Looking for my first revolver - which shops in MA have a decent selection?

Smith or Ruger, you can't go wrong. Ruger now has a 4.2" SP101 5 shot .357 as well. The choices are hard, but you really will be happy with any of them.

Rated as tanks they would be:
Smith 686 - German tank..Big , powerful, over engineered and intricate.
Ruger GP100 - American tank--Cheaper, powerful, still over engineered, but simpler
Ruger SP101 - Swedish tank - Smaller, more maneuverable, slightly less fire power, more concealable
 
Rugerfan said:
Smith or Ruger, you can't go wrong. Ruger now has a 4.2" SP101 5 shot .357 as well. The choices are hard, but you really will be happy with any of them.

Rated as tanks they would be:
Smith 686 - German tank..Big , powerful, over engineered and intricate.
Ruger GP100 - American tank--Cheaper, powerful, still over engineered, but simpler
Ruger SP101 - Swedish tank - Smaller, more maneuverable, slightly less fire power, more concealable
Click to expand...


How do they rate on the cheese scale? Something we can all understand.
 
I have a real nice 586 that I would like to sell it is a 6" barrel gun the blue is in excelent condidtion.
I you are interested call me at 413 579 1994 I would like to get $550.00 because of the condition this gun is in.
John
 
agile_1 said:
Yes. I was thinking about it, but worried about finding a decent holster for it. I am guessing the six round model is much more popular and is easier to find a holster for.
Click to expand...

Actually the 7 shot is the popular one because everyone wants that extra round, thats why they are hard to find. And as for holsters I'm not sure the size would be an issue since the difference in the cylinders is not that big.
 
ipscdrl said:
The Gun Parlor in Worcester is not too far and has had some nice ones advertised recently that I recall.
Click to expand...

yea they have a nice selection of revolvers and pistols and long guns, if a revolver isnt there you want, they can order stuff quickly aswell
 
Rugerfan said:
Smith or Ruger, you can't go wrong. Ruger now has a 4.2" SP101 5 shot .357 as well. The choices are hard, but you really will be happy with any of them.

Rated as tanks they would be:
Smith 686 - German tank..Big , powerful, over engineered and intricate.
Ruger GP100 - American tank--Cheaper, powerful, still over engineered, but simpler
Ruger SP101 - Swedish tank - Smaller, more maneuverable, slightly less fire power, more concealable
Click to expand...


Do you rate the SP101 as less fire power because it only holds 5 shots? I actually would rate the GP100 and the 686 equal quality but for different reasons. 686 has a better trigger out of the box IMO.....however I have fired a friends 686 that had a problem with the ejector rod coming lose and having to be re-tightened every 12 rounds.......where I have never had a single malfunction on my rugers I would say the GP100 is actually a better build gun.....tougher.......but just not as refined as the 686....and at about $150 to $200 less than the 686 the ruger takes the win in my book.............for a full size revolver anyway.

On the other hand for CCW purposes in a revolver the SP101 is king for me. Splits the difference between j frame (too small for my hands and 357 just plain sucks out of a j frame) and the full size versions. Recoil is managemable with 357 loads in the SP101 2 1/4 inch barrel......I can shoot an entire box of 158 grain 357 at the range and not fatigue my hands at all.....but it carries IWB no problem. For me the SP101 is the perfect CCW revolver.
 
Last edited:
funny post, you really want to sell Rugers... eh..


whacko said:
Do you rate the SP101 as less fire power because it only holds 5 shots? I actually would rate the GP100 and the 686 equal quality but for different reasons. 686 has a better trigger out of the box IMO.....however I have fired a friends 686 that had a problem with the ejector rod coming lose and having to be re-tightened every 12 rounds.......where I have never had a single malfunction on my rugers I would say the GP100 is actually a better build gun.....tougher.......but just not as refined as the 686....and at about $150 to $200 less than the 686 the ruger takes the win in my book.............for a full size revolver anyway.

On the other hand for CCW purposes in a revolver the SP101 is king for me. Splits the difference between j frame (too small for my hands and 357 just plain sucks out of a j frame) and the full size versions. Recoil is managemable with 357 loads in the SP101 2 1/4 inch barrel......I can shoot an entire box of 158 grain 357 at the range and not fatigue my hands at all.....but it carries IWB no problem. For me the SP101 is the perfect CCW revolver.
Click to expand...
 
turbo38gn said:
funny post, you really want to sell Rugers... eh..
Click to expand...

