In another thread concerning .22 revolvers, a member made the argument that he preferred a 6-shot .22 (617) for training since its indexing would be similar to the 19/66 .357 6-shot that he used. This was opposed to the 10-shot version of the 617 (or Taurus 94 9-shot).
Based on training, this seemed like a valid point, but purely on reliablity and utility of the weapon, should revolvers with more than 6-shots be considered less reliable or harder to use? Does the fitting, machining, timing have to be that much more accurate, thus limiting the tollerances?
The performance center 327 8-shot and 686 plus 7-shot seem pretty appealing to me, having the extra rounds for not that big of a sacrafice in weight.
What are your thoughts and experiences with these guns compared to the 'normal' 6-shot 19/66/686?
Based on training, this seemed like a valid point, but purely on reliablity and utility of the weapon, should revolvers with more than 6-shots be considered less reliable or harder to use? Does the fitting, machining, timing have to be that much more accurate, thus limiting the tollerances?
The performance center 327 8-shot and 686 plus 7-shot seem pretty appealing to me, having the extra rounds for not that big of a sacrafice in weight.
What are your thoughts and experiences with these guns compared to the 'normal' 6-shot 19/66/686?