S&W .357 Revolvers and Ruger GP100

[RedFord150]

...Someone else posted that they keep extra speedloaders on the nightstand...that's fine too, IF you have time to reload. But the situation might demand that you take 2 shots at each attacker...having one round left over (without having to reload) might just make all the difference. And consider if you decide to answer a late night knock or investigate a strange sound in the night, gun in hand. Will you be carrying those speedloaders in your pajama pocket? If not, then that 7th round in the gun might be useful....

Get some training on rapid reloading with a revolver. The LEO's from days gone by (pre 9mm Semi Auto) were trained to quickly reload a revolver using only 1 hand (in case of hand injury). This skill will be more valuable than 1 or 2 extra rounds.
Just a thought...

[SJshooter]

Who can forget the rivalry these two had in print ads in the 1980s:

[Tarn_Helm]

Priorities

Greetings:

I want to get a revolver in .357mag, but am deliberating between the Ruger GP100 and the various S&W models. If S&W didn't offer the possibility of holding more than 6 rounds, I'd just buy the Ruger and save some dough. This is intended to be my primary home defense weapon.

I went to Reed's Range Sunday and operated a S&W 686 4", burning up 50 rds. each of .38spc and .357mag. I could operate the gun just fine, putting lead on target comfortably with one hand left or right, or with two hands. Though I did have a little trouble getting a comfortable two-hand grip.

I also wanted to test a Ruger GP100, but they said it was out being serviced. I may have to wait until I can go back and try that before making a choice.

For purchase consideration, in addition to Ruger GP100, I'm looking at the S&W models:

medium frame:
Model 686 Plus Revolver - 4", 7-Shot, 9.625" 38 oz
Model 327 M&P R8 - 8 Shot 5", 10.5", 36.3 oz
Model 620 Revolver, 4", 7-Shot, 9.5" 38 oz
large frame:
Model 627 - 4", 8-shot, 9.625" 42 oz

It would seem that for 8 shots, the choices are either heavy or expensive. I'd probably like the 5" bbl. on the 627 since I may be able to shoot more accurately. But for that kind of money I could buy the Ruger and maybe another Ruger. I don't really understand the significance of S&W "medium frame" vs. "large frame" models.

Basically it boils down to this:

Ruger pros: economical
Ruger cons: 6 shots
S&W pros: 7-8 shots
S&W cons: more expensive, and lingering worries about the "Clinton lock."

What is the Clinton lock, and should I be worried about that?

Thanks for input!

What are your priorities?

For me, the first has to be how well I shoot the gun.

That depends on how it feels in my hand and the amount of instinctive speed and smoothness with which I can put it on target.

If I can shoot it well, then the next consideration for me becomes that of durability (which leads then to issues of cost and maintenance).

In my experience, the Ruger GP 100 is the more durable.

I have a 3-inch barrel Ruger GP 100 that is really fun and easy to shoot, even with full power .357 Magnum cartridges.

I do love my S&Ws and Colts, but in practical terms, the Ruger wins.

Do I shoot my S&W pre-Model 10 well and comfortably? Does it have more curb appeal than the Ruger?

Yes, but it is only a .38, 2-inch barrel.

Do I shoot my Colt Det. Special (2-inch barrel) well and comfortably? Does it have more curb appeal than the Ruger?

Yes, but again only with .38, which I consider to be an underpowered round for purposes of self-defense.

I have a beautiful S&W Model 13 with a 3-inch barrel, but it does not feel as good in my hand and I don't shoot it as well as I shoot the Ruger GP 100.

My vote goes to the Ruger if all other considerations (mentioned above) are equal.

(Also, I would never own a gun with a gun lock on it. If you disable or remove it, a prosecutor could argue that you eliminated a "safety feature," and that act shows your "recklessness" or "disregard for safety." An uninformed jury could well be swayed by such nonsense. Lastly, there are plausible reports that gun locks have activated spontaneously, rendering the gun inoperative. You can find them in several websites if you just use a typical search engine.)

Just my 2 cents.

[Trendkill]

Well....OK, unless you have to face more than one assailant. Just two weeks ago in my town there was a burglary (morning, back door kicked in, stuff stolen), and a neighbor witnessed THREE guys leaving the house. So, if three gang buddies enter the house, then having that 7th cartridge might be useful.

If you shoot one gang buddy in the neck...and he's hosing blood everywhere....more than likely gangbuddy #2 and #3 will high-tail it out of there lest they become blood sprinklers too.

[axhoaxho]

I have a S&W 686-2 and my wife has a Ruger GP100. Both are excellent revolvers, and wouldn't go wrong with either of them.

Make sure to try to handle both revolvers for the fitting of your hands. While the 686 fits my hands perfectly, my wife prefers the GP100. It is a very personally choice.

Good thing is that both the (6-shots) 686 and GP100 can use the same size of speedloaders from HKS and Safariland, which is a plus if we plan to own both revolvers in the household.

With best regards,

[Mr.CRC]

What are your priorities?

For me, the first has to be how well I shoot the gun.

One unfortunate thing about the rented gun I tried is that it was very dirty and got hung up once in DA. Hopefully my local store will still have both models on the shelf. Last time I handled them in the store, the S&W was preferable in terms of smoothness of DA and crispness of trigger in SA. Since I do like to shoot well for fun sometimes, this is somewhat important.

In a defensive situation, the differences between the guns are subtle and I don't think would make much difference.

That depends on how it feels in my hand and the amount of instinctive speed and smoothness with which I can put it on target.

If I can shoot it well, then the next consideration for me becomes that of durability (which leads then to issues of cost and maintenance).

In my experience, the Ruger GP 100 is the more durable.

What sort of experience? Have you seen a S&W fail?

(Also, I would never own a gun with a gun lock on it. If you disable or remove it, a prosecutor could argue that you eliminated a "safety feature," and that act shows your "recklessness" or "disregard for safety." An uninformed jury could well be swayed by such nonsense. Lastly, there are plausible reports that gun locks have activated spontaneously, rendering the gun inoperative. You can find them in several websites if you just use a typical search engine.)
Just my 2 cents.

Hmm. I get swayed back and forth about this lock thing. I need to get back to the store and check it out in person again. But it still troubles me.