One revolver only - which one?
- Thread starter txgolfer45
- Start date
- Status
jack the toad
Member
Your post suggests you're leaning toward a .357 of which a 4" S&W L-frame would be my choice but to answer your post of only one gun, it would be a 4" S&W 629.
Magnums if you need it and Specials if you don't.
Magnums if you need it and Specials if you don't.
Cosmoline
Member
I gotta tell you, this Ruger Bisley-Vaquero in .44 Mag is hands down the funnest revolver I've shot in years. I've been shooting it "bullseye" style a lot, and it's surprisingly accurate. It fits my hand perfectly, and soaks up the recoil from even the most potent bear rounds. Yesterday I shot over 100 rounds from it at 20 yards and kept most everything in the black. With one arm that many rounds is a pretty good workout, but fun.
For hunting, .44 Mag is much better than the .357. Esp. if you're shooting from a short gun. It expands your range and the available game.
And I personally think a single action is just inherently more fun than a double.
For hunting, .44 Mag is much better than the .357. Esp. if you're shooting from a short gun. It expands your range and the available game.
And I personally think a single action is just inherently more fun than a double.
AStone
Member
No argument there. Hands down.
Still, if I could own only one ...
You might want to consider a pre-lock S&W 625 (stainless N-frame .45 acp). The gun is extremely quick to load and unload with moon-clips. It will load and fire without them but it's significantly slower. If you prefer not to use moon-clips and want traditional loading, just buy .45 Auto-Rim ammo or brass for reloading. Finally, it can handle .45 Super ammunition (a possible minor modification is necessary, I believe), which should be adequate for some hunting chores. I haven't really looked into it for my 5" 625-4 yet, but it's on my list of things to do.
Of course, a good .44 Magnum is hard to beat and when coupled with .44 Special ammunition, is quite versatile. Plenty of good suggestions have been offered for .44's.
Of course, a good .44 Magnum is hard to beat and when coupled with .44 Special ammunition, is quite versatile. Plenty of good suggestions have been offered for .44's.
I really like my GP 100, but if I wanted to hunt deer, I'd look real hard at the Blackhawk in .44 Mag, or .45 Colt. If you have your heart set on a DA, there's the Redhawk, or the Smith 25's or 29's.
Best would be to go to a shop that has one of each so you can see what your hand likes.
Best would be to go to a shop that has one of each so you can see what your hand likes.
Stainz
Member
If you want .357M, get a 4" - like the partially lugged S&W 620 (SKU# 164401 MSRP $751). It is actually a 686+ with a short lugged barrel, so you'll have the same 7 rd capacity.
If you want a larger caliber, you can't beat a .44 Magnum - like a 4"/6" 629, such as S&W SKU# 163603/163606 - MSRP $889 - street price: $649-$689. They are identical, save the barrel length. The lower muzzle weight from a full lug design makes them better 'pointers' - albeit at a slight muzzle rise premium. Put a Hogue .500 Magnum rubber monogrip (S&W Accessories: $35) on it to ease the backstrap bounce under recoil. I have both - with those grips - real keepers! Cowboy ammo in .44 Russian, Special, & Magnum can be used for plinking - clean the chambers well before going to hot .44 Magnum. The .44's bullet is 88+% larger OD than a .357/.38.
Another choice, already mentioned, is the S&W .45 ACP/AR 625 - 4" or 5". You can plink with .45 ACP ball ammo - and make great hog or deer rounds for it as well. I load 255gr LSWC, .45 Colt bullets, at up to 885 fps - others go higher. I also have the larger Speer #4484 250gr Gold Dot HP at 850 fps - should be great for distance. Check out a new 625JM (SKU 160936 - MSRP $909 - $40 over the bare bones 4" 625's MSRP!) - they come with a spring-loaded front sight and nice wood grips. A frugal big bore - some 10+ % larger OD than a .44.
Re S&W 'Infernal Locks'... I have shot many tens of thousands of rounds through my six so-equipped with no evidence of it's prescence. While I'd rather it not be there, I'd also opt for real wood grips - which only my 5" h-l 686+ and 625JM came with. I also wish I didn't have a drawer full of various hammer/trigger locks which I will never use - but just had to pay for as well. To say a blanket no to IL-equipped S&W's limits you to someone else's troubled S&W - and keeps some fine current offerings out of your hands.
