Revolver Sticker Shock


PDA






Confederate
March 30, 2010, 01:19 AM
I was in a gun shop today and saw a S&W 686 priced at $909. Next to me was a fellow filling out paperwork for a Ruger GP-100 which had a price tag of $680.

I was astounded at the prices and the price difference. Having a 4-inch Security-Six, I also was surprised that the GP-100 felt like a frickin' boat anchor! (What was Ruger thinking when they made the thing so heavy?)

But the prices are what floored me. The suggested retail is $701.

Back when I bought my first Ruger .357 years ago, I recall that a new Security-Six stainless went for $169. The fascinating thing is that a used stainless Security-Six back then sold for almost the same amount. The gun I bought had been slightly used, but had a nice set of wood grips with them. The price was the same as a new gun with skinny grips. I checked other gun stores and discovered the same thing, so it wasn't unusual.

Now, used guns (A+) can go for $200 or more less than a new gun. Trade-ins back then could be reasonably done, but now dealers are like car dealers.

Some of the reasons for this include the massive amounts of paperwork, federal and state laws and taxes; however, if this continues, I foresee dealers becoming little more than tranfer agents with people buying from each other and from mail order places. Maybe it needs to happen.

Thunderbolt .22LR ammo was selling for $5 for a box of 50 rounds! This is stuff I won't even put through my guns because it's so dirty and unreliable.

I live in Maryland, which is one of the most hideous states in the Union.

Please tell me things aren't like this everywhere! Why I left my beloved Virginia is beyond me. I must have been nuts!

If you enjoyed reading about "Revolver Sticker Shock" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
wow6599
March 30, 2010, 01:42 AM
I agree that the Ruger GP is "big", but it's only 3 or 4 ounces heavier (IIRC) than the 686....I have both. I would say that the shop you were at had the Ruger priced about $150 more than most and the S&W about $225 to high.
JMO though.

Nick5182
March 30, 2010, 01:45 AM
I know at the local store here I can get a New Stainless GP100 for 499...I don't know about a smith...

Guillermo
March 30, 2010, 01:46 AM
unless you want a high tech material, new revolvers are inferior to old revolvers in every way.

Besides, giving money to Smith and Clinton is like paying Sarah Brady.

And a used Ruger is a much better deal than a new one.

BullfrogKen
March 30, 2010, 01:48 AM
Oh. Well it's Maryland. What do you expect? The "Board" and all.


There were several reasons I left the "Old Line" State, but gun control was at the top of the list. Seriously.


Used to be a revolver cost less than a semi-automatic of comparable quality. Those days seem to be gone.

gunnutery
March 30, 2010, 02:08 AM
Sounds like that dealer was smoking something. Both prices seemed high. S&W's are high priced to begin with but that's too much. I bought my GP100 for $450 after tax about 8 years ago, I do know the price has gone up a little but not that much.

MCgunner
March 30, 2010, 08:16 AM
I was astounded at the prices and the price difference. Having a 4-inch Security-Six, I also was surprised that the GP-100 felt like a frickin' boat anchor! (What was Ruger thinking when they made the thing so heavy?)


Yeah, I got my stainless Security Six for 189 in 1978 and my Smith M19 ran me 199 a year later. Now days, I just look. I got a deal on my two Taurus 66s used, 200 and 180. The 4" was 10 years ago, the 3" I got for 180 was 4 years ago. I really appreciate the Taurus bashers, gives me a way to buy a quality used revolver on my budget. :D I haven't checked the price on the used 66s lately, but I doubt they've gone up THAT much. I actually prefer them to that Security Six, more accurate and easier to shoot hot loads from.

The GP100 was designed for strength. Ruger got what they wanted, but at the price of weight. Yeah, I much prefer the medium frame guns like your Six for actual use. I have a 6.5" .357 Blackhawk that doesn't weigh any more than the standard full lug 4" stainless GP100. I sorta prefer the Blackhawk for hunting and outdoor uses, traded my Six for it. Awesome hunting revolver, very accurate, very rugged and strong. The Blackhawks are going up, too, though. Used to be able to find a good used one pretty cheap. I guess CAS did away with that, not sure. Oh, well, good to know my cold steel investments are beating my stocks, I mean, not that I wish to cash in on 'em or anything..

gwnorth
March 30, 2010, 09:30 AM
Around here, I see new 6" GP100's going for about $489 or so. A 6" GP100 is within about one ounce of the weight of a 686, and the dimensions of both are very near equal.

