DPris

Usually at about this point somebody drops in to defend S&W.
There's no need to, Smiths are far from junk & nobody's saying they're fragile.
Statements based on the greater durability of Rugers are not based on fan "blinders", they're based on fact.

In most cases most owners won't shoot enough of either for that alone to be a determining factor in choosing one over the other.

I have stock examples of both, I have customized examples of both.
If you want sheer strength, go Ruger.
If you don't care, go with S&W.
Denis

OldCrow

Many reloading charts have a page listed "Ruger Only" google ruger only reloading chart and see what you find.

Rugers are made of better steel than an S&W. To have a Ruger engraved the steel has to be annealed or softened. To engrave a S&W you only need to get busy.

I am not saying S&W builds bad guns. For the average shooter a S&W is a fine weapon. But for someone who punishes weapons....Pushes them to their limits all the time, they need a Ruger.

bwinters

The ruger security 6 etc is way more durable than the k frame of the era the gp100 is a bit more durable than the 686 series.

Rivers2k

Really??? Please tell my how you know this for certain. Just trying to figure out the facts.

3482jl

I disagree. Ruger and S&W are entirely different designs. Some of the earlier responses on this thread are correct, in that the GP100 was a response to lots of shooting with .357 loads. S&W made the same switch when they went from the K frame to the L frame, which is the 586/686 series. The GP100 and 686 are both great guns. The S&W is a 100 year old proven design and the GP100 is a more recent design. But IMHO the arguments comparing the Ruger and the S&W just don't hold water

James6591

For once..... I have to agree with you.....

Redleg

This is an excellent thread. The GP100 and S&W 686 are both excellent guns and I would hate to have to say which is better. I will say that for me my GP100 just seems to be a better shooter, but that is pretty subjective.

rdp357

One day at the range I was shooting my Sp101 357 and a man came up next to me with a brand new S&W 6" barrel 357 (don't know the model number), beautiful gun, said he paid 800.00 or so, first time shooting it. He loaded it up, shot 6 rounds, no problem, reloaded fired off 5 more rounds and the cylinder froze up. I don't know if it was a cylinder lock issue, think it was over heated.

Needless to say this young man was very up set and left the range headed back to the store he bought the gun from.

I've shot many S&W's revolvers in my younger days with no problems, I think the modern or newer ones are over priced and not built as good as the older ones were. Also think for the money and quality I'll go with a Ruger. Better gun for the money IMO.

Rivers2k

I wouldn't say one is "Better" than the other. I own both S&W and Ruger I think they are both great for different reasons. There seems to be a misconception out there that the weight of the metal means Rugers are stronger.

I have a theory that this thinking is incorrect and it is actually design that makes Ruger stronger. Giving credit where credit is due others on this thread have have brought this theory about. I think I agree.

DPris

It's not a theory.
Once again- The Ruger was simply designed stronger in key areas beginning with the Security-Six line.
The Rugers aren't as esthetically pleasing as the Smiths & generally don't have quite the same trigger pull (although they can be slicked up nicely), but they ARE stronger & more durable because they were designed to be.

Denis

ExArmy11b

Ruger is the plow horse, S&W is the thoroughbred

I use Ruger revolvers as my defensive guns, because they are rugged, no nonsense guns that I bet my life on to go off when needed. Many people say S&W's are "prettier" than Rugers, but honestly, even though I own several new S&W's, I don't think my 10-14 or 64-8 is better looking than one of my GP100's. New S&W's got "blockier" when they started using the lock............ But, my 1971 production Model 29, my late 60's Highway Patrolman, or my 1921 production 6" .38 M&P, those guns are works of art=)

The VAST majority of S&W owners will never wear out their guns, they won't put enough rounds through them to worry about it. Neither will most Ruger owners. Rugers are appreciated mostly by handloaders who like to load into the upper envelope of pressure levels. I own a .357 Redhawk, odds are, I'll never run any rounds through it that even come close to testing it's strength. It would cost more than I make in a year to buy enough .38 to wear out one of my S&W Model 10's........

I'm bored, so here's the rest of my long winded response=) Most people can stop reading here, unless you really want to read my bored ranting about the history of police duty guns........

