breakthrough
Moderator
how would you rank revolver makers? what do you think about charter arms, rossi, taurus brand revolvers?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
revolver maker per reputation
- Thread starter breakthrough
- Start date
1.) Smith & Wesson
2.) Ruger
3.) OLD (when they were affordable by mortal man) Colts.
4.) Dan Wesson
5.) Taurus, Rossi
6.) Charter and the rest.
There are a few semi-custom revolvers out there that may be better than S&W, but I don't have $6,000 and up to spend on a single firearm. They MAY be the best revolvers MADE, but they're not the best revolvers OBTAINABLE (not by me, at least).
S&W has been building revolvers since their invention, and had never turned out one that I thought was downright bad. I cannot say that of S&W's autopistols, especially the early double-column examples, but even that seems to be on the mend. S&W strikes an excellent balance between ruggedness and durability, leaning toward tunability (I exclude the X-frames, with which I choose to have little experience). The most powerful revolver made is not very usable if the trigger or other parts inhibit the shooter's hitting with it.
Ruger leans more toward durability than tunability, by building their revolvers out of fewer larger and more durable parts. I've never shot one that wasn't Abrams Tank-Tough. Tuning Ruger revolvers is not a hopeless task, and careful action work can make them very nice indeed. I still put their triggers a half-step behind S&W, which is no sin at all.
Before insanity overtook Colt, they turned out some of the finest revolvers made. Just try to find one of them now, for less than a seriously heavy house payment. Their triggers might rival S&W in terms of tunability, but they're also fragile, especially when full-house .357s are used. I spent 6 months seriously evaluating a 6" Python and tried VERY HARD to like the darned thing. It was the 2nd best .357 revolver for slow fire that I'd ever used. But I simply could not make it do the same things a Ruger S6, S&W M19, or S&W M27/M28, nor Dan Wesson would do in rapid fire of any sort.
The Dan Wessons MAY be as rugged as the Rugers, and tunable as the S&Ws, I'm not sure. I just remember nightmarishly LONG reload times from its cylinder latching system, and resolving NEVER to pop the ejector rod with an ungloved hand, after almost perforating my ungloved hand in that step. There may be no better hunting revolver made, but I couldn't get it to do other stuff.
Rossi and Taurus make very nice guns which, with work, can become great shooters. But they DO NEED THE WORK. Fit and finish sometimes leaves much to be desired, though function was never other than flawless. I exclude the "Raging Bull" series from this assessment, as I have only run 12 rounds through one. ITS fit & finish seemed nice than I expected from other models. I shot my new Taurus M431 3" .44 Special side-by-side with a friend's Charter Bulldog, and came away wondering how the heck Charter managed to stay in business. Not long after that, Taurus quit making the 431, which may be the explanation.
Charter Arms makes revolvers for people who MUST have one, quickly, until their firearms budget rises to a level at which another better revolver may be purchased. I'd rather have a Charter Arms revolver over none at all, and I'd rather have nearly any other brand of revolver over the Charter. Why Charter thinks their Bulldog snub(s) must be built in a too-light frame with too-short a barrel is something I think I may never understand. A 2.5" Bulldog is every bit as obstreperous as a 2.5" S&W M19 with full house .357 ammunition. Even the older 3" model is easier to shoot (either revolver, either caliber), no more difficult to conceal, and balances far better.
But what the heck do I know about revolvers? I'M a 1911A1 guy.
Somebody DID ask.
2.) Ruger
3.) OLD (when they were affordable by mortal man) Colts.
4.) Dan Wesson
5.) Taurus, Rossi
6.) Charter and the rest.
There are a few semi-custom revolvers out there that may be better than S&W, but I don't have $6,000 and up to spend on a single firearm. They MAY be the best revolvers MADE, but they're not the best revolvers OBTAINABLE (not by me, at least).
S&W has been building revolvers since their invention, and had never turned out one that I thought was downright bad. I cannot say that of S&W's autopistols, especially the early double-column examples, but even that seems to be on the mend. S&W strikes an excellent balance between ruggedness and durability, leaning toward tunability (I exclude the X-frames, with which I choose to have little experience). The most powerful revolver made is not very usable if the trigger or other parts inhibit the shooter's hitting with it.