Dave T
March 30, 2010, 03:47 PM
After several years of not buying any guns I started shopping for N-framed S&Ws. I didn't want anything new, just the older stuff I first learned to shoot when I was a young man. The prices I saw on GunBroker.com and GunsAmerica.com were stunning but not as big a surprise as when I happened to visit the gun counter at the Bass Pro Shop. Saw a 4" HB S&W M10 for $640. Dang near passed out when the blood drained from my head in shock (LOL). The prices for the 4-screw and 5-screw Smiths I was seeing made a little more sense. Still too high to afford the best ones but I'll take a old one over the new stuff any day.

Dave

montess85
March 30, 2010, 04:53 PM
I payed 549 for my 6 inch GP100 about 4 months go....The smith that was next to it was 709

22-rimfire
March 30, 2010, 05:04 PM
The prices that you saw were very high even though revolvers tend to be fairly expensive.

rcmodel
March 30, 2010, 05:05 PM
Besides, giving money to Smith and Clinton is like paying Sarah Brady.What do you base that statement on?
S&W today is not even owned by the same British conglomerate that owned it when they did the dirty deed with Clinton.

Today, the management is all new, and the company is employee owned by the Americans who work there.

If you are referring to gun locks?
Part of doing business in all 50 states.
Like it or not, S&W didn't have any choice if they wanted to sell guns everywhere in the country. Including the largest population centers in the country.

rc

huntsman
March 30, 2010, 05:10 PM
$395. out the door in 1995 for a KGP141.

yes maybe they have gone up but I'm willng to pay more if it's steel so...

rswartsell
March 30, 2010, 05:12 PM
Why is it that people don't bitch about Ruger locks? Because they are not as visible?

Brian Williams
March 30, 2010, 05:27 PM
I agree that the Ruger GP is "big", but it's only 3 or 4 ounces heavier (IIRC) than the 686..
Ruger
KGP-141 1705
.357 Mag. 6
Stainless Steel
Adjustable sights
4.20" barrel
9.50" overall
40.00 oz.

S&W
SKU: 164222
Model: 686
Caliber: .357MAG/.38+P
Capacity: 6 Rounds
Barrel Length: 4"
Front Sight: Red Ramp Front
Rear Sight: White Outline Adjustable Rear
Grip: Rubber Grips
Frame: Medium
Finish: Satin Stainless
Overall Length: 9 5/8"
Material: Stainless Steel
Weight Empty: 40 oz.

Same - Same but different

Guillermo
March 30, 2010, 06:22 PM
not wanting to hijack but the Smith lock is an idiotic design that is PART OF THE ACTION. In addition it works on the same axis as the recoil of the gun. It is one of the stupidest designs ever devised by a major gun manufacturer.


Yes, it is true that they have changed hands but the signs of their capitulation is clearly visible on the side of each of their guns.

So swerving back to the OP, the older guns (unless you care about ultra light materials) are superior in every way and better deals.

Blue Brick
March 30, 2010, 06:52 PM
Why is it that people don't bitch about Ruger locks? Because they are not as visible?

The GP100 has a lock?????

DT Guy
March 30, 2010, 07:01 PM
And Ruger is STILL owned by the company that Bill Ruger headed; you remember Bill 'no citizen needs a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds' Ruger, right?

I'll take Smith-they at least disavowed their error.

Larry

mesinge2
March 30, 2010, 07:04 PM
My shop has a 686-1 for 499.89 and I bought a Security-Six there for $325:

118737


But I changed my grips:


118738

MCgunner
March 30, 2010, 07:56 PM
Why is it that people don't bitch about Ruger locks? Because they are not as visible?

Perhaps because they don't have a reputation for turning themselves on without the key while shooting? I don't know, just sayin'. :D

gwnorth
March 30, 2010, 08:05 PM
Also because none of Rugers double action revolvers actually have an internal lock. Of the single action models that have them (they are in the grip frame under the grips) the model numbers with an "L" in them have the internal lock.

TexasBill
March 31, 2010, 07:01 PM
I remember when a brand-new S&W Model 10 went for just under $100.00 at list price. $78.50 was the police price. A Colt Python was $200.00. Of course, that was 40 years ago. Back then you could by a brand-new car for $1600. The increase in both types of price seems to be about the same. The real problem is that most incomes haven't kept pace with the cost of living. To have the same purchasing power that it did in 1970, the current minimum wage would need to be about $9.22/hour.

I have a couple of modern S&W revolvers with the lock. It doesn't bother me, hasn't accidentally engaged in thousands of rounds of shooting. Both guns are well made with good triggers. I have enough gun issues to be concerned about to worry about something that happened in the Clinton Administration.

Guillermo
March 31, 2010, 07:11 PM
I'll take Smith-they at least disavowed their error

when did they do that?

