GP100 vs 686

>>33705580
I prefer the GP100, it's one tough revolver.

Revolvers, revolvers make me sad. Revolvers, revolvers are really bad.

>>33705590
But isn't forged steel tougher?

>>33705591
I see you're on a shitposting marathon at the moment?

>>33705580
The answer is the 686+, followed by the 686, followed by the GP100.

Anyone who tells you differently likely can't prove they own any of them. Pay the extra $1-150 and get a revolver that doesn't look like shit and can actually be sold later on.

>>33705580
>Which is superior?
586
I hate shiny guns.
I've been wanting one for a while but can't decide between a 4" or 6"

>Smith and Wesson
>Hillary Holes
>Two-piece barrels
>MIM parts

How the mighty have fallen. Ruger all day, every day, unless you find an old Smith.

File: IMG_0894.jpg (717KB, 1512x2016px) Image search: [Google]

717KB, 1512x2016px

Old photo as simple answer.

And if you take your time and look closely on the details you get great competition guns. Like timing or distance between barrel and cylinder.
If you can find a good gunsmith to rework the trigger then is is only the decision left if you may go for a new Korth instead.

File: 1492473980698.png (701KB, 791x672px) Image search: [Google]

701KB, 791x672px

What the hell is a "hillary hole" and why is it a negative?

>>33705685
>Guns that I own
Model 10
>Guns that I've shot but don't own
642
686+ 4"
Rock Island snubby
>Guns that I want
586
442
LCR
SP101
GP100
>>33705726
The hole above the cylinder release that uses a key to lock the gun up for "safety" reasons

>>33705726
Smith were literally bought out by a lock manufacturer, so they insert this useless shit in nearly every model despite it being hated.

I've heard vague stories of them failing and locking the gun during use, which is unlikely possible. That and it's just ugly.

>>33705685

Considering that I own a bunch of revolvers below 6 inches. I went with the 6

>>33705691
How old, 1999? That's the one I just bought and it doesn't have her hole

File: sw-lock-featured-1024x448.jpg (82KB, 1024x448px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1024x448px

>>33705726
It's also called a Lawyer Lock.
Basically, Smith thought it'd be a good idea to build a lock into their guns during the 90s. At that point, there was talk of the possibility of new legislation requiring guns to be lockable, and the Clinton administration was pushing for it - and S&W jumped right on board. Remember Bill Ruger and the whole no honest man thing? Basically that, but S&W is completely unapologetic for their bootlicking and keep on doing it today.

Its been documented on more than a few occasions, especially on airweights, snubs, and revolvers in hard-recoiling calibers, for the lock to jolt its self just enough to engage on its own. I've seen it happen on the range myself, and I've seen stories about it seizing up so bad that the revolver required disassembly to unlock.

Between that, and sintered metal parts for the hammer and trigger, and barrels now being thin and swaged into what's more or less a decorative shell to make it look beefy, S&W revolvers are now pathetic shadows of their former selves.

>>33705840
Different models phased them in at different points.

>>33705852
>Between that, and sintered metal parts for the hammer and trigger, and barrels now being thin and swaged into what's more or less a decorative shell to make it look beefy, S&W revolvers are now pathetic shadows of their former selves.

What year would you say they started dropping in quality?

>>33705743
I've hade the cylinder lock up on my 686 before but it could have been due to fouling, not completely sure.

File: 1490387177141.jpg (203KB, 675x1024px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 675x1024px

>>33705580
What's a good pre-lock s&w .357 with a 3-5 inch barrel? Not trying to spend more than say $800.

>>33705859
1997 marked the start of MIM parts.
I don't know exactly when they started with the two piece barrels, but that was also later 90s, ditto Hillary holes.
Anything before 1995 should be great, after that - depends on when exactly S&W decided it was time to ruin that model.

>>33705865
Pick a frame size first.

Little babby J-frame pocket gun? Duty-size K-frame? Big boy L-frame, or Dirty Harry N-frame?

Just to throw out off hand, any of the K-frame M&P models will probably fit your bill fine. They were staples in Police holsters for decades - pretty much the quintessential .357 6-shooter.