Every Ruger I've bought has had it's share of problems due to poor QC. I've had BH's, RH's, & SRH - and only have a .32M SP101 and a couple of BHG SA's now. They all needed some 'touch up' to function properly when new. Plan on spending some time on a new Ruger - or paying a 'smith to. The S&W's have better SA triggers, too. Still, I enjoy my Rugers for play - but I trust my life to a S&W - with the IL.
Stainz
If you want a larger caliber, you can't beat a .44 Magnum - like a 4"/6" 629, such as S&W SKU# 163603/163606 - MSRP $889 - street price: $649-$689. They are identical, save the barrel length. The lower muzzle weight from a full lug design makes them better 'pointers' - albeit at a slight muzzle rise premium. Put a Hogue .500 Magnum rubber monogrip (S&W Accessories: $35) on it to ease the backstrap bounce under recoil. I have both - with those grips - real keepers! Cowboy ammo in .44 Russian, Special, & Magnum can be used for plinking - clean the chambers well before going to hot .44 Magnum. The .44's bullet is 88+% larger OD than a .357/.38.
Another choice, already mentioned, is the S&W .45 ACP/AR 625 - 4" or 5". You can plink with .45 ACP ball ammo - and make great hog or deer rounds for it as well. I load 255gr LSWC, .45 Colt bullets, at up to 885 fps - others go higher. I also have the larger Speer #4484 250gr Gold Dot HP at 850 fps - should be great for distance. Check out a new 625JM (SKU 160936 - MSRP $909 - $40 over the bare bones 4" 625's MSRP!) - they come with a spring-loaded front sight and nice wood grips. A frugal big bore - some 10+ % larger OD than a .44.
Re S&W 'Infernal Locks'... I have shot many tens of thousands of rounds through my six so-equipped with no evidence of it's prescence. While I'd rather it not be there, I'd also opt for real wood grips - which only my 5" h-l 686+ and 625JM came with. I also wish I didn't have a drawer full of various hammer/trigger locks which I will never use - but just had to pay for as well. To say a blanket no to IL-equipped S&W's limits you to someone else's troubled S&W - and keeps some fine current offerings out of your hands.
Every Ruger I've bought has had it's share of problems due to poor QC. I've had BH's, RH's, & SRH - and only have a .32M SP101 and a couple of BHG SA's now. They all needed some 'touch up' to function properly when new. Plan on spending some time on a new Ruger - or paying a 'smith to. The S&W's have better SA triggers, too. Still, I enjoy my Rugers for play - but I trust my life to a S&W - with the IL.
Stainz
Fishman777
Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2007
- Messages
- 520
Gp100
After doing a lot of research, I decided to get a 4" Ruger GP100 because of the triple locking cylinder and the solid frame. If you have to count on only one gun, get a Ruger. The modular design is also a great bonus, because it allows someone to completely strip the gun pretty easily.
Just do a little research on the different handgun forums. You will see for yourself that Rugers almost never have timing problems. There are several review articles that confirm this. I've seen many Smith and Wesson timing complaints on different forums, mentioned in gun magazine articles, and when talking to Smith and Wesson owners. I'm not saying that it is a universal problem with Smith and Wesson revolvers, but these types of problems are a lot more common is Smiths than they are with Rugers. If you have a lot of guns, then it isn't a big deal to send a gun back for repairs. If the gun is your one and only gun, you can't afford to send it away for weeks at a time.
I've shot a few 686s and I really like the way that these guns shoot. Having said this, the GP100 that I bought a few months ago had a trigger that was just as smooth as both of the 686s that I've shot. The newer Rugers have *very* nice, smooth triggers. The triggers might be a little heavier than the 686 trigger, but I prefer that in a home defense revolver.
I'd recommend a gp100. Smith's are pretty good too, but if you are looking for something that won't see much wear and tear from magnum loads get the gp100.
http://www.gunweek.com/2004/feature1010.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_149_24/ai_65910639
http://www.grantcunningham.com/blog_files/448400adaed4f0a82d4961b5b2d91d8b-116.html
After doing a lot of research, I decided to get a 4" Ruger GP100 because of the triple locking cylinder and the solid frame. If you have to count on only one gun, get a Ruger. The modular design is also a great bonus, because it allows someone to completely strip the gun pretty easily.