Even if this is true, they still have a lock that is PART OF THE ACTION OR THE GUN

So they did nothing to fix their "error"

that is like saying "sorry I stole your car...I am keeping it"

Vonderek
March 31, 2010, 07:14 PM
It's useless to compare prices today to prices 30 or 40 years ago. That $189 in 1978 is the same as $628 today. Here's a handy inflation calculator so you all don't feel so bad about the cost of guns today: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

calaverasslim
March 31, 2010, 07:16 PM
I paid $450 for Like New M57 Pinned & ressesed. No, not years ago, but last year. Gunbroker. Shocked me no end.

rswartsell
April 2, 2010, 02:46 AM
From the Ruger website;

"The State of Maryland has mandated that all pistols and revolvers manufactured on or after January 1, 2003 must have an “integrated mechanical safety device” to be legally available for sale in Maryland. As a result, beginning in 2004, newly designed and manufactured Ruger pistols will be equipped with internal locks."

Go get 'em IL activists.

Cosmoline
April 2, 2010, 04:12 AM
Ruger is not owned by a dead man. Get over it already.

Anyway I've had great results with the revolvers Bill came up with. Of the newer ones, I do like the SP-101 but find the GP's too clunky.

Prices are actually on par or cheaper in real dollars than they were a generation ago.

Guillermo
April 2, 2010, 09:34 AM
RS WART

I suspect that you are misunderstanding on purpose so as to stir the pot

harmon rabb
April 2, 2010, 10:02 AM
your store is too expensive. buds has gp100's for $470-$500, 686's for $670-$700.

hey, wth, when did 686's go up in price so much? a year and a half ago i was looking at one at gander mountain, and they wanted $550 for it. had i known they'd go up in price like that, i'd have bought one! :mad:

i own a gp100 and love it though.

aka108
April 2, 2010, 10:24 AM
I bought a brand new S&W k-22 in 1950 or 51. Was all of 65 dollars back then. Talk about sticker shock. 75 cents an hour was good wage for a kid. In 1989 bought a S&W 625 in the neighborhood of 300 bucks. That represented about 1.5 days of work. So, in some cases while they cost more in dollars today they cost less in time worked to earn the price. Still high no matter what.

Old Fuff
April 2, 2010, 10:28 AM
"The State of Maryland has mandated that all pistols and revolvers manufactured on or after January 1, 2003 must have an “integrated mechanical safety device” to be legally available for sale in Maryland. As a result, beginning in 2004, newly designed and manufactured Ruger pistols will be equipped with internal locks."


As I remember that statute was quickly modified when the Democrats in the Legislature learned that Beretta, who had a large factory there, was thinking of moving to a more gun-friendly state. Beretta handguns did not have internal locks, and apparently they had no intention of adding them. :uhoh:

While the legislators might have despised handguns, they dearly loved the jobs the factory created, and the tax money they collected from it. :eek:

Suddenly external locks were found to be satisfactory...

Unfortunately there are far too few handgun makers that have Beretta’s internal fortitude. :banghead:

MifflinKid
April 2, 2010, 10:49 AM
Old Fuff,

As I recall, the legislation specified that after 31 Dec, 2002 all handguns had to be supplied with a lock. It was the Maryland State Police regulations that created the 'integrated mechanical safety' requirement.

In addition to Beretta's threat, there was a University of Maryland professor who filed a law suit seeking to over turn the MSP regulation as it went beyond the letter of the law.

Shortly after the law suit was filed, the MSP rewrote the regulation to allow external locks to satisfy the laws.

Now we need to get rid of the useless and expensive shell case 'fingerprint' system and the bizarre Handgun Roster Board.

rswartsell
April 2, 2010, 01:08 PM
You can suspect whatever you want, I'm not trying to stir any pot. I was looking at the Ruger website (when considering purchase of an SP101) and saw the attached, if indeed this changed in 2002 then Ruger website suffers from some serious neglect. Try it yourself go to the website, select Safety Information from the top menu then select Safe Storage and Locking.

I have also seen photos of keys actuating integrated locks at the rear of exposed hammers on (I believe Taurus?) revolvers that never get mentioned with the ravings of Smith & Wesson critics. There has been a firestorm of emotional reactions to the Smith lock and the predictions of wholesale failure of the design has never materialized beyond some anecdotal accounts of scandium or other lightweight frames. Bullet jump appears to be a more common problem.

I don't own a Ruger and can only trust what Ruger tells me. If the Ruger IL never materialized then why does the website still read this way?

By the way Guillermo, I haven't been as impressed with a childish insult since I was called "Rudolph the Red Nosed" in second grade. My first initial and last name are my screenname, so I can reconnect with my second grade critics and tell them you have raised the bar on insulting creativity 45 years later. Congratulations, you must be very proud.

Onward Allusion
April 2, 2010, 01:21 PM
Um, you're old... :D

I feel the same way. I think part of the reason that revolvers are so much more expensive than semi-autos is the amount of metal in them. Just the metal alone adds significant cost to the firearm. Then there's the innards of a revolver. Then there's the economies of production. More semis are made and probably quicker too. The revolver, IMO, is a finer machine.

