Mr. Mosin
Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2019
- Messages
- 2,112
While out Christmas shopping, I stopped by two of my LGS's to pick up some ammo and window shop. I handled and investigated five (double action) revolvers today, and I was surprised by what I found. My "inspection list" includes a Charter Arms "Pink Lady" hammerless .38 Spl snub, a Taurus 605 (snub), Ruger SP101 (.357 Mag, snub), S&W Mdl 66 Combat Magnum (4.25"), and Colt Python (4.25"); all new production, in the box.
I was pleasantly surprised at the Charter Arms. Despite it's absolutely hideous color scheme and mediocre/poor finish, it exhibited excellent lockup on all five charge holes, and very little endshake or play on full lockup. The fit of the crane to the frame was somewhat lacking, but seemed solid enough. This particular model shipped with a poorly fit example what I'm guessing to be their "full size" grip- two panel rubber grips, with finger grooves and plenty of space for a full grasp- wonderful on a belt gun, useless on an intended pocket gun. The trigger pull was relatively smooth, though nothing to write home about; with a noticeable catch at the end of the pull, just before hammer let-off. I could detect a bit of "stacking" in the trigger towards the end of the pull. B/C gap by eyeball gage was acceptable. There were immediately noticeable machine marks everywhere inside the cylinder hole in the frame (unsure what this is called).
The Taurus 605 again exhibited good lockup all the way around, but with a very slight amount of discernable play in lockup on all charge holes, with no discernable endshake. Fit and finish was good, with the matte black finish being both smooth and evenly applied. The grips seem adequate for their intended purpose (if a bit chunky), though they also seemed to be a bit... tacky. They would probably catch on clothing. The single action trigger pull was light and crisp, with the smallest bit of take-up, then an immediate wall and excellent break. The double action pull was... surprisingly buttery smooth, though heavy. B/C gap by eyeball gage was acceptable. There were only a few minor machine marks noticeable.
The Ruger SP101 was by and far the heaviest of the snubs, in blued steel with an excellent finish, both smooth and evenly applied, with an almost mirror shine to it. Fit was acceptable, with the crane being discernibly proud of the frame, on the outside, though under the barrel fit well to the frame. The trigger grouping had no immediately discernable gaps or burrs between it and the frame, and was finished acceptably- to were one had to look strongly to discern the lines there. The double action trigger was almost as if someone had poured a pound of sand into the action. Farthest thing from "smooth" I've ever felt on what is supposed to be a top-shelf double action revolver. It would most certainly need work to be useable- no amount of dry-firing would help this. The single action pull was surprisingly excellent, given that I'd just tortured my trigger finger on the double action pull. Relatively light and crisp, negligible take-up. The B/C gap was acceptable to my "eyeball gage". The only other issues I noted were that the hammer had a slight drag against the frame, and small/minor machine marks on the inside of the ejector rod shroud.
The Smith and Wesson Mdl 66 was surprisingly svelte for what was at one time a duty sidearm for many peace officers- I attribute this to the half lugged barrel. Finish was good, with the matte stainless being smooth and even, though I personally disliked the contrasting black cylinder release. Fit was good, though I did notice a slight gap in the frame/cylinder underneath the barrel lug. Also present was a slight gap between the squared edge of the top of the crane and bottom of frame underneath the barrel, where the new detent engages. The crane sat flush to the frame, with no discernable proudness or relief. Lockup was as good as any modern Smith I've seen, with only a hair's breadth of slop on any charge hole, and that could well be attributed to my over-active imagining. Absolutely no endplay, or endshake on full lockup. The grips are full sized rubber finger-groove, and would probably work a miracle with .357 Magnum's. The barrel was not canted and was aligned as it should be, to the best of my telling. I immediately appreciated the adjustable sights compared to the previous example's fixed blade and rear notch. I could detect no slack or looseness in the rear sight. The trigger pull was mostly smooth and heavy in DA, noticeably smoother than the SP101, though it was almost as heavy. Single Action pull was as expected.
The Colt Python immediately made itself known as a hefty chunk of absolutely gorgeous stainless steel, with a spectacular mirror finish that was even and smooth; along with handsome wood grips. It kind of went downhill afterwards, however. An immediately noted gap between barrel and frame (easily 1/16 of an inch, perhaps even more), along with the notorious loose rear sight, and an atrocious B/C gap. Lockup however, was excellent. Tightest Colt DA I've ever handled. The Altamont wood grips were somewhat poorly fit, with sharp edges standing proud above the backstrap, and a slight gap at the bottom where the panels meet. I can not attest to the Pythons trigger quality, as (sadly) I was not permitted to dry-fire the Python, even with snap caps.
