S&W vs Ruger Revolvers

[DuneHopper]

I'll take a new Ruger over a new SW, but an old SW over a new Ruger.

I would agree. Thats a pretty accurate statement.

 

[ageingstudent]

911 for a vehicle infraction? dood

Interestingly, clark county/vancouver was that way too. I wanted to call the sheriff's office up there once a few years ago to report some gang graffiti on a condo property I used to take care of and I had to call 911 just to talk to the graffiti cop. Kinda freaked me out.

 

[OldBroad44]

Not on topic. But I'm happily reading along in a J. B. Turner thriller, and he has just had the hiding protagonist realize he will reveal himself if he even so much as takes the safety off on his Glock. AAAARGH!

 

[taroman]

I have shot tuned GP100s that equal any S&W's trigger.
But, looking at them...cannot get past the barrel covered in warnings and such.
Worse even than the S&W lock hole.

 

[gmerkt]

Ruger triggers. I'm glad we're back to talking about GUNS. I am not a fan of Ruger revolver triggers. The newer ones, that is. The ones with the H&R transfer bar on the hammer. I own several with this design, some are a bit better than others, none ideal. I've owned an older "Four Clicker" Blackhawk in .41 Mag, it had a decent trigger. I don't think I dreamed this, but the transfer bar safety on the trigger is probably the result of consulting legal counsel. Not shooters. Having said this, I'm not the most discriminating shooter as to triggers. I can get used to a particular trigger within a few shots; just like I can be just as comfortable driving an army truck as my own passenger car within five minutes. Some people can't adapt quickly; my Mrs. gets disoriented easily with equipment changes. But I know a nasty trigger just the same.

As I've said in a previous post, I have some of each of Ruger products and Smith & Wesson. I don't necessarily believe they share all that many attributes but they both have features that I like. At least enough that I have bought both makes.

One thing I am pretty firm on after owning a few is that I don't much like Ruger centerfire automatics. But the only one I've owned recently was the little LCP and maybe that was an exception with respect to their newer offerings. The centerfire autos I've owned were a P series 9mm, had a polymer frame and steel slide. I chose that over a Glock at the time, that was a mistake. Another was IIRC a P95 in .40 S&W. Mavbe another P series in 9mm but I forget. These vague descriptions of the Ruger pistol models reflect my lack of interest even in what they were. I have a mind for details, but involving things I'm not fond of, not so much retention. What I remember was that they had kinda fat grips and were kinda clunky, triggers not the greatest. Nothing really said, "Love me" about them.

Smith & Wesson was a "revolver company" for a long time, had to change direction with modern LEO and consumer tastes, now make and sell tons of semi-auto pistols. Revolvers with them are now almost an afterthought after being the mainstay of the company for over a hundred years. I'm interested in the 1st and some 2nd gen. S&W autos, like 639, for example.

I enjoyed my Ruger Security 6s when I had them. But it turns out that the better triggers of smiths matter a lot to me in both my joy of use and shooting well

I had one of the Security Six Rugers about 35 years ago, stainless with 6 in. bbl. It was a good revolver, looked pretty good too. You're right, it had the typical transfer bar trigger, wasn't too bad but not as good as a comparable contemporary Smith & Wesson.

I loved learning about the camera gear and figuring out what made sense for me. Exactly the same for guns. That's what I mean by the love of technology.

You'll forgive me for diverging away from guns again, but your interest in cameras takes me back. I've never pretended to be a "real" photographer, but I took classes on the subject and was keen on photography for decades. I never went the Nikon route, figuring that a quality film (all there was then) SLR was good enough for my purposes. Here was a blend of quality without going the full distance on price. The PX in Vietnam had all kinds of quality SLR cameras for sale, I bought one there. Which I still possess but haven't used in years. I've got tons of prints that I took, even shot a wedding for some friends once. BUT: I never followed through on quality photography with digital. In my later years, I've used a succession of digital throw-away cameras. Kind of an
embarrassment considering previous background. Even these little devices are passé now that everyone has a smart phone with camera capability. But I'd never go back to print photography. With digital, no developing, no cropping, all the edits can be done simply on your PC, if you want prints those can be done cheaply at Fred Meyer (for my purposes, anyway). It's all too easy; this is one of my major cave-ins to technology.

 

[OldBroad44]

Gmerkt--I got started in photography in the film era, then converted to digital when it came along. Its easier and cheaper. However for garden photography thats going to be published in books, phone or throw away d cameras dont usually have enough control or resolution. You need a dedicated digital SLR.

Getting back to guns--so the transfer bar in the Rugers screws up the trigger?​

 

[KKG]

... You need a dedicated digital SLR...I would agree 100%. Mine is a Pentax. No longer Top-of-the-Line, but still a Very good one. Getting back to guns--so the transfer bar in the Rugers screws up the trigger?

I really don't think that was true (I'm not saying you do, I know that was a quote).

 

[ob1]

The love and appreciation for high quality technology doesnt mean we choose the most expensive product every time. It's that we enjoy learning about the various possibilities, and evaluating them in light of our own needs, preferences, and finances. I own a Nikon d7000, for example. When I bought it, it was the top of Nikon's line in the "prosumer" class of digital SLR cameras--the category used by both professional photographers and some consumers. It cost a bit over a grand at the time. There were several other "full professional" class Nikon models that even at the time cost 4 grand or more. The d7000 could do everything I needed. In some cases it did it a little less conveniently than the pro cameras. (Menus rather than external controls.) The pro cameras were bigger and heavier built and weighed a lot more. Useful for a full time photographer using a camera really hard. A huge disadvantage for me. The pro cameras had a little better resolution allowing blowing up the photos to poster size--which I dont do-- but not giving any difference in resolution that was detectable when printed in books or magazines--which I do. In addition, by choosing the particular camera and lenses I did, the outfit more than paid for itself within the first year in providing photos to accompany my gardening books and magazine articles. I loved learning about the camera gear and figuring out what made sense for me. Exactly the same for guns. That's what I mean by the love of technology.
I enjoyed my Ruger Security 6s when I had them. But it turns out that the better triggers of smiths matter a lot to me in both my joy of use and shooting well. Enough to where the modest difference in price is well worth it to me. I've read about Korth revolvers. Even if I had that kind of money I don't think I would want one. I think I'd rather have a few more Smith's than a Korth.

Interesting analogy you make between your Nikon's and handguns. The argument could be made that both are just tools and should be considered as such. Especially from someone who has carried both as part of their particular career path(s).

That being said, I have never held my Digitals in the same regard as my F and F3hp's. The Digi's are just something to use till they die or are outdated by the next generation. (could I interest you in a few D-100 bodies, cheap ?). The glass out in front is another story of course.

Then there are the handguns. I've never been that excited about my carry semi's. Like my Digital's, they are something that comes out of the tool box as needed.

I am not sure if this an emotional attachment of times past, a feeling of commitment to inanimate objects due to their proven reliability, or an impression that the old school objects represent fine craftsmanship (dare I say pieces of art ?). Probably a mix of the three.

I do know however...when the time comes for my "Viking Funeral", my Nikon F and an old school Smith revolver will be sailing into the sunset with me.

 

[ageingstudent]

Getting back to guns--so the transfer bar in the Rugers screws up the trigger?​

I hate to sound like a curmudgeon but the firing pin belongs on the hammer. I have yet to own a revolver (and there have been several) with that transfer bar business that didn't get finicky at some point. I don't like the feel of the hammer strike. I think they are just unnecessary saftey monkey business. I won't but them anymore that's why I stick with older smiths mostly.

 

[KKG]

I hate to sound like a curmudgeon but the firing pin belongs on the hammer. I have yet to own a revolver (and there have been several) with that transfer bar business that didn't get finicky at some point. I don't like the feel of the hammer strike. I think they are just unnecessary saftey monkey business. I won't but them anymore that's why I stick with older smiths mostly.

That's really an interesting comment considering Smith and Wesson Revolvers have had a "Transfer Bar" Safety for many, many years.

 

[ageingstudent]

That's really an interesting comment considering Smith and Wesson Revolvers have had a "Transfer Bar" Safety for many, many years.

 

[ageingstudent]

That's really an interesting comment considering Smith and Wesson Revolvers have had a "Transfer Bar" Safety for many, many years.

That's why I painstakingly look for older ones. I'll even buy a raggedy one and fix it up.

