Smith&Wesson vs. Ruger

gdeal · June 3, 2008, 05:14 PM

Why is S&W so much more expensive than Ruger? And because of this price disparity, am I supposed to automatically assume that S&W is better than Ruger?

JWT · June 3, 2008, 05:20 PM

Both S&W and Ruger make excellent guns. Don't assume S&W is better than Ruger based on price. Look them both over carefully, try to shoot similar models of both and make your decision based on that as well as price.

The Ruger GP100, for example, is built like a tank and considerably less expensive than a similar S&W model but choosing to buy one is strictly a personal preference decision.

Rich Miranda · June 3, 2008, 05:24 PM

I am a relative novice but both S&W and Ruger seem to have reputations for making guns that last and last.

Smith & Wesson has more history and lore (and fans). Ruger is still working on that part.

I am a fan of both. I don't have any Smiths right now but an M&P is on the list!

laytonj1 · June 3, 2008, 05:38 PM

Threads like this usually turn into brand bashing. Different guns cost different amounts of money... buy what you want or can afford. Remember the old saying... you get what you pay for.

Jim

Sarvisian · June 3, 2008, 05:56 PM

And sometimes you pay more and get less. Some folks think if they pay more money they're getting a better product and that is not always the case.

Dave85 · June 3, 2008, 06:00 PM

Ruger uses manufacturing processes which lower the price, while still producing a high quality product. S&W uses more traditional metalurgical methods that produce a more svelte revolver of roughly equal quality. This comparison only pertains to steel revolvers, as Ruger does not make alloy revolvers.

Jart · June 3, 2008, 06:01 PM

Since I've started accumulating older S&Ws I've developed a certain familiarity with blue thread-locking compound. I like the way Ruger managed to lose most of that problem in the double actions.

I'll probably get a Ruger DA at some point or another. I had one a while back and it had a perfectly horrible trigger. The ones I've tried recently I would have to have worked on almost immediately and that would chew up some of the savings. I have less than no interest in going through whatever hoops are currently in place for the IBOK or DIY generally.

The GP-100 probably compares most closely to the 686 so if you've developed an attachment for the model 66 S&W, Ruger doesn't have much for you.

"Better" is a tough concept: depends on where your priorities lie. If you want to run a steady diet of epic .357 loads, a S&W "K" would be a poor substitute for a GP-100 IMHO. My priorities don't run in that direction so the "K" has a charm the Ruger lacks.

I also have several model 57s (.41 mag). So far as I know, Ruger has nothing for me in that arena either.

I've got a Ruger single action and like it but it retains that horrible trigger. 'Course that's in comparison to STI - S&W has no cowboy-looking single actions.

Diesel1 · June 3, 2008, 06:13 PM

Quote:

And because of this price disparity, am I supposed to automatically assume that S&W is better than Ruger?

Not at all, each have their strengths. I'm a Ruger man myself but that's because most of my friends have Smiths.

orionengnr · June 3, 2008, 06:26 PM

A Hummer and a Porsche both accomplish the same basic function.
However, there are substanial differences, and each appeals to a different type of buyer.

Which is "better"? Depends on you.

Tom2 · June 3, 2008, 06:27 PM

They are both comparable and some folks think a Ruger will take more abuse from hot rounds, maybe so, but they are close enough that comparable products should be chosen based on whether or not you like the particular features of one or the other. Both can be very accurate,

ChicagoTex · June 3, 2008, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Ruger uses manufacturing processes which lower the price, while still producing a high quality product. S&W uses more traditional metalurgical methods that produce a more svelte revolver of roughly equal quality.

Pretty much.

Ruger uses a casting process for most of it's parts, particularly the frame. By contrast, S&W revolvers are still entirely forged steel. Alloys being fairly equal, a cast component is less integrally strong than a properly forged counterpart (though not nearly by the margin the armchair metallurgists on the internet seem to think). Anyway, Ruger, in order to compensate for strength deficiencies from the casting process (and more, I think, the compensate for the overblown myth of how big those deficiencies are) deliberately "overbuilds" their revolvers - which is the source of their great reputation for durability. Unfortunately this tends to make Rugers more bulky and (in my opinion) ugly than their S&W counterparts. Rugers typically also have slightly poorer fit and finish, particularly when it comes to trigger smoothness but are obviously noticeably cheaper than S&Ws and still very high quality revolvers I wouldn't hesitate to recommend to anyone.

