JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
First off, anyone claiming lower strength because of Ruger's casting techniques needs a course in metallurgy. That bubblegum is tough. Also, MIM is very different from Investment Casting (lost wax method). You'll search far and wide to find a firearm as tough as a comparable Ruger.
I've owned a number of Ruger 77 MkIIs, Hawkeyes, and old Standard 22 and several Blackhawks, both New and Old Models. Love 'em all.


That said,

I just couldn't buy the Ruger GP100 over the S&W L Frame. Just couldn't, and in case you couldn't tell, I am a big Ruger fan....

I appreciate the way a tool looks along with it's need to function perfectly and the K and L frame Smiths just look better to me. Not as blocky. That look goes back to the Security Six and it's brethren. Even the Redhawk has some corners that could be shaved off. Another issue was the fact that I really liked the 7 shot capacity the L frame offered in 357.

It wasn't long after I let my 686+ go that I had seller's remorse. I ended up with a Model 69. While I was looking, I revisited the Ruger GP100. Still, it just didn't do "it" for me.
 
Smiths are indeed more svelte, no doubt there. They have a classic good look, even more so with reasonably figured wood grips. I'm a Smith and Wesson Revolver fan...

Having said that, I'm in the market for a double action revolver in .45 Colt. Narrowed down to the Ruger Redhawk and the Smith 25... Leaning towards the 25...
 
Original Vaquero Revolvers are truly hard to beat and Smith & Wesson simply hasn't made anything remotely like it for years. Yes they made the Schofield and they are a work of art but the Originals are way above my pocket book. I'm truly a Smith & Wesson fan and likely always will be. I do own a couple. The "X" Frame S&Ws simply don't do anything for me. If I want something that Big and Heavy I've already got Rifles.
 
If I could only have one revolver for the rest of my life, even if I was 16 again, it would undoubtedly be a Ruger.
I've shot hell out of S&W guns and they just don't hold up as well at all.
 
Sounds like a S&W Revolver love fest. :D :p
5 revolvers03122018.jpg
 
they just don't hold up as well at all.

our experiences seem to be of different conclusions;
not to argue about it, simply to add a note that in the last 20 years, comparing the number of 'new/barely used' Ruger products I've had to return for factory repair vs S&W.

Completely baffling is the performance of 2 of the Ruger high end 22LR revolvers; a few years ago I had a brand new Ruger Single-10 that simply would NOT shoot to POA let alone a suitable group. From the bench rest at 20' impossible to keep 'minute of cantaloupe'; and more recently, a GP100-22 returned for the 3rd time as a lemon-law replacement. Never had such with any S&W.

I've had considerable number of the Blackhawks/Redhawks/Vaquero series, with not much trouble despite extended cowboy match use.

The startling reality is in a long line of using many products of yet another maker, I've literally NEVER had to return one for defect: Colt.

It's amazing how so many users of similar products obtain such a variety of results.

I'm glad we have lots of choices.
 
I wouldn't turn my nose up at either. I used to have a Ruger Security 6 for my edc. These days that role is played by a sw 686 snubby.

I'm a trigger snob, and smiths usually have lighter completely crisp triggers. I replaced the springs in my two Securities to get them where I wanted them.

For an unscoped .44 in the 5 to 6.5 inch range, I'd rather have a 629 than a Redhawk or Super Redhawk. I find it more attractive, would prefer the trigger and would not be planning to use the .44mag +P+ loads that the Ruger can handle but the smiths cant.

However, it seems to me that the Super Redhawk is much better designed to handle a full size scope than are the smiths, even those with integral rails. And for that heavier gun with a 7.5 inch barrel, additionally stabilized by the scope, the hottest loads might occasionally be fun. My eyes aren't getting any better, so if I can save the money, it might make sense to add a scoped revolver to my repertoire. And if I do, that revolver may well be a Ruger.
 
I loved my gp100 6".

Fit my massive hands like it was made for them. And it was intimidating as heck;).

I know it's a double/single but I shot just as well either way. It had a very slight tell that it was about to break and was smooth as butter.
 
Always been more a Ruger fan, but I'm more into field pistols where revolvers are concerned. I like the inherent strength of the Redhawk and GP100 and I'm also a fan of the transfer bar system. The most attractive IMO are still the Colts.
 
I like my rugers. I have a GP 100 in .357 magnum and a .45LC blackhawk and soon to add a super redhawk in .454 casull into the mix when lucky sg can find one. I like the chunky look of the rugers as weird as that may be. I like the weight when I have played with the .45 in so called Ruger only loads. I plan on mounting a scope to the super redhawk when I get it and it will be a beast. But I might just like beasts.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top