My conclusion is this.... that I would trust all of them except the Python, and that solely due to the B/C gap, gap between barrel/frame, and loose rear sight. I've no doubt that as it sits now, you couldn't hit the same target twice with it in a vice. Fix the loose rear sight, and get a $1500 gun *right* from the factory, and I would readily trust it.
*Please excuse the spelling errors. I'm still rushing around trying to accomplish Christmas.
I was pleasantly surprised at the Charter Arms. Despite it's absolutely hideous color scheme and mediocre/poor finish, it exhibited excellent lockup on all five charge holes, and very little endshake or play on full lockup. The fit of the crane to the frame was somewhat lacking, but seemed solid enough. This particular model shipped with a poorly fit example what I'm guessing to be their "full size" grip- two panel rubber grips, with finger grooves and plenty of space for a full grasp- wonderful on a belt gun, useless on an intended pocket gun. The trigger pull was relatively smooth, though nothing to write home about; with a noticeable catch at the end of the pull, just before hammer let-off. I could detect a bit of "stacking" in the trigger towards the end of the pull. B/C gap by eyeball gage was acceptable. There were immediately noticeable machine marks everywhere inside the cylinder hole in the frame (unsure what this is called).
The Taurus 605 again exhibited good lockup all the way around, but with a very slight amount of discernable play in lockup on all charge holes, with no discernable endshake. Fit and finish was good, with the matte black finish being both smooth and evenly applied. The grips seem adequate for their intended purpose (if a bit chunky), though they also seemed to be a bit... tacky. They would probably catch on clothing. The single action trigger pull was light and crisp, with the smallest bit of take-up, then an immediate wall and excellent break. The double action pull was... surprisingly buttery smooth, though heavy. B/C gap by eyeball gage was acceptable. There were only a few minor machine marks noticeable.
The Ruger SP101 was by and far the heaviest of the snubs, in blued steel with an excellent finish, both smooth and evenly applied, with an almost mirror shine to it. Fit was acceptable, with the crane being discernibly proud of the frame, on the outside, though under the barrel fit well to the frame. The trigger grouping had no immediately discernable gaps or burrs between it and the frame, and was finished acceptably- to were one had to look strongly to discern the lines there. The double action trigger was almost as if someone had poured a pound of sand into the action. Farthest thing from "smooth" I've ever felt on what is supposed to be a top-shelf double action revolver. It would most certainly need work to be useable- no amount of dry-firing would help this. The single action pull was surprisingly excellent, given that I'd just tortured my trigger finger on the double action pull. Relatively light and crisp, negligible take-up. The B/C gap was acceptable to my "eyeball gage". The only other issues I noted were that the hammer had a slight drag against the frame, and small/minor machine marks on the inside of the ejector rod shroud.
The Smith and Wesson Mdl 66 was surprisingly svelte for what was at one time a duty sidearm for many peace officers- I attribute this to the half lugged barrel. Finish was good, with the matte stainless being smooth and even, though I personally disliked the contrasting black cylinder release. Fit was good, though I did notice a slight gap in the frame/cylinder underneath the barrel lug. Also present was a slight gap between the squared edge of the top of the crane and bottom of frame underneath the barrel, where the new detent engages. The crane sat flush to the frame, with no discernable proudness or relief. Lockup was as good as any modern Smith I've seen, with only a hair's breadth of slop on any charge hole, and that could well be attributed to my over-active imagining. Absolutely no endplay, or endshake on full lockup. The grips are full sized rubber finger-groove, and would probably work a miracle with .357 Magnum's. The barrel was not canted and was aligned as it should be, to the best of my telling. I immediately appreciated the adjustable sights compared to the previous example's fixed blade and rear notch. I could detect no slack or looseness in the rear sight. The trigger pull was mostly smooth and heavy in DA, noticeably smoother than the SP101, though it was almost as heavy. Single Action pull was as expected.
The Colt Python immediately made itself known as a hefty chunk of absolutely gorgeous stainless steel, with a spectacular mirror finish that was even and smooth; along with handsome wood grips. It kind of went downhill afterwards, however. An immediately noted gap between barrel and frame (easily 1/16 of an inch, perhaps even more), along with the notorious loose rear sight, and an atrocious B/C gap. Lockup however, was excellent. Tightest Colt DA I've ever handled. The Altamont wood grips were somewhat poorly fit, with sharp edges standing proud above the backstrap, and a slight gap at the bottom where the panels meet. I can not attest to the Pythons trigger quality, as (sadly) I was not permitted to dry-fire the Python, even with snap caps.
My conclusion is this.... that I would trust all of them except the Python, and that solely due to the B/C gap, gap between barrel/frame, and loose rear sight. I've no doubt that as it sits now, you couldn't hit the same target twice with it in a vice. Fix the loose rear sight, and get a $1500 gun *right* from the factory, and I would readily trust it.
*Please excuse the spelling errors. I'm still rushing around trying to accomplish Christmas.
Last edited:
