Highest Quality Revolver for under $500

Status
Not open for further replies.
Because of rare, but documented and undeniable, problems with BOTH Ruger revolvers and S&W revolvers, a visionary firearms manufacturer decided to create a product that would supersede both. Thus was born the Arminius.
 
Well, from my point of view Smith is a better choise then Ruger if you collect firearms and enjoy the fine worksmanship, and the Ruger is a better choice if you are buying a gun as a tool and workhorse.
Smith revolvers are much better made then Rugers. they are more pleasing to the eye. Rugers are made as tools and while they look fine from the outside, the machining of the internal parts and concealed surfaces of theframe is non-existant. Open a cylider on any Ruger and you will see very roug cast surface of the crane. They just feel cheaper when you hold them.
Both are fine guns, and I do own SP101, but it resides mostly in my tackle box. It will not look any worse banged up then it does out of the box. I own over 20 S&W pistols and revolvers (most of them are PC guns) and only one Ruger revolver. Ruger rifles and shotguns are whole different story though. Prized posessions! Especially Gold Label SxS shotguns and engraved No1 rifles :)
 
Ruger GP100

Full sized .357= 4" Adj. Sight Blued GP100. Last a lifetime
Compact wheelie .357= Ruger SP101 2 1/2 fixed or
S&W Model 60 3" Asj. sight.
Subcompact .38= S&W 642/442

Shooter429
 
Well, from my point of view Smith is a better choise then Ruger if you collect firearms and enjoy the fine worksmanship, and the Ruger is a better choice if you are buying a gun as a tool and workhorse.
Smith revolvers are much better made then Rugers. they are more pleasing to the eye. Rugers are made as tools and while they look fine from the outside, the machining of the internal parts and concealed surfaces of theframe is non-existant. Open a cylider on any Ruger and you will see very roug cast surface of the crane. They just feel cheaper when you hold them.
Click to expand...
Really, a Smith 686 as a collector's item? seriously Oktagon. My Taurus M85 could be a collector also.
I took apart my GP100 and I couldn't find those rough cast surfaces you speak of. Maybe i got a defect. What concealed parts of the frame do you speak of?
Please tell me how S&W 686s are "much better made than Rugers". Please site your sources or else you may fall into the same category as Kamerer.
There are certain S&Ws that are collector guns and show fine workmanship but the 686 isn't in that category for me. It is a great gun but not the safe queen you make it out to be.
Don't get me wrong, S&W makes an incredible revolver and always has but the 686 is not their cream of the crop in my opinion.
And again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
 
I guess this dicussion is "off the board"

I recommend a Taurus 608 in 4" (8 shots:eek:) only because I own one and have put well over 3000 round of full factory .357 rounds through it without any problems. "Don't get me started on the new Rossi . 357 I bought"

or a Ruger GP100.

As far as Forged vs. cast?

Well, as a man formally in the moto-X/two stroke industry, the factory used cast (as does most Detroit muscle cars) piston without any or much problems in there engines. And forge is and was available, but most racer choice of the factory cast because of perceived reliability.

TBS, forged pistons (also cranks,cams, rods and others) have been proven more durable, but at a much better tax of capital. Which may or may not justify.

I'm sure both forging and casting (A cast vacuum system first used by Yamaha in it's motorcycle/snowmbile frames "less metel/more strenth"methods) have improved over time.

So,... let's not split hair's!

Both are viable sources of a quality manufactured gun, or any other piece that demands excessive force's.

By the way, you have to account that forge pistons require loser tolerances for heat expansion, FYI. :D

Enough psycho babble

Time for another drink. Thanks for the humorous reading.

PS: I own a Rossi,Taurus, Ruger and a S&W revolver.
 
03ShadowBob- I disagree. To me the 686 is just about the flagship model, partly because of its popularity.
Sure its not a 627, or even 629, or a PC model, but a 686 is undoubtedly a FANTASTIC revolver...and this is from someone who plans on getting a GP-100!
 
I think they are both fine guns.

I personally own two 686's, and bought each of them lightly used under the OP's target price. I find the crispness of the S&W action very pleasing to shoot, however I would not feel undergunned carrying the Smith, the Ruger, or even a Charter out into the big bad world.

To tell you the truth, for a carry revolver I lean towards anything in .45ACP, just because nothing reloads faster than a moonie, my 2c.
 
