BEST 357 EVER?

[Wyo. Coyote Hunter]

  Never owned a Colt of any kind. Rugers are ok, but the S & W line has always been soooooo fine. Right now I have a mint Highway Patrol. It has to be one of my three all time favorite revolvers. It is definately my favorite .357

[45-70.gov]

my 640 smith is not listed

neither is my handi

ruger black hawk  maybe

[Drilling Man]

  Well, those of you that would like to have a S&W M-27, you can now get a NEW one.  S&W is now making them again...

  DM

?
Two piece barrel, MIM hammer, not to mention the LOCK!!!!

The NEW 27's are not even close to the org. 27s.

  I feel the same way, i doubt there will ever be any new production revolver made to the "old" M-27 standards again...from ANY mfg..  I guess that's why i keep my old ones around, even though they no longer get shot much...

  DM

[outdoor max]

I like the S&W 686 far better than any revolver of any caliber that I have ever shot.

[SHOOTALL]

The Python when in time is the best for SMOOTH and accurate, The Ruger is the strongest bar none so it is the best for strength. The mod. 27/28 S&W guns stay in time with "normal" loads . The L frames carry nice and and are reasonably strong , The K frames will not take a diet of mag. loads for long . All S&W's lack the tapered rifeling and only some have the finish of a colt . S&W offer more than a 6 shooter a real plus for many now .
So one must decide what best they want

[S.B.]

"The mod. 27/28 S&W guns stay in time with "normal" loads ."
Personally, I disagree with this statement about 27s going out of time but, they do have a reputation of wearing the mechanics fast if fast double action shooting is frequent? I doubt they will have trouble keeping up with others when power of loads used, is the question?
Steve

[SHOOTALL]

Ruger has a reputation for being able to withstand over max loads , S&W do not . I know this from first hand experince .

[S.B.]

27s are built on the exact same frame as their .44 magnums and therefore have much more metal in the cylinder walls(smaller holes drilled here) than most other guns of the same caliber. Rugers are overly heavy(far too much metal) and their trigger pull is based on one single spring causing a rough long pull?
My $.02.
Steve

[SHOOTALL]

depends on the Ruger w/regard to trigger . how many springs influence a S&W revolver ?, Weight some like some don't

[SHOOTALL]

BTW a mod 29 4in bbl in ss ( 44 holes bigger so gun would weigh less than a 357 ) is 41.5 OZ's
686 4 inch bbl 40 oz
Ruger GP100 4 inch bbl 41 oz
these are printed on the S&W and Ruger site .
Please explain what you mean by overly heavy ?

[Drilling Man]

Ruger has a reputation for being able to withstand over max loads , S&W do not . I know this from first hand experince .

  Why would anyone with a brain be shooting a over max loads in anything???  They do make bigger cartridges with more power to take care of that problem...

  I've shot many many thousands of rounds through "N" frame 357's using full power loads, and i've yet to have one fail or show a short life span because of it.  Can't say the same for the Pythons i've seen go out of time...  I've had more than one Ruger fall apart with full power loads from the screws loosening...  I've had a single six break a fireing pin... ect... ect...

  Smiths are hammer forged, rugers are a casting, so of course Rugers are made heavier to have equil strength...

  I've shot two Smiths loose in my life, i've never had one fail...  M-27's are super strong revolvers!

  DM

[SHOOTALL]

