Looking to buy a revolver but im looking for suggestions Must

The EAA windicator can be had for around $300 if you seek and affordable .357.

>not trying to carry
>8 shots
S&W 627
S&W TRR8
Ruger Redhawk

>>34175638

>>34199834
>TRR8 with an rmr
muh dick

File: RR357B5_1.jpg (36KB, 700x330px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 700x330px

Heritage Rough Rider .357

It's a single action cowboy gun though

>>34199823

Unless you're looking specifically to get .357 I suggest going with .327 Federal (its just about as stout).

Especially the GP100. You get a smaller revolver that holds the same capacity.

Im not sure how available .327 is for you but its also backwards compatible with .32 h&r and .32 s&w long (and .32 short). Kinda like the .38 special option for the .32s.

>>34199823
>hillary hole
Fucking disgusting, the only revolver I'll buy from S&W is one that doesn't have this stupid shit. Ruger is getting all of my money until they fix this shit.

>>34200402

I am with you there buddy but OP is looking for budget revolvers so I doubt he will give S&W any money.

>>34200402
>>34200432
Explain why without using the words "more likely"

>>34200540
you're more likely to have the gun inoperable with the lock mechanism

>>34200402

There are videos on YouTube on how to remove the lock. It's not hard

>>34200587
It's the principal of the matter

>>34200585
aaaa I said you can't use those words

>>34200540
>without using the words "more likely"

the recoil will cause the gun will lock up on you eventually.

>>34200587

if you have to do work on your brand new gun then you should not buy it in the first place.

A Ruger Security/Service/Speed Six can be had for between $350 to $550 dollars depending on model and condition. It is far better than any of the other magnums you will be able to find in that price range and was actually the last duty revolver adopted by a number of major LE agencies + the military before the universal adoption of autoloaders.

>>34200632
and now cite some sources that it happens to every single gun

>>34200632
do you have a single fact to back that up?

>>34200706
Not the guy you're responding to, but:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsIWXd_9xPE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaR6NdBzZO4

The gun this happened to isn't just a cheap model with lesser QC either; it's a top shelf performance center gun.

>inb4 it's an anecdote that tells us nothing

The issue of guns locking up under recoil is not fuddlore; it doesn't happen constantly, but it does happen frequently enough to be called regular, which is unacceptable given that it's a problem that could be avoided were it not for the decisions of Smith and Wesson.

>>34200656

I mostly agree but there's so many S&W revolvers (I want all of them) that have no direct equivalent made by any other brand (there's a few Taurus equivalents of S&Ws I want but too sketched out by stories about their quality to buy a Taurus, even if most of it is exaggerated internet lore)

Also I'm a mechanic so it's no big deal to me

>>34200616

I get it, but at the same time I don't care.

S&W has been offering their J-frames, which are the ones most likely to be carried and relied upon in life or death situations, without locks recently. I wouldn't be surprised if they started phasing them out.

I don't think any anti-gun lobbies will cite the sale of S&W revolvers as support for gun control