# new to wheelguns



## donk123 (Jun 6, 2013)

want a good .357 caliber revolver. am torn between the ruger gp100(6 inch). and the s&w 686(6 inch). love the trigger on the s&w as well as the front sights,but it is $120 more. can also get it in 7 round. don't like the finish on it,very flat. the ruger has a beautiful finish and is a bit heavier, but the front sight sucks and it has sharp edges (no tumbling?).could get the s&w and add houge grips for about $30 and be good, or get the ruger and get a trigger job.


----------



## TAPnRACK (Jan 30, 2013)

Really can't go wrong either way... I faced the same dilemma myself a few months ago, except I liked the trigger on the Ruger. I ended up with the Ruger GP100 WC. Really enjoying it, good weight & balance... built to last. Both are good choices, so it will come down to budget, features and finish that work for you.

Good luck.


----------



## HighlandLofts (Jan 7, 2014)

I have two Ruger GP100s both stainless, 357 six inch and a 327 federal mag four inch. Both are pleasant shooters and uilt to last. This year a 686 in on the top of list of guns to buy. You can't go wrong with either of these two handguns, the 686 will probably always bring a higher re-sale price. 

If it were me I'd buy the 686 and down the road pick up a GP100, but I buy guns when ever I see them at a decent price. If I stuck with whats on my want list exclusivly I would of had my want list bought a few years ago. But good deals come and if you don't jump on them,They'll be gone.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

The S&W 686 is one of the most desirable .357 magnums available, especially with a 6" bbl. A great all around handgun.

I have many S&W's, but I do prefer the earlier ones. I have a 6" 686, and it's a 686-3 model. I'm not all that big of a fan of their later models with the integrated lock. Most of my S&W's are -2 or -3 production series. I have some that are "no dash" models, indicating first-run production.

One thing to consider about the S&W 686, is that it will hold and maintain it's value for many years to come. If taken proper care of and not abused, it will actually appreciate in value, whereas the Ruger might a little, if any at all.

If you do decide to go with the S&W, it would be worth while to find an earlier model. It will cost more, depending upon if used or new (they are still out there), and the condition, if used.

You can check out Guns for Sale - Online Gun Auction - Buy Guns at GunBroker.com and do a search of some earlier models. The earlier models are worth the extra money and time to find one.


----------



## donk123 (Jun 6, 2013)

could you tell me why earlier models are better. just curious.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

donk123 said:


> could you tell me why earlier models are better. just curious.


Supposedly, they are manufactured better. S&W has gone thru some," let's say, questionable changes" in the past several years. Many say that their older guns are just of a higher quality. Fit and finish, is the most reported advantage. Another issue is that at some point, S&W went from an actual firing pin, to a transfer-bar type hammer.

Many don't like the fact that several years ago, S&W caved in to the gun haters and incorporated an integrated lock on their revolvers. It not only detracts from the over-all appearance of the gun, some have complained that the lock itself malfunctions at times. Many are not fans of the rubber or updated wood grips that new ones come with.

One fact that cannot be disputed, is that the older models are more desirable and do command a higher price. The older wood grips, in new or pristine condition, are now selling for over $200.00 a pair alone.

I'm not a gunsmith or a firearms expert. I'm just a firearms enthusiast, who pays attention to what is going on, and to what others are saying.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Paratrooper:


> "Many don't like the fact that several years ago, S&W caved in to the gun haters and incorporated an integrated lock on their revolvers."


I bought a new Model 642 and the finish started coming off of it within a few months after buying it. not wearing off but flaking off. This one also had the integrated lock. I also bought a new Model 442 that has a black finish and no lock the finish is much better on this model, I'm wondering if they discontinued the locks? I also bought the "Governor" recently and this one has the lock. I'm confused as to why some of the new guns have the lock and some don't? I bought all of these within the past two years. I also don't like fact that the newer J-Frames and probably all of their models that use a coil hammer spring now have a plastic spring swivel that gets chewed up while dis-assembling the gun. The older ones are steel and I have replaced them on all my new J-Frames with steel ones that I bought from Jack First. It's not a big job to dis-able the integrated locks, the parts can be removed, but that leaves a hole in the frame of the gun, a better method is to remove the "flag" and grind off the "nub" that locks into the hammer and re-install those parts. There have been problems with those locks engaging while the guns were being fired under heavy recoil especially in their lightweight and or larger caliber guns. This could be very unpredictable and happen at the wrong time. Have to agree with you those older guns were indeed better.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

donk123:


> "don't like the finish on it,very flat."


You can always polish it with 400 to 600 to 1500 to 2000 grit wet or dry sandpaper to get the desired luster you want. I agree with you about the finish and polished all of my stainless steel guns.
Ruger's while being excellent guns do not as "Paratrooper" said hold their value as well as an S&W. You might want to look at "Badger" grips I use them on mine and in my opinion are some of the nicest grips on the market with regards to fit and finish. Altamontco.com also has a wide selection of grips and are of excellent quality.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

As much as I like S&W revolvers, I go out of my way to buy the older models when I'm in the market. You will pay a premium, but when it's all said and done, you have peace of mind, knowing that your investment is secure and will only grow in value. 