Just do a little research on the different handgun forums. You will see for yourself that Rugers almost never have timing problems. There are several review articles that confirm this. I've seen many Smith and Wesson timing complaints on different forums, mentioned in gun magazine articles, and when talking to Smith and Wesson owners. I'm not saying that it is a universal problem with Smith and Wesson revolvers, but these types of problems are a lot more common is Smiths than they are with Rugers. If you have a lot of guns, then it isn't a big deal to send a gun back for repairs. If the gun is your one and only gun, you can't afford to send it away for weeks at a time.
I've shot a few 686s and I really like the way that these guns shoot. Having said this, the GP100 that I bought a few months ago had a trigger that was just as smooth as both of the 686s that I've shot. The newer Rugers have *very* nice, smooth triggers. The triggers might be a little heavier than the 686 trigger, but I prefer that in a home defense revolver.
I'd recommend a gp100. Smith's are pretty good too, but if you are looking for something that won't see much wear and tear from magnum loads get the gp100.
http://www.gunweek.com/2004/feature1010.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_149_24/ai_65910639
http://www.grantcunningham.com/blog_files/448400adaed4f0a82d4961b5b2d91d8b-116.html
YardVarmint
Member
The Ruger GP-100.
AStone
Member
Fishman,
Regardless of whether I fully agree in a blanket fashion with all of your points or not
- there's a couple that I might want to pick a bit, but perhaps at another time -
I enjoyed reading your post 34.
It's well written, flows smoothly and carries your argument effectively.
And, I'll confess, it raises some questions in my mind about my revolvers.
Thanks. And thanks to all for this thread. Very interesting and informative.
Nem
Regardless of whether I fully agree in a blanket fashion with all of your points or not
- there's a couple that I might want to pick a bit, but perhaps at another time -
I enjoyed reading your post 34.
It's well written, flows smoothly and carries your argument effectively.
And, I'll confess, it raises some questions in my mind about my revolvers.
Thanks. And thanks to all for this thread. Very interesting and informative.
Nem
Hawk
Member
I enjoy shooting my 686 more than either of the 66s, but I suspect that's just because I tend to prefer full underlugs and a little bit of weight. My two 66s are of the old school - I believe there's an actual difference in frame types that's disappeared with the 620. I wouldn't swear to this - I'm kinda new to this revolver thing.
I don't own a Ruger yet. I rather like the lack of screws. I shot one decades ago (Security Six?) and it had the worst trigger I'd come across apart from a particularly grim Beretta Tomcat. Glad to hear that's changed. They've been sparse where I shop - the only one I've seen recently was chambered in .22RF, which I didn't even know they made. I'll connect with one in .357 eventually.
The 686 (6") is comfy with full house loads. The 66 (4") with the pixie grips is unpleasant; the 66 (also 4") with "target" grips is OK but not as nice as the 686 which will have you shooting enough you'll to buy reloading gear. At this point, you can post in the handloading section and watch as the Red vs. Blue vs. Green partisans fire up rhetoric the likes of which makes "1911 vs Glock" look sedate.
I don't own a Ruger yet. I rather like the lack of screws. I shot one decades ago (Security Six?) and it had the worst trigger I'd come across apart from a particularly grim Beretta Tomcat. Glad to hear that's changed. They've been sparse where I shop - the only one I've seen recently was chambered in .22RF, which I didn't even know they made. I'll connect with one in .357 eventually.
The 686 (6") is comfy with full house loads. The 66 (4") with the pixie grips is unpleasant; the 66 (also 4") with "target" grips is OK but not as nice as the 686 which will have you shooting enough you'll to buy reloading gear. At this point, you can post in the handloading section and watch as the Red vs. Blue vs. Green partisans fire up rhetoric the likes of which makes "1911 vs Glock" look sedate.
