Who makes the better new revolvers: Smith or Ruger?

>want a gun that can probably shoot several tens of thousands of magnum cartridges without breaking anything major

Ruger

>want a gun with a good trigger and aesthetics

S&W

This only applies to their new guns.

>laughs in 8 shot ruger redhawk

Ive cracked gp100 forcing cones (3) and had smiths go out of timing in less than 500 rounds. (2) Theyre both shit, get a single shot contender in whatever caliber your heart desires and enjoy sub moa accuracy. If you need capacity, buy a 1911, beretta 92 or a goddamn glock.

Can't go wrong with either. Pick the one that feels better and/or shoots better.

Ive got three Rugers and theyre all tanks.
357Mag SP101, 3"
44Mag Redhawk, 5.5"
454Casull SuperBlackhawk Bisley, 6.5"

I'm never going to buy a Smith because that's my preference

>actually prove it
Revolvers are expensive to produce. As long as people demand cheaper firearms the downward trend to chase profits will continue unabated. Ruger's MIM process and poly frames have been a better compromise than S&W slapping keylocks on all of their frames, cutting QC, and pumping out laughably overpriced PC variants to compensate.

Attached: yikes.jpg (648x484, 87K)

>actually prove that one or both has dropped in quality
google for smith wesson canted barrel

What the fuck were you shooting through those guns? How long did the GP100 last?

The longest ive had one last was 20k rounds almost nothing but factory loads. The shortest forcing cone distruction ive had out of a gp100 was under 1k rounds of hot (but safe) handloads. They're not as tough as everyone says they are. But I shoot A LOT of 357s,(1-2k rounds a month) and never 38s.

Now my super blackhawk on the other hand ive abused the FUCK out of and it doesnt give a shit. Just keeps hammering out rounds.

S&W has gone MIM, and Ruger relies heavily on investment casting aside from small parts

My experiences with S&W
>Saved up and finally got the gun I've wanted for years
>Lew Horton exclusive model 686-1 with wood combat grips
ohmygodyes.jpeg
>carry it and have fun with it at the range
>one day at the range...
>fire and feel a hot piece of metal hit my cheek
that wasnt a lead shaving...
>open cylinder
>barrel cracked and a chunk of the forcing cone blew off
oh fuck oh fuck oh fuck
>call S&W customer service
>first guy I spoke with was very friendly
>second guy was an arrogant dick
"Well Mr. user we'll send you a shipping label in your e-mail. Once we receive the gun we will have our gunsmith look it over to determine what caused the failure. The inspection by the gunsmith will cost $58. After which we will send you an invoice for the necessary repairs"
>.....excuse the fuck out of me?!
"Once we've determined the repair costs you can choose to have it repaired through us or we can ship it back and you can go to a private gunsmith"
>umm... no. fuck you guys. i'll part this thing out on ebay and buy a Ruger. Bye
To their credit this was 5-ish years ago and I have heard that since then they have completely changed their customer service.
>Next story
>Working at sporting goods store
>Putting out new guns at the counter
WTF
>Every fucking S&W revolver had a barrel that was over-torqued or misaligned
>Show my boss
"Nah. that's fucked. Send them all back."
>Weeks later.
>New shipment of Smiths
>All the barrels are over-torqued and misalined again
>Do research online
>See that many others are complaining about this and has become a common issue with new S&W revolvers because of very poor QC
Would I get another S&W? Sure. With some exceptions. I will never buy a NEW Smith. Only older models with a pinned barrel and never in a magnum caliber. I used to own a model 10-5 and it was an incredible gun. The model 10 is hands down THE BEST, and perhaps maybe only gun S&W ever made that I would qualify as "excellent".
However, I owns Rugers now. Pic related.

Attached: pix260342599.jpg (640x427, 29K)

I watched both those vids, he points out that they're honestly just drilled off-center. S&W really, really fucked up.

