Is there that much difference? What are they? - Page 2

SSGN-Doc · May 1, 2022, 12:22 AM

Well let’s see S&W is in a high cost, highly taxed section of the country with workers who get paid to live in said area. Ruger is in a lower cost section of the country.

In the last couple of years S&Ws reputation has been sliding downward on QA and customer service and warranty backing.

Ruger has always had a good reputation for backing their products.

S&W seems to be following a pattern repeated by legacy American firearms companies who had their roots in New England. Resting on a century or more of reputation without trying to maintain it.

stinkeypete · May 1, 2022, 09:16 AM

In the last four or five DECADES S&W has slid.

I maintain it’s the dogged pursuit of maximized profit over all else that has torpedoed American Craftsmen.

Italian companies make the finest shotguns and have hundreds of years of history. The best double action revolvers are German or French. The Swiss make stuff you take to the Olympics when you want to win.

Ruger’s innovation is in their casting operations. Their firearms have a cost advantage over those using forging. They span the difference with legendary customer service. Their reputation is for over engineered, strong and affordable quality.

An Austrian company innovated plastic molded parts, cheap barrels, and god-awful trigger pull. It’s true that they make these things run reliably, and have marketed that, as well as convincing government agencies to swap to new versions every few years. This helps convince consumers to “upgrade” Perfectly functional Gen 1 to Gen 5 with less actual advantage than upgrading you phone every year. Another genius move was to support gun games that favor firing lots, fast, and not accurately over Olympic or NRA Bullseye events. You will not see one Glock at Camp Perry and ain’t no one gushing about the deep deep blue black dreamy metal finish or sending em to Turnbull.

Any company, in the pure pursuit of profit, would be foolish to not get out of selling hardware that will last 100 years and make software that one can resell every few years and requires only a few skilled programmers, a huge marketing department, and an internet hookup to Ireland so they can avoid taxes completely.

It just doesn’t support skilled craftsmen in wages, support infrastructure, or living conditions.

Guns made in low wage countries are plenty, but I can’t think of any that make what we would call “heirloom quality.”

Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Wisconsin (Kolar, Henry), NJ (Henry)… nor exactly low cost, low tax places.

wild cat mccane · May 1, 2022, 12:00 PM

Hold on.

And I'm not looking to get this thread closed.

Ruger does not cost less because it's in CT or AZ. Ruger uses crude (or crud) finishes on their guns. LCP/LC9 basically have a thin black rust on them and that's it. They copied the striker design of their flagship polymer gun from Kel Tec. Everyone into guns knows and experiences this. At the start I said I paid 1/2 the price of my carry LCP just to hard chrome the terrible finish.

Meanwhile, S&W operates in one of the most financially successful State in the United States where people living there make more and have higher degrees and higher qualifying job markets on median and average. So what?

S&W has a line up that is MASSIVELY larger than Ruger. Revolvers, massively larger brands and products. Polymer, MASSIVELY larger. 1911 like this thread? Ruger just started, S&W has been doing them forever.

Don't drag politics into it. Ruger being in lower wage states isn't a great thing for wage workers either, is it? So even that position is a bit odd. I personally like my wage being higher, not lower. Even when others around me have higher wages, it doesn't hurt me one bit.

Ruger are cheaper. Great. But you know what? Taurus forged 1911s (2005) are also cheaper than Ruger. Is that politics? No. Does it make one better or not? no. What Ruger is currently fielded by an law agency? none. S&W?

Asked if there is a difference. YES. Materially the scandium will be more expensive and that include production of the alloy, not just raw. In 1911s, reputation is everything since even (disparaging here given Rugers small line up) even Ruger makes one.

If the Ruger 1911 is a good value, great. Is there a difference. Nope. That's why you can buy them separately for the same price. Of course not true. Either Rugers entry is priced right, it will raise in price, or it will raise in price and lower S&W. I do not think the 3rd is going to happen.

But let's not claim Ruger is somehow magical and S&W is just terrible.

**44 AMP** · May 1, 2022, 01:41 PM

Quote:

1911 like this thread? Ruger just started, S&W has been doing them forever.

I think we have different ideas of "forever"...

I think its fair to say that Colt has been doing them "forever", S&W hasn't.

And if you think that S&W and Ruger's MSRP differences are due to where their factories are physically located, I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

Not saying the cost of doing business in a given state has zero effect, just that its not nearly that simple and there are many, many other factors at work.

SSGN-Doc · May 1, 2022, 09:27 PM

Don’t want to confuse economics with politics.

Economically if it cost more to pay workers, the cost of the product is higher.

Forged frames from Brazil being cheaper illustrate this point. You are correct, it isn’t politics it is cost.

Ruger does use different manufacturing processes, however that gap is closing as S&W shifted to many MIM and cast parts as well.

The fact that S&W has let customer service and QA slip is an observation. Not politics.