As for prices overall...well i remember when a box of 50 count .22's cost 0.89 but that's still probably twice what a lot of the guys on this board remember it as being.


Confederate (http://www.thehighroad.org/member.php?u=15708)
Revolver Sticker Shock

Guillermo
April 2, 2010, 01:37 PM
I'm not trying to stir any pot.

please allow me to explain the difference between the Smith IL and the Taurus lock

the Smith lock is built into the action

the Taurus lock that you mentioned is not

The Taurus lock works perpendicular to the recoil of the gun, making the possibility of the recoil engaging it as close to impossible as statistics allow

The Smith lock works not only on the same axis as the recoil but opposite direction (the gun recoils back, the lock rotates forward)

The Smith design is the most idiotic ever devised

As to your name, hey, I mess with the lyrics to songs, names, etc. Was not trying to make a little joke...guess I made it a little too small. :D Did not mean to offend and apologize

rswartsell
April 2, 2010, 02:06 PM
Guillermo,

Accepted and we are good:D,

Thanks for the IL explanation, as much of a "hot button" as the whole IL thing is, doesn't it seem odd that Ruger didn't dump this from the website? Maybe I'm the only gun nerd that reads the fine print?:cool:

P.S. Yup, I'm somewhat vintage....but it beats the other choices that were available.

Guillermo
April 2, 2010, 02:29 PM
doesn't it seem odd that Ruger didn't dump this from the website?

totally weird

I would not only dump it but have my computer weenies scour the web, wiping away all traces.

doesn't it seem odd that Ruger didn't dump this from the website?

I dunno about that...we got some SERIOUSLY nerdy folks on THR

Old Fuff
April 2, 2010, 04:00 PM
Well I can say that all the recent Ruger handgun designs based on entirely new platforms do have internal locks, but they aren't visable, and so far don't have a history of any known failures.

So why the lock? I don't think it has anything to do with laws in Maryland, and everything to with being sued into the ground by anti-gun lawyers who can bash gunmakers while making money at the same time. On too many occasions these bottom-feeders have sold gun-stupid urban juries absolute bullsqueezings for fun and profit. The lock is there for insurance against these things.

Anyone that doesn't like the Ruger lock can disable it with a shot of epoxie, or remove it altogether and not leave a visable trace. I can live with that, but I sure wish they'd get rid of the "read the book" stamping. :banghead:

rswartsell
April 2, 2010, 04:06 PM
So Fuffmeister,

If I buy the SP101 I will get an internal lock? Keys and a port somewhere to wind it up? Would that be under the grip panels?

P.S. I assume it is a part of the action, just not aligned with the recoil impulse?

Guillermo
April 2, 2010, 04:21 PM
SP101 never had an internal lock

if they added one it is recent

(btw, he likes to be called "Fluffy")

rswartsell
April 2, 2010, 04:21 PM
Well a quick web search has shown Gunblast talking about the Mk III IL under the safety switch, centerfire semi auto's with them, talk about SBH with IL located under the grips, nothing about GP100 or SP101. Curiously the blued SBH has them and the stainless do not (at least at the time of someone's web post). It seems pretty clear that they are or were gradually phasing in.

Old Fuff
April 2, 2010, 04:33 PM
Well for the moment if you buy a Ruger SP-101 you won't get a lock because its an older platform. :)

But if you buy a new LCR you will... :(

Actually the Ruger lock doesn't bother me because it's under the stocks, and if you want to use it you (or someone) has to drill a small hole through one panel. So far I haven't met anyone who ever did. :evil:

What it does is block the mainspring strut when it's turned on. This sort of thing has been around for decades since it was first introduced by Harrington & Richardson. Recoil forces have absolutely no affect on it. It is not hard to disable, but so far I see no reason too do it, and if you do your warrantee is gone.

While it is a very rare occurance, S&W locks have been known to self-lock, and while they also can be removed or disabled, they leave an ugly reminder on the side of the frame.

The Taurus lock has a spotless reputation. They offered S&W free use of it, but the latter company was apparently too proud to accept.

RebelRabbi
April 2, 2010, 04:37 PM
Wholesale on a used 686 is $270.00. Somebody is getting it in the backdoor on that deal.

Old Fuff
April 2, 2010, 04:37 PM
(btw, he likes to be called "Fluffy")

Boy... You is in serious danger. Texas isn't that far away from Arizona, and my hacksaw loves Detective Special hammer spurs... and trigger guards... :evil:

Guillermo
April 2, 2010, 04:38 PM
They offered S&W free use of it, but the latter company was apparently too stupid to accept.

