Dan Wesson VS Smith & Wesson

[Don45]

Hello I currently have a Smith & Wesson 586 and I am thinking of selling it and going to a stainless steel .357 Magnum and I was wondering if I should get a 686 or go with a Dan Wesson .357 Magnum?
I have heard some good things about the Dan Wesson but would like a bit more information, before I make my discission.
Any information on either of these makes, the good and bad points would be appreciated.
Thanks for anything that you can post for me.

Don

[supermag 445]

First of all I have to say I am biased here do to me owning a Dan Wesson 445 supermag.  I love it and it is the most accurate revolver I have ever owned.  They are very strong and accuracy is awesome and you can change barrels at a whim if you want.  

The smith will be lighter.

Well as you can see I love Dan Wesson's.   Even though Dan Wesson seems to be really involved in autos right now and doesn't seem interested in investing in new revolvers calibers and such and seems to be just happy with what they have.  This makes me upset I am not ashamed to say as I wish they would make a love of other calibers so I can have them all.  

But I will have to say Dan Wesson. Flexability and accuracy. Smith can't touch a Dan in this area.

Brian

[Questor]

I like the Dan Wessons as specialty target pistols, and I'd probably like them as hunting revolvers if I had one, but I think the S&W is best all around.  For 357s I would definitely take the S&W. For stuff like 45 caliber target revolvers, and silhouette guns I'd probably like the Dan Wesson. In 44 magnum, it's a toss-up. I have a hard time believing that a Dan Wesson is any better than a 629 DX, unless you need the barrel interchangeability for some reason.

Dan Wesson scared me away from a purchase once when I was considering a 45ACP target revolver. I couldn't find a distributor for them and they couldn't help me find one. I decided to put that project on hold. Maybe they've got improved distribution now.  That was about 2 years ago.

[unspellable]

The Dan Wesson is the strongest, toughest, and most accurate double action revolver made.  Period.  In  44 Magnum a Dan Wesson will run on 100 rounds of full house loads from now until hell freezes over.  A S&W 29 or 629 will shoot loose inside of a year with this kind of usage.  A S&W 44 mag is a rather delicate 44 mag, no getting around it.

The Dan Wesson has interchangable barrels.  A side effect of this is that the cyinder gap is adjustable.  On my S&W's I tend to find cylinder end play.  Take the end play out and the cylinder gap gets bigger.  No easy cure for the cylinder gap.

 I was a died in the wool S&W user for twenty five years.  The Dan Wesson lured me away.  Today I have vintage S&W's for display.  For real shooting I use a DW.

The only place a DW doesn't work out so well is as a pocket or hide away revolver.

As for quality control, I have bad examples of S&W, Colt, Ruger, Browning, Tuarus, you get the idea, they all make lemons.

[RollTide]

Chris,
Actually, the Dan Wessons ARE every bit as strong as the Super Redhawks.  They are actually the most durable revolvers made for extended heavy shooting.  As far as actual pressure rating, I would say the DW large frame and is about equal to the Super Redhawk.

As to the original question, I owned a S&W 586 and I replaced it with a Dan Wesson 357 20 years ago and I have never looked back.  The Dan Wesson is definitely more accurate.  At present I own 2 Dan Wesson 357's, and some other calibers.  I don't know of any make gun in the same caliber I would trade any of them for.

Given the versatility in barrel length, profile, sights, and grip contour you get with the DW, it is hard to beat.

Roll Tide

[Questor]

I'm still not convinced. If they're so good, then who, other than some silhouette shooters and their long barrelled models, is using them for competition? With all of the revolver events in action shooting, why are S&W's so common (and so commonly used by custom gunsmiths as the platform for custom guns)? I would think that if the Dan Wessons had something to offer the competitive shooter, they would have become popular in those circles by now.  If anyone needs a durable, reliable, and accurate gun it's a competitive shooter.