Ruger leans more toward durability than tunability, by building their revolvers out of fewer larger and more durable parts. I've never shot one that wasn't Abrams Tank-Tough. Tuning Ruger revolvers is not a hopeless task, and careful action work can make them very nice indeed. I still put their triggers a half-step behind S&W, which is no sin at all.
Before insanity overtook Colt, they turned out some of the finest revolvers made. Just try to find one of them now, for less than a seriously heavy house payment. Their triggers might rival S&W in terms of tunability, but they're also fragile, especially when full-house .357s are used. I spent 6 months seriously evaluating a 6" Python and tried VERY HARD to like the darned thing. It was the 2nd best .357 revolver for slow fire that I'd ever used. But I simply could not make it do the same things a Ruger S6, S&W M19, or S&W M27/M28, nor Dan Wesson would do in rapid fire of any sort.
The Dan Wessons MAY be as rugged as the Rugers, and tunable as the S&Ws, I'm not sure. I just remember nightmarishly LONG reload times from its cylinder latching system, and resolving NEVER to pop the ejector rod with an ungloved hand, after almost perforating my ungloved hand in that step. There may be no better hunting revolver made, but I couldn't get it to do other stuff.
Rossi and Taurus make very nice guns which, with work, can become great shooters. But they DO NEED THE WORK. Fit and finish sometimes leaves much to be desired, though function was never other than flawless. I exclude the "Raging Bull" series from this assessment, as I have only run 12 rounds through one. ITS fit & finish seemed nice than I expected from other models. I shot my new Taurus M431 3" .44 Special side-by-side with a friend's Charter Bulldog, and came away wondering how the heck Charter managed to stay in business. Not long after that, Taurus quit making the 431, which may be the explanation.
Charter Arms makes revolvers for people who MUST have one, quickly, until their firearms budget rises to a level at which another better revolver may be purchased. I'd rather have a Charter Arms revolver over none at all, and I'd rather have nearly any other brand of revolver over the Charter. Why Charter thinks their Bulldog snub(s) must be built in a too-light frame with too-short a barrel is something I think I may never understand. A 2.5" Bulldog is every bit as obstreperous as a 2.5" S&W M19 with full house .357 ammunition. Even the older 3" model is easier to shoot (either revolver, either caliber), no more difficult to conceal, and balances far better.
But what the heck do I know about revolvers? I'M a 1911A1 guy.
Somebody DID ask.
Last edited:
Ruger leans more toward durability than tunability, by building their revolvers out of fewer larger and more durable parts. I've never shot one that wasn't Abrams Tank-Tough
Casting the parts is usually attributed to that aspect of larger and "tank tough".
Korth makes an astounding revolver, but not cheap. For the more practical, S&W, Dan Wesson, Ruger, then all the rest in no particular order (although I might nudge Charter over Taurus and Rossi).
breakthrough, Please tell us what your budget is for a revolver. It will help us in zeroing in with some helpful input.
You also failed to provide us any input as to your experience or lack of experience with revolvers. As an example, have you had any bad experience with a particular manufacturer?
You also failed to provide us any input as to your experience or lack of experience with revolvers. As an example, have you had any bad experience with a particular manufacturer?
breakthrough
Moderator
budget about $700
experience shot 1 at a class I just took - smith wesson 686
experience shot 1 at a class I just took - smith wesson 686
what do you think about charter arms, rossi, taurus brand revolvers?
I'm a believer in learning from other peoples mistakes. Nice thing about these forums, I know enough about those manufacturers to stay away from them. Nothing they have to offer that Ruger or Smith doesn't, at least the types of revolvers that interest me. I've also read some people claim to have half a dozen Taurus revolvers and never had an issue, based on the reading I've done, they might be the exception to the rule.
S&W or Ruger for me.