I fixed it for you

Guillermo
April 2, 2010, 04:39 PM
Boy... You is in serious danger

whatever you say Fluffmeister

Confederate
April 2, 2010, 09:10 PM
I'm not aware of any issues regarding S&W locks causing the failure of the guns to fire.

What's really strange about this entire issue is that while new guns are selling for astronomical prices, the blue book writers are, I think, intentionally under-valuing used revolvers, many of which, in the case of S&W, are made of better materials and exhibit superior craftsmanship. Only dealers put any stock in them, and they essentially use them to rip-off people wanting to trade in or sell their guns. Certainly individual sellers on auction boards aren't buying into them.

The cost of materials does figure in to the prices of revolvers, like everything else. The plastic pistols ensure that great autos like the 2nd and 3rd generation Smiths are gone for good. And as long as Smith and Ruger watches the tolerances on their revolvers, they will be highly sought.

Ruger, sadly, has a reputation for "clunk." The GP-100s suffer from it, as does the SP-101 and Ruger's autos, all of which look like they were made in the Soviet Union. (The S&W 459/559/659 suffered a bit from clunk, but they quickly fixed that with the next generation -- I still love it, though!) The Rugers work, and work well, but they're like bricks. The GP-100 could be improved by being offered in tapered barrels, especially in 6-inch barrels, but Ruger apparently feels that they wouldn't sell. It was Bill Jordan who argued for smaller, lighter magnums that could be easily carried into the field.

.

Guillermo
April 2, 2010, 10:08 PM
'm not aware of any issues regarding S&W locks causing the failure of the guns to fire

really?

HexHead
April 2, 2010, 10:18 PM
Unfortunately there are far too few handgun makers that have Beretta’s internal fortitude. :banghead:


Or Army contract.

shockwave
April 2, 2010, 10:18 PM
Any competent gunsmith can remove the S&W lock and replace the key slot with a matching metal insert. Owners with good tools can do this at home. It's not a big deal. They do this all the time.

Old Fuff
April 2, 2010, 10:27 PM
Ruger's double-action revolvers are unquestionably overbuilt - on purpose. They keep ticking when others give up. The heavy underlug barrels got started with the Colt Python, and were fearured as being necessary to dampen magnum recoil. I don't like them either, but they provide still another reason to buy older guns that don't have them. :neener:

When I got to meet some of them, I was surprised about how the top brass at many gun companies knew so little about the products they made. Bill Ruger was an exception, but he was firm in his opinion that Magnum revolvers had to be heavy, and have long barrels. When he tried to cut himself a piece of the law enforcement market he soon learned otherwise.

Guillermo
April 2, 2010, 10:46 PM
any competent gunsmith can remove the S&W lock and replace the key slot with a matching metal insert

any competent mechanic can remove the 4 cylinder from a Miata and insert a Ford V-8. That such is possible does not make it a supercar until the deed is done.

That one can remove the idiotic lock does not make the Smith a decent gun...until the gunsmith does the job.

FoMoGo
April 2, 2010, 11:20 PM
Actually, anyone who is competent with a screwdriver can remove the lock and install a plug.
Any newer smith I own gets an immediate lockectomy.


Jim

Guillermo
April 2, 2010, 11:40 PM
Any newer smith I own gets an immediate lockectomy

isn't that similar to the difference between liposuction and implants in Clay Aiken versus a real live 30 year old Sophia?

FoMoGo
April 3, 2010, 12:29 AM
Lipo, implants and reassignment surgery...


Jim

Guillermo
April 3, 2010, 12:57 AM
Lol


;)

Confederate
April 3, 2010, 12:59 AM
I'm not aware of any reliabiity isssues regarding internal locks. If anyone can speak to the contrary, please leave a more cogent answer than "Really?"

As far as I know, all one need do is unlock it and store the keys in the box.

If Bill Ruger was really committed to large .357s, then why the Security-Six? It seems that the SS was designed to compete with the 19/66 Smith. The GP-100, conversely, seems to compete with the 586/686. I'd say that someone at Ruger seems more interested in letting S&W call the shots and then playing catch-up. That's pretty sad.

I think the GP-100 feels like a boat anchor, but then, I've owned a number of "Six" revolvers for years. Maybe the muscles in my arms and hands aren't attuned to the balance and weight of the GP-100s -- I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt to the newer gun. I'd just like people who are unfamiliar with the old and new to handle both and render a verdict. It's possible I'm wrong, but I think it's no contest.

Jonah71
April 3, 2010, 10:43 AM
unless you want a high tech material, new revolvers are inferior to old revolvers in every way.

Besides, giving money to Smith and Clinton is like paying Sarah Brady.

And a used Ruger is a much better deal than a new one.
Amen!

Old Fuff
April 3, 2010, 11:18 AM
I'm not aware of any reliability issues regarding internal locks. If anyone can speak to the contrary, please leave a more cogent answer than "Really?"

