Ruger V.S. Smith - Page 3
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Handguns > Revolver Handguns >

Ruger V.S. Smith


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-24-2009, 04:17 PM   #21
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
truevil1313's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: (near Houston),Texas
Posts: 473
Liked 13 Times on 12 Posts
Likes Given: 58

Default

They are both great guns, that will handle thousands and thousands of rounds. I don't think you could go wrong with either, so it would just be a prefrence thing.
__________________
SGT U.S. Army Special Operations Command, Ft. Bragg, NC (2002-2006)
Operation Iraqi Freedom Veteran (2004)

"Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is the well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin.
truevil1313 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2009, 11:28 PM   #22
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BILLYBOB44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: My "Man Cave" up North..
Posts: 1,267
Liked 10 Times on 8 Posts
Likes Given: 12

Default Ford or Chevy

Quote:
Originally Posted by stuii View Post
My boss and his family are going to be buying a .357 revolver and I suggested the Ruger GP100 or the Smith 627 which one do you guys think would be better in terms of durability and price as well as over all comfort.
Stu, I hope you know that you opened the flood gates for the Ford/Chevy debate on the Gun Board!!
BILLYBOB44 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2009, 10:51 AM   #23
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bedford Texas
Posts: 2,914
Liked 83 Times on 55 Posts
Likes Given: 21

Default

I just can't understand why people are willing waist other peoples time with questions like this...
__________________
*** Don't Mess With TEXAS ***
Μολὼν λάβε
Mark F is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2009, 02:32 PM   #24
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 836
Liked 284 Times on 173 Posts
Likes Given: 22

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
I just can't understand why people are willing waist other peoples time with questions like this...
Sorry, but meaningful discussion among friends is never a waste of time. Even if somebody learns something.

Bob Wright
Bob Wright is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2009, 12:13 AM   #25
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 27
Default wow

Wow Mark F welcome to a Firearms forum
stuii is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2009, 04:43 AM   #26
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
M14sRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,548
Liked 47 Times on 34 Posts
Likes Given: 68

Default

There are a couple of ways to answer the original question.

Which is better for a family, Ruger or S&W?

The S&W is a more refined revolver, with a better trigger. There is a reason that serious competitors use S&W revolvers. They rock. But Rugers are awesome, too. As for the "cast vs forged" debate, the new S&W's use MIM internal parts. So I'd buy a used S&W with forged internals.

However, the main question should be this. Which one fits the hands of those who will be using it? It is for a "family". I'm guessing something smaller than an "N" frame may be in order, unless the whole family is Yeti sized. Probably a "K" frame, and maybe even one of the 3" "J" frames would be better. Only way to know is to have each shooter try them each in their hand with someone who actually knows how to assess "fit".

A smaller frame will fit large hands better than a large frame will fit small hands.
M14sRock is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2009, 11:04 PM   #27
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BILLYBOB44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: My "Man Cave" up North..
Posts: 1,267
Liked 10 Times on 8 Posts
Likes Given: 12

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M14sRock View Post
There are a couple of ways to answer the original question.

Which is better for a family, Ruger or S&W?

The S&W is a more refined revolver, with a better trigger. There is a reason that serious competitors use S&W revolvers. They rock. But Rugers are awesome, too. As for the "cast vs forged" debate, the new S&W's use MIM internal parts. So I'd buy a used S&W with forged internals.

However, the main question should be this. Which one fits the hands of those who will be using it? It is for a "family". I'm guessing something smaller than an "N" frame may be in order, unless the whole family is Yeti sized. Probably a "K" frame, and maybe even one of the 3" "J" frames would be better. Only way to know is to have each shooter try them each in their hand with someone who actually knows how to assess "fit".

