I did not realize how much smoother the actions of Smith and Wesson revolvers are when compared to Ruger revolvers.  I own a the following Smiths: Model 38-2 Airweight, Model 329 PD, and a recently acquired 629-5 (I traded a Ruger GP 100 for the 629-5).  I owned a GP 100 and still own an old style Ruger Vaquero in 45 Colt.

I was considering selling the 629-5 and using the money to buy one of the new Ruger Red Hawk four inch models (my 629 has a six inch barrel).  So today while running some errands I looked at two Ruger Red Hawks in two different stores.  Working the action on both revolvers reminded me of what it feels like to shift between front sprockets on a cheap road bicycle.  I was astounded at the friction and racket both Ruger revolvers made when working the actions.  The 329 and 38 always seemed just a bit smoother when compared to my Vaquero and GP 100..but not by much.  But when compared to the two Ruger revolvers I handled today, there was no comparison between the two brands.  I'm hesitant to say this has always been the case, as my Vaquero and GP 100 were not too far off from my current stable of Smiths.

So what gives?  Did I somehow handle two lemons today or are all Ruger Red Hawks that "rough"?  I've always admired the Ruger brand for its strength and durability, but I've never encountered a Ruger product that appeared to be so "rough".  Based on my experience today, I'll keep my 629-5 and the rest of my Smith revolvers.

Put on your asbestos underwear the angry Ruger owners are inbound.

Man I consider myself a Ruger fan.  Both my moose and bear guns are Ruger M77s.  I did not want to part w/ my GP 100, but I could not pass up the trade for a no lock Smith.  I want to replace the GP, but if the quality of the Ruger revolvers I experienced today are indicative of the entire lot, then I fear I will have to go without.

They smooth either by use or by gunsmith...but S&W actions have always been superior.

There's plenty of fanboyism on both sides, but we choose either the one we like or can afford. S&W guys like to think they have the better gun. Ruger guys think they have something just as good or better for less.

There are a LOT of Ruger would be gunsmiths out there doing action jobs on their own guns.

As a guy who owns a number of Rugers and S&Ws, IMO, the Smith tends to be a bit better out of the box. Even so, any new revo gets taken apart, cleaned and the action smoothed. I also tend to play with springs and recut the forcing cone if necessary. The MIM parts of the Smith can sometimes be a bit rougher in surface texture, but they smooth up nicely. The Ruger cast parts can be rough, but they also smooth up nicely. When I am done, there really isn't much to choose between them, but out of the box, the Smith tends to be better, but not always.

You won't even be able to compare and will want to vomit when you pull the trigger on one of those recent production smiths or rugers if you buy and shoot a 1960's era or older smith.

You won't even be able to compare and will want to vomit when you pull the trigger on one of those recent production smiths or rugers if you buy and shoot a 1960's era or older smith.

The S&W quality is hit or miss.  They have put out some crap lately but not everything. I bought a new 442 Moon-clip (No lock, stainless cylinder cut moons) spring of last year.  The trigger pull is heavy (as expected on such a gun) but extremely smooth.  Fit and finish where excellent.  The big thing with new S&W revolvers right now is to only buy guns you can thoroughly inspect before purchase.  Many are good needing only the usually a little fluff and buff to make them excellent.  Others are crap.

The big thing is that a S&W in the hands of a good smith will produce a better trigger than the Ruger in the hand of an equally good smith.  The S&W trigger design just lends itself to a better trigger pull.  My 625 has a butter smooth 7lb double action trigger pull and will still ignites any primer on the market and in single action it's tough to measure but some where around 1lb 4oz to 1lb 8oz.  The trigger return spring keeps smacking the trigger pull gauge making it hard to capture the break and not the trigger return force.

I own both Ruger and S&W revolvers.  I like them both but I compete with a S&W.

That's certainly not always true. The difference is often due to decades of use.

They vary now as they always have. The new Smiths I've purchased have exceptional triggers...I just make sure it's not a dog before it comes home with me. A majority of the new gun horror stories could have been avoided with a five minute inspection.

Absolutely.  I have a little used 1949 S&W Military and Police (Model 10) that has a notably heavier trigger than either my 1976 Ruger Police Service Six or my 1978 Ruger Security Six.  

Both my Security Six and Police Service Six have very smooth triggers with a DA pull of just under 9 pounds with a 3 1/2 pound SA pull - and they are as good as my 1980 S&W Model 19, with a target hammer and trigger.

-----

On the other hand, I also had a 2014 Ruger SP101 that had a heavy and slightly gritty trigger out of the box and it needed to go back to the factory due to forcing cone issues. It's replacement had a trigger that was just as bad, although to be fair both of them cleaned up nicely with some use and new hammer  and trigger return springs.