I like Rugers, and will say up front that they are among the best made revolvers, ever. But the truth is that cast steel is not as strong as forged steel, and much of the mass of a Ruger revolver is required to make up for that difference. Unfortunately, the size and bulk of some Rugers (mainly SA) has given a lot of people the idea that it is "impossible to blow up a Ruger" (it is not) and that in turn has resulted in Rugers being used (and blown up) by folks who believe that huge overloads are both desirable and safe in Ruger revolvers.
Jim
Jim
Smith & Wesson, Colt, Dan Wesson, Ruger...about even really in my experience. In that order I like them. Not to say there is anything wrong with a Ruger at all, I just don't really care for the way they look.
All the others mentioned are "second tier" guns. Nothing wrong with them, I've owned some of probably all of them...Taurus, Rossi and Charter especially. Good guns for the money. I just wouldn't pay as much for one as I would one of the top tier guns.
All the others mentioned are "second tier" guns. Nothing wrong with them, I've owned some of probably all of them...Taurus, Rossi and Charter especially. Good guns for the money. I just wouldn't pay as much for one as I would one of the top tier guns.
Based upon my experience of fixing Charters, I found them to have many major and a lot of minor faults.
The most frequent was the jarring of the hammer strut out of its concave recess in the hammer. This would cause the cylinder strut to lodge at the back end of the bottom of the hammer and against the frame. This would allow you cock the hammer about halfway until it locked up solid. Since the problem didn't become apparent until you tried to cock the hammer, it could have potentially been the cause of one's demise in an SD situation. (A J frame Smith has the potential for the same problem, but, for some reason, I never had one come in like that.)
The second most frequent problem of those that came across my bench were the broken grip frames, generally caused by dropping the revolver. It was a relatively easy fix, but the owner had to spring for a new frame to be fitted.
Third most frequent was loss of parts of the cylinder thumb release. It is held together with a screw, a tiny spring loaded plunger and spring and an oddly shaped washer. If the screw backed out unnoticed, all of those parts were. lost.
Infrequent problems resulted from the cylinder stop plunger becoming frozen in its hole either due to WD40 gumming it up or rust, thus making the cylinder stop inoperable.
As a result of my observations, the Charter was another gun that was put on my "no fly" list.
I've outlined my lack of faith in both the Taurus and Rossi revolvers in other threads.
As always, YMMV.
The most frequent was the jarring of the hammer strut out of its concave recess in the hammer. This would cause the cylinder strut to lodge at the back end of the bottom of the hammer and against the frame. This would allow you cock the hammer about halfway until it locked up solid. Since the problem didn't become apparent until you tried to cock the hammer, it could have potentially been the cause of one's demise in an SD situation. (A J frame Smith has the potential for the same problem, but, for some reason, I never had one come in like that.)
The second most frequent problem of those that came across my bench were the broken grip frames, generally caused by dropping the revolver. It was a relatively easy fix, but the owner had to spring for a new frame to be fitted.
Third most frequent was loss of parts of the cylinder thumb release. It is held together with a screw, a tiny spring loaded plunger and spring and an oddly shaped washer. If the screw backed out unnoticed, all of those parts were. lost.
Infrequent problems resulted from the cylinder stop plunger becoming frozen in its hole either due to WD40 gumming it up or rust, thus making the cylinder stop inoperable.
As a result of my observations, the Charter was another gun that was put on my "no fly" list.
I've outlined my lack of faith in both the Taurus and Rossi revolvers in other threads.
As always, YMMV.
Last edited:
A vast majority of my experience is with Colt and S&W. My preference would go to a Smith in a new revolver. You have a pretty good choice with your budget for used ones. You might even be able to acquire a used 586 or a 686 within budget.
If you are wanting a new one, then you might want to look at the Model 10 or 36 in the Classic line of S&W. Here is a link to look at: http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...4_750001_750051_757903_-1_757767_757751_image
Both are .38 Special with the Model 36 as significantly smaller with a 5 round capacity.
Let us know how you make out and pictures of your new or used revolver when it happens.
