Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/31/2003 8:27:43 PM EDT
I'm thinking about getting a good revolver. Nothing too expensive. Any ideas or suggestions?
Link Posted: 3/31/2003 9:51:14 PM EDT
www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=1704&return=Y



Or the Stainless version known as the KGP-161.
Link Posted: 3/31/2003 10:12:34 PM EDT
il 2nd the kgp-161
Link Posted: 3/31/2003 11:00:19 PM EDT
Thanks, guys.
Link Posted: 3/31/2003 11:03:27 PM EDT
Go to KY Imports & check out their used S&W listing. A used Model 65, 581, 681, 586, 686, 19 or 27 can all be had for under $300, most under $250.

Also, gun shows are a good source for good used revolvers. Rugers are overweight & have way too heavy triggers, IMO.
Link Posted: 4/1/2003 1:52:40 AM EDT
I'd go with the KGP-161 or a S&W 686, or, if you aren't planning on feeding it a steady diet of hot handloads maybe a S&W 65 or 66. IMO go with a stainless model.
Link Posted: 4/1/2003 6:10:23 AM EDT
another vote for the ruger..
Link Posted: 4/1/2003 9:31:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BobCole:
Go to KY Imports & check out their used S&W listing. A used Model 65, 581, 681, 586, 686, 19 or 27 can all be had for under $300, most under $250.

Also, gun shows are a good source for good used revolvers. Rugers are overweight & have way too heavy triggers, IMO.



I've found that women like this are more dependable, last longer and are more satisfying in the long run...
Link Posted: 4/1/2003 10:38:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/1/2003 10:56:47 AM EDT by Jim_Dandy]

Rugers are overweight

Compared to what? To the N-frame Model 27 you mentioned? ARE YOU KIDDING? That's a large frame that's a counterpart to the Ruger Redhawk. The L-frame Smiths you mentioned? Not hardly.

From the S&W website: a 4-inch 686 weighs 40 ounces and a 6-inch 686 weighs 44 ounces. A 5-inch Model 627 weighs in at 44 ounces. That's some lightweight.

From Ruger's 2001 catalog: a 4-inch GP100 weighs 41 ounces (WOW!! AN ENTIRE OUNCE MORE THAN THE 4-INCH SMITH 686!!!) and a 6-inch GP100 weighs 46 ounces. Two ounces more than its Smith counterpart. Big deal.


Rugers have way too heavy triggers

Just how hard is it to install a spring kit (available from Brownell's for $7.14)?

Your comments regarding ANY Ruger product are NEVER objective. What's the deal? Do you even own any Rugers? Have you EVER owned a Ruger?

Smiths are slightly smoother from the factory than a Ruger revolver due to their use of carbon steel lockwork. However, the Ruger has all stainless innards and coil springs making it a slightly more durable gun than its S&W counterparts. How do I know? I own both and I like both, but I can be objective.

Stay away from the K-frame Smiths in .357 (the Models 19, 66, 65, etc.) if you plan on doing a lot of shooting. The L-frame was developed for a reason. The K-frame just can't stand a steady diet of .357 loads and the N-frame is TOO BIG for the .357.
Link Posted: 4/1/2003 2:41:26 PM EDT
Thanks for all the help guys. I wish I could try out all the different revolvers. I fired a .44 Mag and .357 Mag. Loved them both and loved how I was able to hit man sized targets at 100 yards with a good wheel gun.

But I have a feeling that I started a war here. I'll have to sit back and watch, catching tidbits of info here and there as opinions and arguments are in and outgoing. Again, thanks everyone.
Link Posted: 4/1/2003 10:10:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BusMaster007:

I've found that women like this are more dependable, last longer and are more satisfying in the long run...




Shit.................don't get me started on women!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link Posted: 4/1/2003 10:18:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:
Compared to what? To the N-frame Model 27 you mentioned?
No, the lighter models such as 65,67, etc.

Just how hard is it to install a spring kit (available from Brownell's for $7.14)?
Not everyone enjoys having to spend money just to make a gun good when the factory should've done it from the start.

