Revolver General

File: 1496337826621.jpg (127KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1200x900px

If I buy a GP100 match champion do you think I could have the lame text ground off the barrel or would that take off too much material compromising the barrel?

File: 1437091411439.jpg (339KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 1600x900px

>>34175638
I woke up with the sudden urge to sell my AK which never gets used anymore for a 4" S&W 586 or Model 27.

What do? My 442 wants a big brother.

>>34175724
AK prices are retard-tier right now. I'd sell that slav shit and into wheelgat for sure. You gonna buy a pre-lock S&W?

>>34175749
>You gonna buy a pre-lock S&W?
That depends on what I decide on and if I can find it locally. I don't want to buy used over the internet.

>>34175638

Lose weight, shitbag.

>>34175749
>small 6 shot micropeen gun as expensive as a full fledged battle rifle
pistols are fucking jews

>>34175765
I've bought used wheelgats off Gunbroker before no problem. Could not find a decent 25-5 locally. Just make sure they have an inspection period so you can return it if it's got issues.

Good write up on inspecting revolvers:
http://www.thesixgunjournal.net/a-revolver-buyers-checklist/

File: 5frameslevelR2.jpg (80KB, 750x1000px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 750x1000px

>>34175781
You should be able to buy 2 AKs for what a quality revolver costs.

>>34175765
I would advise against getting a pre-lock gun.

Much like the whole "get a nugget or SKS" advice that was a maxim on /k/ 10 years ago, getting a pre-lock was a good idea in the past but not worth it today. 15-20 years ago, no one wanted revolvers, and there were literally millions of used revolvers to pick from if you wanted one for whatever reason. Back then, getting a pre-lock was a great idea because you could get a nice gun that hadn't been run hard for like 60-75% off the MSRP of a new one. The problem is that people began to notice this around ten years ago, and the prices of pre-lock guns have skyrocketed due to collectors. A pre-lock gun that has objectively worse performance and no factory support will actually cost you MORE than a new production gun of the same model, where the only demerit of the newer gun is the lock.

I IWB carry a 4" 686 Plus. Am I an idiot?

>>34175965
If you don't mind the weight and it's concealed who gives a shit?

>>34175953
In other words buy a Ruger. :)

>>34175977
>In other words buy a Ruger
Gross, no.

>>34175977
I somehow can make it disappear. Its... weird... I'm not even that big of a guy, 5'9" and 170.

>>34175772
Okay
>takes off gun/holster

File: 20170606_031729.jpg (1MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x1836px

>>34175953
>can't find good deals on prelocks
You're not trying hard enough.

>>34176240
From left to right, those look like:

Model 10, Model 629, Model 19, Colt Trooper, Model 627

Am I on the money?

>>34176773
Yep, but they're both 629s

File: Ruger GP100 Match Champion.jpg (289KB, 2160x944px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 2160x944px

>>34175649
>If I buy a GP100 match champion do you think I could have the lame text ground off the barrel or would that take off too much material compromising the barrel?

Bump for thoughts on this question.

File: IMG_20170430_154746.jpg (2MB, 3854x1819px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3854x1819px

>>34176240
This.

File: ruger-gp100-unfluted-talo-max-slowik.jpg (105KB, 1000x558px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1000x558px

Unfluted makes my pants tight.

>>34175984

enjoy your S&W anti 2A cuck revolver.
be sure not to lose the keys to the Hillary hole since those locks can activate with the guns recoil alone.

>>34178553
>>34175649

I would not do it because it could look worse if the grind job is not done carefully.

But if you are willing to risk it then go for it. It wont weaken it any more than it already is with those letters on it.

just don't go any deeper than the letters them selves.

>>34179165
Agreed

>>34175765
They make some of their guns without the locks, I got my 442 new, cut for moon clips with no lock.

>>34175638

Is that a huge revolver or a small manlet?

>>34178553
Probably easier to melt in some filler metal like nickel and grind/Polish it flush

>>34179513
Really boils the noodle don't it?

>>34179513
Ruger super Redhawk Alaskan, so both a big revolver and a small guy

File: jap_revolver.webm (3MB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1024x576px

>>34175638
why are revolvers so goddamn sexy?

>>34179618
Because they harken back to the good old days when men were men, and women weren't raging SJW cunts.

File: 220px-Annie_Kenney_and_Christabel_Pankhurst.jpg (18KB, 220x318px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 220x318px

>>34179796
>"I am a dumb uninformed person and my worldview is formed by internet memes", the post

>>34175649
Better option: don't buy it.

Seriously, folks, whether it's this, or an S&W Hillary hole, or a shitty Ruger .380 trigger, or anything else, buy the gun you like as the manufacturer designed it, and customize it further if you like. Don't pay for their shitty mistakes, you're just encouraging them.

>>34179827
>Don't pay for their shitty mistakes, you're just encouraging them.

I could not agree more.

File: IMG_5191.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

If I was a bear and I came across the guy in OP's first I would think "oh shit" then I notice it's not loaded, has yellow plastic cylinder guard in it, and kill him and eat him.

>>34179827

I will not support hillary holes under any circumstance due to my ideological differences with the whole concept. I'm definitely getting the GP100 MC though. It's got everything I want in my next wheelgat I just have aesthetic qualms with the barrel billboards.

File: 600px-DH1S&W25-9.jpg (45KB, 600x249px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x249px

I was gonna make a new thread on this but maybe this thread is more appropriate

Can anyone redpill me on the Model 29? I want one but am hesitant about the price. Is used the way to go? Are they good?

Pic related

File: dope.jpg (71KB, 650x359px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 650x359px

HOW COOL WOULD A MODERN LE MAT STYLE REVOLVER BE? YOU THINK IT WOULD SELL?

>>34175724
586 hands down.

>>34180723
It'd have to look cooler but I would buy it.