If you are wanting a new one, then you might want to look at the Model 10 or 36 in the Classic line of S&W. Here is a link to look at: http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...4_750001_750051_757903_-1_757767_757751_image
Both are .38 Special with the Model 36 as significantly smaller with a 5 round capacity.
Let us know how you make out and pictures of your new or used revolver when it happens.
I think the Manurhin MR 73 is the best revolver ever built. I like Korths quite a bit too.
I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but I have never seen a French weapon made by a legitimate maker that was poorly made. I will freely admit that some of the designs leave a lot to be desired and are, shall we say, a bit odd, but they have always been well made.
One thing that always impressed me about the Manurhin revolver was the used of small roller bearings to ensure smooth functioning, a feature that you will also find in the magazine of a Berthier rifle.
Last edited:
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
Hard to argue with what Kosh said, except...
All the old Colt's starting at house payment prices.
The Police positive, pocket positive, and police positive specials.
The Police positives are chambered in some rounds that aren't obsolete, but could at least be described as vintage. The Positive Special is chambered in 38 special. There are lots of them around starting out just above $200. They aren't Pythons, but the one I owned was fit, finish, and trigger well above any modern production S&W I have handled. Fragile is spot on though. I wouldn't shoot any +p in them for practice.
All the old Colt's starting at house payment prices.
The Police positive, pocket positive, and police positive specials.
The Police positives are chambered in some rounds that aren't obsolete, but could at least be described as vintage. The Positive Special is chambered in 38 special. There are lots of them around starting out just above $200. They aren't Pythons, but the one I owned was fit, finish, and trigger well above any modern production S&W I have handled. Fragile is spot on though. I wouldn't shoot any +p in them for practice.
Omaha-BeenGlockin
New member
Have recently got back into revolvers in the last year and have purchased 3 new production models.
A 6.5" stainless Single Six Convertible .22/.22mag
A 4" 629 .44mag and
A 2" stainless Taurus 605 .357mag 5shot
I have been pretty pleased with all of them and still wanting a 4" stainless .357--have been going back and forth between a Blackhawk--686+ or GP100. Still don't have the cash for one and might get a Colt 1911 instead---oh well, its only money.
The Taurus is not as finely finished as the others but still works just fine and is fairly accurate---it was also half the price of a SP101---literally.
Had a Colt Peacekeeper .357 in the 80's and it lost timing----pretty much soured me on Colt revolvers from then on. The Peacekeeper was a budget finished Mark. Read an article in Guns and Ammo about it and had to have one.
A 6.5" stainless Single Six Convertible .22/.22mag
A 4" 629 .44mag and
A 2" stainless Taurus 605 .357mag 5shot
I have been pretty pleased with all of them and still wanting a 4" stainless .357--have been going back and forth between a Blackhawk--686+ or GP100. Still don't have the cash for one and might get a Colt 1911 instead---oh well, its only money.
The Taurus is not as finely finished as the others but still works just fine and is fairly accurate---it was also half the price of a SP101---literally.
Had a Colt Peacekeeper .357 in the 80's and it lost timing----pretty much soured me on Colt revolvers from then on. The Peacekeeper was a budget finished Mark. Read an article in Guns and Ammo about it and had to have one.
Last edited:
We are talking DA revolvers here because SA the rankings are different. Also I'm not including guns that are so expensive no one really wanted to shoot them enough to make it really count. (i.e. Manurhin, Korth and apparently Colts are reaching this price point too).
I'm only ranking guns brands I actually own or have owned.
1. Dan Wesson (new production)
2. Smith & Wesson
3. Ruger
4. Taurus (you can probably put Rossi in here too but I can't say for sure because I haven't owned one.)
I'm only ranking guns brands I actually own or have owned.
1. Dan Wesson (new production)
2. Smith & Wesson
3. Ruger
4. Taurus (you can probably put Rossi in here too but I can't say for sure because I haven't owned one.)
Model12Win
Moderator
1. Ruger.
Solid. Dependable. Just as accurate as a S&W. Built like tanks. Don't give in to politically correct bureaucratic BS. They are the last great revolver maker in the United States, and are by far America's largest and greatest gun company right now. The Rugers were built from the start as modern guns, with modern manufacturing techniques, but today they are regarded as newcomer classics and rightfully so. Ruger has continued to roll with the market, constantly adapting and they simply keep getting better, instead of worse like most other brands.
