Which would you prefer, and why?


PDA






Quoheleth
July 9, 2010, 01:57 PM
Of the two, a 6" Ruger GP100 or a 6" Smith 27 (P&R)?

Love to hear comments...

If you enjoyed reading about "Which would you prefer, and why?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
springfield30-06
July 9, 2010, 02:27 PM
I know Rugers are great guns, but I like the looks of a S&W much better. I've shot a S&W 28 and love it... and the 27 is the same thing but prettier.

JellyJar
July 9, 2010, 02:49 PM
Both are good guns and will get the job done. However, the GP100 is still being made so if you lost the gun to the police for some reason it is easily replaced and is not too expensive. On the other hand the S&W 27 P&Rs are not being made any more, are highly desirable, not easily replaced and would be expensive to buy if you could find a good one. So if you lost it it would be very sad. Not so sad if you lost the GP100.

md7
July 9, 2010, 02:50 PM
i can't really vote on this. between a current production smith and a ruger, i would choose a ruger. mainly because i just like it overall better. but the older smiths are really cool. hammer mounted pins, deep blueing, they're just plain cool. and the 27 was the smith's cadillac .357 mag.

if you plan on using this as a range/nuclear reloads/knock around the woods gun-ruger

if you want a nice, unique, well made example of one of smith's finest (imho)- smith

either will do. the 27 just does it with more style, if that matters.

Tallinar
July 9, 2010, 02:52 PM
Ruger. Cheaper.

CraigC
July 9, 2010, 03:26 PM
S&W, hands down. I love Ruger single actions but their double actions just don't do much for me. The S&W is a timeless classic. The Ruger is just a tool.

I can't imagine choosing a sixgun (or a woman for that matter) according to which is easiest to lose. That ain't livin'! :scrutiny:

RX-178
July 9, 2010, 03:27 PM
I just personally prefer the GP100. I like heavy revolvers over light(er) ones.

CraigC
July 9, 2010, 03:38 PM
I just personally prefer the GP100. I like heavy revolvers over light(er) ones.
They weigh about the same.

beeenbag
July 9, 2010, 03:41 PM
cant beat a smitty!

9mmepiphany
July 9, 2010, 03:42 PM
I just personally prefer the GP100. I like heavy revolvers over light(er) ones.
in the 40+ years i've been shooting, i've never heard any S&W N-frame referred to as lighter...especially not a M-27, which is the heaviest.

you have to remember that the M-27 is built on their large frame as opposed to the GP-100 which is built on a medium frame.

i would never occur to me that someone would even compare these two...the usual comparison is between the M-686 medium L-frame and the GP-100.

a Pinned (barrel) & Recessed (cartridge rims) M-27 is orders higher in quality of workmanship (this isn't a current production M-27 we're talking about) than the GP-100. it would be like comparing a VW Jetta to a Mercedes E-class

oneounceload
July 9, 2010, 03:44 PM
The GP-100 ranges from 36 to 45 ounces

The S&W ranges from 37.6 to 44

Hardly a way to justify it because of weight

surbat6
July 9, 2010, 03:45 PM
I love my S&Ws!
That said, I'd pick a Ruger for durability.
But the S&W's trigger pull, both double and single action, is superior, in my experience.
You could resolve the problem the way I usually do and get both!

rbernie
July 9, 2010, 03:50 PM
The Smith is far FAR nicer in terms of finish and feel and overall quality, but there is something off-putting to me about the big N-frames in 357. I love my Model 25s, but the traditional Model 27/28 just doesn't seem 'right' to me.

For this reason, I'd actually be tempted to take the GP100.

But had you made the comparison between the GP100 and P&R Model 19, the choice would have been lopsidedly in favor of the S&W.

Walkalong
July 9, 2010, 04:12 PM
..the usual comparison is between the M-686 medium L-frame and the GP-100.Yep, and I would go with a 586 or 686 over the Ruger.

I still have a 28 & a 27, but traded my GP-100. I miss it a little, and would pick one up if I found a great deal.

Rexster
July 9, 2010, 04:50 PM
This one is easily decided by science: the big S&W is too big for my hands; I can't get enough finger on the trigger while holding it properly to control recoil. I do still have one S&W N-frame, for sentimental reasons. I own several GP100s.

oldbear
July 9, 2010, 04:54 PM
The Smith hands down, I did not even have to think about it. Why, the model 27 is the finest production revolver EVER produced.:D

I just personally prefer the GP100. I like heavy revolvers over light(er) ones.
I donít what you consider heavy but at 2 pounds 14 ounces my 6Ē M-27 is not light.

