ADKWOODSMAN
Member
I started with a S&W Mod 28-6", then a Security 6-3", now I have added a 586-6". They all take what you can had out. For a steady diet, I also say redhawk .357.
Best 357 revolver for a steady diet of full house loads?
- Thread starter TargetTerror
- Start date
- Status
The official retail price of a 686 is $806. The official retail price of GP101 is $660.
Presumably the folks at Corbon are good business people. Why would they buy a tool that costs significantly more than another tool that meets their needs.
Both the Ruger and the S&W are fine guns--but I prefer the 686. YMMV.
Deer Hunter
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,097
Either of the guns mentioned will last through an astronomical amount of "full house" loads. If one lasts 5 or 10 rounds more than the other, that's all well and good. Another test may show the opposite. Only scientific way to test would be to have many different Rugers and S&W (in the mentioned models) and run them until all of them die, record the amount of rounds it took to do whatever damage to each revolve, then work out the various averages for each (Mean, Median, Mode, etc).
After all that work is done, the results would probably be so close together it wouldn't really matter at all. Get the gun that fits you best for high-powered shooting.
After all that work is done, the results would probably be so close together it wouldn't really matter at all. Get the gun that fits you best for high-powered shooting.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Ninty-nine percent of the powder is burned by the time the bullet passes the forcing cone. From then on, the bullet is driven by the expanding gas already generated. A longer barrel gives the gas more time to push the bullet -- but the difference between a 6" barrel and a 4" barrel isn't all that great, probably around 50 pfs, give or take a bit.
Rob96
Member
Nothing to do with it. The sales manager at Corbon posts on some other boards and he stated they knew the GP-100 would be the one to handle what they dish out. There was also one other ammo producer, albeit smaller, more specialty line that used only Rugers for load development in the heavy calibers.
Don't be so sure. The GP-100 is cast while the 686 is forged. In other words - that gun is thicker because it has to be thicker to have the same strength as the 686.
Basically the 686 and GP-100 are a tie, and the only real answer here is the N-frame would wear out least because it has the most weight, density, mass, and metal. I'm not sure you need a fine tuned Performance Center offering just to shoot .357, since none of the guns listed will wear out from shooting magnums in your lifetime (even if you shoot daily).
Vern Humphrey
Member
No one has ever proven, to my knowledge that forging is stronger than casting -- assuming both are done right, and using quality materials.
Rugers are thick because William B. Ruger was an engineer's engineer, and "over-built" everything.
jaydubya
Member
686. I've handled the GP100, and decided that I would not enjoy having it strapped to me for very long. Didn't care for the trigger either. My 4" 686+ is a good compromise between carry and durability. I like the extra round too, but it wasn't a decision maker. When I bought it, I simply got lucky. Were a 686+ not available, I would have accepted an earlier model 686 -- and failing that, a 586. I had studied the subject for some time before I went to my gun shop/range and told the owner what I wanted. He grinned, went out back and brought me a used, never fired 686+. It's been mine now for two years. And, a little off topic, it wears Crimson Trace grips now.
Cordially, Jack
Cordially, Jack
wuchak
Member
Not true. Do some research online. You'll find laboratory tests that show that there is no difference between quality cast and forged strength. The tests I looked at were around machine dies which take a lot more stress than a handgun frame. I also saw a test where, Kawasaki I think, had developed a cast steel crankshaft that was stronger than forged. The GP100 was designed from the ground up to eat full magnum loads all day, every day.
With a little work a Ruger trigger can be made good enough to make most Smith owners drool. The GP100 is also very easy to work on for a home smith who wants to do some polishing. One often overlooked advantage to the Ruger design is ease of maintenance. The GP100 breaks down as easy as a semi-auto for detailed cleaning and lube. Scrubbing the cylinder is much easier when you are holding it in your hand without it attached to the frame. My Security Six and SP101 are the same basic design and once you take out the grip screw it takes all of 10 seconds to disassemble the gun the rest of the way. It goes back together even faster.
Realistically any of the revolvers listed will handle enough magnum loads to give you carpel tunnel but I've become a big fan of the Ruger modular design.