>>34180703
It's a solid gun no doubt anon. As far as the price, it is what it is. Revolvers, especially magnum caliber revolvers, are a niche business these days. Whether you buy new or used make sure to know how to inspect a revolver.

Check the link in this post: >>34175783

>>34180723
I don't think you could do it like the original because the shotgun part would have to be .410 with a rifled barrel to not require a $200 tax stamp for a short barreled shotgun.

>>34179815
>TRIGGERED

>>34179262
>They make some of their guns without the locks

Only for their J-Frames.

>>34179618
Only Smith & Wesson makes sexy revolvers, this is an undisputed fact. The sole reason people tolerate the lock is because Smith revolvers are just so goddamn AESTHETIC.

All other revolver makers can fuck off.

>>34182187
Maybe in the past. Their finishes these days look like ass. I actually like Ruger's aesthetic. It's kind of space gun meets industrial tool on their DA guns and their SA guns are just classically beautiful. Also there is a reason some reloading manuals have sections for "Rugers Only". RUGER STRONK.

>>34182239
>I actually like Ruger's aesthetic.

You like something that doesn't exist?

Ruger's revolvers basically look like they took a chunk of steel and carved it into a gun.

>>34182187
>Only Smith & Wesson makes sexy revolvers
That is literally just your opinion man

>this is an undisputed fact
Lol No

>The sole reason people tolerate the lock is because Smith revolvers are just so goddamn AESTHETIC.
aesthetic to the one who likes them and therefore buys them. I personally prefer the way Ruger revolvers look.

File: Untitled.jpg (129KB, 661x1455px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 661x1455px

>>34182340
> a chunk of steel and carved it into a gun.

No. you are thinking of S&W :^)

>>34182403
Just look at that unnatural cylinder release Ruger uses.

>>34182419
Space guns have buttons noob.

>>34182419

you push it, it's a button. Not too hard

>>34182419

seriously that's the part I like the most. that is why I also like the Kimber revolver, it has a similar cylinder release.

File: 118_1_14_design.png (19KB, 380x440px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 380x440px

>>34182462
>>34182606

Good Dam. those are some beautiful guns

File: IMG_20170606_222630_595.jpg (842KB, 1691x1691px) Image search: [Google]

842KB, 1691x1691px

My new wheel gat

>>34175965
If a gun that weighs as much as a loaded Glock 23 w/ XC1 and spare mag but only holds seven cartridges and is nearly useless in the dark meets your needs, then by all means carry on.

File: Chapuis-Manurhin-MR73-Gendarmerie.jpg (131KB, 1200x782px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1200x782px

>>34182187
>Only Smith & Wesson makes sexy revolvers
wew

File: IMG_20170606_223216.jpg (27KB, 425x218px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 425x218px

Got a new to me wheelie gun from my stepdad, he gave me choices from Pre lock Model 19 nickel plated, prelock 686, prelock 686-4, Ruger GP-100, and a 627-5 Performance Center V-comp. I overlooked the lock and went with the 627-5. 8 round cylinder, a compensator, and the best double action trigger I've ever pulled

File: IMG_20170606_223606.jpg (2MB, 4044x2501px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4044x2501px

>>34183148
Pic of my choices.

>>34183148
>>34183183
I probably would've made the same choice in that situation.
How's the comp?

>>34183233
made of pure sex

>>34183183

All those choices and you pick the one gun that has a Hillary hole.

I am not upset at you anon, just disappointed.

>>34183511
I considered this, I thought for a long time. Then I pulled the trigger. I think you would have done the same pulling a Performance Center trigger.

>>34175649
I'd say get a cerakote job if it bothers you that much

>>34183517

Since I have never held a 627-5 I'll take your word for it.
I would still be to paranoid of the lock activating on recoil or some ninja locking it while I sleep.

>>34183594
I'm just going to have to trust the Performance Center. It's a range toy. I can't see myself carrying it, I don't live in bear country or anything

686+ S&W 3" 7-Shot Revolver.
Beautiful as fuck.
Put a rubber grip on it and I guess I can tolerate the hole, though I'd like to modify it away at some point.
Get some .357 Speer GoldDot and you're pretty much golden for home defense and CCW in the woods or in the city.

Or does somebody have a better suggestion?

>>34175638
do some pushups or something, op.

>>34183661
627, if you're ok with the bigger frame: Eight rounds of .357, plus the advantages of the pro series. Although I'll readily admit the 686 has superior aesthetics.

Everyone has their own criteria, but after a lot of research I personally went with the 4" barrel. That seemed like the sweet spot of weight + bulk / muzzle velocity.
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html

>>34175916
N frame looks about right to me. Do they have a 6 shot 44 magnum with a 5-6 inch barrel? I own an arsenal of plastic guns, but still for some reason I have no 1911 or any revolvers. I don't know shit about wheelfuns.

>>34182907
In what way is a revolver more useless in the dark than a glock?

>>34183958
When you fire it the muzzle blast and cylinder gap will ruin your night vision.

File: IMG_2971.png (498KB, 747x400px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 747x400px

>>34175638
Just picked up an 85. I'd like to conceal it till I can get a sp101. What are the little holsters for speed strips/loaders called? Also, what would be a good wood to make the grips from?

>>34184064
Most modern defensive ammo is made with low-flash powders.

File: 1493270230004.jpg (46KB, 976x510px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 976x510px

>>34182921

Yeah seriously, MR73 is better than anything S&W makes.

>>34184204
Fuck Taurus and thier piece of shit guns.

>>34184216
>Manurhin mr73
>fuck Taurus
you dont know shit do you?

Hey guys I went shooting today one of the guns I shot was a Miroku Special police model I can barely get any info about it online how does it rate as a revolver?