>>33705888
K, L, or N frames would be fine. I mostly want it for the range. Don't really intend to carry it (unless I find that I like shoulder holster carry, in which case size still wouldn't matter that much)

>>33705888
I can only find the ugly trr8 shit or older ones in .38 only. Is there a specific model numbe or range I could check out?

>>33705967
Model 10, K frame .38
Model 19, K frame .357
I have a police trade in model 10 that I love. No internal lock and trigger is mooth as fuck. Has some holster wear but looks great.

>>33705948
>>33705967
Any Model 13
586 and 686 up to 586/686-4 (586 is blue, 686 is stainless FYI)
Model 19 up to 19-7
Model 66 up to 66-4
Model 28 is all fine
Model 15 up to 15-7

That's pretty much all of the pre-lock 357s worth mentioning

Plenty of Js came with 3" barrels, so don't write them off either -- Model 60 up to 60-13. I believe they only started making Centennials and 340s in .357 after the lock came around.

>>33705657
I've owned a modern 686 and a 3" gp100. The gp was fatter but the trigger was just as good. You literally cannot go wrong with either one. Sold them both when I got my mr73 though.

>>33705985
Well you know your shit, or just know how to google. Know where to find some police trade in smiths?
>>33705986
>mr73
Is manhurin just that great?

>>33706000
I'm just a master fudd.

>Is manhurin just that great?
The MR73 is, yes. The trigger rides on bearings, and is simply the best trigger you will find in a revolver - it's the difference between your desk drawer and a Snap-on tool chest.
Other Manhurins are nothing to write home about unless you have a raging hard-on for French guns.

I passed up on 2 or 3 revolver deals in the past 2 years just because of the Hillary hole.

From what I've read on them and the stories of them malfing. I will NEVER own a revolver for defensive use with one.

File: IMG_20170404_163558.jpg (2MB, 3706x1782px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3706x1782px

>>33706000
This guy gets it. Mine looks like hell because it probably lived 2 service lives but it still outshoots any da revolver I have ever touched.

>>33706017
Sorry >>33706009 meant to link you for credit. But yeah. They are great.

>>33706011
You can remove the lock completely if you so desire. There's even a few people out there making neat little plugs to fill the hole and make everything look tidy.

Regardless of that, though, I don't feel S&W revolvers are worth the price now. Some will call me outrageous for it, but with the cut corners, I feel like S&W revolvers are on-par with Taurus. The only saving grace for S&W is that they still have enough QC to not let any real turds slips through ala Taurus.

>>33706017
Not bad. One of the ones Classic had on sale a while back?
I'd suggest getting it reblued and polished up to a deep shine. Looks like it could use it.

>>33706031
Interesting. I'm not a revolver guy can you explain a little why you feel that way? I was under the impression taurus was junk.

What about something like a Ruger LCR? To me the screw on the lcr that the manual recommends tightening and keeping an eye on seems like hokey.

File: IMG_20170404_163615.jpg (2MB, 3810x2210px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3810x2210px

>>33706031
It is one of the classics.

Trust that I fully intend to have it peened and reblued someday. Look at this shit. Fuck you century.

>>33706049
Good god, they couldn't have done that on the heel, or under the grip?

Why can't somebody who actually cares about not being the biggest steaming pile of shit run Century?

>>33706056
Could? Yes. Will they do anything besides the laziest cunts on the planet? Well...

File: ff.jpg (124KB, 955x490px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 955x490px

>>33706049
The fact that the government requires this stupid shit is a crime against humanity

>>33705580
>>33705628
The GP100 is 1980s technology designed from the ground up with ease of manufacture and durability in mind, unlike the century old Smith. Anyone still citing pre-1990s fuddlore about investment casting in 2017 needs to remove themselves from the gene pool...it's especially hilarious considering much MIM is in most Smiths made since like the mid-90s, whereas Ruger only started using the technology sparingly in their revolvers a few years back.

>>33706064
>Casting is fine but MIM is bad
ok

>>33706083
>investment casting and MIM are the same thing
ok

Gp100 every single fucking day.