I have a non-fluted 629-5 with a 3" bbl., with the Hogue rubber finger-groove grips as OEM. I actually really like the rubber grip and it will stay on the gun. It also has the integrated lock. It points and balances very well in my hand, and the grips are big enough, to make me feel like I have a hold on something. 

It's my "hiking gun".


----------



## Glock Doctor (Mar 14, 2011)

OK, the older (blued) Smith & Wesson revolvers are among the very finest-made pistols in the world! No if's, no and's, no but's. The bluing is, while not quite as good as the old Colts, usually superlative. The action parts are case-hardened; and the trigger mechanisms are - often, but not always - custom-fitted. The carbon steel these pistols are made out of is, 'ordinance grade' and very hard - Much harder than the soft stainless S&W is using today.

I've had S&W factory personnel tell me that their machinery - and, especially, their tool heads - now, lasts a lot longer because they're only cutting and shaping soft stainless. The cylinders used to be rebated; (A feature I really liked.) and the old barrels were threaded into the frames and, then, pinned in place. None of these crappy and next-to-impossible to remove or install press-fitted barrels that are being used by all of today's pistol manufacturers!

Today I own only a few Smith & Wesson handguns; but there was a time, when I was younger, that I owned more than my fair share. Smith's largest North American distributor used to be a close personal friend of mine. He passed away a number of years ago; and I miss him, still. Wow! The remarkable things I saw in his heavily stocked underground warehouse! (The selection and deals he used to give me, too!)

I own a beautiful Model 686. It's a nice gun; but it ain't no old Smith! My wife, also, owns a more recently purchased Sturm-Ruger SP-101. The action was mediocre, at best, when she purchased it; but I had a talented local gunsmith do an action job on it; and, now, my wife is able to fire her SP-101 very accurately - even in double-action mode - (but her Ruger, still, doesn't cycle as smoothly or, 'break' as cleanly as an older S&W revolver).

Personally I dislike 7-shot revolvers. I used to do a lot of PPC shooting; and I'm used to very fast, very high quality speedloaders - The kind you can't get for 7-shot revolvers. As far as inherent strength goes I'd give, 'the edge' to Sturm-Ruger. When I was training my wife we used to fire that little SP-101 until it was, literally, way too hot to handle with bare hands; and, know what, that little 357 Magnum never missed a beat! (I had to put on a pair of shooting gloves in order to continue firing it.)

Faced with your decision I'd opt for the GP-100; and the very first things I'd do are to pick up a Hogue Monogrip and, then, get a high quality action-job. (I wouldn't reduce the main spring weight, though.) Neither do I believe that Smith & Wesson handguns any longer hold their value better than Sturm-Ruger. Today I'd say that the two companies are, about, even; (and remember I'm a, 'Smith & Wesson man')!

I don't know exactly what GP-100 you're looking at, but Ruger's, 'Match Champion' model has excellent sights on it. Suggest you go to Ruger's on-line catalog, and look around. http://www.ruger.com/products/gp100MatchChampion/models.html Then there's always this: http://www.ruger.com/products/sp101/index.html (Which is garnering a very good reputation for itself.)

Here's a picture of what, until the past few years, used to be my EDC. I'm sure you'll recognize it: (It's my second S&W snub-nose. The first one was a Model 19 that, unfortunately had a forcing cone problem, and blew up in my hand.)









Here's my wife's EDC: (Which I, sometimes, 'borrow'.)


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Glock Doctor:


> "As far as inherent strength goes I'd give, 'the edge' to Sturm-Ruger."


If that ain't the truth. I have an S&W Model 29 4" a 629 3" and a Ruger Redhawk 7 1/2". That Ruger is a much beefier gun and was designed specifically for that cartridge, where as the "Smith's" were made from existing "N" frame guns. Never the less I've put over 10,000 full power magnum loads out of my Model 29 and only had to replace the barrel because the forcing cone started to erode, other than that the lock up and timing are still good as new. The original blueing is at about 95% not bad for a 34 year old gun. I think that Ruger offered the Redhawk in .454 Casull in '97, I don't think that the S&W "N" frames would hold up to that. I bought my Redhawk in 1980 when they first came out and am not sure if the .454 Casull uses the same frame, other than where the barrel screws into the frame. It looks as though Ruger extended the frame and top strap about 2 or 3 inches to accommodate a scope mount and enclose the ejector rod, but the rest looks identical.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

desertman said:


> Glock Doctor:
> 
> If that ain't the truth. I have an S&W Model 29 4" a 629 3" and a Ruger Redhawk 7 1/2". That Ruger is a much beefier gun and was designed specifically for that cartridge, where as the "Smith's" were made from existing "N" frame guns. Never the less I've put over 10,000 full power magnum loads out of my Model 29 and only had to replace the barrel because the forcing cone started to erode, other than that the lock up and timing are still good as new. The original blueing is at about 95% not bad for a 34 year old gun. I think that Ruger offered the Redhawk in .454 Casull in '97, I don't think that the S&W "N" frames would hold up to that. I bought my Redhawk in 1980 when they first came out and am not sure if the .454 Casull uses the same frame, other than where the barrel screws into the frame. It looks as though Ruger extended the frame and top strap about 2 or 3 inches to accommodate a scope mount and enclose the ejector rod, but the rest looks identical.


