markviiimark
Member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2013
- Messages
- 1
Just bought a 686+ 3 inch only because I couldn't afford a Python.
Bingo.Pythons are pretty, Smiths are smooth, and Rugers are rugged. Pick one.
I cant even begin to count whats wrong with this statement, Forging is generally signicantly stronger than casts, what gives rugers their strength is the gross over use of steel they use in the casting process, if s&w used that much metal in a forged.revolver it would be much stronger than any ruger.I'm a fan of all three brands. I don't think one is really better than the other. I think a better word would be "different". One thing that makes me laugh is how people think that because ruger uses investment cast they are inferior to s&w and colt who uses the forging process. People should do a little more research before they come to that conclusion. Forging is actually a very old outdated method for making revolver frames. Investment cast is much more modern and efficient process and it can withstand a much higher psi than forged. You are limited to the types alloys used in forging. You can use the worlds strongest and hardest alloys in investment cast. When Dan Wesson left the s&w company to make his own revolvers his decision to use investment cast was a no-brainer. He didn't go with that method because it was weaker or inferior!! Bill Ruger, Dan Wesson, and among others are highly intelligent gun experts and would have not chose that method if it was inferior to forging. S&W uses forging because they been using that method for 150 years and its part of their tradition. All three brands are awesome and have their own unique attributes about them. All three have advantages over one another but not one is better than the other. It's all a matter of opinion and how a certain revolver suits a different individual.
In the end both methods used make fine quality firearms. A ruger revolver, s&w, or a colt will still be functioning long after we are dead and gone.
Calling the Python a collector (which it certainly is to some) and the 686/GP a shooter makes no sense in the context of this "which is better" poll. It is what they have in common that must be compared.Comparing a 686 to a GP-100 is valid as both are good revolvers and still in production. The Colt Python is a different deal as it has been nearly 10 years since the last Python was built. Because of that, it is more a collector than a shooter especially in light of the prices some of them bring now. The Dan Wesson could be added to the comparison as it is in production and in the same caliber.
^ +1Comparing a 686 to a GP-100 is valid as both are good revolvers and still in production. The Colt Python is a different deal as it has been nearly 10 years since the last Python was built. Because of that, it is more a collector than a shooter especially in light of the prices some of them bring now. The Dan Wesson could be added to the comparison as it is in production and in the same caliber.