I hate to say it, but no matter how much they try, Ruger just

Cool story, bro.

>>34021387
And yet, there is ammo that specifically states to only shoot in a Ruger. Looking that up now...

>>34021421
That only has to do with the cylinder, not the frame, while I like Ruger and the fact that my Vaquero old model will shoot 44 mag level 45 colts its really not indicative of Ruger being the absolute better gun.
Even if I had a 44 mag Redhawk I still would only shoot saami spec out of it and I'd rather have (and do have) a pre lock Smith and Wesson 629.

>>34021421
Any new production firearm that isn't a 19th century reproduction will be safe to fire even the hottest +P loads. Munitions companies just do that stuff to avoid liability.

>>34021459
Ruger Only loads for the Redhawk, SRH, and Super Blackhawk, go well beyond 44 magnum +p and if you really think any 44 mag revolver will handle that go shoot that shit from a new 629 yourself.

>>34021459
Incorrect. A few models from various companies cannot fire +p for their caliber.

>>34021485
>>34021494
You are mistaking +P for +P+. Actually, +P WAS the standard pressure before the 1970s. Munitions companies wanted to skimp on powder, but they didn't want the public to realize they were Jewing them down, so they changed the pressure standards.

>>34021557
1) not mistaking +p for +p+
2) you are grasping
3) jewing? autism much?

>>34021596
>1) not mistaking +p for +p+
Oh, contrarywise.
>2) you are grasping
No, I'm not. Here's an article that explains what I'm talking about.

http://concealednation.org/2016/02/if-youre-going-to-use-p-ammo-make-sure-your-firearm-is-rated-for-such/

>3) jewing? autism much?
Excuse me for using the common English idiom.

>>34021653
You're an idiot and your source is full of shit.
You can look up the pressure standards used and see they have not changed.

>>34021455
The Ruger Redhawk locks up front and back, with a strong cylinder and frame, this all does quite a lot for it's strength.

nuS&W can't compete with that, and really their revolver game has been very uninteresting the past decade.
I mean I love S&W, but mainly for their automatic pistols, which I think they're generally much better at than revolvers, and better at than Ruger is.

>>34021459
>>34021557
>>34021653
Don't post on my board ever again.

>>34021715
If you are going to dispute my source, then give me a counter-source.
>>34021727
>Don't post on my board ever again.
Not an argument.

>>34021735
http://saami.org/

Ruger revolvers are stronger

>>34021741
Show me exactly where it contradicts the article I linked.

>>34021735
How dare you speak to me?

>>34021494
This. Even glock tells you that you void the warranty by using +p rounds.

>>34021829
They're just trying to cover their asses to avoid being sued if something goes wrong.

>>34021762
How about you do some fucking research.
SAAMI and other organisations have decades of records showing the pressures of various cartridges. It's failry easy to compare published standards and see they have not changed. It's also ridicously easy to research cartridge history and see that standardised high pressure loads existed and were sold as hgher pressure decades beofre the FBI adopted a load and created the +p label.
Your source is shit and you're an idiot for not even doing basic research to verify his claims beofre posting.

>>34021845
No, it's not my job to look for sources verifying your as of yet unsubstantiated claim. That's your job. Put up or shut up.

>>34021727
>>34021749

Smith uses a better alloy to maintain strength and reduce weight while ruger beefs up a lesser alloy (Read: still fucking good) It adds weight and possibly a bit of strength over smith, but they're both capable revolvers either way you slice it. Some of the underwood stuff is labeled for ruger shit only etc etc

>>34021910
It's not the strength that concerns me. Both brands have plenty of it. What concerns me are the poor triggers and rough actions of the Rugers. Smiths are not perfect in this regard, but they are a distinct improvement.

>>34021455
>That only has to do with the cylinder, not the frame
Who gives a shit WHY it is. S&W still isn't making revolvers as strong as Ruger.

>>34022083
Who gives a shit about minor differences in strength. Smith & Wesson has better triggers and will handle any loads at reasonable pressures, even +P.

>>34022044
I don't know about other revolvers, but on snubs, the Ruger LCR's trigger beats a J-Frame IMO.

>>34022160
>IMO
You may be right about the J frames, but in any case, it is not a matter of opinion, but one of scientific fact. Trigger weight can be measured in Newtons, and trigger creep can be measured in millimeters, so one trigger can be objectively shown to be better than the other.