Your comments regarding ANY Ruger product are NEVER objective. What's the deal? Do you even own any Rugers? Have you EVER owned a Ruger?
Nope, I've never owned one nor will I ever except for maybe their Red Labels or Vaquero. I've shot nearly all of them though.

Smiths are slightly smoother from the factory than a Ruger revolver
That's like saying Cindy Crawford is a bit better looking than Hillary Klinton.


Link Posted: 4/1/2003 11:13:10 PM EDT
Why not an old Desert Eagle MK VII?
Link Posted: 4/2/2003 5:08:37 AM EDT
Uh, Bob, here's what you posted:

Go to KY Imports & check out their used S&W listing. A used Model 65, 581, 681, 586, 686, 19 or 27 can all be had for under $300, most under $250.

Also, gun shows are a good source for good used revolvers. Rugers are overweight & have way too heavy triggers, IMO.


I've followed your extremely negative comments regarding Ruger products for nearly two years now. You are never, ever objective. You don't even own one, yet you feel qualified to comment to the point of sounding absurd. A K-frame or N-frame Smith over a GP100?!!! That's just SILLY.


Not everyone enjoys having to spend money just to make a gun good when the factory should've done it from the start.

You think the addition of a $7.14 spring kit is a big enough issue to negate buying a GP100?


That's like saying Cindy Crawford is a bit better looking than Hillary Klinton.

This is just an absurd analogy.
Link Posted: 4/2/2003 6:30:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NME:
Why not an old Desert Eagle MK VII?



First thing first, I said revolver.
Second, nothing too expensive.

The DE doesn't meet either of those criteria. Unless your dictionary difers from mine.
Link Posted: 4/2/2003 6:41:42 PM EDT
Ok... I'm just looking for opinions, thanks. I'll look into, and if I'm lucky, try each revolver if I can find someone nearby that owns one.
The war, while entertaining, is not necessary.
Link Posted: 4/2/2003 9:45:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Fire_for_Effect:
Ok... I'm just looking for opinions, thanks.




Check out KY Imports web site. Great prices. most in the low $200s. The dealers out West are too expensive for what they have, IMO: J&G Sales, Bob Swanson, etc.

Hope this helps.
Link Posted: 4/3/2003 9:19:52 AM EDT

Check out KY Imports web site. Great prices. most in the low $200s.

Uh, well, the only Smith .357s KY Imports is offering right now are K-frame revolvers which have some serious reliability issues when used exclusively with .357 ammunition. Hence the introduction of the L-frame.

On the other hand, KY Imports has used Ruger Security Sixes for $180 to $220. This is a revolver designed and manufactured with the intent of being used as a duty weapon vice a range queen. Very strong.

The K-frame Smiths in .357 should be avoided. Go with an L-frame Smith (581, 681, 586, or 686), ANY Ruger, or a Colt King Cobra (no one has mentioned one of those yet). The old Colt Trooper MK IIIs and MKIVs are kind of neat. They have the same lockwork as the more expensive Python.
Link Posted: 4/3/2003 6:25:11 PM EDT
That's everyone. I'm now willing to spend up to 300, 400 if it's a real good bargain. Now all I have to do is choose so I can part with the money I've been having trouble saving.
Link Posted: 4/6/2003 8:51:26 PM EDT
Despite Jim_Dandy's disdain for K-frame Smith's they are excellent weapons. If you feed them nothing but 357 Mag loads they will shoot loose in five or six thousand rounds.

If, like most folks, you shoot primarily 38 special through them to practice and a couple hundred 357 mag every year, the guns will last decades. My Model 10-based PPC gun had about 40,000 rounds through it before I needed to have it retimed. My Model 19's have thousands of rounds of 38 Special through them and hundreds of rounds of 357 Mag, and still lock up tight.

None of the Rugers that I have owned have been as smooth (action-wise) as my S&W or older Colt revolvers. And I've had both S&W and Ruger wheelguns tuned by some of the top gunmiths in the country.

A nice Model 19 can be picked up for ~ $250 and it will serve admirably as a shooter, and even as a hunter, if you get a 6" barrel ( I took two whitetails with a 6" 357, back in my hunting days).

