Wheely Steely Point and Dealies

That's bullshit. Smaller cartridges are used because it's assumed that the average soldier can't hit anything anyway, but at least now their guns can gun pew more times during a firefight, and that must make them feel useful and nice.
Revolvers aren't simpler at all, if anything they are more complicated than a glawk.

And it takes more skill to shoot them proficiently too. As nice as the trigger might be, you're dealing with two different trigger pulls that are pretty much unavoidable on any combat situation.
Soldiers are issued with small caliber pistols because side-arms aren't relevant, you want to cut down the dead weight while still having a last resort weapon (or something you can hold and use with one hand under very specific situations).

Shit like 5.56 exists because volume of fire is more important on the big scheme of things than individual firepower. Soldiers aren't alone in combat (or at least they shouldn't). Given a set volume limitation (and a reasonable barrel life and free recoil), the round is meant to be as deadly as possible within an optimal engagement distance (200-300 meters) while still being capable of delivering some lead further down range to keep the enemy under preasure. Any cartridge bigger or heavier would reduce the max volume of fire per soldier.
Then we can argue if 5.56 is good or not, but stating that the round is meant to wound is just wrong. It kills as much as it can.

Anything that goes bang and puts holes in shit, that are big enough to drop an enemy, or a tasty animal , is relevant.

Auto loaders are more convenient, hold more ammo, and are often lighter and easier to carry, and more accurate.

However , revolvers in good condition are generally reliable, jam proof, and make up the majority of the big ass caliber handguns.

I'd probably choose a revolver if raw power was the top priority.

For instance in Alaska or Africa where a Mag full of 45acp isn't reliable to stop a charge of a bear or something similar.

Outside of that a 9mm auto is plenty for a sidearm, or even 45acp if you need extra stopping power at the expense of lower ammo capacity.

M8, it's called 10mm.

There's a reason actual alaskan and danish (or was it norwegian) use G20 in 10mm.

No. Intermediate cartridges exist first and foremost because of their longer effective range. Better follow-up is a nice thing that comes with it, not the reason it exists. 5.56 in particular made up for its comparative lack of umph to 7.62 by fragmenting a ton, but then humanitarian rights niggers over in eurocuck land made us get rid of that. Come on japanon, you know this.

Attached: wound profiles.png (418x533, 233.49K)

5.45 is objectively the best intermediate cartridge in widespread use today. Longer, slimmer bullet means better BC and flatter trajectory. Aggressive case taper means better reliability. Spoontip bullet means it will tumble through flesh to make nice big wound channels. Because the tumbling factor is based almost entirely on bullet geometry and not velocity, its secondary wounding mechanism works even if it's going a bit slower. 5.56 in contrast will only fragment if it's going fast enough when it hits the target.

I'd really like to see how a brass-cased variant, with high quality modern powder, performs. 7n6 is on par with modern 5.56 loads out of 16" barrels, but that's with the low-quality Soviet powder. If the propellant were modernized I imagine it would perform even better.

sage because not in the slightest relevant to revolvers.

Are you baiting us? Originally the M16 was adopted as an interim solution until project SPIW produces a usable weapon. The whole point of project SPIW was to design a burst firing weapon that guaranteed to hit anything in its sight at every pull of the trigger. This goes back to the traditional importance of marksmanship in the US army, as the project was a reaction to the relevation that the average grunt in ww2 wasn't a leet oper8er sniper. Remember, the USA sabotaged the adoption of .280 British because it wasn't a full powered cartrdige, even though later versions retained more energy due to their better aerodynamic shape.
As for the Germans and soviets, they both started from research that said most firefights happened under 300m. The Sturmgewehr was meant to be a semi-automatic rifle that could be used as a LMG to cover the GPMG of the squad when it was moving, and it certainly wasn't meant to be a long range weapon.
The soviets originally went down a different route, and wanted to retain the system of smg, rifles and machine guns in a platoon, but they also wanted all three weapons to fire the same cartridge, hence the 7.62x39. It just turned out quickly that although the AK was meant to be the smg, it can do the job of the rifle just fine, and the design can also take up the role of the lmg with some modifications. But even then, they still developed the SVD as a "support weapon" for the platoon.
Now, the soviets switched to 5.45x39 after they saw that 5.56x45 works just as well as 7.62x39 in most situations. But then came Afghanistan, and they quickly realized that it's a good idea to give at a proper GPMG to every squad. Also, the US armed forces strated deploying 7.62x51 rifles in every squad since Afghanistan, because 5.56 NATO is simply inadequate at the longer ranges there.

