Why S&W Revolvers?

[wtfooptimax200]

While watching a shooting show recently, a special mention was made to point out a shooter as being the only Ruger revolver shooter at the match. The remainder of the field was shooting S&W. Even though I own more Ruger products than any other brand, I have no particular allegiance to either. So why is the field so uneven? Is there any advantage to S&W (assuming a 6 shot cylinder in either brand)??

[462]

Is there any advantage to S&W

Triggers, in my experience.

[gunfan]

Is there any advantage to S&W

Triggers, in my experience.

Yes, the triggers are better. the Rugers can be smoothed out, but the older S&W revolvers are inherently smoother.

Scott

[armed_partisan]

Trigger pull, quantity of them on the used market (they've been around forever) and, for me at least, aesthetics. They just look better. Colt's, Dan Wessons, and Rugers are arguably better engineered, but S&W's are just the best looking.

[Hardcast416taylor]

Can you mentally picture "Dirty Harry" with a Dan Wesson?????:bigsmyl2:Robert

[subsonic]

Yep, trigger. There may be a little more "love" in the older smiths than in any Ruger.

[Kraschenbirn]

Can you mentally picture "Dirty Harry" with a Dan Wesson?????:bigsmyl2:Robert

Yup!! Imagine Eastwood packin' one of the old Monson-made 744VH's. Scary...very scary.

Bill

[smoked turkey]

My earliest memories of a revolver was my dad's S&W K22. As a young lad of 7 or 8 years old that Smith made a very big impression on me. I guess you could say that it marked me for life. At 66 years old now I still love an old Smith. And yes I have the old K-22 in the safe and it is priceless to me.

[dmize]

I am and always will be a Ruger fan,BUT its all in the triggers,ESPECIALLY in a DA. The "cycle time"?? of a Ruger will never be as smooth or as fast as a Smith.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uisHfKj2JiI............ THIS pretty much shows it in spades.

[keyhole]

S&W's have the smoothest action and best trigger pull, especially single action, of any double action revolver I have owned or handled. This includes Colt Pythons, which are pretty darned good too.

[Matthew 25]

Depends on the match. But I'd guess any match with a time component would frequently favor a 625 or an 8-shot. Both only had by S&W. I guess Taurus has an 8-shot.

[Multigunner]

S&W revolvers are generally well made, but the design would allow for a good deal less precision in manufacture, and a good deal of wear before utility suffered.
The Colt revolvers are superior in some ways, but appear to require a higher level of precision in manufacture in order to operate at their best.
I figure this is why foreign imitators, and licensed manufacturers, would rather copy an S&W design than try to copy the Colt.

Rugers are very well designed, but have had serious quality control issues in the past. The worst revolvers I've encountered were Ruger made, and some of the best were Ruger made. Likely the best and worst were made on the same day on the same line, they just let too many bad examples get past inspection.
Theres always a few culls from any production line, but culled Colts and some Colt designs like the 1911 wartime pistols of other manufacture have their own collector interest as "lunch box" pistols.
I doubt Ruger goes to near enough effort to catch bad products before they ship.
This may no longer be the case, but the few ridiculously out of spec Rugers I have encountered have left a lasting impression.

[bob208]

a lot of it is hype. colt and s&w have been around as long as dirt. ruger is the new kid on the block. with a new way of building pistols and new designs. alot of it has to do with what the shooter has. i have used rugers to win matches. used a mk1 to shoot expert. also used a colt 6"o.p to beat very costly race guns in a falling plate match.

[kelbro]

If a Ruger shooter started winning big matches, you would see more Rugers in competition. The follow the leader mentality is big in shooting sports.

Look at how Savage has evolved in the past few years. A few years ago, no one wanted to be seen shooting one. They made some QC improvements, guys started winning with them, and now they are competitive. You will always have a few zonkers with mass-produced guns.

Ruger makes pistols that shoot as well as my K38 and K22 but there is something about the look and feel that they will never be able to duplicate.

[bobthenailer]

I belive the main advantage is the sweet single & double action triggers and the use of full moon clips used for speed reloading in some 6 and 8 shot S&W revolvers . plus a untold amout of after market accesories. alot more than any other dbl action revolver made.

[Lead Fred]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2WuKUWRXspM/TRVsXAtSwnI/AAAAAAAAAhU/ve7AIwY_qfs/s1600/large_dirty_harry_blu-raysubs_dirty_harry_blu-ray.jpg

I could not resist

[lbaize3]

Most of my working pistols are S&W revolvers, although I have three Taurus Raging Bulls. I do have a Ruger revolver, but prefer the S&W and Taurus because their actions are so easy to work on. I can slick up both of these firearms without great difficulty. The Ruger certainly can be slicked up but the process is difficult for me. I believe the trigger geometry is superior on the S&W. And. of course, I do love the Ruger single actions. You should see the number of them in my safe....