The newer 7 & 8 shot, N-Frame S&W 357s are very cool, but there is a significant $$$ premium.
Link Posted: 4/6/2003 9:04:53 PM EDT

Despite Jim_Dandy's disdain for K-frame Smith's they are excellent weapons.

Apparently the manufacturer doesn't agree with you, hence S&W's introduction of the L-frame and gradual phasing out of the K-frame .357. Coincidence? Nope. K-frames just aren't very compatible with the .357 cartridge.
Link Posted: 4/6/2003 9:12:53 PM EDT
I know cars & guns aren't the same thing, BUT...

I compare the S&W/Ruger debate to my experience with Chevrolet/Pontiac.

You can fine tune the shit out of a Chevrolet motor and everything under the sun is available for them.
Pontiac motors are generally the same across the board --- large journal, bottom end torque, low revving hunks that just take abuse and keep on going. Not as many doo-dads out there for them.

The correlation?
The ONLY engine I've ever had explode on me was a CHEVY.

In my head they go S&W/Chevy and Ruger/Pontiac.
Maybe not the best analogy, but, that's my experience and my preference is the latter set.
OK. I'm reachin'...
Link Posted: 4/6/2003 9:36:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DavidC:
Despite Jim_Dandy's disdain for K-frame Smith's they are excellent weapons.




Well said, sir, well said.
Link Posted: 4/6/2003 10:11:57 PM EDT

Well said, sir, well said.

Except you don't own and haven't owned any Rugers to offer anything that would come close to resembling a qualified opinion.

I like my S&W 617 and my Model 16. Model 10s are fun to shoot and a Model 14 would just be the berries. But a K-frame in .357? They're on their way out for a reason.
Link Posted: 4/7/2003 4:37:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:

Despite Jim_Dandy's disdain for K-frame Smith's they are excellent weapons.

Apparently the manufacturer doesn't agree with you, hence S&W's introduction of the L-frame and gradual phasing out of the K-frame .357. Coincidence? Nope. K-frames just aren't very compatible with the .357 cartridge.



Hate to burst your bubble, but you are just flat out wrong.

S&W isn't phasing out K-Frame 357 magnums, and, in fact, has introduced new models in both K, and even J-frame (smaller) sizes.

In the current catalog:

K-frame
65
65LS
66
66 F

J-frame

360
360 Kit Gun
360PD
340PD
340
60
640
­649

L-frame

686
686PP
686P


­This list doesn't include a couple of the new snubbies, since I don't personally know if they are K or L frame guns, though from personal examination I suspect its a mix of both.

You'll notice that the blue guns are gone, for the most part from the current catalog, which means that the original K-Frame SS guns, the 65 and 66 are not only still being produced, they are even available in new models.

If the K-frame can't handle the stress of 357, how do you explain the release of all those new J-frame 357 CCW guns?

There are probably 100,000+ K-frame S&W in use, a significant percentage being 357. Jim_Dandy appears to be as blind as Bob_Cole when it comes to brand loyalty.
Link Posted: 4/7/2003 5:12:54 AM EDT

Jim_Dandy appears to be as blind as Bob_Cole when it comes to brand loyalty.

Not blind, just calling a spade a spade. By your own figures, if a .357 K-frame is shot around seven boxes a month, it will require a trip to a gunsmith within a year. Impressive. Will S&W warranty that? Didn't think so.


If the K-frame can't handle the stress of 357, how do you explain the release of all those new J-frame 357 CCW guns?

Try shooting a J-frame in .357 a significant amount and you'll have the answer to your question.

Smith introduced the L-frame for a reason, and regardless of what their catalog lists, has phased out production of K-frame .357s for a reason. They simply cannot match the longevity of their Ruger and former Colt counterparts.

Not something I made up, not brand loyalty, just facts.
Link Posted: 4/7/2003 5:34:00 AM EDT
You seem to be quite capable of ignoring facts as you choose. S&W currently catalogs 4 K-frame S&W models. That's as many as they have ever cataloged.