Why would anyone shoot over max loads ? cause they wanted more preformance than was offered would be my guess . It has been for me . Before you say something silly consider the 38-44 was an over loaded 38 spl. , the 44mag. came from E. Kieth shooting over max. loads in a 45 Colt first then going to a 44 SPL. today there are +P loads and +P+ loads . Now many STANDARD revolvers are not approved for either +P Or +P+ loads . When shooting IHMSA many shot standard 357 Rugers and Freedond arms guns loading the 357 mag. to near 357 MAX. loads . I load standard 45 Colt cases to match 44 mag. preformance . BTW Hornady has a whole section on just such loads so there must be some interes in it .
Come to think if no one ever tried to boost power we would not have many of the rounds we do today . 44mag. 375 mag. 25-06 ,22-250 etc.
Oh yea in some cases the wildcat came before the factory load . the 357 mag. came along in 1935 , other than the cap and ball 44 walker nothing was more powerful until 1955 when the 44 mag came out . That is other than over loaded rounds hand loaders wetre making .
Rugers are injected molded under pressure , not really cast . If you take the time to understand the process you will find that when barstock is hammer fordged it is strong in one direction , Its strength is in one direction . When you inject the metal into the mold under pressure you end up with a frame that is strong equally in all directions . Keep in mind that a frame from a forged bar stock has to be machined with regard to max. strength in the direction it will see the most pressure . If you play that dreadful game of golf you will notice that a forged head on an iron has a very small sweet spot and a injected formed head has a very large sweet spot . Did you know both Ruger and S&W made heads for Golf clubs ? Note also "CAST" as you call it out sell forged because they hit father as cost is in some cases more .
Again the weight on S&W and Ruger are very close 1/2 oz. or so , Ruger also changed the geomentry of the lock work to place the notches in the cyl. in the strongest place . S&W seemed to catch on with the new .50 revolvers .
It all boils down to if you want a gun made just like Watt Earp had then go Colt or S&W . If you want a modern and stronger revolver then go Ruger .

[m-g Willy]

Rugers are injected molded under pressure , not really cast . .

It all boils down to if you want a gun made just like Watt Earp had then go Colt or S&W . If you want a modern and stronger revolver then go Ruger .

Far from a expert here, but I'm pretty sure that Rugers are wax castings.
The molded under pressure you are talking about are the MIM  parts S&W is using to cut cost over forged parts (hammers, triggers)

Rugers stronger than S&W??
I can't find it now but I did see where someone loaded a Ruger SBH and a S&W 29
hotter and hotter till one let go!
It was the Ruger that went first!!!=--Bulged cylinder!!
I would have bet on the Smith going first
Then again ,the test was only one example of each gun.
Even the writer stated that repeating the test might come out with opposite results each time.

[SHOOTALL]

I shot the loasds i had for my SBK in a Mod 29 custom DX and it locked it up . It deformed the window where the hand comes thru. It took a mallet to knock the action loose so the cyl. could swing out . The SBH only needed thr frame screws tightened and replaced from the beating .

One other point , alot has to do with the base metal you start with in either case .

[m-g Willy]

I shot the loasds i had for my SBK in a Mod 29 custom DX and it locked it up . It deformed the window where the hand comes thru. It took a mallet to knock the action loose so the cyl. could swing out . The SBH only needed thr frame screws tightened and replaced from the beating .

One other point , alot has to do with the base metal you start with in either case .

I can believe that.
I also believe if you test the strength of two 44 of any make you will never be able to tell which will let go first, everytime.

I also don't know why it matters which is stronger anyway!
You could get a 454 Ruger and say it's the strongest 45 colt made.
But what's the point?
If you are only going to shoot factory 45 loads in it why do you need the extra strength for?

The same goes for the 357.
 

[SHOOTALL]

If that is all you intend to do then that would be true . Of course it could relate strength to lasting longer .
BTW Ruger does use the wax removal system . The course form of the part is made in wax often a group of parts make up a tree . This is dipped in a material that dries to the wax , after sufficent material has formed around the part/parts it is heated and the wax melts away leaving a mold. The part is not cast in wax. but a hard mold .

[m-g Willy]

The course form of the part is made in wax often a group of parts make up a tree . This is dipped in a material that dries to the wax , after sufficent material has formed around the part/parts it is heated and the wax melts away leaving a mold. The part is not cast in wax. but a hard mold .

The materail the wax is dipped in is a form of ceramic paint(pretty amazing stuff)
After the wax is melted away and the mold filled with steel, the ceramic mold is just broken off the casting.
I don't know who came up with this idea but Bill Ruger was first to use it for guns.

[SHOOTALL]

Ruger dosen't know either , they say the process is 1000's of years old .

[S.B.]