>>34175638
that thing is huge

File: 1306187271266.jpg (50KB, 358x358px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 358x358px

>>34184216
>MR73
>Taurus

File: Chuck-Norris-Case.jpg (312KB, 1152x814px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 1152x814px

Has anyone ever handled this beaut?

File: IMG_5313.jpg (70KB, 600x339px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 600x339px

>>34184204
S&W does make some nice break actions though....

>>34175638
nobody needs a gun that big

>>34176240
>>34176240
whered u get the colt grips

>>34175724
4" 586 is actually totally doable as a ccw

>>34182187
they used to. only buy their vintage stuff used now. refuse to support the ugly hole lock like other people said

>>34184550
JB weld

>>34184383
its my daily CC

>>34184567
>jb weld on a $1000 revolver

come on man. easier to buy a $700 second hand in mint condition with quality old school craftsmanship

>>34184383
nah bro, that gets mounted on the wall in a shadow case. with 6 tri folded flags around it

>>34175649

Isn't that disallowed? I thought you couldn't remove model markings?

>>34184584
or just deal. if ALL these fags stopped buying hole smiths..... welp guess what would happen. but they don't. I bought A 6" 586 that has the BEST trigger of any smith I've shot going back to.... probably an early 60s model 10. get over the nostalgia and call shit when it's whit, and good when it's good

What's a good speedloader for a Ruger GP100?

I use speed strips with my LCR, but I figure a speedloader would be better for my GP100.

>>34184593
Wat?

You can replace the entire barrel or frame if you want to. It's your gun. We're not talking about the serial numbers (if you replace the main serialized part with one you've made yourself, you've just effectively made a new firearm, which is still legal).

>>34184617
safariland

File: YNBteQc.jpg (67KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 640x640px

>>34180723

File: 148423936484034.jpg (61KB, 900x546px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 900x546px

>>34175638
I want to get a 686 7 shot/4 inch.

Is the lock that big of a deal?

>>34184615
i agree about the good triggers. there is nothing wrong with the action of modern smiths. but i cant get over how ugly the hole is, sorry. i owned a modern smith and sold it because i winced every time i saw the hole. its just ugly. if im not 100% happy with the gun im going to get rid of it. and its about sending a message to the idiots at S&W for ruining their otherwise perfect revolver. why compromise

>>34184617
https://www.amazon.com/Safariland-J-GL8C-COMP-II-Speedloader/dp/B001LZ5FI0

>>34180723
The closest in diameter that we have nowadays are 20ga and .41 Mag, but the sidewalls would be much too thin. The extra mm from switching to .357 Mag would probably be enough with modern metalurgy.

File: BuysS&WsWithLocks.jpg (2MB, 4608x3456px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4608x3456px

>>34184825
From a mechanical aspect not really since it's easy to remove. From an ideological standpoint fuck yes. You're basically admitting that gun grabbers are right and you can not be trusted with a gun unless it's got some "for the children" bullshit on it. When all it really does is make the gun cost more and add a point of failure.

Some people HAVE to have a S&W so they go through all kind of mental hoops to justify buying lock guns. I never will. you make your own choice anon.

>>34181769
>4inch barrel
when you actually want to carry the fucker
>6inch barrel
nice range toy making them 100yd shots
>8inch barrel
nigga got the baby dick

>>34183958
>in what way is a gun with no provision for a weapon-mounted light less useful in the dark than a gun with a WML attached
>not to mention the issue of night sights
gee, I wonder

File: standard.jpg (44KB, 640x338px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 640x338px

>>34183661
Wood instead of goodyears*, but otherwise that's exactly what I'd go for if I were carrying a revolver, at least until I could save up for a Manurhin.
Maybe consider the 586 L-comp if corrosion resistance isn't a huge concern.

---
*not just for aesthetics, but also because rubber tends to grab clothing and print like a motherfucker

>>34184501
They came with the Colt

File: IMAG0010_1.jpg (298KB, 1024x579px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 1024x579px

My python

File: IMAG0393.jpg (317KB, 1280x723px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 1280x723px

>>34186580
...and the rig my dad carried it in when he worked for the Alaska dept. of fish & game in the 70s

>>34186580
>>34186604
am jelly

File: 7806616e7a3736c046ea705349d3e46c.jpg (12KB, 236x325px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 236x325px

>>34184489

Fuck off. I would get a revolver bigger than my head if such a thing existed.

>>34175781
>AK
>battle rifle
No, sweetie. Back in the box with you.

>>34175916
I think the K frame is sexy as fuck, but apparently it can't handle magnums because smith is shit. Ruger ftw.

>>34186856
That's the whole reason the L frame exists. S&W recommends you mainly shoot .38spl in K frames but occasional .357 is okay....I'd never buy a used K-frame.

>>34186856
It can handle .357 but if you're gonna shoot a steady diet you should go with an L frame, it's more akin to the Ruger.

>>34184825
Get a prelock. Cheaper and better quality.

>>34186883
You know there are ways to look for wear in used guns right?

>>34186883
Yup but I can't see metal fatigue.

>>34186922
fuck replied to wrong post...meant for >>34186906

>>34186922
What kind of wear are you referring to lol? You think it's just gonna glocknade on you? You can see flame cutting in the top strap with the naked eye.

>>34186943
When a gun is forged, the molecules are aligned in a certain way which gives it its great strength. A bunch of things happen over time.

1) There is something called metal fatigue that weakens the metal over time. And yes things can glocknade.

2) There is wear, stress and stretching of the tolerances from being fired - the more it is fired, the more distortion there is.

I'm not guessing how many bubbas have shot full power loads in some random Model 19 over it's 50yr+ lifespan. Why even fuck with an expensive "pre-lock" collector's piece when I can buy a fucking Ruger that my grandkids will still be dumping full power magnums out of?

Pre-lock is becoming meme-tier collector garbage like anything Colt revolver related.

