Why Is Smith and Wesson Better?

[.357 mag]

I just traded a rossi 972 for my 66-2. major different in trigger, and comfort.

Its funny.All S&w k frame acc. fit Rossi 972.

[HAMMER1DOWN]

First off "Smith & Wesson"(psh) are traitors and you will never even see me looking at one in a gun store, EVER.... If you want a true american made revolver go Ruger, and nowhere else.

[inSight-NEO]

Why are they better? This is a loaded statement, of sorts.

Older (pre-lock) S&W revolvers offered great fitment, attention to detail and exceptional craftsmanship. This all resulted in high reliabiliy and usually, a high price.

New S&W revolvers, while still pretty to look at, well balanced and good shooters (particularly the 686), just dont seem to have the same amount of thought/care put into them as they once did. Plus, well...there is the whole "Clinton lock" thing. But, I wont go into that. Lets also not forget they are still, IMHO, ridiculously expensive and have become somewhat "gimicky" (have you seen their 8-shot revolver?) Heck, for the price of a new 686, Id only be $50-100 away from a new Sig Sauer. To me, this is a no-brainer.

Its interesting to note that, in contrast, their semi-autos (the M&P comes to my mind) are very nice, well made, reliable, relatively inexpensive and do not seem unnecessarily encumbered with "politically motivated" mechanisms. Go figure....

Needless to say, I personally tend to look at Ruger these days (even though they suffer from being a bit "rough around the edges") as they seem to be rock solid tough, very reliable, gimmick free and generally much less expensive than a comparable Smith. Taurus revolvers...nice and inexpensive, but I hear many have been put off by their less than ideal CS.

[inSight-NEO]

And you can't beat their customer service.

Yes, their CS is a high point, I will give you that one.

[Tommy Vercetti]

First off "Smith & Wesson"(psh) are traitors and you will never even see me looking at one in a gun store, EVER.... If you want a true american made revolver go Ruger, and nowhere else.

somebody else who never heard of Bill Ruger's active support of the 94 AWB?

[KyJim]

somebody else who never heard of Bill Ruger's active support of the 94 AWB?

And also somebody else who doesn't know that Smith and Wesson is owned by different people.

[Tommy Vercetti]

I'm actually shocked and dismayed..perhaps we can blame it on public schools

[Boats]

The AWB and Bill Ruger are dead, but the S&W sell-out lives on and on and on.

[Jart]

The AWB and Bill Ruger are dead, but the S&W sell-out lives on and on and on.

Bill Ruger has gone to his reward and Tomkins PLC has been divested and sent back across the Atlantic. S&W is in non-compliance with the agreement (even the hated lock doesn't comply with the agreement's requirement that the key be unique to each gun).

Seems to me the differences are pretty subtle.

Few covered themselves with glory at the time. Colt certainly didn't.

A few stood out.
Ronnie Barrett.
Elizabeth Saunders.
Taurus was another. Though, as Mr. Keenan points out, they had the option of folding the tent. Nonetheless:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...7/ai_92137694/



So far as S&W, Ruger and what's left of Colt is concerned, I'm reminded of allegories involving the throwing of stones and houses of glass.

[Whirlwind06]

Anyways Ruger has locks on their new pistols and revolvers coming out don't they?

[TheTinMan]

If this seems preachy, so be it. Just because virtually all of us disagreed with Bill Ruger on a major "gun control" issue doesn't mean that some of you should be so disrespectful, bordering on hateful, toward a dead man. He created a company which made some beautiful firearms and contributed real innovations in the manufacturing processes used.

[dgludwig]

Well, I think this aspect of the discussion was fueled by an earlier poster who criticized Smith & Wesson for caving in on the built-in lock Clinton-era issue but embraced Ruger's products and reputation, failing to acknowledge Ruger's complicity in the same vein by forbidding their high-capacity magazines to be sold to "civilians." And, as an aside, as Jart pointed out, Colt is not without blame.

Speaking for myself, I'm apparently much quicker to forgive than some others are as I have a number of Smith&Wesson and Ruger (as well as Colt) firearms and I like and respect both (all three) companies.

[Tucker 1371]

Take this for what it's worth:

A few years back I shot two of my grandpaw's revolvers, one was a Smith (forget the model) in .44mag and the other was a Taurus Raging Bull in .454 Casull.

I distinctly remember enjoying shooting the Smith much more and being much more accurate with it than I was with the Taurus.

Possibly not the greatest comparison since they were of different bbl lengths and different calibers.

[akr]

It isn't anymore. The current company calling itself Smith & Wesson is simply pedaling junk, under a famous name and trademark.

I disagree.

[woad_yurt]

In my opinion, the older ones are nicer. They're finished more nicely. All one has to do is put a new one next to a 30-40 year old one to see the difference. The TLC is lacking.

I'm not too fond of that friggin' lock, either.