[Jack Stanley]

Lead Fred , I can picture him saying "get off my lawn" just as easy as what he did say in that picture :mrgreen:

Jack

[x101airborne]

Anyone else ever catch that he said he used "a light Special load"?

[KCSO]

I shot PPC for a number of years and tried to tune Rugers and Colts to match the action of the S and W and you can come close but no cigar. When you are looking at one X being the difference between winning and losing you go with the winner.

[30calflash]

Anyone else ever catch that he said he used "a light Special load"?

Yep, in the flick Magnum Force.

Harry Callahan did more to sell S&W than anyone else ever thought!

[Geraldo]

Another vote for S&W triggers. I recall S&W gunsmiths being at the Secret Service match and doing trigger jobs and other work on the spot. If they did that at other big matches that would have been a bonus as well.

[MBTcustom]

S&W is inherently smoother, faster and cleaner. I have pulled apart S&W's that had literaly been fired 2000 times without cleaning. The cylinder was getting stiff but that darned thing still cycled. Upon prying the sideplate off with my big 'ol screw driver (that's a joke jabbed at the S&W fans!) I found that hardly any powder residue had made its way to the inner workings of the gun. Clean as a whistle for the most part.
The other thing is that S&W revolvers are easy to modify on the inside. If you know where to polish and dont go too far, you can get a S&W to feel like pouring mercury over a greased sheet of teflon. Back in the early days, they used to do all that handwork at the factory, but even though they quit, the internal workings are virtually unchanged, just waiting for the masters touch.
I personally love the products that S&W was producing in the early 70's; still new enough that there is a lot of good bluing out there, but old enough that there are still machined parts in there and none of this powder-metal cr@p.

[geargnasher]

I like to handle S&W revolvers and shoot Rugers. My rule for a Ruger is buy five of them and keep the good one.

Gear

[Lonegun1894]

I prefer Ruger, but have had S&W also. Have to admit that the S&W was smoother, but still always got better accuracy with the Rugers. As to the Taurus being a S&W knockoff, I bought one to see. Ever see a .357 revolver get worn out by firing about 1500 rds of .357 and about 8-9K .38 Special? I didn't think it would happen either. It has been replaced by a Ruger, and I wish I'd have gotten the Ruger first but live and learn. Dont get me wrong, the Taurus shot great while it worked, but once it started going down hill, it wasn't a gradual slide but a fall.

[ColColt]

S&W is inherently smoother, faster and cleaner

Might I add better looking(like me) and great triggers. The fit and finish is better for sure. I only have two Rugers but have had others in the past. They're tough as nails and can take probably more pressure than Smith's but for sheer beauty, smoothness and fit, the S&W revolvers can't be beat...IMHO.

[Lloyd Smale]

shooting a ruger in a da competition on would be about like entering a mack truck in the daytona 500.

[StrawHat]

S&W revolvers were tops in competition long before the 8 round cylinder was considered. When I shot PPC, it truly was the odd fellow using other than S&W. It was probably his only revolver and it wasn't long before he switched. Trigger action, balance, and the fact that it could be counted on to deliver repeatable accuracy are what sold me.

[StrawHat]

... Harry Callahan did more to sell S&W than anyone else ever thought!...

At least the Model 29 series.

Landing military and police contracts and being used by top shooters and well known writers helped sell more S&Ws than callahan.

[Love Life]

I prefer Ruger, but have had S&W also. Have to admit that the S&W was smoother, but still always got better accuracy with the Rugers. As to the Taurus being a S&W knockoff, I bought one to see. Ever see a .357 revolver get worn out by firing about 1500 rds of .357 and about 8-9K .38 Special? I didn't think it would happen either. It has been replaced by a Ruger, and I wish I'd have gotten the Ruger first but live and learn. Dont get me wrong, the Taurus shot great while it worked, but once it started going down hill, it wasn't a gradual slide but a fall.

Yes. It was a brand new S&W 327PC TRR8. It died after approximately 6,000 rounds of 38 special. Load was lLyman 358477 over 5 grains of unique. After numerous issues I sent it down the road and bought S&W model 28s of late 60's early 70's vintage. I am now happy.

Now that my gripefest is out of the way I will get to the OP. S&W are prettier!

[dmize]

shooting a ruger in a da competition on would be about like entering a mack truck in the daytona 500.

Now THAT is funny,sadly its the truth but its funny.[smilie=l:

[357Mag]

WT -

Howdy !

IMHO.... S & W offers more different revolver frame sizes, and cyoinder capacity choices over-all.... certainly, in .357" calibre.

I went to use of .357Mag "N"-frames as my carry gun(s) because for one main reason.... they fit my hand better than anything else out there.

