Originally Posted by Revolver1
Is this question a joke? While not built like they used to be, S&W is still far superior to Ruger junk!
Do you have any facts to back up that hyperbole, or just a very strong and rudely stated opinion? Not an auspicious first post.
Originally Posted by CajunBass
I've owned both. I prefer Smith & Wesson, but that is only because I like the way they look better. I'm not sophisticated enough to tell one from the other as far as who has the better trigger. They feel different, not better or worse. If one shoots better than the other, I'm not good enough to tell it. I don't worry about which one is stronger because I'm not going to load anything hot enough to tell the difference. There is no chance on this earth that I'd ever wear either one out.
Neither one of them has made a lot of (centerfire) guns in the last 30 years that I'm interested in, but Smith & Wesson has made more. I do have a couple of newer Smiths from the 80's and 90's, but they are still the "classic" style.
The Ruger GP 100 or the Sp 101 have never interested me for some reason. To be fair neither have the "L" frame (586/686) or the "J" frame Smith & Wessons. Nothing wrong with them. They just don't appeal to me.
Sorry to the Ruger fans, but I've never seen a Ruger that looked like this.
That is a gorgeous wheel gun! I like the looks of the Ruger Service/Security Sixes, but wow, that one is a stunner.