What fantasy world are you living in, my dude? You do understand that the 5.56x45 M4A1 is still our standard service rifle, right? 5.56 M249 as the SAW. The last rifle to use 7.62x51 was the M14. You straight up trying to lie? Let me correct my sentence a bit, anyways. "Modern intermediate cartridges exist first and foremost because of their longer effective range". Intermediate rounds intended for pseudo-lmglike sturmgewehrs are going to be a lot different then what our modern ammunition is because, as you said, they started from research that most firefights are

Attached: 631ce43037137656bf2601436dd82e008a83be6a03483cfde3be926bcd5c8815.jpg (451x463, 20.6K)

The same M14 that the muhreens have been desperately trying to make work for years so they can have someone on the squad able to reach out and touch someone in Afghanistan?
It's ironic that Turkey and Greece, two nations that aren't exactly known for having their shit together, at least know to keep a huehueBR around.

Nigger

Attached: do you speak english.PNG (511x244, 22.98K)

Tell me user, what 7.62 NATO weapon is being deployed?

You do realize a weapon doesn't need to be the standard service rifle to be used by squad DMs and the like, right? The USMC currently uses the M39, an M14 derivative, in this role.

Attached: u_wot_m8.png (223x289, 103.07K)

...

Point to me where it was claimed that the whole of infantry was issued 7.62 rifles, please.

...

Massively outdated. The only worthwhile revolver that's a legitimate cut above anything in your nearest showroom is a m8een nugget, for it's interesting gas-sealed suppressing action which shall have you possessed bythe souls of dead soldiers, making you a living conduit of the mudercube's will, neither living nor dead.

Rifle in squad=! every rifleman in squad. Again, nigger-tier comprehension.

Mate

I'm sorry Jamal. It looks like reading wasn't your strong point in Nigger School.

Attached: 711374fe100493315a34a3b66c1f84556bde2cd9fb01323f8d5be6404e351fa6.jpg (496x600, 48.77K)

well, almost.

Attached: extreme thinking.gif (256x256, 458.18K)

thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/04/02/us-marine-corps-interested-in-armys-compact-semi-automatic-sniper-system/
archive.is/2zska
>The US Marine Corps is interested in the Army’s Compact Semi-Automatic Sniper System (CSASS). Chambered in the longer ranged 7.62x51mm round, the CSASS has the edge over the Corps’ recently fielded M38 adaptation of the M27 IAR.
>Far more likely is that the new M110A1s will supplement the 7.62x51mm semi-automatic marksmen rifles already in service.

Those nigger genes really fucked your brain up, famalam.

Yes. Okay. I will put it plainly for you.
Can you comprehend the difference between " the US armed forces strated deploying 7.62x51 rifles in every squad" and "new sniper system" or "replace the venerable M40 sniper rifle"?
See . Kys you pathetic id-hopping turbofag.

Attached: 3f90d664a6ec1576e0aa05889a9590105895292bf3fd557ef3d3d94c070f1006.jpeg (574x583, 49.74K)

You're just a nigger, user. They aren't hard to spot.

Attached: Screenshot (4).png (122x31, 1.58K)

this entire thing is stupid but being a obtuse troll doesnt give you credence

Jesus, the guy is either an ARfag butthurt that people like things other than his shitty black rifle or a genuine retard. Just stop replying.

Cuckchan.

Do you think that perhaps the reason why so many people are calling you a nigger might be because you're displaying nigger-tier ability to understand basic English?

