This must be the only time you will ever encounter the names "Bo Derek" and "Rosie O'donnel" in the same sentance. I'm now going to have to poke out my mind's eye.Quote:
Originally Posted by ladder13
Printable View
This must be the only time you will ever encounter the names "Bo Derek" and "Rosie O'donnel" in the same sentance. I'm now going to have to poke out my mind's eye.Quote:
Originally Posted by ladder13
Now, seriously, either one will be GREAT. You'll know which one is for you when you hold them in your hand and look down the sights.
I had the same dilemma over 20 years ago, own the Smith. See you have a Smith in your avatar, why did you buy it over a competitive Ruger?
The Ruger is a much stronger revolver.I would choose it over the S&W.
I would chose the Ruger because I have a couple Smith's and like them. I held a 3" GP 100 today and it felt great with the Hogue grips and no locks on the Rugers.
686
Ruger. Not that I have anything against a Smith&W., but I woke up the other day and realized that after all this time thinking I was a Glock man, it seems a small collection of Rugers have snuck up me.
Both are guns worth having. My policy is; When in doubt buy 'em both. I love them both but having done a fair amount of shooting with both guns the 686+ gets the nod for trigger, fit and feel. Someone upthread stated that the GP100 is a much stronger gun. I don't know how he knows that but I tend to doubt it.
I had and sold a 4" gp100, something I really regret. But recently at the gunshop, got to do a side-by-side comparison of a 686 and a gp 100, both 4 inch. Smith has the trigger, for sure. But for my small hands, the slightly trimmer grips on the smith felt much better.
the ruger and rosie have alot in common, both built like tanks, both not very visually appealing in my mind. Im a smith guy, however like rosie o donnell the ruger will eat anything you feed it
I couldn't decide either so I bought both. I still want a 6" 686.
http://app.onlinephotofiler.com/Img1...6-51a1dca5fcba
http://app.onlinephotofiler.com/Img1...f-586b058c0911
come on Ruger has to lose points for haning a 50 word warning across the barrel!
Me personally I would pick the Ruger hands down.
The way I look at it, S&W is like a Cadillac, Ruger is like a built 4x4. Both have there place but I prefer a lifted jeep that can take abuse opposed to a luxury car with leather seats.
I have an escalade and it has both. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Adkjoe
The "strength" of Ruger revolvers is one of those Internet axioms that is repeated so often that it becomes a standard comment on gun blogs. I always figured that it resulted from the heavy, somewhat clunky appearance of Rugers compared to S&W revolvers - it looks like the Rugers have more steel in them, and thicker components. But whether that makes Rugers "stronger" than Smiths would probably have to be determined by some destructive testing of both brands of guns, using heavy ammo loads. What I do know is that I have never broken a S&W revolver, and I own 12 of them. I think that S&W revolvers are strong enough for any practical use I can think of.Quote:
Originally Posted by wmhawth