Steve C
July 9, 2010, 04:57 PM
The S&W 27 is IMO the nicest pistol that S&W made. The blue and polish was better than the standard grade. They fine checkered the top of the fame and rib to reduce glare rather than the flat finish surface used in the lessor models and by most other companies. My 3-1/2" has excellent balance. Just fine machined steel quality from an earlier era.

Some like to say how Rugers are somehow stronger than other guns. They certainly look that way with thicker frames but they use cast frames and the extra thickness is needed to insure the same strength as a frame that's been machined from bar stock. I've seen several Rugers that where KB'd up by yahoo's that thought they could withstand their "special" hand loads.

rmfnla
July 9, 2010, 05:19 PM
I'd rather have a King Cobra! :D

Guillermo
July 9, 2010, 05:32 PM
if money is no object there is no comparison

The Smith is the superior gun in so many ways.

If money is a consideration the Ruger is a lot of gun for the money.

Think of the Smith as a Lexus and the Ruger as a Camry.

Quickstrike
July 9, 2010, 05:35 PM
I like robustness and durability. The trigger can be spiffed up real nice, and it will probably still cost less than the smith after the trigger job.

I also hate the internal lock. Saw a blued GP100 with a 4 inch barrel the other day. It looked nice!

Nasty
July 9, 2010, 05:40 PM
Bill Ruger sold us out with his own money that was earned from us when he actively supported and testified before Congress that none of us had any legitimate need for high capacity magazines.

No matter how good Ruger firearms are (and I freely admit that they are), I will never contribute any of my money to his family.

I know...Bill is dead.

I'm now looking forward to the death of Jane Fonda.

md7
July 9, 2010, 06:05 PM
nasty,

not trying to argue with you or to hi jack this thread. thats your opinion and i respect that. serious question. who is in charge of ruger nowadays? is bill ruger's family still running it? thanks.

sorry for getting off topic everybody, please continue.

Nasty
July 9, 2010, 06:08 PM
I don't know about who is running it, but Bill's family is still drawing funds.

As I said, great firearms, but I can't stomach supporting a traitor or their family.

JoelSteinbach
July 9, 2010, 07:08 PM
Ruger GP looks nice, but smith looks nicer, and with smoother, better feeling how could you not love the S&W

Quoheleth
July 9, 2010, 09:30 PM
Bill Ruger sold us out.
S&W sold us out.

Water under the bridge.

I have the GP100 and am working on a deal to acquire the S&W. I was basically reassuring myself that the Smith was a good acquisition.

She's a purty blue, too. The Ruger is more industrial, I guess you might say, and doesn't have the lines of the Smith. I'm looking forward to having both in the stable.

Q

bannockburn
July 9, 2010, 09:31 PM
I would have to pick the S&W Model 27. Love the big N frames in any caliber, and I had a GP-100 years ago. Never did take a liking to it; probably because I thought the Security Six was fine just the way it was.

roaddog28
July 9, 2010, 09:44 PM
Well,
I have or had a GP100, 686 and a Smith M28-2. I like all three. The 27/28 N frame are the classic 357 revolver. They are pleasant to shoot and are one of the best looking revolvers of all time. The GP100 and 686 are competition to each other. Both came out when the revolver was transitioning to the "modern mass produce revolver" and was replaced by law enforcement with the semi-auto. I would pick the GP100 first because its the best value in a everyday 357. Now if I want to pay more then I would get a 27-2 5 inch. A excellent revolver for shooting 357s. But you will pay a lot more for a 27 than a GP100. And the 586/686 is getting to the point where its just as expense as a 27/28. I would rather have a 27/28 than the 686 it the two revolvers were the same price in a gun store.
Regards,
roaddog28

surfinUSA
July 9, 2010, 11:29 PM
Although the Colt Python gets all the press. I really believe the S&W model 27 is the finest 357 magnum ever made.

I sold mine because a K frame 357 in SS is easier to carry and maintain and if I want to carry an N frame I'll carry a 44. But neither of these reasons take away from the fact that the model 27 is probably the finest 357 made, especially in the 3 1/2 inch version.

