Is there that much difference? What are they?

[FrankenMauser]

the45er, S&W trades on a name that they no longer represent. The name brings higher price tags, even though mostly undeserved.
S&W dug themselves into a hole in the '90s and early 2000s, pretty much turning themselves into Colt of the '80s. They've been clawing their way back, but not in quality, in my opinion. Rather, it has been via cost-cutting and producing mass market models, rather than the more refined items that built the brand.

But people still pay 'refined' pricing.

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.

It might be beneficial to you to step outside of your antiquated echo chamber and take a look around once in a while. You seem to be stuck in the '70s, when Ruger was hated for being "new and unknown". If you check a current calendar, you'll find that that was 50 years ago.

Not only has Ruger refined their investment casting processes to be highly effective, consistent, and reliable; but the rest of the industry has bought in, as well. Some use their own processes. Some use other foundries. But as of 2015, Ruger (Pine Tree Casting) was supplying investment cast parts to more than 40% of their competitors in the firearms industry.

Casting aside...
Outside of recreational and hunting uses, there are quite a few people competing with stock and fairly-stock Rugers today - especially the Mk IV and 22/45.
If I remember correctly, Ruger's tally for top level wins last year, just with 9mm handguns, was 36.

Instead of ignoring everything when you read or hear "Ruger", try listening. Try learning.
Your statements strike me as the kind that come from a person that goes into "standby mode" at the mention of a brand you don't like. "Wake me up when when you want to talk about 'real guns', like Smith & Wesson, Colt, or Kimber..." zZzzzz


So, what dog do I have in this fight? None, really, except disliking misconceptions, outdated opinions, and people that never answer the question posed but instead want to rant about a brand they dislike.

I don't like 1911s. The only one that I own is a mix-master with an H&R frame and a Remington-Rand slide. And I only own it because it is not normal.
I don't like the Ruger Mk series, either. They're decent pistols, but I prefer Buckmarks. (The spring flip is stupid, for the record. Unnecessary and usually just causes problems.)

 

[wild cat mccane]

Oops. Wasn't even around in the 70s.

I was buying guns first in the early 2000s. Ruger hasn't had a good full sized auto cartridge gun since I've been on scene.

Meh. That's my reputation experience comment. Again. Great if it's a good gun. But it is their only "target" level gun. Next is the American which is pretty much panned.

I actually firstly noted the differences and called it a scandium alloy. Don't be sassy, everyone else is kinda repeating me.

 

[stinkeypete]

Scandium improves the yield strength of pure aluminum by about 1500% which seems like a lot until you realize no one uses pure aluminum, just as no one uses pure iron.

Scandium is about 10% stronger in yield strength than Zamak (Al, zinc, Mn, Cu) and has other good qualities.

Zamak’s problem is that if the alloy has imperfections (I think “dirty” zinc is a common problem) then it has stress problems. But top grade zamak is really tough stuff.

Scandium is supposed to resist heat cycling very well, the best alloy for heat resistance. That’s a good property for a gun.
It is also said to have the best anodization properties of all the alloys. Also good.

I had a Scandium S&W .22 field revolver. It was marvelously light weight. It was not the frame that disappointed, it was simply not accurate. Customer service was not helpful at all, so I sold it.

I suppose my Bearcat replaced it. It’s more accurate although much heavier. Maybe my Single six .32 replaced it. Far far far more accurate than either.

A few days ago I got out to the range again after a long Covid layoff. I’ve gotten old! I STUNK! Time to practice much more… or given my eyes.. maybe time to thin my handgun herd. I am liking shotguns lately. Fuzzy targets are not a problem with that discipline.

 

[Shadow9mm]

Ruger makes a fine gun. The one thing that really peaked my interest in the Ruger when it came out was that, due to being invest cast, ruger was able to make the safety detent part of the frame instead of it having to be staked on as I understand it. IMHO the safety detent being staked on is a small design issue with the 1911 platform, as they can come loose and cause all kinds of problems.

