Ruger cast vs. Smith & Wesson forged.

Status
Not open for further replies.

stchman

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
2,617
Location
Saint Louis, MO
I know this debate has probably been beaten to death, but I am not going to talk about which revolver is stronger.

I recently watched The Yankee Marshal's video on casting vs. forging and how S&W can make a gun of the same strength with less steel.

Let compare the GP100 6" stainless vs. the 686 6". Both guns have a 6" barrel and a 6 shot cylinder. If Ruger's casting results in a heavier gun, then why is the 686 only 0.1oz lighter(45 vs. 44.9)? I maintain that 0.1oz is insignificant.

http://www.ruger.com/products/gp100/specSheets/1707.html

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...57912_757910_757787_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

I'm not knocking either revolver, I own a GP100 6" and it is a great revolver. I am sure a 686 is a great revolver too. I just want to know what S&W more "expensive" forging that is not as thick and bulky results in a gun that weighs virtually the same.

Is the Ruger unsafe compared to the S&W? I highly doubt it.
 
The Yankee Marshal is getting is rear end handed to him in the comments section by folks who apparently know a lot more about it than he does.

For the purposes of this discussion, the GP and 686 are the most evenly matched for strength (and weight), both being designed specifically for the .357Mag cartridge after the shortcomings of the K-frame were discovered. It's when you start comparing the N-frame to the Redhawk that the differences become more profound.
 
Howdy

He does not know what he is talking about.

The most important part of a revolver, that determines the strength of the revolver, is the cylinder. He claims Ruger cylinders are castings and S&W cylinders are forgings. He is wrong on both counts.

Ruger cylinders are machined from solid stock, just as S&W cylinders are. Ruger frames, and many of the other parts, are made from Investment Castings, which are much stronger than die cast or sand cast parts. And S&W frames are still made from forgings.

But the bottom line is, Ruger cylinders are not castings, so he does not know what he is talking about.
 
He likes to run his mouth and then back down or revise his original statements when it's proven he's ignorant. But that's par for the course.
 
I reckon his YouTube channel has made him arrogant. He used to be on TFL several years ago and actually argued the exact opposite point. :rolleyes:

It's interesting because the 686 and GP are very similar in strength and both were designed for the .357Mag. Meanwhile, the N-frame was designed for the 15,000psi .44Spl and only later adapted to the magnums. The Redhawk/Super Redhawk were designed for the .44Mag, overbuilt for the purpose and rather easily adapted to the .454 and .480 cartridges. Yet he thinks they're the same strength. If that were true, S&W would not have had to design the massive X-frame to accommodate the .460/.500 AND go to a 5-shot cylinder. I love my S&W's but it's undeniable fact that Rugers tend to be tougher, despite his cast vs forged rhetoric.
 
Gp vs 686, really boils down to whether you want to push a button or slide a slide to roll the cylinder out. Otherwise they are very similar. It's all preference on cylinder unlock and aesthetics. Strength wise, as has been mentioned, the cylinders are machines from billets of material. Cylinder is the real point that matters on revolver strength. Forcing cone, top strap and blast plate are minimal concerns for strength in comparison to cylinder strength. Realistically Ruger is the better buy as it fills the same role and is equally durable, but I personally prefer the S&W...that's why I have a 686-6
 
I owned two S& W 686s and they were about perfect. Still wondering why I sold the four inch model.

Never owned a GP100 but am thinking about that.

Have owned a Blue Redhawk for many years. No complaints there either.

Folks say the 686 has a better trigger. Not sure if that is so.

The GP is more affordable which means something to me.
 
The Yankee Marshal is getting is rear end handed to him in the comments section by folks who apparently know a lot more about it than he does.

That isn't surprising. His videos are like watching a child. The man is a buffoon as far as I'm concerned, because he often portrays his opinions as facts.

I can't take anyone seriously who does that.
 
"...........The Yankee Marshal's video on casting vs. forging and how S&W can make a gun of the same strength with less steel."

That statement is the essence of the falsehood. S&W can't do that, and neither can anyone else unless there are fundamental design flaws in the Ruger, a possibility that is pretty laughable.
Since the steels used are similar and there is no intrinsic strength difference between forged and investment cast, any difference in weight simply reflects differences in design philosophy. Mr. Bill Senior was not known for under designing anything, which is why his guns live forever. Some Smiths will not with high counts of heavy loads. To most normal users, that doesn't matter.
Another hurricane in a punch bowl.
 
The Playboy Penguin has some nice guns, but that doesn't mean his opinions on gunsmithing and metallurgy matters mean much. But I know it's turning into a dogpile here, so here is some highly scientific information on molecular differences between investment casting and forgings.

Ruger revolvers are tough as nails.
Smith revolvers are also tough as nails.

The negligible difference between the two will never have an effect on any of us.
 