Ruger moved out of New England as a cost cutting measure, (and maybe politics), decades ago. But they had their roots in the same region as S&W and Colt. But the decline of the large firearms companies is another observation. Winchester, Remington, Marlin, Colt, and now S&W found problems by resting on their reputations and failing to maintain standards and innovation.

Ruger has also had some misses with regard to new products.

When we get into the other factors that the gun community finds value in, it is how a company stands behind their product and how they treat their customers. Ruger has a pretty long reputation of giving customers the benefit of the doubt. Sending them parts if they break or get lost, with no questions asked. S&W used to be like this, but there has been a trend (regardless of geographic location) where they once stood by their products for life as an unwritten warranty, to one where they deflect. Clocked barrels, frames on revolvers being “No longer in specification and unsafe to shoot” after 4 years of use. Will S&W fix it? Not any more. They may offer a discount on another revolver , but who wants it if it’s just going to wear out in four years and need to be replaced again at the owners expense.

Oh your M&P fires out of battery? “A little out of battery is ‘OK’.” Sorry your gun blew up, it must have been the ammo.

This is the sort of decline that isn’t politics, it’s bad business.

**Aguila Blanca** · May 1, 2022, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSGN-DOC

Ruger moved out of New England as a cost cutting measure, (and maybe politics), decades ago.

Ruger's corporate headquarters remains in Connecticut. They have two major manufacturing plants, one of which is in Newport, New Hampshire (which is in New England), and the other of which is in Prescott, Arizona.

**44 AMP** · May 1, 2022, 10:41 PM

You might also consider who owns Ruger, since its founding, and who has owned S&W and who currently owns it, today.

There's always a lot of comparison between Ruger and S&W, as many models are directly competing, but remember that Ruger began by making guns no one else did. Pretty good ones, at a price most folks thought to be a fair bargain.

And I don't mean Ruger's specific designs, I mean classes of guns. Ruger made several styles that people wanted, and the "big" makers had essentially abandoned (SA revolvers, single shot rifles, etc..) and wonder of wonders, there was a market.

I love the Ruger Mk I and I can live withs its kin, and feel there isn't a better SA revolver for the money than a new model Blackhawk. However, I can't stand their centerfire semi auto pistols. A personal quirk.

Whatever YOU like better, Ruger, S&W, this model or that, get what YOU like best, get to know it, and learn what it is, and isn't. If its for you, you're set. If not, try another.

When you're looking at one of the polymer framed semis, I'd say it depends on how many angels you want dancing on the head of your personal pin...

FrankenMauser · May 2, 2022, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Ruger's corporate headquarters remains in Connecticut. They have two major manufacturing plants, one of which is in Newport, New Hampshire (which is in New England), and the other of which is in Prescott, Arizona.

Don't forget Mayodan, NC. It may have started with only a few products, but the whole building (which is not small) is packed with equipment now.

May 1, 2022, 09:16 AM	#27
stinkeypete Senior Member Join Date: July 22, 2010 Location: Madison, Wisconsin Posts: 1,293	In the last four or five DECADES S&W has slid. I maintain it’s the dogged pursuit of maximized profit over all else that has torpedoed American Craftsmen. Italian companies make the finest shotguns and have hundreds of years of history. The best double action revolvers are German or French. The Swiss make stuff you take to the Olympics when you want to win. Ruger’s innovation is in their casting operations. Their firearms have a cost advantage over those using forging. They span the difference with legendary customer service. Their reputation is for over engineered, strong and affordable quality. An Austrian company innovated plastic molded parts, cheap barrels, and god-awful trigger pull. It’s true that they make these things run reliably, and have marketed that, as well as convincing government agencies to swap to new versions every few years. This helps convince consumers to “upgrade” Perfectly functional Gen 1 to Gen 5 with less actual advantage than upgrading you phone every year. Another genius move was to support gun games that favor firing lots, fast, and not accurately over Olympic or NRA Bullseye events. You will not see one Glock at Camp Perry and ain’t no one gushing about the deep deep blue black dreamy metal finish or sending em to Turnbull. Any company, in the pure pursuit of profit, would be foolish to not get out of selling hardware that will last 100 years and make software that one can resell every few years and requires only a few skilled programmers, a huge marketing department, and an internet hookup to Ireland so they can avoid taxes completely. It just doesn’t support skilled craftsmen in wages, support infrastructure, or living conditions. Guns made in low wage countries are plenty, but I can’t think of any that make what we would call “heirloom quality.” Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Wisconsin (Kolar, Henry), NJ (Henry)… nor exactly low cost, low tax places. __________________ My book "The Pheasant Hunter's Action Adventure Cookbook" is now on Amazon. Tall tales, hunting tips, butchering from bird to the freezer, and recipes. Last edited by stinkeypete; May 1, 2022 at 09:34 AM.

