686 vs GP100

>IDK where you live but most pre lock smiths go for a premium.

Hardly. I bought my pre-lock 19 snubbie for 600 and my pre-lock 29 with a holster for 700. Both at separate local gun stores this year with no negotiation. You could definitely do better if you tried.

Wheel guns are fucking ugly and outdated

Mine 686 has a a way better smoother crisp trigger pull compared to the newer production 686. Lgs store had new ones on sale and the trigger isnt as nice imo

>Morons whining about the lock

Gee who wouldn't want an ugly hole, weaker frame and extra part that needs to be removed to ensure proper function?

You're ugly and outdated.

Ruger is shit.

Smith will always be the revolver kings.

Attached: WheelgunsRBestGuns.gif (400x240, 2.23M)

both

This. Bow down for the king

Smith brandfags are the best brandfags.

NuSmith is Taurus with slightly better QC.

Attached: 2uo01kz.png (626x565, 631K)

Over penetration is bad

Attached: 1485476703924.jpg (510x630, 57K)

DAAAAAYUUUM
Trips of truth. That is how you ace a ballistic gel test, boys and girls and traps. What load was that? I must know.

And what are all y'all's favorite .357 loads, by the way?

Booting for the thread: why can't we just all get along? The answer to Ruger vs Smith is: Both! If you're going to get a Ruger, get the Match Champion (which is about the cost of a new Smith, anyway).

The L-Frame isn't weak by any stretch of the imagination. Put it this way: Ruger and Smith both just recently came out with big-bore .44-caliber models built on medium frames: the S&W Model 69, and the Ruger GP100 Model 1761.

Guess what? The Smith 69 is in .44 Magnum, and the Ruger GP100 is in .44 Special!

I find it ironic that Taurus did the internal lock thing better than Smith

Rather than being on the side of the frame, the Taurus lock is on the hammer and works perpendicular to recoil forces, so it can't accidentally activate

They're removing the lock to cut costs if their newer guns like the 856 are any indication, I just think it's funny that Brazilians can do a lock better than Americans

>what are all y'all's favorite .357 loads
My only experience with 357 is with a 2 inch SP101, but my two favorite loads are Buffalo Bore's 180 grain Outdoorsman, and Underwood's 125 grain. The Underwood is especially fun because of the lower recoil and giant fireball.

My smith's trigger is case hardened, think they still do it on certain models.
Huh, guess they still do poke holes in things.
Under penetration is worse.
It appears to be a corbon hex type all copper bullet but it's kinda hard to see. Probably a DPX or some other loading of them.

My three go to loads at the moment for .357 are GDHPs loaded by underwood for general use(125gr aprx 1650fps), 180gr hardcasts for woods use, and 125gr remington SJHP for the memery. The last load is the OG .357 magnum loading that gave the caliber it's reputation back in the 70s and 80s. A little light on penetration(around 12") but massive damage up front due to partial fragmentation, only reason it isn't my go to is that im not sure how well it'd do through common barriers. When it comes to .357 there're more good loads then bad ones, pick what you like, but i don't personally see a reason to accept anything but the best. If i did then i'd just carry a 9mm and be done with it.

>And what are all y'all's favorite .357 loads
Underwood 158gr and 180gr

Very nice out of my Rossi 92 levergun

Excellent! I know Buffalo Bore and Underwood are both highly regarded, they've just got so many loads it's hard to know where to start. I'll check those out.

I had a guy from Charter Arms recommend CorBon DPX loads to me for a .38 snub. I realize it's a different animal comparing a pocket snub and a full size magnum, but still that's an impressive showing.

And another vote for 125's and 180's! Awesome! Do you get your 180 hardcasts from Underwood as well?

That 125 grain SJHP Remington load was the notorious load that cracked forcing cones, wasn't it?

I'm surprised 158 grain projectiles aren't more popular, considering they were the original bullet weight.

What kind of bullets are you using? Hardcast?

This is the Underwood 158gr load I use

underwoodammo.com/collections/handgun-ammo/products/357-magnum-158-grain-bonded-jacketed-hollow-point?variant=7865902923833

158gr is probably less popular for overpenetration reasons, plus less expansion

Nice.

