Ruger or Smith

[Frank]

One side says "It's bigger and beefier". The other side says "forged is better". Who's right? C'mon, no holding back. :twisted:

[rugerman1]

Never saw a reloading manual say "Don't use S&W level loads in a Ruger":kidding:

[Trey45]

I'd rather shoot a Ruger with hot loads, I'd rather carry a S&W with factory ammo.

[Lucky Joe]

I'd rather shoot a Ruger with hot loads, I'd rather carry a S&W with factory ammo.

I have them both and gotta agree with Trey45.

[Frank]

I'm refering to "strength". You can mention other features, like looks, trigger pull, accessories available, etc, but I'd like to hear your take on strength first.

Which is stronger, the Ruger or the Smith? I like Smith, not putting it down. But if the Ruger is stronger, then let's hear that. It deserves that also.

[softpoint]

I have them both as well, I wouldn't want to give up my Redhawks, or Blackhawks, Or Gp100 for that matter, If loading to the maximum ALL the time, the Ruger wins out, in my opinion, You can use pretty hot loads in the Smiths, too, I just wouldn't do it all the time. Factory level loads, the Smith thrives on. And, we're talking .44 Magnum. The lesser calibers don't make as much difference. I like my 629 Mountain gun for carrying, It's light, accurate, has a nice trigger, with factory level loads or a bit less, it still does 100% of what needs to be done with a "woodswalking gun", here in Texas, anyway. It's a matter of personal choice. Best Idea is to own a bunch of both!:-D:mrgreen:

[RayinNH]

Frank, I don't think you'll find any sane person saying a Smith is stronger than a Ruger. Ruger's are built like tanks, almost impossible to shoot one loose. If you reload on the high end of the data or even a bit beyond, get a Ruger...Ray

[Dan Cash]

I'm refering to "strength". You can mention other features, like looks, trigger pull, accessories available, etc, but I'd like to hear your take on strength first.

Which is stronger, the Ruger or the Smith? I like Smith, not putting it down. But if the Ruger is stronger, then let's hear that. It deserves that also.

I am pretty sure the Smith will destruct before the Ruger, all other things being equal. IMO, there is a limit to needed hand gun performance. My Smiths in .357, .41, .44 and .45 Colt are as strong as they need to be for me. There is nothing in this hemisphere that I would not shoot on purpose with them.
Dan

[Frank]

OK, just to balance it out, this was said on another board.
(About Ruger being stronger than Smith)


This seems to always be said, but no one has ever proven it - I've seen blow-up Rugers, and I've seen S&Ws go for decades in competition shooting .44mags. I take it all with a grain of salt until someone does a real-life test. What is true is that Ruger's frames are generally slightly larger, and this is perceived as being stronger. However, they are made of cast steel, unlike the forged steel used in the S&W. Forged steel is stronger per unit volume than cast, and thus a frame can be made equally strong while being dimensionally smaller. A Ruger Redhawk frame may indeed be stronger than a S&W 629 frame, but keep in mind the material differences in the construction
Forged would be better than cast, right?

[9.3X62AL]

If strength and ability to contain heavy loads "long-term" are your prime questions, Ruger cops the prize outright. As Dan Cash has said, the S&W revos aren't dainty--and can withstand their share of full-tilt factory-level Magnum ammunition. So, on the basis of strength alone, go Ruger.

But the question is a little more complicated than that. I have a Redhawk in 44 Magnum, and it is without doubt "stronger" than a S&W Model 29-series. The "tax" assessed for that gained strength is in weight--almost a pound heavier for the Ruger over the Smith. The Redhawk is a boat anchor when worn in a hip holster, I list to starboard markedly when so equipped. A good shoulder holster makes carrying the Big Hawk a lot easier.

All that weight in the Redhawk favors you when you fire those full-tilt factory-level 240 grainers at 1350 FPS, though. The Smith revos--esp. the 4" critters--pound on ya some during use of such loads. Elmer Keith had a fine idea when he said that "1200 FPS is all you need" with his Lyman #429421 boolit. I know it's about all I need in a S&W Model 29 or Model 624.

That's my story--and I'm stickin' to it. :)

[RayinNH]

Forged steel is stronger per unit volume than cast, and thus a frame can be made equally strong while being dimensionally smaller.
Frank both parts of that sentence get a yes and a no. It all depends on the heat treating and the material used in manufacture...Ray

[August]

Yup, carry a Smith, shoot a Rooger.

[Heavy lead]

I've never blown a gun up, thank goodness. Don't plan on it either. I've run too hot loads in both Rugers and Smiths and all survived. I like them both and will continue to buy them both and test them to see which I like better :roll: as I just can't decide.
Everyone seems to say for sure Ruger's are stronger. It seems if the old addage bigger is better, means stronger is better, maybe it's true.
But what about the X-Frame?

[arcticbreeze]

I have both and feel Ruger is stronger, S&W is more refined. I love them both but for different reasons. I chose the Ruger NMSB Hunter for hot hunting loads in 44 Mag and the S&W 625 for playing, the Smith just feels more fit and finished. For strength only I have to say Ruger.