A smaller frame will fit large hands better than a large frame will fit small hands.
Good thought on the fit of the weapon, Rock. The fit along with time spent on being fully familiar with it makes the difference between good use of the weapon, and poor use-(Miss)
BILLYBOB44 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2009, 05:17 PM   #28
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1
Default Good info

Actually cast vs forged now a days really isnt a factor according to my local gunshop,he did say Ruger is a master at casting. I found this on the net and thought it was interesting since this guy worked at Ruger.I apologize for the length but its interesting. I have a 74 Blackhawk and a new Redhawk. I dont hate Smiths since my brother is a Smith guy I just think Rugers are stronger handguns,hence the 300 Garrett ammo they can digest easily.

" I became very familiar with the investment casting process when I
worked at Sturm-Ruger. To describe all the facets of it would fill a
book, but I can give you a brief description. The parts to be cast
start as an injection moulded wax model of the part, which is done with
great precision, with the dimensioning of the die calculated to control
the shrink rate of the wax and the size mould it will make when the wax
is burned out and the silica shell surrounding it is fired. The wax
pieces are gated together in assemblies of maybe several hundred small
parts, or about 12-15 rifle receivers or revolver framed, sometimes
combining smaller parts in the assembly which is called a "tree",
because it looks somewhat like a tree when finished. This assembly is
first dipped in a thin slurry of silica dust and water, then
alternately coated with progressively larger sizes of silica and more
slurry until a heavy shell is built up around it which will stand
normal handling in the foundry. Groups of the trees are cured until
dry, and after a correct period of time they are fired in a kiln which
burns out the wax form, hence the name "lost wax" used to describe the
process. The fired shells are stored until needed, and prior to casting
are heated red hot in a gas furnace, while the steel alloy is melted in
an electric induction furnace. Stainless steel parts are often cast
with vacuum melted steel in a controlled atmosphere such as nitrogen or
argon to control oxidation. Common alloy steels such as 4140 chrome
moly are cast in normal ambient atmosphere, but the open mould sinks
are covered immediately with a de-oxidant compound. After casting the
silica shell is broken off and the individual parts cut away from the
connecting gates. The parts are then cleaned, usually by sandblasting,
then visually inspected, and criticial parts such as rifle bolts,
revolver frames and rifle receivers are inspected by x-ray and/or
ultrasonically, before being annealed, straightened, and lotted up in
groups to be sent to the machine shop. In my experience I feel that
investment casting as done at Ruger is far superior to forging because
it reduces the stock removal necessary to make the finished part, and
permits use of alloys which cannot be machined by common stock removal
methods. Consequently, Ruger can use materials of a very low sulphur or
selenium content with a high hardenability which provides greater
tensile and compressive strength than the lower alloys other
manufacturers much use because their manufacturing processes require
use of additives like sulphur or selenium to obtain acceptable
machinability.
I feel that resulphurized steels should not be used in
thin sections or in applications where extensive machining is required,
because of their greater notch sensitivity. We routinely subjected
Ruger rifles and revolvers to testing which destroyed competitor's
products. Good forgings of quality material can be very strong, but
are very expensive to produce into complex parts. Investment casting
permits economical manufacture of large production runs of like parts
which offer strength equal to any other manufacturing method, if the
correct alloys and methods are used. Stamped sheet metal parts are not
the same as forged, because the working is done cold rather than hot,
and the grain structure of the steel is not changed. Stampings are
seldom used for highly stressed parts, although they can be used as a
receptacle to hold assemblies of high strength parts together, as in
the HK roller-locked weapons."

Ed Smith

Last edited by MrSteve; 02-16-2009 at 10:20 PM.
MrSteve is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2009, 12:32 PM   #29
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
stalkingbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bloomfield,Ky
Posts: 3,978
Liked 303 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 139

Default

That backs up what I said about Ruger's investment cast lost wax casting process.
stalkingbear is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Smith & Wesson 645 gt5-33 Semi-Auto Handguns 19 04-20-2014 12:55 PM
Smith & Wesson 637 frank002 Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection 11 11-04-2009 01:07 AM
My New Smith & Wesson 637 andyffer Revolver Handguns 2 12-13-2008 11:28 PM
Smith Wesson lasherb1 1911 Forum 1 11-05-2008 11:47 PM
Smith Model 30 Rebailey Revolver Handguns 0 06-01-2007 10:28 PM