All that said, I'm an S&W fan, as they look and feel to me more like what a revolver really "should be" at it's prime. When you hold a steel S&W revolver in your hand, you can just tell there's another level of workmanship here and it's nearly impossible not to be mildly intoxicated by it - couple that with the fact that the smoothest, crispest triggers I have ever encountered in my life have been on S&W Double-Action revolvers (which is admitting an awful lot, since I'm still primarily an autoloader guy). I, like many S&W fans, cope with the cost by largely buying quality used examples.

Both are quality products backed by quality companies with quality customer service departments and both will get a bullet downrange equally effectively and reliably for, if properly taken care of, at least a couple generations without major repair. It mostly just comes down to your budget and what's important to you. As for me, I buy and own autoloaders as all my "utility guns", when I buy a Revolver, it's because it's just special.
And when I want special, S&W delivers.

cool hand luke 22:36 · June 3, 2008, 08:20 PM

Quote:

By contrast, S&W revolvers are still entirely forged steel

Except for the MIM parts which aren't.

Kreyzhorse · June 3, 2008, 08:35 PM

I own multiple S&W revolvers and consider myself a S&W man. I own one Ruger and sold another.

Generally speaking, I think Smith makes better small frame revolvers than Ruger. I own a S&W Airweight and a Ruger SP. The S&W has a much better trigger than the Ruger and overall I think its a step below where S&W is at.

I also own a S&W 686 and have put plenty of rounds down range through my buddy's Ruger GP. The GP is as fine a revolver as I've ever fired and if I lost my 686 I'd replace it with a Ruger. In my opinion, the 686 might have smidge better trigger than the GP, but for the difference in price between the two, its not that much better.

While I prefer S&W, Ruger makes fine handguns that are well priced. I really don't think you can go wrong buying a S&W over a Ruger and vice versa. It really comes down to the indivdual and which they prefer at what cost.

Sgt.Fathead · June 3, 2008, 08:53 PM

The usual postings here in a 'vs.' thread; good scoop and folks babbling with little or no knowledge, too. Ah, the inter-nerd!

I do love these Ford/Chevy, Mossberg/Remington, Coke/Pepsi battles though. Love to see the saber rattling and bristling commentary between factions. So much a part of America.

Long ago I loved S&W revolvers and had a whole safe full of them. Then I shot a friend's Ruger and sold all but one of those Smiths and replaced them with, yes, Rugers. It's all preference and feel, isn't it?

gopack · June 3, 2008, 09:49 PM

I guess I'm not one of those discerning individuals. Can't think of much to say negative about either Smith or Ruger revolvers. Quite frankly, I've never fired one of either manufacturer I haven't liked. Both companies make excellent revolvers. I'd be happy if my next one was from either company.

Ichiro · June 3, 2008, 10:10 PM

they're the same damn gun. Smith costs way more.

If you need to send it back, Smith will pay the shipping. Ruger won't. That evens the playing field just a little bit.

GP100man · June 3, 2008, 10:29 PM

revolvers are like vehicles , a corvette or a dump truck ?????
my self i`m a tonka kind of guy so i went with ruger ,my buddy is a smiff & wesson guy, we go to the range & blast away , in the end we`re happy !!

GP100man

Webleymkv · June 3, 2008, 10:47 PM

I own and enjoy both. They both have their own strengths and weaknesses and neither can really be called "better" than the other. Rugers are generally more durable than a Smith because they're more heavily built, they can often yield higher velocities than a comparable Smith, and they also have less felt recoil for some people due to their lower bore axis. S&W on the other hand has a more classic look, is typically lighter and samller than a comparable Ruger (good for CCW), often have a better trigger out of the box, and are easier to gunsmith if you feel so inclined (Ruger intentionallly makes their guns difficult to modify). It all comes down to personal preference. I personally like the Smith the best because I think they're a more attractive looking gun and because that's what I started with and am therefore more familiar with. FWIW Colts are nice too.

**44 AMP** · June 3, 2008, 10:55 PM

In this, I am a S&W man. But my newest S&W was made in the early 80s. And I have 5 Ruger single action revolvers, along with a number of Ruger rifles and the old Mk I Target .22 auto, so it is not a brand thing. I recently had the chance to spend some time with an SP 101, and found it quite satisfactory.

S&W has the "history", but their new guns sometimes don't do that history justice. And the prices of all the new guns are sadly, outrageous. I don't hink I'll be buying a new S&W or Ruger anytime soon. I have bought a number of guns in the past decade, NONE of them new. My experience has been that excellent used guns (often in like new condition) can be found at much more reasonable prices, if you are not in a hurry and look around a bit.

Quote:

they're the same damn gun.

No, they are not.

Webleymkv · June 3, 2008, 10:58 PM

Quote:

S&W has the "history", but their new guns sometimes don't do that history justice.

This one does. Bought pre-owned but unfired. This gun has a better trigger than my older Smiths.