[mtgrs737]

One side says "It's bigger and beefier". The other side says "forged is better". Who's right? C'mon, no holding back. :twisted:

What we are really talking about is two different manufacturing processes, Ruger's investment casting, and Smith's forging process. Ruger is a state of the art investment casting company that hires out to other manufacturers for things like golf club heads etc. Ruger is good at casting and has used that expertise to offer a good quality product at a fair price. Smith forges it's frames to get the strength that the grain alinement process gives while keeping down the weight of the frame to the extent of offering full underlug barrels to help with the recoil of heavy kickers. Is the Ruger stronger? Maybe, but they most likely add a bit more metal to ensure that the strength is assured due to the casting process and the voids that can happen. Smith's forgings are stronger pound for pound but at a higher price as the process is more labor intensive than casting but if the added weight is not a problem you will get more for your money with investment castings. Aircraft uses a lot of forgings because of strength and weight reasons and we all know how much aircraft cost. The bottom line is weight in my opinion, how much do you want to carry? I like both companies products so I don't set in judgement on this one.

I do remember the ads though, Ruger said bigger is better, and the Smith ads showed a picture of a thick burger and said "Thicker is better for burgers but not for your handgun". I loved the pi$$ing match they had going for a while. In the end each had their point but it was marketing pure and simple. Forgings are stronger, but castings are cheaper and if you don't mind the weight then castings are the best value. I must admit that I have seen few of either firearms blown up due to hot loads, so I don't think that is a consideration. It may be that the appearance of the thicker Ruger frames gives shooters more confidence in their firearms than the thinner Smith frames reguardless of the actual strength.

[big dale]

Back in the 70's I stretched the frame on three of my Smiths...one each of 357, 41, and 44 mags. I still don't think I was shooting loads that were all that hot thru them. Both my Blackhawk in 41 mag and my Super Blackhawk 44 never had a problem with any of those loads. I have now added a Super Redhawk and am looking for another Old Model Super Blackhawk. I still like the feel of a single action much more that any of the double actions.

I am sure that the Smiths are great for a lot of folks, but it hasen't worked out that way for me. I have to say that I never found a Ruger with a trigger that felt as nice as any Smith and Wesson' triggers, but I can put up with the Ruger's trigger to get their durability. I find the Ruger triggers get much smoother once you have sent about 50 thousand rounds down the barrel.

I still like BIG boolits.

Big Dale

[txpete]

another angle to look at....carry guns.my SP101 in 357 mag is one very stout snubby.the smith light weights are nice but if you want a snubby that won't shoot loose shooting full house rounds the SP101 is all over the smith's.I am not bashing smiths the fact is the ruger is just that good.just my .02:-D
pete

[targetshootr]

I have a soft spot for N frames and I don't horse them at the range so they'll last till long after I'm gone. They're like women, would you swap a gorgeous blond for a stout Russian? Only if the barn needs cleaning.

:Fire:

[44man]

Read the new Rifleman. There is a story on the development of the .460. Frames would ring like a bell and crack. It took a lot of work and a special hardening process for the whole frame.
My opinion is there is no difference between cast and forged as far as strength but more steel is stronger then less.
And again, nobody has proof that all S&W frames are forged. I heard some are cast but they will never tell.
The S&W has a strong cylinder but no other part of the gun can withstand heavy recoil for long. Frames stretch from the pounding, parts peen and stick and cylinders unlock.
If you want strong, buy a Ruger. My .44 SBH has past 59,160 heavy loads (Thousands with 320 and 330 gr heavy loads for hunting.) and uncountable plinking loads. There is no measurable wear, it is as tight as the day I bought it. The forcing cone is a little rough is all. I do lube the ratchet, pin and front bearing point of the cylinder with STP.
A neighbor brought over a S&W long ago with a bent crane. The gun would not close and lock. The old swing the cylinder shut trick!
I figured I would need special tools but just for the heck of it, I grabbed the crane and bent it straight by hand. Worked like a charm--- so much for a forging! :drinks:
The one that made me laugh were the barrels unwinding from the "X" frames and falling on the ground. Seems as if rifling with the opposite twist would prevent that.
Answer why S&W had to go to such a massive frame on the "X" frame if the metal was so strong? :confused: And then to have some crack when under development.
Now if you want super strength, buy a BFR, nothing stronger then an overgrown Ruger. [smilie=1:

[softpoint]

They're like women, would you swap a gorgeous blond for a stout Russian? Only if the barn needs cleaning.

:Fire:

Never heard it put quite like that.....

[Heavy lead]

Now if you want super strength, buy a BFR, nothing stronger then an overgrown Ruger.

Yup, and no complicated DA parts either.

[mtgrs737]

There might be a reason that the custom ultra large bore guys base there single actions on the Ruger.

[Bret4207]

Ruger lost me when they got rid of the Security Six and went to the GP-100. The SS was a nice duty gun, just like the Smiff M19 and 681, even if the transfer bar did rattle. The rest of the Rugers are hell for stout, but they have the ergonomics of a 2x4 and are way over weight, their sights are crude, their finish work iffy, their CF autos are an abomination.

I suppose if sitting at a bench shooting at a target is your thing the Rugers are all fine, But for daily carry nothing beats a Smith.