The Smith & Wesson lock has been a hot topic on this forum. Use the search feature and you will find endless threads on the issue – for and against. Some contain factual documentation and links to lock failures. Admittedly they’re not many, but in a defensive weapon I prefer a record of zero concerning such incidents.

As far as I know, all one need do is unlock it and store the keys in the box.

That will work around 99.999999999999% of the time, but since there are documented cases of S&W locks self-locking or otherwise failing some folks (including the Old Fuff) prefer a revolver with no lock, in which lock failure is 0.000000000%. So far as I’m concerned these locks are an unnecessary gadget that I don’t need or want. I agree that most users couldn’t care less.

If Bill Ruger was really committed to large .357s, then why the Security-Six? It seems that the SS was designed to compete with the 19/66 Smith. The GP-100, conversely, seems to compete with the 586/686. I'd say that someone at Ruger seems more interested in letting S&W call the shots and then playing catch-up. That's pretty sad.

Most of Bill Ruger’s designs copied a popular exterior look with improved internals. In other words he built a better mousetrap, that was less expensive then ones offered by competitors. Both Smith & Wesson’s K-frame .357 Magnums and the Ruger counterpart “Security” models came out at a time when law enforcement tended to carry magnum ammunition but train/practice with .38 Specials. When this changed to “training with what you carry,” both products proved to be a bit on the light side for the job, although the Ruger stood up better. Both companies then came out with new, larger “no compromise” models for the same reason. Personally I prefer the lighter revolvers too, but I don’t shoot endless amounts of highest-end Magnum cartridges through them. If I did… Well that’s why I have a GP-100. It’s hardly used though.

;)

buck460XVR
April 3, 2010, 11:24 AM
I was in a gun shop today and saw a S&W 686 priced at $909. Next to me was a fellow filling out paperwork for a Ruger GP-100 which had a price tag of $680.

Yep, prices are up. But then that's true of most things. The price of that new car most of us take to the gun shop has risen as much as the price of guns.....not to mention the gas and maintenance for the same. Some pay $12 a month to listen to the radio on the way there, when it always used to be free. The owner of the gun shop is gone on vacation and has his son-in law working there now.....and of course he'd never work there for the pittance that his F-I-L did for years. Sad part is, when one buys that $900 gun, it costs him $40 a box to feed it. Of course, when a gun manufacturer tries to cut costs by using MIM parts or less handfitting, the internet whiners come out in droves, and the SHTF..

I also was surprised that the GP-100 felt like a frickin' boat anchor! (


I always believed that was what they were originally designed for and from my experience, they still work quite well in that application.:D


not wanting to hijack but.....

Then why did you? Why is it everytime the faintest glimpse of a revolver thread comes up, some folks hafta come out and trash the whole thread with their Internal Lock bashing? Same folks using the same ol' lame excuse. Get over it. The issue is a non-issue for the majority of gun owners and the majority of us are fed up with the constant bashing and rebashing of the same subject over and over. Guess what Guillermo, any of us that have been here more than a month know how you feel on the subject. Can we please move on and get back to what is relevant to this thread?

Guillermo
April 3, 2010, 12:07 PM
Guess what Guillermo, any of us that have been here more than a month know how you feel on the subject

Confederate didn't even know that the lock was an issue so I think that I am justified in pointing it out

I do not believe that it is a "non-issue for the majority of gun owners" as you do. Many just suck it up and buy it anyway because they are

A-uninformed enough to think that a new Smith lives up the the reputation built up by old Smiths

B-there is not another premium revolver manufacturer (sorry guys, Taurus and Charter are "economy brands)

C-drink the hyper-lightweight koolaid

D- are into 454-460 or 500 which are new creations

So Buck, while this is a non issue for you (judging from your screen name for reason D) many of us feel very strongly. And I am not the only one. Look at post # 58.

We all can't be as diplomatic as Old Fuff who does a really elegant "Internal Lock Soft Shoe" that Fred Astaire couldn't match.

MCgunner
April 3, 2010, 12:17 PM
any competent gunsmith can remove the S&W lock and replace the key slot with a matching metal insert

I'm not a gunsmith, but I am a small engine mechanic. Lawn tractors and zero turns have many safety interlock switches, but I will NOT MODIFY one, no way in heck, no how, no matter how useless I think it is, for a customer. I don't wanna be liable when some baffoon that can't change his own oil runs over his foot because the seat interlock got modified. Nope, not me! I'd think gunsmiths would take a similar stand if they want to remain solvent and in business.

Guillermo
April 3, 2010, 12:22 PM
Lawn tractors and zero turns have many safety interlock switches

will you kick the governor up a little. My neighbor and I race our tractors and I am giving up about 20 lbs on him and I need a little more acceleration coming out of the corners :D

buck460XVR
April 3, 2010, 12:41 PM
So Buck, while this is a non issue for you (judging from your screen name for reason D) many of us feel very strongly. And I am not the only one.