No just my honest opinion. WHy do you think it is funny? The 686 is a great gun.......trigger is better for sure but in my opinion not $150 better. We like what we like and try to tell the folks asking opinions how we feel. Go ask a glock guy about his guns and I'm guaranteing you the post/conversation will be longer than mine [smile]
 
Kinda ridiculous to use a loose ejector rod on your friends gun as a reason to not buy a 686... [grin] like it's some kind of unrepairable issue.. not to mention, there are any number of grips available for the J-frames... [grin] Just seems kind of embellishing the situation...

whacko said:
No just my honest opinion. WHy do you think it is funny? The 686 is a great gun.......trigger is better for sure but in my opinion not $150 better. We like what we like and try to tell the folks asking opinions how we feel. Go ask a glock guy about his guns and I'm guaranteing you the post/conversation will be longer than mine [smile]
Click to expand...
 
turbo38gn said:
Kinda ridiculous to use a loose ejector rod on your friends gun as a reason to not buy a 686... [grin] like it's some kind of unrepairable issue.. not to mention, there are any number of grips available for the J-frames... [grin] Just seems kind of embellishing the situation...
Click to expand...

Well you must be a smith and wesson guy. FYI.....I also own a j frame smith just in .38 special rather than 357 (my wife loves that gun [shocked])....my point was that an sp101 in 357 mag is much more controllable than a j frame in 357 mag and just about as concealable......not too many people would disagree with that I don't think.Call the comment about the ejector rod embelishment if you want but personally if I spend about $700 plus on a fire arm I expect parts to not fall the hell out of it......guess I'm fussy that way. So I'll stick with the GP100 for $550!
 
Last edited:
Well you must be a smith and wesson guy. FYI.....I also own a j frame smith just in .38 special rather than 357 (my wife loves that gun )....my point was that an sp101 in 357 mag is much more controllable than a j frame in 357 mag and just about as concealable......not too many people would disagree with that I don't think.Call the comment about the ejector rod embelishment if you want but personally if I spend about $700 plus on a fire arm I expect parts to not fall the hell out of it......guess I'm fussy that way. So I'll stick with the GP100 for $550!
Click to expand...

You missed Turbo's point. Your issue with the 686 is what is called anecdotal. It is an issue with a single revolver and is simply not a rational reason to make a sweeping generalization implying some kind of quality issue with the 686. On the other hand, if you simply say you handled both and preferred the Ruger, that is perfectly fine. I am sure many have had poor experiences with the Ruger too in terms of quality. Bottom line is that both are great revolvers and it's simply a matter of preference and as with just about every firearm out there you will occasionally run into one that has some problem that should have been addressed in the assembly process.
 
Thank you, that was exactly my point, I just couldn't get it to the keyboard.

LittleCalm said:
You missed Turbo's point. Your issue with the 686 is what is called anecdotal. It is an issue with a single revolver and is simply not a rational reason to make a sweeping generalization implying some kind of quality issue with the 686. On the other hand, if you simply say you handled both and preferred the Ruger, that is perfectly fine. I am sure many have had poor experiences with the Ruger too in terms of quality. Bottom line is that both are great revolvers and it's simply a matter of preference and as with just about every firearm out there you will occasionally run into one that has some problem that should have been addressed in the assembly process.
Click to expand...
 
LittleCalm said:
You missed Turbo's point. Your issue with the 686 is what is called anecdotal. It is an issue with a single revolver and is simply not a rational reason to make a sweeping generalization implying some kind of quality issue with the 686. On the other hand, if you simply say you handled both and preferred the Ruger, that is perfectly fine. I am sure many have had poor experiences with the Ruger too in terms of quality. Bottom line is that both are great revolvers and it's simply a matter of preference and as with just about every firearm out there you will occasionally run into one that has some problem that should have been addressed in the assembly process.
Click to expand...

OK I'll be sure to run all my posts by you in the future to be sure its fine with you first [rolleyes]:


OK.......how's this......I handled both and preferred the Ruger because parts were falling off of the s and w 686 and it cost $150 more. Better?

See what I mean......I told the OP I prefer the ruger and WHY I formed that opinion........I certainly don't see any problem with that.

I gave my opinion based on my personal experience with both fire arms. I see no problem forming MY OPINION based on MY EXPERIENCE. I fired two guns......one costs about $550 and the other cost $700 plus. The $700 plus fire arm had a part falling off of it. Is that a sample of all 686 guns made....of course not. And of course many folks swear by the 686 and have never had a problem with one. But based on my MY PERSONAL experience with both guns I FEEL the GP100 is a better value. Put it this way........If you had bought a 686 and paid $700 for it and after three range trips you had to send it back to S and W would you be a little upset and possibly start taking a look at other brands?

