My First Revolver - Opinions?

[evan price]

If you're considering a Taurus 65 or 66, add the Smith & Wesson 65 & 66 to your list. K frame guns are light and handy. Some may say the K "can't handle" a steady diet of Magnums. Truth is, the K frame can shot Magnums fine, the"trouble" was with hyper-velocity light weight bullets, and lots of them. Shoot 158gr and you're fine especially for light duty like you are describing. I shoot my Ks all day long.
The L frame S&Ws were developed to strengthen the K but still be lighter than an N frame. L frames are the 581/586 & 681/686. They are as strong as anything Ruger has going right now.
But the all time strength king would be the N frame. 27, 28, etc. it's a 357 built on a 44 frame.
I shoot 357s in my 28 and it feels like 38 spls in a Model 10.
Nothing wrong with the Ruger. They are plenty stout. Triggers not as nice as Smiths. But thats to each their own opinion.

[Sevens]

Well, the "all time strength king" in a .357 Magnum revolver may well have been a sleek, accurate and pricey hogleg from Freedom Arms. And in a double action, nothing ever made is likely to match the brute strength from the "only made for one year" Ruger Redhawk .357 Magnum.

But S&W .357 Mag revolvers are absolutely no manner of weak.

I am currently using an N-frame Model 28-2 to spit 158 grain jacketed soft points at some velocity north of 1,750 fps. I won't chrono it until spring time. But there is some smoke and mirrors in that and while -YES- there is some intentional mis-leading on my part -- everything I just said is 100% true and if you attempt to replicate that with a GP-100 I will suggest you do it with a string attached to the trigger while you stand behind a barricade.

[glocksmith]

Sevens, you know a lot about S&W's so maybe you can answer this - wasn't the myth about Smith's being weak and unable to handle a regular diet of stout loads, caused in part by the failures they had immediately after switching to non-pinned barrels? I heard that in those early days, the barrels were actually "unscrewing" themselves from the frame. It was some weird thing happening with the torque caused by the bullet racing down the bore - the direction of rifling twist in relation to the threads in the frame caused the barrel to eventually work itself loose.

[Mr. Glock]

The K-frames have a little eyebrow on the barrel right in front of the cylinder, meaning the end of the barrel was not the same diameter all the way around. This straight line created a stress point and the hi-vel 125s would batter that stress point to the point of cracking. The standard story is that the gun was meant for 38s in practice and 357 in more limited doses.

The L-frame is noticeably bigger in this area.

This is what I know, but I'll defer to some more expert-y S&W guys here.

But don't think Ruger escaped that problem either. In Ruger and His Guns, they admitted having issues with the Security Six family as well, and that was one motivating factor for the GP100 (which is a tank compared to a Security Six).

[evan price]

K frames, the barrel bore is too close to the centerline of the cylinder, so to fit the yoke they had to remove a crescent of metal from the bottom of the forcing cone. When shooting high velocity bullets in large volume the cone can sometimes crack in the thin space. It's not common, but just common enough that it is an internet belief, like if you shot someone in the foot with an m16 the bullet will tumble all the way to the neck.

[Sevens]

Those posts cover a lot of the myth/reality/actuality?! of the K-frame .357 Magnums... models 13, 19, 65, 66. The forcing cone area is certainly weaker than the L/N frame and weaker than the GP-100 and it definitely HAS been a failure point in documented cases.

S&W arguably had no intention of building .357's in the K-frame, they were asked/pushed in the mid to late 50's to chamber the K-frame for .357 so that uniformed LE had the ability of the .357 Mag in a package that was smaller, lighter and easier to carry for long working days. It has often been argued that "S&W meant for .357 on duty but .38 for practice" but S&W has certainly never claimed that.

I have two different K-frame .357's and honestly, I find them uncomfortable to shoot with .357 Mag. My L-frame 686 is great for .357 and my N-frame Model 28 is even better and more comfy... if less refined.

As far as I know, the Security Six was never prone to or known for failure. As far as I know, the Security Six was taken out of production due to updated manufacturing. Folks argue both pros & cons when they compare the SSix and GP-100 (and I would say BOTH have their merits!) but there SSix was ended because they needed to streamline and update production methods and trim costs and the GP-100 was the result.

[Mr. Glock]

I would not have said it if I hadn't read it in Ruger and His Guns, the book. No personal knowledge except the Security/Speed Six is much smaller than the GP-100. Which is huge for 357 honestly. And it was an authorized biography too.

I'd assume it was less of a problem than the K frame issue. Think about the natural marketing angle....they had to make
Bigger gun, ours can handle it. Didn't happen though.

And, if I'm packing a 357, chances are it is a Ruger Speed Six/Security Six. Which, having taken them all apart a number of times, is basically a smaller GP100. Well, the GP100 frame is bigger, but everything else is exactly the same.

[Sevens]

If you think a GP-100 is huge for a .357 then you might really like a Model 27/28 and a Redhawk .357 would just blow your mind.