SHOOTALL, when you get onto a thread, things never fail to heat up. Calm down, others are only trying to express their opines as well as you? Have you ever listened to anothers opinions and learned from them?
Steve

[Drilling Man]

Why would anyone shoot over max loads ? cause they wanted more preformance than was offered would be my guess . It has been for me . Before you say something silly consider the 38-44 was an over loaded 38 spl. , the 44mag. came from E. Kieth shooting over max. loads in a 45 Colt first then going to a 44 SPL. today there are +P loads and +P+ loads . Now many STANDARD revolvers are not approved for either +P Or +P+ loads . When shooting IHMSA many shot standard 357 Rugers and Freedond arms guns loading the 357 mag. to near 357 MAX. loads . I load standard 45 Colt cases to match 44 mag. preformance . BTW Hornady has a whole section on just such loads so there must be some interes in it .
Come to think if no one ever tried to boost power we would not have many of the rounds we do today . 44mag. 375 mag. 25-06 ,22-250 etc.
Oh yea in some cases the wildcat came before the factory load . the 357 mag. came along in 1935 , other than the cap and ball 44 walker nothing was more powerful until 1955 when the 44 mag came out . That is other than over loaded rounds hand loaders wetre making .
Rugers are injected molded under pressure , not really cast . If you take the time to understand the process you will find that when barstock is hammer fordged it is strong in one direction , Its strength is in one direction . When you inject the metal into the mold under pressure you end up with a frame that is strong equally in all directions . Keep in mind that a frame from a forged bar stock has to be machined with regard to max. strength in the direction it will see the most pressure . If you play that dreadful game of golf you will notice that a forged head on an iron has a very small sweet spot and a injected formed head has a very large sweet spot . Did you know both Ruger and S&W made heads for Golf clubs ? Note also "CAST" as you call it out sell forged because they hit father as cost is in some cases more .
Again the weight on S&W and Ruger are very close 1/2 oz. or so , Ruger also changed the geomentry of the lock work to place the notches in the cyl. in the strongest place . S&W seemed to catch on with the new .50 revolvers .
It all boils down to if you want a gun made just like Watt Earp had then go Colt or S&W . If you want a modern and stronger revolver then go Ruger .

  Sooo, what are you inventing by over loading your guns???  Those old times did it because more power wasn't available, but now it is!  These days all you have to do is buy more power, and get a gun designed for it, instead of trashing what you have.

  I have a foundry background, and i've made molds, poured iron, and worked in the lab checking hardness and treat samples ect., so i do know of what i speak...  I've done a little more than "read up on it", how about you?

  I also designed and swaged jacketed bullets, including bonded core bullets, and "factory loaded" them into cartridges "i designed", (and sold over the counter) as i had an ammo mfg. license for many years...  So, once again, i do know of what i talk about.

  I could go on, but i'm not getting into one of those "my dad can beat up your dad" threads!

  Make mine a "Smith" pleaseee...

  DM

[S.B.]

Personally, I'm with you Drilling Man. But, wouldn't begrudge any else from their choice, maybe 50+ years of shooting and owning them.
Steve

[SHOOTALL]

Drillingman enjoy your smith , Glad you have had experince . I see no need to bring dad into it either . If you are content to buy off the shelf that's great . If i feel i can inprove preformance then i will . I guess some people are happy with what others have accomplished and are willing to accept it as the limit while others seek to better it !
Guess its good some seek to improve what we have or we would still be hunting with a sharp stick , no just a stick the sharp part was an improvement now wasn't it .

[Wyo. Coyote Hunter]

  During the discussion of overloading ammo, I think, Elmer tried to improve on existing factory ammo of his time. He started with Blackpowder and moved into modern powders with his revolvers.  He tried to improve on what he had with handloading, which is one of the reasons we load our own. Now he did destroy a couple revolvers with over loads, BUT his intention was to improve on his ammo for the guns he had. I would not call the 38/44 and over load. It was made by the factory.  While Elmer loaded the 45 Colt, 38 spl., and .44 spl. pretty heavy, he found in good firearms they were safe loads, not what I would call and over load. I feel most of his loads are considered safe for good, modern firearms. Anyway, I also found it interesting Elmer started with Colt revolvers, moved to Smiths in the 30's and remained there the rest of his life. He had Ruger firearms and liked them, he could have had his pick of any of the firearms on the market at that time and his personal guns were Smiths. I like Ruger pistols and own several, have owned only one or two Colts. The few I handled and shot were top drawer. When I buy a Ruger revolver, I count on spending additional $ getting the trigger smoothed and maybe some other things. With Smiths, they are beautiful as is, atleast the ones I have purchased. About the only thing I need done with them is to have the  rear sight opened to let more light around the front sight to help my aging eyes to focus on the front sight easier. I don't doubt Rugers are fine serviceable weapons and very strong. But for the years I have left, I will probably be carring Smiths. Elmer was a pretty good example.

