The ruger question

[d4xycrq]

‘…just send it back…” is all fun and games until your brand new 586 came back with a scratch from where they disassembled it to not actually fix the original problem.

[Bigslug]

Pick the model you like. Either company will take care of you if it's wrong.

[jetinteriorguy]

I’ve always been a S&W guy but in the last ten years have picked up three Rugers. I have a GP100 4” blued, a 3” Security 6 blued, and a 4” Security 6 stainless. With an hours work on each they are actually very nice guns and rival my best triggers on my Smith's. Minimal polishing on internals, lighter springs, and trigger shims are the trick. When doing springs it takes some experimenting to find the lightest spring for both reliability and performance, and each gun has its own preference. As far as the ability to work on them IME they are much easier than my Smith’s.

[PaulH]

I haven't purchased currently production S&W, but I did purchase two new GP-100's two years ago, and both went back to Ruger for repairs. The 22 lr was printing 8" to the left at 10 paces at the range, and the rear sight had to be adjusted to the extreme right to get it to print to POA and accuracy was poor, about 4" at 25 yds. The barrel was notably clocked with the front blade leaning several degrees out of vertical.

The 357 Talo gun had chambers so rough mild loads had to be forcefully extracted, full power loads nearly pounded out. Note, I had a GP-100 match champion and those loads fell right out of the cylinder.

Both guns went back to Ruger, both were repaired. The 22 had the barrel properly clocked and a new crown cut, accuracy is not stellar, but groups are now around 2" at 25 yds with favored ammo. The 357 will now drop fired cases just like the match champion, and it looks like this may be a favored revolver once I find a pet load or two.

Given the price of new GP-100's, it's a pity you're likely to have to send them back after your first range session. Nore I also got a 357/77 rifle that had the extractor break after the second range session and it went back to Ruger as well. I have more Rugers than any other brand, my first rifle and revolver was a Ruger so I'm a big fan of Ruger. That said, I'll be thinking long and hard before buying another new Ruger, which is a sad commentary.

[jdgabbard]

So, I'm coming at this from a little different perspective...

I've bought both Rugers and S&W firearms. In addition to Taurus, Rossi, Kel-Tec, and a few others mixed in....

I've never bought a brand new S&W. Never had the money when I was younger, and the current products don't hold a candle to the older lineup in craftmanship. That's a casualty of the modern manufacturing methods...

I HAVE bought plenty of Rugers brand new. They were always more affordable. However, they never had that fit and finish of the older S&W products. Though they perform just as well as any S&W revolver you put them up against as long as you're comparing apples to apples.

Really, either one will suit you fine. Both have problems from time to time. Both also make remarkably great guns. The biggest difference is that the Ruger is going to be noticeably cheaper, while the S&W might be marginally better made.

Now, the exception to this rule is going to come down to a GP100 in 44 Special. They're not a particularly robust gun. They'll do fine with standard loadings. But they are not going to hold up on the heavier loadings. When you see one you'll instantly understand why. That forcing cone on the barrel is paper thin. And it doesn't take much to crack it.

Having said all of that. If I had to pick the revolvers I've owned which I liked best, in no specific order: Ruger GP100 in .357 Magnum, S&W 65 from the 80s, Ruger SP101, and a Rossi 461 I stupidly traded back 20 years ago....

[justindad]

Pick the model you like. Either company will take care of you if it's wrong.

S&W failed to fix my Mountain Gun after I sent it to them twice. I have to fix it now.

[PaulH]

So, I'm coming at this from a little different perspective...

I've bought both Rugers and S&W firearms. In addition to Taurus, Rossi, Kel-Tec, and a few others mixed in....

I've never bought a brand new S&W. Never had the money when I was younger, and the current products don't hold a candle to the older lineup in craftmanship. That's a casualty of the modern manufacturing methods...

I HAVE bought plenty of Rugers brand new. They were always more affordable. However, they never had that fit and finish of the older S&W products. Though they perform just as well as any S&W revolver you put them up against as long as you're comparing apples to apples.

Really, either one will suit you fine. Both have problems from time to time. Both also make remarkably great guns. The biggest difference is that the Ruger is going to be noticeably cheaper, while the S&W might be marginally better made.

Now, the exception to this rule is going to come down to a GP100 in 44 Special. They're not a particularly robust gun. They'll do fine with standard loadings. But they are not going to hold up on the heavier loadings. When you see one you'll instantly understand why. That forcing cone on the barrel is paper thin. And it doesn't take much to crack it.

Having said all of that. If I had to pick the revolvers I've owned which I liked best, in no specific order: Ruger GP100 in .357 Magnum, S&W 65 from the 80s, Ruger SP101, and a Rossi 461 I stupidly traded back 20 years ago....

The way I look at it, for a 357 magnum I'm going to shoot the 1000's and 10's of thousands of rounds out of, make it a gp-100 and factor in an action job. For a 38 special, none finer than a K-38 target masterpiece.

[forrest]

Every mfg has issues, but at the end of the day I'll stick with the s&w revolvers.

In the last 30+ years every nib ruger I bought needed to be sent back to ruger. Only 1 of the (1 in 4) was marginally fixed. The rest required someone else besides ruger to get them to function along with having mediocre accuracy at best. The last ruger I bought was a 22/45. I understand the op asked about revolvers. But a $360 (on sale) ruger pistol needed to go back to ruger. After ruger fixed it that 22/45 needed $50+ worth of aftermarket parts to actually get it to function (light fp hits).

The last 2 s&w's I bought have run flawlessly (586/686). The 686 is for range play and I use/shoot it as it came from the factory/no mods or work done to it. The only thing I've done to that 686 is move the rear sight around to get on target for the different loads I've shot. That 686 will easily shoot bugholes in 50ft targets (6-shots all touching) and will hold 2" 6-shot groups @ 50yds with blammo ammo. Blammo ammo is unsorted cast bullets and mixed range brass.

I'm sure some have gotten excellent gp-100's that need nothing and will perform accuracy wise the same as that 686. I've never seen it personally. Same goes for the "new" pythons they are putting out.

[FergusonTO35]

I've pretty much gotten to the point where I assume that buying a revolver of any brand or price point, new or used, is going to turn into a project. Either it's going to have minor but real defects, or something about it is going to be off and not to my liking and I have to correct it or pay someone else to do it. I think one "unfair" advantage that the older guns have is that it is very likely that a previous owner already took care of any problems or defects it had. This can color our opinions to say that older guns are automatically better, when in reality many of them have been repaired over the years. However, I also don't think it is unreasonable to assume that manufacturers had better QC on .38 and .357 revolvers in past decades simply because they wanted to ensure law enforcement sales. Just like today, they also knew that many people would buy a gun just because they saw it in a police holster.

[Shawlerbrook]

Love my 1990’s vintage GP100 in 357 Mag. Built like a tank.