The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: The Revolver Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 20, 2013, 09:30 PM   #26
DFrame
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 7, 2008
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 451
In order:
Colt
S&W
Ruger



everything else
__________________
Mark Lane to William Buckley: "Have you ever referred to Jessee Jackson as an ignoramus?"
Buckley: "If I didn't, I should have"
DFrame is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 10:07 PM   #27
rclark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2009
Location: Butte, MT
Posts: 1,645
Personal preference.

In order :

Ruger
Everything else

S&W has no single actions, so have never went there....
__________________
A clinger. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Single Action .45 Colt (Sometimes improperly referred to by its alias as the .45 'Long' Colt or .45LC). Don't leave home without it. Ok.... the .44Spec is growing on me ... but the .45 Colt is still king.
rclark is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 11:53 PM   #28
SgtLumpy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Posts: 779
OK, I'm stupid to the term. What's a "Hillary Hole"? I presume some kind of lock thingiemabob.


Sgt Lumpy - n0eq
SgtLumpy is offline  
Old January 21, 2013, 12:29 AM   #29
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,889
Quote:
OK, I'm stupid to the term. What's a "Hillary Hole"? I presume some kind of lock thingiemabob.
It's a childish invective used by some to refer to the internal lock that S&W began incorporating into their revolvers in 2001. This was shortly after Tomkins PLC entered into the notorious "Agreement of 2000" with the Clinton Administration and the internal lock requires a small hole in the left side of the frame, hence "Hillary Hole".
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old January 21, 2013, 08:49 AM   #30
AZ-Quailhunter
Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2006
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 60
I have both but I certainly don't like the internal locks on the newer S&W...I just find myself using my Rugers, SA as well as DA a lot more often.
AZ-Quailhunter is offline  
Old January 21, 2013, 01:46 PM   #31
temmi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 13, 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 531
for 45 Colts I say Ruger

Same with 480R

But for a Snub

I go S&W

Go Figure

Snake
temmi is offline  
Old January 21, 2013, 05:33 PM   #32
Gats Italian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 12, 2008
Posts: 331
Quote:
It's a childish invective used by some to refer to the internal lock that S&W began incorporating into their revolvers in 2001. This was shortly after Tomkins PLC entered into the notorious "Agreement of 2000" with the Clinton Administration and the internal lock requires a small hole in the left side of the frame, hence "Hillary Hole".
People are still beating the dead horse called Bill Ruger for his minor role in an equally dead AWB.

Smith's betrayal of the 2A lives on to this day. There is no reason for the Clinton era lock to be on those revolvers as S&W sells some snubbies using the lack of a lock as an attractive feature.

To me, that looks as if Smith likes the lock marring their wares.
__________________
Leave the gun, take the cannoli.
Gats Italian is offline  
Old January 21, 2013, 05:53 PM   #33
weblance
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Posts: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtLumpy
Does Ruger engrave their "lawyer warning" stuff on their revolvers like they do on some (all?) of their other guns? For some that's a big turn off.
Ruger has now switched the engraving to the bottom of the barrel. They have listened to the consumer, and made this change because people have complained about it.

I own both, and cherish both
weblance is offline  
Old January 21, 2013, 06:18 PM   #34
angel71rs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: TX
Posts: 113
I was making the same decision recently, chose the Ruger GP100. A shooting buddy has a nice Smith 681, wanted one too, but all I found were well used and $$$. Considered a new Smith 686, but didn't want to deal with the internal lock, removal, plugging hole...

Opinions were that the Ruger was good, trigger not as nice, but easy to improve with a trigger job. So I went with the Ruger, did a trigger job on it, installed lighter trigger and hammer springs, very happy with end result. In direct comparison with buddy's 681 at the range, I preferred the Ruger's DA trigger. Link to thread for details:

http://rugerforum.net/ruger-double-a...igger-job.html

Good luck with your decision OP.
angel71rs is offline  
Old January 21, 2013, 06:38 PM   #35
GregInAtl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2010
Location: Gwinnett County Georgia
Posts: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by codefour
And yes, S&W triggers are smoother. On the other hand, you can make a Ruger trigger quite good, if not as good, as a S&W with a Wolfe Spring kit and an India stone. In fact, recent Ruger triggers are not as bad as they used to be.
I have a Ruger Security Six and really like it. I was thinking of getting a Wolfe spring kit for it to make the trigger lighter but I read somewhere that the Wolfe kit doesn't help the Ruger trigger nearly as much as it does the Smith.

