-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Ruger GP100 Trigger - How does it compare to Smith & Wesson?
- Thread starter Bill2905
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I don't quite get the whole "Ruger is more durable" argument. Putting aside the cast versus forged argument, how many rounds would it take it wear out the typical 686 or a GP 100? 20,000? 40,000?
The Ruger is unquestionable beefier but what does that mean to durability and total round count?
Now I do see that the lockup method of the Ruger seems more durable - but wouldn't you wear out a forcing cone long before either design would fail elsewhere?
I will not call myself a competitor but "back in the day", my father and I hung around the fringes. Those courses were full of SWs with untold rounds through them. The sheer numbers of SWs (K and L frames) running around would equate to more failures though as a percent of overall production is it any greater than Ruger? Ruger doesn't have a history of being a service gun like the SWs - that sure cuts down on abused guns in the real world.
I still have his 1960's K frame that we both ran untold numbers of 357mag loads through and the gun is still as tight as ever.
None of this is to say not to buy a Ruger as I think it an excellent platform but I think you buy the Ruger for reasons beyond "durability".
I would sure like to hear someone's take on this that really knows like @Bosshoss
The Ruger is unquestionable beefier but what does that mean to durability and total round count?
Now I do see that the lockup method of the Ruger seems more durable - but wouldn't you wear out a forcing cone long before either design would fail elsewhere?
I will not call myself a competitor but "back in the day", my father and I hung around the fringes. Those courses were full of SWs with untold rounds through them. The sheer numbers of SWs (K and L frames) running around would equate to more failures though as a percent of overall production is it any greater than Ruger? Ruger doesn't have a history of being a service gun like the SWs - that sure cuts down on abused guns in the real world.
I still have his 1960's K frame that we both ran untold numbers of 357mag loads through and the gun is still as tight as ever.
None of this is to say not to buy a Ruger as I think it an excellent platform but I think you buy the Ruger for reasons beyond "durability".
I would sure like to hear someone's take on this that really knows like @Bosshoss
I've carried that very round while hiking in West Virginia and other areas around the Smokey Mountains...I feel very comfortable with that round!
I am surer there is better info that what I will say. I had a S&W 19-6 and it was stated per S&W not to user a steady amount of 357’s; it can handle them but for constant use.
That is correct for a K-frame but the L-frame (686 et al) is a more comparable platform to the Ruger.
The 686 was developed sometime around 1980 and reflects "modern" 357 loads whereas the K-frame was developed back in the 1930s-ish. Not sure when the Ruger came out but after the L-frame. (edit: google says 1985 for the Ruger).
The Ruger vs S&W thing has been going on for years. Actually they had a great ad campaign going in the magazines years ago picking on each other.
Part of this response is a Die Maker that worked with castings and forged parts for 30 years and part is a gunsmith that has worked on revolvers for years.
Cast vs Forged? Size for size forged will be stronger, I like to use a crankshaft in a cars engine as a example the rod and main bearing journals have to be a certain size and the counter weight must be a certain size to work in the engine. So they can't be different sizes and engine builders that are going for durability seek forged cranks instead of cast cranks.
Ruger revolvers have thicker frames because they are cast not forged. They have to be bigger to equal the strength of a forged frame. Now is a Ruger frame enough oversize to actually be stronger than a forged S&W? That is a good question and I don't really know the answer.
Other factors play into strength as the S&W has a removable side plate that MIGHT make the frame a little weaker.
S&W K frames are smaller than a GP100 which is very close to the L frame S&W and IMO the problems I here about K frame are way over played. Top strap cutting Is IMO a problem that stemmed with the powder used many years ago and lots of rounds fired and is not a problem I here about much anymore with modern powders.
They did have splits in the flat bottom of the barrel at the forcing cone but again it is more a internet problem than a gun problem.
I have NEVER had a K frame in the shop for a split barrel but other gunsmiths I know have had them but it is rare.
L frame is close to GP100 in size and I haven't heard of any problems with either other than quality control problems which by the way seems about equal between the two.
N frame is where things get interesting. Everyone uses the loading manual Ruger only loads as proof of strength. The Ruger Redhawk's and Super Redhawk's are bigger guns than the N Frame S&W so yes they might take hotter loads but that is because they are bigger.
S&W N frames were around long before silhouette shooting started where heavy loads and lots of them were hard on the guns.
S&W improved the N frame with a endurance package that helped with the cylinder unlocking while shooting thumper loads.
If you want the biggest thumper get a X frame.
If you can afford the cost of ammo or components to actually wear out a modern revolver then sell it and buy a new one when it is wore out and let me know when that happens
. The cost of the ammo will be many times the cost of the gun.