S&W Model 21-4 .44 Special

madcratebuilder · June 4, 2008, 08:12 AM

I have about an equal amount of Rugers and Smiths. The Rugers are a heavier duty gun and you are not going to get the butter smooth action of a Smith. I think the Smiths have a better fit and finish. Just my .02.

Magnum Wheel Man · June 4, 2008, 08:34 AM

I, like a couple other forum members here, have several of each... they each fill a nich that I would not trade them for another...

but try to compare apples to apples... S&W makes the light weight carry revolvers that I prefer for CCW use ( I have an air weight J frame in 32 H&R mag, & an air lite L frame in 44 special )... Ruger doesn't build a light weight revolver, & though I have a couple of Ruger's double action "heavy weights" ( a stainless 4" GP-100 in 357 mag, & a stainless Alaskan snubbie in 454 Casull ), if I'm carrying CCW, the light weight guns are my 1st choice... I personally feel Rugers compact SP-101 is a great revolver, it's just too heavy for it's size, when compared to the light weights I regularly carry... BTW... I'd expect the heavier Rugers to "hold up" better over the years of lots of rounds & range time, than the light weights, so my GP-100 is a favorite for all around use, with tons of rounds put through the gun over the years... but I wouldn't expect it to be any more durable than the comparable ( in frame size, weight, & build material ) S&W

Ruger also builds several single action guns, many more models than S&W has ever offered... they are great to casually shoot, & hunt with, & IMO, the single actions often offer the "sweeter" tigger action of the more generally better tweaked S&W's...

I guess the poster that offered the fact that Rugers investment cast frames offer nearly the strength of machined, forged parts, at reduced manufacturing cost, is likely the best explaination of the "normally seen" price spread... I'm a guy that would rather buy 2 quality "reasonably priced" guns, than one quality "highly priced" gun... right now I'm longing for a new S&W 610 in 40 S&W / 10mm for a custom conversion to 10mm mag, but am also in the process of buying 2 stainless Ruger Vaquero Montados in 45 Colt that cost me the same money as the one stainless S&W 610...

as said, they both offer things I want... it sucks paying more for the S&W's, but in the end, they are both worth it enough, that I end up paying the price

sandbag · June 4, 2008, 08:53 AM

Ruger survives being dropped on concrete better

ActivShootr · June 4, 2008, 10:25 AM

Jart's post is a good one.

S&W offers more variety but Ruger's smaller selection will digest just about anything you can come up with and beg for more. Both makers supply fine weapons, but to me, S&W products are closer to works of art than tools.

Mark Milton · June 4, 2008, 10:48 AM

>>>S&W uses more traditional metalurgical methods that produce a more svelte revolver of roughly equal quality.<<<

S&W USED to use more traditional metalurgical methods.

That all ended with the cheap two peice barrels, the cheap MIM hammers and Triggers and the Hillary Holes.

That todays Smiths cost more than todays Rugers has more to do with gouging the consumer than anything else.

June 3, 2008, 05:14 PM	#1
gdeal Senior Member Join Date: October 30, 2005 Location: Southern California Posts: 748	Smith&Wesson vs. Ruger Why is S&W so much more expensive than Ruger? And because of this price disparity, am I supposed to automatically assume that S&W is better than Ruger?

June 3, 2008, 05:24 PM	#3
Rich Miranda Senior Member Join Date: May 4, 2008 Location: San Antonio, not San Antone... Posts: 1,203	I am a relative novice but both S&W and Ruger seem to have reputations for making guns that last and last. Smith & Wesson has more history and lore (and fans). Ruger is still working on that part. I am a fan of both. I don't have any Smiths right now but an M&P is on the list! __________________ Read this!: I collect .38 Special and .357 Mag cartridges and I will PAY CASH for the headstamps I don't already have! Please PM me. Please donate blood, plasma, and platelets - people's lives literally depend on it.

June 3, 2008, 06:00 PM	#6
Dave85 Senior Member Join Date: June 3, 2004 Location: Michigan Posts: 1,421	The short story, as I understand it. Ruger uses manufacturing processes which lower the price, while still producing a high quality product. S&W uses more traditional metalurgical methods that produce a more svelte revolver of roughly equal quality. This comparison only pertains to steel revolvers, as Ruger does not make alloy revolvers. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" --commonly misattributed to, and most likely not, Benjamin Franklin

June 3, 2008, 06:27 PM	#10
Tom2 Senior Member Join Date: June 23, 2004 Location: Ohio Posts: 5,676	They are both comparable and some folks think a Ruger will take more abuse from hot rounds, maybe so, but they are close enough that comparable products should be chosen based on whether or not you like the particular features of one or the other. Both can be very accurate, __________________ Your gun is like your nose, it is just wrong for someone else to pick it for you!