After shooting S & Ws for a while, operating a Colt ( Python for example ) feels
funky ( agian, IMHO ).

Since I carry and shoot .357Mag, S & W offered/offers a whole bunch of revolver options, just within the various .357Mag "N"-frames they've made over the years.

With regards,
357Mag

[Moonie]

Harry Callahan would have carried a 7445 not a 744. Bigger is better.

[MBTcustom]

Boy, I wish you folks that had S&W's "die" on you had burried them at my house! A S&W pistol is as easy to resurrect as a 1911. The only thing that I think is a killer, is if the barrel threads are stripped out of the frame. Other than that, they can be repaired.

[Char-Gar]

Rugers are great basic products that sell for a good price. However, the require quite a bit of tinkering and work to bring them up to the condition of what comes out of a Smith and Wesson box. There is a reason why Smith and Wessons sell for more than Rugers.

[jmsj]

Rugers are great basic products that sell for a good price. However, the require quite a bit of tinkering and work to bring them up to the condition of what comes out of a Smith and Wesson box. There is a reason why Smith and Wessons sell for more than Rugers.

I have to agree with you normally but I just finished working on a recent production 625 for a friend of mine. He asked me to lighten up the trigger (from the factory it was 4.5#) and find out why it was leading so badly. The machining on the frame was nice but many of the small internal parts had burrs or a rough finish and looking at the single action sear face on the trigger, through a loupe, there was what looked like porosity. The porosity looked like what you would see on poorly manufactured MIM part. I stoned the sear as I would on any trigger job and there was still some porosity left. Did S&W Start making the trigger using the MIM process? The throats were a little undersized but the forcing cone was a little rough with some tooling marks.
Another guy I know bought a Thunder Ranch edition 45 ACP revolver. Soon after he bought it the front sight would occasionaly fall out. He sent it back and they fixed it. Later he had a problem with it occasionally locking up. He would have to take it apart and put it back together and then it would work. He asked me to take a look at it and I could find nothing wrong with it but he already had it open. I put it back together and could not make it fail. A week later he told me that it locked up again. I'm not sure if he ever got it running reliable.
I am definitely not a S&W basher I do and have owned many in my life. I have not bought a S&W revolver of recent production. I believe the last new one I purchased was built in the late 90's. I am just wondering if S&W is cutting a few corners on their new guns?
jmsj

[GabbyM]

I have three Colts. 38 SP , 357 mag and 44 mag. Then a "few" S&W K frame 38 Specials.
With one of the Smiths I can toss a can onto a field then bounce it away with double action fire. With the Colts in double action the can does not move much. Now and then you get lucky with a Colt but with the S&W's they'll hit that can about as well in double action as in single action.

I've recently fallen in love with K frame S&W's. They can still be had cheep. Mark my work when they are all grabbed up they'll be hard to come by as are the 1903 Springfield’s now that I could of bought by the truck load for forty dollars each when I was young.

[dubber123]

I have to agree with you normally but I just finished working on a recent production 625 for a friend of mine. He asked me to lighten up the trigger (from the factory it was 4.5#) and find out why it was leading so badly. The machining on the frame was nice but many of the small internal parts had burrs or a rough finish and looking at the single action sear face on the trigger, through a loupe, there was what looked like porosity. The porosity looked like what you would see on poorly manufactured MIM part. I stoned the sear as I would on any trigger job and there was still some porosity left. Did S&W Start making the trigger using the MIM process? The throats were a little undersized but the forcing cone was a little rough with some tooling marks.
Another guy I know bought a Thunder Ranch edition 45 ACP revolver. Soon after he bought it the front sight would occasionaly fall out. He sent it back and they fixed it. Later he had a problem with it occasionally locking up. He would have to take it apart and put it back together and then it would work. He asked me to take a look at it and I could find nothing wrong with it but he already had it open. I put it back together and could not make it fail. A week later he told me that it locked up again. I'm not sure if he ever got it running reliable.
I am definitely not a S&W basher I do and have owned many in my life. I have not bought a S&W revolver of recent production. I believe the last new one I purchased was built in the late 90's. I am just wondering if S&W is cutting a few corners on their new guns?
jmsj

I think all the new S&W's use MIM internals. Of the many I own, I only have 1 with the MIM parts, a 625. I hate the look of the cast stuff, but it has run flawlessly for probably 5,000 rounds so far. It is one of my competition guns, and other than brushing the chambers between rounds, and the occasional drop of oil on the star and cylinder front, I haven't even cleaned it. A quick wipe down of the outside, and back in the range bag. I average about .25 seconds between shots, so it is not babied. 230 gr.@ 850 fps. loads too. It turned out to be a good gun.

