stchman
Member
I know this debate has probably been beaten to death, but I am not going to talk about which revolver is stronger.
I recently watched The Yankee Marshal's video on casting vs. forging and how S&W can make a gun of the same strength with less steel.
Let compare the GP100 6" stainless vs. the 686 6". Both guns have a 6" barrel and a 6 shot cylinder. If Ruger's casting results in a heavier gun, then why is the 686 only 0.1oz lighter(45 vs. 44.9)? I maintain that 0.1oz is insignificant.
http://www.ruger.com/products/gp100/specSheets/1707.html
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...57912_757910_757787_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y
I'm not knocking either revolver, I own a GP100 6" and it is a great revolver. I am sure a 686 is a great revolver too. I just want to know what S&W more "expensive" forging that is not as thick and bulky results in a gun that weighs virtually the same.
Is the Ruger unsafe compared to the S&W? I highly doubt it.
I recently watched The Yankee Marshal's video on casting vs. forging and how S&W can make a gun of the same strength with less steel.
Let compare the GP100 6" stainless vs. the 686 6". Both guns have a 6" barrel and a 6 shot cylinder. If Ruger's casting results in a heavier gun, then why is the 686 only 0.1oz lighter(45 vs. 44.9)? I maintain that 0.1oz is insignificant.
http://www.ruger.com/products/gp100/specSheets/1707.html
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...57912_757910_757787_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y
I'm not knocking either revolver, I own a GP100 6" and it is a great revolver. I am sure a 686 is a great revolver too. I just want to know what S&W more "expensive" forging that is not as thick and bulky results in a gun that weighs virtually the same.
Is the Ruger unsafe compared to the S&W? I highly doubt it.