>>34175638
No bullets.... you a fag

>>34186980
Oh so you don't know what you're taking about, got it. You have to put thousands and thousands of rounds of rounds of HOT .357 through a K frame to stretch it. At that point you should be shooting an L or N frame .357, they will last until the end of time.

Fact of the matter is Rugers don't have the level of fit and finish the smiths have, the triggers are terrible in comparison. Try shooting a Python action in SA some time.

>>34186856
>ruger ftw
NOPE
GP100 is the same size as an L frame bud. 686 has:
>better trigger
>better finish of stainless
>much better aesthetics
>shitty ejector rod (lacks that sweet sweet knurled edge)
>better sights from the factory

It's an economagnum that will get the job done - but it's really just better to spend the extra cash and get a pre lock smith.

>>34187035
Oh now I see. My bad I didn't realize I was talking to a S&W uber alles brandfag who can't see that current year S&W is a shell of their former self with shitty finishes, a fucking hillary hole, and whose base production models use the exact same manufacturing materials and processes as Taurus just with slightly better QC all while charging you a premium for stamping S&W on the frame so you can brand fag your way around internet forums, gun stores and firing ranges.

I agree that if you want something that looks fucking pretty as hell get you an old pre-lock smith wit dat high polish blued steel. It's shit hot.

If you want a fucking tool that you can actually use the shit out of get a Ruger.

People shit on Ruger for the same reason people shit on Glock. Hammer-tier utilitarianism, but it doesn't trigger your personal aesthetic autism. You can't admit you just like it better because "muh feels" so you try to justify it with bullshit.

>>34187035
>Fact of the matter is Rugers don't have the level of fit and finish the smiths have, the triggers are terrible in comparison.

This

Fucking Rugerfags, Smith is god tier

Go bitch about your easily ignored locks somewhere else

Revolvers are only used for fun, so AESTHETICS trumps all

>>34186980
>>34187035
No fuck that let someone who knows what they're talking about speak
>the frame stretching is not the issue with k frames
>the inherent weakness is the forcing come which is square at the bottom to fit the frame - it can crack if it is not cleaned and the previous owner shot a lot of 125 grain magnums through it
>you can shoot 158 magnums when ever you wish, but I wouldn't go below 140
>you can check the cone at the 6'oclock position - so long as there are no hairline cracks you should pick one up

Also your grandkids will probably be able to pick up a ruger used for 400 dollars because they are not that special. There is nothing like a pinned and recessed smith and Wesson

>>34187035
Agreed they're just unaesthetic, don't have the history smith and Wesson does, the triggers are shit and the lockup doesn't feel like a bank vault that the python (fondled at gunshop)has or to a slightly less extent the smith has as well.

>>34187082
>>better trigger
I've never had a revolver I didn't do an action job on. If you're afraid to take ur gun apart it might matter how it comes from the factory, but unless you're buying performance shop guns no S&W will get the personal attention a truly great trigger requires.
>>better finish of stainless
Debatable. I think S&W stainless looks like shit.
>>much better aesthetics
At least you're honest that your buying shit because of how it looks not how it works.
>shitty ejector rod (lacks that sweet sweet knurled edge)
I can't even.
>better sights from the factory
Depends on the model.

File: 1488301012648s.jpg (2KB, 125x87px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 125x87px

>>34182606
muh dickkkkkk

>>34187125
>Revolvers are only used for fun, so AESTHETICS trumps all

Larping faggot confirmed. I killed 4 deer with a Ruger handgun(Blackhawk .45colt) last season. I don't buy safe queens or ego sticks I buy tools.

>>34187125
This right here, revolvers are mostly to look at, fondle with, and take the range. Sure j frames and similar sized guns make great backup guns, and you COULD carry one for self defense. But if these ruger fags we're going for ULTIMATE UTILITY BRO they wouldn't be carrying a revolver at all.

Purely a case of sour grapes. There's a reason why when revolvers are king, the agencies, individuals, and departments that could choose always either chose smith or colt. Ruger was an economy gun then and it is now

>>34187170
Yup and tell me friend how a smith would not have performed just as well? If they are to be used for practical purpose a ruger has absolutely no edge whatsoever, unless you like shooting incredibly hot ammo all the time so that you can feel like you have a big cock at the range

>you don't

>>34187131
>There is nothing like a pinned and recessed smith and Wesson

If you want a safe queen no doubt they are purdy. If you want a working gun I can't think of a worse investment than a pre-lock smith.

>>34187201
LOL Hickok has 60,000 rounds of 44 through his model 29

N frame and l frame magnums will shoot plenty fine for decades. As will k frame 38s. Sorry you couldn't afford a gun that is absolutely superior in every way.

File: 1445036754624.jpg (312KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 1920x1080px

Don't mind me, just being better than Smith, Ruger, and Colt.

>>34187115
I only own prelocks, sorry. They're better finished and better tool guns than Ruger, sorry to hurt your fee fees.
>>34187131
This is correct. Forcing cones will more likely expand and lock up on the cylinder gas seal than crack though.
>>34187151
While astheticly superior, they're also more durable. Comparing like revolvers (N frame 357 and gp100) the Ruger isn't anymore durable. They both weigh 40 oz.

K frames are not the same as N.

>>34187226
Revolvers that probably took down red guard by beat cops when your father was in shortpants>>>>>overhyped French shit

>>34187185
>This right here, revolvers are mostly to look at, fondle with, and take the range

Finally an honest S&W fag. I have no problem with "I like how it looks" or "it makes my pants tight". Realize that some people do more than larp with their revolvers though.

And you're outing yourself as a youngfag with your "knowledge" drop about LEO revolver use. Ruger was taking more and more market share every year with their "six" series guns before autoloaders came on and pushed all wheelgats out of service. I can still remember the racks and racks of old smiths and colts on the wall at my LGS when the local PD swapped over to the Service Six. I was like 10ys old and I'd never seen so many revolvers in one place.