Their only problem, if they have one, is they are too valuable and hard to come by to be trashed by everyday carry and use.

CornCod
July 9, 2010, 11:38 PM
I tend to like Smith and Wesson triggers. Still, either revolver will do just fine. Maybe your great-grandchildren will wear out the one you choose.

Guillermo
July 10, 2010, 12:01 AM
Although the Colt Python gets all the press. I really believe the S&W model 27 is the finest 357 magnum ever made.

I love a Python but there are arguments for a 27. It is a fine weapon.

captain awesome
July 10, 2010, 12:19 AM
well tough call, two extremely durable guns, I would venture a guess that while the ruger is definitely a durable gun, you would have just as hard a time if not harder breaking an N frame 357. Never shot a 27, would love to own one some day. My gp100 is extremely accurate It shocked me when I saw my grouping at 50 YARDS (standard stock sights) That gun and I seem to be made for each other. So its basically a coin toss, went with the smith just because they aren't made any more.

Mooseman
July 10, 2010, 12:24 AM
I'd go for the Ruger, I like the combo of inexpensive, plain, and rugged.

clang
July 10, 2010, 01:38 AM
I picked the S&W 27. It is the direct decendant of the first Magnum revolver - the S&W .357 Registered Magnum. Can't get much more historic than that.

You did not mention pricing - so I will assume they are both reasonably priced. If you told me you could buy a 6" SS GP100 for $275 or a 6" 27-2 P&R for $900, I would take the Ruger.

madcratebuilder
July 10, 2010, 08:26 AM
The M27 is the finest .357 revolver ever made, the Python may be a hair prettier but the M27 well not shoot out of time in no time:eek:

Your comparing apples and oranges. The Ruger is a fine utility gun the Smith is a work of art. Compare the GP with a 586/686 that's closer. Smith still comes out on top.

Nasty
July 10, 2010, 08:43 AM
Quoheleth -

S&W was forced to accept a compromise...they had no choice.

Bill Ruger volunteered and spent his own money supporting the anti-gun groups and went purposely to Congress to limit magazine capacity.


It is *not* the same thing, not even close. It is *not* "water under the bridge" because we are still dealing with the laws they made based in part on his actions.

I am saddened to see shooters who have no interest in the Second Amendment...or at least not enough to be aware of who the enemies are and have been. If we do not learn from experience, the same mistakes will be made again.

I suppose the next thing will be that someone will chime in and tell me that Hanoi Jane was selected as one of the top 100 women of the 20th century, eh?

http://www.snopes.com/military/graphics/fonda.jpg

Quoheleth
July 10, 2010, 09:08 AM
Nasty,

Perhaps I am naive; perhaps I am a sucker. I am in the business of forgiveness. If I held every sin, real or imagined, into perpetuity my life would be rather miserable. I'm not always successful in "forgive & forget" - in fact, sometimes the most powerful prayer is "forgive my unforgiveness" - but I try.

Ruger screwed up. He's dead & gone. The company no longer follows his lead.

I am not defending the man - I do think he was wrong - but I think it could be argued that he was trying to save himself and his company by being politically expedient at the time of unfavorable and antigun officials.

Too, I concur that S&W was doing what they did for survival. Not really arguing with you on either point.

The early church wrestled with what to do with the Christians who "pretended" to be non-Christian in the face of perseution. When it ceased, some wanted to welcome these pretenders back into the flocks; others wanted nothing to do with them.

I understand the analogy is not perfect, but it illustrates my point: I understand why people still are upset at Wild Bill. Nevertheless the facts remain, he's gone and the Sturm, Ruger of today =/= the Sturm, Ruger that he ran.

So, I am in the forgiveness business. I'll trust but verify. To me, Sturm, Ruger has turned around. Smith is now making non-locking pistols...but still has locks on others. Which company has changed more?

OK...back to the conversation:

The Smith 27 is expensive, but I'm trying to work a trade for it with my stainless Springfield 1911. I have the Ruger. The Ruger shoots great; the S&W would be a trade to try to increase some of the value of my collection by adding a classic piece. It's been shot, so it's not a true collector. It's "collectable working stock," you might say. Definitely not mistreated by any means. I hope it'll work out as I have a thing, now, for N-frames.