>overpenetration reasons, plus less expansion
That's logical. So the consensus these days seems to be, expanding 125's for social work, hard cast 180's for dangerous animal defense

>one friend has 2 Smiths
>another friend has one he shoots nearly exclusively
>I have a sp101
>bought bulk ammo together over the course of a few months and just shot shit in a ravine nearby
>after about the 3rd case both of them had to replace shit
>broken extractors stars, forcing cone chipped, and one main spring literally broke in half
>my ruger to this day has yet to fuck up

yeah fuck you smith fags, buy your defective guns you cant convince me of shit.

Attached: eddy face.png (470x355, 246K)

I like older smiths and rugers.
My security six and model 13 are doing fine at 40+ yo

The only thing Ilike about S&Ws are the full grip frames. Practically it makes no real difference, just personal preference. Rugers are better in every other way, especially when we're comparing them to newer Smiths.

You're generally correct but it really depends on the bullet. There's a 158gr SJHP(I think it was remington) I saw a gel test on somewhere that was a monster. It probably expanded well because the exposed lead HP was nice and soft.

Imagine getting shot and having your guts fart out through your chest.

One of them doesn't have a Hillary hole drilled into the side of it. Which makes it clearly superior.

Attached: nillsruger.jpg (1616x910, 144K)

>Do you get your 180 hardcasts from Underwood as well?
Yup
>That 125 grain SJHP Remington load was the notorious load that cracked forcing cones, wasn't it?
Yea, those and the 110s. Hear they were even harder on cones but were less popular so you don't hear about it much. Definitely not a good choice for a steady diet of practice loads for your K frame. Then again just about any actual 125gr magnum loading is a bad idea for that due to flame cutting and cone erosion. 158s and 180s are a much better choice for practice rounds. The 125s were also just as notorious for their on target effects, can't think of another loading that was widely called things like "the magic bullet" and "the lightening bolt".

Of course, I own both, and my 686-2 was made back when QC meant something and they didn't have internal locks.

Attached: IMG_20170812_192701283.jpg (4320x2432, 2.25M)

i'm in the Ruger fanbase, this anecdotal evidence isn't a good snapshot of the production quality of both companies

nice anecdote

Ruger will never be better than Smith

>Ruger will never be better than Smith
They have been for many years now, you delusional faggot.

>Ruger will never be better than Smith

Attached: 1527716678278.jpg (339x339, 16K)

i have a year-ish old gp100 that im absolutely in love with. it's not the most aesthetic gun, i'd actually recommend spending the cash for the match champion if you need aesthetics

>dat partial underlug life
I know that feel, full underlugs are gross.

>MATCH CHAMPION™
>Aesthetic

Ruger and taste are mutually exclusive.

Attached: Ruger-GP100-Match-Champion-0-1200x673.png (1200x673, 1.33M)

source
>I own both, gp100 first then 686

Out of the box the 686 has a slightly, but noticeably crisper trigger. In normal shooting its negligible but it might be the difference if you're shooting matchsticks.

I personally prefer the cylinder release on the 686, sliding the button forward towards the muzzle, over the gp100's 'tilting' release that you push into the frame itself. I feel less like I'm losing my grip that way, but it's not like you're going to be making super fast incredibly operator reloads with a revolver anyway.

I forgot what company but someone makes an extended release for the 686 that puts the button right next to the hammer spur which looked pretty comfy.

tl;dr if you're looking at both in a counter- 686 has a better trigger. You will not be unhappy with gp100 either.

"Taste" is a S&W revolver, beautifully crafted from only the finest steel, exploding into pieces because of its poor fit and finish

This is true for everything except L-frames and Pythons

Check the current Lipsey's exclusives in .357, .327, and .44spl.

Attached: 1768.jpg (475x253, 20K)

Unfluted is teh sex

Attached: 4.jpg (475x253, 19K)

Yeah whereas Rugers have a more robust, no-frills explosion. An explosion for the working man.

Attached: kaboom_zpsq52ywgbc.jpg (1024x579, 226K)

I have new smiths and old smiths. Large calibers and small calibers.

The only difference is the hole, and it's really just aesthetic. I've shot thousands of rounds with the new smiths and haven't had it engage once. And if you don't trust it you can remove the lock and plug it up. I never got the "new smith blows" meme because they still make extremely nice guns. Maybe they're not worth the money, but what is these days?