File: 1411445752190.jpg (3MB, 4320x2432px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4320x2432px

>>34183873
Yes they do. It's called the model 29. Or the performance center 629.

It's what Dirty Harry used.

>>34187219
>Sorry you couldn't afford a gun that is absolutely superior in every way.

This is my collection:
>>34177844

See the pre-lock pinned and recessed Model 25-5 in .45LC? See the Colt SAA? Both are nice as fuck and so aesthetic they make my dick hard, but I ain't taking them out in the field to hunt.

>>34187226
>that sideplate gap
>that finish

lmao. at least theyre durable.

File: IMG_1592.jpg (53KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 480x360px

>>34187242
>only prelocks
>MY NIGGA
sorry this thread is full of ruger faggots. This is why I browse s&w forums. Post some of what you got negro

>old picture with shitty camera sry

>>34183873
why not 8 3/8? see
>>34176240

>>34187271
>old person on 4chan
I don't know if I should laugh or cry for you. Your personal anecdote means nothing by the way

>>34187308
Ruger guys don't bother me. I've owned a couple Rugers, they're fine but I'm a trigger snob. I'm >>34176240

File: 1310598098624.png (244KB, 358x410px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 358x410px

>my outdated fudd gun is better than your outdated fudd gun!

>>34187336
>he only owns practical guns
lmaoin at you fampai

What do you guys think of the 627 PC? Buds has them for 800$

I think they're fucking sexy and it might be nice for winter carry

>inb4 lock - they never made one without it and I could get it removed/ easily get used to it

>>34187336
Revolverfag but I agree, this should be a peaceful friendly general with banter not a full on autistic screech argument thread

File: ISeentIt.jpg (43KB, 613x347px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 613x347px

>>34187324
>I don't know if I should laugh or cry for you.

I feel the same way about youngfags sometimes.

>>34187427
If you have to get a lockgun thats a good one to get

File: IMG_1593.jpg (55KB, 661x496px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 661x496px

>>34187451
>>34187427
Forgot picture

>>34187226
How can American revolvers even compete?!

>>34187427
>627 PC
.357 mag out of less than a 4" barrel is waste if you're buying it for anything besides aesthetics.

>>34187481
Nah senpai

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KxXTNzpBcvM

>but 2.625 inch vs 3 inch!
Performance would be the same if not slightly better with the underwood load I would use

>>34180667
I don't understand why the .44 Spl GP100 gets me so hard.

I have no use for it, I don't reload, a 5 shot revolver in an underwhelming dead cartridge is stupid.

But god, I do want one.

>>34187498
Big heavy fucker for 8rds of essentially hot 9mm.

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/megraphs/357mag.html

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/megraphs/9mm.html

Like I said it's pretty and if it cranks your tractor go for it, but as an efficient carry piece? nah much better options out there. Hunting gun? nah much better options out there.

>>34187533
If you reload and know anything about the history of that round it would REALLY make you dick hard. In your case it's probably the aesthetics of the big bore snubbie with an unfluted cylinder. It's sexy and it knows it.

File: IMG_1594.png (127KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 750x1334px

>>34187541
>125 grain gold dot
>sight less than 1500 fps (let's call it 1440 from the third of an inch diff)
>ITS JUST A HOT 9mm
Nope - either way I was asking about the gun itself, not the practicality of an 8 shot 357 snub

>>34187570
Gun is fine anon. And jeebus I bet that underwood load is snappy as shit to get that kind of velocity out of a snubbie. Not something you'd want to shoot 50rds of in a session hehe.

File: Snapchat-1672010220.jpg (374KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 720x1280px

Smith and Wesson master race coming through

>>34187570
>Ruger

triggered

>>34187654
hmm good point. S&W might not be rated for that hot of a load. S&W cylinders only lock at two points so they're pretty fragile all around when you turn the pressures way up to 11.

>>34187669
It's standard pressure baby

Don't be stupid

>>34187704
I don't see any pressure info on the page for that load. U gots datas?

>>34187758
If it wasn't standard pressure they would have to mark the load with 357 +p. Semi large Ammo manufacturers can't just load rounds over pressure and not notify the consumers - shit is a liability nightmare

>>34187779
>357 +p
That's not a real thing.

>>34179165

I want one of those so badly.

>>34187779
Go look at buffalo Bore's sight. they got some hot ass shit and they don't call it +P. they like the word "heavy" lol

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_list&c=20

>>34179546

Thats such a good idea. I feel retarded for never thinking of that

>>34182419

I prefer it to a smith & wesson tenfold.

>>34187795
It just means that it is over stand pressure, there's not Saami spec for it though. This is why there is 40+p, 45 colt +p, etc.

Look it up faggot you're wrong

>>34186028

>not wanting to make 150 to 200 yard shots

What are you? A faggot?

>>34187838
I'm split on it, the s&w is easier to use one handed but the ruger feels more firmly locked in place (at least personally)

>>34181769
>taurus

>44 magnum

So you missing your fingers yet or what?

>>34187895
Ruger IS more firmly locked. Ruger cylinder is locked in 3 places: at the rear, at the front and by the bolt. When you push the release it disengages the front and rear locks which allow you to roll it off the bolt.

S&W is only locked at the rear and by the bolt. There is a spring driven detent on the cylinder pin when it's in the closed position but it's not a "lock" like the front blade that secures the crane of the Ruger.

File: IMG_1597.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>34175724
Buy it's bigger brother who lifts instead

File: DoYouEvenLiftBro.png (1007KB, 1280x958px) Image search: [Google]

1007KB, 1280x958px

>>34188160

>>34188239
My man.

File: 10.5 460 X-Frame vs Kimber Micro Carry.jpg (537KB, 2729x1173px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 2729x1173px

>>34186028

>10.5 inch barrel
God among men

>>34190762
god among cucks with that cucklock.