Any thoughts?
__________________
"The worst place to have your happiness is in sombody else's head" -Lester Sumrall
GregInAtl is offline  
Old January 21, 2013, 08:29 PM   #36
Ruger45LC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 416
I prefer Rugers. Generally I think S&W has better finish and triggers, but Rugers are tougher and while the triggers aren't generally as good as S&W, they're not bad either.
__________________
Glocks and Single Actions

Repent America!
Ruger45LC is offline  
Old January 21, 2013, 09:03 PM   #37
Cowboy_mo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 23, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 900
I have one of each and love them both...

S&W K-22
Ruger sp101

I got the S&W used from my father and he had purchased it used. It has a butter smooth trigger and is capable of shooting much better than I.

The Ruger was purchased barely used and the trigger has smoothed out through a lot of dry firing and putting about 300 rounds of live ammo down range. It is also a great shooter.

I don't think you can go wrong with either!
Cowboy_mo is offline  
Old January 21, 2013, 09:41 PM   #38
SIGSHR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 3,076
S&W-circa 1908 design and manufacturing techniques.
Ruger-1960s design and manufacturing techniques.
The Ruger is easier to disassemble for cleaning I found improving the trigger pull on my Security Six a matter of buying an aftermarket spring set and installing it if that is a consideration. I recommend getting one of each,shoot them regularly for say 10 years,then decide.
SIGSHR is offline  
Old January 21, 2013, 09:50 PM   #39
EdInk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2009
Posts: 3,967
I like both brands but it depends a lot on the model.
__________________
Sic Semper Tyrannis
EdInk is offline  
Old January 22, 2013, 12:31 AM   #40
Mr. Whimsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2010
Posts: 147
You literally cannot lose with either.

Here's some random thoughts on the subject:

1. The vaunted "strength" of the Ruger is merely it weighing half a pound more than the Smith. I personally have had 2 Rugers' timing go sloppy - one Blackhawk, one Redhawk. Also broke the transfer bars on them from frequent dry-firing. Why, you ask? They had miserable, terrible triggers, and I needed frequent practice to master them. I never did this with any Smith, because they had such great triggers to begin with.

Both Rugers were fine revolvers - but any revolver will need maintenance eventually regardless of make. Ruger saw fit to replace my Blackhawk's laser-accurate .45 Colt cylinder with one of their klinkers having the too-small exit holes, so it patterned like a shotgun after that. The trigger had become wonderful with use, so they replaced everything there too and it was once again like puling a hoe over gravel. I was so irritated by this behavior that I sold both revolvers. I finally wised up and bought a Super Blackhawk 10.5" last summer and it is the bee's knees.

2. The infamous "Hillary Holes" on my Smith and Wessons (boy does that sound mature) have never once caused a malfunction. Ugly? Hell yes. But you guys are going to the trouble of removing them? Really? I simply can't comprehend the tizzy some folks work themselves into regarding the former owners' political leanings. It's like the hubbub over the addition of a cross-bolt safety on a certain lever action rifle ... honestly, who really gives a crap. Seems like some gunnies have a borderline-OCD resistance to change. Would it be great if Smith stopped putting them on there? Yep! Are there tons of non-hole used S&W's for reasonable prices in my area? Nope! No real choice for me, so I just buy new and ignore the lock that I never use.

Seriously though, either gun is great and I plan on buying more of both brands.

Last edited by Mr. Whimsy; January 22, 2013 at 12:38 AM.
Mr. Whimsy is offline  
Old January 22, 2013, 12:47 AM   #41
Hook686
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2005
Location: USA The Great State of California
Posts: 1,930
I own 4 S&W DA revolvers and 1 Ruger SA revolver. I enjoy shooting what I have.
__________________
Hook686

When the number of people in institutions reaches 51%, we change sides.
Hook686 is offline  
Old January 22, 2013, 01:22 AM   #42
volkstrm
Member
 
Join Date: November 10, 2007
Posts: 85
I love my two Ruger's I have. The SP101 & GP100. That said I would not give you 2 cents for a s&w with that dumb ass lock! I do have an old mold#36 s&w its ok does not have that dumb lock. I would never buy ANY gun with a lock like that. But thats just me I wont let them ram it down on me & make me pay for it.
volkstrm is offline  
Old January 22, 2013, 08:25 AM   #43
CajunBass
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 6, 2005
Location: North Chesterfield, Virginia
Posts: 3,422
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.