File: Ruger Security Six (717) .357 Magnum.jpg (115KB, 900x506px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 900x506px

>>34022044
Polishing Ruger triggers isn't hard.

>>34022150
>reasonable pressures
That's pussy talk, why have a big bore Magnum if you're not gonna run some really hot loads from it with reasonable frequency?

>>34022761
>This ammo is safe to shoot in ANY all steel 357 revolver - this includes J frames

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=100

>Smith & Wesson
>"fit and finish"
>as opposed to Ruger
"How to tell when it is summer" by WikiHow

>>34021910
>Smith uses a better alloy to maintain strength and reduce weight while ruger beefs up a lesser alloy
I've been reading gun forum Cleeti parrot this bullshit fallacy for years and years now, anyone have a shred of fucking proof to back it up? And don't just post some random, irrelevant link on the merits of forged vs. casting, I mean something about the specific materials and processes used by both Ruger and S&W.

>>34024837
>And don't just post some random, irrelevant link on the merits of forged vs. casting, I mean something about the specific materials and processes used by both Ruger and S&W.

This dumb mother fucker doesn't want to hear about "forged vs. casting", but then wants "specific materials and processes"

Stupid bitch

>>34021387
The Ruger is by far the stronger design, the method of frame construction is irrelevant. How often have you seen, heard or read about a SP101/GP100/Redhawk frame breaking? And while Smith frames may technically be forged, by no means or they as strong or high quality as they could be, to keep manufacturing costs down...and their internals have been MIM for like 20 years now anyway, so who the fuck cares? This "debate" should have died a looong fucking time ago.

>>34021387
>better fit and finish

so what ?

a revolver is a tool for shooting people

if you want an art object go to a museum

>>34021829
Bull shit. Not one word about not using +P or +P+ in my G19 gen4 owners manual. I've fired many +P+ rounds through mine.

>>34023151
>summer
Nope. This is normal day/k/are.

>>34022083
S&W makes the strongest pair of revolvers on the market though

Also Rugers fucking break, they get cylinder and action issues

>>34025803
>Also Rugers fucking break
Everything fucking breaks, Rugers are still a more durable design.

>>34021387
Yeah, so?

File: Dan-Wesson-Revolver-900x600.png (256KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 900x600px

They aren't mass production, but Dan Wesson revolvers are put together much tighter than S&Ws and don't have any MIM parts like the Smiths have. Then beyond that there's Korth which are a bit higher end.

MANURHIN

>>34026214
Or Nighthawk/Korth for roughly the same price, since Chapuis doesn't seem very interested in selling overseas

>>34021387
revolvers are stupid antiquated technology for anything but absurd calibers like .45-70 anyway, so who gives a fuck whether one antique maker is better than another.

>>34026253
They're still usable.

Ruger revolvers are not stronger than S&W, their cylinders are slightly longer allowing people who reload their own ammo to not have to seat the bullet as deep in the case allowing the individual to put more powder in the case generating higher pressures and because of this the overall length of the cartridge is longer which is why these loads are "Ruger only." A true Ruger only load will not work in an S&W because the overall length prevents the user from closing the cylinder and not because the gun cannot handle the pressures.

Forged is always stronger than cast which is why Ruger's cast revolvers are larger than their competition because they have to be to maintain strength.

That being said I am not shitting on Ruger revolvers. Both Ruger and S&W make quality revolvers and it is up to the buyer to determine what is best for them. I'm just tired of people not understand WHY "Ruger only" loads in reloading manuals are for use in Ruger revolvers only.

File: 1546224_1654284904782930_1892961693159109235_n.jpg (110KB, 960x720px)

110KB, 960x720px

>>34022606
>weight is the only factor to be considered when judging a trigger

>>34026253
magnum cartridges

>>34026511
>I have no reading comprehension, the post.
I specifically said that trigger creep could be measured too.

File: 1418211927084.jpg (251KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 2000x1333px

>>34026253
Magnum cartridges

>>34025823

They break more quickly than S&W's; the barrels cant, the cylinders bind, the actions lock up

>>34026848
>They break more quickly than S&W's
Citation fucking needed, you lying cocksucker. If you're going to argue against DECADES of conventional wisdom and common sense, provide proof.