[jameslovesjammie]

Here's one of the old ads referred to above.

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/jameslovesjammie/gun%20stuff/ad_686vsgp100.jpg

I don't think the steel is really the issue making a Ruger stronger, but more so the internals. And the internals make the Smith's trigger hands down better than a Ruger.

As far as the reference earlier to never seeing any load data not to be shot in a Ruger...this is only for 45 Colt loads. They don't exist in .357, .41, or .44 mag. This is because they are WAY over SAAMI pressures for the cartridge. Smith heat treats their 45 colt cylinders for 45 colt pressures, while Ruger heat treats theirs to 44 mag pressures.

It all breaks down to a Ford vs Chevy debate. For that matter, I would say that the "Other" Wesson is as strong or stronger than any Ruger. Consider them Toyota. Or Freedom Arms...Peterbuilt.

[WARD O]

Does Ruger offer a 27 oz 44 for general back country carry? I like my 329 for woods carry and it is often with me....

I shoot Ruger single actions and Smith double actions and am very happy with this arrangement. I will have to say that I have never seen a Ruger SA's trigger/lock time that could compare to a Smith's. Both are plenty strong for my loads!

Hey! I even find time to shoot other handguns once in a while too.....

Ward

[Frank]

It all breaks down to a Ford vs Chevy debate

No, it's more like you either play, or you don't. The Ruger is the hunter. Take a look at the Redhawk vs. the Model "N". They fit the same holster. But look at the Redhawk, it's more muscular than the Smith. 46 oz vs 41.5 oz. But Smith says theirs is "The first choice for handgun hunting and competition." I can see the latter, where you are shooting light target loads, but for hunting, the Ruger handles the greater hunting load. Look at them side by side. It's like looking at a body builder vs a bean counter. :mrgreen:

[mtgrs737]

I loved those ads! It was Smiths attempt to put into perspective the beefier looking Ruger without going into the manufacturing processes used and metalurgy. Having worked in the commercial and Military aircraft industry I can tell you that they use very few castings of any type for critical componets in their birds because of strength and weight. Ruger set out to provide a solid gun to the working man for about two weeks pay, in doing so we all have benefited. I own both brands for different reasons.

[mtgrs737]

[QUOTE=Frank;556627]No, it's more like you either play, or you don't. The Ruger is the hunter. Take a look at the Redhawk vs. the Model "N". They fit the same holster. But look at the Redhawk, it's more muscular than the Smith. 46 oz vs 41.5 oz. But Smith says theirs is "The first choice for handgun hunting and competition." I can see the latter, where you are shooting light target loads, but for hunting, the Ruger handles the greater hunting load. Look at them side by side. It's like looking at a body builder vs a bean counter. :mrgreen:[/QUOTE

I must say that the only two guns I have seen blown up were a Virginan Dragoon and a Ruger Super Blackhawk both 44 magnums. So looks may be deceptive, or folks may just think they are stronger because the look beefier.

[Slow Elk 45/70]

Have shot both for a long time. Stronger? Ruger, I have shot a couple of Smiths lose with hot 44's , not so with the Ruger....My Smiths show pressure signs with loads that the Ruger digest just fine. Volume Hot Mag. shooting with the Smiths just takes a toll on them.

As stated the Smith is a nice carry piece, GP-100's 101's & RedHawks are beefier

I'm not talking Over Loads, just hot 44 mags. A steady diet of these, and you can count on sending the Smith to the shop. IMHO

[missionary5155]

Good morning
Have you ever read a NOTICE from Ruger saying a "steady diet of magnum cartriges or +P cartriges will cause rapid wear to this revolver" ?
Steel shooters all know... a Ruger will still be shooting at the end of the first month of matches.
I have a S&W 41 Mag .. PRETTY ! I also have numerous Ruger 41 mags that get shot ALOT with MAGNUM loads and they still chug along.
So do you want all show... or do want REAL GO !
Mike in Peru

[dubber123]

No, it's more like you either play, or you don't. The Ruger is the hunter. Take a look at the Redhawk vs. the Model "N". They fit the same holster. But look at the Redhawk, it's more muscular than the Smith. 46 oz vs 41.5 oz. But Smith says theirs is "The first choice for handgun hunting and competition." I can see the latter, where you are shooting light target loads, but for hunting, the Ruger handles the greater hunting load. Look at them side by side. It's like looking at a body builder vs a bean counter. :mrgreen:

It sounds like you have made up your mind. As you pretty much have gleaned from all the previous posts, the Ruger is the stronger piece. Yes, many think it's a blocky lump, without much refining done by the factory, but it IS strong. [smilie=1:

If the looks and need for tuning are not as important to you as ultimate strength, you have your gun. Now that I'm getting into tuning my own stuff, the Rugers are looking alot more interesting to me. Stock, they are darn near unshootable, so I never got into them. With a little work, the price, and built in durability start looking more appealing.

[Bret4207]

It sounds like you have made up your mind. As you pretty much have gleaned from all the previous posts, the Ruger is the stronger piece. Yes, many think it's a blocky lump, without much refining done by the factory, but it IS strong. [smilie=1:

If the looks and need for tuning are not as important to you as ultimate strength, you have your gun. Now that I'm getting into tuning my own stuff, the Rugers are looking alot more interesting to me. Stock, they are darn near unshootable, so I never got into them. With a little work, the price, and built in durability start looking more appealing.

