Current Events > Debating a revolver.

(+) Yeah! (+)

I want something in .357 Magnum for the versatility, and I'm down to the Ruger GP100, or the Smith & Wesson 686. General consensus seems to be the Ruger is built like a tank, while the S&W is a little more refined in the trigger pull.


The 686.


The GP100.

There's about a 150 dollar difference between the two(The S&W being more expensive), which seems to be from a combination of a smoother trigger, and more use of forged parts as opposed to the Ruger's cast materials. The GP100 just looks more built, with a thicker top strap(material above the cylinder), and a more solid locking system compared to the 686, but the use of cast materials and a more gritty trigger offsets the advantage. The 686 has a more well-built feel and look, but comes in at a higher price, and has the incredibly shitty problem of having an internal lock, which is just another potential part that can fail and disable the entire gun.

Either way I go it'll likely be in the 6 inch barrel variety, as it'll mostly be a range/outdoors gun.

What say you, CE?
---

Nagant 1895
---

Revolvers aren't very good at defining terms, so make sure when you get to cross-examine you emphasize that the key words it uses aren't clearly defined and then provide your own. The party that provides the most concrete definition often wins based on the technical accuracy of their argument relative to the specifics of the issue as bounded by the definition.
---

S&w model 19
---