They still have Ruger's tacky warning labels and rollmarks on them. The only good looking Rugers I've seen are the ones that have been gone over by Gemini customs to clean that shit off.

Attached: Alaskan-191.jpg (1156x768, 229K)

H I L L A R Y H O L E
I
L
L
A
R
Y

H
O
L
E

I'm about to go buy a 4.2" SP101 in .327 Fed Mag for my first revolver. Anyone have anything to share on them?

Attached: Ruger GP100 HL.jpg (900x675, 267K)

that grip must have been expensive

looks like a standard hogue to me...

nope, Smith is the only good revolver maker

Ruger is Taurus tier

just the pattern of wood grain looks nice

To each their own, but i really prefer the cut on the pro series to the standard full lug. Something about the full lug on the 686 seems kinda pig nosed and unbalanced looking to me.

Attached: 686 + pro Armslist.jpg (640x480, 55K)

Nice use of lighting to hide that ugly billboard, but yes they still look bad in real life.

>that gemini bling

P I M P
I
M
P

Attached: DSC_0006.jpg (4288x2848, 1.21M)

Smiths use sideplates for Christ's sake.

Stop making your fucking .327 threads please.

Never made one, man. Just looking at something with some pop, but not full-on hand-cannon, for my first wheelgun.

That's that one other guy who owns a .327 on k. Check yourself.

>get shot so hard the rapidly collapsing wound channel causes an explosion in your body

Attached: MAXIMumOperating.jpg (366x338, 36K)

>Ruger is Taurus tier
It's literally the exact opposite. A modern S&W is essential an overpriced Taurus with slightly better quality control.

removed by hoppes #9...

Attached: modern S&W bluing.jpg (800x600, 47K)

I ordered a 5.25in Manurhin MR73 back in December and it will finally be here in about a month. My body is ready.

What would be a god-tier load for people in such a thing? I don't have many animals to worry about near me, I don't hike or anything. I do plan on getting a custom leather shoulder holster for it so I can snuggle in at all times during the winter.

Suggestions?

Attached: Manurhin-MR73_100666856_608_F512D22C31024456 (1).jpg (3000x1368, 294K)

Buffalo Bore 180 grain Outdoorsman is where its at for a hard hitting heavy load
buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=100

WAY too much penetration for two-legged targets. stick to 125ish grains for anti-personnel. Maybe 158 with the right bullet.

>WAY too much penetration for two-legged targets.
I glossed over the part where he said for people. Yeah that's definitely a touch too much. 125 is definitely the way to go. Preferably Buffalo Bore or Underwood.

GIGN used/uses these exclusively with 158 grain rounds loaded by Norma FWIW. Also, keep in mind 125 grain loads are notoriously hard on guns - and the ears.

>Also, keep in mind 125 grain loads are notoriously hard on guns
That's why I recommended it. Havent shot an MR73, but if its rep is to be believed it should be able to handle them.
>and the ears
This right here is why I stopped carrying 357

For two legs there's only two god tier choices on the market right now. 125gr SJHP(remington), and 125gr GDHPs loaded by Underwood or buffalo bore. The former tends to fragment aprx 1/3rd of it's weight and then the remaining expanded base penetrates about 12", this round has a stellar real world history as a duty round back in the 70s/80s for producing slightly shallow but very wide and traumatic wounds. The latter is just typical gold dot performance with a bit of extra penetration and a helluva lot of velocity and energy, information is sparse on real world flesh and blood performance. Out of a 5" bbl expect around 1650fps for the underwood and around 1500 for the SJHP. Personally i lean towards the GDHP, i think it'll dig deep more reliably through things like glass, auto bodies, and forearms if they happen to get in the way. That being said if i magically had the choice of an unobstructed thoracic shot then id definitely prefer to be sending the SJHP.

youtube.com/watch?v=z8WNQxIjutc

youtube.com/watch?v=9ZJSGJqsVFg

125 grain reks forcing cones. The reason MR-73s are considered so durable is their lockup and construction. Theres nothing special about their forcing comes. They'll get raped and worn out as fast as anything else.

Whichever one doesn't have a stupid internal lock.

That's a bit disheartening.

.t person who’s never owned a ruger

Sorry but I don't use revolvers. What the fuck is the lock/hole thing that everyone keeps talking about?