Well said Dubber! I don't think anyone argues that Rugers are strong. And with just a few more hours works the new gun you just bought will almost be finished!:mrgreen:

[mtgrs737]

Sounds like if you want a tough constantly full power load shootin revolver you need to lean toward the Rugers, Dan Wessons, BFR's. If you want a crisp smooth double action with great lines, lightest weight, nice balance, and fine finishing that you can shoot a moderate amount of full house magnum loads in then maybe a S&W will do? The great thing is we still have those choices, This is a great thread.

[Dale53]

Once I was discussing the strength of particular single shot rifle actions with a couple of extremely knowledgeable fellows. One of them made a statement that was really "on point" - "Strong enough is strong enough". He was correct, it doesn't matter "if it is strong enough".

When I was setting up for handgun deer hunting, I put my Model 29 (8 3/8" barrel) to use during good weather because of the susceptibility to rust in the rain and set up a Ruger Red Hawk 7½" barrel for bad weather (the 629's had yet to come). Both were scoped with 2 power scopes (one a Burris and the other a Leupold). I ended of taking deer with both outfits and BOTH made perfectly practical tools for the job. The Smith has a delightful (the only word that applies) trigger. The Ruger trigger (after a trigger job) is only OK. However, I shoot them both equally well - I just get more pleasure from shooting the Smith.

I have thousands of shots through the Smith (240-250 Keith with my practice load of 23.0 grs of H110 or 296 and 24.0 grs for hunting). My Smith is still as tight as the day it was bought. I have never needed to shoot lighter loads through it (it's a .44 magnum and I shoot .44 magnum loads). I have shot only a few of the heavy bullet loads (310 gr Lee C430-310-RF).

Smith's reportedly get beat up with heavy bullet loads. A 250 Keith will handle any deer or hog that ever walked. If you limit your 300 gr loads to hunting only, the Smith will work forever. However, they CAN be overstressed (I have seen that).

People often are guilty of trying to overcome poor shooting with heavier loads. Learn to shoot, place your shots properly, and that trumps ANY gorilla load. A shot in the foot with a .458 magnum rifle is still a "shot in the foot".

That said, if I had a proclivity for heavy 300+ gr bullets, I would just use the Ruger (Super Blackhawk, Redhawk, or Super Redhawk).

I have seen examples of both "beat to death" and blown up and that is often not much related to manufacturing strength but to simple overloading.

Bottom line, the Ruger is stronger, the Smith is strong enough and MUCH more refined. I like and use both, however.

I have two new Rugers ordered (50th Anniversary .44 magnum Flattop and a Ruger Lipsey .44 Special) and due to their relatively light weight both will be shot with Skeeter loads (.44 Specials with a 250 Keith and 7.5 grs of Unique or equivalent) and you know what - they'll be strong enough. They'll be on my belt while tramping in the woods while I pretend I'm still a young man:mrgreen:

These comments are NOT directed to anyone discussing this here - we're just talking.

Dale53

[Tom Herman]

I'd rather shoot a Ruger with hot loads, I'd rather carry a S&W with factory ammo.

I own and carry Rugers, but if I can ever land a 624 3", I'll probably carry that instead.

Happy Shootin'! -Tom

[Frank]

Well said Dubber! I don't think anyone argues that Rugers are strong. And with just a few more hours works the new gun you just bought will almost be finished! :mrgreen:

What would you do to improve the Ruger?

[44man]

Once I was discussing the strength of particular single shot rifle actions with a couple of extremely knowledgeable fellows. One of them made a statement that was really "on point" - "Strong enough is strong enough". He was correct, it doesn't matter "if it is strong enough".

When I was setting up for handgun deer hunting, I put my Model 29 (8 3/8" barrel) to use during good weather because of the susceptibility to rust in the rain and set up a Ruger Red Hawk 7½" barrel for bad weather (the 629's had yet to come). Both were scoped with 2 power scopes (one a Burris and the other a Leupold). I ended of taking deer with both outfits and BOTH made perfectly practical tools for the job. The Smith has a delightful (the only word that applies) trigger. The Ruger trigger (after a trigger job) is only OK. However, I shoot them both equally well - I just get more pleasure from shooting the Smith.

I have thousands of shots through the Smith (240-250 Keith with my practice load of 23.0 grs of H110 or 296 and 24.0 grs for hunting). My Smith is still as tight as the day it was bought. I have never needed to shoot lighter loads through it (it's a .44 magnum and I shoot .44 magnum loads). I have shot only a few of the heavy bullet loads (310 gr Lee C430-310-RF).

Smith's reportedly get beat up with heavy bullet loads. A 250 Keith will handle any deer or hog that ever walked. If you limit your 300 gr loads to hunting only, the Smith will work forever. However, they CAN be overstressed (I have seen that).

People often are guilty of trying to overcome poor shooting with heavier loads. Learn to shoot, place your shots properly, and that trumps ANY gorilla load. A shot in the foot with a .458 magnum rifle is still a "shot in the foot".