File: Blackhawk .357 Magnum.jpg (82KB, 640x381px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 640x381px

>>34026253
There's only one really reliable automatic in .357 and it's expensive.
There's no highly reliable .44 automatic.

These are two calibers which have their uses, and given their large rims, making them feed in box magazines can be pretty bothersome, on top of the fact that their high pressures makes it kind of tricky to make it operate in an automatic.

Short recoil works, but recoil will be quite brisk (especially in .44), you could make it gas operated, and that can work, but you end up not being able to use quite a wide range of ammo, if it's gas operated, you can have an adjustable gas block, and that will help with adjusting for various powers of loads, but the gas port will basically prevent you from using unjacketed lead and hardcasts.
Overall, a gas operated Magnum pistol has a bunch of ifs and it will be quite expensive.

Meanwhile, something like a Blackhawk or Redhawk is simple and not that expensive, while allowing you to put these powerful cartridges to use with little hassle, with wide ranges of power and bullets.

>As much as I resent Smith & Wesson for their Hillary holes, they simply have a better fit and finish than any other production revolver on the market.

Sure if you only know of S&W, Ruger and Charter. Freedom has better guns, Dan Wesson has better guns and the there are Korth, Manurhin and Janz which are all substantially better.

Ruger lost my business permanently when I bought the .380 a few years back with the world's shittiest trigger. I contacted the company who refused service and tried to convince me that the long, crunchy, heavy trigger was a feature instead of a flaw. Replacement triggers were on the market quickly, Ruger refused service, then released the "skeletonized red trigger" version of the model a couple of years later as new and improved. They should have offered new triggers to anyone who wanted one after that complete bunch of shit. Fuck Ruger.

File: 1287752190.jpg (14KB, 550x368px)

14KB, 550x368px

>>34026958
Why not use Webley-Fosbery style auto-revolvers for magnum cartridges?
You've still got an extremely simple, solid gun, but now you have a large moving part that may help with recoil, plus a single action trigger pull each time.

>>34026450
>Forged is always stronger than cast

Citation needed. any professional i've seen write on the subject has maintained that there is only a difference in strength between the two if the casting is performed improperly.

>>34027897
>Why not use Webley-Fosbery style auto-revolvers for magnum cartridges?
Because reliability would be iffy and the things would end up being pretty expensive.

>>34027920
And Ruger are the most competent investment casters in North America, they get investment castings outsourced to them by all kinds of industries and manufacturers, even fighter jet parts.

>>34027920

Drive shaft manufacturer here. Some of the parts I get are forged, some are cast. Done properly, it's hard to tell a difference in strength.
The only noticeable difference is when it comes to dynamic balancing. It seems that forged parts balance out easier. I assume this is due to a more consistent internal grain of the steel?

>>34027897
A modern .357 Mag Webley costs £6500; imagine how expensive a W-F auto would be.

Have you guys not heard about the results of the durability testing involving the Border Patrol ran on .357 Magnum duty revolvers back in the '80s? It was a 10k round test involving 125 grain Magnums only, and the Ruger Six-series completely wrecked the S&Ws.

All of the Ruger Sixes tested except one went to 10k rounds with no issues whatsoever. The guy who inspected them at 10k said that the only part that was due for replacement at that point was the hand, which is a drop-in part on the Six series. Meanwhile, all of the Smith and Wessons tested failed in less than 1500 rounds. Their forcing cones or frames would crack or the frames would stretch, because they just did not hold up to firing hot ammo as well as the Rugers.

>>34028268
Welly you wouldn't have to make a short-recoil revolver a top-break like the Fosberry, but it's probably not going to be below $1000, not significantly so anyway.

>>34028330
>all of the Smith and Wessons tested failed in less than 1500 rounds
>Their forcing cones or frames would crack or the frames would stretch
Yes, old .357 K-frames would do that.

>>34029143
Indeed, and it's why the people who insist that there is no difference in durability between Ruger and S&W are literally making things up. A K-frame and a Security Six are the same size--they actually fit the exact same holsters--but the Security Six is a far stronger and more durable gun in any real world situation.

>>34028330
My 686-4 has been through thousands of full power loads and still locks and times like it did from the factory.

>>34029170
There is very little practical difference in durability between Rugers and S&Ws.
The 80s were 30 years ago.