[Bigeasy]

This is one of those threads that just seem to go on for ever.....

[SHOOTALL]

Guess some feel there is no room for improvement . BTW the redhawk came late in EK's career .

[Tonk]

Yeah, I do want to reply to all the Great American "REDNECKS", who have never fired a COLT PYTHON and still want to compare it to their Smith & Wesson savvy! Now the Colt Python is number one in beauty, artwork and a finish that sparkles like a 10 carat diamond for starters. NO Smith & Wesson ever looked that good!~ Now to mention a Ruger or Dandy Wesson in the same discussion as a COLT PYTHON is pure ludicrous savvy.

It's ability to shoot tiny little groups out the barrel is second to none period, why the trigger pull on most of those S&W's was something only Paul Bunyon could work for the most part. The Colt Python is the finest looking revolver ever made and that is not just my oppion either. YOU take a look at the resale of any other used market on revolvers today and the COLT PYTHON will top the list of most valuable and biggest bucks to purchase.

I still have my target fired at the factory and shipped in the original box, the 5 shots fired did in fact clover leaf at 15 yards folks and that is no Bull Dung from the barnyard mind you.

[teamnelson]

Well now Tonk, I've never fired a Colt Python, and I've never been called a Redneck, although I doubt I'd be insulted if I had ... seems like there's good company to be found there.

As far as resale value, since the Colt Python is no longer in production and hasn't been since '96, and was only in production for 41 years, their value is actually a combination of both quality and scarcity. S&W has been making revolvers for over 150 years, so while they're quality is high, they're no where near as scarce. So while a used S&W may be cheaper than a Python, it doesn't mean the Python is "better."

As for accuracy, there's not been a gun made for years that isn't more accurate than the shooter. Take a comparable colt, smith, ruger, taurus, charter arms and put them all on mechanical rests and fire them remotely - they'll all fire marginally the same. Sure the group on the colt may be tighter than the Taurus. Now put those in someone's hands and check your results ... 

[Tonk]

TeamNelson, the workmanship of the Colt Python is something the Smith & Wesson's could never compete with understand, just so we get the facts straight. Now to mention a second rate handgun like the Taurus is like comparing a model T-Ford to a 76 Buick......there is no comparison and it has taken Taurus 10 years just to figure out how to get their pistols to shoot without problems. They don't even rate mentioning in the same sentence as Colt or Smith & Wessson, you just showed me your knowledge on the subject matter.

If you go back and check the records, the Colt Python was selling for a good deal of money compared to the Smith & Wessons long before they ever ceased production of the Python. It just so happens that this Redneck does know the true facts and COLT PYTHON is and will always (until something is made better) be the #.1 revolver in the world.  

[Drilling Man]

  May i suggest that you never sell your python, cause it's certainly spl...  I had 3 pythons that i shot enough to know that none of them were as finely finished, had as good a trigger pull or were more accurate than either of my old "N" frame 357's.  (read M-27)  If they had been, they would still be here, as i sure wouldn't sell a better revolver, and keep the lessor ones.

  I think i'll go by MY experience with more than a couple examples to compare to.

  DM

[45-70.gov]

TeamNelson, the workmanship of the Colt Python is something the Smith & Wesson's could never compete with understand, just so we get the facts straight. Now to mention a second rate handgun like the Taurus is like comparing a model T-Ford to a 76 Buick......there is no comparison and it has taken Taurus 10 years just to figure out how to get their pistols to shoot without problems. They don't even rate mentioning in the same sentence as Colt or Smith & Wessson, you just showed me your knowledge on the subject matter.

If you go back and check the records, the Colt Python was selling for a good deal of money compared to the Smith & Wessons long before they ever ceased production of the Python. It just so happens that this Redneck does know the true facts and COLT PYTHON is and will always (until something is made better) be the #.1 revolver in the world.  

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=150455762

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=150306542


korth