May 1, 2022, 12:00 PM	#28
wild cat mccane Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2011 Posts: 3,626	Hold on. And I'm not looking to get this thread closed. Ruger does not cost less because it's in CT or AZ. Ruger uses crude (or crud) finishes on their guns. LCP/LC9 basically have a thin black rust on them and that's it. They copied the striker design of their flagship polymer gun from Kel Tec. Everyone into guns knows and experiences this. At the start I said I paid 1/2 the price of my carry LCP just to hard chrome the terrible finish. Meanwhile, S&W operates in one of the most financially successful State in the United States where people living there make more and have higher degrees and higher qualifying job markets on median and average. So what? S&W has a line up that is MASSIVELY larger than Ruger. Revolvers, massively larger brands and products. Polymer, MASSIVELY larger. 1911 like this thread? Ruger just started, S&W has been doing them forever. Don't drag politics into it. Ruger being in lower wage states isn't a great thing for wage workers either, is it? So even that position is a bit odd. I personally like my wage being higher, not lower. Even when others around me have higher wages, it doesn't hurt me one bit. Ruger are cheaper. Great. But you know what? Taurus forged 1911s (2005) are also cheaper than Ruger. Is that politics? No. Does it make one better or not? no. What Ruger is currently fielded by an law agency? none. S&W? Asked if there is a difference. YES. Materially the scandium will be more expensive and that include production of the alloy, not just raw. In 1911s, reputation is everything since even (disparaging here given Rugers small line up) even Ruger makes one. If the Ruger 1911 is a good value, great. Is there a difference. Nope. That's why you can buy them separately for the same price. Of course not true. Either Rugers entry is priced right, it will raise in price, or it will raise in price and lower S&W. I do not think the 3rd is going to happen. But let's not claim Ruger is somehow magical and S&W is just terrible. __________________ My wife is a pulmonologist (respiratory Dr) and epidemiologist. If you have any questions on COVID, please reach out to me in PM. Last edited by wild cat mccane; May 1, 2022 at 12:07 PM.

May 1, 2022, 10:41 PM	#32
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,833	You might also consider who owns Ruger, since its founding, and who has owned S&W and who currently owns it, today. There's always a lot of comparison between Ruger and S&W, as many models are directly competing, but remember that Ruger began by making guns no one else did. Pretty good ones, at a price most folks thought to be a fair bargain. And I don't mean Ruger's specific designs, I mean classes of guns. Ruger made several styles that people wanted, and the "big" makers had essentially abandoned (SA revolvers, single shot rifles, etc..) and wonder of wonders, there was a market. I love the Ruger Mk I and I can live withs its kin, and feel there isn't a better SA revolver for the money than a new model Blackhawk. However, I can't stand their centerfire semi auto pistols. A personal quirk. Whatever YOU like better, Ruger, S&W, this model or that, get what YOU like best, get to know it, and learn what it is, and isn't. If its for you, you're set. If not, try another. When you're looking at one of the polymer framed semis, I'd say it depends on how many angels you want dancing on the head of your personal pin... __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

May 1, 2022, 12:22 AM	#26
SSGN-Doc Member Join Date: September 7, 2021 Posts: 38	Well let’s see S&W is in a high cost, highly taxed section of the country with workers who get paid to live in said area. Ruger is in a lower cost section of the country. In the last couple of years S&Ws reputation has been sliding downward on QA and customer service and warranty backing. Ruger has always had a good reputation for backing their products. S&W seems to be following a pattern repeated by legacy American firearms companies who had their roots in New England. Resting on a century or more of reputation without trying to maintain it.

May 1, 2022, 09:27 PM	#30
SSGN-Doc Member Join Date: September 7, 2021 Posts: 38	Don’t want to confuse economics with politics. Economically if it cost more to pay workers, the cost of the product is higher. Forged frames from Brazil being cheaper illustrate this point. You are correct, it isn’t politics it is cost. Ruger does use different manufacturing processes, however that gap is closing as S&W shifted to many MIM and cast parts as well. The fact that S&W has let customer service and QA slip is an observation. Not politics. Ruger moved out of New England as a cost cutting measure, (and maybe politics), decades ago. But they had their roots in the same region as S&W and Colt. But the decline of the large firearms companies is another observation. Winchester, Remington, Marlin, Colt, and now S&W found problems by resting on their reputations and failing to maintain standards and innovation. Ruger has also had some misses with regard to new products. When we get into the other factors that the gun community finds value in, it is how a company stands behind their product and how they treat their customers. Ruger has a pretty long reputation of giving customers the benefit of the doubt. Sending them parts if they break or get lost, with no questions asked. S&W used to be like this, but there has been a trend (regardless of geographic location) where they once stood by their products for life as an unwritten warranty, to one where they deflect. Clocked barrels, frames on revolvers being “No longer in specification and unsafe to shoot” after 4 years of use. Will S&W fix it? Not any more. They may offer a discount on another revolver , but who wants it if it’s just going to wear out in four years and need to be replaced again at the owners expense. Oh your M&P fires out of battery? “A little out of battery is ‘OK’.” Sorry your gun blew up, it must have been the ammo. This is the sort of decline that isn’t politics, it’s bad business.