So are modern ruger revolvers better than modern s&w revolvers?

>>63797546 (OP)
The one I use to bang your mom with is the best.

Ruger is only one step above PSA in terms of quality. They use many cast parts in basically all their guns and even brag about it. It's not even close. S&W gives much better quality at the cost of a Hillary Hole, but then again Ruger has safety warnings engraved into every single one of the firearms they make.

>>63797546 (OP)
Their SP101/GP100/redhawk are a waste of money. They're cast frame with cast parts but they aren't even that much cheaper than a 617/686 respectively. It's dubious if rugers are actually more durable than their contemporaries, and nobody actually cares about that anymore anyway.

I don't know anything about their single actions or rimfires but the super blackhawk is supposed to be great. Ruger is definitely fourth behind Smith, Kimber and Colt in that order. Modern Colts are great but the cobra having a MIM hammer and trigger is inexcusable

>>63797698
>Modern Colts are great but the cobra having a MIM hammer and trigger is inexcusable
Lad, all the companies you mentioned are currently using MIM parts. S&W guns coming out right now also have MIM hammers and triggers. Thats the reason why S&W guns are priced similarly to Ruger. Ruger's cast frame is cheaper than S&W's forged frame, but Ruger's cast internal parts are better (theoretically, as the most important process is the heat treating) and more expensive than S&W's MIM internal parts.

>>63797741
>>63797698
What the fuck is this boomervile talk everyone has been using MIM parts since they could afford them. They're just as good as whatever they used before.

>>63797616
ruger is a casting company anon, their whole deal is castings

>>63797741
>>63797947
Can we see part bags that show COO?
Sig MIMs in poo land. Where do others MIM?

>>63797546 (OP)
>So are modern ruger revolvers better than modern s&w revolvers?
No.
S&W's biggest fuck up was that stupid hillary hole which devalued their product. I'm glad they fucked up because it's helped my wallet, but they are omitting the hole on more and more models so the price is going to go up faster.

>>63797546 (OP)
Yes, anyone who thinks otherwise is just plain wrong.
Even Taurus is better than S&W today.
>>63797616
>>63797698
Absolute brainlets.
The slow investment cast manufacturing is chunkier than a S&W but far more durable. Because they use a frame chassis design rather than a side plate it is also much cheaper to assemble and has an exponentially longer service life.

Ruger absolutely humiliated S&W back in the 1970s back when Smith still had pretty good QC. Since then Ruger has gotten better and S&W has become absolutely worthless garbage. Even their $1500+ custom shop revolvers have a 15-20% defect rate out of the box.

Modern S&W is so bad it is actually objectively inferior to mystery meat Turkshit.

>>63797546 (OP)
yeah

>>63798934
S&W have better triggers in my experience but yeah, I prefer Ruger overall

>>63797546 (OP)
Why not both. You poor?

>>63799146
Yeah Ruger triggers are gritty. They really don't take the time to fit/polish them as much as they could. Way better guns overall though if you get a match champion or have a gunsmith polish one up though.

>>63799166
My ruger is still stiffer and not as smooth as the S&W I've handled and it's a Match Champion, but those were all ancient police revolvers

>>63799157
I've got all 3. S&W, Ruger AND Colt. All of them significantly older than I am. Classic Smiths are where it is at, but Security Six is good for the money and my 100+ year old Police Positive still has bank vault lockup.

>>63798934
I bought a ruger rifle from bass pro and couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with it, mailed it in and got a new bolt for free and it was fixed

If you reload or handgun hunt then ruger is a clear winner. If your into revolvers for the “art” of them or because you want to do competition style shooting then ruger is not as good an option. Rugers feel chunky because they’re overbuilt. Ruger only loads exist because they can take it. I’ve got more than a few reloads I wouldn’t shoot in a model 29, but will feed through my redhawk all day long.

This argument exists because there are many different use cases for revolvers and no single one fits all of them perfectly.

