Smith & Wesson vs Ruger

Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
262
Likes
10
Location
Bridgeton, RI
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
I'm looking for a 44 mag for stress management, overkill for paper but bless that backstop.
So far I've looked at a S&W 629 and a Ruger Redhawk.
Any sugestions?
 
I'm looking for a 44 mag for stress management, overkill for paper but bless that backstop.
So far I've looked at a S&W 629 and a Ruger Redhawk.
Any sugestions?
both are good guns and i dont think you could go wrong with either one. smith and or ruger is all that i usually buy.
 
WANT a tank? = Ruger
Want a Swiss watch? = Smith

Both are great but this is the difference.

The whole 'Ruger-as-a-tank' thing is overblown, and mostly untrue. There are two reasons that this myth persists:
  1. The Ruger frame looks beefier.
  2. The presence of "Ruger-Only" .45 Colt loads in some reloading manuals.

WRT to #1, the Ruger frame is thicker than the S&W, but it's not necessarily stronger. The frames are made using two different processes. The Ruger frames are cast, and the S&W frames are forged.

Ruger uses a process called 'investment casting' to cast the frame in a near-net shape, then they machine and finish it. This process doesn't require lots of heavy capital equipment, and requires less machining to complete the product. However, equally-sized cast parts are not as strong as forged parts, so the cast parts have to be made thicker, but they are less costly.

S&W forges their frames. A forged frame is beat into a not-so-near-net-shape using the brute force of a forging press. This process strengthens the steel, but leaves a more 'raw' finished product that requires more machining to finish than an investment-cast part. Since the forging is stronger, it can be made lighter.

WRT #2, the reason some manuals have Ruger-Only Colt .45 loads is to indicate that these loads are not to be used in Colt SAA revolvers. A S&W N-frame has no problems with the 'Ruger-only' loads.

The whole argument is silly anyway because the mythical extra strength of a Ruger would only be required if you planned to intentionally handload cartridges beyond SAAMI pressure limits.
 
I think the Ruger absorbs a lot more of the recoil than the S&W. The S&W seems to spank noticeably more. In my hand, anyways.
 
Well I had the chance for such a sweet deal I couldn't turn it down. I bought the Smith 629 with 8 3/4 barrel. I can't wait to pick it up next Wednesday.
 
I got it very gently used ( purchaced new in December) for 4 bills! How could I turn that deal down?
Next week can't come fast enough, I need to shoot it.
 
That's awesome! I've been looking for one for a while.....[crying]

Everything I've found so far has been 6" barrel or shorter.... Have been hoping to find one in 8 7/8"...... Love the classic look to it....[wink]

Sure can't beat that price....[smile]

I got it very gently used ( purchaced new in December) for 4 bills! How could I turn that deal down?
Next week can't come fast enough, I need to shoot it.
 
That's awesome! I've been looking for one for a while.....[crying]

Everything I've found so far has been 6" barrel or shorter.... Have been hoping to find one in 8 7/8"...... Love the classic look to it....[wink]

Sure can't beat that price....[smile]

PM inbound
 
Although the .44 isn't a concern, be aware that Ruger has been known to take chances.

My .480 is a six shot and the new ones are all 5 shots. why? Because several of the cylinders have failed due to the thin cylinder to cylinder walls. This isn't the first known re-design in the brand due to marginal designs. I'm unaware of any such issue with the S&W's built for the caliber and loadings that existed at the time it was manufactured.
 
Although the .44 isn't a concern, be aware that Ruger has been known to take chances.

My .480 is a six shot and the new ones are all 5 shots. why? Because several of the cylinders have failed due to the thin cylinder to cylinder walls. This isn't the first known re-design in the brand due to marginal designs. I'm unaware of any such issue with the S&W's built for the caliber and loadings that existed at the time it was manufactured.

Nothing like that with S&W?
 
Back
Top Bottom