|
Post by seancass on Dec 4, 2017 18:37:15 GMT -5
Hold up there, Sparky. Where the "F" do you get that Ruger uses lower grade steel?! That's an inappropriate over-reaction. Ruger uses more steel on their frames than S&W because S&W’s are forged and done so from exceptionally strong bar stock. This issue has been debated since as long as there have been internet forums, and the consensus is well established. Just place a 627PC next to a 357 Redhawk... This myth has been popular for as long as opinions have had the same perceived value as facts. Casual observations are just as good as scientific evaluation.
|
|
|
Post by bushog on Dec 4, 2017 19:08:53 GMT -5
Good Lord.....
|
|
|
Post by Encore64 on Dec 4, 2017 19:11:33 GMT -5
I couldn't agree more. Break out the hip boots...
|
|
|
Post by Encore64 on Dec 4, 2017 19:17:45 GMT -5
Ruger uses more steel on their frames than S&W because S&W’s are forged and done so from exceptionally strong bar stock. This issue has been debated since as long as there have been internet forums, and the consensus is well established. Just place a 627PC next to a 357 Redhawk, and it is obvious that the Redhawk is much thicker. It needs to be to achieve th3 same strength and inegrity that the 627 has by comparison. As for the MIM parts, I have one redhawk with a cast trigger and one redhawk with a MIM trigger. The cast trigger is smoother and feels more solid to the touch. It’s just my opinion, but I like the cast trigger better and could see no reason to justify the change, other than that Ruger wanted to save manufacturing costs. Rechamber a S&W 25 to 454 Casull like hundreds of 45 Colt RedHawks have been done and test this theory.
|
|
|
Post by cmonti77 on Dec 4, 2017 20:22:18 GMT -5
Ruger uses more steel on their frames than S&W because S&W’s are forged and done so from exceptionally strong bar stock. This issue has been debated since as long as there have been internet forums, and the consensus is well established. Just place a 627PC next to a 357 Redhawk, and it is obvious that the Redhawk is much thicker. It needs to be to achieve th3 same strength and inegrity that the 627 has by comparison. As for the MIM parts, I have one redhawk with a cast trigger and one redhawk with a MIM trigger. The cast trigger is smoother and feels more solid to the touch. It’s just my opinion, but I like the cast trigger better and could see no reason to justify the change, other than that Ruger wanted to save manufacturing costs. Rechamber a S&W 25 to 454 Casull like hundreds of 45 Colt RedHawks have been done and test this theory. Machine a 45 Colt Redhawk’s frame, barrel, and cylinder (excluding cylinder length) down to the dimensions of a S&W 25, and test whether it still holds up to ‘Ruger only’ loads.
|
|
|
Post by Encore64 on Dec 4, 2017 20:28:32 GMT -5
Makes no sense. Won't argue the point as its not in the interest of the forum.
All these guns have their place, but to think a S&W is as strong as a Ruger Redhawk will be recognized as what it is by knowledgeable revolver gentlemen.
I love my N-Frame 44 Special and 45 Colt, but recognize their limitations.
I realize that we all have our favorites and that's a good thing. But, I'll choose to stay within the realm of reality.
|
|
snappy
.30 Stingray
Posts: 421
|
Post by snappy on Dec 4, 2017 20:30:24 GMT -5
As much as I want to get back into 327, that blued 5" would really make a nice 44 Special. I know, buy both... But just think, you'll only need to buy one holster! Ruger sure is rocking with all these sweet releases.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Perry on Dec 4, 2017 20:31:55 GMT -5
As much as I want to get back into 327, that blued 5" would really make a nice 44 Special. I know, buy both... But just think, you'll only need to buy one holster! Ruger sure is rocking with all these sweet releases. Great point, think the wife will see the logic there?
|
|
|
Post by Quick Draw McGraw on Dec 4, 2017 21:09:40 GMT -5
Hold up there, Sparky. Where the "F" do you get that Ruger uses lower grade steel?! That's an inappropriate over-reaction. Thanks, dad, but I don't see "Administrator" by your screen name. That means you don't get to decide what is "inappropriate" or an "over-reaction" around here. If that was too much for you, I question your stamina for conversation on the internet. If you still have a problem with my post, you go right ahead and PM me. We can continue this discussion that way. As far as my post, it did not violate the forum rules, so let it go. Straight-up, I feel it was completely appropriate to call out a poster who decided to disparage a company's products with the statement, "Now with these new 'improvements' [from Ruger] it just seems like you['re] getting an S&W knock-off only with lower grade steel." My statement asked him directly where he's heard that Ruger uses lower grade steel. I also pointed out that his complaint about MIM parts makes no sense as S&W uses MIM parts just like Ruger does!