You do realize that the purpose of anonymous communications is specifically designed to prevent what has just transpired here right? you could have just accepted that you either misread something, or fucked up and walked away from this thread with no harm to your ego. instead you chose to defend the indefensible, and for what? "every us squad has 7.62 rifles deployed" means, every us squad as 1 or more 7.62 rifles within their inventory. now, do you deny that is how the english language works or do you deny that the US uses designated marksmen? tbh i suspect that you're pretending to be retarded since you clearly have ignored other salient corrections to your opinion, choosing only to attack those rebuttals you deem simplest to argue against.

Do you actually think infantryman squads always have a designated marksman like in your vidya games, user?

Oh fuck me this is just getting ridiculous.

Just admit you fucked up, Jamal. It's easy to do, and you can go back to posting in every other thread without anyone knowing what you did in this one.

Attached: 9c64e83fd74ff130b07f68992d82cb147994512929874d85dd50b391093055e6.jpg (620x434, 59.35K)

Thats the debate though is it? once again, you're deflecting from the fact you claimed US forces do not have 7.62 rifles deployed. a pathetic deflection at that, since nowhere in my post nor any other itt is it suggested that every US squad has a DMR. Now to counter, are you suggesting that there are US infantry squads operating in the remote regions of afghanistan and defending FOBs relying solely on intermediate rifle cartridge platforms?

What I have been "claiming" this entire time, in fact, is that "he US armed forces strated deploying 7.62x51 rifles in every squad since Afghanistan" is incorrect. Nothing more, nothing less, and you amusing attempt at being condescending while at the same time trying to put words in my mouth speaks volumes.

Attached: 25ae13bdb6f3f215ce8bc448bb4a5c7e9c7b75559a7723132aebef374794fd6a.png (829x608, 13.52K)

On the contrary, I think you should keep going. It's entertaining, Jamal.

Every single one of your posts after the hun's has either been in reference to what rifle is or isn't the standard issue rifle, which is irrelevant, or what the infantry as a whole is using. But i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and maybe learn something, since i am the one arguing that you're entrenched for ego reasons. Please inform me which squads or/of which divisions of the army or marines infantry are being sent on active combat patrols without some form of 7.62 support, i will accept generalizations. if you can't name any frontline elements in such a position please provide examples of second line or reserve infantry without 7.62 support, and mention if they have it available at the platoon level. Thanks in advance :)

Hungary, as a nation and people, does not have the right to exist and is made up of mostly gypsy outcasts and other similar worthless slavic welfare-reliant scum.

Laughable. You don't get to turn the tables that easily, fagoli. No, you still have to show me where any regular footman, as you said, army, marines, whatever, has 7.62 support in the first place. The burden of proof relies upon you, the one backing up the erroneous assertion that has no support. The moment you can show any definitive proof that the US uses 7.62 NATO past niche marksmen use is the moment you have a foothold to stand on and something to disprove.

Are you some kind of jew?

Strawman? What is a strawman here? He's been beating the strawman he's been trying to set up for the past couple posts pretty hard, if that's what you mean. He says 'US has 7.62 in every squad', he backs that up. It's not on me to disprove your baseless claim, it's on you to make your claim not baseless. Thus far I've only gotten insults and 'b-but a few marksmen use it'.

Jamal Goldstein, get off your computer and stop posting.

The burden of proof is on all parties making a claim, regardless of whether it's an initial or counter-claim. you did not merely disbelieve a claim, but made a counter claim.
the designated marksman is not a listed MOS but is instead provided as additional training to infantry similar to a combat lifesaver. even rinkydink national guardsmen attend these courses, which lends credence to the concept that maybe there are infact alot of marksmen qualified infantry floating around, infantry capable of using the 7.62 rifles the US army is thoroughly documented as having in stock. Now, if you have some more data to add to the pile here then be my guest and share it. the fact you've decided to hide behind 4chan tier mono-polar burden of proof suggests you probably have nothing to add beyond your own shitposts.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure how this is related to me?

In manslaying, a .357 magnum has little a 10mm can't do. In hunting, a magnum revolver will kill large game handily. This is their key advantage over all other guns- they are almost tailor made as innawoods guns.