>>33705580
>-cast metal
There's kind of a difference between a steel investment casting which is heat treated, and a diecast piece of zinc, both are castings but by far are they not the same.

>>33705657
>Rugers are never resold
Drool less.

>>33705852
In all fairness, you can disable the lock.

>>33705691
There isn't anything wrong with MIM if you actually put effort into quality control, like any other manufacturing method.

I do feel that S&W are better at pistols and rifles these days though.

>>33706372

>I do feel that S&W are better at pistols and rifles these days though.

Agreed, they probably have higher profit margins so theyre focused there, and letting their name sell revolvers.

>>33705948
You probably don't want a magnum K-frame. They suffer shorter lifespans than L-frames due to frame stretching, frame cracking, and cracking on the forcing cone. The whole point of the L-Frame was to make a sturdier .357 sized Smith than the K-frame was since the K-frame was originally designed for .38 Special.

>>33706362
its still worse than forging though

>>33705657
I don't buy guns to sell later and only the performance center and classic smith's look good.

>>33706031
Yeah there are a lot of manufacturing improvements that definitely cut costs but trying to pass them all off as upgrades is bullshit.

Their 1911s are pretty damn nice though

>>33706429
686 is a k frame are you really suggesting they are that fragile?

I can see a 13 maybe.

>>33706435
I guess in the sense that stamping steel isn't as strong as milling steel.

>>33705580
Out of the box, the 686 is a better revolver. If you want to spend a bit more on the Ruger to improve the sights and trigger, it'd be pretty much an even match.
I've had an old 6" Power Port for years that didn't cost a lot of money 2nd hand and its a good old thing, really accurate.

>MIM hate

Well, better stop using airplanes to travel. They use MIM parts!

>>33705628
Forged steel is tougher when comparing equal volumes of steel, yes.

Sadly the 686 has a very thin frame and known durability issues, particularly in regards to top strap cutting and frame stretching. Whereas the GP100 is literally THE preferred gun of every company that does big-bore conversions on revolvers because of how retardedly robust it is.

>>33706453
https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearms/model-686

Smith calls it an L-frame. Dunno why the Wiki is calling it a K-frame. Might be because the K and L share grips and are sometimes lumped in together. The 686 features the thicker frame and forcing cone of an L-frame though.

File: TaurusXXX_14.jpg (148KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1024x768px

Why buy a Smith or a Ruger when you can get a Taurus?
They're just as good and much cheaper.

>>33706039
Outside of Smith's custom shop guns and some of the exotic material pieces they use the same materials and mfg techniques that Taurus uses. The only differences are slightly better QC and a hefty price increase.

Unless you're buying a pre-lock Smith you have to do the same inspection when buying to make sure you're not getting a turd.

Taurus, Armscor, charter arms, rossi or any of the other "cheap" revolvers mfgs DO make good guns, but they save money by having shitty QC so you have to know how to evaluate a revolver at the time of purchase to make sure you get a good one.

Oh and as far as OPs question if you don't want a pre-lock smith GP-100 is tank tier goodness.

File: pointing-and-laughing.gif (460KB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

460KB, 400x225px

>>33706650
>just as good

>>33705580
>forged steel
irrelevant
>hillary hole
irrelevant
>better lockup
marginal for 99% of people
>cast metal
irrelevant

If you're going to give reasons, give meaningful reasons

Smiths these days are all cast parts

>>33706083
you're an idiot

>>33706650
huelol

>>33705580
Ruger is a wannabe Smith and Wesson. No matter how much they try, they will never be as good.

>>33706083
They're two different manufacturing methods.

Either will be bad if you're a shitty company like Kimber who doesn't give a fuck.

Either will be good if you're a good company like Ruger who actually DO give a fuck.

File: SWad.jpg~original.jpg (66KB, 500x651px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 500x651px

>>33705580

>>33706885
Lawls S&W dreams of being as good as Ruger. Ruger is the best US gun MFG by a MILE. Innovative products, excellent QC and CS along with the broadest catalog in the industry. I bet Ruger sells at least 10x as many total units per year as S&W.

