Thanks Ala Dan, good to hear from you. I've been reading your posts on that spiffy 5-inch .44 and I think I'm gonna have to have one of those, heh heh. Hopefully someone will buy my Redhawk.
If I might add a little more fuel to the fire ... I think the GP100 is a fine weapon. But the ones I've seen (with adjustable sights) are nearly as big as my Redhawk. I find them to lack the finesse and refinement on the level of the 686, which feels "just right" to an awful lot of people. Having carried the 686 hunting, I can tell you that if you have to carry one of these, the 686 soon feels like a whole lot of gun.
I think we have to ask ourselves if we are really going to be hot-loading any .357's. Do you like sticky/difficult extraction? I might humbly suggest that if someone feels the need to do this, maybe they would be better off with a bigger caliber in the first place, such as a .41 Magnum.
While I'm at it, I hate to get on here all the time and complain about my Rugers compared to my Smiths, but the quality gap in my mind only continues to widen. I was reminded of this thread again today when I had my 686 out playing with it and decided to get out my Bearcat and Redhawk. Sigh. Both of them have, for lack of a better description, lumpy, bloated-looking frames. I don't know what Ruger does this, but the sides of the frame are noticeably bent to accommodate ... whatever it is they did. I've seen cheap companies dent a sideplate by over-torquing a screw, but this is simply bizarre in its consistency and uniformity. They both work, but each looks as if a gorilla used a vise to put together two ill-fitting halves of a frame.
I always thought the sides of a revolver frame were best left FLAT, as on my 686. I have finally concluded that my sub-standard Rugers are going to be sold as soon as possible to pay for some Smith and Wesson replacements.
Warm Regards,
Grapeshot
If I might add a little more fuel to the fire ... I think the GP100 is a fine weapon. But the ones I've seen (with adjustable sights) are nearly as big as my Redhawk. I find them to lack the finesse and refinement on the level of the 686, which feels "just right" to an awful lot of people. Having carried the 686 hunting, I can tell you that if you have to carry one of these, the 686 soon feels like a whole lot of gun.
I think we have to ask ourselves if we are really going to be hot-loading any .357's. Do you like sticky/difficult extraction? I might humbly suggest that if someone feels the need to do this, maybe they would be better off with a bigger caliber in the first place, such as a .41 Magnum.
While I'm at it, I hate to get on here all the time and complain about my Rugers compared to my Smiths, but the quality gap in my mind only continues to widen. I was reminded of this thread again today when I had my 686 out playing with it and decided to get out my Bearcat and Redhawk. Sigh. Both of them have, for lack of a better description, lumpy, bloated-looking frames. I don't know what Ruger does this, but the sides of the frame are noticeably bent to accommodate ... whatever it is they did. I've seen cheap companies dent a sideplate by over-torquing a screw, but this is simply bizarre in its consistency and uniformity. They both work, but each looks as if a gorilla used a vise to put together two ill-fitting halves of a frame.
I always thought the sides of a revolver frame were best left FLAT, as on my 686. I have finally concluded that my sub-standard Rugers are going to be sold as soon as possible to pay for some Smith and Wesson replacements.
Warm Regards,
Grapeshot