>>63799236
>This argument exists because there are many different use cases for revolvers and no single one fits all of them perfectly.
Yes, and to add to your point revolvers don't fit everyone's hands the same way. I've been through half a dozen grips on my S&W and still can't get it to work for me the same way Ruger guns do. Some people like ramp sights with a center hold, some people like dot or bead sights with a combat hold. It's all about what works for you. When it comes to performance with standard pressure ammunition there isn't much tangible difference.

>>63799176
>>>63799157 (You) #
>I've got all 3. S&W, Ruger AND Colt. All of them significantly older than I am. Classic Smiths are where it
You're like me, but I have no Colt and sub a Dan Wesson. My Super Redhawk is awesome, my SW627 is even better, but my 5" DW is sweeter still. And still, I would be happy with any single one. I just favor each for thier own attributes.

>>63797947
Normally I'd agree but you can tell they wanted to forge the hammer based on the design but then some brainlet pencil pusher suggested mim'ing it instead. This is just not a part you MIM, this little notch takes ALL the tension from the mainspring

>>63798934
>but far more durable
okay but this is a nonstarter. Smiths aren't even delicate in the first place. Nobody is shooting their smiths out of timing or blowing the top straps off
>has an exponentially longer service life.
Who cares? Nobody depends on their revolver, they're fun guns. Does that really justify a 40oz unloaded ugly ass brick of a revolver? They looking fucking repulsive.
>Even their $1500+ custom shop revolvers have a 15-20% defect rate out of the box.
They ALWAYS DID even in the handfitting era. You send it back and they take care of it at their expense. Old Colts were pieces of shit that had about the same failure rate.

>>63797960
yeah and its 2025 who fucking cares if they're casting is 'god tier' the only reason you even know this is because Ian said it in a video once.

>>63797546 (OP)
I like Colt best, but Ruger is fine. I like my LCR.

>>63797546 (OP)
I'd say that mostly, yes they are. S&W mostly dropped the ball in the revolver game. Their one product that I really care for in that department is the Model 69, which Ruger doesn't have any counterpart to, though it sure as hell isn't going to be as nice as oldschool S&Ws.

>>63797947
Indian post.

>>63799647
I've been cheering on Ruger and their investment casting since before he had a YouTube channel. You gotta make the parts to slightly thicker dimensions, but if you heat treat properly it works well.
Cope and seethe, MIMlet, be careful you don't P320 yourself.

>>63797546 (OP)
What blew up now? Stupid zigger spam thread

You're all sick people.
I hope you all get cancer. Fuck youse all.
I put a curse upon you all.
Fuck ya
mudda

>>63799236
>If you reload or handgun hunt then ruger is a clear winner.

In no fucking world does this make a difference. Take your sorry ass no-guns faggotry and kys. God Damn you are dumb.

If we're going to be real, the revolvers that are the most relevant in 2025 are snubbies for pocket carry. The LCR is the best one. Therefore, Ruger is confirmed best.

>>63800002
hunting though

>>63800006
Sure but that's a niche way to hunt. Way more LCRs than Super Redhawks out there at this point.

>>63799639
This is advanced levels of cope.

Not only ARE Smiths frequently shot out of time (for instance ".357" revolvers that can't actually handle 357 on a regular basis such as the model 19) and alloy frames revolvers that do lose their top straps from flame cutting, but you can't talk service life if the gun IS DEFECTIVE AND NON FUNCTIONAL OUT OF THE BOX.
>Nobody depends on their revolvers
You mean like the concealed carry guns, or mountain guns.
Or even if not depending on it, kinda hard for a gun to be any fun if it's broken. Or maybe the barrel isn't mounted straight in the frame so it shoots wildly off point of aim. Or is straight up unsafe to fire and showers your hand with lead fragments.
>Always had 15-20% QC rate
Bro, not even the absolute lowest tier dogshit $120 Turkish shotguns have an out of the box QC failure rate that high. Meanwhile I worked in an LGS and we sent back at least one in 5 of every modern S&W revolvers we ever got. Often multiple times. It got to where we would do preliminary visual and function inspections for every single one in arrival and they would frequently have crooked barrels, be completely out of time, either DA or SA didn't work, timing would be dangerously loose or some huge aesthetic or casting flaw would be visible somewhere.