>>33706885
Smith is old news these days

Ruger is the best American gun manufacturer today 2bh

Answer from someone who owns both a Ruger and a Smith & Wesson DA revolver:

Both companies are good, and whichever one you pick should ultimately come down to the quality of the particular examples you are inspecting or the prices in your local area.

Also, the modern production of both companies is probably better than it ever has been. Some of the modern S&Ws have rough spots in their finish, but they are structurally and mechanically far superior to all but the best revolvers from the "golden age" for S&W collectors (the 1930s to 1950s). Same deal with the newer Rugers. A GP100 feels like it has larger clearances than a Security Six when you inspect it, but it's actually even tougher when it comes to endurance.

>>33706965
And yet a Super Blackhawk or Super Redhawk can tolerate loads that a 629 would stress heavily over.

File: Blackhawk .45 ACP & Longcolt Convertibe, Floral Pewter Grips.jpg (1MB, 1600x1146px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1146px

>>33706885
Smith & Wesson isn't bad, but they're really not as good as they used to be.

In terms of revolvers, Ruger has them beat because Smith & Wesson just doesn't really care as much about wheelguns anymore.

File: a gun.jpg (424KB, 1328x747px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 1328x747px

>>33705580
Hard to tell what exactly you're comparing. The 2 models in the photo, or just the 686/GP100 in general? Obviously the 686 in the photo has better sights right out of the gate.

I made this same decision about 2 years ago. I fired both a GP100 and a 686+ and definitely preferred the trigger on the 686+. The stock sights are good enough for me, I preferred how the 686 fit in my hand AND I love having 7 rounds available with the + model. I bought a 6" 686+ for $775 (that's tax and everything included) so it really wasn't THAT much more than the GP100.

Those telling you the 686 is junk aren't worth listening to. It's a newer frame with a beefier forcing cone than the Smiths of 40 years ago. It is not quite as beefy as the Ruger but it's not going to fall apart the first time you shoot it, nor is has it drifted down to Taurus levels of build quality. That's reactionary.

If you're trying to decide between them you should handle both models at a shooting range and shoot them if possible. They're both great guns and to me it came down more to fit in the hand and trigger than anything else.

Pic related: Mah 686+ with an old model 13 pre--Hillary hole (family gun)

>my 686 was made back in the 80's
>no hillary hole
>gonna have a gunsmith work on it and make the action all spiffy
Should I still think about getting a .44?

>>33707251
>Smith & Wesson isn't bad, but they're really not as good as they used to be.

This is fuddlore. They are actually better than they used to be in everything except cosmetics. Take a look at:

http://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/revolver-velocity-vs-barrel-length/

Specifically, compare the velocities of the 66-6 to the Model 28 (a pinned barrel from the 70s) and the Model 686-3 (a pre-Hillary Hole gun). The 66-6 is objectively a better performer despite having a much shorter barrel.

File: 170292_01_lg_1.jpg (19KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x500px

Anyone own one of these? Are they worth the extra money?

>>33707559
Velocity isn't everything, what about durability and finesse, what about the shitty-ass lock?

>>33707639
You are missing the point. My point is not about the Model 66 specifically but about this notion that the older guns somehow have better performance because their prices are inflated by collectors who rarely, if ever, actually shoot their guns.

The newer guns that fudds think are of lower quality due to >muh MIM have smaller clearances, tighter tolerances, advances in engineering, and better metallurgy. I guarantee you that if someone were to do an endurance test that pitted a new-in-box Bangor Punta-era 29-2 against a modern 29-10, the latter would win and win easily.

>>33707709
And a Ruger would outlast them both. :P

>>33707725
Yes, I'm not disputing that at all. That's why my magnum of choice is actually my Security Six.

File: Security Six Scope.jpg (39KB, 770x452px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 770x452px

>>33707709
I don't mind MIM, again, it depends on WHO is doing the MIM parts, QC is everything.
A company like Ruger could easily get into MIM and make it work because they generally seem to be quite a good company these days.

