Specifically with the revolvers, everything else I can't give a rats ass about.
S&W hasn't made a revolver worth a damn since the Model 15 and even that thing is still just alright.
Almost every single other revolver manufacturer including shitty 3rd worlders like France and Germany realized that S&W designs are shit and make a simpler, stronger, and cheaper option.
So really, who the hell buys newer (1980's and up) Smith & Wessons when anything outside of a Taurus would be objectively better?
Coomlectors and Speculators need not apply since they aren't even human. Plus if you wanted something actually good or unique just buy a Korth or something.
They're fine revolvers doofus
Digits confirm, cum guzzling OP btfo'd
trips and straight to the point.
The New model 19 took care of the flame cutting and forcing cone problems on the original. This makes the modern ones better.
Also, Cheaper is not always better. I used to own a Charter arms Bull dog 44 Special. There was some really crude machining on it. This was a modern Charter arms. The gun was fine but made me realize what you pay for in quality
>when anything outside of a Taurus would be objectively better?
like what?
no really you go to a gunstore in america looking for a revolver you see s&w, ruger, taurus, maybe ria
you say france and germany make them but that shit might as well not exist for how many made it stateside.
It's a domestic manufacturer that doesn't put out garbage constantly. This is increasingly rare.
1. They're a lot more robust than historically since they've updated the frames. A model 19 Classic or Model 66 is a better gun than in the past.
2. They are easily tuned while being reliable. Spring changes are often all that's needed.
3. There is a very sizeable aftermarket for parts and modifications that doesn't exist for other manufacturers.
Checked and correct on all accounts. I have older smiths but I almost baby them since some are heirlooms and the like. The new ones are perfect if you feel like shooting it to shit but don’t want the extra heft of a ruger. Add the ease of spring changes and the gun shoots like a dream.
Is this bait? Give me a better 357 revolver than the 686 in its price range. You can't because anything better costs a lot more and everything cheaper is shit.
>Taurus
Leave. Now.
A GP100, unironically. Nothing wrong with a 686, but it's not that incredible, none of them are until you put in some work.
Lol
As the other anon said the GP100, ever since the Security Six Ruger has been better than S&W in every regard, the Blackhawk and Redhawk are also some of the best options for .44 Magnum at an affordable price point.
Outside of them you have Magnum Research, EAA, H&R, Colt, Dan Wesson, Kimber and plenty more random companies no one has ever heard of. I am not saying all of these are good but that they are going to bet A. better than a Smith at the same or even lower price point or B. they are a copy of a Smith at a significantly lower price.
Then again you can't read for shit since you thought I recommended Taurus.
I’ll agree that a ruger 44 is great but a 686 just feels better balanced in the hand. Not to mention usually the trigger out of the box is better on smiths than rugers. Functionally you are correct that a ruger is better but in practice when using both the lighter and more balanced smith wins out if you are going to carry it and shoot it a lot.
This man got so shittershattered his reading comprehension went to 0%
Amazing
The name recognition and the fact that they still make a decent gun even if it's not as good as it once was. The 642 is still a popular carry gun and it's actually cheaper than the LCR now. S&W offers the meme hand cannons that will end up in the used case with only 20 rounds through them. S&W brought the 8-shot .357 magnum to the masses, and is still the only company selling one as a carry pistol, because Ruger's 44 ounce brick doesn't count. Aside from that, I imagine that the people buying the rest of their revolvers are probably Gen X or older because they grew up when Smith & Wesson was a household name in a time when they earned that name. Millennials and newer buy Ruger.
The 627(by virtue of being an N frame) is basically the same size as a Redhawk dimensionally. Being lighter isn't much of an accomplishment.
Maybe, but I still appreciate it. I wish S&W and Ruger would realize that people like to carry lighter guns and offer something mid size in an alloy or polymer frame. I think Taurus is the only company making a 6-shot 3"/4" revolver that isn't full steel.