FLORIDA KEVIN
Member
I would go for the Ruger gp 100 -6 inch barrel ! as a matter of fact mt next revolver will be a 6" gp100~!!
armoredman
Member
Smith Model 10-8. Perfection in a .38 Special.
glockman19
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2007
- Messages
- 3,700
either:
.357 Magnum - Smith & Wesson 686 4"
or
.44 Magnum - Smith & Wesson 629 5"
.357 Magnum - Smith & Wesson 686 4"
or
.44 Magnum - Smith & Wesson 629 5"
Piedmont Plinker
Member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 941
what armoredman said- hard to beat a nice k-frame
Stainz
Member
A little more information may help the .357M decision-making process easier. First, the Rugers are all cast SS, while S&Ws are still hammer-forged and heat-treated. Second, in the actual comparison of the 'equivalent' models, the 4"/6" SS GP100s (KGP141/KGP161) and 686s (164222/164224), the weights are 41/46 oz and 40/44 oz respectively - not the huge difference inferred by many. Plus, it just takes more cast steel to equal the strength of hammer-forged and heat treated steel. Sadly, much of the GP100's added weight is in that massive barrel shroud. Of course, want a 7-shooter? S&W!
S&W's don't shoot themselves 'out of time' any faster than any other maker's .357M. The true Achille's heel of the K-frame .357M's, including the SS 65 & 66, is the minute and edible forcing cone - the hyper-hot 110 & 125 gr loads do etch away at that dimunitive edge. Still, I've never seen one bad enough to warrant a barrel replacement. The same with the supposed topstrap flame-etching. Neither are a problem with heavier loads. The L-frame was developed for 'insurance', it's front frame being thick enough for .025+" more barrel diameter, and the taller frame opening permits the 7-shot .357M cylinder - and a 5-shot .44 Special, too.
As long as the 10, 64, 67, and 617s exist, there will be a K-frame. The 65 & 66 were 'replaced' by the 619 & 620 - which are actually L-frame bodies with short-lugged and modern two-piece barrels. The K&L frames take the same grips. I like the short lug look, feel, and pointability, muzzle jump being less important to me than the 'pointability'. Sadly, Ruger did away with their short lugged GP100s some time back.
If you are a normal SAAMI-spec .357M commercial ammo shooter - or reloader who doesn't 'test the envelope', the S&W will last a lifetime - and with a smoother lockwork. If you find any fault with it, you have a pre-paid shipping label as close as an 800 call - for 'life'. Ruger lets you pay for the call and shipping - and doesn't specify a term for it's warranty. Still, there is enough to mull over - and I predict you will like whichever one you buy.
Stainz
S&W's don't shoot themselves 'out of time' any faster than any other maker's .357M. The true Achille's heel of the K-frame .357M's, including the SS 65 & 66, is the minute and edible forcing cone - the hyper-hot 110 & 125 gr loads do etch away at that dimunitive edge. Still, I've never seen one bad enough to warrant a barrel replacement. The same with the supposed topstrap flame-etching. Neither are a problem with heavier loads. The L-frame was developed for 'insurance', it's front frame being thick enough for .025+" more barrel diameter, and the taller frame opening permits the 7-shot .357M cylinder - and a 5-shot .44 Special, too.
As long as the 10, 64, 67, and 617s exist, there will be a K-frame. The 65 & 66 were 'replaced' by the 619 & 620 - which are actually L-frame bodies with short-lugged and modern two-piece barrels. The K&L frames take the same grips. I like the short lug look, feel, and pointability, muzzle jump being less important to me than the 'pointability'. Sadly, Ruger did away with their short lugged GP100s some time back.
If you are a normal SAAMI-spec .357M commercial ammo shooter - or reloader who doesn't 'test the envelope', the S&W will last a lifetime - and with a smoother lockwork. If you find any fault with it, you have a pre-paid shipping label as close as an 800 call - for 'life'. Ruger lets you pay for the call and shipping - and doesn't specify a term for it's warranty. Still, there is enough to mull over - and I predict you will like whichever one you buy.
Stainz
AStone
Member
And another great post, this time by Stainz.
Very well-written, good arguments. Thnx.
This thread continues to be a great read.
Nem
Very well-written, good arguments. Thnx.
This thread continues to be a great read.
Nem
frenchbushmaster
Member
A S&W for me.
An "L" or "N" frame.