What I don't like about current S&Ws is the keylock, and the sleeved barrel. I get that a sleeved barrel works, and it makes sense to keep price down, but that's the kind of thing I'd think you would see on an economy revolver, like a Rossi, Taurus or Rock Island.

When I think of Smith & Wesson revolvers, I don't want to think "economy revolver".
They work alright still, but much of the old charm is gone.

>>33707750
Security Six is a little wonder for sure, it helps that they're typically very affordable, even in good condition.

The Redhawk and GP100 might arguably be better but the Security Six has a bit of a distinct and flowing look to it that they lack. The way the recoil shields for the cylinder are actually cast into the frame is really sexy to me. It might be stronger than the GP100 though, being a bit more overbuilt.

>>33705985
Thanks this is extremely helpful.

>>33705580
>better lockup

The Ruger will lose time before the S&W, and Rugers (if they have problems) tend to have issues with cylinders binding. Rugers also have their own "Hillary hole" style lock under the grips

>>33706650
is it bad that i want to shoot that gun like that?

I would load and fire that thing right now.

File: 1c1.jpg (82KB, 794x708px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 794x708px

>>33708457
>The Ruger will lose time before the S&W

File: download (1).jpg (4KB, 273x184px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 273x184px

>>33706049
>That electo-pencil mark

Unless these come back extra cheap, I'm just gonna pay the extra money to import one myself.

>>33708788
I know it makes me sad too. I was happy to spend $500 for the condition but that's just hateful of century to fuck up the barrel like that.

Oh well maybe I can find someone to peen and blue it someday.

>>33707599

I wouldn't buy one.

T. Old fuck that refuses to give smith & fagson money

>>33708824
Would peening really be able to get rid the marks? They don't look too deep.

>>33707599
Unless you're an autistic richfag who wants to collect every gun in counter strike, no there are far better options.

>>33705628
typically, forged is stronger for the same amount of steel
but, Ruger gets around this by having literally some of the best castings in any industry in the country (Pine Tree Casting is their industrial casting division, and they make shitloads of parts across every industry) and also making their revolvers beefy as frig

>>33708457
Absolutely untrue. Go read up on the Border Patrol's endurance testing of .357 service revolvers back in the 80s. All of the ammunition used was hot Magnum loads. Every single one of the Smith and Wessons they tested failed before the 1,500 round mark, while all but one of the Ruger Six series guns they tried went over 10,000 rounds without any issues.

>>33708895
I am gonna hope they do. If nothing else maybe knock them down then blue over them to make them less billboard

>>33705580
Okay, I was off /k/ for a while, what's the Hillary Hole?

>>33708955
The only hole even Bill avoids.

As a someone who owned a GP100, get a S&W 686.

The trigger on the 686 is light years better and it is a more enjoyable gun to shoot. Plus you are in America where you can get one for cheap as hell.

>>33708955
Nevermind, I got the answer from another poster.

>>33708973 top kek

>>33707082
I wouldn't call their products innovative
everything they make is derivative of something else

but, they are VERY responsive to the marketplace
people want micro 9 and .380 guns, make em
people want striker fired service handguns, make em
people want a cheaper model, make em
people want piston ARs, make em
people want cheap ARs, make em

stretch dream: Ruger produced cast and milled receiver AK

>>33708982

Couldn't disagree more.

>>33708995
>stretch dream: Ruger produced cast and milled receiver AK
The soon-to-be-former CEO has already said an AK is never happening...and as cool as it'd be I can live with that. Wish they'd hurry the fuck up getting a shotgun and lever action rifle out there though.

>>33708995
They need to bring back an updated pistol caliber carbine. Dat .44mag rotary magazine....

>>33705628
Ruger has an Enchanted Smelter a mile under thier facility. Manned by 7 experienced Dwarves with lvl 99 Casting.

>>33709014
yeah, I didn't think it would

>>33709022
bring back the PC-9

>>33709030
After owning a blued GP I can believe this

File: image.jpg (982KB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

982KB, 3264x2448px

>>33705985
>model 13
Muh nig

>>33708995
Well to be fair, that's how you're successful, you provide the market with what it wants, most of their products does this varying from mediocre to really pretty good.