>>34192247
>>>/pol/

>>34192269
>>>/shareblue/

File: 3858058_01_ruger_super_redhawk_44_magnum_640.jpg (24KB, 563x422px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 563x422px

>>34186028
>>34190762
>12 inch barrel
obedient can picker-upper

>>34175724
Hows the trigger on the 442? I'm thinking of getting it as my first gun/CCW

>>34193783
It's about 10-12x heavier than the gun, so as a new shooter you'll probably have serious difficulty using it effectively.
Don't get a J-frame as your first gun.

File: 20170530_082204.jpg (1MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1440px

>>34175638
I just picked up my first one.

Victory Smith in .38 special for $199.

I have a 686 pro series. I absolutely love that gun. Single Action fires like a dream, Ill hit an asshole 100 yards away with ease. Double Action I got to get used to.

>>34194067
>Double Action I got to get used to.
dry fire more and better
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?7708-Dry-Practice-Misconceptions-Updated-12-04-16

>>34194128
I need to buy some snap caps and practice dry firing that guy. I have nothing that compares to that trigger pull with my other handguns.

>>34194184
just use whatevcer empty cases are left in the gun at the end of your range trip

>>34187465
Thats the 629 not the 627

>>34187541
Delete this

Bought a S&W model 66. Did I fuck up?

File: Muh X-Frames.jpg (3MB, 3722x1180px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3722x1180px

>>34192247

Find me an X-Frame without the lock and I'll buy it.

File: Ruger Super Redhawk.jpg (1MB, 3415x2387px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3415x2387px

>>34194774

File: 744VH.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>34186580
>>34186604
Beautiful gun with family history. Would think someone working in the bush of Alaska would carry something with a little more OOMPH to it though.

Question for you all:

Are 158 grain bullets supposed to pattern low at close range? I was getting good groups with them, but they were consistently patterning low at 10 yards for me. They were coming in at about 1 to 1.5 inches below point of aim.

These were .38 Specials coming out of a Ruger .357 Magnum with a 4'' barrel.

>>34197385
Lower as compared to what? Bullet weight AND velocity will shift point of impact. For example, If your sights are regulated for a hot 125gr magnum load it will not shoot to the same point of aim with a slow 158gr 38spl.

File: Elmer Keith Magnum and Chill.jpg (84KB, 650x466px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 650x466px

>>34196751

>>34179184
>enjoy your S&W anti 2A cuck revolver.

1. Rugers have locks too.
2. Ruger has actively fought against the second ammendment more than S&W ever has.

>b-but Bill Rugers dead! They even sell dogshit ar's now!

Then why does every revolver they sell have a cuck stamp on them? You can't even go back and get an old version without it like S&W since Ruger has always been on the side of gun grabbers.

Also be sure to get a Ruger with a nice trigger. Oh wait they're all shit lol.

>>34197978
>Rugers have locks too.
You mean those cable locks that every manufacturer puts in their boxes but no one ever uses? Yeah that's TOTALLY the same thing as adding an internal point of failure to a perfectly fine gun. Fucking retard lol.

>>34175638
>2.6mb file
Some of us browse 4chan on tablet from the shitter, you know.

>>34198000
First world problems am I right Othias? Post Mae titty pics or get back to work I needs more informational videos!

>>34193783
It's not bad. It's heavy, but the pull is smooth. I like it a lot, but I wouldn't recommend it as a first gun though.

File: SW model 60 pro series.jpg (509KB, 2816x1872px) Image search: [Google]

509KB, 2816x1872px

thoughts?

>>34198584
Meh. J-frame in .357 doesn't really do it for me. What's your thinking behind this choice anon?

Sup wheelfags

Looking to get my first revolver. I'd like something in either 357 or .44 mag (since I have a rifle in .44 mag). Budget is no more than $650. What should I get?

File: Ruger Blackhawk.jpg (136KB, 1023x682px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1023x682px

>>34198737

Ruger Blackhawk in either caliber.

>>34194024
That looks almost exactly like my grandfathers revolver I inherited. It's old as fuck. Problem is I do t think it's in .38 special and it's hard to tell with the markings worn out on the barrel. I think it says .32 something. Will post pics when I get home.

>>34198584
>i love excessive recoil, the picture

>>34198737
Dont get a blackhawk, get a smith L frame in .357, like a 686. Should be able to find a nice pre-lock for $650ish.

>>34179618
>grabbing the hot barrel
Doesn't seem smart to operate that without a glove.

>>34198357
>North American Arms

Those things are over the 200 dollar range and they are un-shootable unless you mod the grips.

waste of money.

>>34197978
>Rugers have locks too

I have only seen one Ruger gun with a lock and even the web site highlights almost making fun of it.

they called it their "California compliant edition" and it only appears after you scroll by the regular version with no lock.

>>34197989
>>34200501

Wrong.
Many blackhawks, new vaqueros, and other single action models, especially blued models, have an internal lock. As well as various lcr's, especially the .38s. Unlike S&W, they try to keep it hidden, so you're rolling the dice with certain models unless you're familiar with the serial numbers affected by the locks or the store lets you unscrew the grips to see.

File: DSC_0003.jpg (117KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 640x426px

>muh aesthetics
>T-There's nothing wrong with a safety device on a revolver!

File: MakesDollars.jpg (34KB, 552x331px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 552x331px

>>34201191
A hidden lock.....yeah I'm gonna need sauce on that one chief...

>>34198015
What gun would you recommend as a first gun/CCW?

>>34201366
I really wouldn't recommend a revolver for a first CCW. The most concealable models are small and hard to shoot well without a good deal of practice.

Now if it's just a first gun but NOT for CCW. I would recommend a .22lr revolver with a 3 or 4 inch barrel like Ruger's LCRX or SP101. Cheap ammo means lots of practice and becoming a good shot with both the single action and double action trigger modes of a revolver will help you in all future shooting.

