They look nicer, they shoot nicer (trigger), and they have a higher resale. Those are the facts. As for "adequate" functionality, I wouldn't use that term to describe either of them. Anyone who has actually handled or owns/owned both would be hard pressed to make such assinine assessment.
BodyBagger,
I would point out that looks and feel are not facts, but personal opinions. The higher resale is a fact that can be proven. So now that we have that straight lets talk about a few things.
First, higher resale, I have never had a reason to sell my Rugers. Where I come from people who sell their guns either lose their love of them or they can’t afford to keep them. I never understood the reasoning behind selling any gun.
Now lets talk about my supposed “asinine” comments regarding “adequate” functionality in a firearm. First let’s define the two flash words here.
asinine: adj. Utterly stupid or silly.
adequate: adj. Sufficient to satisfy a requirement or meet a need.
First let’s look at your comment and see how these two adjectives apply.
As for "adequate" functionality, I wouldn't use that term to describe either of them. Anyone who has actually handled or owns/owned both would be hard pressed to make such assinine assessment.
After seeing what those two adjectives mean, it is clear that you are saying that anyone who finds either brand of gun to be “adequate” (see definition above) is making an asinine (see definition above) assessment. Well then, thank you for pointing out your obvious lack of knowledge regarding the definition of these two adjectives.
Second the word “adequate” is not a negative comment, so how does this inspire such a strong reaction out of a person discussing the facts? Apparently we are not talking about facts here, but an emotional reaction. So let me explain so that you can feel more comfortable. My comments regarding “adequate” functionality in a Smith and Wesson revolver point to the fact that with the exception of the new X frame, the rest of the Smith and Wesson line is not made to handle the loads that Rugers are made to handle. So if I own a 4” Model 29 in .44magnum, which I do own as well as a .44 Mountain Gun, I can’t shoot the same “Ruger only” loads that I shoot in my 5 ½” Ruger Redhawk. This to me is “adequate”, not optimum functionality. Before you start arguing about looks and trigger feels, note that these are personal opinions, not fact. Look in any reloading manual to see the “RUGER ONLY” loads that are fact.
In the end the comments I made before have been proven true to me in my experience of owning, shooting, and selling (professionally) firearms. There are two kinds of people when it comes to buying guns and they have different reasons for buying the type of guns they buy. What is the most important to one group is not the same to the other, one will prefer looks and the other will prefer durability.
I would point out that I did not "BAG" on anyone regarding their desire to own a Smith and Wesson. I was responding to the following comment, which was a bag on the looks of a gun. Reread my post, apparently you missed a paragraph.
Life is to short to hunt with a gun as ugly as the super redhawk and that aint helping sales
Good luck and thank you. Have a great day.
.44mag
P.S. And I will respond to your comments regarding the two companies and share information. I am pulling Ruger's and Smith's financial statements off their investor relations sites. Might be late tonight before I am done reading.