To their credit their CS are very nice and would take guns back for repairs very easily, but we would constantly get them back with either no sign of any actual work done or a sloppy repair with some new problems that weren't present before. One gun was sent back due to a crooked barrel where they must have tried to bend it straight and ended up with the forcing cone lodged against the cylinder with the action completely bound up. I was in absolute disbelief. Not even Taurus would attempt something that retarded and then send it back to a dealer.
Ruger? I can only remember one with timing issues and I suspect the customer who bought it was being a retard.

>>63799977
>He doesn't know about "Ruger only" loads in the manual.
Also, see this:
https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=54
>We get hundreds of emails asking if this load can be fired in S&W revolvers or some firearm other than what is in the above list. The answer is NO.

>>63800197
Now to be fair.

Ruger's rifles are pretty crappy. We sold a lot of 10/22s that had all manner of small defects like crooked or loose front sights or stripped threads in the receiver for the action screws. The Ruger American rifles had bad stocks and occasionally a bad bolt. The M77s had all sorts of accuracy problems. Their cheap automatic pocket pistols like the LCP were just ass in general although they did get a little better.
We had plenty of problems with Ruger firearms overall, but it was genuinely rare to have any issues with their revolvers. Comparing Ruger to S&W as a whole is an apples to oranges comparison but comparing their revolvers specifically was more like apples to rotten cat turds.

Don't even get me started Henry, which is another brand that required hand inspection for every firearm we ever received from them. Their bad quality is matched only by the delusions of their mouth foaming fanboys. Never had as hard a time selling one as finding one worth stocking.

>>63797546 (OP)
>Beet you usually carry a revolver huh
Yeahhh most times
>But you were saying you're a Glock guy
....Some people do and some people don't!

>>63800404
Coul be coul be

>>63800404
>if you have a 9mm bullet...how many mm is that bullet?
Ehhhh it's about 25 feet.

>Conparing Ruger to S&W

Ruger has better revolvers

S&W has better pistols

That's literally it.

But it's changing - ruger is selling a world class gen 3 glock clone with a modular trigger pack
while
S&W's M&P 2.0 was a step-in the wrong direction - the fuck were they thinking axing the beavertail

>>63800197
Seems that S&W is suffering from all the older talent saying fuck this and retiring when covid happened.

>>63799647
you can't complain that the casting company is bragging about using casting though

>>63799977
Dainty limp wrists typed this post.

>>63797546 (OP)
Rugers are stronger and last longer.
>b-but they're cast and that's bad
No it's not. Their revolvers are better.

>Colt
meme shit for retards. The reason boomers think they're so great is because of an inefficient forcing cone design that bleeds energy, meaning yeah, the gun does shoot better. It's an actual measurable fact it's softer shooting. That's because all the gas is blowing out the cylinder gap and your projectile is going several hundred fps slower than it should. No shit it feels better, it turns +p into standard pressure and standard into .38 special.
>S&W
Was mogged by Ruger in terms of durability even back when they actually gave a fuck and didn't churn out trash in bulk. Now in 2025 it's not even a contest, S&W guns are way worse than they were decades ago.
>Everyone else
irrelevant

>>63797546 (OP)
Local indoor range/store will have different manufacturer days.
Ruger showed up with select pistols and revolvers to try, including a couple of LCRs, a .357 Blackhawk, a GP100 in .44 Special and a .45acp/.45 Colt Redhawk

Taurus showed up with several pistols, a couple of small five shot .38 snubbies, a couple of Trackers, one in .22lr/.22WMR and one in .44 Magnum, and a Raging Judge in .410/.454 Casull

in previous years S&W would bring pistols and revolvers. Last year they only brought pistols saying the profit margin on revolvers was to low to bother with.