Shoot your k-frame to pieces in a year and S&W will warranty it. Why would you think they wouldn't?

And frankly, I doubt there are that many people who shoot 350 rounds of full-house 357 magnum a month through any gun, regardless of brand or frame size.

Whether you choose to accept it or not, you have some sort of issue with these S&W revolvers. I notice that you post only your "opinion" and don't seem to back it up with any personal experience. How many K-frame Smiths have you owned, and how many have you shot to pieces?

Link Posted: 4/7/2003 5:42:40 AM EDT

Whether you choose to accept it or not, you have some sort of issue with these S&W revolvers. I notice that you post only your "opinion" and don't seem to back it up with any personal experience. How many K-frame Smiths have you owned, and how many have you shot to pieces?

Oh, but I did. Go back and read. I have two K-frames.


And frankly, I doubt there are that many people who shoot 350 rounds of full-house 357 magnum a month through any gun, regardless of brand or frame size.

Pardon me while I beg to differ.


You seem to be quite capable of ignoring facts as you choose. S&W currently catalogs 4 K-frame S&W models. That's as many as they have ever cataloged.

Actually that's fewer. I don't care what the catalog says, gun shop inventories reflect the reality.


Shoot your k-frame to pieces in a year and S&W will warranty it. Why would you think they wouldn't?

You posted that the K-frame .357s required to be retimed after 3,000 to 4,000 rounds, did you not? Let me know how S&W covers your reimbursement on gunsmith visits. It's been S&W's policy for many years to charge actual cost of parts and repairs vice a straight-up warranty. Hmmmmm.

If the K-frame .357s are SO good, then why the L-frame? End of discussion.
Link Posted: 4/7/2003 5:57:06 AM EDT
Still waiting for anything even remotely resembling "proof" in your opinions. From your comments I oprsume that you have shot loose both of your k-frame Smiths. How many rounds did it take?

I said 5 or 6K rounds, but the only S&W I ever needed retimed went 40,000+ rounds before it was needed.

The only medium frame revolvers that I ever had to send back to the factory for repairs were Rugers, used in LEO training classes I used to run, but since I don't know what caused the failures it probably isn't germane to this conversation. The S&W 19's used in the class had no failures. All of those guns averaged about 500 rounds/week for the five or so years I ran those classes.

And how many people fo you actually know who shoot 350+ rounds of 357 mag through the same gun every month? And why would they do that?

If the L-frame is so good, why continue production of the K-frame? And there have never been more than 4 cataloged 357 K-frames, FWIW. In all the local gunshops around me that are stocking S&W dealers, you will find as many K frames and L-frames, with the majority of the stocked guns being the N-frames and the snubbies.

Sorry that your "End of discussion" pronouncement is in error.
Link Posted: 4/7/2003 7:15:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/7/2003 7:29:43 AM EDT by Jim_Dandy]

From your comments I oprsume that you have shot loose both of your k-frame Smiths.

(SIGH) Well, David, you really ought to read the post where I mentioned my K-frames and see the calibers involved.


And how many people fo you actually know who shoot 350+ rounds of 357 mag through the same gun every month? And why would they do that?

Actually, I used to shoot that much or more in the same gun (and then I had kids and other concerns apart from shooting). Was I aberrant?


If the L-frame is so good, why continue production of the K-frame?

Well, David, since the K-frame makes an excellent basis for .22 rimfire revolvers, target .38s, and concealable six-shot .357s, I would think the answer obvious.


And there have never been more than 4 cataloged 357 K-frames, FWIW.

Pardon me while I beg to differ. There have been several over the years. I assume you're wanting me to dig out my old S&W catalogs? You'll just have to wait for that.

Why is there a need for the L-frame, David? Answer that. I've already offered my data, answer that.
Link Posted: 4/7/2003 8:13:28 AM EDT
Tastes Great!

Less Filling!



Despite the bickering going on you'll not go far wrong with either pistol.

For me the trigger pull on the S&W 686 was the deal closer. I have a couple other Smith's but wouldn't turn away from a better deal on a Ruger if it came along. Most gunsmiths can work on either gun though more would probably have more experence on the Smith and Wesson then the Ruger just due to sales numbers.