The response cmonti77 gave was: "Ruger uses more steel on their frames than S&W because S&W’s are forged and done so from exceptionally strong bar stock. This issue has been debated since as long as there have been internet forums, and the consensus is well established. Just place a 627PC next to a 357 Redhawk, and it is obvious that the Redhawk is much thicker. It needs to be to achieve th3 same strength and inegrity that the 627 has by comparison.
As for the MIM parts, I have one redhawk with a cast trigger and one redhawk with a MIM trigger. The cast trigger is smoother and feels more solid to the touch. It’s just my opinion, but I like the cast trigger better and could see no reason to justify the change, other than that Ruger wanted to save manufacturing costs."He states that S&W uses exceptionally strong bar stock, which he provides no source for, and ignores the fact that Jack Hunting told me DIRECTLY, that he used to work for S&W and knew for a fact that they use softer metal. Yes, it's forged, but it is not as hard as the metal Ruger uses in their revolvers. I consider Jack a very reliable source. He told me that when he asked, S&W techs felt that the softer metal made it easier to get a gun readjusted into proper function. He did point out that it also allows the revolver to go out of a proper functioning set-up more easily as well. He completely ignored my comment on S&W MIM parts. Seems like he cannot back up his disparaging remark that Rugers are S&W knockoffs made with inferior quality materials. But he'll keep spewing his S&W fan-boy B.S. anyway. I'll say this right now. The responses several posters here made after me calling him out were no surprise. Granted I haven't been here that long and many here have more experience than I do. But I listen, I read, and I learn from those who know more than I. I take advice on revolvers from many here who have been kind enough to share their input, from talking to folks over the phone such as Jack Huntington, Hamilton Bowen, and Gary Reeder. They were gracious enough to share some information and time with a guy like me who wants to learn. What grinds my gears about Smith & Wesson Fan-Boys is this constant running down of Ruger revolvers. If your S&Ws are so damn amazing, they shouldn't need you to try and disparage Ruger! Yes, Ruger's are cast. Yes, on the whole, the internals on a Smith & Wesson can be tuned to run smoother and better (at least from what I've been told by reliable sources) than a Ruger. But let's cut the crap. ALL RUGER BARRELS ARE COLD-HAMMER-FORGED! While the frames are cast, they are designed differently, which from what has been explained to me, gives them a little edge in strength. And the fact that they are typically (but not always) made with more material means that they are gonna be stronger. That doesn't mean Smith & Wesson's revolvers are crappy or somehow "less". A BMW M3 should not be looked at in the same light as a Ford F-150, nor should a Model 29 be looked at in the same light as a Super Redhawk. The only jab I will take at Smith is that I do not recall Ruger ever making a revolver where the owner was told to, "only use full-power .357 magnum loads for defense as too much standard .357 magnum will crack the frame," like my father was told when he bought his Smith & Wesson Model 19. And from what I've heard, this was a common statement around many K-frame revolvers, though if this is inaccurate, please tell me. I just don't like any manufacturer selling me something that can't handle the SAAMI specs of the cartridge name engraved on the barrel.
|
|
|
Post by Encore64 on Dec 4, 2017 21:31:32 GMT -5
I prefer the more calm and polite method of common sense and history.
The RedHawks are commonly used by the top gunsmiths in the world to build powerhouse big bores such as the 475 Linebaugh, 500 JRH, 500 Linebaugh and such.
The S&W frame can't even think about handling such cartridges. It couldn't even handle the 480 Ruger which is why JRH came up with the 475 Special.
The 480 Ruger will fit, but the frame can't handle it. Even the 29s are notorious for shooting loose.
Now, I'm in no way putting down S&W. They make extremely fine guns. But, if a member expects to be taken serious in the future, then some forethought may be in order.
The combined knowledge of this forum still stuns me sometimes. Its a great place to learn and share information.
|
|
cmh
.401 Bobcat
Posts: 3,745
|
Post by cmh on Dec 4, 2017 21:49:53 GMT -5
Actually..... if you consider the Smith X frame it is stronger than both of the redhawk and the N frame Smith....
|
|
|
Post by Encore64 on Dec 4, 2017 21:51:25 GMT -5
Actually..... if you consider the Smith X frame it is stronger than both of the redhawk and the N frame Smith.... True, because of mass, not superior steel.
|
|
|
Post by 2 Dogs on Dec 4, 2017 22:49:06 GMT -5
Oh I don't know. Not one to argue, and you can put all I know about metallurgy on postage stamp in big print but I've shot some loads in my Redhawks I definitely wouldn't shoot in my Smiths. And that X frame thing is just a monster.
|
|
|
Post by kings6 on Dec 5, 2017 0:09:17 GMT -5
This is where us single action guys like to be like a fly on the wall and just "listen"
|
|
|
Post by magman on Dec 5, 2017 6:08:33 GMT -5
And us guys that like them both and could give a crap about what others say.
|
|