>>63801585
No, the brain drain happened even before that.

S&W had been pushing to get younger (cheaper) guys into the workforce to cut costs and improve shareholder value. They are getting paid McMoney so turnover is high, which is a disaster when you are manufacturing something that takes genuine skill/experience to do right. S&W management is caught in a trap where they are still making big sales to dealers/distributors because the abysmal quality of their products hasn't tanked their reputation yet. At this stage it makes sense on paper to completely hollow out quality and basically scam everyone they sell to. Heck I'm surprised there even is a warranty department anymore, they could just as easily save that expense by having the phones/email ringing/pinging to nobody since that is becoming industry standard.

They can coast on their brand for a while like this, but it'll catch up eventually. Once that happens, the company will be acquired, re-organized, the brainless nogunz suits who ran it into the ground will get new titles and a fat pay raise, they'll do a slightly better job for a quarter or two and once people have a single ray of hope they'll be back at it jacking up prices and slashing costs again.

>>63804273
44 special gp100 is interesting..

>>63804495
The reintroduction of no-lock revolvers for a steep markup like its some new awesome feature instead of taking off a self imposed negative is direct evidence of this

>>63802240
The Python’s velocity was comparable to everything else here.
https://www.gun-tests.com/handguns/revolvers/ruger-gp100-no-1707-357-magnum/

>>63805474
Oh, and the Anaconda was disproportionately fast for what an additional 0.5” of barrel length would suggest.
https://www.gun-tests.com/handguns/revolvers44mag/colt-anaconda-anaconda-sp8rts-44-magnum/

>>63802240
I’m a Ruger guy but to be fair I’m not sure Colt is still using choked barrels for their new Pythons. Also remember that the old Python was basically designed to be a bullseye revolver because that’s what was popular when it was released. It was meant to mostly shoot .38 wadcutters in single action, hence the wide serrated target trigger blade. The only reason it was even chambered in .357 was to broaden its market appeal. Not a meme, just people misunderstanding the gun’s purpose. You also can’t say everyone else is irrelevant because Taurus has the largest DA Revolver market share in the U.S.

>>63805512
They’re using n110 and 2400…. That bump in speed is due more to the length better matching the ideal for those powders at that OAL of loading than anything inherently special about the production of the barrel itself. You could just as easily find on factory ammo that it doesn’t help nearly as much due to using different powder. Either way it’s not due to any special properties of the barrel being somehow better or lesser quality than the ruger or smith. If you had those in an 8 inch barrel you’d probably see the same bump.

>>63806702
An FPS increase in the order of 140-200 FPS per inch, or rather in this case 70-100 FPS per 0.5", from 7.5->8 inches is unlikely with all else equal. This guy got only 75 FPS per inch (or rather 111 FPS per 1.5") with 2400 and a 240 gr bullet going from a 6" barrel to a 7.5" barrel.
https://smith-wessonforum.com/threads/alliant-2400-in-44magnum.460399/#post-138904464

This guy saw 1230->1304->1306 FPS from a 5->6.5->8.4 inch barrel with a 260 gr bullet using IMR 4227, and that's a slower burning powder than N110 or 2400 so you'd expect the velocity to increase more with barrel length if anything.
https://youtu.be/b2y-Lz6GVCA?si=BUcjrGsyudNnA5OT&t=402

But that's really besides the point, the guy I was replying to claimed that the Colt revolvers would have muzzle velocities several hundred FPS slower than revolvers of other manufacturer with equal barrel length, and that's quite clearly not the case. Would you expect to see this kind of advantage replicated with every Anaconda, maybe not, it could just be this particular Anaconda's barrel rather than a general standardization or trend across the model of revolver (although the new Colt revolvers do tend to have small cylinder gaps, which may help). But all 3 revolvers tested here - the Python, the Anaconda, and the older Peacekeeper - are at least competitive with their Ruger and S&W counterparts in terms of velocity vs barrel length.

