Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Smith or Ruger

I’ve never needed a trail gun slowly, so except for caliber and concealability, I want a trail gun to have the qualities of a good defensive handgun: high visibility sights, relatively light weight, the power to hit hard at 50-60 yards, the trajectory and accuracy to make those hits possible, and ergonomics that let me shoot it well in a hurry up close. Depending on where I am, my trail gun is either a Glock 19 or a 4” S&W Model 29. The G19 is basically a light 357, and I like the 44 for bigger stuff.

The Model 60 and the SP-101 are both too small for me to use well at speed but they meet my other criteria. The Ruger is heavier and can take a steady diet of hot 357 loads should that need arise. The S&W trigger is far superior out of the box. Both are available with adjustable sights, but 3” is about the shortest barrel that you’ll find on either one. Speaking of sights and barrels, both companies have a 5” version with adjustable sights, although the S&W seems to be out of production. That makes it legal for big game in a lot of places, so you can use it as backup in states where any weapon you have in the field must be legal for the species that you’re hunting.

Have you considered the S&W Model 66? It’s bigger and heavier than the guns you mentioned, but it’s also better for long shots than a small-frame gun. I mention that because you said that you might need to shoot a skunk. The only skunk I ever shot was about 20 yards away and I was lucky as hell not to get hit with the spray. I’ll probably never shoot another one but if I do, then the range will be a lot more than 20 yards.


Okie John

While the purists all bash S&W for the way they make their revolvers, I will say this. They work, they work well, and its rare they have any problems. So the opposition is really mostly aesthetic.

The MIM internals of the S&W consistently produce better DA pulls than the investment cast Ruger internals. When I receive modern S&W's for action work, I never have to take a stone to ANYTHING inside the sideplate. The issues are ALWAYS the cams on the ejector star. Whereas the Ruger typically needs attention to both the internals, and the ejection star. I will say this, Ruger does their ejector stars a little better than S&W, as they routinely need less attention than the S&W's need. I have also observed that FAR more S&W's have DA actions that are good to go right out of the box than Ruger's.

Both S&W and Ruger cut their rifling with wire EDM so the quality of their bores is pretty much the same. We have seen that both S&W and Ruger tend to make revolvers with perfect, or near perfectly sized chamber mouths, so that's a draw.

I absolutely LOVE the grip shape of the SP 101, it's a bit of ergonomic brilliance in my opinion. And while I really like the S&W grip shape on the K/L frames, I love it less on the J & N frames. The Ruger easily wins the ergonomics department.

That's about the only meaningful differences I can find between the two. If I had a use for either, I'd be quite happy with either revolver.

Dude I have returned 4-5 smiths in the last 4-5 years, the last one I just took back to the store and lost money on it. One return was so bad they gave me my money back. New Smith revolvers are a crap shoot, but again I am not an expert just someone that has bought and sold north of 20 or so smith and Wesson revolvers in my life. The old ones worked better and they shot better.

I guess you've had a run of bad luck then. I bought 4 S&W's last year. All of them were fine other than a bit heavy on the trigger pulls. Three of them were revolvers, a 60, 63, and 617. They've all had a trigger spring change and are now even better.

I guess I am the only person who has seen poor quality in new smiths

Bought an S&W Scandium J-Frame .38 for my mom in the 1990s, and it seized up with the first cylinder full at the range, needing a return to the factory. I bought a 442 Airweight .38 for myself a couple of years ago that had made it through factory inspection with a rough cut forcing cone, i.e., it looked like someone hacksawed it off. Zero finishing procedures on it with razor sharp jagged edges. S&W took it back and sent me a new one with a correctly finished forcing cone.

Quality control at S&W is a crap shoot. And, from what I've heard, they don't always stand by their product, i.e., sometimes they tell you that they think it's just fine with the defect, and send it back to you.

There's also the Ruger LCRx. Might be worth consideration. I like mine.

Cool bullets.

Thanks, I have 3 Smiths bought new the past 5 years and they have been fine. 67, 36 classic, 637, the 67 has over 4000 rounds threw it without A hitch.I have returned more Rugers then anything else but I really like the feel of the 101 not A fan of fiber optic sights.

So that's your observation, and I would never deny your observations.

My observation is as I stated. I only have one 'modern' S&W, but I work on 3-4 per month, so I've worked on dozens over the past few years. So sorry you've had such bad luck, but the guns that come my way really don't show any serious issues. I do my thing, and return them to the customer.

Indeed. I went with a 4" 32 H&R Smith though I own a few Ruger SA's as well.

This is a wicked stupid thread that belongs on either the S&W or Ruger forum. In the bashing section, of revolvers post 1980 production. To those hating on the current production S&W’s I have e two words - Bangor Punta. And four more - S T F U.

For a trail, truck type gun for the purposes you mention, I'll take my SW Governor over anything mentioned on this thread.