As for strength and shooting loose, who cares? How many people actually shoot a S&W enough to wear one out? And if it does get loose, you send it back to the factory and they fix it for a small fee.  I've never understood that argument. Maybe 30 years ago before S&W strengthened their model 29, but today it just doesn't seem to be a selling point unless you're in the habit of loading your ammo to higher than maximum pressures.

I'm just playing devil's advocate. As I said before, I'd like to have one in 45ACP/45 Win Mag/460 Rowland.

[Flash]

Having owned both, I would recomend the Dan Wesson for superior accuracy. My S&W 66 had poor accuracy and the timing had to be corrected before I sold it. My 15-2 on the other hand, would drive tacks with everything from a 4" barrel up to a 10". The sights were better and the cylinder gap is adjustable. I took special care to place the barrel nut in the same place, hoping this would consistantly generate the same torque on the barrel and everything combined, my gun was accurate as all hell. I also like the way the Dan Wesson grip fits my hand. My thinking is that esthetics won't score you any hits so go with the Dan Wesson.

[unspellable]

Not only will a S&W shoot loose, a lot of them come out of the box loose.  (I have several, much to my disgust.)  A serious silhouetter will shoot one loose in short order.  The S&W handles nothing heavier than the 44 Mag (At least up until the new X frame.)  The DW long frame handles the Super Mag line of cartridges.  Except for window length and cylinder length, its identical to the standard large frame.

The Redhawk will beat the S&W for durability, but is nothing out of the ordinary for accuracy.  This is a personal point, but I sold mine on grounds that it was ugly and clunky.

As for other competitive events, the currently popular ones involve speed shooting where a lighter revolver may be desirable. You don't see Redhawks in these events either.

One big over riding factor here, is that the shooting community as a whole is VERY conservative.  The shooting community is also VERY prone to do things according to the equivalent of urban legends rather than researching the facts.  It resists change.  Manufacturers are much the same.  DW did a little basic research into the questions of how forcing cone angle, chamber throat diameter, etc. affect accuracy.  The were the first company to do so.  These questions are obvious and you'd think that S&W, Colt, Ruger, et al, would have done so years ago.

Over the years millions of dollars have been spent on developing the 1911 and its clones as bulls eye guns in spite of the fact that there are other guns with inherently better accuracy.

Plenty of shooters believe the 45 ACP hard ball is a vastly superior stopper to the 9 mm hard ball.  No amount of factual evidence to the contrary will sway them.

I hear ridiculous stories about the virtues or faults of various guns.  You will hear that you can't do a trigger job on a DW because you will grind through the surface hardness on the trigger and hammer.  This is actually a possibility on the S&W (Although not likely.) where they are case hardened, but impossible on the DW where they are sintered metal and the same hardness all the way through.

[Questor]

What a great thread. I hope this helps put DW on the map more prominently. I'd like to see them do well.

[Don45]

Hello again and thanks for the posts, and keep them coming.
From what I have read in the posts I think that in the(hopefully near) future I will be looking to get myself a Dan Wesson and sell or trade in the 586.
I have a catalog from Dan Wesson on the way and I will have to look through it and pick which one to get when I have the money.
Another question for Dan Wesson owners, do you get much powder residue or leading on the cylinders?  The 586 I have does get dirty, but the single action .45 Colt Cimarron I have doesn't, so I was wondering if the Dan Wessons get much powder residue or not.
Thanks again for all the great posts.

Don

[unspellable]

Powder residue is independent of the revolver make.  The variables are the caliber, particular load, and cylinder gap.  A given amount of residue will be more or less noticable according to the finish of the gun.  It's more obvious on stainless than on a blued finish.

[oso45-70]

Fellow Shooters,
I have owned both S&W and DWs and found them both to be top quality
guns. Like one of the gentleman said,,, If you were going to shoot monster loads the DW would hold up better, Don't mean to offend any one
but from experience this is what i have found. Its like ford&chev. these debates can go on forever, My final take on it is ( they are all good )
Have a good day gentlemen and stay safe........Joe.........