>>34029338
>There is very little practical difference in durability between Rugers and S&Ws.
There's very little practical difference between any semi-auto pistol either, regardless of manufacturer or action type since most people aren't likely to ever put 2,000+ rounds through their it
>The 80s were 30 years ago.
So? S&W's quality has only degraded since then, while Ruger's has stayed consistent

File: Ruger Security Six.jpg (46KB, 800x446px)

46KB, 800x446px

>>34028330
And people shittalk investment castings.

Rugers are thick in all the right places

File: Smith-Wesson-Model-60-3.jpg (86KB, 640x401px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 640x401px

I love Smith and Wesson's and their beautiful triggers and excellent ergonomics. However this bitch ass Hillary hole is unacceptable in any gun designed for self defense. I refuse to purchase a revolver with one as much as it pains me to not own a new S&W. Also Ruger's are absolutely stronger in almost every aspect compared to S&W, they just are. People are going to have to learn to deal with that. Rugers are stronger, but smiths are nicer in every other category. Fuck that gross rotting hole though.....

>>34026450
>Ruger revolvers are not stronger than S&W

Ok

>seat the bullet as deep in the case allowing the individual to put more powder in the case generating higher pressures

So they are stronger then? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Ruger has been known for making strong working man guns. I have literally never see anyone complaining about their durability. Well other then people using 125b gn bullets in 357 max. Where as Smiths are notorious for their k-frame durability(Maybe fixed now). I will concede that Smiths have better triggers and are more pleasing to the eye. But if you actually plan on shooting your gun a lot, get a Ruger.

>>34027754
Wow, I'm almost impressed. I've never seen anyone so asshurt over a shitty trigger. What are you like in everyday life

>>34027897
Do you think that movement would somehow negate the "action" being 8 miles above the hand, cause I dont.

>>34029677
Or you could buy the models without it
Or you could just take the damn thing out.

File: DSCN1053.jpg (137KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 800x600px

>>34028330
Not discrediting the report at all, but it was the 80s and things have improved. That being said, manurhin decided the Ruger frames were good enough for use in the MR88s and used the techniques learned there to make MR93s (which are rad)

>>34030969
bore axis is a meme

File: glock .40s.jpg (242KB, 1350x900px)

242KB, 1350x900px

>>34021387
colt and smith and wesson pioneered the handgun market when it really started to boom in the industrial revolution/post cowboy days. While other brands existed, they were the best in terms of quality,variety and price. Then even colt started to wither out after they got too cocky and didnt adapt when the markets changed, and S@W "sold out" to survive. Kind of like how now, glock has a huge market that it basically invented for itself and despite toher brands being just as good if not better in some aspects glock has dat aftermarket for at least the next decade. We'll see if they hold out though

>>34021387
Ruger has a much better design. It's far more refined, easy to work on and over-engineered. Taking a smith apart a few times will actually wear on the parts pretty significantly.

Now fit and finish, yes, Smiths are a lot better. But that's a question of polish. You can take a GP-100 and go through it enough to mimic an off the shelf Smith. Not a super-nice classic Smith, but nice never the less.

Now if you want the ULTIMATE Ruger, Manurhin licensed the design as the Manurhin RMR. You get the same basic bomb-proof design with autistic French Space Magic build quality.

>>34028330
Was that a comparison of Security Six vs. Model 19s? Model 28s? 66?
Sounds like 19s. Great .38 gun that can fire .357, but only a bit.

>>34021459
>Who Needs Hands: The Post

>ITT: S&W shill saying he's not a shill but fucks up.

>>34031036
No, minute differences in bore axis are a meme. A magnum W-F would not be a minute difference, especially with the extra movement

>>34031504
IIRC, it was Sixes vs. the Model 66 (the stainless 19). It makes me wonder how a 581/586/681/686 would have fared vs. a GP100.

>>34027674
>>34026214
>>34026167
the topic is "what is better and why between Ruger and S&W revolvers" because they are both american, mid level, comparably priced, and have both shat on the american shooting community

not "what is another revolver brand that are better but more exspenive and harder to find"

>>34021387
Ruger is the best revolver maker in the US as far as I'm concerned.

Korth and Manurhin are superior, but they're not American.

>>34031762
what did ruger do

>>34031822
Bill Ruger was a big fudd and advocated against scary black guns til his death.

>>34031036
Not when it's fucking tall like that.

