Best first time revolver?
- Thread starter OldRussian
- Start date
OldRussian
CGN Regular
- Location
- Edmonton AB
Thanks for the input! I will definately go with a Smith 686. Gotta keep my eyes peeled on the EE for a good deal!
That's because these guns are not intended for range duty where it's not the end of the world if you get a light strike. The springs in the stock guns are intended to make the gun go BANG! EVERY TIME regardless of how much dust and pocket lint builds up in the gun and how hard the primers might be. Conditions where the owner's life could be hanging in the balance.
The fitting of lighter springs in either the Ruger or S&W is strictly something we CAN do when shooting at a range for targets or competition. In such a case lightening the springs for a smoother and lighter trigger pull will somewhat enhance our ability to get tighter groups. And if the gun does have a light strike fail to fire once in a 1000 then it's not the end of the world.
I have both Ruger and S&W. My vote is for the 686 over the GP100. Both are superb guns but the Ruger trigger has a little telltale "click" in the travel where the cylinder stop is released which you don't feel or hear in the S&W. For smooth DA shooting I find that the little "click" upsets me since I know all hell is about to break loose from the .44Mag. I'd rather have the smooth S&W trigger so the BOOOOOM! is a surprise.
AND..... if you're only going to have ONE revolver then what about some old style blued goodness? Like a Model 27 or 28 in .357? Or a classic slimmer and slightly lighter Model 19? Lovely guns that gleam like a new penny.
Or if you reload then what about a Model 29 in .44Mag? With reloading you can load them up from mild to WILD to get whatever level of handgun recoil you want. Shoot some .44Spl power level ammo for accurate and serious stuff. Then load up a cylinder or two of full house barn levelers for some end of the day giggles and to build up that desire for a big slab of blue rare red meat....
pisces-guy
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- West Kelowna, B.C.
Changing the hammer spring and trigger return spring, and putting a wee dab of gun grease on the hammer to hold the 5 mil shims when I'd replaced the springs and was putting the revolver back together took me all of 30 minutes. Not a big deal and all of $10 or so... Two reasons why Ruger puts 14 pound hammer springs instead of 10 pounders in is it makes their legal dept. happy, less chance of careless twits firing it by accident...secondly the extra power ensures that any and every tough and lousy primer will be ignited...these aren't issues if you're careful/not a moron, and if you shoot quality ammo. The 10 lb. instead of 8 lb. trigger return is to encourage shooters that don't release the trigger as soon as the gun fires to do so...again, if you're a good shooter you let go right away and get ready for the next shot. The hammer is built intentionally with a bit of play so it continues to be reliable even if some dirt gets in there, which is a valid point if you're packing your revolver in dirty conditions in the USA and not so valid if it's from your house to the range and then cleaned, in Canada. So the shims remove the play and reduce friction...and make the gun feel more precise. The cost of the shims and the Wolff spring kit is little more than $10, time involved is about 30 minutes, and you have a beautifully operating revolver. Hope this answers sailor723's question...now my question is if Rugers shoot as nicely as Smiths with this tiny bit of work and cost, why does Smith & Wesson feel the need to charge people so much more money for a revolver as compared to Ruger?
Changing the hammer spring and trigger return spring, and putting a wee dab of gun grease on the hammer to hold the 5 mil shims when I'd replaced the springs and was putting the revolver back together took me all of 30 minutes. Not a big deal and all of $10 or so... Two reasons why Ruger puts 14 pound hammer springs instead of 10 pounders in is it makes their legal dept. happy, less chance of careless twits firing it by accident...secondly the extra power ensures that any and every tough and lousy primer will be ignited...these aren't issues if you're careful/not a moron, and if you shoot quality ammo. The 10 lb. instead of 8 lb. trigger return is to encourage shooters that don't release the trigger as soon as the gun fires to do so...again, if you're a good shooter you let go right away and get ready for the next shot. The hammer is built intentionally with a bit of play so it continues to be reliable even if some dirt gets in there, which is a valid point if you're packing your revolver in dirty conditions in the USA and not so valid if it's from your house to the range and then cleaned, in Canada. So the shims remove the play and reduce friction...and make the gun feel more precise. The cost of the shims and the Wolff spring kit is little more than $10, time involved is about 30 minutes, and you have a beautifully operating revolver. Hope this answers sailor723's question...now my question is if Rugers shoot as nicely as Smiths with this tiny bit of work and cost, why does Smith & Wesson feel the need to charge people so much more money for a revolver as compared to Ruger?
