T.C. & Ruger , i had a book with loads for IHMSA guns , but can't find it , that may be what i was thinking about , but i was mistaken about the standard books please forgive me !
I neither had heard of a S&W frame stretching , not sure that was the best term to use , but that is what the gunsmith used to describe it , what happened was the bullet. pin would not line up as it should , the frame was out of alignment , and to get the gun to lock the cyl. in place took alot of force , the new pin didn't help ! the hole where the bolt came thru. was messed up also ! the gunsmith sent it back to S&W when it came back it would shoot but it spit a little out the cyl. bbl. gap and accuracy was not typical S&W . i was charged shipping only and that was by the gunsmith .
now lets look at the 45colt loadings which is where we should have looked before they do show the Ruger taking a stronger load ! SB it was in the late 80's maybe 90 , the cyl thing may have contributed to it , had not heard that before but something went wrong ! a cyl. backing up and a to hot load or 6 may have been it .
the powders you listed i used very little because they were easy to over load , i still have over half the first LB. of bullseye i got in about 1976 .
Now i in no way blame S&W in fact carry one everyday ! just think ruger is stronger , will admit S&W may be the better balance of power and strength in a carry 44 mag. ! ruger on the other hand could probably be used as a crow bar with no ill effect

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #58 on:** June 04, 2007, 02:19:16 PM »

Not bullet pin cyl. pin
had a teach used to preach proof reading !

Lloyd Smale · « **Reply #59 on:** June 04, 2007, 02:42:14 PM »

i had a 396 that with heavy loads would rotate backwards. Ive heard of it in the 500s too. I was told by smith what casued it and came to realize afterward they were right. Now for those who dont know a 396 is a titanium L frame 5 shot 44 special with a 3 inch barrel the gun weights only 19 ozs and the load i was shooting was a 250 kieth with 18 grains of 2400. CAN YOU SAY RECOIL!! My .500s and 475s with full loads are more pleasant to shoot. what happens that causes the cylinder to back up is when fireing the recoil is so severe that the gun slams back into your finger and actually propells your finger back into the trigger and partialy pulls the trigger back unlocking the cylinder. When you again pull the trigger or cock the hammer you put the cylinder you just fired right back into battery. SHOOTALL there is no possible way that a 240 grain bullet and 25 grains of 110 stretched that frame unless it was dammaged allready. That load is no more poweful then some factory 44 mag ammo available.