Q

JWJacobVT
July 10, 2010, 09:50 AM
I will post pics of my M27 when I get back from the range.

snooperman
July 10, 2010, 09:54 AM
my brother kept after me until I let him have it. It is one of the finest revolvers ever made but I like my Pythons a little more and would not part with them. That said, I am sure we can find positive and negatives about each one based on our individual choice. As far as the GP 100 is concerned , it has a great following because of its inherent strength but it does not have the refine characteristics of the beautiful model 27.

420Stainless
July 10, 2010, 11:49 AM
Just personal preference. I like the aesthetics of the Model 27 and N-Frames in general, more than that of the GP100. My experience with Ruger revolvers has been very good, so I assume the GP100 is a fine gun. The Model 27 just has more personal appeal to me.

roaddog28
July 10, 2010, 12:32 PM
Hi again,
This comparison has been posted on forums before. And there is not a answer. The N frame 357 is a old school revolver. The 27/28 were made back when S&W cared more for quality. The current Smith revolvers in my opinion are no way as good as the older 27/28 revolvers. A better comparison would be the current L frame versus the GP100. Both of these revolvers started production when both Ruger and Smith and Wesson started caring more for pumping out guns and less on quality. Even the discontinued Ruger Security Six for me was better made than the GP100. Of the current generation 357 SA/DA revolvers I would pick the Ruger GP100. By far the better value than the overpriced 686. I would own again a 686 but only the early series. And the problem with that is the 686 has gone up to the same level of price as a good 27 or 28. Again, if I was at a gun store and saw a early 686 and a 27 for the same price. I will pick the 27 every time. Same goes for the 28.

Summary, if I am on a budget and want a reliable shooting 357 then the GP100 would be the best choice. But if money is not the issue, then of course I would pick the 27 or a 28.

Regards,
roaddog28

Ichiro
July 10, 2010, 12:36 PM
GP 100 has a smaller frame that fits me better, so I'd go for the Ruger.

Rexster
July 10, 2010, 01:18 PM
Money goes to anyone who owns stock in the Ruger corporation. As already said, this is water under the bridge; neither company is still being run by the same folks who made the poor decisions of the past.

Bill Ruger and/or his employees designed the GP100 that saved me and others I care about from serious injury or death one summer night.

RugRev
July 10, 2010, 01:53 PM
I would pick the GP-100 with short underlug barrel as it is more compact, weighs a couple ounces less and can readily be replaced. If both are cycled fast in double action the Smith would have more problems in time due to the mass of the cylinder. Also, due to value I would be somewhat reticent to take it afield and would use mainly for an occasional paper punching. For the size (N frame) would prefer a larger caliber to take advantage of the size such as .44 Mag or .45 Colt. I have a medium size hand (9.5) so find the trigger reach of the GP-100 is better for me than the N frame.

Having had one "classic" [Colt Python] that did not get much use because of value would not do that again as anything I have I shoot a fair amount. Guess I am a user and not a collector. Someone with a different bent might take the opposite approach.

nerd-with-a-gun
July 10, 2010, 03:51 PM
I have had a Ruger GP100 6" and it was way accurate. I can't imagine anything shooting better than that gun.

MarineTech
July 10, 2010, 06:12 PM
Over the years, I've owned both Ruger and S&W revolvers. Both are good guns, and both have their strengths and weaknesses.

Now, with the afore-mentioned disclaimer, I will say this. I have OWNED 2 Ruger GP100s over the years, but I presently OWN a S&W Model 28-2 (The no-frills version of the 27). I just haven't found a GP100 yet that I can honestly say I prefer over an older pre-83 pinned and recessed S&W.

Hondo 60
July 10, 2010, 07:11 PM
I chose the Ruger.
I have 2 M10s & 27s look very similar.
Whereas the GP100 looks different.

almostfree
July 10, 2010, 07:18 PM
I have had both. I still have the 27 but not the GP-100. I love the 27. My favorite is a 5" model.

oldgoat46
July 10, 2010, 07:52 PM
No doubt about it, Smith is trading heavily on their name. The Ruger GP 100 is the most rugged trouble free double action firearm you can buy. It will not let you down. I walk pipelines out in the mines day in and day out. I encounter ferral dogs, snakes, wild hogs, and some pretty nasty people. My Ruger GP 100 is allways with me.