I think I can answer your question as to why people buy S&W guns.
1. Because they want to.
2. Because you don't have to work on them to be nice, but if you do they are even that much nicer again
I feel I am qualified to answer this question as I have Ruger GP100's, Blackhawks, and Red hawks. The fact is that Rugers just don't work as well as S&W guns do. If they did S&W would not sell near as many guns as they do.
Graydog
Brutus
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I have both S&W revolvers and some Ruger sixguns.
The S&W revolvers fill the void of DA and swing out cylinders for quicker reloads perfectly.
The Ruger Old Armies fill the void of old style SA/black powder perfectly.
The S&W revolvers fill the void of DA and swing out cylinders for quicker reloads perfectly.
The Ruger Old Armies fill the void of old style SA/black powder perfectly.
Let's not forget that Smiths are far, far, far better looking revolvers. Ruger DA revolvers look like the hunchback of Notre Dame next to a Smith. And Ruger also feels it's necessary to inscribe the instruction manual on the gun. (Okay, a bit of hyperbole, but seriously, they need to cut down the roll marks).
OldRussian
CGN Regular
- Location
- Edmonton AB
I just handled a Ruger GP100 in whatever their name for cadillac trim is and a SW 686 at the LGS. The ejector felt much smoother on the Smith and the pistol felt more balanced. I did prefer the aggressive grip texture on the Ruger though.
Changing the hammer spring and trigger return spring, and putting a wee dab of gun grease on the hammer to hold the 5 mil shims when I'd replaced the springs and was putting the revolver back together took me all of 30 minutes. Not a big deal and all of $10 or so... Two reasons why Ruger puts 14 pound hammer springs instead of 10 pounders in is it makes their legal dept. happy, less chance of careless twits firing it by accident...secondly the extra power ensures that any and every tough and lousy primer will be ignited...these aren't issues if you're careful/not a moron, and if you shoot quality ammo. The 10 lb. instead of 8 lb. trigger return is to encourage shooters that don't release the trigger as soon as the gun fires to do so...again, if you're a good shooter you let go right away and get ready for the next shot. The hammer is built intentionally with a bit of play so it continues to be reliable even if some dirt gets in there, which is a valid point if you're packing your revolver in dirty conditions in the USA and not so valid if it's from your house to the range and then cleaned, in Canada. So the shims remove the play and reduce friction...and make the gun feel more precise. The cost of the shims and the Wolff spring kit is little more than $10, time involved is about 30 minutes, and you have a beautifully operating revolver. Hope this answers sailor723's question...now my question is if Rugers shoot as nicely as Smiths with this tiny bit of work and cost, why does Smith & Wesson feel the need to charge people so much more money for a revolver as compared to Ruger?
Are S&W's really all that more expensive? I was just looking at Ellwood Epps and new 686's (4.2") are $873 vs $828 for the 4.2" Ruger GP100 Stainless. For 40-50 bucks I know which I'd buy.
Fixed it for you.
Between Ruger and Smith, pick whichever you like better.
Either one will serve you well.
OldRussian
CGN Regular
- Location
- Edmonton AB
Why do you say 6 inch barrel? Does it not negatively effect the balance of the pistol? The 7 round wheel does sound attractive though.
Brutus
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
If you look around at many handgun ranges, most serious target shooters do have revolvers with barrels at around 6 inches in length. Sometimes longer too. Longer sight radius=perhaps better scores.
Balance is a relative term and this will vary with different frame sizes, full or partial lugs, etc.
IF I was just target shooting I would go with a 6" BUT to have more fun, I would shoot IDPA with a 4.2"....
Brutus
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
My advice is targeted at first time revolver buyer, not at experienced shooter shopping for competition handgun.
OP's needs are different than yours.
Cheers,
Dan
