Help deciding on next purchase

[7-3-2 9]

Okay so after long debating which gun to purchase, I have pretty much decided my next gun is going to be a revolver I have pretty much decided it will be a .357mag with a 4 or 6 inch barrel with main uses being for the Range/HD. (I really like the idea of using a revolver for home defense as it can sit loaded forever without worrying about mag springs setting, and well I just think revolvers are cool too. So what are your guys thoughts on these two and is there another revolver I should be considering?

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

Mag springs wont set by being left loaded. Loading/unloading cycles is what weakens a spring, therfore using the mag wears it out faster than leaving it loaded.

 

That aside, S&W 686 with a 6" barrel. You arent carrying it so why handicap yourself with the 4"?

 

'nuff said

[alec.mc 180]

S&W 686 is a good choice, I saved some coin and went with the Ruger GP100 in stainless, 4" barrel. This gun does not disappoint, built like a house.

[lunker 274]

I disagree slightly with Glen. I feel like the 4" barrel points and swings easier, which is important for HD. If you ever wanted a gun for woods carry, 4" would be easier to draw from a holster. The 6" 357 is better for target and hunting. I have both (S&W Model 27 in 6" and Model 28 in 4") so thankfully I don't have to choose.

[Jon 264]

I use a 2 3/4" barrel for HD, and much prefer it over a longer-barreled gun.

[7-3-2 9]

yeah I'm not going hunting with it and I feel the that the 4 inch barrel would seem more natural to me because of my experience with similar barrel sizes. I do howere think the added weight in a 6 inch barrel could be beneficial for controlling muzzle flip, but I could be completely wrong with that assumption as well.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

While the Ruger is a fine piece, it'll come as no surprise to the people that know me, that I'd vote in favor of a S&W. K, L or N-frame.

[siderman 1,140]

S&W 686 vs Ruger GP100, Ford vs Chevy, Remy 870 vs Mossy 500.....Always the debate. In 38/357 they are both excellant top dog guns but IMO the Ruger being less expensive is a much better bargain and you simply cannot go wrong with it. I've got it in 4" SS with a hi-viz sight and love it, never a hint of regret.

[lunker 274]

Come to Shore Shot on a Tuesday night and give me a heads up, and I can bring one or both of my 357s.

[7-3-2 9]

Come to Shore Shot on a Tuesday night and give me a heads up, and I can bring one or both of my 357s.

Be careful Lunker, you never know I might actually take you up on your offer (if I ever get a tuesday off).

[bry@n 195]

I have tried lunker's 357's and they are sweet. When I went to buy a .357 I was gonna go for a 686 but got a deal on a gp100. I bought the gp100 instead. I like them both and think it's personal preference that makes the deal.

 

 

[Ray Ray 3,566]

I have tried lunker's 357's and they are sweet. When I went to buy a .357 I was gonna go for a 686 but got a deal on a gp100. I bought the gp100 instead. I like them both and think it's personal preference that makes the deal.

 

You did? Pics!

 

Either are fine choices, and I own a 686 4inch version. But, I've been longing for a GP100 3 inch for a while.

[Zell959 40]

While I personally find the S&W 686 to be a slightly smoother shooter, I would only recommend it over the GP 100 if you can buy an older used model without the internal lock. The internal lock is an absolute nuisance that does nothing more than provide an extra avenue of potential weapon failure. Here's a video of the internal lock malfunctioning on a performance center 686 model

 

 

Follow up video with his gunsmith explaining the malfunction

 

[lunker 274]

My personal preferences extend to S&W N frames. They were built originally for 44 magnums, so they are overbuilt for 357 magnum. It is a beefy, intimidating looking revolver. After that, I go for K frames. While not built to withstand a steady diet of hot 357 (why the 686/687 L frame was invented), it is a quick pointing, pefectly sized revolver.

Zell's post saved me my usual diatribe about locks on S&W revolvers. Buy used from a reputable seller on GunBroker or a local shop. You will never look back.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

My personal preferences extend to S&W N frames. They were built originally for 44 magnums, so they are overbuilt for 357 magnum.