Question sorta related, should i trade a GP100 Match Champion, Vaquero, and some cash for a S&W 29-2? It's a little scruffy up close, but seems smoother than a post-lock as you guys say. Store wants 1000 for it

Fuck no.

luckygunner.com/lounge/smith-and-wesson-internal-lock/

Attached: 686-lock.jpg (1267x713, 173K)

S&W got bought out by a lock company and started putting locks in their revolvers both as a form of political appeasement(clinton era) and to scratch the backs of the euro venture capitalists that bought them out. Kinda hilarious considering they continue to make striker guns with zero safeties or locks. People hate them because muh aesthetics, muh politics, muh old fashioned, and muh 1/1,000,000 chance the lock will fuck up bricking your gun

S&W has a hole on the side of the vast majority of their revolvers for a key lock that renders the gun inoperable. For most it is unsightly and for many it is a deal breaker for being ugly and/or a potential source of reduced reliability.

Thanks for the info. So by the date in the article, basically any pre 2000's SW wouldn't have the lock hole?

Besides the problems mentioned, are current runs affected by the hole at all? Does it really do anything to frame integrity? Does SW now sell revolvers without the lock hole or is that a perma thing?

Did the buyout affect quality at all? I've always heard of SW being one of the good ol boy brands that you can always expect quality from.

>Putting two holes in a bad guy for the price of one is bad

Dub-quads checked.
Prevailing opinion seems to be that the lock doesn't actually have very much negative effect. The whole "lock locks itself" thing was a limited issue that has been resolved for some time, it's a meme along the lines of the "glocknade".

People hate the locks mostly because of the political fuckery, and the fact that a decade-plus later the locks are still here, shitting up nice revolvers. I fantasize about S&W holding a big press conference just to announce the death of that damn lock.

S&W sells some models with the lock as an option, for example you can get a 642 with or without the lock.

S&W has changed hands at least a few times and my understanding is they've suffered from some pretty stupid mismanagement. Not as badly as Colt has, but close. "S&W isn't as good as they used to be, S&W is going to shit!" is a literally decades-old meme.

I have a 642 no lock that I added an XS big dot night sight to. it's a great gun.

Attached: snub dot.jpg (3024x4032, 1.9M)

>and the ears
so? if people cared about hearing damage, we wouldn't be using guns

The problem with the lock is that it is an added point of failure that exists because of a capitulation to anti-gun sentiment. I refuse to buy a S&W with a lock on ideological grounds.

The real problem with S&W revolvers are the myriad of cost-cutting measures that successive rounds of management have put into place especially when it comes to finishes. Modern S&W finishes look like shit.

I wish Ruger and S&W would realize that, aside from large hunting guns and small carry guns, most people buying revolvers are enthusiasts for whom aesthetics are as important as function, reliability and durability. S&W needs to ditch the locks and fix their shitty finishes. Ruger needs to learn to half lug and stop putting huge fucking billboards all over their shit.

Attached: 10OL4xf.jpg (375x506, 94K)

I agree with everything here. Make half lug an option, though. I like a full lug for weight up front. I fire nothing but the hot stuff, whether it be .357 or .44 magnum.

Question: just how damaging is 125gr .357mag to a forcing cone? Are we talking cracks appearing within 1,000 rounds or like 50?

I think if it was a huge issue at low round counts there would be much more awareness in the community about the issue and possibly warnings in you manual from the manufacturer. Unless you're hitting really high round counts or are shooting a vintage gun I wouldn't worry about shooting some hot 125s every once in a while and zero problems with choosing that weight for a self-defense round.

7 shot GP100 is sex.

I'm actually looking at getting it ported because I run extra spicy handloads.

Attached: 1.jpg (475x253, 20K)

Short answer - stick to 140 gr. loads. (or heavier) It's not the bullet that damages the cone, it's the abrasive grit contained in the powder gases hitting the cone at high speed.

I have a match champion, and yeah I do wish they hadn't done that. It is an undeniably sexy revolver without HOLYFUCKBALLSMATCHCHAMPIONLOOKOUTMOTHERBITCHES tramp stamped all over it. However, I was well aware of it before hand, during hand, after hand. Gp100 match champion is hands down the best production wheelin and dealin anywhere close to the price point.

You could probably have that text removed if it really bugs you. I doubt the engraving is so deep that it would compromise the barrel if you removed enough material to have a clean barrel.