Yeah, I think Ruger realized the RH in 357 doesn't need a 2.5" barrel, no one is seriously going to carry it. The 5.5" is a much better fit, but still weighs in at 52 oz.
My 6 shot, 7.5" 357 is like 60oz, makes 357 feel like 38 +P.
The Wrangler was a step in the right direction...it's not full steel and is lighter than the single six while being very very similar. I think if Ruger scales the same process up to bigger cartridges they'll have a bunch of winners.
I just wish they made a 3" LCR without making it so bulky, it would have been perfect for me. I still don't know why they made the decision to give the 3" LCR the adjustable sights when the 3" SP101 still has the low profile sights.
My EDC switches most frequently between these two, sans suppressor obviously.
>sans suppressor
homie you best be joking
I'm not going to EDC a full length suppressor.
I'm interested in getting a 586, or a model 28 highway patrolman. My question is can shooting buffalo bore or underwood pissing hot hand loads thru them destroy them? I know rugers exists but I'm not talking about doing it on the regular but on occasion several shots, and leaving it loaded hot for the night stand.
I guess what I'm asking is will buffalo bore blow up a smith or is that fuddlore ?
L frames(586, 686) and N frames(model 27) are fine for whatever you'll do with them. Even the new K frames are good after some dimension changes they made.
Old model 27's had two weaknesses, the cylinder was big so a large amount of fast, rapid firing can peen the stop notches causing the latch to jump over them. The second weakness was that they had the same amount of bearing surface on the end of the yoke tube as a K frame, but this wasn't as big of a deal as the original Model 29 where 44 Mag absolutely beat the shit out of them.
S&W made a cool 41 Mag Night guard.
>Hillary hole
LOL
Lightest revolvers, even in serious calibers. Yes having a light 44 magnum revolver is good for outdoor carry, I'd rather have a light gun on me over several days hunting than a heavy as frick Ruger or a Taurus.
Also Taurus is made in a 3rd world shithole and they have 3rd world shit hole quality, I owned 2 of them one which had forcing cone issues from the factory and the first bullet I put through it fragged on the forcing cone spitting lead and copper jacketing out the cylinder gap, luckily noone was hit because I was in a bulletproof bay.
Frick up out of here with your gay ass takes gaygo.
Those scamdiums are great.
>muh weight when hunting
It's annoying having to send it back to the mothership every thousand rounds to have the cylinder gap blast shield replaced, but as you see, it's more annoying dealing with the consequences of...not.
Holy shit how the frick did the frame just split like that?
Top strap erosion from cylinder gap. It's a non-issue in steel frames or low pressure rounds like .38, but full-house .44 Mag eats Scandium for breakfast.
So what I'm hearing is if I'm gonna get a .44, focus on something sturdy over lightness
Big surprise, I know. My .454 Raging Bull is constantly taking 65k PSI with super spicy light for caliber loads, which create the most flame cutting possible, and it's got maybe a 0.01" cut in the top strap.
No, depends if you actually want to carry it. If you're getting a .44mag because you are doing a lot of hiking/backpacking/camping in areas with bear, then you prioritize lightness. If you are using it as a range toy to do hand reloads and shoot frequently, then you prioritize durability over the course of thousands of rounds, which has far more to do with frame fatigue, lock up and timing than it does how many PSI the cylinder is rated for.
A .44 Mag that weighs as little as a Glock has its place, but most people would be better served by a steel-framed gun like a 629 or 69, yes.
Seen this at the cabelas in the used guns
Should I buy it anons? I already have an operator but I like the look of this particular pistol
I like how the Model 19 looks and it's cool getting a big, blued, well-made American revolver for like $700.
>model 19
This gun was so shitty that S&W had to change the SAMMI spec on .357
That sucks. I still enjoy it and blast .357 out of it.
Stick to 158 grain loads and you’re good. 125 and 110 are where the old k frames have issues. If you want to shoot tons of whatever magnum, buy a newer one with the updated forcing cone/frame or just check the forcing cone after shooting when your cleaning the gun.