File: muhgun.jpg (3MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4032x3024px

>>34194067
same, senpai. dream trigger right here.

>>34201456
Well, I live in Chicago, so my first gun might as well be a CCW. Would a Sig p238 be a good choice?

>>34201628

You should probably start a new thread because this is gonna go off this thread's topic of revolvers.

The p238 is a tiny little gun. Tiny little guns, whether semi auto or revolver, are easy to conceal but hard to shoot well and are not much fun to practice with. They are basically a last resort for people that can't conceal anything larger due to wardrobe constraints. If that is your case and you can't conceal anything bigger then I'd pick a small revolver. No tiny little safety to mess with and no tiny little slide to manipulate if you get a jam. I would highly recommend against this though if you can possibly carry a larger gun.

File: DSC00231.jpg (57KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 640x480px

>>34201229
>Durrr spoonfeed me! Spoonfeed me!

>>34201756
Yeah so it looks like this was a very short-lived thing. Must have been because I have never heard about it. Not a huge surprise as my Blackhawk is 1980s vintage. No google hits of anything posted about this in the last year. The current info on Ruger's site shows only cable locks. I'm guessing Ruger tried this and their customers said FUCK NO and unlike S&W they listened.

Nice try fucktard lol. S&W still a shit. Deal with it.

How much worse is the recoil of a typical .44 Mag (e.g. S&W 29 6.5") than a typical .357 (e.g. S&W 686 4")?

>>34201366
Glock 19

>>34202507
What kind of grip you're using makes a HUGE difference. Using ammo from the same manufacturer, 357 with my small wood grip k frame is frankly not very comfortable. However I can shoot 44 all day longwith my 629 AND HAVE A GOOD TIME because the rubber grip covers the metal back strap. Muzzle flip is more pronounced on the 44 but with the right rubber the recoil is actually fun and not in anyway uncomfortable

>>34203755
>not registered

Where the fuck do you live?

>>34203797
this is exactly correct.

>>34201229
Just reiterating >>34201756 this anon because jesus fucking christ how retarded are you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU8E2EC7X68&feature=youtu.be&t=80

File: 1495606307048.png (229KB, 700x563px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 700x563px

>>34201882
>Must have been because I have never heard about it.

Or maybe because you're a dipshit who can't do research and buys stuff without knowing more than you're told.

>No google hits of anything posted about this in the last year.

That must mean it's gone from all Ruger guns.
Hey wait, there aren't threads or articles about S&W trigger locks in 2017 either. So S&W must have stopped making internal locks too! Or maybe it's just been talked about to death and most Ruger owners (like yourself) dont' know about guns and never detail strip their guns so they have a locked gun and don't even know.

>Not a huge surprise as my Blackhawk is 1980s vintage.

A 1980's S&W wouldn't have an internal lock either. A 1980's S&W would also have a decent trigger and not look like an ugly piece of shit.

>I'm guessing Ruger tried this and their customers said FUCK NO

Well you'd be wrong since they did this (have been doing this?) for 10+ years.

>>34204644
Lawls I love how you skip the fact that I specifically mention the lack of ANY reference on the Ruger site to the blackhawk having an internal lock. The manual is right there and it only has info on the cable lock.

>Hey wait, there aren't threads or articles about S&W trigger locks in 2017 either.

Google "S&W Internal Lock", now select "past year" under tools....first page full of shit about internal locks.

It does look like the new MkIV and the LCR at least are currently shipping with an internal lock. I'd imagine that's to get compliance with that shithole california for two of their most popular guns but it does suck and I would never buy one of those guns because of the lock.

You trying to make the case that Ruger is as bad as S&W doesn't hold water with me. The majority of S&Ws revolver catalog has locks. The majority of Ruger's catalog does not. So if I want to buy a gun without a lock chances are it will be a Ruger and not a S&W. I'm not all boycott every S&W product because of locks I just refuse to buy a gun with an internal lock so most of S&Ws revolvers might as well not exist as far as I'm concerned.

Rugers remind me of Cold Steel knives. Big, stupid names engraved on them. Like, grow up already.

>>34206182
Smith and Wesson reminds me of Remington, Marlin and Colt. Companies coasting on historical brand recognition instead of delivering a consistently good quality product.

And there is no other gun company in America that is as responsive to the marketplace as Ruger. They make something for damn near every segment of the market that is good quality at a reasonable price.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzKh5Y0TaY0

http://www.chuckhawks.com/smith-wesson_dark.htm

http://www.chuckhawks.com/ruger_tribute.htm

>>34206715
So what you're saying is that ethical consumption is impossible under capitalism?

HELP WHAT IS THE BEST CC REVOLVER FOR BEGINNER

>>34206809
I'm saying that paying money for features I don't want/have to disable is impossible under capitalism because other manufacturers are free to make competing products that meet all my requirements. And I'm free to shit post non-stop. And freedom and things. 'merica.

>>34206810
Taurus Judge loaded with birdshot. God speed anon.

>>34206810
Glock 19 with a NY2 trigger spring and 25¢ trigger job

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2H6dbO19K0

>>34206715
Chuckhawks is basically fuddlore.com

>Ruger have internal locks too

Top kek, American gun manufacturers really are a bunch of cucks.

At least S&W is honest about how much they suck dick.

Ruger hides their locks in the grip and hopes consumers are too dumb to notice.

>>34175638
The Ruger Alaskan makes me so mad. All that wasted energy for the huge cartridge because of that small-ass barrel

File: S&W 329PD.jpg (15KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 500x500px

>>34208802
That's what happens when you use cast frames and your only option for making the gun lighter is to make it physically smaller.