[Multigunner]

Another guy I know bought a Thunder Ranch edition 45 ACP revolver. Soon after he bought it the front sight would occasionaly fall out. He sent it back and they fixed it. Later he had a problem with it occasionally locking up. He would have to take it apart and put it back together and then it would work. He asked me to take a look at it and I could find nothing wrong with it but he already had it open. I put it back together and could not make it fail. A week later he told me that it locked up again. I'm not sure if he ever got it running reliable.
jmsj

Only time I've heard of a similar problem of locking up of an S&W revolver was the earliest production .44 magnum revolvers.
These would sometimes have the ejector rod back out under recoil. S&W made some alteration to the threading of the rod, but I don't remember the details.

Could it be that heavy recoil affected this particular revolver in the same way?

[jmsj]

Only time I've heard of a similar problem of locking up of an S&W revolver was the earliest production .44 magnum revolvers.
These would sometimes have the ejector rod back out under recoil. S&W made some alteration to the threading of the rod, but I don't remember the details.

Could it be that heavy recoil affected this particular revolver in the same way?

Multigunner,
I don't think heavy recoil was part of the problem. This "Thunder Ranch" pistol was purchased around 2009-2010(IIRC) and is a 45ACP revolver. It was mostly shot with Bullseye type loads with factory hardball loads being the hottest loads being fired. I do not know if it locked up with the target loads or the hardball loads.

dubber123 Quote:
I think all the new S&W's use MIM internals. Of the many I own, I only have 1 with the MIM parts, a 625. I hate the look of the cast stuff, but it has run flawlessly for probably 5,000 rounds so far. It is one of my competition guns, and other than brushing the chambers between rounds, and the occasional drop of oil on the star and cylinder front, I haven't even cleaned it. A quick wipe down of the outside, and back in the range bag. I average about .25 seconds between shots, so it is not babied. 230 gr.@ 850 fps. loads too. It turned out to be a good gun.

dubber123,
I too prefer forged or machined parts(just old fashioned I guess) but have used many MIM parts on guns and have not had one fail or be overly difficult to fit. Your experience with S&W revolvers mirrors mine except for these 2 recent pistols. Like I stated before I have and have had many S&W's and I am not a S&W basher.
jmsj

[dsol]

Rugers are great basic products that sell for a good price. However, the require quite a bit of tinkering and work to bring them up to the condition of what comes out of a Smith and Wesson box. There is a reason why Smith and Wessons sell for more than Rugers.

I have to agree with this. My Ruger SP101 3 inch 357 had a horrendous trigger pull out of the box. Took it apart, lightly stoned contact surfaces, put a Wilson spring kit in and packed the trigger assy full of toothpaste. Dry fired it over 1000 times, washed it out with hot soapy water, relubed and it is good to go. I took it over to a friend who used to shoot competition with S&W's and he was impressed that is was as good a trigger as a S&W maybe ever slightly worked. He did the work on my Mod19 and 686 and I can say, those triggers are like pure butter and just cannot be equaled I think. You can hardly get any better than a profesionally worked S&W.

[9.3X62AL]

I have good numbers of S&W, Colt, and Ruger D/A revolvers on hand, and I like them all. Out of the box, S&Ws usually have good triggers--but pre-war Colts aren't too shabby either. Ruger Redhawk = Ford F-350......might not win races, but there's none better when real work needs doing. Hondas need not apply.

[palmettosunshine]

It really is all about the trigger. I wanted a Ruger GP-100 so badly when they first came out I thought I was going to wet myself. Circumstance, girls and other projects got in the way and I never bought one. Then the SP-101 made me tingle. I finally bought one this year (SP-101) and finally traded it because I hated the trigger. Know what I traded it for? Yep, a S&W. The M&P 340 just felt much better in my hand and once I pulled the trigger, done. Constant companion since.

I walked into my LGS a few weeks ago and there, in the case, was the GP-100 of my dreams. She was an older gal, but still sharp. Oh who am I kidding, she was hot. Stainless, with the old style wood and rubber grips. Wow! I wanted her badly. I picked her up and, and, and she just wasn't quite it. Don't get me wrong, well upholstered, and felt great in the hand, just wasn't very smooth. Ben, my local gun shop guru, saw my disappointment and went under the counter. He came up with a 65-3 in a 3 inch barrel with Pachmayr compac grips. He gave me a knowing smile and said "pull the trigger". She lives here now.

[MasS&W]

Smith and Wessons are FAR easier to work on, having tinkered about with DW, Ruger, and Colt. Parts can be (could be) had for a song, everyone sells them, they have much better triggers, and they look damn sexy. As much press as colts get, they never really flooded the market back in the 70s and 80s the same way Smiths did, so cost is a BIG part. You can procur a nice former police K frame smith for well under 500 dollars, sometimes as low as 250. Same can't be said for any other brand.