 

 

Chris,

 

You know I'm with you on the N-Frame, but just a minor nitpick. The .44 Mag didn't exist when the N-Frame came into being. It was indeed termed a .44 frame, but at that time the .44 in question was the .44 Special. Started with the .44 Hand Ejector (First Model) which started production in 1907. The .44 Mag didn't show-up on the scene until the 1955-56 time frame.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[Smokin .50 1,907]

I only own revolvers made by S&W. K-L and N-Frames with barrel lengths from 4"- 8& 3/8". I have/can/will use any of them to defend myself. I've put thousands of rounds through them all and instant muscle memory comes into play the moment I pick any of them up. I've owned some of them for more than 34 years and practice both strong and weak handed with them all.

 

That all being said, the mighty .44 Mag N-Frame Dirty Harry gun is quite intimidating from the business end. In competitions I use .44 spl 240 grain Cowboy loads from Magtech that make IPSC major with a 180 power factor and they're cream puffs to shoot--no big muzzle flash at night in a darkened room, and quick follow-up shots due to reduced recoil! I'd use it over a 9mm noisey & bright pea shooter any day!

 

The Rugers will function, but the older S&W will SHOOT the A$$ off of a fly!

 

Dave

[lunker 274]

Chris,

 

You know I'm with you on the N-Frame, but just a minor nitpick. The .44 Mag didn't exist when the N-Frame came into being. It was indeed termed a .44 frame, but at that time the .44 in question was the .44 Special. Started with the .44 Hand Ejector (First Model) which started production in 1907. The .44 Mag didn't show-up on the scene until the 1955-56 time frame.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

Bob,

I had been under the impression that the N frame 357s that came after the intro of 44magnum model 29 were the beneficiary of some frame strengthening (improved metallurgy) done to all N frames from that point on to help the gun hold up to the recoil of the 44mag. I have been searching the interwebs for confirmation, but nothing yet.

[irishpete 2]

While I personally find the S&W 686 to be a slightly smoother shooter, I would only recommend it over the GP 100 if you can buy an older used model without the internal lock...

 

So how do you spot these older models that have no internal lock ?

 

I have also been browsing the 586 & 686 with 6 inch barrel and trying to figure it out.

 

The only thing I have come up with so far is maybe when i see a big honking safety on a used revolver its probably not got an internal lock ? but I could be wayyyy wrong

[lunker 274]

So how do you spot these older models that have no internal lock ?

 

I have also been browsing the 586 & 686 with 6 inch barrel and trying to figure it out.

 

The only thing I have come up with so far is maybe when i see a big honking safety on a used revolver its probably not got an internal lock ? but I could be wayyyy wrong

 

It's easy. With the barrel muzzle pointing left, is there a tiny gaping hold just above the cylinder release button on the side of the frame? That is the lock. Also, the pre-lock revolvers usually came with a squarish fully finger contoured/checkered cylinder release button. The post-lock ones are smaller (top-to-bottom) and only have the finger contours/checkering on the top half.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

Bob,

I had been under the impression that the N frame 357s that came after the intro of 44magnum model 29 were the beneficiary of some frame strengthening (improved metallurgy) done to all N frames from that point on to help the gun hold up to the recoil of the 44mag. I have been searching the interwebs for confirmation, but nothing yet.

 

 

Chris,

 

There have been constant and ongoing improvements, such as metallurgy and design changes, on the entire S&W line, from the beginning. I don't believe that there was anything specifically done to accommodate the .357's which predated the .44 Mag by almost 20 years (but postdated the .44 Spec N-frames by appx 30 years). The precursor to the .357 was the .38/44 caliber - actually named for the gun, which was a .44 framed gun (N-Frame) with a .38 caliber (.357) barrel & cylinder. Case dimensions were identical to .38 Spl, but they were loaded hotter (probably close to or exceeding today's .38 Spl +P). When you consider that the frame and cylinder dimensions of the N-frame were originally made to accommodate .44 & .45 caliber rounds, reducing the caliber to .38 made for a much stronger cylinder due to increased wall thickness between cylinders and the outside diameter.