File: 20170609_173542.jpg (180KB, 1328x747px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1328x747px

>justfuckmyshitup.jpg

>>34209930
Man, that gimmicky bullshit revolver has seen some shit.

>>34208665

well at least the Ruger ones appear easier to mod out the lock and will not leave a visible lock hole on the revolvers outer frame.

Also I have seen a lot of Ruger gun disassembly videos and this >>34201756 is the first time I see a lock on the dam things.

I guess I am fucked no matter what I buy since even trash companies like the Taurus Florida branch use the dam fucking locks also.

Is Hi-point, dare I say it, the only un-cucked american gun company?

>>34210729
>un-cucked american gun company
Barrett

>>34175724

Looking at this gun just made me gay.

Its the manliest thing I've ever seen, and yet I want to fuck it.

>>34210729
Go look on Ruger's site they have pdf links to the manual on each gun's page. It doesn't look like they put the internal lock on the Blackhawk anymore. Only revolver I saw it on was the LCR.

File: 20170326_083042.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

>>34175638
So i need a suggestion. I have 2 colt police positive 32 long cal 4 inch. I love these guns, deathwish. I want to shoulder carry my beater one, any shoulder rigs?

>>34175724
model 27 is the Cadillac of the SW line i cant belive these retards say the 586 is a better gun...

The 27 is an N frame overbuilt revolver against which all 357 should be measured period.

Its heavy, tough, blued and old school everything you want a revolver for.

If you want a 586 it would be for carrying and for carry a SS 686 is better even the 686 plus is more better for carry... so the 586 serves no purpouse over the 27 which will retain its value over time.

Get the real deal, (btw i own a 686 and a 29)

>>34211064
The LCR instruction manual on their website doesn't mention an internal lock; only the cable lock.

They might not have the internal lock on new LCRs.

File: 1477506695_20161026_132912[1].jpg (3MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5312x2988px

>>34210552
it arguably looked worse at some point
>when it was new

>>34211538
I have looked at 5 different manuals so far on Ruger's site and I can't find one that mentions internal locks. If only S&W would follow suit.

>>34176160
Not him, but happening soon. Prepare accordingly.

>>34205389
>the lack of ANY reference on the Ruger site to the blackhawk having an internal lock.

Like I said, they're embarressed of it (as they should be) but there are still new ruger revolvers with locks. They hide it, and unsuspecting customers buy them without knowing. nuS&W, as shit as they are, at least have the courtesy to advertise the things and show them prominently on the frame so they're easy to avoid.

>the majority of s&w's catalog has locks

Why would you consider ANY current production revolver from either of them???

I avoid any revolver s&w made after they introduced the locks and their qc went down the shitter and I avoid any ruger period because as overbuilt as they are, they look and feel like crap and may or may not have a lock on top of that.

>>34206810
Old 642 but don't cc a revolver it's bad.

>>34210729
I think S&W is following the New Coke strategy since they advertise the new 642 as the Model 642 No Lock.

https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearms/model-642-no-internal-lock

>>34211757
">muh lock" is much ado about nothing.
Revolvers, these days, are range toys and sporting arms.
The worst possible outcome is that the lock will inadvertently engage at such a time as to prevent a follow-up shot on a maimed animal.
Plastic service autos and bear spray are objectively better defensive options against men and bears, respectively, so even if the lock were to somehow activate after every shot it would still pose no risk to the user's life or limb.

>>34211777
Trips don't lie

>">muh lock" is much ado about nothing.
Yeah sure, if you like obvious signs of giving into anti-gunners

You're making excuses for an obvious compromise; I thought gun owners had principles

>>34211757
>Like I said, they're embarrassed of it (as they should be) but there are still new ruger revolvers with locks. They hide it, and unsuspecting customers buy them without knowing.

Yeah I'm calling bullshit on this. There is no way that Ruger would not mention an internal lock in the manuals posted on their site if they are indeed installed on current production guns. The litigious nature of our society is the entire reason to even have a lock in the first place why would you go to all that trouble and then get sued because the owner didn't know about the lock because you didn't mention it in the manual? S&W tards are super tryhard to justify buying lock guns. It's getting ridiculous.

Why don't you email Ruger and get the rundown so you can keep your fantasy going a little longer.

>>34186856
>K-Frame Smiths can't into .357

They can, but older versions would get fucked up with 125 grainers and frame cutting. New versions shouldn't have an issue at all.

>>34206558
I agree with this for the most part. But if Ruger is truly responsive to the marketplace, they should give us a choice on the engravings. Offer the walking billboard versions at the usual price, and then a new "clean look" version for 10% more. Let the marketplace decide -- I know which one I'd buy.

>>34215870
Both Ruger and S&W are making concessions to their lawyers as far as liability protection. I agree that Ruger's billboards are ugly as fuck but they can't break my gun like a S&W lock.

>>34210729

>Hi point "We don't make hi cap mags!" Firearms
>Uncucked

Really?

File: Glock-40-Problem-Solver.jpg (38KB, 449x497px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 449x497px

>>34216703
Why would they, when most of their target demographic lives in cities and states with mag cap bans?

>>34215870
Why would you pay a surcharge for a "clean" version of a gun that's going to look like shit regardless?

>>34215698
Were 125s also responsible for the cracked forcing cones?

>>34175724
What kind of AK?

>>34218515
Ah, yes. Because the Felons and child rapists that buy hi points are going to care about following the law.

>>34187200
>unless you like shooting incredibly hot ammo all the time so that you can feel like you have a big cock at the range
Or silhouettes, or bowling pins or larger animals. The Smiths don't have any real advantage of the Ruger for most people and if you want to talk about triggers, flitz is cheap and YouTube is free. Outside of brand loyalty both guns do the shame shit in different ways

File: Dark Tower Reload Porn.webm (999KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 1280x720px

WTB Remington 1858 New Army with cartridge conversion, levitating cylinder.