Wolfeye
July 10, 2010, 08:34 PM
I'd pick a 3 or 4" GP100 over most Smiths... comparing newer Smith models to ones from my father's or grandfather's generation, I can't see any compelling reason to buy one. They do have a classic look and I actually want to prefer a Smith, but my Rugers seem to be better built & more forgiving to shoot.

918v
July 10, 2010, 08:41 PM
I voted M27 because I prefer forged and machined to investment cast. Also, the Smith is finished better and has a better trigger pull potential.

Ky Larry
July 10, 2010, 10:17 PM
The S&W hands down. Both revolvers are tough, durable, and made to last several life times. Fit, finish, and trigger on th S&W are better. I don't own a -27 or -28 right now but I have owned both. I currently own a perfect Python and I shoot it about every range trip.As for -27s being too valuable to shoot, if I owned one, I'd shoot it. It would be a joy to carry and shoot. It was made to be shot, so why not enjoy it? YMMV.

wep45
July 10, 2010, 10:23 PM
S&W................there is no substitute.

BushyGuy
July 10, 2010, 10:24 PM
I am Ruger fan thats why! S&W are over rated..

918v
July 10, 2010, 11:00 PM
In terms of what?

S&Wfan
July 12, 2010, 07:51 PM
There's zero doubt that the Model 27, P&R versions, were much nicer executed revolvers than ol' Bill's revolvers with the ugly warning rollmarks on the side of the barrel.

As others have mentioned, the best comparison is the 586/686 S&W L frames vs. the GP100.

Also, the best comparison of an N-frame S&W would be the "plain jane" version of the M-27 . . . the much loved Model 28 Highway Patrolman.

On all guns, the leaf spring operated action of the S&W revolvers (except the tiny J frames) gives one a better trigger job than how Ruger builds theirs.

They are all nice revolvers, and I own Ruger handguns . . . but to compare a GP100 to a P & R Model 27 would be like comparing a Lexus to a Ford Explorer.

Since no photos have been posted, here's one of a 3 1/2" barreled Model 27-2 that I bought this year . . . pure beauty and perfection! . . .

http://216.77.188.54/coDataImages/p/Groups/415/415871/folders/305468/2450314IMG1137p1.jpg
http://216.77.188.54/coDataImages/p/Groups/415/415871/folders/305468/2448393IMG1202pw2t.jpg
http://216.77.188.54/coDataImages/p/Groups/415/415871/folders/305468/2448397IMG1139pi2a.jpg
http://216.77.188.54/coDataImages/p/Groups/415/415871/folders/305468/2448396IMG1136i2a.jpg
http://216.77.188.54/coDataImages/p/Groups/415/415871/folders/305468/2448395IMG1138pe3.jpg

MCgunner
July 12, 2010, 09:38 PM
Neither, really, but I went with the Ruger. I prefer the Ruger design.

Topcat
July 12, 2010, 11:54 PM
The model 27 is a CLassic with a capital "C." Even though I like the GP100 I would have to pick the S&W. One thing I really hate about the GP100 is the grips with the wood inside the rubber. They look stupid and on mine the wood cracked so that gave me a good excuse to replace them with some Hogue mono-grips.

9mmepiphany
July 13, 2010, 12:51 AM
S&Wfan those are beautiful pictures, especially the first one of the top strap checkering....the squared fo sight leaf is so much nicer than the current rounded leaf

i once considered having the top strap of one of my Pythons checkered, but checkering on the flat just didn't compare to the skill of checkering on a curve like the M-27.

i will add that the Security-Six is a much superior .357 Mag than the GP-100. if you'd really like a nice Ruger, look for a Davis Custom Couger...Security-Six mated to a Python barrel

Cactus Jack Arizona
July 13, 2010, 01:18 AM
I love the GP100. I used to have one, but had to sacrifice it to help me obtain a lighter concealed carry firearm. I look forward to the day I can purchase another GP100 with a 6 inch barrel. Of course, I wouldn't mind also having a S&W 686+ in my stable as well. Sorry, but I prefer the 686 over the 27. :eek:

Ala Dan
July 13, 2010, 08:58 AM
Greeting's Jon My Friend-

To answer your poll, I would have too choose the Smith model 27 [P&R].
I don't consider myself a collector as per say; as "cumulator" is a better
word to describe me. With that said, I cumulate more Smith's than any
other type firearm. And besides, I own a 3.5" model 27-2 in UNFIRED
status that is absolutely goregous; in its presentation box~!

