Tell us what you DON'T like!
- Thread starter Sevens
- Start date
Pond James Pond
New member
I have two revolvers, different enough that I like the both without detracting from one another.
When I read the OP I was about to respond when I realised that I'd struggle to answer!
I slept on it (the idea, not the revolver) and have managed to squeeze out the following, but not without a degree of barrel scraping:
My Redhawk in .44 Mag:
I didn't like the grips so changed them, now they are fine. I didn't like the front sight as in some light it just disappeared! A FO front blade sorted that out. So the bits I didn't like are now sorted!
My Astra 680 snub:
I suppose the only thing that I'd try and change is that speedloaders don't work with this revolver: the grips get in the way. I even made my own low-profile grips with a speedloader/thumb groove in it and it still isn't easy to use, but it's doable. Aside from that, the option of +P would be nice, but given that 158gn Spl are not overly comfortable, I don't mourn it too much.
Other than that, I like them both a great deal!
When I read the OP I was about to respond when I realised that I'd struggle to answer!
I slept on it (the idea, not the revolver) and have managed to squeeze out the following, but not without a degree of barrel scraping:
My Redhawk in .44 Mag:
I didn't like the grips so changed them, now they are fine. I didn't like the front sight as in some light it just disappeared! A FO front blade sorted that out. So the bits I didn't like are now sorted!
My Astra 680 snub:
I suppose the only thing that I'd try and change is that speedloaders don't work with this revolver: the grips get in the way. I even made my own low-profile grips with a speedloader/thumb groove in it and it still isn't easy to use, but it's doable. Aside from that, the option of +P would be nice, but given that 158gn Spl are not overly comfortable, I don't mourn it too much.
Other than that, I like them both a great deal!
bedbugbilly
New member
I think that I have only dumped two revolvers over the years because of developing a "dislike".
One was an old H & R 22 sidekick - I bought it for a "knock around" gun on the farm - barrel was bad on it and I could plow with it it shot so low.
Second was my 357 LCR - overall it ws a great gun as far as shooting, etc. but I just grew to dislike the overall "look" of it and traded off for a Smith Model 36 - I like steel better . . . but that's not really a "defect".
I can live or learn to live with "little" things - probably the most "bothersome" to me would be "grips". My stock Ruger New Vaquero grips went shortly after I got it for a nice set of smooth "gunfighter" grips" which were much more comfortable.
My Smith 36 grips went for a set of Pachmyer (Sp?_ grips that allow me to shoot all day and not chew up my hands.
Cheapshooter - I agree with you on the Rough Rider. I bought one to replace the H & R Sidekick I dumped. For the price, it's a good value and works just fine but I've shot SA for 50 years and that "safety" is the ugliest thing I've ever seen. I just leave it off and "live with it" so it's not issue as far as wanting to get rid of it. It shoots well but the "lawyer additions" to handguns do bug me . . . you can put all o them on that you want but they will never replace "common sense".
One was an old H & R 22 sidekick - I bought it for a "knock around" gun on the farm - barrel was bad on it and I could plow with it it shot so low.
Second was my 357 LCR - overall it ws a great gun as far as shooting, etc. but I just grew to dislike the overall "look" of it and traded off for a Smith Model 36 - I like steel better . . . but that's not really a "defect".
I can live or learn to live with "little" things - probably the most "bothersome" to me would be "grips". My stock Ruger New Vaquero grips went shortly after I got it for a nice set of smooth "gunfighter" grips" which were much more comfortable.
My Smith 36 grips went for a set of Pachmyer (Sp?_ grips that allow me to shoot all day and not chew up my hands.
Cheapshooter - I agree with you on the Rough Rider. I bought one to replace the H & R Sidekick I dumped. For the price, it's a good value and works just fine but I've shot SA for 50 years and that "safety" is the ugliest thing I've ever seen. I just leave it off and "live with it" so it's not issue as far as wanting to get rid of it. It shoots well but the "lawyer additions" to handguns do bug me . . . you can put all o them on that you want but they will never replace "common sense".
I tried an Astra Cadix .22 a couple of years ago, and two things about it really bugged me.
The hammer spur seemed almost too small for SA shooting, like it was an accident waiting to happen, sooner or later your thumb would slip off and fire it.
And I got a nasty trigger bite a couple of times when letting the hammer down.
I realize both of those things were due to user error, but the "slippery" hammer was the main deal breaker, and the trigger bite sealed the decision to move it along.
The hammer spur seemed almost too small for SA shooting, like it was an accident waiting to happen, sooner or later your thumb would slip off and fire it.
And I got a nasty trigger bite a couple of times when letting the hammer down.
I realize both of those things were due to user error, but the "slippery" hammer was the main deal breaker, and the trigger bite sealed the decision to move it along.
I love all revolvers including Smith and Wesson but I don't like the wide dove tail on the nicer Smith and Wesson hammers. I would much prefer a thin hammer like Ruger has simply because of the way I can get up on a revolver when I hold it. I also wish all revolvers just had bigger thicker grips because my hands are big. It's a bummer to have to always think about getting oversized aftermarket grips for every gun I buy.
Also, non-oversized beaver tails.
Also, non-oversized beaver tails.
Last edited:
I don't like rubber grips of any kind on a revolver, but I have a couple with Hogues because that's how they came from the factory. What I find totally offensive to the senses though are Pachmayr grips. That's the best way to uglify a revolver. Big turnoff when I am going through auction listings and someone has taken the beautiful factory grips off a vintage S&W n-frame and replaced them with these atrocious things. When such a picture pops up I immediately close out of the listing.
Super Sneaky Steve
New member
My grip for S&W revolvers.
The grip frame is part of what you grip, meaning you have a metal back strap that can punish your hand under recoil.
There are grips that cover this part, but for some frames that makes the reach to the trigger too far, particularly with N-Frames.
It depends on the shape of your hand, but I much prefer Rugers that have a small grip frame for this reason.
The grip frame is part of what you grip, meaning you have a metal back strap that can punish your hand under recoil.
There are grips that cover this part, but for some frames that makes the reach to the trigger too far, particularly with N-Frames.
It depends on the shape of your hand, but I much prefer Rugers that have a small grip frame for this reason.
A grip that fits well will handle the recoil, exposed back strap or no. The Ruger tradeoff on the SP101 is a poorly fitting grip. The exposed backstrap on the Redhawk is not a problem, if the grips fit and the trigger reach is right. The GP100 has it all worked out IMO, but I did opt for the Lett style Altamonts, not that this thread is really about grips again, mind you.
Overkill777
New member
.
This. I just got a model 66 and I'm falling in love with it only now I find out that if I shoot 125 grain magnums I will end up with a cracked forcing cone. Great work smith and wesson.
And I'm not a fan of stock ruger double action triggers at all.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Colt Pythons, and any other handgun with a ventilated rib.
God awful ugly.
God awful ugly.