Disclaimer: I'm a fan of both and own/owned both makes of revolvers.

I was perusing some of the groups on Facebook yesterday and came across a man who was no doubt trolling Ruger fans with his knowledge and favoritism of Smith & Wesson revolvers--even admitted his surprise to the "lack of butthurt from Ruger fans" on the thread. His argument, more specifically, that Smith frames were stronger than Ruger's bulky frames and Ruger's ability to handle hotter loads was only because of their stronger cylinders, in a nutshell.

I didn't (nor do I) engage trolling on Facebook and he was undoubtedly looking for an online battle. My guess is he's single and his Farmers Only subscription had lapsed.

His argument seems to be contradictory to what I read here and pretty much anywhere else. I quit paying attention when he posted the S&W add talking about Ruger's beefy frames and a picture of a Ruger frame as a piece of meat saying something to the effect that beefy is better on a steak but not on a revolver.

Think i seen that and kinnda smiled at myself lol. I like rugers and have no desire for a smith. Personal preference. What others think have no affect on what i like. 😉

As you can see from my username, I?m a big Smith & Wesson fan. However, if I feel the need to shoot any nuclear powered loads, they go in the Redhawk.

If we're talking 44 mag, and the longer and hotter than saami spec loads, there are only a few guns that are capable. The Dan Wesson, the Ruger Redhawk and Super Redhawk, and the Taurus Raging Bull. This is due to the longer cylinder length. The beefy double action frames on these guns are remarkably strong.

To this day I regret selling my Model 28.......

I own several of both brands as do many of those on this forum. Both companies make fine products and each have their place in our sport. I doubt that the poster on the other site has the shooting experience -data- or the technical expertise to make the claims he is making. In my opinion my Redhawk can survive a diet of max level 44 mag loads better than my 629 would.

An old pinned barrel model 29 and a Redhawk are two different animals. Both special in their own way. You can let that guy know that a SAA and a Blackhawk are also different guns!

l will let my X-Frame 460 PC speak for itself. No Rugers need apply.

As for face book, l don't do ''f-b''... Never have, Never will.

282

WHAT IS FACE BOOK? I KNOW MY WIFE IS ON IT ALL THE TIME, I DO NOT EVEN KNOW HOW TO FIND IT. CAN'T BE ANY REAL MAN STUFF ON FACEBOOK.

DA SMITHS AND RUGERS ARE DIFFERENT. FOR AESTHETICS I WILL TAKE A SMITH. FOR BEING READY TO GO OUT OF THE BOX YOU MAY HAVE A BETTER CHANCE WITH A SMITH. BUT FOR HEAVY USE, I WILL TAKE A RUGER.

There really is no comparison. N-frames were designed around the .44 Special at the turn of the century (not this last one, but the one before). I think Hamilton Bowen said it best when he stated (I paraphrase) that the Redhawk is the first double-action revolver built to scale for the .44 Magnum cartridge. The late Andy Canon used to build .454s on .44 Mag Redhawks, using the stock cylinder. Jack Huntington has built these too (see photo below), and I have never heard of a failure. Try that with an N-frame..... Even the behemoth X-frame features some of the weaknesses of the N-frame like the half-frame design.

I've heard just about every argument between the two camps like forging versus casting. Forgings tend to be stronger but the strength is directional -- not the case with a casting. Smith & Wessons are on the delicate side, but that's okay. I will still own them and hunt with them, I just don't make them do the heavy lifting. I don't know why anyone should get emotional.

We don't even need to get into the single-actions which are an even better platform for big and powerful cartridges given the advantage of not having the cylinder riding on a crane and instead being solidly mounted in the frame.

Keep in mind that Ruger makes six-shot .454 cylinders (SRH) that I will wager will take more pressure than a five-shot X-frame. When Ruger started testing their 465 Carpenter steel six-shot SRH, they ran 300 rounds through it at 92,000 psi - that's 50 rounds a hole. There was no damage done to the revolver. Ruger runs proof loads (50% hotter than standard SAAMI max) through ALL of their firearms.

Too many people think they actually learned something from the Ruger/S&W marketing war of the 1980's. I love my S&W's and just picked up yet another N-frame .44. However, they are simply not as strong as Rugers or as suitable to a steady diet of full pressure loads.

Ruger set out to eliminate all the KNOWN shortcomings of the S&W design, especially as it pertains to the .44Mag.

The X-frame is actually a very good testament to the weakness of the S&W design. Look at how huge they had to make it to survive the pressure of the .460 cartridge. It's truly massive, even compared to the Super Redhawk, which only needed a better alloy but still retains six-shot capacity at the same pressure (.454).

Some really good stuff here.

Max and Craig44- I think you are both spot on.

Gregg

Me too. Ive shot some nice sw 629?s loose in fairly short order and have 3-4 times the rounds in 454 that havent so much as had a hiccup.

That's why I treat my N-frame .44Mag's like slightly stronger .44Spl's.

This is why they sell both Fords and Chevys, everybody has their own taste. I have a S&W model 19 for a house gun but my Rugers are what I hunt with. If I had the money I'd own a BFR in 454 Casull.

I own and use both. I have used this analogy in the past. "Smiths are Ferraris, and Rugers are F150'"s. Sports cars are fun, but sometimes ya just need a pickup truck.

That sporty two-seater is a blast until you need to haul a sheet of plywood.

Really all u need to know about strength of n frames is what low pressure level u need to run when u open up that cylinder to a 45 cal. It doesnt take much to blow it up. I have a very very nice and unique model 29 blued performance center gun. Smiths excellent customer service rebuilt it for me after it was shot
Loose with less normal pressure 44 loads than i shoot high pressure 454s outta my srh 454 in a weekend sometimes. It now resides in a special place and doesnt get beat up as it is unique and a very very nice gun. My daughter uses it exclusively until she moved up to a jrh tuned 480 srh.

Think about that, it was shot loose with factory ammo never above 300gr by a 98lb lil lady. Couldnt do that to a ruger.

I am in agreement with everyone above. I have several S&W revolvers. Most in 38 Special/357 Magnum. I also have a 617 in 22 lr, a 610 in 40 S&W/10mm, and a 625 in 45acp. I have over the last 45 years owned numerous 29's and 629's.
In Ruger's I have an LCR 22 lr, a 3" adj Sight GP100 and a 6" GP 100 along with my 480 Super RedHawk.
To me the S&W 586/686 and the GP100's are about equal. You can get a very nice action on either with a little work. The Quick Change front sight comes on all adjustable sight GP100 Ruger's. You have to get a Performance Center S&W to get a Quick Change front sight.
I have looked over the X Frame's every time I handle one, how huge it is turns me off.
For a DA Hunting Revolver the Super RedHawk is very hard to beat. It comes set up for a scope from the factory, no need to hunt up a mount that will stand the pounding, which is the case with the 629. In a Super RedHawk you have a choice of several chambering's, that cover enough bases to satisfy most handgun hunters.
I like both brands, but I hunt with a Super Redhawk.

Bob R