Aren't the frames of Ruger revolvers cast? Lost Investment Casting comes to mind.

Maybe that's why they are so big and beefy......to make up for not being forged / machined.


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

I don't know what the appeal of the 357's are anymore.

If you want a heavy revolver, you are a lot better off with a 44 rem mag heavy frame revolver, and then simply firing 44 S&W special ammo through it.

This gives you a range of cartridges varying in power from 755 ft per sec and 310 ft lbs all the way up to 1325 ft per sec and 1,533 ft lbs.

The air marshals currently use 44 specials in very light loads, because this bullet expands easily and imparts most of its energy to its human target, with a very low risk of piercing the aircraft shell.

And for killing bears, you can use the hot loaded 44 mag loads, if you are ever out in the woods.

The 357's cannot do anything like that. They do not have the versatility nor the power at the extreme range of the 44. A 357 is just a slightly hotter 38 special. Nothing more.

Sorry to rain on your parade. But I won't lie to you.


----------



## Glock Doctor (Mar 14, 2011)

paratrooper said:


> Aren't the frames of Ruger revolvers cast? Lost Investment Casting comes to mind. Maybe that's why they are so big and beefy ...... to make up for not being forged/machined.


You got it! Ruger frames are, 'investment cast'. What needs to be more fully appreciated is that investment casting actually works; and works well. The old argument that Smith and Wesson revolvers are forged and, therefore, stronger than cast Ruger revolvers really isn't germane to today's resulferized and, consequently, highly machinable stainless barrels and frames.



AdamSmith said:


> I don't know what the appeal of the 357's are anymore.
> 
> If you want a heavy revolver, you are a lot better off with a 44 rem mag heavy frame revolver, and then simply firing 44 S&W special ammo through it.
> 
> ...


Don't underestimate one of the best, 'man-stopping' rounds that's ever been invented! The disadvantage to 357 Magnum? It's got a healthier recoil and, concomitant slower rate of (accurate) fire than many people are, either, trained or comfortable attempting to skillfully manage.

357 Magnum is a highly effective, very deadly round. (I wouldn't have a problem using any of the heavier soft point bullets in a long barreled revolver for black bear.) I've owned as many as three Smith & Wesson Model 29's, and 629's, all, at the same time; and I love the caliber - Love it! A 44 Magnum pistol, however, makes for a genuinely lousy self-defense handgun. What you're wielding is, essentially, a single shot weapon. You, either, connect with the first shot; or you're in big trouble; and, in comparison to other gunmen who are using 38 Special revolvers the rate-of-fire is very slow.

I once got the brilliant idea that I was going to shoot 44 Special in our weekly PPC matches. I loaded up some nice 'n mild 44 Special rounds, bought a fancy quick-draw Don Hume leather holster, and showed up at my first match. Know what happened? My scores suddenly plummeted; I got the, 'pants shot off' me by the other top competitors; and never tried such a hair-brained stunt again! The rate-of-fire was way too slow; and the recoil much to heavy to manage well. (Big heavy bullets are a lot tougher to shoot straight; and forget about quickly!)

On the other hand, I've always been very effective with a 357 Magnum; and so are a number of other shooters whom I've trained, including my own wife. 357 is NOT as fast-to-fire as 38 Special; but it is, also, only marginally more difficult-to-control. If it weren't for the fact that I worry about having to go up against more than two or three opponents at the same time, I'd still be carrying my S&W Model 686, along with a pair of Del Fatti speedloader carriers, today.

No more, 'God' or Ten Commandments in the public schools, little or no Judeo-Christian morality in the public government venues, and a lot more illegal drugs, desperate drug abusers, and street gangs HAVE CREATED an exceedingly difficult (I would even say, 'unrighteous'.) social environment where high capacity, semiautomatic pistols, bullet resistant vests, and medical (field) trauma packs have, now, truly, 'come in their own'! (Brave new world, isn't it!)

Personally, I thinks it's very wrong to so incorrectly underestimate the extreme usefulness of a 357 Magnum. Yes, a 44 Magnum is a better hunting weapon; and, when I was shooting long range steel target matches, both, 44 Magnum and 45 Long Colt handguns were, 'king of the rams' in the 150 - 200 yard steel plate matches my old gun club used to sponsor.

Inside an airplane fuselage a large bore, soft hitting, 44 Special revolver makes sense; but NOT out on the street where more practical (and more lethal) pistols are usually employed. By the way, nobody's, 'raining on my parade'. I'm one of these people who has an annoying way of always being right - Unpopular, perhaps, but seldom wrong. (It's a, 'curse' that I've had to learn to live with; and, this morning, I thought I'd sign-on and share this unique talent with you.) :mrgreen:


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

I have several .357's and don't know why someone would dis them. They've been around for many years and will continue to do so. 

Not that long ago, the caliber was considered to be the most effective for self-defense and stopping power. I have a good feeling that it still is.


----------

