Is there that much difference? What are they?

[the45er]

I have a Ruger 1911 9mm and a Scandium frame S&W 45 ACP. Quality wise, to my untrained eye, I don't see a lot of difference. I was cruising around on gunbroker.com and saw that you can get the Ruger in 9mm for around $1000. The S&W's, which did not appear to be "custom" in any way, were $1400-1600.

Both of these are known, reputable gun manufacturers. I guess I was just surprised at the price differential between the two guns. Anyone out there know if there are real quality differences between them?

 

[wild cat mccane]

Ruger is on a cast frame using the cheapest material at the cheapest construction.

The other is scandium alloy.

That's the difference.

Ruger has great guns...that said, not one is exceptional. They don't a signature gun in any area that isn't bested by most all. Their signature gun is the LCP. No other Ruger polymer gun is even current today. The GP100 only got 7 rounds a few back while the S&W has had 7 chambers for a long time. etc.

A Ruger will always be (and should be) cheaper. In the saturated 1911 field? Even a Taurus costs less but is hammer forged, not cast like the Ruger.

 

[Onward Allusion]

One word - Scandium

The metal alone is pretty much the cost difference. Scandium is great for carry pieces but for actual shooting, I'd rather have heavier steel - granted they're 1911's so not as bad as shooting the 327.

 

[Scorch]

Ruger is on a cast frame using the cheapest material at the cheapest construction.
The other is scandium alloy.

While that is not necessarily inaccurate, it can be misleading.
Ruger uses investment cast parts, which is an expensive process. They use the same stainless steel as any other gun manufacturers. Investment casting can make parts within thousandths of an inch, much like machining. Only it is less expensive to investment cast the major parts than it is to cast or forge the parts and then machine them. So the entire investment casting parts-making process is less expensive than the alternatives.

Scandium (Sc) is a very light metal, but is very expensive (currently about $150/lb). Similar to magnesiun (Mg), it is alloyed with aluminum to yield a light, strong metal alloy that is used in aerospace and research. So, just the cost of the metal is enough to explain the cost difference. After forming and machining, the alloy parts are anodized for protection.

The difference between the amount of finishing a Ruger investment cast stainless steel part goes through compared to a S&W scandium/aluminum alloy frame is significant.

So, as with many other firearms, the amount of hand or machine work the parts go through affects the price, as does the amount of finishing. And then, of course, the manufacturer can charge whatever they want to charge for the piece. This is apprent in the price differences between 1911s you see on the shelf, they are all similar, but prices differ. Compare SA, Colt, Kimber, etc, and try to explain away the price differences. They are all the same (or almost) model of standardized firearm, but prices vary quite a bit. Same with ARs.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Let's not forget that when FN came out with the .40 caliber Hi-Power, they switched from forged frames to investment cast frames because the investment cast frames were better able to stand up to the more powerful .40 S&W round.

There's nothing wrong with investment cast frames. Irrespective of that, Scandium is an expensive material. On the other hand, the S&W "Scandium" frames are not made of Scandium -- they are an aluminum alloy with a very tiny percentage of Scandium as one of the trace elements in the alloy.

 

[wild cat mccane]

No one actively seeks out a cast frame in the saturated 1911 world though, right?

Additional in to compare here, is Ruger actually more expensive than it should be? RIA makes a great 1911, cast frame, sometimes half the price of the Ruger.

What's special about the Ruger over a RIA?

 

[Jim Watson]

Made in USA.

 

[stinkeypete]

These are ALUMINUM ALLOYS with .05% to 0.15% Scandium in them. This is based on S&W’s patent applications regarding that material for product.

The addition of a pinch of Scandium is VERY effective.

Today, Scandium is trading at $4,080 per kg. A 1kg gun frame would use $3 Scandium and $1 in aluminum.

The increased cost is because Scandium is so expensive, waste must be tightly controlled and the mfg. process changed and the stuff is a different animal to machine.

To say that it’s a “Scandium frame” is a marketing ploy. It’s about like soup is a bowl of sodium chloride, and when pressed admit there is some broth, chicken and noodles in it, too.

Back in the day, I paid a lot for a S&W. It disappointed me. customer service disappointed me. I vowed only to own old classic S&W from the days of unquestioned quality and pay the gunsmith myself. Or just stick with single actions.

A 1911 has some slightly annoying quirks as it was invented around 1911. Since that time, some people improved the design with captured springs, improved internals, new fangled or inexpensive materials. To my snobbish self, you can change the sights on a 1911 and do a trigger job, maybe change the beaver tail… but if you make any changes that can’t be backed out and set back to “government”… then it’s a .45, not a 1911.

My dad had a Custom Shop S&W .45. He loved it. I wish I had it, but he lived far away and his dementia was creeping up on us and my step mom rightly got the guns sold off to good people.

Ps… the Ruger might crack, but Ruger will fix it within 2 weeks. The Smith might not run right, I bet it will take 40 mules a long whip and maybe they fix it, if the stars are in your favor.

That’s the difference in quality. The price difference is simply marketing.

 

[wild cat mccane]

Can't say one thing costs more and then say price difference is marketing?

 

[44 AMP]

To my snobbish self, you can change the sights on a 1911 and do a trigger job, maybe change the beaver tail… but if you make any changes that can’t be backed out and set back to “government”… then it’s a .45, not a 1911.