Attached: 686.png (548x530, 251K)

Sucks to hear about the GP100, probably won’t get one now

How many rounds through the blackhawk? I’ve considered getting one in .357 with a single six as it’s “understudy”

Just get a Redhawk honestly. They are overbuilt for 357. and great in 44. Just know that they are heavy.

8 rounds in a fullsize handgun + slow reload is laughable and pathetic

>Ive cracked gp100 forcing cones (3) and had smiths go out of timing in less than 500 rounds.
sure you did

Attached: YouCanTrustThisGuy.gif (320x240, 2.34M)

if you were a better shot you wouldnt need to worry so much about reloads

I've watched a metric fuckton of defensive shooting videos over the years. I've never seen one that included a reload. Here's what I have seen:

1) shootings are over as fast as they start 99% of the time

2) getting the first shot on target matters more than total number of shots

SP101 feels better in the hand but sucks to shoot full power magnums out of. GP100 feels like a boat anchor but is a pussycat to shoot.

If you were a better shot you wouldn't need more than a single shot black powder pistol

>I've watched a metric fuckton of defensive shooting videos over the years
Wow we have a real expert here!

You're a moron if you can't see the value in studying videos of real world defensive firearm uses.

Attached: 2oT1WRv.jpg (640x440, 30K)

How else can someone study defensive gun use incidents? I suppose you go to Detroit and pick fights to practice your skills?

>actually prove that one or both has dropped in quality
Hillary Hole.

Attached: 1526920111691.jpg (351x440, 57K)

Model 15 > model 10

>Smith
enjoy your hillary hole. Ruger all the way.

youtube.com/watch?v=dYrHCt89p_E
He's legally not even allowed to own a firearm like that.

Every single time ive had a gun go to ruger even for shit that was my fault it was free.

Its a super and goddamn probably 35-40k?

"I dont understand why people say if it wasnt for bad luck, I woukd have no luck at all" -the post.

me too

Attached: sp101.gif (500x281, 576K)

>real world defensive firearm uses.
Active self protection is a christfag

Attached: 1535315497166.png (588x434, 237K)

Reminder that S&W has been fucking up their QA for decades, long before the Hillary Hole.

chuckhawks.com/smith-wesson_dark.htm

>Example: I once inspected a shipment of Smith & Wesson .22 Masterpiece target revolvers sent to the sporting goods department of a large mass merchandiser. Those half dozen revolvers were so poorly made that the gap between cylinder face and forcing cone varied widely as the cylinder was turned. At one position or another the face of the cylinder would actually drag against the forcing cone. One or two of those revolvers were so far out of spec that the cylinder could not be rotated all the way around. One such gun I could understand somehow slipping by quality control, but a whole shipment so poorly made that even a cursory inspection would have revealed the problem? Obviously there was no quality control inspection before those new revolvers were shipped.

>Example: On another occasion a friend and I inspected perhaps a dozen newly arrived S&W revolvers at a gun shop and found large gaps between the cylinder crane and frame in all of them. On the same guns the cylinder ratchet notches were so poorly machined that no two were identical; it looked like a drunken monkey had done the work. Again, a single defective revolver would be understandable--mistakes happen--but a whole shipment of lemons is impossible to explain as an isolated mistake.

>Example: A Guns and Shooting Online staff member purchased a brand new S&W 22/32 Kit Gun whose rear sight could not be adjusted far enough laterally to put bullets into the target at 25 yards. Upon close examination with a straight edge we found that this revolver's frame was actually machined in a slight curve. Clearly no one had test fired this revolver at the factory.

>So, they started building .357 revolvers on their smaller "K" .38 Special frame. These revolvers quickly developed a reputation for vicious recoil and also for shaking themselves apart. Smith's "solution" was to recommend practicing with .38 Special ammunition and reserving .357 Magnum cartridges only for "duty" purposes to extend the life of their revolvers! Ahem, doesn't that sound like a tacit admission of a fundamental problem in a Magnum revolver?