1. the 29/629 are both The Gun from The Movie (different movies)
2. the Bodyguard is The Gun from The Totally Justified Summary Execution That Some homosexual Journo Portrayed As A War Crime
3. S&W revolvers are generally light for their size and reasonably priced, and since they're the Glocks of the wheelgun world—they've been making different sizes and calibers of the same gun for like 120 years—they're relatively easy to do your own work on
Frick shit and pisson.
.357 mag literally got nerfed because shit and wesson made weak as shit revolvers that would blow up. They then used their pull within the industry to get SAAMI to change the max pressure.If we still loaded .357 mag to those original specs it would be the uncontested pistol caliber king.
People have said similar things about 10mm. It might be the ultimate on paper, but few people want to carry such a cannon.
I don't know why S&W insists on using scandium frames on the stupidest guns. They offer a 2" .357, a 2" 8 shot .357, and a .44 Magnum, but not regular K Frame .38.
>few people want to carry such a cannon
They carried it like that for 40 years, it wasn't until the early 90's when they neutered it.
Wow, I did not know that. I guess after I wade through a mile of shit, I learn something here. Thanks.
Got to check out a Raging Hunter yesterday. For $900 it doesn't even have decent iron sights, and at best is a "me too" to the TRR8, which has been out of production for almost 10 years. Smith makes great guns for their price range.
When you're too cool to buy a Ruger
Well, not sure if trolling so I'll respond.
Colt is a painted prostitute.
Korth is thousands of dollars.
Taurus and Rossi ain't cool.
This leaves S&W and Ruger, let's compare.
S&W is lighter, making them more comfortable to carry. They have a single screw to slide off cylinder, making them easier to clean and their triggers are still ever so slightly better, even with the MiM parts.
Ruger seems to hold up better to high round counts and abuse but is heavier, more annoying to clean and with a more crude fit and finish.
People have argued back and forth about which is better for decades. At a certain point, it's like, whatever man.
As for the newer Kimber revolvers, I have no idea. Kimber still gets a lot of hate.
Shit and Whining can gargle my balls, Colt 4 Lyfe homie
Shit&Whining BTFO
witnessed
Base Colt owner
The m&p is just a better glock than glock.
frick ya mudda
>outside of a Taurus
The Raging series has better .454 Casull dedicated guns than any of S&W's offerings in the caliber.
Kind of irrelevant
Why would you get anything but a Ruger for .454
Because the SRH is hideous and doing a conversion on a regular one requires getting lucky.
S&W doesn't really offer any. There are two reasons I guess, the N frame isn't strong enough and they feel the X frame is better suited to just their own cartridges.
>inb4 but you can fire them out of a 460
So? You could also shoot 45 ACP, expect unimpressive accuracy as gasses go by the bullet and it slams in the throat.
i buy smith and colt for revolvers because i'm not giving any money to ruger. any company who's founder sends a letter to congress stating that no honest man needs more than 6 rounds, deserves to die.
Bill Ruger did die though. The .44 Super Blackhawks and the GP100s are cool and not as costly as Smiths or Colts.
Bill died and the company now embraces 2A thinking. They helped lead the way in bringing an affordable 5.7 pistol that comes standard with 20 rd mags, this alone is enough to make up for bills misdeeds.
They literally turned around and started selling 30-round mags as soon as Bill croaked. I wish people would stop judging modern Ruger for their dead owner's shit takes that they've since all but renounced.
Not necessarily their revolvers but the M&P 15 is the gold standard for “minimally viable AR that won’t kill the operator within 5,000 rounds”. Mind you I didn’t say good, but it will go bang.
What sounds like the most fun plinking purchase if I already own a black powder 1851 navy
>18" revolver carbine in .357
>lemat black powder
>scofield in 38 special
>peacemaker in 9mm or .357
For me it would be a schofield, personally I would go with a larger caliber too but that's just me.