PS: Anyone who spends $1000 a year on .357 pistol ammo might think about a Colt Python or other high dollar revolver.

Tastes Great!

Less Filling!

Link Posted: 4/7/2003 8:42:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/7/2003 8:42:43 AM EDT by Jim_Dandy]

PS: Anyone who spends $1000 a year on .357 pistol ammo might think about a Colt Python or other high dollar revolver.

Or take up handloading so you can roll your own.

Is that a seven-shot 686?

Someone posted on FA dot com that firearms are compromises. That's pretty damned accurate. The Smith L-frames (sorry, K-frames are not comparable to Ruger medium fram DAs or Colt V-frames) use carbon steel lockwork for better range manners than the competition (though Colt DAs are very smooth, too). And I won't argue that Smiths have probably the best out-of-the-box trigger pulls. However, Ruger designed their original DAs (Speed Six and Security Six) with the intent of producing a pure duty weapon. Depends on what your prioriies and interests are.

I don't have anything against Smiths, I just think that the K-frame and .357 aren't optimally suited.

If you choose a Smith .357, get an L-frame.
Link Posted: 4/7/2003 9:01:33 AM EDT
My 1980's era Colt Python self-distructed after less than a thousand rounds of 357 Magnum loads. My Python with a serial # under 10,000 (first year of production) probably had 5000 357 loads and 20,000 38 loads through it before I retired it as a 99% collector's item.

On the Smith's we will just have to agree to disagree.
Link Posted: 4/7/2003 10:23:16 AM EDT
Another selling point of the Rugers is being able to detail strip them without any tools, save for a screwdriver on the grips. Pretty neat, I think.
Link Posted: 4/7/2003 11:10:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DavidC:

Whether you choose to accept it or not, you have some sort of issue with these S&W revolvers. I notice that you post only your "opinion" and don't seem to back it up with any personal experience.





Yet you might notice how quickly he lambasts me for bad mouthing Rugers that I have shot.
Link Posted: 4/8/2003 3:25:36 AM EDT
Fire for Effect,

I suggest that you go to a well stocked gun shop or gun show and see which feels best in your hands. The grips will play a big roll in that regard. Make up in your mind your intended role for the gun. ie. concealed carry, night stand, hunting, target, etc. Tauras, Ruger, Smith, Colt for DA revolvers.

I see no one metioned SA revolvers and there is a slew of them avaible in 357. Again the selection is blue/ss, fixed/adj sites, bbl lengths etc. Ruger does offer the Blawkhawk convertible with a 357 and 9x19mm cylinder.

Me, I'm parcile to the Smith M13/M65 3" HB, round butt for concealed carry and a 4" M19/M66 for a woodsgun. Also had a 10" bbl in 357 for a TC Contender. My only 357 at the moment is a Coonan Model B auto. (I like 1911s).

De Oppresso Liber
Link Posted: 4/8/2003 3:54:59 AM EDT

Yet you might notice how quickly he lambasts me for bad mouthing Rugers that I have shot.

Except I do back it up, Bobbo. You don't. How many Ruger revolvers do you own, or have you owned?
Link Posted: 4/8/2003 7:01:41 AM EDT
I'd third or fourth the GP-1x1 suggestion...

I recently got a KGP-141, and it's a sweet wheelgun. Haven't shot it TOO much, as I'm more of a fan of my 1911, but it's nice for a wheelgun. The finish is nice, lockup is nice and tight, and it's fairly accurate from what I've witnessed. Gotta find what ammo she likes, tho.