I've really wanted a tactical revolver and kept turning to the S&W R8, but I keep hearing that their QC is garbage and the scandium frame can't take magnums forever without falling apart. That sounds true from what I'm hearing from this thread. It's a shame there isn't anything else out on the market like it unless I try to build something myself.

>>63807196
Eh. Most of the U.S. companies have bad QC. With any of them just buy them being ok with knowing you might have to get it warrantied right after you buy it. Once they’re fixed and up and running you’re fine. You probably won’t be shooting as much .357 as you think you will anyways. Just get it if you want it. Not sure if anyone actually makes holsters for those things that accommodate weapon lights.

>>63800234
the 10/22 is a piece of dogshit made as cheaply as possible, of course they're inaccurate and break
their real guns are fine
>>63807196
what are you looking for in a "tactical" revolver

>>63807196
>tactical
>revolver
oxymoron, no one who's serious about being "tactical" is carrying a revolver

>>63807798
For a tactical revolver, I want a sturdy .357 magnum that can accept accessories like lights and micro optics. 8 round capacity is nice too, but not an absolute requirement.
I just want the same capabilities for accessorizing with a revolver that I can get with my modern autos.

>>63807889
You're almost correct, but there are some professionals who still carry them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manurhin_MR_73

>>63807893
If an R8 is what you really want, it might be worth rolling the dice on the QC. As for the scandium frame, how often are you really planning to be shooting .357 anyways? If you can live without the light, there are low profile optics mounts available for most S&W revolvers if you want something with a steel frame.

>>63807893
Korth NXS, but you’re going to have to watch your fingers if you fire while activating the flashlight. Personally I would prefer .44 magnum as it allows for a much broader range of potency.

>>63807931
I'd probably expect a 50/50 spread of .38 and .357. And yeah, there are a lot of offerings out there if I'm willing to pass on the light and just stick with an aftermarket top rail.
My current hope is that EWK sells aftermarket barrels for Dan Wesson revolvers again and I can ask for a shroud with everything I'm hoping for.

>>63800217
Discussion should have ended here desu. Not a single S&W revolver can handle this giga load but plenty of Rugers can.

>>63808250
Public Service Announcement that this list includes both the older model Anaconda and the newer one with the beefed up frame and stronger forgings (I asked their CS).

>>63808250
>A Taurus revolver makes the list but S&W revolvers as a whole are a no
>Colt makes the list despite having less points of lock-up
WIld

>>63808266
The Anaconda was fairly hefty in some respects. Shame replacing parts on the originals is a bitch. How are the new ones?

>>63808351
In fairness, this wouldn't be any regular old Taurus, that'd be their Raging Bull line, which are pretty stout, and nicer than a lot of their other products.

>>63808428
Haven’t fired the new ones but handled several.
Double action is smoother than most or all of the other .44 magnum revolvers I’ve handled. One gun, a 4.25” Kodiak, was competitive with a Korth I dry fired.
Single action is decent but a lot less noteworthy. Better than a Redhawk’s, but not by that much. Can be massively improved upon if you feel like spending more money.
Allegedly uses very high quality stainless steel, very hard and tough. A few MIM parts but they’re low stress and/or non-load bearing, and even the MIM is supposedly better/more consistent than other manufacturers’. It’s meant to be durable enough to be produced in .454 Casull, although that has yet to be released. Heffron Precision writes in greater detail about the design in his blog. It’s much closer to an oversized new Python than the legacy Anacondas.
Cylinder is very long, about 1.91”, so you can load heavy bullets further out.
Main problems: Factory rear sight is kind of garbage. The stock Hogue grips leave the metal backstrap exposed, which translates to more felt recoil than necessary, and also get in the way of speedloaders a bit. The most common QC issue seems to be light striking on magnum primers in double action, which it seems Colt CS will usually fix but sometimes will not. Heffron Precision will apparently replace and/or tune the relevant parts as part of a package upgrade if you send the gun off to them.