IMO because more have the S&W 686 & GP 100 than do the S&W 627. I have the S&W 627 and find it as durable as the 686. Can't really compare either to the Ruger GP 100 since I don't own one but they are built like a tank. In a durability test I would not be shocked that the Ruger will win. Ditto on the Ruger Red Hawk being the most overbuilt .357 ever made. That's coming from a S&W guy.
greener
Member
Based on no facts at all I think the GP-100 will take more punishment. I guess the only way to determine this is an extended test with a GP-100 and the Smith's. Good excuse to get another wheel gun or two.
mgregg85
Member
I'd be interested to see some type of heavy, blue pill .357 magnum loads used in side by side, destructive testing of the 686 and the gp-100 until either revolver fails. My money is on the gp-100 quite literally, its what I bought because of it's reputation as being a very strong revolver.
wuchak
Member
I'm also one of the demented few who the the GP100 is a better looking gun than the Smiths.
03Shadowbob
Member
Why do some folks here think that the Ruger weighs more than the Smith 686? The Smith in 4" weighs more than the GP100 in 4". The size of each is so similar that the 686 and GP100 fit in the same holster. Please do your research first before adding your comments on "facts".
As far as investment cast versus forged, please do your homework first and come to your own conclusions rather than regurgitating what you have heard from S&W diehards.
I could say the Ruger is stronger because it is one piece frame and the Smith is a 2 piece frame.
I'd take the Ruger over a Smith any day. Besides strength and reliability, Rugers look better to me.
As far as investment cast versus forged, please do your homework first and come to your own conclusions rather than regurgitating what you have heard from S&W diehards.
I could say the Ruger is stronger because it is one piece frame and the Smith is a 2 piece frame.
I'd take the Ruger over a Smith any day. Besides strength and reliability, Rugers look better to me.
easyg
Member
The GP100 is easily the best choice.
Buy one....you will not regret it!
Buy one....you will not regret it!
Firepower!
member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
- Messages
- 723
Colt
I voted Ruger, since you did not have King Cobra by Colt.
I voted Ruger, since you did not have King Cobra by Colt.
Fishman777
Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2007
- Messages
- 520
I don't mean to disrespect other Revolvers, but this one is not even close.
I would put it in this order:
1. Ruger Redhawks in .357 magnum. There are no .357 magnum revolvers that are more durable than these. Period. Good luck finding one. As one gun writer put it, ".357 magnum RedHawks are probably too much of a good thing..." These guns should appear in webster's next to the word "overbuilt."
2. SA revolvers (either Freedom arms or Ruger).
3. Ruger GP100
There is nothing else that is even close, in my opinion. People focus too much on revolver frames when they get into these discussions. The solid Ruger frames are more robust than the smith frames with the side plates. I'm sorry, but you are drinking Kool aid if you think differently. Having said this, the 686 frames are solid enough in my opinion.
My reason for placing Ruger revolvers ahead of Smiths and Dan Wessons has more to do with the lockwork of the Ruger DA revolvers. Smith and Dan Wesson revolvers lock in two places: the back of the cylinder and the bottom of the cylinder. The third "locking" position on these revolvers is the ejector rod in the front of the cylinder. That is not a true lock. If you think that the ejector rod is good enough, explain to me why Smiths often end up with bent ejector rods? Also explain why 686s and other Smith revovlers go out of timing faster than Ruger revolvers. I don't mean to bash these guns, because I would own one if I could afford to have a huge gun collection. My resources are limited, so I can't justify getting a "pre-lock" 686 right now.
The Ruger triple locking cylinder has three "real" cylcinder locking positions. The Ruger ejector rod isn't used to lock the cylinder in place. Loading manuals list Ruger-only loads for a reason. The Ruger-only loads are too much for Revolvers from other manufacturers to handle. A good Ruger revolver will handle anything that you can dish out at it.
The Ruger design excells in the areas of durability and reliability. Smiths, Dan Wessons, and Colts excell in other areas. Which revolvers are the best? That depends on what you are looking for. For flexibility, go with a Dan Wesson. For looks and out of the box accuracy, go with a Smith or a Colt. For reliability and durability, go with a Ruger.