>>34031881
Thank god he's dead, Ruger are much better these days.

>>34025304
good for you.

>>34031441
>We'll see if they hold out though
As soon as the P320 is a regular sight in GI holsters, Gaston can kiss his throne goodbye.

>>34038627
That's what they said back when the M9 was adopted.

>>34040707
Plastic striker-fired pistols have only really become popular within the past decade and a half or so. And becoming the standard issue sidearm of the US military did wonders for the Beretta's popularity back in the 80s and 90s

>>34021387
Wont argue fit and finish, but once polished up a bit, I wouldn't trade my GP100 or SP101 for any factory S&W. I paid 12$ for the parts to put mine to the point that I love. That being said, S&W has some seriously nice guns.

>>34040967
But not enough to dethrone the 1911 as King of American Handguns or bump revolvers out of the holsters of more than a handful of adventurous and well-funded police departments.
The M17 contract will definitely give SIG a popularity bump, but the idea that PDs across the nation will suddenly see the light and drop their Glock-brand plastic service autos for SIG-brand plastic service autos that do the exact same thing equally well but require all new holsters, training, and armorer support is retarded.

S&W 642 or Ruger LCR?

>>34041164
Get the LCR.

File: cQRxnsl.jpg (186KB, 1719x753px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1719x753px

>>34021387
>Ruger just never made it to the level of Smith & Wesson. As much as I resent Smith & Wesson for their Hillary holes, they simply have a better fit and finish than any other production revolver on the market.
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?18593-S-amp-W-revolver-hand-failure-%28very-large-pics%29

>>34021387
It's funny how people still go on and on about what construction method is used to make the frames of these guns, when they're the least problematic component in either - especially the Ruger, as we've seen over the past few decades. The overall design and quality of the small parts is what people should be concerned about, and the Rugers give absolutely nothing up to S&W in that regard. Only thing I prefer about S&W is the full grip frame, the peg Ruger uses is perfectly functional...the former is just my preference. Ruger could also offer a bit more variety in their wheelgun lineup, both minor quibbles though.

>>34021387
Yea but they still make a fine revolver. I'm trying to get my old man to sell me his police service six.

File: IMAG0816.jpg (282KB, 1509x1145px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 1509x1145px

You are all like little babies. Zasatava Revolver is best. Heavy and Stronk like Serb. Can REMOVE many Kebab, more than 6 if you make them line up.

File: IMAG0880.jpg (607KB, 1507x1213px) Image search: [Google]

607KB, 1507x1213px

>>34046343
Also it fits the same holsters as the Ruger GP100.

>>34046343
I didn't know Zastava even made revolvers.

File: Super Blackhawk .44 Magnum.jpg (471KB, 3008x2000px) Image search: [Google]

471KB, 3008x2000px

>>34046343
That's all well and good but do they make a .44 Magnum cowboy gun?

>>34049509
No they do not, ruger dominates the cowboy action market.

>>34048165
Honestly neither did i until one day on backpage. The only cons I have to say is the DA pull is on the heavier side and the lack of grips/aftermarket parts in general.

File: USFA Rodeo II.jpg (28KB, 780x377px)

28KB, 780x377px

>>34050275
They're pretty good.

I miss USFA though :(

>>34029421
That's a subject of which I'm very unfamiliar with. I'm just dropping in to say that the 80's are closer to 40 years ago than 30.

>>34049509
44 mag is nice, but 454 Cas is where its at

>>34050625
.44 Mag will do most everything a person will realistically need a handgun to do, anything bigger than that is really just a novelty

>>34052645
I'd sooner trust .454 than .44 for OH NO A BURR situations, at least for Grizzly.

.44 has it's own uses though

>>34052689
I guess it really depends on where you are. I hunt in Arizona so I carry a .357 mag for cougars, which are the biggest thing out where i am.

>>34030995
True though, I would love some pre lock S&W's..... I also know how to remove the lock but wouldn't know what to fill the hole with.

File: Tomboys are the _99942401d137fb01236a9b851a6ac76f.jpg (17KB, 234x324px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 234x324px

>>34031014
Oh man my dick is diamonds.... Why aren't these more common in the U.S.?

>>34031014
>but it was the 80s and things have improved.
Not really. A modern GP100 or SP101 is more or less the identical to one made 30 years ago, Smiths' quality has really only gone downhill in that same amount of time.