revolver maker per reputation

Based on my own ownership/use of each, I would rate them:

1. Ruger and S&W tie on quality, Ruger has more to choose from

2. Colts are good quality, but since they are out of production I would not consider one if I was buying a gun to carry/shoot regularly. Too expensive and I would not want to have to repair one.

3. Taurus is a good brand in my experience. I know others have had less favorable experiences, but I would buy Taurus again.

4. EAA Bounty Hunter is a good single-action large bore gun. Not a carry gun unless you're a cowboy.

I have not owned a Charter, Rossi or other currently made brand.
 
I like revolvers, and have owned S&W's, Rugers, and Rossis. I have handled Charter Arms, both newer and older models, but never shot them.

While I prefer S&Ws, I have nothing bad to say about Rugers. They are 1 and 1a in my book in terms of having an excellent quality revolver for reasonable prices. I would have no hesitation in reccomending someone buy almost anything from their catalog.

My fling with Rossi didn't last long, but it never gave me any trouble. It was bought as a car gun, and after a while I decided I didn't want a car gun any more. Good, but not great. I have no direct experience with Taurus, but I would put it in the same catagory. The Charters have an up and down reputation, with older ones having a better reputation. If I were going to be buying another revolver from these three, I would probably get a Charter Bulldog, especially since there isn't really a better option from another manufacturer.
 
Rossi is now owned by Taurus. Taurus makes turds too often. Rossi is their budget line. :eek:

Freedom Arms hasn't been mentioned. Best factory SA wheelguns ever made. The '97 is incredible.

Ruger has an extra thing people haven't talked about: their DAs are built to be completely stripped down by the end user, making it easier to do minor tuning or spring swaps. This can make up for any initial downside in trigger feel.

The LCR family trigger pull is amazing. A lot of us hope that trigger migrates to other larger Rugers at some point.
 
1. Ruger/Smith: I think the LCR has pulled ahead of the J Frame in trigger pull. The 686 and GP Series are neck and neck-Smith gets points for a more decent out of the box trigger, Ruger gets points for no lock. You're a winner either way. If you want the big bores, get the Ruger.

2. Taurus/Rossi: If you get a good one, you get a good one. If you don't, customer service sucks. Taurus at least isn't afraid to innovate, even if their QC can leave something to be desired.

3. Charter Arms: Some neat designs and great customer service, but even their appearance is cheap.

4. Colt-Super expensive and few parts available. Why bother?
 
I agree with Jim March - that Freedom Arms ...makes some of the finest guns I've ever owned / mod 97 is the smaller frame / and I prefer the larger model 83 frame because it fits my hands better.

Just got back from a local gunshow ...and there were a number of nice revolvers available ...mostly S&W, a few Freedom Arms - and sone Colts...
 
1.) Smith & Wesson
2.) OLD (when they were affordable by mortal man) Colts.
4.) Ruger SA revolvers only
5.) Rossi
6.) Charter

and at 2587 Taurus :rolleyes:
 
1. Freedom Arms (that was easy!)
2. S&W - Many different models are still being made and the new ones are very accurate
3. Dan Wesson - Very fine revolver but only a 357 Mag is now being made
4. Ruger - Durable, serviceable and generally shoot pretty well
5. Colt - To get one to shoot, it is below the ones above but to get one to look at, it would be rated much higher.

Really not a big gap between #2 through #4. YMMV
 
I have always favored S&W's.

Not that Colt's aren't more finely fit and finished. They are. At this point they are a dead issue to me. I'm not a collector. If you shoot any revolver it will eventually break. Colt's aren't any more "delicate" than anything else but, being fit to much tighter tolerances, they tend to require service more often to keep them in top shape. It's getting to the point where service is an issue. The guys who really know their way around the insides of a Colt revolver are disappearing into retirement rapidly. I gave up all but one of my Colt's because of this.

I had a couple of Dan Wessons, and outside of their outstanding accuracy I did not find them especially appealing as far as fit an finish went. Not that it was bad but a notch below Smith & Wesson. Good guns, very accurate. That may be enough.

Ruger's are tough. Always felt they were a bit clunky, they lack grace but they have just about everything else.

Smith & Wesson sort of comes in first on nothing, but second on everything, and that makes then the winner to me.
 
I think Taurus makes great revolvers, especially if you go with the traditional steel framed models. I currently have one, I've had two others with no problems. I also have a Rossi 461 which had a couple break-in issues, but is fine now. That said, my first choice for a revolver is S&W, I just have a soft spot for their guns. With a $700 budget, if you wait a little while to save just a tad more you can get a new S&W 686 and start with the best. Ruger makes a good gun, and if you like them you should consider them (and with a $700 budget you can easily get a new Ruger GP100), but they aren't my preference (if I'm spending the money I'd rather get a S&W, if I'm going for savings I'd rather save a bit more than I'd save with the Ruger and get a Taurus).

Right now I'm considering another revolver myself. Because I also need a new shotgun, and I've convinced myself I want to finally buy a Glock, my budget is low. I'm considering a used Taurus 431 if I can find one (3" 5-shot .44spl), a Charter Arms Bulldog, a 3" Rossi 461, a Rossi 971, and a 4" Taurus 66. Still, despite the budget, I can't stop thinking about one of the 3" Talo S&W 686 (I love 3" medium frame revolvers, and I'd love to have 7 rounds of .357mag/.38+P for different self defense needs).

So, in your situation, my advice is save a bit longer and get the S&W, or get a Taurus (especially the 6 shot 65 or 7 shot 66). Either way, you'll probably be happy.
 
"...when they were affordable by mortal man..." That'd be never. Colts have always been very high priced kit. The fairy tale about Colt revolvers making all men equal was just Sam Colt's marketing genius at work.
Anyway, only have one revolver that works and it's a GP. Easy to work on, with fewer parts, all of which are SS. Versus the Smith's internal mess that isn't nearly as bad as a Colt Police Positive's internal nightmare.
Smith 'K' frame grips are not good for people with normal sized hands either. 'J' frames are too small out of the box.
Factory triggers all require fixing out of the box due to frivolous law suits. So how the trigger is out of the box makes no difference. They're all bad.
"...Taurus makes turds too often..." Yep and their direct copies of Smiths. They still had huge tool marks on 'em when they first came here. Virtually no customer service either.
 
DA/SA Smith, old or new is the way to go. Colts have drifted up into the collector ranks in price and to be honest, they were never better than Smith. Their Officer's Model in .38 Spl being the one exception.

For SA use I've owned a dozen Rugers ranging in calibers from .22 lr to .44 Magnum and all have been first rate. I can't speak to their DA's however I do see them as clunky looking, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder...they are hell for strong, however.

Rossi, Taurus, and Charter are budget guns that just don't measure up to the quality of a Smith or Ruger for a new gun. There are guys who swear by them, but that's my experience...

Rod
 
You have enough of a budget to buy a S&W,Ruger and Taurus,Rossi, Charter etc. But what is your purchase for??? Every day carry?? Home defense??
Last question is did you like the 686 you used to qualify??

Answer these questions and the Guys on this Forum can give you better more detailed advice on what's what.

Doc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top