June 3, 2008, 08:35 PM	#13
Kreyzhorse Senior Member Join Date: April 12, 2006 Location: NKY Posts: 12,463	I own multiple S&W revolvers and consider myself a S&W man. I own one Ruger and sold another. Generally speaking, I think Smith makes better small frame revolvers than Ruger. I own a S&W Airweight and a Ruger SP. The S&W has a much better trigger than the Ruger and overall I think its a step below where S&W is at. I also own a S&W 686 and have put plenty of rounds down range through my buddy's Ruger GP. The GP is as fine a revolver as I've ever fired and if I lost my 686 I'd replace it with a Ruger. In my opinion, the 686 might have smidge better trigger than the GP, but for the difference in price between the two, its not that much better. While I prefer S&W, Ruger makes fine handguns that are well priced. I really don't think you can go wrong buying a S&W over a Ruger and vice versa. It really comes down to the indivdual and which they prefer at what cost. __________________ "He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson

June 3, 2008, 05:20 PM	#2
JWT Senior Member Join Date: March 16, 2007 Location: Southern Arizona Posts: 3,888	Both S&W and Ruger make excellent guns. Don't assume S&W is better than Ruger based on price. Look them both over carefully, try to shoot similar models of both and make your decision based on that as well as price. The Ruger GP100, for example, is built like a tank and considerably less expensive than a similar S&W model but choosing to buy one is strictly a personal preference decision.

June 3, 2008, 05:38 PM	#4
laytonj1 Senior Member Join Date: June 1, 2005 Posts: 4,443	Threads like this usually turn into brand bashing. Different guns cost different amounts of money... buy what you want or can afford. Remember the old saying... you get what you pay for. Jim

June 3, 2008, 05:56 PM	#5
Sarvisian Member Join Date: December 30, 2007 Posts: 99	And sometimes you pay more and get less. Some folks think if they pay more money they're getting a better product and that is not always the case.

June 3, 2008, 06:01 PM	#7
Jart Senior Member Join Date: December 24, 2001 Location: Grand Prairie, TX Posts: 1,647	Since I've started accumulating older S&Ws I've developed a certain familiarity with blue thread-locking compound. I like the way Ruger managed to lose most of that problem in the double actions. I'll probably get a Ruger DA at some point or another. I had one a while back and it had a perfectly horrible trigger. The ones I've tried recently I would have to have worked on almost immediately and that would chew up some of the savings. I have less than no interest in going through whatever hoops are currently in place for the IBOK or DIY generally. The GP-100 probably compares most closely to the 686 so if you've developed an attachment for the model 66 S&W, Ruger doesn't have much for you. "Better" is a tough concept: depends on where your priorities lie. If you want to run a steady diet of epic .357 loads, a S&W "K" would be a poor substitute for a GP-100 IMHO. My priorities don't run in that direction so the "K" has a charm the Ruger lacks. I also have several model 57s (.41 mag). So far as I know, Ruger has nothing for me in that arena either. I've got a Ruger single action and like it but it retains that horrible trigger. 'Course that's in comparison to STI - S&W has no cowboy-looking single actions.

June 3, 2008, 06:26 PM	#9
orionengnr Senior Member Join Date: July 9, 2004 Posts: 5,177	A Hummer and a Porsche both accomplish the same basic function. However, there are substanial differences, and each appeals to a different type of buyer. Which is "better"? Depends on you.

June 3, 2008, 08:53 PM	#14
Sgt.Fathead Junior member Join Date: March 3, 2007 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 1,637	The usual postings here in a 'vs.' thread; good scoop and folks babbling with little or no knowledge, too. Ah, the inter-nerd! I do love these Ford/Chevy, Mossberg/Remington, Coke/Pepsi battles though. Love to see the saber rattling and bristling commentary between factions. So much a part of America. Long ago I loved S&W revolvers and had a whole safe full of them. Then I shot a friend's Ruger and sold all but one of those Smiths and replaced them with, yes, Rugers. It's all preference and feel, isn't it?

June 3, 2008, 09:49 PM	#15
gopack Senior Member Join Date: August 26, 2006 Location: Richmond, VA Posts: 302	I guess I'm not one of those discerning individuals. Can't think of much to say negative about either Smith or Ruger revolvers. Quite frankly, I've never fired one of either manufacturer I haven't liked. Both companies make excellent revolvers. I'd be happy if my next one was from either company.

