How important is disassembly?

[JoshuaS]

Had a good discussion with a friend over whether Ruger or Smith & Wesson made better revolvers. The short of it is we both agreed on the strong points of each (e.g. SW has a shorter trigger pull on DA revolvers, Ruger is more rugged). But what was interesting was how we prioritized differences. To me, on a gun I will shoot a lot or plan on taking backpacking, etc, I especially favor ease of disassembly, hence the Ruger has a major + for me there. The SP101 and GP100, other than removing the grip screw require no tools to take down pretty far. But the SW has screws, and a side plate. It is more intricate.

It strikes me as similar to why some like Glocks (though I personally find XDs, M&Ps, and Ruger SR's easier to disassemble... but hey I have one good hand rather than two and depressing one thing while holding the slide back just a little with the same hand is hard)

So just how much weight do you guys place on the ease of disassembly/maintenance versus other factors, like trigger, or finish, etc?

Or do you think, for a gun you rely on for a practical purpose, that one should readily sacrifice that ease for better features in shooting it (like trigger pull)?

[davidb]

The whole ease of disassembly thing never caught on with me, I enjoy taking my weapons apart and aside from a simple field strip, full disassembly only needs to be done once every few years

The only gun I really hated the disassembly on was a savage 64 .22 rifle

Tool-less field strip is nice if you need to clean at blm or something, but I don't care if tools are needed for complete disassembly...and honestly if a tool makes the job easier in field striping, I use it whether I need it or not(ie.brass punches on things like a Ruger mk or ar's takedown pins)

[GunHo]

The 2 piece guide rod on my SA LT 1911 9mm requires an allen wrench for disassemble. That to me was an issue so I dropped another $30 bucks for a 1 piece Wilson Combat guide rod to fix that deal.

The only gun I really hated the disassembly on was a savage 64 .22 rifle

Ya, I have the Savage 64 TRR and that took some time to disassemble.

[dyson]

Not very high on the list, but you do notice it. Sig P series are pretty easy.

[daybreak]

Not high on my list either, but it also depends what i'm using it for. The need to disassemble in the field is probably extremely low, and I have all the tools i'll need to do it at home.

When I first started with firearms, I bought into the "simplest is best in case you're in a SHTF scenario" or "if SHTF you don't want to have to think about XYZ". But realistically i'll NEVER be under those circumstances. So why put up with a crappy trigger just because the gun is supposedly reliable and easy to maintain? After shooting a few competitions, my priorities have changed for both competition and HD use. I want a gun that I can shoot the fastest and most accurately, and those end up being my competition guns.

This may not be a popular opinion at all, but I am not scared of a lighter trigger in an HD scenario. In an HD scenario, to me it makes the most sense to reach for the gun you have the most time behind. The way I see it, I want a gun that I shoot the best, because if that time ever comes, I want to do my best.

EDIT: dissassemble vs field strip.

[3RDGEARGRNDRR]

Armorer level disassembly should almost be a moot point. Field stripping however is very important and best case scenario needs no tools in case of weapon failure.
Trigger pull and ergonomics are top priority to me. Cost is the last of the big 3 considerations I would assume.
I find the smith much easier to service(less parts, simpler system) than the Rugers,
however Rugers pop apart easily depending on the tension of the trigger rebound spring.

You still need the rod to push the trigger guard latch on Rugers, no its not technically toolless. Also you will need various punches and paperclips to hold everything in place with the pins out. Not so with the Smith

[JoshuaS]

When I first started with firearms, I bought into the "simplest is best in case you're in a SHTF scenario" or "if SHTF you don't want to have to think about XYZ". But realistically i'll NEVER be under those circumstances. So why put up with a crappy trigger just because the gun is supposedly reliable and easy to maintain? After shooting a few competitions, my priorities have changed for both competition and HD use. I want a gun that I can shoot the fastest and most accurately, and those end up being my competition guns.

That actually makes a lot of sense. Of course there is a difference between home defense and say CCW. But other than safety concerns, why wouldn't you want what you shoot best I suppose.


I currently have a couple of Ruger revolvers. Definitely sticking with them for SA guns. But the conversation I had related to what bigger DA revolver to get. I have the SP101 for a snubbie. And it shoots fine, and I liked how easy it was for me to take apart (didn't need a bunch of punches either, and used a wooden stick for the trigger latch).

But there is no denying that no matter what I do to the trigger, a Smith and Wesson will be better. It certainly is what I would pick for competition. Hmm... yeah the major pluses of the Ruger were ruggedness and ability to take down. Smith has trigger pull down pat though. Cost may still be an issue though!

[daybreak]

I would go with the smith probably, but I also would not feel any less equipped with the ruger. You can't make a wrong choice in this instance.

[FeuerFrei]

Had a good discussion with a friend over whether Ruger or Smith & Wesson made better revolvers. The short of it is we both agreed on the strong points of each (e.g. SW has a shorter trigger pull on DA revolvers, Ruger is more rugged). But what was interesting was how we prioritized differences. To me, on a gun I will shoot a lot or plan on taking backpacking, etc, I especially favor ease of disassembly, hence the Ruger has a major + for me there. The SP101 and GP100, other than removing the grip screw require no tools to take down pretty far. But the SW has screws, and a side plate. It is more intricate.

It strikes me as similar to why some like Glocks (though I personally find XDs, M&Ps, and Ruger SR's easier to disassemble... but hey I have one good hand rather than two and depressing one thing while holding the slide back just a little with the same hand is hard)

So just how much weight do you guys place on the ease of disassembly/maintenance versus other factors, like trigger, or finish, etc?

Or do you think, for a gun you rely on for a practical purpose, that one should readily sacrifice that ease for better features in shooting it (like trigger pull)?

If we're talking revolvers then ease of disassembly is not important to me at all.
I rarely have a need to open the clockwork to do any routine maintenance in there. I don't shoot my revolvers much anymore so I don't have a need to detail strip them.

Semi auto pistols are different to me. I usually put 200+ rounds through a pistol when I'm practicing and clean them if they need grease/oil or if I notice something feels/looks abnormal. Putting more rounds through them means more accumulation of crap and I am harder on them so they get a little more TLC as a result. Ease of disassembly helps.

Given your limitation I would consider ease of maintenance on a pistol a higher priority than on any revolver.

[9mmepiphany]

For a revolver, ease of disassembly is very near the bottom of my priorities...because you shouldn't be taking them apart very often.

When I shot a revolver in competition, it got a compete cleaning maybe once a year...and that was shooting several thousands of rounds through it during the competition season...it just doesn't need it