Scandium is a cool metal, but its expensive, that's where a fair bit of the price difference comes from I would wager.

 

[dahermit]

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.

Now that you have put it that way, I see your point. Aluminum alloy with Scandium does not Scandium make... it makes an Aluminum alloy with some Scandium and they should not be referring to it as "Scandium".

 

[SSGN-Doc]

Well let’s see S&W is in a high cost, highly taxed section of the country with workers who get paid to live in said area. Ruger is in a lower cost section of the country.

In the last couple of years S&Ws reputation has been sliding downward on QA and customer service and warranty backing.

Ruger has always had a good reputation for backing their products.

S&W seems to be following a pattern repeated by legacy American firearms companies who had their roots in New England. Resting on a century or more of reputation without trying to maintain it.

 

[stinkeypete]

In the last four or five DECADES S&W has slid.

I maintain it’s the dogged pursuit of maximized profit over all else that has torpedoed American Craftsmen.

Italian companies make the finest shotguns and have hundreds of years of history. The best double action revolvers are German or French. The Swiss make stuff you take to the Olympics when you want to win.

Ruger’s innovation is in their casting operations. Their firearms have a cost advantage over those using forging. They span the difference with legendary customer service. Their reputation is for over engineered, strong and affordable quality.

An Austrian company innovated plastic molded parts, cheap barrels, and god-awful trigger pull. It’s true that they make these things run reliably, and have marketed that, as well as convincing government agencies to swap to new versions every few years. This helps convince consumers to “upgrade” Perfectly functional Gen 1 to Gen 5 with less actual advantage than upgrading you phone every year. Another genius move was to support gun games that favor firing lots, fast, and not accurately over Olympic or NRA Bullseye events. You will not see one Glock at Camp Perry and ain’t no one gushing about the deep deep blue black dreamy metal finish or sending em to Turnbull.

Any company, in the pure pursuit of profit, would be foolish to not get out of selling hardware that will last 100 years and make software that one can resell every few years and requires only a few skilled programmers, a huge marketing department, and an internet hookup to Ireland so they can avoid taxes completely.

It just doesn’t support skilled craftsmen in wages, support infrastructure, or living conditions.

Guns made in low wage countries are plenty, but I can’t think of any that make what we would call “heirloom quality.”

Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Wisconsin (Kolar, Henry), NJ (Henry)… nor exactly low cost, low tax places.

 

[wild cat mccane]

Hold on.

And I'm not looking to get this thread closed.

Ruger does not cost less because it's in CT or AZ. Ruger uses crude (or crud) finishes on their guns. LCP/LC9 basically have a thin black rust on them and that's it. They copied the striker design of their flagship polymer gun from Kel Tec. Everyone into guns knows and experiences this. At the start I said I paid 1/2 the price of my carry LCP just to hard chrome the terrible finish.

Meanwhile, S&W operates in one of the most financially successful State in the United States where people living there make more and have higher degrees and higher qualifying job markets on median and average. So what?

S&W has a line up that is MASSIVELY larger than Ruger. Revolvers, massively larger brands and products. Polymer, MASSIVELY larger. 1911 like this thread? Ruger just started, S&W has been doing them forever.


Don't drag politics into it. Ruger being in lower wage states isn't a great thing for wage workers either, is it? So even that position is a bit odd. I personally like my wage being higher, not lower. Even when others around me have higher wages, it doesn't hurt me one bit.

Ruger are cheaper. Great. But you know what? Taurus forged 1911s (2005) are also cheaper than Ruger. Is that politics? No. Does it make one better or not? no. What Ruger is currently fielded by an law agency? none. S&W?

Asked if there is a difference. YES. Materially the scandium will be more expensive and that include production of the alloy, not just raw. In 1911s, reputation is everything since even (disparaging here given Rugers small line up) even Ruger makes one.