Multiple revolvers, that's how they did it back in the day.

Attached: screw laughing at you i'm gonna gas you.png (258x322, 97.96K)

Pros

Cons

Long story short, pick what you feel most comfortable with and train with it. you'll find out sooner or later which one suits you better. Don't bother listening to neckbeards on the internet trying to sell you their preferences.

Attached: you be the judge.png (307x352, 57.71K)

...

Big revolvers are pretty much range toys imo. Smaller ones make pretty good carry guns though. Can have a big bullet while still being small volume wise. Only downside is they tend to be bricks weight wise.

Completely forgot to add, easily the biggest pro for revolvers: you can get one for dirt cheap and it will still work near flawlessly. If nothing else, a 250 dollar revolver will be more reliable than a 250 dollar pistol.

Depends entirely what you're looking at. after looking at a few of those Rock Island .38s i wouldn't trust them unless there was absolutely no other choice, but you can still find some of the best production revolvers ever made (quality wise) for whats essentially nothing if you don't mind odd ball calibers like .32 long or .38 S&W. The old S&W I frame hand ejectors are still out there. Hell i'm pretty sure you can still pick up Nagants for fairly cheap. even the worst of em are miles ahead of the legion of shitty pocket .25s or ,32s like the jennings or Raven autos.

Of course it really boils down to "how much is your life worth?"

Well at least in the case of Trayvon Martin and George "CNN says I'm hwiter than you mi amigo" Zimmerman, It happened. But luckily for him it was able to kill him quick enough before his skull was split open. Either way getting within kissing distance is a real shit sandwich even more so when getting grounded. So I'll say it'll probably happen when you don't stop your target before he touches you and even then you're likely to drop everything and try to deal with a knife in the gut.

Re-reading this and it sounds retarded. An out of battery issue sounds more like a life wants to fuck you thing rather than a set percentage certainly so it's pretty hard to tell if this happens as much as people worry about it. It's probably better to not take stand your ground laws literally and you SHOULD actually backup quickly if the guy wielding a knife is walking towards you (preferably while shooting). While it's not a training issue it could certainly help to train so that the chance of it happening is so low that it's as close as possible to being a non-issue.
In the Trayvon thing apparently George did get too close and Trayvon was able to close the distance. So basically keep your distance, keep something between you and the nog, and don't walk down ass rape alley with all the dark corners and large objects obscuring your vision while allowing something or someone to hide behind.

I'm in the market for a revolver. I've heard Smith and Wesson these days isn't comparable to the old 29-2. My question is this: who makes the best quality revolver today? No MIM parts, hand fitted at the factory. Is Ruger now better than S&W?

I have basically the same question but I want to know which is more durable and can be shot for as long as I live. I've narrowed my choice to either a ruger gp100 or a smith and wesson 686 both in stainless. Is the smith worth the extra 1 or 2 hundred? Is the hillary hole an actual issue can't get older guns due to bullshit otherwise I'd probably hit up the used guns section or pawn shops looking for classics? Is the ruger actually more durable like some people may say or is it fanboyism/fudd science?

Here's a treat for you lads: thesaker.is/self-defense-myths-and-choices-for-civilians/

Admittedly though, much as I enjoyed gems like "revolver are better because who has time to train lmao", it did make me excited about revolvers. Is there a infographic for them or something? What are fun ones at different price points?

Even if it did happen, wouldn't the first shot still fire? You can then take your time clearing the malfunction while the guy is preoccupied with, you know, being shot in the gut.

I personally believe it was clear cut self defense, but the way the trial went, if he kept his distance like you say he could have been convicted.

Yes for pocket carry

I'm gonna look at this from the context of concealed carry since if I'm open carrying, I might as well have a rifle.
For day-to-day use I'd use a modern handgun because it shoots more easily/more rounds. Handguns have more major points of malfunction than a revolver revolvers are more complex, but they're less likely to fail on you however what a handgun lacks in reliability it makes up for with easy/cheap repairs, "bigger" ammo loads (8-12+ rounds vs 6), more variety, and overall cheaper ammunition. If you're carrying for self-defense in modern society, there's no excuse for using a revolver as your main CC unless it's what you trained with growing up or you were gifted it by someone else.