 

[RVTECH]

One more time, Smith & Wesson or Ruger?
Any question?

Note: Many pine cones were injured or killed while shooting these today!

 

[nammac]

That's really an interesting comment considering Smith and Wesson Revolvers have had a "Transfer Bar" Safety for many, many years.

Actually, I believe what you are referring to is a hammer block system, not a transfer bar. They've been putting them in revolvers since the mid 1940's. They're intended to block the hammer from engaging the primer unless the trigger is held all the way back.

Transfer bars are used with frame mounted firing pins and transfer the striking force or energy from the hammer to the firing pin, typically...

I'm not a mechanical engineer, but I do play one on daytime tv...

 

[OldBroad44]

Interesting analogy you make between your Nikon's and handguns. The argument could be made that both are just tools and should be considered as such. Especially from someone who has carried both as part of their particular career path(s).

That being said, I have never held my Digitals in the same regard as my F and F3hp's. The Digi's are just something to use till they die or are outdated by the next generation. (could I interest you in a few D-100 bodies, cheap ?). The glass out in front is another story of course.

Then there are the handguns. I've never been that excited about my carry semi's. Like my Digital's, they are something that comes out of the tool box as needed.

I am not sure if this an emotional attachment of times past, a feeling of commitment to inanimate objects due to their proven reliability, or an impression that the old school objects represent fine craftsmanship (dare I say pieces of art ?). Probably a mix of the three.

I do know however...when the time comes for my "Viking Funeral", my Nikon F and an old school Smith revolver will be sailing into the sunset with me.

I understand about your special regard for the F series Nikon film cameras. They were the pennacle of a mature technology. My digital Nikon d7000 was already way outclassed in its price range within a year. the technology is changing fast and improving fast from year to year. And I do view my d7000 as just a tool.

My edc guns are much more than tools, though. Part of that is probably because I actually have used them to save my bacon. But they are also deeply symbolic to me.

My current edc, Buddy, for example, is a 686-4 snubby. He has the firing pin on the hammer and no lock. I put Crimson Trace grips on him, since I needed to be able to take out would-be duck predators at night. I also filed the back sight blade so the opening is about 50% wider. That gives me my preferred sight picture--one with substantial amounts of open space on both sides of the front sight. I coated the filed surfaces of the back sight blade with black magic marker, then oiled it. It looks unmodified.

Buddy has a light, totally crisp trigger and is nice and muzzle heavy. I dont really notice recoil at all, even with hot loads. He's just a joy to shoot. At 36oz empty, he is heavier than some would want in their edc. But I don't mind. I don't shoot light guns well. I need the weight. And I find that weight not objectionable to carry, but instead comforting and reassuring.

 

[RVTECH]

He has the trigger on the hammer

Man that must be hard to reach!

 

[OldBroad44]

Man that must be hard to reach!

Oops. Corrected.

 

[WAYNO]

I used to have a red Schwinn bicycle.

I know the Royce Union bikes were considered the pinnacle of bikes, but my Schwinn more often than not, was operating as designed, while the Royce Union owners were busy ordering very precisely engineered, but very light duty parts.

 

[OldBroad44]

Yeah. That is another factor in deciding on makes and models. How likely it is to break down, and how big a deal it is if it does. An owner of a Honda Gold Wing once told me that Harley's are for people who like to work on their bikes; Honda's were for people who just wanted their bike to run right so they could spend their time riding it, not working on it.

Pythons are wonderful in various ways, but have a reputation for going out of timing, and requiring a colt-savvy gunsmith to fix. A good Smith probably isn't going to go out of timing in your life.

One thing I care about is the amount of info available on the make and model. And parts and accessories. I really don't want the latest model of a gun. I'd rather buy it a decade later, after they have fixed the flaws most new designs have, and after replacement parts, accessories, and holsters are available.

 

[RVTECH]

Pythons are wonderful in various ways, but have a reputation for going out of timing, and requiring a colt-savvy gunsmith to fix. A good Smith probably isn't going to go out of timing in your life.

And the known, weak firing pin link issue that if broken requires a colt-savvy gunsmith to fix.
Colt's have nice 'curb appeal' but a Smith can be repaired by anyone who is relatively mechanically inclined and has even minimal experience with guns.