June 3, 2008, 10:10 PM	#16
Ichiro Senior Member Join Date: July 16, 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 888	they're the same damn gun. Smith costs way more. If you need to send it back, Smith will pay the shipping. Ruger won't. That evens the playing field just a little bit.

June 3, 2008, 10:29 PM	#17
GP100man Senior Member Join Date: August 1, 2007 Location: Tabor City , NC. Posts: 1,969	guns revolvers are like vehicles , a corvette or a dump truck ????? my self i`m a tonka kind of guy so i went with ruger ,my buddy is a smiff & wesson guy, we go to the range & blast away , in the end we`re happy !! GP100man

June 3, 2008, 10:47 PM	#18
Webleymkv Senior Member Join Date: July 20, 2005 Location: Indiana Posts: 10,446	I own and enjoy both. They both have their own strengths and weaknesses and neither can really be called "better" than the other. Rugers are generally more durable than a Smith because they're more heavily built, they can often yield higher velocities than a comparable Smith, and they also have less felt recoil for some people due to their lower bore axis. S&W on the other hand has a more classic look, is typically lighter and samller than a comparable Ruger (good for CCW), often have a better trigger out of the box, and are easier to gunsmith if you feel so inclined (Ruger intentionallly makes their guns difficult to modify). It all comes down to personal preference. I personally like the Smith the best because I think they're a more attractive looking gun and because that's what I started with and am therefore more familiar with. FWIW Colts are nice too.

June 4, 2008, 08:12 AM	#21
madcratebuilder Senior Member Join Date: November 2, 2007 Location: Northern Orygun Posts: 4,923	I have about an equal amount of Rugers and Smiths. The Rugers are a heavier duty gun and you are not going to get the butter smooth action of a Smith. I think the Smiths have a better fit and finish. Just my .02.

June 4, 2008, 08:34 AM	#22
Magnum Wheel Man Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2006 Location: Southern Minnesota Posts: 9,333	I, like a couple other forum members here, have several of each... they each fill a nich that I would not trade them for another... but try to compare apples to apples... S&W makes the light weight carry revolvers that I prefer for CCW use ( I have an air weight J frame in 32 H&R mag, & an air lite L frame in 44 special )... Ruger doesn't build a light weight revolver, & though I have a couple of Ruger's double action "heavy weights" ( a stainless 4" GP-100 in 357 mag, & a stainless Alaskan snubbie in 454 Casull ), if I'm carrying CCW, the light weight guns are my 1st choice... I personally feel Rugers compact SP-101 is a great revolver, it's just too heavy for it's size, when compared to the light weights I regularly carry... BTW... I'd expect the heavier Rugers to "hold up" better over the years of lots of rounds & range time, than the light weights, so my GP-100 is a favorite for all around use, with tons of rounds put through the gun over the years... but I wouldn't expect it to be any more durable than the comparable ( in frame size, weight, & build material ) S&W Ruger also builds several single action guns, many more models than S&W has ever offered... they are great to casually shoot, & hunt with, & IMO, the single actions often offer the "sweeter" tigger action of the more generally better tweaked S&W's... I guess the poster that offered the fact that Rugers investment cast frames offer nearly the strength of machined, forged parts, at reduced manufacturing cost, is likely the best explaination of the "normally seen" price spread... I'm a guy that would rather buy 2 quality "reasonably priced" guns, than one quality "highly priced" gun... right now I'm longing for a new S&W 610 in 40 S&W / 10mm for a custom conversion to 10mm mag, but am also in the process of buying 2 stainless Ruger Vaquero Montados in 45 Colt that cost me the same money as the one stainless S&W 610... as said, they both offer things I want... it sucks paying more for the S&W's, but in the end, they are both worth it enough, that I end up paying the price __________________ In life you either make dust or eat dust...

June 4, 2008, 08:53 AM	#23
sandbag Senior Member Join Date: March 18, 2008 Posts: 642	Ruger survives being dropped on concrete better

June 4, 2008, 10:25 AM	#24
ActivShootr Senior Member Join Date: August 15, 2007 Posts: 1,040	Jart's post is a good one. S&W offers more variety but Ruger's smaller selection will digest just about anything you can come up with and beg for more. Both makers supply fine weapons, but to me, S&W products are closer to works of art than tools.

June 4, 2008, 10:48 AM	#25
Mark Milton Junior member Join Date: January 30, 2006 Posts: 504	>>>S&W uses more traditional metalurgical methods that produce a more svelte revolver of roughly equal quality.<<< S&W USED to use more traditional metalurgical methods. That all ended with the cheap two peice barrels, the cheap MIM hammers and Triggers and the Hillary Holes. That todays Smiths cost more than todays Rugers has more to do with gouging the consumer than anything else.