They also do some of their own things, (10/22, Blackhawk, LCR, etc) that few others are quite doing, and people seem to like that.

>stretch dream: Ruger produced cast and milled receiver AK
I actually daydreamed about that a while ago, I'd even settle for Mini-30 mags if they made it good enough.

>>33709014
The guy's pretty competent, Ruger was nowhere near this big, expansive or varied while Bill was in charge, he's done a lot. If he says the company won't, I'm willing to bet that he's weighed it a lot and looked at it when the Russians got sanctioned, and if he thinks "This probably wouldn't be profitable." I'm willing to trust his judgment on that, at least for now.

It's not like it's AWB faggotry like it was with Bill, they sell hicaps and AR15s left and right these days.

>>33709674
how about just a Mini--30 that takes AK mags then
that's probably a lot more doable
but an AK taking Ruger Mini-30 mags, now that's an interesting thought
someone could do it as a one of build with a cheap kit
maybe start with a PSA barreled receiver

>>33709014
I'd like a shotgun from Ruger, if they give the market something that there's little to none of.

Like say, a pump-action shotgun (12 and 20, of course) that takes 2rd and 5rd box magazines (one for hunting/euro countries, one for everyone else), that'd be easy to do, no trifling with loads, gas systems or inertia, your arm is the piston! It'd give the market something pretty appealing which there isn't much of in the US. Shotguns are low pressure by nature too, so you wouldn't even need to cast the receiver very fat either.
Offer them with rifled bores as an option and you have phenomenal slug rifles for blasting hogs.

For a lever-gun, I'm not sure they'd do it.
A long time ago, they did do a lever-action version of the 10/22 (yes, seriously), but I'm not sure they have a good incentive to do one in say .357 or .44 Magnum, they already have the bolt-action rifles in those calibers (not currently produced, we'll see how that goes), and I'm not sure they're gonna bother with something like the Browning BLR or Henry Long Ranger, they already have bolt-action rifles to sell.

>>33709061
I'd like that, but it was discontinued due to low sales, and I'm not sure the market wants it much now either.
Something that'd be awesome to see them do is a hammer fired, metal framed 9mm with a 17rd magazine, think the S&W 5906 or CZ75, except single-action.

They'll never do it, but I think if they would, they'd do an amazing job at it.

>>33709767
better idea
offer the Ruger MP9 for sale as a semi-auto SBR, stockless pistol, braced pistol, and long barreled rifle

the market is hot for tactical 9mm SBRs
lots of guys would jump at a modernized American made Uzi

>>33709767
>Something that'd be awesome to see them do is a hammer fired, metal framed 9mm with a 17rd magazine, think the S&W 5906 or CZ75, except single-action.
So basically bring back the old P-85?

>>33705691
This

With the thousands of good used pinned and recessed smiths there's no reason to buy one of they new monstrosities.

You forgot
>revolvers made out of meme materials that gall and crack with regular use
>misaligned barrels
>heavy triggers

>>33705580
I had the same problem. I went with the S&W because it fit my hand just a little better and it holds it's resale value better.

File: rugersr9c9.jpg (124KB, 1024x691px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1024x691px

Speaking on the stupid lockup Smith has, One thing that real bothers me which nobody else seems to mind is this fucking lci bullshit.

>>33705580
686 is better. The stupid safety lock can be taken out if it bothers you that much.

>>33709885
take it out then
or get the 9E which omits the LCI

and they had that for the Cali market

>>33709885
>One thing that real bothers me which nobody else seems to mind is this fucking lci bullshit.
Everyone hates it. It fucks up what is probably the most attractive striker-fired pistol on the market, which is ironic considering Ruger's history with service pistols. I just wish they had put a little more effort into designing it to make it more competitive. The American is a poor replacement.

>>33709798
Yeah but a lot less chunky, with a modern button release, and possibly single-action only.
And a rail of course.

>>33709791
I forgot the MP9 existed.
Hell, do you think Ruger still even has that tooling? That was a long time ago and it sold NOTHING.