A 4", 5" or 6" barrel. It's a simple aesthetic question.
But If possible an old production with the pin for lock the barrel.
For me the best quality and the most beautiful.
Mick.
An "L" or "N" frame.
A 4", 5" or 6" barrel. It's a simple aesthetic question.
But If possible an old production with the pin for lock the barrel.
For me the best quality and the most beautiful.
Mick.
I have a 2 1/2" Smith & Wesson 686 Plus and really like it. I have owned many Smiths and this one (even with that ugly lock hole in the side) has the smoothest out of the box double action trigger I have seen or owned to date.
I find the gun to be very accurate and easy to shoot even with full-house .357s due to its heavy weight for a snubby.
.357 Magnum is also very easy to reload and you can opt for .38 Special if you want a real pussycat for the range.
ironvic
I find the gun to be very accurate and easy to shoot even with full-house .357s due to its heavy weight for a snubby.
.357 Magnum is also very easy to reload and you can opt for .38 Special if you want a real pussycat for the range.
ironvic
AStone
Member
When SW produces a 686 with 3" barrel
(rumor says, coming any minute now),
I'll buy one in half a heart beat.
What's the budget ?
This would be a good option; http://www.gunsamerica.com/97696054...rs/Full-Frame-Revolver/S_W_M_27_FIVE_INCH.htm
A handloader would have some flexibility with a .357 N frame
Or one of these; http://www.gunsamerica.com/97693326...on-Revolvers/Ruger_Blackhawk_357_6_1_2_SS.htm
Most of the S&W 686 prelocks I've come across have been shot quit a bit, I would like to find a 4" 686 in VG condition.
This would be a good option; http://www.gunsamerica.com/97696054...rs/Full-Frame-Revolver/S_W_M_27_FIVE_INCH.htm
A handloader would have some flexibility with a .357 N frame
Or one of these; http://www.gunsamerica.com/97693326...on-Revolvers/Ruger_Blackhawk_357_6_1_2_SS.htm
Most of the S&W 686 prelocks I've come across have been shot quit a bit, I would like to find a 4" 686 in VG condition.
66-2 3-inch for me.
I have and respect both S&W and Ruger revolvers. DW too for that matter.
The only area where the S&W has a distinct advantage is in the rear sight. The aluminum Ruger rear sight is poorly designed and made, and it does not fit the frame recess well. I routinely replace them with Bowen and Millett sights within days of purchase as a matter of course.
A light trigger pull is not an advantage worth noting in practical double-action firing. Fantastic double action shooting can be done with heavy triggers that are not smooth. All too often, people use a light, smooth trigger pull as a crutch. They are nice, they add ZERO to hit probability at defensive ranges. All that is needed is a reasonably smooth trigger of average pull weight. The rest is all technique that applies with equal effectiveness to any standard factory trigger.
I have and respect both S&W and Ruger revolvers. DW too for that matter.
The only area where the S&W has a distinct advantage is in the rear sight. The aluminum Ruger rear sight is poorly designed and made, and it does not fit the frame recess well. I routinely replace them with Bowen and Millett sights within days of purchase as a matter of course.
A light trigger pull is not an advantage worth noting in practical double-action firing. Fantastic double action shooting can be done with heavy triggers that are not smooth. All too often, people use a light, smooth trigger pull as a crutch. They are nice, they add ZERO to hit probability at defensive ranges. All that is needed is a reasonably smooth trigger of average pull weight. The rest is all technique that applies with equal effectiveness to any standard factory trigger.
AStone
Member
Here's their image of one of those from this page.
Tell me that's not a beautiful revolver.
(Even if it needs a set of Hogue monogrips ...)
Think what you will about SW.
Own Rugers? That's great.
I want at least one Ruger, too.
(Probably a Super Redhawk Alaskan in .44 mag.)
But a 686 3" in .357 mag ...
... well, that's just
one fine revolver.
If I could own only one,
that one would be
near the top of my list,
if not at the top ...
Nem
First Shirt
Member
I've got to put in my vote for the Ruger Bisley Vaquero. Mine is .45 LC, and with stoutest loads, recoil is still quite manageable. And with those loads, it's very close (or equal to) a .44 Mag.
- Status
