First gun decision

Which gun?

  • Total voters
    78
A

Ares88ep

Inactive
So I'm deciding on my first gun it would be mainly for firing at the range and home defense. I've decided to go with a .357 magnum revolver that way I can practice with .38 specials untill I'm more comfortable then move up to the magnum rounds. I really like the 4" barrells.

I have several in mind from doing research give me some feedback please.

Taurus 66
Taurus tracker 627
Ruger GP100
S&W 686

Is the S&W worth the extra money?

Looks wise I'm really leaning towards the Taurus 627 after that it's kind of a tie between the ruger and the 686.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a Taurus basher, have owned two, but do yourself a favor and get the Ruger or the S&W. Answer to your question, depends on what you want. Have had both Ruger and S&W double action .357s and I don't think the S&W is worth the extra $$$. But many will disagree.
 
Ruger or Smith and Wesson. Ruger is heavier, accuracy probably about the same. You will likely get more guns later anyway so don't overthink it. I think the Smith and Wessons handle the best of current production guns.
 
My personal opinion go with the ruger, they are bull strong, accurate, will last a lifetime, and made in the U.S.A. I watched a friend learn reloading with one and he did things that would have reduced a lesser revolver to scrap!!! it still is capable of taking groundhogs at 100yds and hitting golfballs at 25yds.
 
I will echo the first two responses. The Ruger or S&W will serve you best. If funds allow, I would go for the Smith, I really do love their revolvers, and should you decide to sell it later, they hold their value much better.

Sent from my HTC One X
 
The S&W, holds value better, nicer trigger, very reliable.
The Ruger, less money a, built like a tank will shoot almost anything.
The Taurus's, (if you get a good one) are reliable solid pistols, shoot well, will have the lest resale value down the road and taurus has a bad customer service reputation should repair ever be needed. S&W and Ruger have a fair to good service reputation.
I tend to the S&W revolvers because I like their looks, and how they feel in the hand and in 40 years of revolver shooting have only had one problem with a S&W that the factory took care of rapidly.
 
All these guns excluding the S&W are in the $500 range while the Smith is more like $700. My real question is, is there anything wrong with any of the guns besides there customer service?
 
Voted...

For S&W 686+ cause I like it. Wish I could shoot it better & I will in time, though center mass on target is not a problem.
This was my 1st revolver & I can't comment on the other choices listed in the poll.
2nd revolver, bought for the wife was a S&W Bodyguard 38. She also has a Glock 19. I also have a Kimber Stainless ProRapto II & a Wilson Combat CQB Elite.
Think I am set.
 
Can't go long with either the Smith or the Ruger. I'm usually actually a little more of a Ruger guy myself. However, I like the feel of the 686 better than the GP100 so I voted Smith in this case. The 686 is a smooth shooter.
 
Go with the GP 100 or S&W 586/686, if for no other reason, than to represent America. If you want one that you can take to hell and back get the GP100. If you want one that looks good get the 586/686. Personally, I would take the GP if its your first revolver as the are a "little" more sturdy, and you can work on them much easier. With that being said, I think the the 686(pre lock) is a better looking gun; and come on, its S&W!!!!!!

If you are buying new, get a GP.
 
I have a 4" barrel 686+ and its really a terrific revolver. Very smooth wonderful trigger and great balance. That would be my first choice.

I've never shot a GP100. I do have double action and single action Ruger revolvers and they are strong solid guns. If theyre anything like my Redhawks or my brother's older Speed Six - theyll serve you well.

I would choose one of these two -- it comes down to your budget and personal preference. Either will do the job you mentioned.


I currently own two Taurus guns. They are Tracker style - a 4" barrel 41 Mag and a 5" barrel 454 Casull. (An earlier Taurus 454 - which is a hunting cartridge - I had was traded off because of quality issues). One thing to consider in a self defense gun is muzzle blast and flash. That is, how loud the thing is and the flash that's produced. The 357 is loud. I wouldnt want to have to shoot one indoors in a defensive situation. I particularly wouldnt want to shoot that Taurus because of its muzzle porting. That makes it even louder, and puts flash up in your line of sight. Not good to be blinded by flash in the low light level conditions often encountered in self defense. (There's ammo designed to try to reduce this flash - but youre not helping things with a ported gun.)
 
Last edited:
I really liked the way the Tracker looked, it is an intimidating looking gun but I never thought about that and how the ported barrel would work indoors. I'm deff more leaning to the Ruger KGP-141 now which is the gp-100 with a Satin stainless finish. I would deff have to be carefully when loading and unloading with that finish. But considering how much cheaper it is in comparison to the 686 it seems like a no brainer.
 
The 686 is the finest .357 on the market. The GP is a close second. Is the S&W worth the extra money? Yes in my opinion, but you have to see if the slightly better S&W trigger is worth it to you.

Don't mistake a lower price for a better value.

As a prior Taurus owner, those guns aren't even close to the same class as S&W or Ruger.
 
Since the poll allowed voting for more than one option, I voted for both the 686 and GP100. Both of those are excellent quality revolvers that would serve their owner well and which one is better is more a matter of personal preference than anything. I did not vote for the Taurus offerings because, while I do believe that Taurus can make a good gun, I don't believe that they have the same level of quality control or customer service as Ruger and S&W do and Taurus' resale value can only be described as abysmal.

Between the Ruger and the S&W, consider the following differences:

The Ruger will sit lower and further forward in the hand while the S&W will sit higher and further back. In my experience, the Ruger's lower bore axis will yield a bit less muzzle rise while the S&W's slightly higher bore axis produces less perceived felt recoil.

The DA triggers are also quite different between the two. The Ruger trigger "stacks" which means that the shooter can feel a slight difference in the DA trigger stroke just before the trigger breaks while the S&W has a smoother, more consistent pull all the way through. Neither is necessarily better as some people like a bit of stacking while others don't.

The cylinder-release latches also work differently. The Ruger uses a pivoting button that is pushed in while the S&W uses a sliding thumb piece that is pushed forward. Again this is a matter of personal preference as what feels natural to one person may feel quite awkward to another.

Also, while a S&W is more expensive than a Ruger, the difference is not as large as some make it out to be. When a 686 and GP100 which are comparably equipped (finish, barrel length, cylinder capacity, sights, and other features are the same or close), the S&W usually sells for about $100 more than the Ruger. However, the S&W is available in a wider array of configurations than the Ruger is.

I personally prefer S&W revolvers as they are what I'm most familiar and comfortable with, but I also think that Rugers are excellent quality and that people who choose them are no less well armed than I.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top