2. Smith & Wesson.
Good guns. Not as good as current Rugers IMHO, and the IL is a huge negative FOR ME. Unlike Ruger, S&W guns are all based on century plus designs and manufacturing techniques. In the struggle to keep production costs down, they've made many poor mistakes and today's modern S&W revolvers with MIM parts, matte finishes, two-piece barrels, and so on are a far cry from the excellent S&W guns of even 20 years ago. The old guns (pre 2000) are superb, as most know.
3. Taurus.
Hit and miss, but most seem to be pleased with their double-action revolvers and they have interesting and unique designs. I like them but the lemon ration is high.
4. Charter Arms.
The new CA guns are better than some of the old ones, but they are still rough and frequently have issues out of the box. Customer service however, is outstandingly good, and they are made in America. The .44 Bulldog is an iconic revolver.
5. Rossi, Armscor, various Turkish makers, etc. etc.
The bottom of the barrel. I avoid these, not worth my time.
6. Colt. Yes, I am being serious. Colt completely and utterly gave up on their revolver line, leaving consumers high and dry and in a terrible market vacuum where prices on Colts have soared. They are now impossible to afford for the working man, and nearly all are essentially safe queens or showpieces since spare parts and servicing are now outrageously high are completely nonexistent. I've never forgiven Colt for this. Everyone knows they made fantastic revolvers, but they are dead, and never coming back.
Solid. Dependable. Just as accurate as a S&W. Built like tanks. Don't give in to politically correct bureaucratic BS. They are the last great revolver maker in the United States, and are by far America's largest and greatest gun company right now. The Rugers were built from the start as modern guns, with modern manufacturing techniques, but today they are regarded as newcomer classics and rightfully so. Ruger has continued to roll with the market, constantly adapting and they simply keep getting better, instead of worse like most other brands.
2. Smith & Wesson.
Good guns. Not as good as current Rugers IMHO, and the IL is a huge negative FOR ME. Unlike Ruger, S&W guns are all based on century plus designs and manufacturing techniques. In the struggle to keep production costs down, they've made many poor mistakes and today's modern S&W revolvers with MIM parts, matte finishes, two-piece barrels, and so on are a far cry from the excellent S&W guns of even 20 years ago. The old guns (pre 2000) are superb, as most know.
3. Taurus.
Hit and miss, but most seem to be pleased with their double-action revolvers and they have interesting and unique designs. I like them but the lemon ration is high.
4. Charter Arms.
The new CA guns are better than some of the old ones, but they are still rough and frequently have issues out of the box. Customer service however, is outstandingly good, and they are made in America. The .44 Bulldog is an iconic revolver.
5. Rossi, Armscor, various Turkish makers, etc. etc.
The bottom of the barrel. I avoid these, not worth my time.
6. Colt. Yes, I am being serious. Colt completely and utterly gave up on their revolver line, leaving consumers high and dry and in a terrible market vacuum where prices on Colts have soared. They are now impossible to afford for the working man, and nearly all are essentially safe queens or showpieces since spare parts and servicing are now outrageously high are completely nonexistent. I've never forgiven Colt for this. Everyone knows they made fantastic revolvers, but they are dead, and never coming back.
I have owned a bunch of revolvers in my lifetime. I don't even know how many. Almost all of them have been reasonably good. It would be hard for me to rank them. I will just alphabetize. This is an incomplete list, just including the more recent ones. I got my first one about 35 years and six concussions ago, so I am not going to even try to remember all of the older ones.
Charter Arms - I own two. They both go bang every time. They feel kind of cheap, but they work.
Colt - two automatics, no revolvers.
Rossi - I bought one brand-new and it never worked right. I bought one ancient one that almost always worked. But my Model 720 (44 special) is absolutely outstanding and one of my very favorites.