That said, if I had a proclivity for heavy 300+ gr bullets, I would just use the Ruger (Super Blackhawk, Redhawk, or Super Redhawk).

I have seen examples of both "beat to death" and blown up and that is often not much related to manufacturing strength but to simple overloading.

Bottom line, the Ruger is stronger, the Smith is strong enough and MUCH more refined. I like and use both, however.

I have two new Rugers ordered (50th Anniversary .44 magnum Flattop and a Ruger Lipsey .44 Special) and due to their relatively light weight both will be shot with Skeeter loads (.44 Specials with a 250 Keith and 7.5 grs of Unique or equivalent) and you know what - they'll be strong enough. They'll be on my belt while tramping in the woods while I pretend I'm still a young man:mrgreen:

These comments are NOT directed to anyone discussing this here - we're just talking.

Dale53
That was very well said. I still like S&W revolvers and they shot super with the right loads but with the heavy boolits I like I just stay with Ruger or BFR. Nothing at all wrong with a Smith as long as you don't get carried away with too much recoil or pressure in some calibers. I had seven or more, hard to remember, S&W's and never hurt any because I loaded for the gun. The main reason I sold all was because they are grip sensitive in the extreme and just did not work for IHMSA. They shoot just fine off hand though.
As far as the trigger goes, any Ruger, BFR, Freedom or any other gun can be made to be as good or better then a S&W. A clean, creep free, light break is exactly the same in any revolver, there is nothing special with the Smith. I just don't know where that idea comes from! If any one of you came over and pulled any of my triggers you would have it go off WAY before you thought it would and say "Holy crap", I never touched it!
Get over the S&W trigger pull, it is NOT better from the factory. The SRH can have an even better trigger out of the box or a few minutes work can have it BETTER then a Smith.
Why fight about it? They are both fine guns if treated for what they are designed for.
A Smith with a 250 gr boolit is great for hunting but a Ruger with a 320 gr or 330 gr is better for larger animals but still works for smaller, like deer.
Take your pick, just load for the gun.

[Dale53]

44Man;
>>>They are both fine guns if treated for what they are designed for.<<<

You are right on point, here!
Apparently, you and I are pretty much on the same page. I keep buying both and ENJOYING both. My two "little" Rugers (incoming) are both a bit light for heavy loads. Even tho' the 50th Anniversary is chambered for .44 magnum, I'll probably just mostly shoot .44 Special loads in it. It'll be a really nice "woods walker" and I am really looking forward to putting it through the paces. I've waited fifty years for a flat top Ruger and it looks like I may end up with two of them. The 50th Anniversary has a 6½" barrel and I would rather that one would be 5½" like the .44 Special but I may change my mind (doubtful:rolleyes:). We'll see...

Good discussion 44 man.

Dale53

[dubber123]

What would you do to improve the Ruger?

Aesthetically, not much you can reasonably do to improve a Redhawk. Exactly what makes it strong, makes it look blocky and angular compared to a Smith. Trim off a bunch of steel, and you are just making it closer to the Smith.

Functionally, fix the sights, and especially the trigger. A VERY crisp 3# or less trigger on a Smith is the norm. That is how they come from the factory. I've tested alot of Rugers that went over twice that, with ALOT of creep. Sure, you can shoot them that way, but it sure makes life hard. Especially if you are spoiled by nice triggers.

The single action Rugers are easy to work on, I have never been inside a DA Ruger. For a hunting gun, shooting heavy loads, a nicely tuned Ruger would be hard to beat. I would prefer the Sa grip design for this though, as I like the way they handle recoil. Cheaper gun to start with too.

[Frank]

dubber123 writes:
Aesthetically, not much you can reasonably do to improve a Redhawk. Exactly what makes it strong, makes it look blocky and angular compared to a Smith. Trim off a bunch of steel, and you are just making it closer to the Smith.


I don't see exactly what makes the S&W more "aesthetic" than the Redhawk.

Both guns basically have the same physical appearance to me at least, if that is what "aesthetic" you are talking about. I think the Redhawk looks modern because it's streamlined. I'm talking about the Ruger Redhawk versus the S&W 629 "N" frame, it's direct competitor. The Smith looks more angular and appears to be an old design, square edges and all. Not to mention it is physically weaker than the Ruger. That has been established.

About the Ruger being "bulkier", if that is so, why does the Ruger Redhawk fit in a DeSantis holster designed for the S&W 629 N perfectly, it's direct competitor, and those holsters are tight. If the Ruger was truly "bulkier", it wouldn't do that, right?