I'm sure the OP woll read all of the other rave reviews of the venerable perfect and purely awesome 686.......its a good gun. I prefer the ruger. Done.
 
Last edited:
"I have to address this again because it seems to be a commonly held misconception: The Ruger GP100 is not overbuilt or more durable than the Smith and Wesson 686!!!

Many people see the GP100 and think that because the construction of the revolver appears to have thicker "metal" this somehow makes it stronger or whatever. This is not the case.

The GP100 is manufactured in a process called investment casting. Basically metal is poured into a mold and the components are cast. The casting is hardened, which makes the outer layer of the metal hard, very hard... yet brittle like glass. A good example of cast and hardened steel is the lug of a master lock which I am sure just about every one of us has cut at one time or another. One will notice that when cutting a master lock lug it kind of shatters like glass and it is possible to notice that the outer layer of the metal is crystallized and appears to be brittle, yet it is strong until sheared.

The Smith and Wesson 686 is made of forged steel. Forging steel is a process in which hammers (massive hydraulic press machines that hammer the steel) that can exert hundreds of tons of pressure make a larger piece of metal smaller while hot. This is called hammer forging. During the hammer forging process the crystalline structures in the metal compress and align in an almost uniform fashion to make the material strong uniformly. This process also "compresses" the material a bit, yet makes it fantastically strong and durable.

The process Smith and Wesson uses (hammer forging) costs significantly more than the investment casting that Ruger uses. In my opinion, hammer forging yields a stronger and more durable material because if the surface is compromised in any fashion it does not cause massive structural weakness like in the investment casting process. Which is one of the reasons why I prefer the Smith and Wesson revolver over the Ruger, yet I do not bad mouth Ruger revolvers... they are almost as good as Smith revolvers, almost.

Ruger does have a few strong points going for their revolvers. Ruger does not use an ejector rod that rotates with the cylinder. The Ruger ejector rod does not have to be straight like in a Smith and Wesson, it is multiple pieces that are more durable. If a Smith ejector rod gets bent, it can cause friction and bind up the action, this will not happen with a Ruger.

I hope this clears up some of the misconceptions regarding these two fine revolvers. Rick will be along shortly, I am sure. I am not a metallurgist, just a guy with some tertiary knowledge on the subject and a love for wheel guns.



"BTW, Ruger revolvers can fail! Everyone has seen pictures of Smith revolvers blown apart, here is a link to the Ruger Forum where a GP100 failed with magnum ammo. This is not meant to say "Ruger is shit" because they are not. These are machines, and they all can fail at any time... here is an example:"

http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=112524&highlight=failure



whacko said:
Do you rate the SP101 as less fire power because it only holds 5 shots? I actually would rate the GP100 and the 686 equal quality but for different reasons. 686 has a better trigger out of the box IMO.....however I have fired a friends 686 that had a problem with the ejector rod coming lose and having to be re-tightened every 12 rounds.......where I have never had a single malfunction on my rugers I would say the GP100 is actually a better build gun.....tougher.......but just not as refined as the 686....and at about $150 to $200 less than the 686 the ruger takes the win in my book.............for a full size revolver anyway.

On the other hand for CCW purposes in a revolver the SP101 is king for me. Splits the difference between j frame (too small for my hands and 357 just plain sucks out of a j frame) and the full size versions. Recoil is managemable with 357 loads in the SP101 2 1/4 inch barrel......I can shoot an entire box of 158 grain 357 at the range and not fatigue my hands at all.....but it carries IWB no problem. For me the SP101 is the perfect CCW revolver.
Click to expand...

RugerGP100withDamage_zps34a8aaec.jpg


CrackedCylinder001_zpsa405dbcf.jpg


CrackedCylinderopenwithroundstillin_zps4b793bfd.jpg
 
Last edited:
Artifact said:
"BTW, Ruger revolvers can fail! Everyone has seen pictures of Smith revolvers blown apart, here is a link to the Ruger Forum where a GP100 failed with magnum ammo. This is not meant to say "Ruger is shit" because they are not. These are machines, and they all can fail at any time... here is an example:"

http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=112524&highlight=failure
Click to expand...

Of course.....any gun can fail. We as shooters put them through their paces. It happenss.

Artifact.....btw I never said Ruger was overbuilt and more durable than the 686 based on the matal they are built from. I said the Ruger is much less expensive therefore a better vaule. Additionally you mention specifically the ejector rod is better on the ruger......something I specifically referred to in how I formed my opinion after firing both guns.....the smith 686 ejector rod kept coming lose after every other cylinder of ammo fired.