Hope all is well with you and yours~! May GOD BLESS~!

bflobill_69
July 13, 2010, 03:27 PM
Trigger... period

Bflobill69

jhvaughan2
July 13, 2010, 08:19 PM
Nothing against Rugers, but they are not my passion. I already have a 27.

billybob44
July 13, 2010, 08:56 PM
I voted for the Model 27. I just acquired a 27-2 recently and am amazed of it's accuracy. I have a S&W Model 681 4" for carry=very much like a GP-100.;)

joed
July 13, 2010, 08:59 PM
The S&W would be my choice. The craftsmanship alone should sell a 27. The checkered top strap and the fit of parts. I owned 1 27-2 a nickel finish, great gun. I've owned a few Rugers but don't like them much.

billybob44
July 13, 2010, 08:59 PM
I just personally prefer the GP100. I like heavy revolvers over light(er) ones.
Have you held a Model 27-6"==Not a light weight..

dogngun
July 14, 2010, 08:48 AM
I like Ruger DA revolvers a lot, but I like Smiths much more, especially the N frames...I'd get the 27...I have a Model 28-2 right next to me this very minute. It was made in 1969, and is tight as new.
Get the Smith.

mark

I do carry it occasionally, in an old pancake belt holster.

sixgunner455
July 14, 2010, 05:22 PM
IF it was either/or, I'd get the Ruger -- just because the N-frame is too big for me, so I wouldn't shoot it as much, and I can't stand having a gun that I don't shoot because it doesn't fit. If it was both, I'd get the 27 as well because they are just too cool.

But I'd rather have a model 19 than a model 27. Fits better.

OrangePwrx9
July 15, 2010, 04:27 PM
I consider myself a Ruger guy and am normally a big fan of their wheelguns. But I had a 6" GP100 that just left me cold. It felt like a brick in my hands. Never could shoot it well. Thought it was a huge step backward from the 4" Security Six that I've owned and shot (very well) for over 30 years. Traded the GP100 away and haven't missed it a bit. Maybe a 4" GP100 would've been OK, but a 6" with that heavy underlug just doesn't work for me.

I'd like to find a good Model 27 Smith myself.
Bob

9mmepiphany
July 15, 2010, 08:55 PM
But I had a 6" GP100 that just left me cold. It felt like a brick in my hands. Never could shoot it well. Thought it was a huge step backward from the 4" Security Six that I've owned and shot (very well) for over 30 years.

this is, in my experience, is the truth

roaddog28
July 15, 2010, 09:06 PM
Hi I can understand your experience with your GP100 6 inch. I think they are muzzle heavy because of the full underlug. So is the 686 6 inch. I would much prefer a 27 or 28 6 inch or even a old Ruger Security Six 6 inch. Both are not as muzzle heavy because of the half under lug. To me a full under lug 6 inch revolver is harder to shoot.

roaddog28

CSA 357
July 15, 2010, 09:42 PM
27 with out any question!!!!!

Jon Coppenbarger
July 15, 2010, 09:44 PM
My favorite revolver has always been the model 27. i think the ruger revolvers are a very well built and long lasting pistol.

I own a pre-27 with the 3 1/2" barrel made in 1952 in like 90% condition and a new in the box 1960 model 27 no dash in 6". The pre-27 5 screw pistol is a sweet pistol. I do like the model 28 also and have 1959 new in the box in 4" and a new (forgot which year) 28-2 in 6".

fun pistols

Chasing Crow
July 15, 2010, 09:46 PM
Smith - There is just somrthing magical about a smith!

Wildbillz
July 15, 2010, 10:07 PM
I would get the Smith. In a 357mag I would think about an L frame. If I was to get an N frame I would get a Mod 29 with a 6" or 4" bbl.

Wild Bill

PT1911
July 15, 2010, 10:18 PM
As of today I own a 4" GP100. I have been a proud owner of a 686-1 for a few months...Both are attractive guns and have GREAT fit and finish, but, honestly speaking, the GP will undoubtedly be experiencing more rounds down the tube at the range and in the woods.

If you enjoyed reading about "Which would you prefer, and why?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!