......and I have no problem with that. You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that. But again, the constant hijacking of revolver threads regardless of topic, to inject you distaste for the Smith locks, is not only unnecessary, but rude and inappropriate, and always ends up taking away any from the whole thread.

Guillermo
April 3, 2010, 12:47 PM
Buck,

The thread was concerning the purchase of new revolvers and their prices. Since Smith and Clinton put the lock on their new revolvers it is a valid topic.

When discussing muzzle loading black powder guns and I bring up the IL (and yes...it is possible :evil:) slapping me back in line is justified

MCgunner
April 3, 2010, 01:01 PM
will you kick the governor up a little. My neighbor and I race our tractors and I am giving up about 20 lbs on him and I need a little more acceleration coming out of the corners

Being 190 (at the time) and racing 125s in CMRA ( http://www.cmraracing.com ) and minis in CMRA and TMGP ( http://www.tmgps.8k.com ), I feel your pain. However, I found if I just rode harder, I could keep up, even win, well, on the minis on little kart tracks, anyway. That 125 on big tracks kinda frustrated me. :D

Now, you could put a stronger spring on that governor, just don't come crying to me when all the over-reving blows the con rod on the crank. :D I'll fix it for you, for a price. Hey, horsepower ain't free! You wanna win, don't ya? :D

Guillermo
April 3, 2010, 01:22 PM
horsepower ain't free!

true. Maybe after I blow it up you can lighten the flywheel, aluminium connecting rods, raise the compression ratio. I need a lower ratio in the differential for a good launch out of the corners. Independent suspension would help and bigger brakes so that I can really dive-bomb the corners.

And remove the internal lock

(maybe buck is right...I do bring it up all the time :neener: )

MCgunner
April 4, 2010, 11:04 PM
Well, I pull safety interlocks on my OWN mowers and if I was so drunk I stumbled into a gun shop and bought a new smith and wesson, I'd disable THAT lock, I guess, I mean, if I kept it for ME. :D

bigger brakes so that I can really dive-bomb the corners

That's called "trail braking" where I come from. How about a transplanted motor, say GSXR1000? You could kick your neighbor's butt and get the lawn mowed in no time! :D

Guillermo
April 4, 2010, 11:12 PM
I would get WHAT IS LEFT OF THE LAWN mowed in no time!

Kentucky_Rifleman
April 5, 2010, 01:25 AM
Sorry to hijack the thread from lawn mower racing, BUT back to the OP's question... :evil:

Please tell me things aren't like this everywhere! Why I left my beloved Virginia is beyond me. I must have been nuts!

Things aren't that bad everywhere. I'm not sure they're as bad anywhere except maybe California or Mass. - maybe Illinois :)

I live in Kentucky - land of the free, home of the armed - and I bought a used (95% condition) S&W model 66 .357 (stainless), 4 inch barrel last month for 350.00 from a dealer whose shop I frequent.

He was asking 425.00, and I definitely got the "valued customer" discount, (I think he sold it to me for what he had in it) but that seemed very reasonable to me. I see a lot of used S&Ws and Rugers hereabouts for 350.00-450.00 or so. I did choke a bit on paying 700.00 for my Model 29 .44 last week, but it is the 29-2 series, 6 inch barrel with the presentation box and all of the factory papers and in 99% condition. I can't whine too much. :rolleyes:

Whenever you get tired of Maryland, you should consider moving to Kentucky. "RC Colas, Moon Pies, and Archie Comics. We're not real bright, but we know how to have a good time."

KR

MCgunner
April 5, 2010, 10:17 AM
Sorry to hijack the thread from lawn mower racing, BUT back to the OP's question...

Shucks,, an' I was cutting a deal on an engine.....:neener:

On subject, around here, prices can vary greatly shop to shop around here. I know one shop that's ridiculous, don't see how they sell anything, considering their pricing compared to a shop just up the street! If the guy was hurting, I reckon he'd drop the pricing some, though. His shelves have been kind of sparse, so maybe it's a supply and demand thing. Kinda reminds me of walking into a Harley shop 10 years ago. Supplies seem to be coming back, though. I'm even finding LCPs and other small .380s at some of the box stores like Academy, now.

Fishman777
April 6, 2010, 10:47 AM
Ruger does not and has never used internal locks on *any* of their Double action revolvers. Period. Some of their single action revolvers and rimfires have them, but none of the double actions have them, nor have they ever had them in the past. Look at the catalog. The guns with locks are clearly identified.