Sucks for the owner of that ruger that blew apart!!!!
 
Last edited:
put me down in the 4" SW 686 column ... I'll never sell mine, the only way it's leaving me is when they pry it from my cold dead hand.
 
Wasn't directly aimed at you, but there is a lot of myths out there and people go by "wow it looks beefy, so it must be stronger and better." Is the 686 worth $150 more that the Ruger? It depends who you ask and what they value, certainly the Smith & Wesson believes so hence their price.


whacko said:
Of course.....any gun can fail. We as shooters put them through their paces. It happenss.

Artifact.....btw I never said Ruger was overbuilt and more durable than the 686 based on the matal they are built from. I said the Ruger is much less expensive therefore a better vaule. Additionally you mention specifically the ejector rod is better on the ruger......something I specifically referred to in how I formed my opinion after firing both guns.....the smith 686 ejector rod kept coming lose after every other cylinder of ammo fired.

Sucks for the owner of that ruger that blew apart!!!!
Click to expand...
 
For the record, I blame Whacko for my most likely next purchase... I saw a Ruger, Talon GP100 3" barrel for sale.. I think $650... I have the 686 3" Lew Horton.. be a nice stable mate..
 
Artifact said:
"I have to address this again because it seems to be a commonly held misconception: The Ruger GP100 is not overbuilt or more durable than the Smith and Wesson 686!!!

Many people see the GP100 and think that because the construction of the revolver appears to have thicker "metal" this somehow makes it stronger or whatever. This is not the case.

The GP100 is manufactured in a process called investment casting. Basically metal is poured into a mold and the components are cast. The casting is hardened, which makes the outer layer of the metal hard, very hard... yet brittle like glass. A good example of cast and hardened steel is the lug of a master lock which I am sure just about every one of us has cut at one time or another. One will notice that when cutting a master lock lug it kind of shatters like glass and it is possible to notice that the outer layer of the metal is crystallized and appears to be brittle, yet it is strong until sheared.

The Smith and Wesson 686 is made of forged steel. Forging steel is a process in which hammers (massive hydraulic press machines that hammer the steel) that can exert hundreds of tons of pressure make a larger piece of metal smaller while hot. This is called hammer forging. During the hammer forging process the crystalline structures in the metal compress and align in an almost uniform fashion to make the material strong uniformly. This process also "compresses" the material a bit, yet makes it fantastically strong and durable.

The process Smith and Wesson uses (hammer forging) costs significantly more than the investment casting that Ruger uses. In my opinion, hammer forging yields a stronger and more durable material because if the surface is compromised in any fashion it does not cause massive structural weakness like in the investment casting process. Which is one of the reasons why I prefer the Smith and Wesson revolver over the Ruger, yet I do not bad mouth Ruger revolvers... they are almost as good as Smith revolvers, almost.

Ruger does have a few strong points going for their revolvers. Ruger does not use an ejector rod that rotates with the cylinder. The Ruger ejector rod does not have to be straight like in a Smith and Wesson, it is multiple pieces that are more durable. If a Smith ejector rod gets bent, it can cause friction and bind up the action, this will not happen with a Ruger.

I hope this clears up some of the misconceptions regarding these two fine revolvers. Rick will be along shortly, I am sure. I am not a metallurgist, just a guy with some tertiary knowledge on the subject and a love for wheel guns.



"BTW, Ruger revolvers can fail! Everyone has seen pictures of Smith revolvers blown apart, here is a link to the Ruger Forum where a GP100 failed with magnum ammo. This is not meant to say "Ruger is shit" because they are not. These are machines, and they all can fail at any time... here is an example:"

http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=112524&highlight=failure





RugerGP100withDamage_zps34a8aaec.jpg


CrackedCylinder001_zpsa405dbcf.jpg


CrackedCylinderopenwithroundstillin_zps4b793bfd.jpg
Click to expand...

Geez. Hope that never happens to my Speed Six!

it's too bad s&w had to start doing the internal lock thing, makes me not want any newer revolver of theirs that has it, and I love the 686.
 

Similar threads

First muzzleloader rifle/musket for enthusiast?
Replies
3
Views
66
Palladin
Palladin
Which 1911?
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
Gerbs54
G
What shroud looks better on my Suomi M31?
Replies
3
Views
87
yanquidog
Y
Modifying preban uzi mags for AR9 colt lower
Replies
1
Views
71
Rick O'Shea
Rick O'Shea
Got a new sub machine gun in today
Replies
3
Views
309
Rocky Mosasaurus
Rocky Mosasaurus
Back
Top Bottom