[akr]

I'm not too fond of that friggin' lock, either

.........but it comes free of extra charge......a great value in a firearm!!!

[5Wire]

HAMMER1DOWN: First off "Smith & Wesson"(psh) are traitors and you will never even see me looking at one in a gun store, EVER.... If you want a true american made revolver go Ruger, and nowhere else.

Boy is that ever an out of date position to take.

Tomkins PLC: June 1997 ( A UK firm) entered into the Clinton "traitorhood" in March 2000.

Saf-T-Hammer Corporation: Purchased S&W May 2001. They are not the traitors any more than you are responsible for slavery in the 19th century. The Name was changed to Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation.

S&W is Truly made in the U.S.A. and the Clinton era limits still maintained by Ruger are totally absent from S&W.

You are entitled to any opinion you want but, nothing against Ruger, your position is not a rational one in my opinion.

[Elvishead]

Reputation speaks volume's.

After you put enough rounds through it to prove it's reliable, which I would do with a "Cheaper" gun, and it doesn't break after spending money ($100s) on rounds to prove it's reliable.

You may or may not end up paying to ship it back to Miami "Overnight $50-60"

Now you had put a $100 worth of rounds through it, it is now a another $50-60 for shipping it back, not including gas, time, and range fee's.

Now you have a $485 Rossi, that you couldn't barely sell for $200.

If your lucky I think they can be hit or miss (No Monday guns please)

Investment my son, investment.

I learned the hard way, and I hope you don't have to go through what I did, but it was a valuable lesson learned.

[moccassins]

First off "Smith & Wesson"(psh) are traitors and you will never even see me looking at one in a gun store, EVER.... If you want a true american made revolver go Ruger, and nowhere else.

quite possibly the least informed post I've ever read on the internet concerning any topic, Bill Ruger may be dead but his treachery lives on like Benedict Arnold's

[Trathen]

I have to admit those locks ultimately turned me toward a GP100. I just found them incredibly corny, like shipping a Porsche with a pink "childproof" helmet. I do not regret it.

Re: Politics. It does not surprise me that the owner of a company that is known for revolvers supported a ban that would only crush his competition. Business is business. Good thing he wasn't a politician.

[akr]

Okay, so we don't buy Smith's because of the lock and we don't buy Ruger's because of Benedict Bill, so what do you people suggest we buy after the old Smith's are hoarded away...something else like Taurus or HiPoint or do we just keep on whining and griping? It's like a cancer. :barf:

[Microgunner]

I like mine better than any Ruger I've owned. But I like Colts best of all. So in my mind Smiths are middling.

[ems-1]

Older (pre-lock) S&W revolvers offered great fitment, attention to detail and exceptional craftsmanship. This all resulted in high reliabiliy and usually, a high price.

New S&W revolvers, while still pretty to look at, well balanced and good shooters (particularly the 686), just dont seem to have the same amount of thought/care put into them as they once did. Plus, well...there is the whole "Clinton lock" thing. But, I wont go into that. Lets also not forget they are still, IMHO, ridiculously expensive and have become somewhat "gimicky" (have you seen their 8-shot revolver?) Heck, for the price of a new 686, Id only be $50-100 away from a new Sig Sauer. To me, this is a no-brainer.

I concur! Just like everything else quality has taken a backseat to profit.

[MikeinLA]

Just my opinion, but

1. Given the money I (and many of us) spend on ammo, I think it's silly to quibble over a few hundred bucks on a one-time purchase price.

2. I guess the reason I like Smiths is that they just fit my hand better and feel better balanced. When I bought my 686, I wanted to buy a Ruger but it just didn't feel right.

YMMV

Mike

[Magnum Wheel Man]

well I own way more revlvers than the average guy, & quite a few less than some here on this forum... so I feel qualified to offer an opinion... but it is just that, my opinion...

I have several S&W's ( I've posted the pics before ) a couple pre lock, but 2 in my carry battery that do have locks & my latest, a 610 I bought about 6 months ago... the 610, my newest is letterally junk ( read the thread ) -1 for new S&W's...

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...d.php?t=331356

I also have alot of Rugers, & the new new Vaqueros I bought reciently are as good a quality as any I own +1 for Ruger's...

I only have 2 Tauri & while they both work fine, they are both several years old, the fit, finish, & refinemnt of both are less than the "normal S&W or Ruger... sorry, I can't comment on the Rossi's, & etc. as I don't have one, the Pit Bull I shot not too long ago ( new manufacture ) had fit, finish, & refinement standards about the same as the Tauri I own, & the double action trigger was one of the worst I've tried...

as far as customer service... yep... S&W is friendly... but 3 times returned, & sending out an "unsafe gun" from repair...

I'm sure it's just my luck, but I've never had to send a Ruger in yet...

if you are looking at value... a S&W can cost over twice what the others do... the older ones are worth it... IMO, the newer ones are not... I'll bet we see drop in thier resale value, if thier quality continues to slide...