Attached: tenor.gif (480x270, 875K)

Okay, I honestly don’t know if I’ll ever reach a round count where the choice of a Blackhawk over a gp100 will matter, but it’s good to know it’ll last forever with .38s.

The red hawk is so overbuilt that I honestly can’t justify getting one in anything less than .44 magnum.

Smith is unquestionably the better gun. Ruger is and always has been a cheap substitute.

>t. S&W advertisement from 1988

>assuming all revolvers are 6 shots

>1-2k .357 a month
What's it like being a millionaire?

There is a beauty in overbuiltness.

>shoot hot 125gr grain handloads through a revolver, bitch when it wears prematurely
Idiot.

Not anywhere near a millionaire, I'm king of the trailer park in a fly over state.

To me that ends once you go past gp100 levels

I had already cracked one with factory loads and another on 158 grain slow pokes, I wanted to see what nasty shits moving at light speed do. It was a curiosity for myself. Experiment with more than just men for once.

I think they look ok besides the "READ THE FUCKING MANUAL HOLY FUCK" on the side

S&W makes a good gun but you have to check it as thoroughly as you would a Taurus before purchase because they are skimping on QC like a motherfucker. Oh and they'll charge you top dollar too...

>Sucks to hear about the GP100, probably won’t get one now
Based on that one, probably fictitious post? What's it like being this easily manipulated? Engineering aside there's nothing magical about the properties in the stainless steel in a Ruger or S&W revolver, whatever that idiot was allegedly doing to break his guns would probably fuck up a Korth or Manurhin in fairly short order as well. If you're that worried about it stay the fuck away from 125gr rounds, handloads or otherwise. They're notorious for beating up revolvers, and eardrums.

IMHO, S&W guns have far superior fit and finish to Ruger. Not that Ruger is bad.

What I wouldnt give for a modern break action revolver. I'm sure with modern metallurgy we could design one in .38 +P, right?

Attached: webley snubnose.jpg (512x330, 11K)

If the Blackhawk can survive twice as many rounds why not go with it?

I prefer the smaller 5 shots desu

I sent an email to Armscor recommending they make a webley clone in .38spl. I suggest anyone who wants to meme this into reality does the same. If they did it they would have the market cornered for new mfg top breaks.

Of all mfgs, why Armscor?

Attached: H&R Defender.jpg (663x351, 32K)

Don't miss.
There is something to be said about knowing that your shots must hit vs mag dumping in the general direction of the target and hitting everyone and everything but your target.

How often do you hear about pistol whipping with autos?
That Revolver is built to smack things with and you don't even need to have it loaded.

Because they are the only ones who could bring it to market at a decent price because of their third world labor costs. Their guns are rough but work. That would be acceptable for a webley clone with a wartime-like finish. S&W would charge $1500 for it and Ruger would put fucking warnings all over it.

Also suggested they make a Colt 1903/1908 clone in .380....never hurts to ask lol

Because he's a fucking nigger.

>user constantly feeds a revolver the fastest and hottest .357 handholds one can make. as in, more than even a hardcore handgun hunter would feed it over its lifetime
>whines about it not being durable when it inevitably breaks much, much faster than it would using standard 158gr rounds and .38 special

Attached: 1490986233449.png (703x519, 346K)

Shouldn’t a gun be able to handle the round it’s chambered for?

>shouldn't my car be able to drive an infinite number of miles with no maintenance on 91 octane gas?

Being able to "handle the round it's chambered for" is very different than "never needing repair, replacement of parts, etc." Machines need maintenance. Guns are machines. Putting hotter ammo through a gun designed for a certain specification will increase wear and demand slightly more frequent part replacement, what a shock.

Attached: wot.jpg (572x960, 100K)

Why do .40 glocks glow up?

>fudd post: the post

The issue here had nothing to do with replacing small parts or cleaning. It had to do with the gun not being strong enough to handle full power .357 loads despite being rated for them.

Umm because they didn’t have a fully supported chamber? Nowadays it’s fixed, because a gun should actually be able to shoot what it’s chambered for.