Last edited:
When the GP 100 was first introduced Ruger did destruction testing of S&W, Colt and Ruger revolvers by threading a solid steel plug into the barrels about an inch and firing proof loads. The S&W and Colt came apart after a small number of rounds. The Ruger was fired until the barrel was full of slugs and the revolver could no longer be loaded. It never blew. Kuhnhausen talks about these tests this in his Ruger DA Shop Manuals. He show photos of barrels sectioned on a bandsaw - filled with bullets. Some were from customer's guns fired with really stupid handloads (reloading while drinking) Some barrels were bulged slightly but none let go. Ruger overbuilt most of his designs.
 
Drail

I heard a similar story that Ruger did the same barrel blank testing with the Security Six before it was introduced. After the six proof rounds they threaded a regular barrel in and fired six more proof loads and the gun held up fine.
 
Kind of immaterial. You are not going to blow a cylinder or bulge a barrel unless you have done something really dumb.
A revolver ages by shaking loose all those moving parts and wearing the little fiddly bits.
Unfortunately, most of the few remaining high volume revolver shooters use Smiths because of their good and readily improvable double action triggers.
I don't know of a Ruger DA that gets shot the tens of thousands of rounds needed to stay sharp in PPC or action matches. I THINK they would hold up better just because so many of their parts and contact surfaces are larger.
 
I could care less about cast vs. forged. However, there has never been a Ruger DA revolver that looks half as good as Smith & Wesson.
 
When the GP 100 was first introduced Ruger did destruction testing of S&W, Colt and Ruger revolvers by threading a solid steel plug into the barrels about an inch and firing proof loads. The S&W and Colt came apart after a small number of rounds. The Ruger was fired until the barrel was full of slugs and the revolver could no longer be loaded. It never blew. Kuhnhausen talks about these tests this in his Ruger DA Shop Manuals. He show photos of barrels sectioned on a bandsaw - filled with bullets. Some were from customer's guns fired with really stupid handloads (reloading while drinking) Some barrels were bulged slightly but none let go. Ruger overbuilt most of his designs.

You need to read some of Elmer Keith's "Gun Notes" and some of John Linebaugh's writing concerning Smith and Wesson cylinders...their findings are contrary to what you are posting here. They found the Smith cylinders to be totally on par with Ruger strength and Keith had Ruger guns to fail to function due to bulged cylinders, before Smith guns.

Now, I will be the first to say that generally a Smith will shoot loose, before a Ruger...but that is not the cylinder.
 
Last edited:
Depends on what we're looking at. If we're comparing the N-frame .45 to a Ruger .45 Blackhawk, the cylinders are similar. The big difference there is the lockwork. S&W's don't blow up, they shoot loose. If we're comparing the N-frame to a Redhawk, the Ruger is significantly stronger in every way. The frame is larger, beefier and doesn't have a sideplate. The lockwork is more robust. The barrel shank is larger. The cylinder is not only a good bit larger in diameter but the bolt notches are offset between the chambers, rather than over them.
 
On another tack, I've carried both S&W stainless snubs (original "no-dash" M60 and 642-1) and a couple of Ruger SP101s concealed. In Dixie, "concealed" in the summer equals "sweat-covered."

I've discolored/stained both S&Ws, but neither SP101 has discolored or stained, although my lifestyle, carry modes and other factors have not changed.

I believe the alloy(s) used by Ruger are inherently more stain/rust resistant than those used by S&W.
 
You need to read some of Elmer Keith's "Gun Notes" and some of John Linebaugh's writing concerning Smith and Wesson cylinders...their findings are contrary to what you are posting here. They found the Smith cylinders to be totally on par with Ruger strength and Keith had Ruger guns to fail to function due to bulged cylinders, before Smith guns.
You're reaching a bit far back referencing Elmer Keith. He's been dead a mighty long time, but there's no reason to think that either Ruger or S&W would be deficient in their designs of modern revolvers.

That said, S&W K-frame .357s had some deficiencies in their forcing comes. The corresponding Ruger Security-Six revolvers had forcing cones nearly the same size that didn't have the same tendency to cracking. That's not to say there was no cracking of Ruger cylinders (there were some), but not like Smiths. Why? Who knows? Likewise, in the early 80s, some S&W 681s were produced with soft steel barrels that wore excessively. Holsters were wearing down the front sights and the rifling was being worn. There may have been some 686s, too, with this problem, but it was a quality control issue.

The Colt Pythons are desirable guns, but the design is dated. The hands/pawls are too small and wear quickly, throwing the revolver out of time. The frame and barrels are fine. Some Python owners are hard chroming the ratchets and pawls to reduce wear, but Ruger's designs of oversize parts certainly has made its guns not only durable, but if you ever have to replace parts the modular design makes it easy.

I love the 686 and especially the New Combat Masterpiece.

The latter would my choice.
 
Keith has not been gone 'that' long. All the guns in question were in existence when he was alive and haven't changed since.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vba
A bit more recently, Jeff Cooper said that in an overload test the unfluted cylinder burst before the fluted cylinder; but that it was academic because pressures were nearing triple the normal. He didn't state brand names, but in those days there weren't many choices.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top