Link Posted: 4/8/2003 7:10:40 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/8/2003 8:56:18 AM EDT
There's only one choice if you can afford it: the S&W 627. Now who could pass up an 8-shot .357 revolver?
Link Posted: 4/8/2003 2:16:40 PM EDT
I really would like a Medusa but I can't afford it. But I do intend to feel each revolver if I can and try and find one that feels right, Combat_Diver.
The revolver I'll own will be fed a steady diet of .357 Mag loads. Perhaps a few .38's to let friends get used to recoil first.
Link Posted: 4/8/2003 10:30:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:
I hate to stick my head into this fight, Why should you be any different than the rest of us?
but wasn't there a problem with early K frames in .357-barrel throating or something (I would have to search to find it and can't remember the exact problem at the moment) and one reason IIRC, it was the full house hunting loads that simply shot the gun "loose". This is why the 681/581 came into being. for Ruger's subesquent success was that the Rugers could handle a lot of full house .357 loads better? I wasn't interested in pistols back then, but seem to remember hearing about this. I would assume the new S&Ws are fine, but couldn't the older used cop S&Ws be a problem? Not at all, I've bought them & shot them with 110 & 125gr ammo to nice effect & accuracy.

Link Posted: 4/9/2003 12:19:46 PM EDT
What about Taurus revolvers? I don't have any myself, but I love the feel of them. I've shot a titanium 7-shot a few times, and I rather liked it.
Link Posted: 4/10/2003 8:58:13 PM EDT
Taurus... I haven't heard too much about them...
Any good word about those?
Link Posted: 4/11/2003 4:58:49 AM EDT
Taurus was originally pretty raggedy ass, but back in the late seventies or early eighties, they were bought out by Bangor Punta who also owned S&W at the time. Quality has steadily improved, but Ruger, S&W, and Colt are still your best buys.
Link Posted: 4/11/2003 5:02:17 AM EDT
Fire_for_Effect
i thought you fired my dads ruger kgp161 at the frozen nuts shoot?
if not next time we get together for a shoot il bring it and let you run some ammo to get a feel for it.
Link Posted: 4/13/2003 10:05:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tattoo:
Fire_for_Effect
i thought you fired my dads ruger kgp161 at the frozen nuts shoot?
if not next time we get together for a shoot il bring it and let you run some ammo to get a feel for it.



That was a Ruger? I didn't even pay attention. I think I was too busy freezing my cajones off.

Anywho... I may not be able to buy the revolver. I ran into some big problems with my AR. [>Q]

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=181295&w=myTopicPop
www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=66&t=156710&w=myTopicPop
Link Posted: 4/13/2003 10:39:00 AM EDT
LMFAO here!!

I'm getting a free ejucashun AND watching a world-class cod-pulling contest! You guys are the greatest!

My .02 - I've had a 4" GP100 since Christ was a Corporal and I love it, although I admit I have never and will never be firing 350 rounds a month through it; it's my bedside gun.

And oh yes - it's trigger pull, for a fixed sight model, is damn good.
Link Posted: 4/13/2003 1:36:24 PM EDT
Another vote for a Ruger GP100.

I had a blue 6" GP100 that I shot the sh*t out of, and it worked great. Built like a TANK, smooth trigger pull, and accurate.

In our on base gun club we have a 4" GP100 that been shot to HELL, as you can imagine, rarely cleaned, and absolutely NO problems.

On the other hand, ALL three S&W's are now inoperative.


Chris
Link Posted: 4/14/2003 8:17:36 PM EDT
You can't go wrong with a S&W L or K frame. Contrary to urban legend, the K frame is not fragile at all. Not only have I shot alot of magnum rounds through k frames, I have seen friends shoot hand loads through K frames that I wouldn't have shot in any gun (no I don't recommend it).

I find the K frames to be very comfortable to shoot but for a real enjoyable day at the range, the slightly heavier L frame is just a pleasure to shoot.

If a K frame feels good to you, get it, you are never going to wear it out, thats why S&W has a lifetime warranty (unlike some other companies Smith actualy honors theirs).
Link Posted: 4/24/2003 12:44:39 AM EDT
I have been collecting Rugers for years and have never had a problem that Ruger hasn't fixed and then shipped back to me at NO charge. Then again I have had exactly TWO problems in ten years....
On the reliability of their revolvers:
My Blackhawk in .357 eats at least 200 rds on any given Saturday and has not complained in over three years. When I run outta .357 I merely switch to .38's or change over to the 9mm cylinder and keep banging away.
I could be wrong--but I have yet to see a Smithy do that!
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top