>>33709885
I love Ruger but Jesus that is awful to look at.

>>33709743
Honestly they'd probably see a big spike in sales of the Mini-30 if they made it take AK mags, but then there's that question of making the Mini-14 take AR mags, which they don't seem to want to do.

>>33707559
Wow, what a worthless metric for such a comparison

>>33709743
I don't have AR and AK mags to compare to mini mags, but the mini is also a rock'n'lock style BUT as seen on bolt guns that take AR mags having the bolt work with the feed lips may be too much trouble for them to invest in. They make plenty of money on the minis as it stands.

With a company like Ruger which is very responsive (and made 6.8spc and .300blk minis) if people keep asking why they haven't done X, there is probably a good reason for it

>>33705580
My sp101 jams in double action when it heats up. More than 100 rounds of .38 or 50 rounds of .357 at a time will cause the cylinder to stick.

>>33709767
They did a box mag lever action .44. They also did a shotgun which was tepid. If they wanted to do a Winchester 1200 clone that would be cool but with the shotgun market being what it is where would they fit in? The Stevens,stoeger and maverick have the low end, the mid tier pumps are covered and the 1100 and 930 have the lower end of semis covered. What could they do that's definitively Ruger with a shotgun

>>33708929
Post link to this I can't find it.

>>33710672
So send it in. Had a Dan Wesson 15 that did the same thing, it was just fit a bit too tight so the carbon would make it stick

>>33708487
the ultimate snub nose
>.5" barrel

File: Grizzly 8.5'' Detachable Box Magazines.jpg (21KB, 930x430px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 930x430px

>>33710685
>what it is where would they fit in?
I told you, a regular pump-action, except it takes detachable 2rd and 5rd box magazines instead of having a fixed tube mag.

There's automatics with tube mags.
There's pump-actions with tube mags.
There's automatics with detachable magazines.
But there's really not many pump-action shotguns in the US taking detachable magazines.

Think pic related but nicer, an 18" barrel (because NFAggotry), and an investment cast receiver.
Then also make it available with pistol grips with folding and/or AR style stocks.

>>33710685
>but with the shotgun market being what it is where would they fit in?
Could say the exact same thing about service pistols, or pretty much anything except their revolvers and rimfires. As long as it's reliable and handles well, a pump or semi Ruger shotgun would fucking fly off of the shelves as fast as they could make them. Wouldn't be hard at all for a company like this to look at what's already out there and create something just different enough from the rest to stay competitive...at least you wouldn't think so.

File: attachment.jpg (58KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1024x768px

>>33706650
>S&W better

I say the gp100 op

File: 20161230_214821.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

I really like my Match Champion. I probably could have gotten a smith for the same price, but it came without a need for any future modifications, which is rare for guns I usually purchase.

File: bustedredhawk1.jpg~original.jpg (73KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 800x533px

>>33711370
I don't think it's really an honest assessment to take a picture of a busted gun and just say "it's shit".

Here's a pic of a Redhawk that went kablooey. They're really strong guns, but it can happen, don't let memesters fool you.

File: 20170413_214111.jpg (3MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5312x2988px

>>33707599
The TRR8 is the same price and better because you can remove the fugly underbarrel rail

Also, yes I own a TRR8. I bought it for ~$1k. No, not because of counterstrike, I don't even play counterstrike.
The trigger is excellent, it's fairly light, and it's very accurate.

However, barrel shroud is total shit. It WILL come loose within 100 rounds and you will have to send it back to S&W to have them retighten it because they apparently loathe to sell their tools to plebs.

I re-tightened the barrel and shroud myself with a Dan Wesson barrel nut wrench and used loctite purple on the barrel-frame threads and barrel nut threads. It doesn't shoot any worse and the shroud hasn't come loose in over 1k rounds since then, even when shooting the gun hot.

You also get light primer strikes on ammo with hard primers, SA and DA. After tightening the mainspring slightly (it was already near max tightness but just a tiny bit loose), I no longer get light strikes, but my main ammo is Fiocchi 142 gr FMJTC and Fiocchi has relatively soft primers.

