I,the Ruger is more stout. The forged steel of the Smith is pound for pound stronger than the investment cast steel of the Rugers.I think the Smiths are a more elegant looking and feeling revolver. The Ruger is more stout and will handle heavy loads on a regular basis. I own both. Both have a place.
I have the 627-5PC. It really is a work of art: 5" barrel, N frame, stainless, 8 shot, shoots beautifully, has enough weight to dampen recoil with full power loads (46 oz.), but is light enough to be packable in the field.I,the Ruger is more stout. The forged steel of the Smith is pound for pound stronger than the investment cast steel of the Rugers.
The 627 is a larger frame than the GP-100 and not really comparable. The 686 would be a better head to head comparison. The 627 is the finest .357 revolver available today, IMHO. The Ruger is a good solid revolver but the 627 is a work of art.
I,the Ruger is more stout. The forged steel of the Smith is pound for pound stronger than the investment cast steel of the Rugers.
Dream on! You must be the only person in the world that believes that. Ruger acnowledges it and makes the frame (slightly) bulkier to compensate. Saying cast steel is the same as forged completely ignores the truth.Robocop-you should feel good that just on this post, this is the 1st time I MUST disagree with you. You're wrong in my opinion. The Ruger investment cast steel is exactly same strength pound for pound as S&W forged. I realize this isn't what you want to hear, but the quality/components of the raw steel matter MUCH more than the method of manufacture. You realize that ALL steel is 1st made by casting-mixing carbon and chromium in with iron in a blast furnace results in steel. Also the Ruger revolvers are stronger due to absence of side plate, front & rear locking, and location of the cylinder locking bolt-or latch as Ruger calls it. So basically a Ruger GP100 IS as strong as an N frame S&W due to those features. And yes, I DO own, and shoot both.