Armscor

[dovedescending]

How do the rabble feel about Armscor .38's? From what I understand, Armscor also make RIA 1911's, and those seem to be pretty decent weapons. Yes, yes, I know, "save your money and buy a real S&W/Colt/Dan Wesson/something else".

How do they compare against Rossi/Taurus/Charter/other low end revolvers?

 

[Quoheleth]

Here's what I know:
* Same parent company. Armscor = Rock Island
* Uses old Colt design, but don't remember which one.
* Made of lesser quality steel. As in, +P ammo is not recommended.

I got these pieces of info from Ivan at Armscor in NV.

Here's what I have seen at gunshows:
* Very rough finish - quasi parked look
* Poor grips - replacements are almost mandatory to my hands
* Could not dry-fire; salesman would not remove the strap for me to try it.

If I were looking for a truck gun or a beater I might try it. Personally, I would spend my money on a good used Smith Model 10, even if I have to add a little more cash to the pot.

To me, the RIA 1911s are inexpensive but still have a good look & feel to them. The Armscor revolvers just seem cheap.

Q

 

[dovedescending]

I was more thinking of the snubbies, actually.

 

[Fearnot]

I'm no expert in any way, but I know 'cheap' when I touch it. The Armscor revolvers didn't inspire much confidence. Keep looking.

 

[Olympus]

I've handled a couple of the snubbies at gun shows in the past year. My impression, cheaper looking and feeling than Taurus or Rossi revolvers. Poor finish and a significant amount of tool marks. For a truck/boat/ATV/camping gun, that's about all I'd have one for. And that was if it was the only gun I could afford or own.

 

[rbernie]

I bought two sight-unseen when they first started showing up, and returned both to the distributor unfired:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=416615

 

[dfariswheel]

Contrary to popular belief, the Armscor double action revolvers have nothing to do with Colt, Colt tooling or equipment, or Colt designs.

The Armscor revolvers simply resemble Colt Detective Special and Diamondback revolvers.
Internally they are totally different and no parts will interchange with any Colt.
Colt did not sell or license the designs or any tooling to Armscor.

 

[Erik M]

I live down the road from Centerfire Systems, and as good of a bargain as they seem I would have to pass and go with a used Smith. The cheap EAA revolver would even set better with me.

 

[bhp9mm]

i would buy a used smith ruger are even a taurus over one they just seem like there cheap made

 

[jhco50]

I have a Rock Island 1911 and it is a great all steel pistol that out shoots my son-in-laws Colt. He gets a lot of FTFs and stove pipes, mine just goes bang everytime I pull the trigger...no matter what kind of ammo I put in it. In fact, when we go shooting, he usually ends up shooting mine.

Ahhh, the .38. It is not finished like a high dollar revolver, but it also shoots every time I pull the trigger. It is pretty darn accurate to boot. It is a copy of the Colt Det. Spl. and holds 6 shots. I have been carrying one, the M206 with a 2" barrel, for a little over 3 months and feel totally save with it as a SD weapon. I recomend it and I think you will be pleased as punch with it. Oh, and it is all steel as well.

 

[goodtime]

I bought one for the heck of it . . . or maybe out of morbid curiosity. I was extremely surprised! It feels solid and functions well. Trigger action is smooth. Lock up and timing are very good. No endshake to speak of. I happen to like the grips - very comfortable in my hand. I have to say mine is a good, solid, reliable revolver that shoots well.

At first, the action was rough, gritty, and semed to malfunction. Parts weren't sliding properly inside. But after a few dozen dryfires with snap caps to get rid of burrs and smooth rough edges of the inner works, and a nice application of oil to the works, it turned into a reliable peice with quite nice trigger pull. I have smiths, colts, and rugers, and I swear by them, but I have no beef with my armscor.

 

[rbernie]

It is a copy of the Colt Det. Spl.

No, it's not - at least not past the most cursory of cosmetics.