That being said, if it's happening and SHTF, I'm going to trust my revolver after the first time I have to use a regular handgun. Revolvers have higher tolerances for shoddy ammunition (read: hand loads), they don't need to be cleaned/lubed as often as a handgun, they aren't going to snag on your clothing like a modern handgun, and frankly, they are going to have far fewer major malfunctions when you need it the most. If the handgun is a set of phillips-head screwdrivers for every screw but made of soft steel, the revolver is a one-size-fits-most flathead screwdriver made of hardened steel with an ergonomic handle.

Attached: 3beb700751bfdd84c6896a41017e266f3b2d975f9ebfd6de24977eefdcde5d33.png (500x500, 251.25K)

Or just read this post from a month ago.

What kind of stupid discussion is this? Just buy a revolver and see for yourself, if it's any less deadly than an automatic gun. Pro tip: it's not, it kills people just fine.

Any of literally a thousand brands/models of no-name revolver from a hundred different manufacturers over a hundred years.

I want this fucking fudd meme to die.

Are you talking about automatics or revolvers, Strelok? Because this wording applies both ways.

Relevant

How to use speedloaders, method 1

How to use speedloaders, method 2 (stressfire reload)

For a carry revolver a Ruger SP-101 is hard to beat.

Does anyone make a current production double action revolver that feeds through a loading gates instead of having a swing out cylinder?

Also, I just learned that Colt Walker cartridge conversions are a thing. It takes .45 Blackpowder Magnum, which is basically a .460 S&W Magnum cartridge loaded with 60 grains of compressed black powder.
Although that's just asking for some dumbass to load it with the hottest factory ammo he can find and blow his hand off.

Attached: WalkerBPM2.png (800x635 262.13 KB, 449.64K)

Not that I'm aware of since people already think swing-out cylinders are slow as it is, but I would like to know as well. Would be neat.

Not unless you count Colt 1875/1877 repros.

Although that's just asking for some dumbass to load it with the hottest factory ammo he can find and blow his hand off.
I don't see any way that could possibly go badly.

cylinder, cylinder stop, ratchet arm, trigger, hammer, and various springs. soooooooo complicated.

and revolvers are simpler because all they have to do is align a bullet with the chamber, not have to cycle and eject rounds. there's a reason revolvers are used for huge ass hunting calibers.

When you dumb it down like that, sure, they're simple, but the hand and cylinder need to be in time or the gun is completely unreliable and, if it can still detonate the primer, self-destructive.
The only comparable failure with a semi-auto is a failure to go into battery and that can be solved with the tap a hand and maybe splashing some lube on before you take it out.

Attached: SmithinWessin.gif (1000x990 100.45 KB, 2.62M)

It helps if you at least try to pretend you're arguing from a position of good faith instead of just lying from the outset. Now get the fuck out.

Revolvers are fun range toys or alright for hunting if you bring large caliber ones (at least .44 mag).
Pretty alright for self-defense, but i'd prefer autoloaders due to more ammo and mags being easier to load in my opinion.

Revolvers have some definite reliability advantages in specific scenarios.
I don't meant to suggest autoloaders are jam-o-matics with no reliability, even midrange offerings are plenty reliable when fired normally. However, if the slide is ever obstructed by something, such as clothing, you have the potential for malfunctions to occur. Obviously this isn't an issue for everyone, but if you're pocket carrying (or your holster is in a pocket) and you're trying to anticipate for firing from inside a pocket a revolver might be a good idea to prevent that slide obstruction.

Also, I think it's good to point out that while revolvers can and do experience malfunctions, and it is true that you can't "fix" most of these malfunctions without a gunsmith, you can work through them much quicker than you can with a semi-auto. If you get a dud in a revolver you just pull the trigger to cycle the gun and keep firing. Hell, even if you're too retarded to notice that you had a dud and just keep pulling the trigger like nothing happened you've dealt with the dud. If you get a dud in a semi-auto, you've got to do perform your tap-rack-fire drill to solve it before you can get another shot off. This doesn't take long at all if you practice of course, but it will never be shorter than just pulling the trigger a second time.