[Mr. Glock]

If you think a GP-100 is huge for a .357 then you might really like a Model 27/28 and a Redhawk .357 would just blow your mind.

That Redhawk 357 didn't make much sense, in my mind. At least the 27/28 had a historical basis.

[Brian D.]

If you think a GP-100 is huge then you might really like a Model 27/28 and a Redhawk .357 would just blow your mind.

It's funny with the Model 27/28 though: Unless more recent ones changed, they had sort of short over all cylinder lengths. You'd handload something a little odd like certain 200 grain or heavier lead bullets for bowling pin shoots, they would fit in a K or L but not N frame. Too long.

I would tend to agree with Mr. Glock about the Redhawk in .357 though, really sort of overbuilt. Do I mind a gun being a tank strength-wise? No. What gets me is that the cylinder hand has to turn so much extra weight when you pull the trigger, that can't make the DA stroke too easy.

[Sevens]

Nope, 27/28 never did change and the cylinder is shortish and at first glance you can really kind of see how the cylinder length with relation to it's mass & diameter even appears a little oddly shaped, at least to my eye. It's kind of like a not-quite-as-odd .45 ACP cylinder in an N-frame sized revolver. There is a certain space the Model 28-2 occupies that IMO is worth noting: what you have in the 28-2 is a very plain revolver, made to look plain and be plain and meant to save money and be put to work. It did all of these things extremely well and because of that, they made -MANY- of them. Because they are plain, sold cheap when new, got popular and so many were made... they are widely available today for totally acceptable prices. Like a Model 10 or a 39-2, when they made many many MANY, you can find really nice deals on them and they are pure fun and a lifetime of service for low money.

As to the Redhawk, we could argue that Ruger also thought it was a silly idea and too "overbuilt" and that's why it lasted only one year but I suppose that is up to each individual. For me, I think it is amazing and I really do want to own one but they are commanding collector prices and those prices aren't falling and as much as I would love to have one, it'll only happen when the right deal presents itself.

To the utility and use of a massive .357 of that size-- I see a lot to love. But then, I also spend a lot of time (more than most I would suspect) sitting at a rifle range with handguns and reaching out 100-300 to ring steel. I find this entirely entertaining and I can spend literally hours doing it. A massive Redhawk .357 would be a fantastic tool for exactly this kind of fun.

As for double action and the hand having to spin the serious mass of a heavy, over-built cylinder...
I can't say what the .357 Redhawk is actually like because I haven't has the pleasure. But my S&W .460 XVR may be the king of the massive hunk of cylinder in all the world of double-action revolver. The double action simply works. I have used it many times, but obviously tend to take the kind of time and patience you get with a single action shot. It might be a fun exercise to remove the cylinder on my .460 and weigh it. I wonder how close just the cylinder and ejector rod compare to the weight of some entire mouse guns. When you push to open the cylinder, it FALLS open and slams on your finger. If you threw just the empty cylinder at a bad guy it might tattoo his forehead. It is a comically large, heavy hunk of steel. But then... it's a handgun round that runs rifle pressures, so it needs to be.

[Mr. Glock]

I'd own a 27/28 and no doubt enjoy shooting it. But with Colt wheelgun prices going up, I've noticed pre-lock S&Ws on the up too recently.

For those big bucks, I'll take the TRR8 (8 shot 357 N frame) if I'm going to big 357s.

Although I've always liked the "Highway Patrolman" script down the side of the barrel.

[Sevens]

I would bet that if you put nose to grindstone, stopped often at shops and shows and always had cash at the ready...

If good fortune & gun karma smile upon you, a totally decent but less than mint Model 28-2 would come home somewhere near -HALF- the price of that gaudy monstrosity, the 8-shot 627.

[evan price]

I would bet that if you put nose to grindstone, stopped often at shops and shows and always had cash at the ready...

If good fortune & gun karma smile upon you, a totally decent but less than mint Model 28-2 would come home somewhere near -HALF- the price of that gaudy monstrosity, the 8-shot 627.

This is a 1956 Highway Patrolman (Pre-28)
Has been chromed by somebody sometime.
Shoots really, really well.
My 357 reloads in this, feel like a 38 special in a model 10.
$450 from Gunbroker.
It's much flashier than I wanted.
But it's C&R, and for the price I can't complain because it came right to my door via US Mail.
I'd rather have a shooter that's cosmetically challenged but a tight action and good bore.

[Mr. Glock]

The TRR8 runs about $1150, so you are thus correct. I want to say I saw nice 28s about $700 or so at the last gun show, but I wasn't really paying attention, so I could be off. I'll take a closer look next time.

I think the TRR8 is sharp, but the price is steep too.

But, you both inadvertently bring up another point. Pre-Gunbroker, you could always expect to find a selection of used guns at any shop, now it just goes on GB. Efficient, but less thrilling than finding an underpriced masterpiece somewhere.