markm- I flat out don’t believe that gunsmith for one second. TOO MANY loads listed specifically for Rugers, and as one who has owned and shot several, from the Speed Six, Security Six, Blackhawks…to one of my current carry pieces, a 3" SP101 I think Ruger does a fine job with their revolvers. The SP101 is a ****in TANK. Grips…well that is another story. I DESPISE the factory SP101 grip. Was fortunate enough to obtain one of the EXCELLENT Trausch grips before they stopped making them…and they TRANSFORM this gun into a very controllable, ergonomic, pointable and fun to shoot piece.
Nanuk-
I read your post after I posted mine. I DO NOT doubt your experiances at all, for the record! As to a couple of the points you brought up-
I believe the timing issues to have been resolved for awhile now. I did have a very very battered and very well used old security six that would spit lead, back in the early nineties, it was beat to hell when I got it. Ive NEVER had a Ruger sieze up on me, last range trip I put iirc over 200 rounds of .38 and .357 thru mine…ran like a champ. as for triggers…yes we all agree that’s a huge win for the S&W guns. BUT…you can also get great triggers on the Rugers, with a little work, and I LOVE how easily the SP101 field strips for cleaning. My trigger is currently very nice, a few pounds too heavy for several females who have shot it, but I like it as is.
As for the gunsmith quote from Markm…after reading your post let me refine my statement on not believing it…I don’t believe they cast more metal to be AS STRONG…equal to…other revolvers, I believe they do so to purposely be STRONGER than others. And if cast metal is heavier, well then there ya go. Didnt know cast was heavier, either. I would have thought forged was.
We have known for decades that Ruger had to beef up their cast frame just to match the strength of the S&W. Ounce for ounce, when it came to double action revolvers, the Smith was more durable. When the reloading manuals talk about hotter pistol loads for Rugers, they are talking about single actions.
The Smith 44 magnums were shooting loose from the continuous use of heavy loads so they came out with the 629DX. It was designed to keep the internals from bouncing around from heavy recoil. Ruger came up with the Super Redhawk for continuous use of heavy 44 Magnum loads.
The K frames held up well with 38 Special +P & occasional use of 357 Magnums but were known to wear out if fed a continuous diet of magnums. That’s why Smith developed the L frame. But the king of the 357 Magnums was the N frame
So, is a Ruger…say my SP101…is it EQUAL in strength, or stronger than an L or N frame S&W?
The SP-101 is no where near as strong as an N frame. N frames are large and made from forgings and are about as tough as you’re going to get in a 357. When S&W made their first 44 Magnum, it was on the N frame.
The SP-101 is a tough little handgun and will handle shooting factory 357s fine. However, it was marketed with the idea a shooter would do most of their practice with 38s and carried with 38 +Ps, or 357s. The SP-101 should hold up to the +Ps. Being a small, snub nose, not many shot a lot of 357s from them.
When Ruger introduced the SP-101, it was marketed to compete with the smaller framed snubbies, such as the J frame or short barreled K frames. The SP-101 was originally a 5 shot and I believe it could be made available as a 38 Special as well as a 357. It was a heavier and larger pistol than the 5 shot J frames and tougher as well. Folks advised against shooting a lot of +P and especially +P+ ammo in the J frames, reserving the hot stuff for carry. I don’t recall there being such a reservation about the SP-101.
In 1972, Ruger introduced the Security Six (quickly followed by Service Six and Speed Six) medium framed double action handguns. Although larger and heavier, the Ruger Six Series was considered on par with the K frame. In 1985, Ruger introduced the GP-100 to compete in strength with the S&W L frame. It was larger and heavier than the previous Six series revolvers and along with some design improvements, it was designed specifically to handle the 357 Magnum.
The S&W K frame goes back to 1899 and was strong enough to handle smokeless 38 Special loads. At the promptings of Bill Jordan, S&W started making the Model 19, a K frame chambered for the 357 Magnum. It was lighter and handier than the large N frame but they couldn’t withstand constant pounding from 357 Magnum loads. In 1980, S&W introduced the new L frame designed specifically to handle the 357 Magnum. Much stronger than the K frame it only slightly heavier and larger. The use of forgings instead of castings has let S&W design the L frame as the optimal 357 revolver in size, weight and durability. There are 357 revolvers that are lighter, or smaller or more durable. But none can match the L frame in all three categories
I have a WC edition GP100 and its ang excellent tool for creating range privacy.
THANK YOU for this awesome info sir. I have many rounds thru several of the guns you mentioned here, and while I do prefer the S&W for overall ergonomics, looks and trigger, I like some of the Ruger revolvers also, especially my SP101.
FWIW…Ive got dibs on a one owner, 1976 S&W 357 with the looong barrel, I forget the exact length, that’s been fired 4 times. with two unfired cylinders. Im wanting that gun BADLY!
My EDC is a 1 7/8" S&W 327PC stoked with full house 357 rounds. Even though the 327PC is Titanium and Scandium it is built on an N frame and does a great job of absorbing the punishing recoil of full house loads. In fact it a pleasure to shoot for extended periods of time with everything I can find to feed it. However if I really want to clear all of the lanes out of a crowded indoor range, I just stoke my 2.5" Ruger Alaskan with some Buffalo Bore 454 Casull’s. 