That's like comparing G11 to slamfire shotgun to make an argument that shotguns are simpler than assault rifles.

Revolvers and automatics share the same mechanical malfunctions. You can't clear them for either gun type, you need to bring the gun to the gunsmith. However, automatics can have feed-related malfunctions on top of that. You can clear them by cycling the gun manually, changing the mag, using better ammo, etc. Revolvers never have those problems to start with so you don't get to clear them.

How so? If I used the same logic, all the G11 has to do is align the caseless cartridge in-line with the barrel. How complicated could it be?

It helps if you at least point our your issues in a position of good faith instead of just being an autist.

what was even controversial about what I said?

do you not understand how simple the "timing" is on a revolver, though? there's a reason it was invented in the 1830s and autoloaders the 1890s.

the cylinder stop is a part that pops up when it catches the groove in the cylinder

the ratcheting arm is a part connected to the trigger that pushes the cylinder up.

if anything goes wrong you just get a new part (equivalent to the amount of time it would take to wear down equivalent parts on a semi auto)

Because magazine springs, brass cartridges, and smokeless powder were beyond them, yeah. Your point?

Fucking smug wounds.

Attached: smug.png (418x533, 127.53K)

I just bought my first revolver a few weeks ago and it finally got shipped to my house about a week ago now. I have this autism where i enjoy purchasing firearms of a category in the order in which they were designed so I went for a Pietta SAA. Being as antiquated a design as a cartridge firearm can be I went for pretty much the same specs as the original model adopted by the US army: 71/2" barrel, blued/case hardened, that fucking irritating cylinder rod pin that you actually have to screw and unscrew to move, and the circular appendage to actuate the case extractor. it also doesnt have any gay shit like like a transfer bar or firing pin safety and it sounds the four clicks of the original design) its chambered in 357 though because fuck 45 autism
It's a superbly beautiful gun, but you can tell it was made by spaghetti niggers. there are burrs on some of the edges that i sanded off and after dry firing it for a few days the firing pin rivet snapped into three pieces (it might have been this way when i received it because beyond the two fractures the length that was in contact with the firing pin was extremely deformed)
also im incredibly retarded so i got a new firing pin rivet and pounded it in the wrong way so theres like half a mm of emptiness on one side of the hammer and i had to beat the fuck out of the extra length on the other side to make it flat enough for the hammer to fit into the frame
overall i'd buy it for $500 again. i would have just bought a replacement hammer instead of trying to do the rivet myself but none were in stock
sorry if this post is unreadable but im drinking the last few days of my four-year neethood away

Oi lads. Can grab a 4 in S&W 686 plus basically new in the box. Deal or no deal?

Attached: 642364.png (1024x574, 1.18M)

I'm retarded

For $620

Try, before you buy, because that sounds too good to be true.

I've seen 686 for about $750 on sales is it really a red flag that the price lowers $100-200 on a used revolver? Also is the barrel canting issue still a thing I know that this will always be an issue for screw in barrel revolvers but they should be straight within eyeballing specs as to avoid shit qc wasr style zeroing or just a right shit run of bad qc on S&W. I'm deciding between it and the gp100 but would prefer to go with the 686 due to looks, I know to finger and eye fuck before I buy but I also don't want to be a bother by going through over half a gun shops stock of 686 revolvers.
side note I can not get older pinned barrel smiths (at non kiked prices) due to my states glorious leaders protecting me for my own good

S&W isn't as nice as they used to be. I own a 29-2 as well as police surplus Model 10's, one from the early 1980's, the other probably in the later 90's, Have a 22-4 and a M27 built in the last 10 years. They really did make them better years ago, the triggers were lighter and smoother. Just not as nice, if you can find a good used gun, consider it.