Competition shooters are shooting high volume thru their revolvers and I have friends and customers that have 500k thru their guns with just replacing normal wear items.
If you are shooting thumpers all the time then I would guess your hands will give up way before the revolver does.
Triggers are another matter.
Ruger's have a longer DA trigger pull than a S&W.
Ruger triggers can be made very nice BUT a good S&W trigger job will ALWAYS be better than a Ruger with a trigger job.
Out of the box I still say the S&W is better but both makers have really good and really bad ones that get out so I won't say always.
While most are not interested in competition( at least with a revolver) it is still a equipment test and at the major matches I would say 95% shoot S&W revolvers. The new 8 shot Ruger's are ok but still have their problems and need work to be competitive but the S&W needs some work also but usually not as much. A lot has to do with Ruger not selling spare parts for the guns so if something happens it has to go back to Ruger for repairs.
Ruger and S&W are both good guns and wearing one out is really way down on the list of things I would be concerned about.
Triggers can be fixed.
Buy what feels good to you and you like the looks of.
Oh and the Ruger's being built like tanks thing well tanks are cumbersome and hard to maneuver and heavy.
I prefer a revolver that is like a sports car not a tank.
Part of this response is a Die Maker that worked with castings and forged parts for 30 years and part is a gunsmith that has worked on revolvers for years.
Cast vs Forged? Size for size forged will be stronger, I like to use a crankshaft in a cars engine as a example the rod and main bearing journals have to be a certain size and the counter weight must be a certain size to work in the engine. So they can't be different sizes and engine builders that are going for durability seek forged cranks instead of cast cranks.
Ruger revolvers have thicker frames because they are cast not forged. They have to be bigger to equal the strength of a forged frame. Now is a Ruger frame enough oversize to actually be stronger than a forged S&W? That is a good question and I don't really know the answer.
Other factors play into strength as the S&W has a removable side plate that MIGHT make the frame a little weaker.
S&W K frames are smaller than a GP100 which is very close to the L frame S&W and IMO the problems I here about K frame are way over played. Top strap cutting Is IMO a problem that stemmed with the powder used many years ago and lots of rounds fired and is not a problem I here about much anymore with modern powders.
They did have splits in the flat bottom of the barrel at the forcing cone but again it is more a internet problem than a gun problem.
I have NEVER had a K frame in the shop for a split barrel but other gunsmiths I know have had them but it is rare.
L frame is close to GP100 in size and I haven't heard of any problems with either other than quality control problems which by the way seems about equal between the two.
N frame is where things get interesting. Everyone uses the loading manual Ruger only loads as proof of strength. The Ruger Redhawk's and Super Redhawk's are bigger guns than the N Frame S&W so yes they might take hotter loads but that is because they are bigger.
S&W N frames were around long before silhouette shooting started where heavy loads and lots of them were hard on the guns.
S&W improved the N frame with a endurance package that helped with the cylinder unlocking while shooting thumper loads.
If you want the biggest thumper get a X frame.
If you can afford the cost of ammo or components to actually wear out a modern revolver then sell it and buy a new one when it is wore out and let me know when that happens
. The cost of the ammo will be many times the cost of the gun.Competition shooters are shooting high volume thru their revolvers and I have friends and customers that have 500k thru their guns with just replacing normal wear items.
If you are shooting thumpers all the time then I would guess your hands will give up way before the revolver does.
Triggers are another matter.
Ruger's have a longer DA trigger pull than a S&W.
Ruger triggers can be made very nice BUT a good S&W trigger job will ALWAYS be better than a Ruger with a trigger job.
Out of the box I still say the S&W is better but both makers have really good and really bad ones that get out so I won't say always.
While most are not interested in competition( at least with a revolver) it is still a equipment test and at the major matches I would say 95% shoot S&W revolvers. The new 8 shot Ruger's are ok but still have their problems and need work to be competitive but the S&W needs some work also but usually not as much. A lot has to do with Ruger not selling spare parts for the guns so if something happens it has to go back to Ruger for repairs.
Ruger and S&W are both good guns and wearing one out is really way down on the list of things I would be concerned about.
Triggers can be fixed.
Buy what feels good to you and you like the looks of.
Oh and the Ruger's being built like tanks thing well tanks are cumbersome and hard to maneuver and heavy.
I prefer a revolver that is like a sports car not a tank.
Seen two cracked K frame bbls. One an nickel Model 19 got a new bbl and was good to go.
The other a 66 that ate a long running diet of .357. Bbl was split, but frame also cracked.
IIRC it was an old one w stainless rear sight.
The other a 66 that ate a long running diet of .357. Bbl was split, but frame also cracked.
IIRC it was an old one w stainless rear sight.