But the above to me is a mute point. You see to me, what's aesthetic, or beautiful, is what it does at the other end - the target. And if the Ruger allows me to push it to a higher plateau and get more accuracy, then that is what I like best. That to me is the best beauty of all and when I get my Redhawk, we can look at your holes and mine and see which one is the paper weight. :mrgreen:

[44man]

The S&W is VERY accurate and it was easy to shoot 1/2" groups at 50 meters with open sights when I could still see. But if I put the gun down while targets were set, I would still shoot 1/2" groups but the group could be off by 10" just from the new grip position. It used to drive me nuts! I used to put a steel chicken up in front of a large piece of cardboard, center the first group in a tiny cluster, paint the target and shoot a tiny group up in the cardboard. Same on the silhouette range, 5 center hits and miss the next 5. :Fire:Need to super glue the gun to your hand.
The Redhawk is a tough gun to get both a good trigger and accuracy from and it will never quite reach a S&W but seems to be more stable with POI.
Now the SRH is another story, it will shoot 1/2" groups if fed right and will do it from 240 to 320 gr bullets. It is, in my opinion, the most accurate gun Ruger makes.
Next is the SBH and 1/2" groups are few and far between but it will do 1" most of the time at 50 meters. It is pretty consistent and never goes wild. Grip position never seems to matter. I used to shift the grip a lot to get the sights aligned on steel and still hit where I aimed.
For some reason I can not get a Bisley grip to shoot as good and they beat my knuckle too much.
Anyway, that is what I have run into after shooting .44's since 1956.
Everyone has different hands and might find things different for them.

[Bret4207]

What would you do to improve the Ruger?

As Dubber said, trigger, sights, finish work. If you don't know quality when you hold it, that's not my problem. You won't find page after page on the web of how to take care of manufacturing problems of a Smith, particularly the older ones. No need of new base pins and firelapping on Smiths as a standard practice. No complaints about sucky finishes, constricted barrels and sights flying off into space.

I won't argue Ruger makes an excellent gun. They do, I have several I really enjoy. But if they'd just go a little further and really finish the guns they'd be a lot nicer. If they'd put some real sights on an SP101 I'd buy one, I'd still have to finish the trigger and the barrel might still need work and all the sharp edges might need dressing, but it'd be a better gun. And make it in blue for goodness sake, the way guns are supposed to be made. The love affair with stainless baffles me. And I don't think for a moment that Ruger couldn't trim some metal off their guns and make a much nicer carry gun. It could be done and a trimmer, more ergonomic gun would result.

[MT Gianni]

I have had both. I had what many feel was the optimum smith a 6 1/2" 624. I decided I wanted a double action 44 mag as well and swaped a SBH for a redhawk. The redhawk had maching marks on the throat but it out shot the 624 at anydistance and with any bullet I tried it with. I sold the 624 for $150 more than I was into the redhawk and was happy. Each has their place and both have good and bad examples.
I think ruger's fasination with stainless is it takes less time to finish well.

[dubber123]

I don't see exactly what makes the S&W more "aesthetic" than the Redhawk.

Then you are a Ruger salesmans best friend...[smilie=1:


But the above to me is a mute point. You see to me, what's aesthetic, or beautiful, is what it does at the other end - the target. And if the Ruger allows me to push it to a higher plateau and get more accuracy, then that is what I like best. That to me is the best beauty of all and when I get my Redhawk, we can look at your holes and mine and see which one is the paper weight. :mrgreen:

If functionality is the only consideration, and strength is of the utmost importance, why piddle with a Redhawk? Get the Super Redhawk. Bigger is better, right?.... :drinks:

[Frank]

Bret4207 wrote: If you don't know quality when you hold it, that's not my problem.

I haven't held one. I look at them through the glass, but the price tag makes me loose interest. Then you have to worry about shooting it loose. Why bother.

[dubber123]

If you have not fired a 44 mag with full house, heavy boolit loads in a double action platform, you may want to try it first. This is especially important if you like the looks of wood grips. The Redhawk with the stock wood grips are not found to be pleasant to fire with hot loads by alot of shooters.

Looks aside, as that is a personal choice, I would get the Ruger. The cast parts on the new Smiths, and that abomination of a lock in the side gives me the willies. If you really want to know what I would do, it would be to skip both, and buy a BFR in .475 Linebaugh. Same cost as the Ruger, and you will never have to worry about how hot you can load your .44.

[Bret4207]

I haven't held one. I look at them through the glass, but the price tag makes me loose interest. Then you have to worry about shooting it loose. Why bother.

Ah! Obviously you've researched this extensively. My bad.:roll:

[44man]

Gun choice is personal! As long as you have what you like is all that counts.
I will NEVER be without a .44 of some kind even though when someone comes to shoot, I grab one of my BFR's, mostly the .475.
That is another love affair! [smilie=1: I have always had to sell some guns to buy another but the BFR's will never go away, neither will my SBH. I kick myself every day that my friend talked me out of my SRH when I needed money.
I understand cost and the guns I have had to sell over the years would make me rich today if I could have kept them all. I refuse to pay the price of some guns today, mine do all I need or will ever need.
What surprised me was that Magnum Research has actually REDUCED prices while all others go up.
My opinion is that all of us need at least one of every revolver made! :bigsmyl2:

[dubber123]

Gun choice is personal! As long as you have what you like is all that counts.
I will NEVER be without a .44 of some kind even though when someone comes to shoot, I grab one of my BFR's, mostly the .475.
That is another love affair! [smilie=1: I have always had to sell some guns to buy another but the BFR's will never go away, neither will my SBH. I kick myself every day that my friend talked me out of my SRH when I needed money.
I understand cost and the guns I have had to sell over the years would make me rich today if I could have kept them all. I refuse to pay the price of some guns today, mine do all I need or will ever need.
What surprised me was that Magnum Research has actually REDUCED prices while all others go up.
My opinion is that all of us need at least one of every revolver made! :bigsmyl2:

I think it was CDNN I saw advertising BFR's in .475 for $499.00 Thats a real bargain. It looked like only the 7-1/2" was available for that price, but hey, I own a hacksaw..[smilie=1: You can load the big guns down if desired, can only load the little ones up just so much.