My brother owns a Taurus .357, and it has been nothing but reliable.

Sure you can listen to the guys who say you should only use S&Ws, and give a stink-face to any other brand of wheelgun, but they're not going to be able to prove anything.

If it works, it works, period
 
Really, a Smith 686 as a collector's item? seriously Oktagon. My Taurus M85 could be a collector also.
I took apart my GP100 and I couldn't find those rough cast surfaces you speak of. Maybe i got a defect. What concealed parts of the frame do you speak of?
Please tell me how S&W 686s are "much better made than Rugers". Please site your sources or else you may fall into the same category as Kamerer.
There are certain S&Ws that are collector guns and show fine workmanship but the 686 isn't in that category for me. It is a great gun but not the safe queen you make it out to be.
Don't get me wrong, S&W makes an incredible revolver and always has but the 686 is not their cream of the crop in my opinion.
And again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.



I really have no iterest in engaging in argument with you. I stated the facts based on years of collecting and owning firearms. Rugers are not as well made as S&W revolvers. It is a fact. They cost less and they loose their value quicker. They are fine firearms, but the obvious shortcuts which make them so afordable can readily be seen. If you can see the rough cast surface upon opening the cylinder and looking at the crane, then you are misleading yourself.
I can tell a difference between a well finished firearm and not so well finished, owning firarms which range from as little as 300 bucks all the way to 60,000-dollar shotguns.
 
Oktagon,

You stated your opinion, not fact. Costing less and losing their value quicker has little, if anything to do with quality. It may have something to do with perceived popularity or name recognition.

A GP100 is built to withstand a steady diet of .357 magnum loads. It is well made, reliable and accurate. Sounds like attributes of quality to me. A S&W 686 is also well made, reliable and accurate. It comes down to personal preference and for some affordability too.

Basically, you can't go wrong with buying either a GP100 or a 686. People wanting to waste time arguing whether one is better over the other have too much time on their hands and maybe feel they have to defend their choice to feel better about their choice.
 
Forging IS generally superior to casting!!!

OK ... my first post and I have to say that forging IS superior to casting. First off, forging increases dislocation density and dislocations within the steel limit plastic deformation. If you want to have ductility in a part, you anneal it which REDUCES the dislocation density. An example of this is the case neck on a cartridge. The neck needs to be able to deform elastically and plastically whereas the primer pocket and cartridge base needs to be much harder so this isn't annealed after the case is FORGED. Wuchak provided a link to a paper comparing cast and forged molds ... NOT cast or forged parts!!! If you read the paper, the stresses talked about are THERMAL stresses which aren't a primary concern when shooting a revolver. We're concerned with the stresses generated by pressure and recoil on the cylinder and frame respectively. Also, The main benefit with forged steel (or aluminum) parts is that they can be made dimensionally smaller. In order to gain the same mechanical properties in cast parts, you have to make the part significantly bigger. For example, compare the weight and dimensions (and COST) of cast rims for cars versus forged rims. Forged rims are typically 50% lighter and WAY stronger!!! OK ... that's it for now. By the way, I'm a mechanical engineer and I have a Colt Python (.357 Magnum, stainless steel, 4" barrel) and a S&W 629 (.44 Magnum, stainless steel, 4" barrel). I found this thread looking for information on the Ruger New Vaquero. Personally, I have no idea which is the best revolver to buy. We all have different needs and desires. I was all set to buy a Uberti reproduction Remington 1858 but discovered that they're all cast and NOT dimensionally accurate. Authenticity and longevity is important to me so I won't be buying anything from Uberti. I'd rather pay more and get more.
 
Last edited:
So why cast rather than forge? $$$$$ plain and simple!!

Thought I should add that. This isn't a revelation in the engineering world ... !!
 
1858, got a question for you.

Could the durability of Rugers have to do with heat treating after casting?

I read many threads about GP100s being more durable longterm, than Smiths.

I've got both Smiths and Rugers (all .357 magnums) and like them equally, the former for their overall quality and classic handsome looks, the latter for their reputation for ruggedness, long term durability with full house magnum loads and lately have preferred the GP100s grip design (rubber and wood insert).