That being said, Ruger at its best isn't as good as S&W at its worst. Ruger is a true American brand, middle grade middle priced "okay" stuff, not great. The triggers are never good, they've had issues with cylinder throats being of varying sizes, just an overall inferior product.

"Ruger is more durable" is 100% PURE BULLSHIT. This whole myth came from the 1950's when S&W refused to make a K frame 357 Magnum revolver because they knew it was not right for constant use with the cartridge. Guys like Jordan demanded they make a K frame magnum anyways, and S&W basically did as they were told. The result were the models 13 and 19, legendary and beloved revolvers that saw good use, but would start to see frame failure after 10,000+ rounds of 357 Magnum rounds. These guns were intended to be used with magnum rounds for duty/service/self protection and occasional practice, and 38 special almost all the time.

So after S&W was bullied into making these revolvers they didn't want to make, and they had frame failures by heavy users who went against recommendations, Ruger, an inferior gun manufacturer, seized upon this to promote their inferior products. They marketed their inferior GP 100 on the idea that their magnum doesn't have frame failures, a "forever magnum" while S&W K frame magnums fail. Ruger makes sure to omit that S&W revolvers that were built for full time magnum use like the original 357 Magnum, the Registered Magnum which was numbered the models 27 and M28 which are beefy N frames (almost indestructible) and the later mid sized frame L frame 586 are also "forever magnums" and will never fail from constant magnum use.

Ruger seized upon this further to suggest all of their revolvers are more durable to create this fanboi and fuddism that Ruger's are beefy and everyone else is not. This is pure bullshit because outside the K frame magnums S&W didn't want to make in the first place THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FRAME DURABILITY PROBLEM. Those who brag about the Blackhawk don't realize that a S&W 27 is as tough or tougher. Claims about the durability fo the Redhawk frame are going nowhere because there are thousands of Model 29 revolvers out there that people have put 100,000 rounds of magnum ammunition through without a problem and still shoot today. Hickok45 claims to have 70 or 80K through his 29-2, and this is typical. Simply put, revolver frames never wear out, so durability is a non issue outside K frame magnums.

S&W uses high grade forged steel for their frames, Ruger uses cheaper casting methods. By the time its all said and done, the checks are cashed, the bills are paid, the end of the day S&W frames are just as durable, there is no advantage in a Ruger. When the guns blow up its the cylinders that fail anyways, and a lot of those explosions are Ruger fainbois who believed their own nonsense about how indestructable their revolvers were.

Also Ruger fanbois and especially astroturfers (there are a fuckoad of them on the internet, they are hard marketers) why is it the so called stronger and more durable mid frame Ruger GP100 can only offer a 5 shot 44 Special, while the mid frame S&W (which they claim is weaker, less durable) can have a 5 shot 44 MAGNUM combat revolver in the 69? Hmm? Silence? Proof that Ruger is afraid of S&W's dropping prices and needs to claims false superiority?

I carry a M27 as my daily carry. I love to shoot revolvers, as stated I own several. I don't own a single Ruger and have no desire to. GP100's are for folks who aren't revolver people but want to own one. Redhawk's are for people who want to lose an eye do to hotloading. Blackhaw's are for people who like strong loads in old fashioned looking guns.

Attached: MatebaAutoRevolver6in.jpg (696x419, 44.5K)

Thank you. As I said everything was "works on my machine" kind of shit that never really put info down or bring any form of confidence that even a less than 5 minute history lesson can give. Like I said there was some bullshit posts and worrying things I found about both revolvers but the the smith could be avoided by giving a finger fuck and even a case where a ruger trigger would lock up in SA mode and come down on its own eventually because the flashing from the MiM trigger group was not ground off.
Well I'm grabbing a 686+ come next week. As for smith not making them as good as they used to, is the trigger something that can be fixed by buying some aftermarket thing or even getting it polished to equal or at least feel as smooth as the old ones.

...

I'm interested in this as well. Always wanted to pick up at least one revolver, may as well make it a good one.

Attached: 269a380945b63b1ef3caa82d1e6c21177f756a9fefeaa613b267372e6902b4f3.jpg (424x185, 40.15K)