Please. Fudds will pass down a 30-06 till the end of time without its bore ever being shot out.

Being rated for the hottest loads doesn't mean "chugs 10k hot 125gr rounds in a row like they were mild .38 Special rounds". It means "it will fire the rounds without it blowing up in your fucking face or the lockwork falling into pieces after a handful of cylinders fired".

>they didn’t have a fully supported chamber
No its because they took the 9mm frame and just put a different barrel in it you fucking retard.

Dont destroy your gun with dumb ass loads, you wont destroy your gun.

funny how that works.

If it lasts less than a thousand, it shouldn’t be rated for the round. That’s like if Smith put out a +p aluminum j frame.

Only fed one revolver nuclear rounds for science, the other 2 were battered by factory rounds and mild factory handloads. Im not mad about the 1 forcing cone i hammered with those 125s im mad about the other 2 that didnt hold up to factory (read: lightly loaded) rounds.

My contender barrels have held up a lot better than my 357s ever did, even my 357 maximum that I shoot retarded loads out of is fine.

>they took a 9mm frame and just put a different barrel in it

this supports your argument how? The point is that they blew up because the manufacturer fucked up.

>That’s like if Smith put out a +p aluminum j frame.

All new alloy j frames are rated for +p though...

I have and love both
sadly the frame lock on the smiths is a real issue
the locks fail and will jam the gun
this has happened in at least one SD situation I am aware of
the Rugers are heavier so they manage recoil better
also, Ruger triggers are an amazing design
If you get a trigger job done on a Ruger is can be as good as anything including the Colts of a bygone era and the Korth

because it's single action only

I planned on shooting the gp100 in single action only

Attached: Burtnothinkso.png (500x263, 175K)

Hope you don't ever plan on carrying it with that attitude.

that's because you don't know how to reload a revolver
done properly you ca reload them in about a sec and a half

>The issue here had nothing to do with replacing small parts or cleaning. It had to do with the gun not being strong enough to handle full power .357 loads despite being rated for them.
A GP100 can handle "full power" 158gr loads just fine, 125gr will make short work of any revolver though. It's just the way it is. If tamer recoil and higher velocity is a priority for you in .357 Mag then you'll just have to deal with the increased noise and decreased durability of your revolver.

this
you really want to see your GP100 sing? hand load
my pet GP100 load is a 158gr SWC cast on 5.5gr unique
Holy Hanna, low recoil, good ballistics, and pinpoint accurate

>carrying a 4-6 inch large frame revolver

I do
4" GP100

Don’t pretend like it’s a ridiculous expectation when the guy in question says his Blackhawk can survive it

>Don’t pretend like it’s a ridiculous expectation
It is. 125 grain .357 Magnum eats revolvers up, everyone knows this. If you're actually concerned about the longevity of your gun you don't fucking shoot them, at least not regularly.

honestly, they should just pull them from the market

why do they wear more than heavier bullets? dont the heavy bullets make more recoil

faster acceleration out the gate
they slam the forcing cone much harder because they are going much faster
this actually causes loss of power
heavier bullets absorb the energy at a slower rate and loose it at a slower rate so less energy is lost on the forcing cone

It’s a matter of the flame from the powder pushing a lighter projectile.

You’re fucking retarded. As was said in this thread, there are guns with the mystical ability to survive these loads.

>You’re fucking retarded. As was said in this thread, there are guns with the mystical ability to survive these loads.
Which ones?

The magnums (not all of which were made with the fires of hell like the retards in this thread pretend they are) brought up in the post which sparked this debate.

Multiple gp100s were broken, one of which was done intentionally using über powerful loads, and two were broken with factory ammo.

>The magnums brought up in the post which sparked this debate
...which ones?

Because it's a glock.

Also, early era .40's were just refitted 9mm's. They couldn't handle what they were remade to do.

All hail the HK USP .40

that would have wrecked Pythons, 86s, Korths
so what magnums are you talking about

Obviously not because they can’t wreck a Blackhawk

See