If you get a Ruger, just make sure that you inspect the gun before you buy it. Ruger's QC is not what it used to be. Ruger's *designs* are the most robust and reliable ones out there, but you still need to make sure that you don't end up with a lemon. I would recommend that you fondle the gun and inspect it before you buy it. I would not recommend ordering one online.
The only real gripe that I have with Rugers DA revolvers relate to their "finish". The guns sometimes get beat up pretty bad at the factory. Ruger doesn't invest much money in smoothing out the dings. That is usually done by hand and represents a huge component in the cost of producing revolvers. Ruger focuses on making robust guns, not pretty ones. The other little gripe that I have is related to the triggers. The triggers sometimes have burrs in them as well. Cleaning that up is easy, but it is even easier to find one with a smooth out of the box trigger. It took me a few weeks of looking, but I found a "super" GP100 with an excellent trigger. If you go with the Gp100, you should go to the Ruger forum and get your hands on Iowegan's IBOK manual. It is a detailed manual for the GP100. It describes, in detail, how to completely field strip, and clean these guns. It is pretty easy to do, but it is even easier with this handbook.
I would put it in this order:
1. Ruger Redhawks in .357 magnum. There are no .357 magnum revolvers that are more durable than these. Period. Good luck finding one. As one gun writer put it, ".357 magnum RedHawks are probably too much of a good thing..." These guns should appear in webster's next to the word "overbuilt."
2. SA revolvers (either Freedom arms or Ruger).
3. Ruger GP100
There is nothing else that is even close, in my opinion. People focus too much on revolver frames when they get into these discussions. The solid Ruger frames are more robust than the smith frames with the side plates. I'm sorry, but you are drinking Kool aid if you think differently. Having said this, the 686 frames are solid enough in my opinion.
My reason for placing Ruger revolvers ahead of Smiths and Dan Wessons has more to do with the lockwork of the Ruger DA revolvers. Smith and Dan Wesson revolvers lock in two places: the back of the cylinder and the bottom of the cylinder. The third "locking" position on these revolvers is the ejector rod in the front of the cylinder. That is not a true lock. If you think that the ejector rod is good enough, explain to me why Smiths often end up with bent ejector rods? Also explain why 686s and other Smith revovlers go out of timing faster than Ruger revolvers. I don't mean to bash these guns, because I would own one if I could afford to have a huge gun collection. My resources are limited, so I can't justify getting a "pre-lock" 686 right now.
The Ruger triple locking cylinder has three "real" cylcinder locking positions. The Ruger ejector rod isn't used to lock the cylinder in place. Loading manuals list Ruger-only loads for a reason. The Ruger-only loads are too much for Revolvers from other manufacturers to handle. A good Ruger revolver will handle anything that you can dish out at it.
The Ruger design excells in the areas of durability and reliability. Smiths, Dan Wessons, and Colts excell in other areas. Which revolvers are the best? That depends on what you are looking for. For flexibility, go with a Dan Wesson. For looks and out of the box accuracy, go with a Smith or a Colt. For reliability and durability, go with a Ruger.
If you get a Ruger, just make sure that you inspect the gun before you buy it. Ruger's QC is not what it used to be. Ruger's *designs* are the most robust and reliable ones out there, but you still need to make sure that you don't end up with a lemon. I would recommend that you fondle the gun and inspect it before you buy it. I would not recommend ordering one online.
The only real gripe that I have with Rugers DA revolvers relate to their "finish". The guns sometimes get beat up pretty bad at the factory. Ruger doesn't invest much money in smoothing out the dings. That is usually done by hand and represents a huge component in the cost of producing revolvers. Ruger focuses on making robust guns, not pretty ones. The other little gripe that I have is related to the triggers. The triggers sometimes have burrs in them as well. Cleaning that up is easy, but it is even easier to find one with a smooth out of the box trigger. It took me a few weeks of looking, but I found a "super" GP100 with an excellent trigger. If you go with the Gp100, you should go to the Ruger forum and get your hands on Iowegan's IBOK manual. It is a detailed manual for the GP100. It describes, in detail, how to completely field strip, and clean these guns. It is pretty easy to do, but it is even easier with this handbook.
- Status