I think that the confusion here is over Ruger's triple locking cylinder. On Smith and Wesson revolvers, there are two true locking point, at the bottom of the cylinder and at the rear of the cyliner. Smith and Wesson revolvers use the ejector rod as a third locking point at the front of the cylinder. This is not a particularly strong locking mechanism. I've heard of bent ejector rods and ejector rods that have actually unscrewed.

Most Ruger DA revolvers (Redhawk, GP100, Super Redhawk, SP101) have three true locks to maintain cylinder/barrel alignment. They have the standard two (the bottom and the back of the cylinder). They also have a third "true" locking mechanism at the front of the cylinder to maintain better barrel/cylinder alignment.

Oh, and by the way, the 686 with the 4" barrel and the GP100 with the 4.2" barrel both weigh 40 ounces. Sorry. They do "balance" a little differently.

I like both brands of revolvers, but I prefer the Rugers. The newer Smiths are not what they used to be. Rugers are a little rougher, but they are a little stronger. With a little work, a GP100 trigger can be improved, and the "finish" improved. I am referring to tooling marks on the stainless steel that is typically not cleaned up before the guns leave the factory.

aka108
April 6, 2010, 11:42 AM
The prices are up and to me, the quality is down. The machining, fit and finish are no nearly as nice as the guns made in the 30's through the 50's. Whatever the CNC tooling turns out is assembled and shipped off. Big gaps between parts that should fit together and small things like that. When I compare the S&W K22 I bought in 1950 or 51 to its modern counterpart the quality difference in fit and finish is obvious.

Ala Dan
April 6, 2010, 11:59 AM
We sell NIB Smith & Wesson 686's [4" or 6"] for $699.88 everyday; and
the Ruger GP-100 for $519.88~! Sounds like your dealer knows he/she
can get away with those kind's of prices cuz they are located in the
communist state of Maryland. :uhoh: :scrutiny: :eek:

Old Fuff
April 6, 2010, 12:57 PM
Ruger does not and has never used internal locks on *any* of their Double action revolvers. Period.

Ya' sure? Really???

So go look at the link, ckick on grip peg, and explain to us what the funny-looking silver thing under the mainspring is... :scrutiny:


http://www.ruger.com/products/lcr/features.html

Kentucky_Rifleman
April 6, 2010, 06:16 PM
I think that the confusion here is over Ruger's triple locking cylinder. On Smith and Wesson revolvers, there are two true locking point, at the bottom of the cylinder and at the rear of the cyliner. Smith and Wesson revolvers use the ejector rod as a third locking point at the front of the cylinder. This is not a particularly strong locking mechanism. I've heard of bent ejector rods and ejector rods that have actually unscrewed.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding here, but I think you're mistaking the term "internal lock" as used in this thread to mean part of the gun's normal mechanism, when the discussion has been about the keyed safety locks now being built into some guns. Your description sounds more like part of the gun's operating mechanism than a safety device.

Maybe we're discussing two very different parts of the weapon?

KR

Fishman777
April 7, 2010, 12:48 AM
We're actually on the same page.

I was suggesting that the person that thought that Rugers had an integral lock may have read about the triple locking cylinder and assumed that this was similiar to the integral locking mechanism on Smiths.

Old Fuff
April 7, 2010, 01:16 AM
One Ruger double-action/hand ejector revolver does have an internal lock (blocks the hammer strut when "on") See the link in post #75.

It has nothing to do with the cylinder latching...

Confederate
April 7, 2010, 03:23 PM
Ruger seems to be doing well with its GP-100 line, but look at what's happening to the cost of commodities. Gold and silver are skyrocketing -- as is the cost of steel. I won't generally spend a hundred dollars or more for a knife, yet knife materials are rising at frightening rates.

With guns, 1911 pistols are already a grand or more and many revolvers are right behind them. S&W is no longer producing its excellent second and third generation of autos, nor could they at today's prices.

As I stated earlier, resale bluebook prices are fiction in most cases. It doesn't make sense that a current production S&W stainless revolver retail for close to a grand or more, but for a mint version of the same revolver to sell for hundreds of dollars less -- especially when they're made of superior materials -- is ridiculous. These things aren't cars (which depreciate the instant they leave the lot).

This all keeps good revolvers from circulating in gunstores, and people who scout out auction sites frequently complain that guns are selling for higher prices than expected.

The bottom line is that things are going to get increasingly worse. Raw materials will have to be cheapened and Jim Kramer says that China is intentionally keeping its currency in tow to virtually capture all manufacuring in the U.S.

It's really scary. Gold is already over a grand (about $1,100 the last I looked). Silver is almost twenty dollars, and as it rises, you'll see industrial products increase as well.

I'm not crazy about Ruger's brand new revolvers. With taxes increasing and raw resources increasing, we're living in a whole new world.

If you enjoyed reading about "Revolver Sticker Shock" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!