Overall I still like the gun, it's my first gun and I'd never sell it, but it's got unacceptable problems for a $1.3k msrp weapon.

>>33711729
Honestly, many would be pissed (and perhaps rightfully so), but if you manage to actually fix issues yourself, that's probably kind of rewarding.

I bet it's a dream to shoot.

>>33705726
It'll destabilise your country and give sixty five hot dogs pneumonia.

>>33711431
i guess the answer is blackhawk

>>33712088
Or simply don't worry about the statistically insignificant number of Redhawks that sort of shit happens to - assuming the owner wasn't at fault there, not going to bother googling it.

File: Ruger-SP101.jpg (51KB, 536x341px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 536x341px

Glad this thread came up as I've been planning on getting pic related as a carry piece. Anyone have experience carrying this?

>>33710956
Between Black Aces and IAC they're available, I'm just not sure there is enough interest in such a design stateside BECAUSE of the OAL requirement in the use. If the went the Shockwave route or did gay as braces (which we no ruger would make in house) like black aces it COULD work. Just a matter if it's worth the effort. Wasn't disagreeing, just trying to figure out what would make sense.

>>33711265
Wasn't it about a year ago where somebody at Ruger hinted at an autoloader. If they could do a RPR tier autoloader I would happily be a crash test dummy for that.

I just want Kel-Tec and Ruger to merge already

>>33711729
I like the 627s better and while I am a tinker, everything you said would piss me off of I paid that much

>>33712131
There are at least two anons that carry SP101s, and more that own them. Aside from the 632, it's easily the best handling small frame revolver imo and they don't suck to shoot in volume. 3" barrel is glorious but the basic sights are meh unless you paint them. Not a fan of the stock grips but I can day the same for most revolvers

File: 20170401_143957.jpg (2MB, 2260x4018px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2260x4018px

>>33711959
Yeah I learned a lot about firearms assembly in the process of fixing it.
It was a dumb impulse purchase after getting my first high paying job. The experience was worth it, but if anyone is looking for a well-crafted revolver out of the box, the TRR8 is not it. I doubt I'll buy another S&W in the foreseeable future.

But I still do love shooting it.

I'm still not a good shot, but this was at 25 yards, 16 shots SA at a 12"x18" target.
The 3 shots at the top were ones I forgot to spraypaint out from a previous grouping.

>>33705580
Try them both if you can before you make a decision. I was able to try different friends 686 and GP100. I liked them both, and would have been happy either way, but I got a GP100 with a 6" barrel, and I am very happy. The trigger on the 686 is nicer, yes, but in my opinion it wasn't "that" much nicer. tldr: try them both, see what you like better, you'll be happy either way.

>>33712234
Is the SP101 closer to a J-frame or a K-frame in size?
I've never handled one. Most gun shops don't seem to carry them.

>>33713243
Went to a Cabella's in CT and fingerfucked one. I haven't fucked with many revolvers so I can't compare it, but I thought it was extremely comfortable.

>>33708920
live up the road from there. I keep screaming from the fence, but they have yet to let me in.

File: Ruger Blackhawk .357 Magnum.jpg (32KB, 520x301px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 520x301px

>>33712088
You're fine with either.

Both are safe to eat really remarkably hot loads, you'd have to get really irresponsible to blow one up.

Be aware that the convertible Blackhawk models (the ones that come with 9mm or .45ACP cylinders) have a tighter bore, so if you're gonna make crazy horse loads for those, you must take that into account.

>>33705580
>2017 buying revolvers.
Also buy a sword too.

>>33712131

I have one, 3". Feels great in my [spoiler]baby hands[/spoiler].

>>33713243
Smaller than a K, bigger than a J, hard to say which it's closer to since I don't own one yet. They're a little bigger than an LCR though.

>>33715521
>unironically hating fun things just because they're old

>>33715601
Psssst it's bait.

File: 1492646082833.jpg (16KB, 352x239px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 352x239px

>>33715636

>>33715654
I should watch Hellraiser sometime.

>>33715690
1 and 2. None of the others