TO my snobbish self, if it wasn't made by Colt, for the US Govt before the A1 changes in the early 1920s, its not a 1911.

If it was made by Colt, for commercial sale its not a 1911 or 1911A1, its a "Govt Model" and the guns say so, right on them.

If its some other maker's gun, done in a 1911A1 pattern, and they name it 1911, fine. Just be sure to include the maker's name to clarify what gun you're talking about. A 1911 and a RUGER 1911 are quite different in many, many ways.

My son got a S&W 1911PD model. I got to keep it for a couple years while he was in Korea. Nice gun. Well made. All the bells and whistles a race gun fan would want (and some I don't).

Takes standard GI pattern magazines. Will NOT take GI grips (or aftermarket grips made for the GI/Colt guns) The spacing of the screw holes is just enough different that you need grips made for the S&W or they won't fit.

Not sure about Ruger, wouldn't surprise me if they were the same way.

Yes, S&W "Scandium" frames are scandium, the way steel shot is steel. (in case you don't know, "steel shot" is iron, with just enough carbon to chemically qualify as "steel" so is much softer than the steel alloys used in gun parts).

Looking back over the last 50+ years that I've been into guns, Ruger has always sold their guns that are roughly comparable to S&Ws at a lower price point.

A Security Six always cost less than a K frame....etc.

Why expect anything different today??

 

[reddog81]

No one actively seeks out a cast frame in the saturated 1911 world though, right?

Additional in to compare here, is Ruger actually more expensive than it should be? RIA makes a great 1911, cast frame, sometimes half the price of the Ruger.

What's special about the Ruger over a RIA?

There are more factors in pricing a gun then what the frame is made of. Should a Glock only cost $5 because the frame is plastic.

 

[wild cat mccane]

Nope. But neither is a US product more expensive just for being US?

 

[L. Boscoe]

Is there that much difference? What are they?

S&W has a longer stronger reputation, mostly because they were
there first, IMHO. Ruger has sold a lot of guns that were cheaper, and that is probably part of the difference.
All things being equal, forged is stronger than cast, so the alloy
must be somehow a very strong aluminum indeed

 

[Aguila Blanca]

No one actively seeks out a cast frame in the saturated 1911 world though, right?

Many people -- including many top 1911 pistolsmiths -- actively seek out Caspian frames. Caspian frames are investment castings.

 

[wild cat mccane]

My final comment for being proven wrong, Ruger doesn't have and has never had a target like pistol other than the 22 MK series, and those are mostly regutted with aftermarket everything and bested by the buckmark with the spring flip. So...reputation wise, Ruger has non for a 1911 expectation of accuracy.

I'm not saying it doesn't have accuracy, but Ruger has zero reputation for it. S&W has target style pistol(ed) like pistols.

Meh. If everyone likes em, great. It's good to see Ruger has finally got a non crap handgun best by everyone else

(My carry is an LCP I had hard chromed)

 

[stinkeypete]

Wild Cat.. $3 more in metal doesn't account for the price difference. Okay.. so out of the $500 price difference, $497 is marketing.

S&W USED to have target models. They no longer do.
Ruger makes affordable club-level target .22s, not desirable ones.

 

[BarryLee]

How might supply and demand factor into this? Am I correct in assuming that there are most likely more of the Ruger models on the market than the S&W?

 

[wild cat mccane]

My point was reputation as mentioned above. Ruger doesn't have one. It hasn't had, doesn't have anything above the "American" and no gun currently fielded by departments. Can't even recall what their current in production polymer gun is the American or Security, neither being desirable today.

Bit of a stretch for the LC9, American, and Security creator to just be expected to make a good 1911.

If they do, great. But that's the reputation problem Ruger has.

(check out the new MK Hunter pricing. It's not normal $450. Lowest on gun.deals is $800--I wrote a bit back the MK series went up from MSRP more than any other during all this)

 

[dahermit]

"On the other hand, the S&W "Scandium" frames are not made of Scandium -- they are an aluminum alloy with a very tiny percentage of Scandium as one of the trace elements in the alloy."

That may be misleading. Consider that the "trace element" (.8%) of Carbon in steel changes the properties drastically. That may or may not be true of Scandium. I would like to hear the input from a metallurgist on that point.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

"On the other hand, the S&W "Scandium" frames are not made of Scandium -- they are an aluminum alloy with a very tiny percentage of Scandium as one of the trace elements in the alloy."

That may be misleading. Consider that the "trace element" (.8%) of Carbon in steel changes the properties drastically. That may or may not be true of Scandium. I would like to hear the input from a metallurgist on that point.

Typical alloys of both steel and aluminum have multiple elements, in varying proportions. It's the number and percentage of the "trace" elements that differentiates one alloy from another. For example, "stainless" steel has some nickel in it -- but I don't know of any gun maker offering stainless firearms who calls the guns "nickel."

S&W's "scandium" guns are aluminum alloy. The particular alloy happens to have some scandium in it, and that tiny proportion of scandium probably does make a difference in the performance of the alloy -- but it's still an alloy of aluminum at heart. Calling it "Scandium" and implying to the unwashed masses that scandium is the only or the primary material in the alloy is pure marketing hype.