Ruger Sixes and GP's CAN and have been made to be very , very slick and I have several of each with actions on par with any S&W or Colt that I own. But, for the most part, a stock Six or GP100 will have a longer, heavier and "stagier" DA pull and a "creepier" SA break than a S&W. They were designed as duty guns for police, that were cheaper and stronger than S&W and Colt. PD administration people did not care about slick DA pulls, but show them a cheaper duty revolver that lasts longer,and would not break down from light bullet .357's and that's where Ruger Six series came in to the game.

S&W countered with the L-frame in the early 1980's,like the legendary 686, 581, 586, etc. to compete with the Security Six, and in 1986 Ruger again brought out the GP100, a gun that would fit in the same holsters and use the same speedloaders as the S&W L-frame........coincidence? Colt simply priced themselves out of the duty gun market for PD's, the Mk. III series wasn't enough to get them back in the game by the 1970's...The Lawman .357 . Official Police Mk. III and Metropolitan .38 were an attempt at a "budget" fixed sight Colt duty gun to compete with the Security Six, but they didn't gain a huge following.....I even have a Colt Trooper III with a crappy, heavy and stagy DA pull, so that pony on the side of the frame is no guarantee of a butter smooth trigger

Again, there is no blanket truth in revolvers...........I have a bone stock S&W 581 with one of the worst DA pulls I have ever felt, the gun just wasn't fitted right and it has about 3 slight but noticeable gags in the DA stroke. I have Nagant revolvers with better DA pulls I could have it fixed but I don't shoot it enough to worry about it, it works and hits the target.......... And then, I have a particular low-back Security Six with a DA pull that's like a rusty hinge.....heavy, gritty and uneven. And also plenty of S&W's and Rugers everywhere in between, from out of the box slick, to mediocre, to horrible DA pulls. It depends on how they were fitted.

The truth is, 99% of the average buyers of used and new S&W's will never have to worry about their durability or strength, the S&W will still last lifetimes of regular use with normal pressure ammo. I have heard from retired LE armorers who say that some of the S&W 64's they issued had 70,000+ documented rounds of standard .38 Special through them when they were traded in, and received only normal maintenance. There's NO way the "average Joe" is putting 70,000 rounds through his gun in a lifetime. Most people are lucky to see a few thousand.

GunBlue

This is a repost I did elsewhere on this site...

Speaking as one who serviced both S&Ws and Ruger GP100s by the hundreds as a police armorer, I'll give you my take on them.

The S&Ws are by far more sophisticated in construction and retain value better than the GP100. They are more complex, more fussy, and more apt to break down and suffer certain problems related to bent center pins, end shake, loose ejector rods, binding cylinders and torn ratchets. They are IMO very pretty guns. In and issue environment, they require monitoring on a fairly regular basis. The parts folks in Springfield had a working relationship with me years ago. But, for an owner who takes care of it, and doesn't feed it a regular meal of full house loads, it'll last a lifetime. The L frame series was made specifically to address weakness issues they had for years with the K frame, which was simply unable to cope with service loads on a regular basis. The beefier frame helped, but fundamental issues are the same all the way up the line even with the N frames.

The GP100 is by far the more durable gun, for more reasons than I have time to illustrate. In an issue environment, they require some serious dusting on occasion, or perhaps a repaired rear sight. They can fail if you take a number of whacks at them with an axe... if you know what you're doing and where to hit! LOL But, they won't command a resale price near as well as a Smith.

The Smith is the dressed for dinner gun. The Ruger is all work. It's entirely what makes you happy.

As for the late Python, nothing is like a Python.

leftofcentre67

I'll let you know when I pick up my 629 in 5" barrel in the next week or so...



I love my GP141, it took some time for the trigger to "smooth out" but it's a rock solid firearm.

bbqbob51

I have a Smith and Wesson 686+ and my brother owns a GP100, both have the 4" BBL. When you compare the two side by side, the GP100 does appear to be beefier in certain areas. What jumped out at me is the top strap on the Ruger is noticeably thicker but if you compare the weights, the GP100 weighs 40 oz. and the 686 weighs 39.9 oz...a whopping .1 of an ounce!
I don't think there is much difference in the "ruggedness" of the two revolvers, either one will outlast me! They both have their fans and with good reason.