SW vs Ruger

[ZEBRARANGER]

Ruger

 

[wild cat mccane]

Master Revolver Action Package ($165)

https://www.smith-wesson.com/customer-service/performance-center-precision-gunsmithing

So taking the better trigger better, within a reasonable amount of money.


Not to get dusty, but perhaps we don't hear about GP100s going out of time because GP100s aren't used in competition shooting sports. S&W are. So it's a legit point.

I don't know if I've read a post about someone's 686 going out of time...maybe ever.

 

[Don P]

S&W is forged/milled and has a superior trigger.

With a little bit of work one can achieve a trigger to give the S&W a run for the money. I have a big pat on the back from a S&W armorer about the trigger on my GP-100 match champion.

 

[JohnKSa]

I don't know if I've read a post about someone's 686 going out of time...maybe ever.

I posted on this thread about one that went out of time twice.

I wouldn't make a buying decision based only on one design being more likely to go out of time--in fact, I bought the gun in question after the previous owner decided to sell it.

 

[highpower3006]

My 586 is almost 40 years old and has always been a solid gun. I got it used about ten years ago and have no clue as to how it was treated before I got it. Judging it's general cosmetic condition, I don't think it was babied. I personally have always shot .357's through it and it is within a whisker of being as accurate as either of my M27's.

And it does indeed have a full length underlug:

 

[RKG]

If you are talking new production now, I would choose the Ruger GP-100 over any S&W revolver made now.

However, I would absolutely choose an older used S&W revolver over any GP-100 and any new S&W revolver.

My comfort zone would be right around 1999 or older, and I find a real sweet spot between about 1983 and 1993.

Smith & Wesson made today has a pretty good chance of zero, and I mean literally zero QC inspection. That entire department has been outsourced to the consumer. If you buy a new S&W, and especially a revolver, you may get to try your hand at the fine reputation of their customer service and warranty. The problems you might see are unlimited. Frankly, it's a laugh riot. I'm a S&W revolver guy through and through and S&W QC today makes my stomach turn. It is revolting.

As for operational difference between GP-100 and a K-frame or L-frame S&W .357 Magnum:

Single action on the S&W is noticeably better

Double action on new S&W and GP-100 might be close comparison... S&W smoother but hits a heavy, obnoxious dead wall at the end that you have to bash through. The Ruger is springy and sproingy but mostly predictable -- the trigger stroke seems to take F O R E V E R but it gets there.

The S&W is more receptive to improvement in the double action feel if you are comfortable going inside the revolver.

The Ruger is far, far, far, FAR more bulletproof to issues with regard to timing and wear. To put this another way, you can go out and find a million S&W revolvers with timing that is a little off or a little slow or a little erratic, but it's half a miracle to find any Security Six, GP-100 or Redhawk with timing problems of any sort.

Summary:

1) get a S&W from 20+ years ago
2) get a Ruger GP-100 from whenever
3) get a new production S&W from right now and report back anything and everything you find that ain't right with it

Concur 100%.

 

[FITASC]

Thanks for the link, Wildcat

 

[ChiefTJS]

A year ago I decided I needed a new 4" .357Mag. I chose to buy a S&W686 and a Ruger GP100, shoot them side by side until I decided one was better and sell the other. I kept the Ruger. Out of the box the Ruger trigger was better than the Smith and accuracy was a complete wash. Completely subjective and my opinion alone but that's what I did.

 

[VAGuy]

S&W is more refine, has the nicer trigger, can handle the same 357mag rounds as Ruger***, and has more aftermarket support.

Ruger AND S&W switched to MIM parts which work perfectly fine with both revolvers. The MIM parts are not prematurely failing in either revolver! For whatever reason S&W gets more flack and a harder time for their use of MIM parts when Ruger also made the switch vs what they use to sell.

** Ruger is manufactured out of cast steel and S&W forged. People like to pontificate about how Ruger can handle uncommon HOT ammo that you are unlikely to ever need or shoot unless you're buying a longer barrel revolver for hunting purposes. If it's for self-defense, home defense, range, or competition shooting, it's a moot overstated point. I'd probably buy a 44mag in that case anyway.... Older Smiths have been around for decades and newer Smith are more popular than Rugers, and they both have been going string without issues despite the rhetoric.

You can't lose with either. For me, classic looks, refinement, the trigger, aftermarket support, and stock options were daily and regular things I have to deal with and affected me. Being able to shoot the hottest 357 ammo on the market, not so much. If you are so inclined, there are even aftermarket parts to replace the MIM parts with forged parts for current S&W revolvers. The lock has never been an issue or worry for me, but if it's a big deal to you, there are lock delete kits as well. If it's a no lock non K-frame Smith, it's a no brainer over Ruger

S&W are the most popular revolvers in competition shooting by aficionados who are sponsored and put thousands of rounds through their examples. Might not account for anything....

 

[gnappi]

For me the 686+ is the ultimate DA/Sa .357 mag revolver. well... if Ruger still made the Security Six it might be a toss up.

 

[rodfac]

I'm a Smith guy for DA/SA revolvers, tho I own and dearly love Ruger SA's..have 8 of them in fact. But for triggers, I don't think Smith has an equal, and triggers are maybe the the key to practical, field accuracy....off the bags, you can get most any trigger to work, but from field positions, a good trigger allows a good let-off....

For longevity, I've had no issues with any of my Smiths...probably two dozen in the 50+ years I've been shooting them. My 6" M-19, new in '72, has had thousands of rounds through it and still holds sub-2" groups at 25 yds...same for a 4" M-19 a few years younger. For the most part these guns have been shot with mid-level, 900-1100 fps loads and have not suffered from end shake, barrel tenon cracks etc.

Given a preference, I like 4" models with half-lug bbl's for their ease of carry (even for CC purposes) and suitable accuracy out to 50 yds with open sights. For heavy loads, Pachmayr Signature or Hogue Monogrips, while supremely fugly, work better than any wood types I've tried. For overall, long years of heavy use, if you can deal with the increased weight on the belt, one of Smith's fully lugged models might be the choice...tho I'd suggest a stainless model for ease of care while engaged in back country travel.

Here's a quartet of my .357's in bbl. lengths from 3 to 6". The top gun, the aforementioned '72 vintage, M-19, wears the most comfortable, wood stocks I've used. They're Smith's version of 'Combat' grips. The 2nd from the bottom, a M-66, wears Mikulek's DA grips...a good choice, too, for avoiding 2nd knuckle rap with stout loads.

YMMv, Rod

​

 

[gnappi]

Either one will outlast you. I overwhelmingly prefer S&W DA/SA revolvers.

 

[MarkCO]

I prefer Ruger to S&W as a company, today.

But, go read "Sevens" post #4. Another ditto.

I've owned 2 Ruger Revolvers, both now gone. I've owned 3 S&W Revolvers, 2 still with me and would probably be the last handguns that I let go of as I leave this earth. Such a joy to shoot. I want another .357 Magnum, in stainless so I can stop shooting my first handgun, a 35 year old Taurus 65. But I'm a bit leery of plunking down the premium price for an older Smith right now. But I keep my eyes open.