Ruger vs Rossi revolver for defense?

Ruger makes some of the toughest revolvers in existence today.

If holding up in less than ideal conditions is your concern, get a Ruger.

While the price tag of the Rossi is attractive, they get too many bad reviews for me to trust my life to one.

http://www.gun-tests.com/issues/20_1/features/Snub...

Let's face it, many hundreds of thousands of people buy a revolver for a bedside gun, usually in response to some event in their neighborhood. Once a year they take it out and fire a hundred rounds through it. For these folks, a Taurus/Rossi is probably appropriate assuming they shoot it enough when they first get it to be sure it functions properly. I know many people that have a Rossi or Charter Arms or a Taurus .38 snub for many years and are very happy with it under the above scenario.

Anybody that would be classified as an "enthusiast", even a casual one, will shoot much much more. I shoot 2-3 times a month, and will go through 300-400 rounds a month in .38/.357 plus some rimfire. I shoot less in winter months, but still I'll shoot close to 5000 rounds a year. If I only had one gun, and it was a Rossi, it would probably be shot out in less than two years. The Ruger could probably go six, and then still be worth repairing.

For me, the Ruger would be the better value. Also a used Rossi sell for very little. If you own it long enough you'll probably turn a profit on the Ruger, regardless of how much you use it.

Rugers last and last Rossi revolvers don’t; under hard use.

I you just want some protection there are all sorts of revolvers out there that will do the job. It’s when you start shooting them a lot and or use hot +P ammo that the better made revolvers are worth the extra cost.

So if you only target practice a few times a year and go through just a couple hundred rounds of standard loads that Rossi will do. But if you fire off a few thousand rounds a year, that Rossi will develop problems over time. I have some Rugers and S&W revolvers that have fired well over 10,000 rounds. Try that with a Rossi and it will be junk in no time.

I do like some of their rifles. However although their quality has improved with revolvers since the early 1990s its still sub par to me.

I have owned cheap revolvers many times when I was young. It sucks when they go out of time and start shaving off the bullet, spitting jacket and lead out the side of the forcing cone.

I own a Ruger SP-101 .38 Special. I like it very much and have no regrets.

I would be willing to buy a Ruger GP-100 for the home defense purposes you mention.

Rossi revolvers are not my first choice. But, as a "seldom used but often stored" revolver, the Rossi may be okay.

It may be wiser to purchase a revolver of higher quality that is in used condition. Used examples of Ruger GP-100's are available. Or you could find a Smith & Wesson that meets your criteria.

By the way, what do you think are the "less than ideal conditions" that a revolver must survive in order to meet your approval?

Rossi Revolvers

People talkcrap about Rossi, but only because ruger is well known combined with Rossi being crap. To say they are better now than in the past is like saying you're the tallest midget. They are the bottom of the line made by a company who is almost bottom of the barrel.

If cost is the biggest factor in your choice, the Rossi will do.

It is not a well made as the GP-100. It is not as accurate as the GP-100 at longer ranges, but inside the house the Rossi's accuracy is generally acceptable. The GP-100 is more reliable. And the GP-100 is far more durable.

If you are a serious gun crank, it would be a waste of money for you to buy a Rossi. A GP-100 will be going strong thousands of rounds after a Rossi is battered into junk.

Current Rossi revolvers are several orders of magnitude better than the cheap junk they marketed in the 1970's and 1980's. When Rossi became a subsidiary of Taurus, quality increased dramatically, but it is still a bargain basement Taurus, not a Ruger.

So, if you are going to shoot more than a couple of hundred rounds per year, you should get a GP-100, it will save you money in the long run.

Doc Hudson

I have owned both guns, I like Amercain made stuff thats why I would say go with Ruger that has a warranty and if something were to break you call the factory and they pay the shipping. As in Rossi made in Brazil like Tuarus and smith and Wesson and Springfield armroy they are made down there and don't have the poclicy were you send it and and they pay the shipping and fix it. I prefer Ruger but I sold mine for a 1911 well before Ruger started making them.

You're going to hear people sh*tting all over the Rossi because Ruger is the better known brand. But I've owned 2 Ruger double-actions and wasn't impressed at all. I never owned the GP-100. But if it is anything like the Red Hawk line, the accuracy is bearable, but not great. I own a Rossi 2" .357 snubbie and LOVE it. The fit and finish is excellent (although I will give credit where credit is due... the Rugers usually have near flawless fit and finish), it's more accurate than the 6" Red Hawk revolvers I've had and the price can't be beat. The Rossi is the far better value. But if name recognition is that important to you, save a little more and get a Smith & Wesson. The Rugers just aren't worth the cash in my opinion.

Sp101 Vs Gp100