Which 357 to buy?
- Thread starter joej
- Start date
KEN CHAVEZ
New member
The one and only.
Smith & Wesson, Model-686(plus) !
Smith & Wesson, Model-686(plus) !
Several choice's-
The Smith & Wesson model 19/66 .357 magnum makes for a
very nifty carry package, with its 4" barrel weighting in at
a mere 35 ozs.
The Smith & Wesson model 586/686 is basically the same
gun; but where as the 19/66 is built on the K-frame, the
586/686 is built on the L-frame. Thus, the latter has the
fully under lugged barrel; making the 4" version come in
at 42 ozs.
Also, Ruger has two models that are worthy of mention.
First, the Security-Six was introduced in about 1976 and
can be found in either blue or stainless. If memory serves
me correctly, I believe it is comparable in weight to S&W's
model 19/66.
Secondly, the Ruger GP-100 series is probably the best
buy, value wise. Built like a "Sherman tank" this gun will
take a licking, and keep on'a ticking. Keep in mind, that
all the weapons mentioned thus far come equipped with
adjustable sight's; a feature that one wants in a target
weapon.
So, you asked what would I pick? The answer is simple,
a 4" barrel Smith & Wesson 686-5 six shot. I just
can't get use to a "wheelgun" that fires 7 round's.
Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
The Smith & Wesson model 19/66 .357 magnum makes for a
very nifty carry package, with its 4" barrel weighting in at
a mere 35 ozs.
The Smith & Wesson model 586/686 is basically the same
gun; but where as the 19/66 is built on the K-frame, the
586/686 is built on the L-frame. Thus, the latter has the
fully under lugged barrel; making the 4" version come in
at 42 ozs.
Also, Ruger has two models that are worthy of mention.
First, the Security-Six was introduced in about 1976 and
can be found in either blue or stainless. If memory serves
me correctly, I believe it is comparable in weight to S&W's
model 19/66.
Secondly, the Ruger GP-100 series is probably the best
buy, value wise. Built like a "Sherman tank" this gun will
take a licking, and keep on'a ticking. Keep in mind, that
all the weapons mentioned thus far come equipped with
adjustable sight's; a feature that one wants in a target
weapon.
So, you asked what would I pick? The answer is simple,
a 4" barrel Smith & Wesson 686-5 six shot. I just
can't get use to a "wheelgun" that fires 7 round's.
Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
If you research our TFL archives, you will find thousands -- no fooling -- of posts re this topic. The general feeling seems to be, for great "all purpose" .357 magnums, Smith's 586/686 and Ruger's GP100 series are best. More specifically, the GP100 series is generally viewed as a "best value", with great durability and reliability. The S&W 586/686 series has a somewhat smoother initial trigger pull, although many GP100 owners (and I own two) find Ruger's triggers to be perfectly adequate -- and they become smoother with use (including dry firing).
I would personally refrain from "seven shooters", since I have read some commentary that they tend to go out-of-timing more frequently than traditional revolvers.
IMHO, you cannot go wrong with either the GP100 or the 586/686 -- and both will provide many decades of excellence, with the great flexibility of .357 magnum and .38 Special loads.
I would personally refrain from "seven shooters", since I have read some commentary that they tend to go out-of-timing more frequently than traditional revolvers.
IMHO, you cannot go wrong with either the GP100 or the 586/686 -- and both will provide many decades of excellence, with the great flexibility of .357 magnum and .38 Special loads.
Johnny Guest
Moderator in Memoriam
Ah, the old "range use and everyday carry" quandry.
Couple of points - - -
A handgun which is no burden at all in a range bag can be a load of bricks when packing it concealed. If one has the option of everyday carry, better a less-than-ideal range piece, in favor of a gun you WILL carry.
The 2-1/2" round butt models 19 and 66 are some of the most attractive revolvers from the 60s and 70s, but DO have some drawbacks. - - -
VERY short ejector rods. Unless struck JUST right, they don't extract .38 Spl cases properly, far less mag cases.
They are difficult to holster properly- - - A four-inch barrel USUALLY hides better than a 2.5 incher, as the longer barrel riding against the hip presses the butt against the body. More people are "burned" by the tumor-like protrusion of the butt than by the extra bit of barrel.
Unless one is into handgun hunting, a K-frame S&W with fixed sights (M-13 or -65,) or Ruger Service-Six is close to ideal. Both can be had in three-inch barrel, with a slight advantage of barrel length.
If you prefer adjustable sights, Ala Dan has already written of the S&W 19 and 66 and the Rugers.
Any of these medium frame revos can be properly holstered (and belted, an important part of the carry combo) in a very concealable manner. I like to replace the the stocks, because the square butt four-inchers usually come with oversize handles.
Whatever you decide, good luck to you.
