Which would you choose? 2.5" 686-plus (7 .357 Mag) or 3" 696 (5 .44 Spl)
- Thread starter SnubbyMan
- Start date
- Status
DHart
Member
Winchester 145 gr. Silvertip .357 ammo has a low flash... it's a dark red burst, not a bright white one. Superb defense ammo!
Personally prefer the 44 special with 200 gn GD's @ 900 fps (handloads). Does not mean this load is more effective than the 357, just less concussion, blast and recoil than full bore loads from short .357. Again, just a personal preference.
The .357 Win factory Silvertip load has been the most accurate full bore factory load put through all the 357 mag revolvers owned, and a 16 in Marlin. The accuracy may have alot to do with the bullet itself, as first attempts with handloaded 145 silvertips are also very accurate.
The .357 Win factory Silvertip load has been the most accurate full bore factory load put through all the 357 mag revolvers owned, and a 16 in Marlin. The accuracy may have alot to do with the bullet itself, as first attempts with handloaded 145 silvertips are also very accurate.
DHart
Member
zeke... I love that Win 145 gr. Silvertip load as well (just bought a bunch of the bullets so I can start reloading 145 gr. Silvertips) and I'm a big fan of 16" lever rifles as well! Enjoy!
Thanks again for all the responses! To be quite honest, I thought the 686 would have been the clear favorite, but the 696 has followed closely behind for the entire poll.
Although I always knew at some point I would want to try a 686+, DHart's picture of his 686+ with the open cylinder stuffed with 7 rounds bumped up its priority on my buy-list since the day he first posted those pics. I'll probably be moving to the Seattle area in about a year, so DHart, better lock up that nice collection of yours! I like 1911s too.
(joking, of course)
I think I've mentioned it before, but most of what I've learned about revolvers started with reading posts by C.R.Sam and Mike Irwin. C.R.Sam, at one point, carried both of these revolvers (6-shot 686 though, IIRC). The only thing I haven't done yet is transition away from stainless. I know C.R.Sam had concerns regarding the longevity of stainless Smiths for "fast and fancy shooting." Although I much prefer the look of blue & wood, for some reason I can't bring myself to holster a blued gun. Which just won't do for a working gun...
Although I always knew at some point I would want to try a 686+, DHart's picture of his 686+ with the open cylinder stuffed with 7 rounds bumped up its priority on my buy-list since the day he first posted those pics. I'll probably be moving to the Seattle area in about a year, so DHart, better lock up that nice collection of yours! I like 1911s too.
(joking, of course)I think I've mentioned it before, but most of what I've learned about revolvers started with reading posts by C.R.Sam and Mike Irwin. C.R.Sam, at one point, carried both of these revolvers (6-shot 686 though, IIRC). The only thing I haven't done yet is transition away from stainless. I know C.R.Sam had concerns regarding the longevity of stainless Smiths for "fast and fancy shooting." Although I much prefer the look of blue & wood, for some reason I can't bring myself to holster a blued gun. Which just won't do for a working gun...
DHart
Member
Snubbyman... I'm like you, I prefer not to holster blued guns, but I have plenty of stainless guns for that job. I tend to baby my blued guns more. As far as longevity of blued carbon steel vs. stainless steel, I seriously doubt that I would be shooting any particular gun enough to wear it out, regardless of the steel type.
696
I prefer big bullets. If a .38 spl fails to expand, its a .357 hole. If a .44 special fails to expand, its a. .429 hole.
The 696 before the internal lock and MIM parts would have been my dream S&W.
I wish Ruger made a .44 Special 5-shot GP 100, with a 3" barrel and adjustable sights.
I prefer big bullets. If a .38 spl fails to expand, its a .357 hole. If a .44 special fails to expand, its a. .429 hole.
The 696 before the internal lock and MIM parts would have been my dream S&W.
I wish Ruger made a .44 Special 5-shot GP 100, with a 3" barrel and adjustable sights.
+1 Surefire's suggestion
I'd like it with fixed sights for a carry gun, but that sure would be super nice Surefire! I'd buy one immediately!
I never have understood why Ruger doesn't make a GP100 in a .44 magnum chambering with a 5 round capacity cylinder... I bet the gun's plenty strong enough to handle normal loads.
I'd like it with fixed sights for a carry gun, but that sure would be super nice Surefire! I'd buy one immediately!
I never have understood why Ruger doesn't make a GP100 in a .44 magnum chambering with a 5 round capacity cylinder... I bet the gun's plenty strong enough to handle normal loads.
B
BigBoar
Guest
.44 Mag GP-100
I think your idea, Euclidean, has a lot of merit. Only thing I could think that would prevent it would be forcing cone thickness. Then again, a larger diameter bbl. would solve that. It also would be relatively compact compared to the large frame revolvers and it would allow them to get more mileage (i.e. production) out of the GP-100. If Taurus can offer all sorts of caliber combos on their medium frame I would think Ruger would, also. If nothing else how about a 7 shot .357mag GP?
I think your idea, Euclidean, has a lot of merit. Only thing I could think that would prevent it would be forcing cone thickness. Then again, a larger diameter bbl. would solve that. It also would be relatively compact compared to the large frame revolvers and it would allow them to get more mileage (i.e. production) out of the GP-100. If Taurus can offer all sorts of caliber combos on their medium frame I would think Ruger would, also. If nothing else how about a 7 shot .357mag GP?
- Status
Similar threads