If the Ruger 1911 is a good value, great. Is there a difference. Nope. That's why you can buy them separately for the same price. Of course not true. Either Rugers entry is priced right, it will raise in price, or it will raise in price and lower S&W. I do not think the 3rd is going to happen.

But let's not claim Ruger is somehow magical and S&W is just terrible.

 

[44 AMP]

1911 like this thread? Ruger just started, S&W has been doing them forever.

I think we have different ideas of "forever"...

I think its fair to say that Colt has been doing them "forever", S&W hasn't.

And if you think that S&W and Ruger's MSRP differences are due to where their factories are physically located, I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

Not saying the cost of doing business in a given state has zero effect, just that its not nearly that simple and there are many, many other factors at work.

 

[SSGN-Doc]

Don’t want to confuse economics with politics.

Economically if it cost more to pay workers, the cost of the product is higher.

Forged frames from Brazil being cheaper illustrate this point. You are correct, it isn’t politics it is cost.

Ruger does use different manufacturing processes, however that gap is closing as S&W shifted to many MIM and cast parts as well.

The fact that S&W has let customer service and QA slip is an observation. Not politics.

Ruger moved out of New England as a cost cutting measure, (and maybe politics), decades ago. But they had their roots in the same region as S&W and Colt. But the decline of the large firearms companies is another observation. Winchester, Remington, Marlin, Colt, and now S&W found problems by resting on their reputations and failing to maintain standards and innovation.

Ruger has also had some misses with regard to new products.

When we get into the other factors that the gun community finds value in, it is how a company stands behind their product and how they treat their customers. Ruger has a pretty long reputation of giving customers the benefit of the doubt. Sending them parts if they break or get lost, with no questions asked. S&W used to be like this, but there has been a trend (regardless of geographic location) where they once stood by their products for life as an unwritten warranty, to one where they deflect. Clocked barrels, frames on revolvers being “No longer in specification and unsafe to shoot” after 4 years of use. Will S&W fix it? Not any more. They may offer a discount on another revolver , but who wants it if it’s just going to wear out in four years and need to be replaced again at the owners expense.

Oh your M&P fires out of battery? “A little out of battery is ‘OK’.” Sorry your gun blew up, it must have been the ammo.

This is the sort of decline that isn’t politics, it’s bad business.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Ruger moved out of New England as a cost cutting measure, (and maybe politics), decades ago.

Ruger's corporate headquarters remains in Connecticut. They have two major manufacturing plants, one of which is in Newport, New Hampshire (which is in New England), and the other of which is in Prescott, Arizona.

 

[44 AMP]

You might also consider who owns Ruger, since its founding, and who has owned S&W and who currently owns it, today.

There's always a lot of comparison between Ruger and S&W, as many models are directly competing, but remember that Ruger began by making guns no one else did. Pretty good ones, at a price most folks thought to be a fair bargain.

And I don't mean Ruger's specific designs, I mean classes of guns. Ruger made several styles that people wanted, and the "big" makers had essentially abandoned (SA revolvers, single shot rifles, etc..) and wonder of wonders, there was a market.

I love the Ruger Mk I and I can live withs its kin, and feel there isn't a better SA revolver for the money than a new model Blackhawk. However, I can't stand their centerfire semi auto pistols. A personal quirk.

Whatever YOU like better, Ruger, S&W, this model or that, get what YOU like best, get to know it, and learn what it is, and isn't. If its for you, you're set. If not, try another.

When you're looking at one of the polymer framed semis, I'd say it depends on how many angels you want dancing on the head of your personal pin...

 

[FrankenMauser]

Ruger's corporate headquarters remains in Connecticut. They have two major manufacturing plants, one of which is in Newport, New Hampshire (which is in New England), and the other of which is in Prescott, Arizona.

Don't forget Mayodan, NC. It may have started with only a few products, but the whole building (which is not small) is packed with equipment now.