Johnny
Couple of points - - -
A handgun which is no burden at all in a range bag can be a load of bricks when packing it concealed. If one has the option of everyday carry, better a less-than-ideal range piece, in favor of a gun you WILL carry.
The 2-1/2" round butt models 19 and 66 are some of the most attractive revolvers from the 60s and 70s, but DO have some drawbacks. - - -
VERY short ejector rods. Unless struck JUST right, they don't extract .38 Spl cases properly, far less mag cases.
They are difficult to holster properly- - - A four-inch barrel USUALLY hides better than a 2.5 incher, as the longer barrel riding against the hip presses the butt against the body. More people are "burned" by the tumor-like protrusion of the butt than by the extra bit of barrel.
Unless one is into handgun hunting, a K-frame S&W with fixed sights (M-13 or -65,) or Ruger Service-Six is close to ideal. Both can be had in three-inch barrel, with a slight advantage of barrel length.
If you prefer adjustable sights, Ala Dan has already written of the S&W 19 and 66 and the Rugers.
Any of these medium frame revos can be properly holstered (and belted, an important part of the carry combo) in a very concealable manner. I like to replace the the stocks, because the square butt four-inchers usually come with oversize handles.
Whatever you decide, good luck to you.
Johnny
If it is going to be carried a lot and shot a little (or a lot with reasonable loads), then a Smith & Wesson model 19 or 66 would be a great choice. They are the lightest weight all steel .357's that I would trust with my life. If this is going to be carried concealed and close to your flesh, you might want to consider the models 13 or 65, same guns with fixed sights, no sharp edges!
I like....
.....Both the S&W 686 Plus and the Ruger GP 100. Either one is a fine choice.
Oh, and if you are willing to go single action (I personally like single actions better) then take a look at the Ruger Vaquero and Ruger Blackhawk. Neither the Vaquero or Blackhawk come in 4" barrels though...
.....Both the S&W 686 Plus and the Ruger GP 100. Either one is a fine choice.
Oh, and if you are willing to go single action (I personally like single actions better) then take a look at the Ruger Vaquero and Ruger Blackhawk. Neither the Vaquero or Blackhawk come in 4" barrels though...
Johnny Guest makes an excellent point about an extra 1"+ not being a problem for CCW - & maybe an assist.
That extra 1-1/2" (a 4" over a 2-1/2" tube) sure makes a difference for range/plinking use - not at all for CCW though.
We've a couple 19/66 in 2-1/2 & 4" so no bias either way, just that he brings up a good point.
The ejector length is a consideration, although not one usually ever needed in any but the absolute worst case (of worse cases) situations - nice to have full extraction though.
I'm partial to used S&W 19/66 due to politics. You could certainly do worse. I've shot quite a few Ruger Sec 6/GPs & though not as "fine" as I care for, they do the trick quite nicely. Far as that goes, I've shot some "nice enough" Astras & Taurii too.
That extra 1-1/2" (a 4" over a 2-1/2" tube) sure makes a difference for range/plinking use - not at all for CCW though.
We've a couple 19/66 in 2-1/2 & 4" so no bias either way, just that he brings up a good point.
The ejector length is a consideration, although not one usually ever needed in any but the absolute worst case (of worse cases) situations - nice to have full extraction though.
I'm partial to used S&W 19/66 due to politics. You could certainly do worse. I've shot quite a few Ruger Sec 6/GPs & though not as "fine" as I care for, they do the trick quite nicely. Far as that goes, I've shot some "nice enough" Astras & Taurii too.
Both the Smiths and Rugers offer something. I agree with Ala Dan that Ruger has some offerings worthy of consideration. If it was to be a concealed piece I would search out an old Ruger Service or Speed Six with fixed sights. The 2 3/4" bbl allows a full ejector rod stroke vs. the 2.5" Smiths and they weigh comparable with the Ruger a bit stronger than the K frame. The current GP-100 can be had in a 3" bbl. configuration without the full underlug but weighs probably 3-4 oz. more than a "6" series Ruger.
As for the Smiths I have favored a 686 Mtn. Gun. They weigh about 35.5 oz with the 4" tapered barrel and I like how it balances so it weighs about the same as a 4" K frame 19 or 66 and holds 7 shots.
Having both the 686 Mtn. Gun and a GP-100 4" adjustable sighted gun I would be hard pressed to part with either one. The GP I have, though weighs about 41 oz. vs. the 35 or so for the Mtn. Gun.
Bear
As for the Smiths I have favored a 686 Mtn. Gun. They weigh about 35.5 oz with the 4" tapered barrel and I like how it balances so it weighs about the same as a 4" K frame 19 or 66 and holds 7 shots.
Having both the 686 Mtn. Gun and a GP-100 4" adjustable sighted gun I would be hard pressed to part with either one. The GP I have, though weighs about 41 oz. vs. the 35 or so for the Mtn. Gun.
Bear