Ruger - six, and my FiL has a fantastic GP 100 I shoot a lot. My SP101 is extremely disappointing. It has the 2nd worst trigger of any revolver I have ever owned. Then there are three Single Sixes and two Blackhawks. The SA ones are my favorite range toys. All of my Rugers have gone bang every time.
Smith and Wesson - two that both work fine. I don't get all of the hype, but mine are very old and maybe the newer ones are a lot smoother.
Taurus - I got a couple of great ones in the late 80's that I owned for ages until they were stolen not too long ago. I got a used one from around 1990 that is also excellent. The triggers and accuracy on these three are/were very good. One that I bought used recently ate up its own ratchet and it took two trips to the factory to make it functional, and it still has a poor trigger and mediocre accuracy. I own or have owned a few others that go bang every time but have rough triggers.
These are all that I recall clearly at 3:18 am (insomnia). I also own or have owned oddball foreign ones.
IMHO it's often about the particular firearm rather than the manufacturer, so YMMV.
Charter Arms - I own two. They both go bang every time. They feel kind of cheap, but they work.
Colt - two automatics, no revolvers.
Rossi - I bought one brand-new and it never worked right. I bought one ancient one that almost always worked. But my Model 720 (44 special) is absolutely outstanding and one of my very favorites.
Ruger - six, and my FiL has a fantastic GP 100 I shoot a lot. My SP101 is extremely disappointing. It has the 2nd worst trigger of any revolver I have ever owned. Then there are three Single Sixes and two Blackhawks. The SA ones are my favorite range toys. All of my Rugers have gone bang every time.
Smith and Wesson - two that both work fine. I don't get all of the hype, but mine are very old and maybe the newer ones are a lot smoother.
Taurus - I got a couple of great ones in the late 80's that I owned for ages until they were stolen not too long ago. I got a used one from around 1990 that is also excellent. The triggers and accuracy on these three are/were very good. One that I bought used recently ate up its own ratchet and it took two trips to the factory to make it functional, and it still has a poor trigger and mediocre accuracy. I own or have owned a few others that go bang every time but have rough triggers.
These are all that I recall clearly at 3:18 am (insomnia). I also own or have owned oddball foreign ones.
IMHO it's often about the particular firearm rather than the manufacturer, so YMMV.
Current production double action revolvers ...I'd rank them like this: ( and I own about 25 revolvers )...and I put 10,000 rds a year thru a variety of my revolvers.
1. S&W...solid guns in all aspects - some models out of production now were even better.
distant 2nd: Ruger.../ not great triggers and fit and finish is not there compared to S&W in my opinion. They're not bad guns - they're just not up to the level of S&W revolvers in my view.
a big drop to #3 ..../ Taurus, Rossi, Charter Arms... / quality of the steel, internals, fit and finish is just not there.
If you look at the used market values on these mfg's ...S&W, Ruger, Taurus, etc ...it will tell you what the market thinks of longevity, durability, fit and finish, etc../ if you were to look at all double action revolvers - including Colt which is no longer in production - then I'd rank S&W and Colt very close together as #1 and #2 ...with Ruger again, a very distant 3rd.
Having said that ( and I ranked them because you asked ) -- everyone should buy what fits their hands the best - and what they want !
1. S&W...solid guns in all aspects - some models out of production now were even better.
distant 2nd: Ruger.../ not great triggers and fit and finish is not there compared to S&W in my opinion. They're not bad guns - they're just not up to the level of S&W revolvers in my view.
a big drop to #3 ..../ Taurus, Rossi, Charter Arms... / quality of the steel, internals, fit and finish is just not there.
If you look at the used market values on these mfg's ...S&W, Ruger, Taurus, etc ...it will tell you what the market thinks of longevity, durability, fit and finish, etc../ if you were to look at all double action revolvers - including Colt which is no longer in production - then I'd rank S&W and Colt very close together as #1 and #2 ...with Ruger again, a very distant 3rd.
Having said that ( and I ranked them because you asked ) -- everyone should buy what fits their hands the best - and what they want !