__________________
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:16 (NKJV)
CajunBass is offline  
Old January 22, 2013, 08:47 AM   #44
Revolver1
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 150
Is this question a joke? While not built like they used to be, S&W is still far superior to Ruger junk!
Revolver1 is offline  
Old January 22, 2013, 09:50 AM   #45
LockedBreech
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 6, 2009
Location: Rocky Mountain West
Posts: 3,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revolver1 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunBass View Post
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.
LockedBreech is online now  
Old January 22, 2013, 10:07 AM   #46
L_Killkenny
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,676
Quote:
Sorry to the Ruger fans, but I've never seen a Ruger that looked like this.
Agreed. I've seen some dang nice guns from both companies but some of those Smiths just define class. Unfortuntly, almost all of them that do that are from past generations. You go to about any gun shop or show and look at current models from both companies and IMO one isn't finished or designed any better looking then the other.

I'm a Ruger fan myself. They've made their niche by producing working man's guns. Do I honestly think they are as good or as classy as the Smiths? Heck no. But I can get close enough without spending as much to make me happy.

Pick your poison and dance with who brung ya. Both will dance just fine.
L_Killkenny is online now  
Old January 22, 2013, 10:30 AM   #47
Gats Italian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 12, 2008
Posts: 331
When even the most "fixer upper" Bangor Punta era S&Ws are coveted over the modern ones, the company has an image problem with its new models.
__________________
Leave the gun, take the cannoli.
Gats Italian is offline  
Old January 22, 2013, 10:30 AM   #48
SgtLumpy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Posts: 779
Quote:
CajunBass wrote:

Sorry to the Ruger fans, but I've never seen a Ruger that looked like this.
What is that, exactly, Caj? 3" N?


Sgt Lumpy - n0eq
SgtLumpy is offline  
Old January 22, 2013, 10:43 AM   #49
CajunBass
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 6, 2005
Location: North Chesterfield, Virginia
Posts: 3,422
Quote:
What is that, exactly, Caj? 3" N?
Yes, that's a 3", 27-2 from IIRC, 1978. I've owned a lot of other ones over the years, including a "pre-27" but this one is the only one I kept when I reduced my inventory.

Quote:
When even the most "fixer upper" Bangor Punta era S&Ws are coveted over the modern ones, the company has an image problem with its new models.
The biggest reason I don't care for the more modern Smith & Wessons is they're almost all stainless steel. I just don't care for stainless, no matter when it was made. I had both a 21-4, (44 Special) and a 25-14, I think it was in 45 Colt that I liked, but they got purged in the great drawdown. Both were "modern" guns, both had the internal lock and both were as well made as anything else I've ever owned. Shot just as well too. Both were made since 2000 anyway.
__________________
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:16 (NKJV)
CajunBass is offline  
Old January 22, 2013, 12:17 PM   #50
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,889
Quote:
Quote:
It's a childish invective used by some to refer to the internal lock that S&W began incorporating into their revolvers in 2001. This was shortly after Tomkins PLC entered into the notorious "Agreement of 2000" with the Clinton Administration and the internal lock requires a small hole in the left side of the frame, hence "Hillary Hole".

People are still beating the dead horse called Bill Ruger for his minor role in an equally dead AWB.

Smith's betrayal of the 2A lives on to this day. There is no reason for the Clinton era lock to be on those revolvers as S&W sells some snubbies using the lack of a lock as an attractive feature.

To me, that looks as if Smith likes the lock marring their wares.
I'm not going to be drawn into another lock debate as I've already circled that tree more times than I care to remember. Instead, I will simply reiterate my point that one's opinion carries much more weight with me when said person refrains from sophomoric name-calling like "Hillary Hole" or "Smith & Clinton".
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14382 seconds with 9 queries