My experience with new S&W handguns has been just as bad, and my conclusion is that no one is doing the same amount of hand fitting and QA inspection that they used to, so a very thorough pre-purchase inspection is as important with a new S&W or Ruger as it is with a used S&W or Ruger from decades past when fit and finish was better.  

My 28-2 has a better trigger then my Blackhawk. So did the 29-2 I regret selling.

I've had several different springs in my S&W 1917. It is a commercial model I assume shipped in the 1920s. Its pull (DA or SA) is ok but not great. SA is perhaps similar to the Blackhawk.

Yeah, I think it all depends on the individual piece.  

I almost bought a SP101 about a year ago that had the bobbed hammer and I thought the pull was nice.  I also tried a 637 at the same time that was soooo heavy I was like....  ?????  But then I tried a 642 at the same time and it felt like at least 3-4#'s lighter than the 637.

I have a Older Model 19 and a newer 442.  The newer 442 is heavier and less broke in, but very smooth.  It actually feels smoother than the 19, but just heavier.  Meaning with the 19 I can feel a bit more of mechanism in the pull.  With the 442 I just feel the locking arm drop at the end and then the break.  Might be the difference in the hammerless and hammer.  Which seemed like the case with the 637.  But that 637's pull was awful.  The SP101 was way better.   They were both new and that was about a year, well maybe a year and a half ago on the shelf at my LGS.

I always find it kind of interesting.  It's like they're people.  All guns, even if they are massed produced, have a little nuances that make them each different.  Obviously there are some types of guns that are a bit more consistent from one to another, but even still, I think you can always find something that makes them unique.

Like everyone always talks about how the new polymer M&P's have terrible triggers, but my Mom has a 9mm and to me that trigger is really nice.  Way nicer than the Glock I had.  But that converse may be true with two different examples.

I need to go revolver shopping with Tuco.  He will pick out a good one for me.

Ruger and S&W revolvers have slightly different double action characteristics that are typical for the action, things like hammer travel and carry-up, even weight of the cylinder come into play with different models of one maker.

The  feel and weight of the trigger pull depends on spring weight and friction and those can be easily manipulated and improved on S&W and Ruger revolvers. Imho both left a lot to be desired when coming from the factories in the past three decades.

They certainly all have their own character but all mine are very smooth in double action and light enough. The trigger pulls in single action range from 3lbs to 4.5, with my lowly 649 being the best. My sample is one N frame from 1954, two N frames from 1998, one from 2009, and two J frames from 2013..

One of my N frames had a 2.5lb pull in single with a spring kit, but the other set up the same way was a bit sluggish in the return shooting double action. Since then the spring kits have been avoided.

My little 442 feels best, oddly enough, but its also the one I've used most.

I've encountered some rough actions at the gun counter from all manufacturers but wouldn't take such guns home for myself.

I think these days Smith and Ruger are pretty similar for pull weights, but the Ruger action doesn't feel as refined. The LCR is a light pull and tends to be pretty smooth. ETA: The S&W Bodyguard 38 is a match for the LCR, though I'm not a fan of that gun overall. The large frame revolvers tend to simply suck compared to the competition. SP101 and GP100 revolvers are okay for weight but tend to have a bit of "grit."

The S&W's tend to be quite good throughout the line with a complete lemon thrown out there from time to time.

I was shocked at how "tin-E" ruger triggers feel even the vanquero it's not that it stages funny and there seems very little creep or over travel in the ruger triggers but the weakness you feel in the parts as they engage when you run it through in SA  it just feels loose and tin-e but my smiths are almost all pre 19070 wvcept for a few mid 90s

Grab a cylinder from this gun, frame from this one...



He'll fix you up good.



 

I forgot to add the new 686 I fondled around the same time as I did all those others.  It was a 4" and it struck me as one of the best DA trigger pulls I've felt.  Brand new, box stock from the factory.  Maybe the extra heft made it felt better???  IDK.  

The double action on my Super Redhawk with a Bowen action job is just about the best I have ever felt.  The single action is now on par with the crispness as a smith but maybe not as light at 3.5lbs.

You articulated my experience with both of the Red Hawks I looked at the other day.  It felt like the internal parts on each revolver were "springy/springish" and rubbing against each other. Working the action did not feel natural.  Working the action on both revolvers felt like the internals were going to bind up.  Now my old style Vaquero does not feel that way at all.  Working my Vaquero's action feels a bit different than working the action on my other two Smith revolvers, but the Vaquero is smooth...not "clunky" at all.

rugers triggers dont feel the best to me either but they have other pros i like that there frames are thick and heavy they take powerful hand loads well
i like to think of them as tanks, big, beefy, and can take on anything

smiths are something different there more trim and clean more smooth in look and action

pros and cons i say pros and cons