 

As for strength - Elmer Keith used to load 17.5 grs of 2400 under a 250 gr Keith LSWC in solid head cases. These were fired from a 4" S&W .44 Special and generated 1200 FPS. (DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, USE THIS LOAD DATA). SAAMI specs for .44 Special are 15K PSI, when tested, Keith's load generated 27K PSI.

 

Sorry for the hijack.

 

Adios,

 

PIzza Bob

[lunker 274]

As for strength - Elmer Keith used to load 17.5 grs of 2400 under a 250 gr Keith LSWC in solid head cases. These were fired from a 4" S&W .44 Special and generated 1200 FPS. (DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, USE THIS LOAD DATA). SAAMI specs for .44 Special are 15K PSI, when tested, Keith's load generated 27K PSI.

 

So much for 44 special being a powder puff. That's a hot round. 44mag power in a short case. Watch out.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

So much for 44 special being a powder puff. That's a hot round. 44mag power in a short case. Watch out.

 

Really, I say into a different class, 44MAG should be relabeled 44Cannon. hold on boys were going to fire it..

 

Harry

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

So how do you spot these older models that have no internal lock ?

 

 

On the theory that a picture is worth a thousand words - and to make Chris' post clearer, here are common cylinder latches used on S&W's...

 

 

The top is the oldest of the three, the middle is the new style latch used on a non-lock gun and the bottom is the same latch used on a gun with the internal lock. The "keyhole" is seen above the release. Just look for that "keyhole".

 

HTH

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[Wolfy 51]

S&W does make a current production 5 inch 686. I don't worry about the keyhole. How many revolvers have been built them? If they jammed as much as people say none of them would function. While they may jam it is a inconsequential percentage. If it was as many as people claim Smith And if your issue is locks then stop buying Taurus and Ruger they both put locks on handguns.

[lunker 274]

S&W does make a current production 5 inch 686. I don't worry about the keyhole. How many revolvers have been built them? If they jammed as much as people say none of them would function. While they may jam it is a inconsequential percentage. If it was as many as people claim Smith And if your issue is locks then stop buying Taurus and Ruger they both put locks on handguns.

 

Taurus and Ruger are better at it though.

Look for reports of Ruger or Taurus internal lock failure. If someone has a gripe, it always ends up on the internet. The lack of complaints about those two make me believe theirs is a better design.

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

Really, I say into a different class, 44MAG should be relabeled 44Cannon. hold on boys were going to fire it..

 

Harry

 

Cannon is reserved for the .500

 

This is my 500 along with my K38 model 14-3 6". Makes it look like a toy

 

[Wolfy 51]

Taurus and Ruger are better at it though.

Look for reports of Ruger or Taurus internal lock failure. If someone has a gripe, it always ends up on the internet. The lack of complaints about those two make me believe theirs is a better design.

 

 

Chris I can never concede Taurus makes anything better than S&W, Ruger has some better qualities but they are not as refined as a Smith. I would say the finest factory revolvers ever produced were the S&W registered magnums.

[Underdog 1,593]

I would probably vote for the Ruger, unless you really like the S&W trigger. It is built stronger than the S&W and the sights can be swapped out. And, unless you are using for target practice and hunting, as said in above posts, get the 4". I would love to get one in 5" if it was made by Ruger and/or available. Please let me know if anyone has info on such a beast.

 

And, if you are really lucky, you might be able to find an older Ruger Speed Six. If I was ever going to have a concealed carry piece, this would be it... In particular, I would love to get my hands on a NIB rare stainless one made for the postal service with a 3" barrel in .357. They are extremeley tough and quite accurate, and versatile, although the sights are not changeable. For home defense, though, I would get a longer barreled revolver, such as the GP100 that has less muzzle flash., and I would outfit it with at least a front blade night sight. I don't think the Ruger GP-100 comes in a 7-shot, but the S&W 686 and some Taurus models do. That might be a consideration for home defense.

[Jon 264]

I love the trigger on my Speed Six