[jeff423]

Freedom Arms - Stronger than Ruger, more sophisticated than S&W.

Jeff

[wiljen]

Why do you need the strongest revolver you can get? If you are going to stay within the boundaries of sanity and arent planning on either seeing exactly how much bullseye it takes to wreck one or hunting something wholly inappropriate to handgun hunting in general (IE Water Buffulo), what is the real need here?

Both Ruger and S&W revolvers are perfectly suited to the tasks they were designed for if not abused and cared for correctly. Neither will withstand a lifetime of abuse.

[Dale53]

wiljen;
>>>Neither will withstand a lifetime of abuse<<<

I would like to make a gentle correction here. Actually, both of them will withstand a lifetime of abuse - it's just that their lifetime will be greatly shortened (from a normal expected life of two or three generations and a couple hundred thousand rounds to an expected life of dozens of rounds {or less) when abused).

It is obvious that you and I are in complete agreement!!

Strong enough is strong enough!

Dale53

[44man]

Freedom Arms - Stronger than Ruger, more sophisticated than S&W.

Jeff
Notice I will not reply to that! :kidding:Lets go neck and neck and compare groups, shall we?

[dubber123]

Notice I will not reply to that! :kidding:Lets go neck and neck and compare groups, shall we?

Naah, I'd have to add 12" more bbl, and one of them telescope thingies to even it up first...:lol:

[targetshootr]

Freedom Arms - Stronger than Ruger, more sophisticated than S&W.

Jeff

FAs are nice but they seem too big or too small, not much in between. And they only offer one finish and they don't come in double action. I prefer the other two.

[Frank]

Wiljen
Why do you need the strongest revolver you can get? If you are going to stay within the boundaries of sanity and arent planning on either seeing exactly how much bullseye it takes to wreck one or hunting something wholly inappropriate to handgun hunting in general (IE Water Buffulo), what is the real need here?

Both Ruger and S&W revolvers are perfectly suited to the tasks they were designed for if not abused and cared for correctly. Neither will withstand a lifetime of abuse.

Because:
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=743 [smilie=s: dubber and Brett!!!

[Heavy lead]

Ford

I love these arguments.:roll:

[jeff423]

FAs are nice but they seem too big or too small, not much in between. And they only offer one finish and they don't come in double action. I prefer the other two.

I believe they offer 2 finishes.:-D

Jeff

[dubber123]

Wiljen

Because:
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=743 [smilie=s: dubber and Brett!!!

So you're gonna get a BFR now? Good move...:drinks:

[Frank]

I've already got one, the .475 Linebaugh. I'm looking to get another one. :Fire:

[wonderwolf]

I have Rugers.....I have Smiths.....I need more of both and a lifetime to use them....get back to you then [smilie=1:

I just picked up a Ruger GP100 and compared it to a 686 and 681....The ruger is a tank and locks up like a bank vault...But the trigger doesn't hold a candle to A smith.

[Bret4207]

Wiljen

Because:
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=743 [smilie=s: dubber and Brett!!!

Yes, size does matter. That's why those of us that had to carry a gun around all day appreciate the lighter weight of Smiths duty guns and the older Colts and Rugers. If you're into bigger is better in an attempt to compensate for something else I suppose that wouldn't make sense to you.

[Frank]

That's why those of us that had to carry a gun around all day appreciate the lighter weight of Smiths duty guns and the older Colts and Rugers. If you're into bigger is better in an attempt to compensate for something else I suppose that wouldn't make sense to you.

Is that sufficient to make you feel strong? :coffeecom

[dubber123]

If you already have a BFR in .475, is the .44 just something you want for a new play toy? I have bought LOTS of guns just for new play toys, so don't take offence. The BFR should cover the hunting gun role well.

[Bret4207]

Is that sufficient to make you feel strong? :coffeecom

Rude responses beget rude responses.

[jeff423]

"I just picked up a Ruger GP100 and compared it to a 686 and 681....The ruger is a tank and locks up like a bank vault...But the trigger doesn't hold a candle to A smith."

On one of the Ruger forums you can get a link to the "IBOK" I think it is: "Iowegians Book of Knowlege" it gives great instructions on trigger smoothing for SP and GP 100's. After about 30 min of smoothing, the trigger on my SP100 is almost - but not quite - as good as my Smiths.

Also, for Blackhawk owners Power Custom makes a drop-in trigger and sear kit that will give you a better trigger than a Smith (factory) trigger. My Bisley hunter trigger is now crisp and less than 2 lbs. - that's probably too light, but it is good for targets. If I decide to take it hunting I'll put a heavier spring in.