>>63808428
I actually like the raging bull lock up system…. Do they make a complicated mechanism to unlock the front and back of the cylinder with a single button? NO! That’s complicated and expensive, you get 2 simple latches and can just use both hands….

>>63808898
>It’s meant to be durable enough to be produced in .454 Casull, although that has yet to be released. Heffron Precision writes in greater detail about the design in his blog. It’s much closer to an oversized new Python than the legacy Anacondas. Cylinder is very long, about 1.91”, so you can load heavy bullets further out.
Wow, that actually sounds pretty good! Reminds me that I've seen one or two Ruger Redhawks which were fitted with leftover barrels from .45 Colt chambered Colt Anacondas.

>Main problems: Factory rear sight is kind of garbage. The stock Hogue grips leave the metal backstrap exposed, which translates to more felt recoil than necessary, and also get in the way of speedloaders a bit. The most common QC issue seems to be light striking on magnum primers in double action, which it seems Colt CS will usually fix but sometimes will not. Heffron Precision will apparently replace and/or tune the relevant parts as part of a package upgrade if you send the gun off to them.
Well, Olt will be Olt, I guess. I was hoping that CZ were gonna whip them into better shape than that, but maybe that's still in progress.

>>63808945
Yeah they’re cool guns, and it helps that the 6” Kodiak just got released. I just wish Colt paid as much attention to their pistols’ QC as they do to their AR parts, but I guess it is what it is.

>>63807931
What is that sleeve thing?

which way, white man

>>63812905
Are you a big guy or a little guy?

>>63812905
I go my own way.

>>63812905
I like the 3" SP101. Something about the symmetry satisfies my autism in ways I cannot express. I just wish there were more holster choices and an option with a bobbed hammer.

Many people ITT who clearly have no idea what they are talking about.

I could decide which I wanted, so I bought both. As the owner of both a stainless, 6", .357 which allow a pretty direct comparison between the two...

>GP100
Superior grip angle.
Superior cylinder release.
Superior ruggedness, and service life.
Superior factory sights.
Superior warranty and customer support.
Superior resilience to diets of extremely hot loads.
>S&W 686
Superior trigger. The shoe, the DA pull, the SA break.
Sleeker, more refined aesthetic.

Price is nearly equivalent. Overall the GP100 is the winner. If I needed to choose one and my life depended on it, I'd take the GP100 no question. I shoot the GP100 more (mainly due to the superior grip angle).

If you want one to take pictures of and dry fire at your desk, get the 686. Realistically, get whichever one you prefer and it will likely out last you unless you really shoot the hell out of it. It's really down to preference.

>>63813109
And the 686. I seem to have lost the Pic with both side by side.

>>63799945
Honestly, what the fuck is the point of this shitpost?

>>63813068
>I just wish there were more holster choices
Dark Star Gear Apollo w/ wing
You're welcome

>>63813109
>Overall the GP100 is the winner.

You've never shot a 686 PC in your life

>>63813056
So close, but not in the best caliber..

>>63813279
Cope. Every 'Performance Center' revolver is irredeemably hideous and gives you nothing for the premium.

If you wanted something actually nicer than a GP100/686 you'd buy a Spohr. But I know you're a noguns.

>>63812472
It's a "holster" for my demooning tool, for taking brass off the moon clips. I don't actually shoot the gun with that thing on, but I made it for fun.

>>63813414
i'd really like the 14 inch performance center xframe in 460 xvr with the bipod.... the rest are kinda boring

>>63813254

>>63813459
Oh that's handy, cool

>>63813550
I like the Light Wing over the Dark Wing but they both will go on there

>>63813109
this man speaks the truth, this is my experience with all Ruger and Smith revolvers

>>63813109
>>63812905
I sold all my smith and wessons because I gotta run and don't look back, this is over. GP 100 fixed all my problems.