The peacemaker is also a fine choice but I do not know of the quality of some of the modern repros. Lemats are kind of a meme and suck for how expensive they tend to go for but they are neat to have one if you can drop the money on it, just not as fun as other guns imo. Revolver carbines may be your cup of tea but I hate them, would rather have a lever gun every time, hell even a harmonica rifle is more enjoyable. I don't know what it is specifically but I just do not enjoy shooting, loading, or holding them but I love regular revolvers.
While you have a 1851 Navy have you considered getting a Remnington New Army clone? They are fun and fairly cheap, I really enjoy them.
lemat, hands down. Don't get a peacemaker in anything less than .44
Because not all of us are limp wristed twinks and we want an EDC with ACTUAL STOPPING POWER.
S&W provides a quality hand gun with muzzle energy just short of 7.62x51mm and well above that weak pea shooter 5.56mm garbage you kids use in your toy "rifles," these days. Plus it doubles as a flash bang and gives you that nice CTE buzz.
>Almost every single other revolver manufacturer including shitty 3rd worlders like France and Germany realized that S&W designs are shit and make a simpler, stronger, and cheaper option.
Is that why they build all their fricking revolvers on Smith frames you stupid Black person?
Krauts make their own frames, France does too or they use Ruger frames depending on who is making them.
Manhurins might as well be Rugers with a better barrel.
At least the MR88s were, the MR73 and modern ones especially, were much more similar to a Smith.
Both are dead copies of Smith lockwork (excepting the MR88 like you said).
It's funny that you criticize Smith's pricing and then point to multi-thousand dollar brands as a better price point, despite these offering only marginal improvements.
Nah Smiths are shit compared to those guns. The Weihrauch is a gun I would trust my life to over a similar Smith and Wesson, Korth's and Janz revolvers are definitely not "dead copies" of Smith's they are in the most honest sense improved and simplified Smith actions.
Now yes the MR73's action is pretty much just a copy of a smith but that never was the issue in the first place, it's just over complicated for no reason. The real issue with smith is they can't make a frame worth a shit since the 80's. Everyone who makes a copy of the Smith makes their own frames because absolutely no one in their right mind would ever use a smith frame if they can help it.
>Everyone who makes a copy of the Smith makes their own frames because absolutely no one in their right mind would ever use a smith frame if they can help it.
I dunno man, at the price point it's competing with the GP100, and the 5/686 has an objectively better trigger and looks nicer. and I say that as the guy that posts
>luv me GP100
in every thread about revolvers. you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
>what’s the appeal
M&P 2.0
Shield .45 without manual safety = modern kino
Don’t care
Luv my 686 and my old 13
>everything else I can't give a rats ass about.
That's where they're doing well, though. I'm not even that sure that S&W cares about their revolvers much anymore. Even newer models are just rehashes and most of them are hideous and don't really make much sense conceptually, like I don't know what purpose they are intended for. I suspect they're just running down their parts inventory. They just moved their corporate headquarters from Massachusetts to Tennessee and I bet they won't replace their Springfield, MA revolver employees as they retire (Springfield is where they have the massive old forges and revolver producing equipment). In the next few years I expect to see them wind down their revolver product line to just a few models, and possibly update them. This post was pulled entirely out of my ass but I believe it to be true.
>I'm not even that sure that S&W cares about their revolvers much anymore.
They clearly don't. Think about how many .44 Magnums or .22 LRs you could fit in an X-frame cylinder.
You could fit 7 44 Mag in an X Frame, pretty confident. Then you have the pleasure of having a really long throat.
You can try to create one with more chambers if you'd like, the cylinder diameter is 1.92" and the 44 Mag chamber is going to be something like .457" in diameter.
Just make the forcing cone really long like the 9XXes.
Revolver in 5.7 when
There is no appeal to their revolvers thanks to the hillary hole.