Jeff

[Tom Herman]

I have had both. I had what many feel was the optimum smith a 6 1/2" 624. I decided I wanted a double action 44 mag as well and swaped a SBH for a redhawk. The redhawk had maching marks on the throat but it out shot the 624 at anydistance and with any bullet I tried it with. I sold the 624 for $150 more than I was into the redhawk and was happy. Each has their place and both have good and bad examples.
I think ruger's fasination with stainless is it takes less time to finish well.

Great thread and discussion, folks! It's like arguing over demonstrably fine wines as to which one is better. As they say around here, "it's (they) are all good!"
Sorry the 624 didn't work out well for you. I wouldn't trade mine for anything.
I love Smiths and Rugers both, and would probably like the BFR's if I got a good deal on one. High quality guns are just a joy to have and shoot, irregardless of label.
My "want list" has both Smiths and Rugers on it.

Happy Shootin'! -Tom

[Down South]

Both are great guns. I own a few of both Smith's and Rugers. I did an Ibok trigger job on my GP-100 and I'd compare it to any Smith trigger that I have.

[Dale53]

I have seen this "Ibok" bantied around from time to time and I have no idea what it means. Little help for the hopelessly out of date? (I'm trying, I'm trying...)

Dale53

[Frank]

Tom Hermans says...Great thread and discussion, folks! It's like arguing over demonstrably fine wines as to which one is better. As they say around here, "it's (they) are all good!"


Check a reloading manual. There's no "argument" there. It says Ruger, T/C. I know this is has been mentioned, but let's not get into La, La land either like they are all the same, like "wines". Everybody knows they're "both great". Ha, ha. [smilie=p:

[jeff423]

I have seen this "Ibok" bantied around from time to time and I have no idea what it means. Little help for the hopelessly out of date? (I'm trying, I'm trying...)

Dale53

See my previous post from 5/1.

It's a Ruger manual written by a gunsmith or really advanced amateur: Iowegian, that gives very complete and easy to follow instructions for "action jobs" on SP and Gp Rugers.

Jeff

[dubber123]

Frank, I try not to argue too much on here, to try and keep it from being like most sites wheres it's all bickereing. That said, it long ago became obvious to me you knew which gun you liked before you started this thread. Buy the Ruger already. Buy the Super Redhawk though as all that matters to you is strength. In fact, don't be cheap, buy a F/A in .44 if you really must find out how hot you can load a .44. I'm assuming F/A are just overpriced junk to you though.

Check the manual yourself, ever see a Ruger-T/C page in .44? Didn't think so. 45 Colt, yes. Don't stretch the truth any more to suit yourself. Owning both, I can tell you even my S&W will tolerate loads that locked my T/C up tight, so thats not a very good arguement. You claim to own a .475, so who cares how hot you can load a .44? Makes no sense to me.

[shorty500]

i have been listening to this argument since i was a kid! now am a machinist/toolmaker/gunsmith with 25years experience doing all three trades. have shot both brands since was a teenager. got NEWS for you all, i have seen several different photos of BLOWN BLACKHAWKS! never seen proof of a BLOWN S&W N-frame. but have held a BLOWN Ruger REDHAWK in my HANDS,which happened to be exactly where my buddy's REDHAWK was at when it BLEW with some of his "RUGER REDHAWK ONLY" loads of WAY too much W@96 under a Hornady 300gXTP right after some gunwriter published that CRAP in a VERY WELL KNOWN magazine. also during the bigger is better/yeah in hamburger pissing match era two things were going on @Ruger-#1 they suspended .45Colt production due to the "but i WAS shooting factory ammo" when it BLEWUP phenomena and the Redhawk .44s started blowing the d*#M barrels off at the threaded shank! ONLY S&W troubles i have ever seen were all due to the "TV cop FLIP" as i call it when some idot flips the gun to slam the cylinder shut! Gentlemen i have seen S&W, Colts & Rugers that were all damaged that way. also note that once upon a time the GREAT ELMER KEITH conducted a destruction test on a S&W M29 & Ruger SuperBlackhawk, the very same load that only bulged the Smith cylinder blew the Ruger to kingdom come!! if people that "KNOW TO MUCH" would quit overloading the .44 and just get a more powerful gun to start it wouldnt matter. and for those who say that i must be on S&W payroll well yeah, i wish but no i aint. But there is a '86-'87 era model 629 in my safe that was bought NEW in '87. thats before all of the "Endurance Features were introduced by S&W. last count was over 150,000 rounds down range! bent or stretched- not yet it still groups in inch and half @50 yards from sandbag rest. all 6 chambers are still round to boys! parts have been worn out and broke, the extractor spring RUSTED into, the rear sight cracked in between the mounting holes,and the trigger return spring has been replaced 3 times. By now the Ruger camp is mumbling that ,LOL, he only shot .44 Specials in it all these years but boys its real simple over 50,000 of the total rounds were the JDJones 325g slug over 24g of WW680 for 1300fps and of the remaining 100 odd thousand the majority were a 250g #429421 slug pushed to 1500fps by 22g of 2400. less than a thousand mixed Special and Magnum factory loads have been down the tube.

[dubber123]

Now Shorty, don't be throwing facts and common sense into this thread, there's no room for that here...