[Ultima-Ratio]

FYI, when I called DW about their .45 Colts I asked them specifically if their revolver was as strong as the Redhawk relative to Buffalo Bore Ammunition they said NO.

[Flash]

When it comes to liability, every manufacturer will error on the side of caution. What manufacturer actually boasts about being the strongest and being able to handle monster loads? None that I can recall. They let the size and the material the gun is crafted of speak for itself.

[Drilling Man]

I owned and ran my own gun shop for many many years, and i also shot handgun silhouette, and hunted all over Alaska with handguns.

  I also mfg'd pistol ammo for sale, so it was no problem for me to get all the ammo i wanted!!

  I'm going to start right off saying that i "haven't" bought a new handgun in about 10 years, so this info is at least 10 years old!!  I sold Rugers, S&W, DW, ect....  So, i had a lot of opertunity to own and use them all, and i did just that!!!

  For many years i shot 50 to 150 rounds of full power loads out of my 44 mag EVERY week, and i've taken moose, deer ect.. hunting with it, along with winning more than my share of matches in the "production" class.

  I always liked the S&W model 29's better, and i always shot them better.  In the years i've shot them, i've only shot one M-29 loose, and to be honest i could have "tightened" that one back up my self.  I can't even tell you how many thousands of full power loads i ran through that revolver??  

  The load i used for hunting and match shooting was,  my "own" hard cast 255 grain "Keith style" bullet over 23.0 grains of H110, and a CCI mag primer.  I still use the same load today.

  I hunted with a 6-1/2" (later with a 6") and shot matches with an 8-3/8's".  I still have one of each, and i took a nice white tailed buck a couple years ago with the short one.

  Both DW and S&W are fine guns, but to me the DW seems crude compared to a S&W, especially in the action and trigger department!

  One last thing, don't ever think that a Ruger SRH is a "lot" stronger than a S&W M29 because it's so much bigger!  Keep in mind the Rugers are just a "casting" made from poured medal, and the S&W's are a lump of red hot medal pounded (hammer forged) into shape.  Hammer forgeing makes a LOT stronger frame with less total medal, over pouring a casting into shape!!!  

  And, yes i realize that a heaver gun holds up better than a light one due to being able to asorb recoil better.  It's a "weight" thing, not a "strength" thing!

  Drilling Man

[ironfoot]

With the S&W 586 you already have one of the best .357 magnum revolvers ever made. It has the enhanced "L" frame that makes it stronger than the more svelte "K" frame. But it doesn't have the, clumsy to some, heavy "N" frame. The S&W revolvers are loved in large part because of their smooth trigger pull. With the 586, you should have a revolver without the MIM parts lots of guys dislike. You should also have the firing pin on the hammer, which many guys believe contributes to a good trigger pull. I can think of three reasons to have stainless over blued. 1. Over time the bluing can wear off. This is especially true if the gun is holstered and unholstered a lot. When the blueing wears off, it doesn't look as nice, and the gun declines in value. But you are likely to lose more money on a trade than you will lose in bluing-wear depreciation.
2. If the gun gets wet a lot, or is around saltwater, perspiration, or other things that can cause corrosion, than a stainless gun makes maintenance a little easier. But stainless guns need to be cleaned too. 3. You can do work on a stainless gun, or accidently scratch it, and it is easy to buff out marks, whereas a blued gun would need to be reblued. That may be important when considering a new purchase, but is it really a good reason for a trade? Its your choice. Just giving you some things to consider. Hope you are happy with whatever decision you make!

[Old Griz]

:cb2: Competition shooters have told me that the S&W triggers are not only smoother, but they are faster, too. The trigger returns to the firing position faster than any other DA revolver. That's why speed shooters like Jerry Miculek get off so many rounds in a fraction of a second.

I think that Dan Wesson makes a fine product, but what scares me is how many times they have gone out of business the last ten years or so and started back up again. Maybe now that they are making (selling?) 1911s as well as revolvers, sells and stability might increase.