My more "used" 686 has had more than 3,000 full load magnums through it and it does not lock up as tight as when new. In fact, the cylinder has about a millimeter movement, measured on the circumference of the cylinder, at full lock-up. I could see wear in the cylinder notches. End play is nil.

The other 686 which has had only a few hundred full load magnums and a couple thousand 38 specials through it, feels as tight as when new.

I bought the GP100 because of its reputation for being able to digest maximum loads and still beg for more. I cannot say yet, if this is true because it has had only about 200 such rounds through it and of course it is as tight as when new.

BTW, this gun was repaired by Ruger after about 100 rounds and I discovered it would not index properly when held at a 90 degree position (gangsta style). It was returned to me rather quickly and the warranty work was impressive to say the least. Lock-up had that "welded" feel and the trigger was improved.
 
Could the durability of Rugers have to do with heat treating after casting?
Click to expand...


There's a lot of unkowns in your question that I doubt anyone could fully evaluate without sitting an engineer from Ruger and S&W down and going through the spec's.

It depends on the type of steel used in each gun and what is the optimum HT for each steel.

Your question implies (not intentionally) that the Smith is not Heat Treated or not as hard. This line of thought is misleading because unless you know the steel properties it may be more desireable to have a higher or lower Rockwell hardness.

Hardness is also not the only factor to steel. Too hard and it becomes brittle so you need it to be somewhat ductile as well.
 
I found this thread looking for information on the Ruger New Vaquero
Click to expand...

The New Vaquero is not quite as robust as the old model, so be careful to note when something was written. It may be referencing the old model which was overbuilt by any standard. (I have 4 of them)

I think Ruger shot themselves in the foot from a marketing perspective by not changing the model name.


Buffalo Bore even loads hot .45 LC ammo for Ruger revolvers only.
Click to expand...

These loads were specifically designed for the Old Model Ruger SA's and does not apply to either companies DA models. I doubt it applies to Rugers newest SA's either.






Only recently has casting closed the gap on the majority of forging methods. I have a good bit of experience in the knife industry where forging is king because the strength of the steel will make or break the knife.

Anyone doubting probably should read the Wiki on Forging.
 
cpirtle said:
These loads were specifically designed for the Old Model Ruger SA's and does not apply to either companies DA models. I doubt it applies to Rugers newest SA's either.
Click to expand...

I'll bet dollars to donuts the Redhawk/Super Redhawk and New Blackhawk/Super Blackhawk can handle them. ;)
We know it does not apply to the New Vaqueros, though.
 
I got my Ruger GP100 (new 4" stainless) for $440 on Gunbroker ($476 after all shipping and transfer fees).

Shop around.
 
Could the durability of Rugers have to do with heat treating after casting?
Click to expand...

I'm sure that Ruger has the heat treatment of their revolvers down to a fine art. There's no doubt that the heat treatment process (typically heating followed by quenching) is critical for the formation of martensite throughout the part (at least 80% throughout for high stress applications). Now I'm wondering if USFA heat treats all of their revolver parts after CNC machining ... I'd think they'd have to.

Hardness is also not the only factor to steel. Too hard and it becomes brittle so you need it to be somewhat ductile as well.
Click to expand...

Very true!! Drill bits are good examples. They have to be hard in order to cut metals and alloys, but the hardness comes at the cost of being brittle so you wouldn't use a drill bit as a punch. Punches need to be hard but they can't be so hard that they fracture when hit with a hammer.
 
Don't buy into the cast versus forged argument. Both have experienced the same problems in various firearms.
An argument can be made for certain firearms and manufacturers having less issues with cast than forged.

I have owned both the 686 and the GP100. The 686 is gone, I still own the GP100.

I will say the action on my prelock, circa 1995 S&W 686 was better "out of the box". However, if you invest the $10.00 in a spring kit and stone a few trigger components then the GP100 can better the 686 in both single and definitely double action.

Hard to beat the GP100 for the money!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

2
  • Locked
Convertible 9mm Question
Replies
10
Views
1K
C0untZer0
C0untZer0
M
  • Locked
1911 under $500
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
True Grit
T
E
  • Locked
Taurus revolver quality
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
XD-40 Shooter
X
D
  • Locked
Need Advice on .357 mag revolver
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
22-rimfire
2
J
  • Locked
What is a good quality scope for an AR?
Replies
11
Views
641
WVRJ
W
Back
Top