The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: The Revolver Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 21, 2019, 07:54 AM   #26
arquebus357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 19, 2016
Location: Atlanta, Georgia area
Posts: 398
Very eloquent..

"Because people that have disassembled a Ruger cylinder assembly know that a Swiss Army knife isn't going to do the job in a manner conducive to continued operation of the revolver."

That sounds so much better than "you are screwed".

arquebus357 is offline  
Old June 21, 2019, 09:00 AM   #27
dgludwig
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2005
Location: North central Ohio
Posts: 7,034
Quote:
The 686 trigger is smoother. And that translates to better accuracy (on any gun).
A nicer trigger pull may help you shoot more accurately but trigger pulls, both good and bad, have little to do with the intrinsic accuracy of any firearm.
__________________
ONLY AN ARMED PEOPLE CAN BE TRULY FREE ; ONLY AN UNARMED PEOPLE CAN EVER BE ENSLAVED
...Aristotle
NRA Benefactor Life Member
dgludwig is offline  
Old June 21, 2019, 09:32 AM   #28
arquebus357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 19, 2016
Location: Atlanta, Georgia area
Posts: 398
Very true, but putting a gun in a vice and pulling the trigger with a mechanical device has very little to do with real world shooting.
arquebus357 is offline  
Old June 21, 2019, 10:21 AM   #29
Stargater53
Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2014
Posts: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorch View Post
I've got both. I prefer the Ruger, but the S&W is nice. I used to be a big Colt fan, but when the Python got to be too expensive, I got a Ruger. A friend gifted me a S&W 686-2 a month or so ago.
Do you find there's any difference in accuracy? Have you ever shot both back to back?

Optimally, they would be put in Ransom rests, but I've not been able to find anyone who's done that. I would think any unbiased tests would do that, but they don't. I understand that any two guns may differ in accuracy, but I suspect the S&W would win. But until such tests are done, we'll never know.


The Security-Six lacks locks and (more importantly) underlugs
on the barrels. They never should have been "upgraded." I ground
the grips to take rounded butt Pachmayers. But not on my 6-incher.




Quote:
Originally Posted by arquebus357 View Post
Sorry Ruger, but I would rather work on the old Security Six series. Oh...I know, you can take the cylinder apart with your Swiss army knife and I'm so stupid for needing that tool. Hahaha

I also don't care for the GP100 little stub that is used for the grip frame.

That said, I still own two GP100's
Yes, ditto on the Security-Six. The one gun I don't have and would like to own is a Service-Six. It's the perfect home defense gun in my view. When I travel cross country, I always take my 4-inch Security-Six. And if I went hiking or camping, I'd most likely prefer my 3-inch Speed-Six. (I have two that started out as .38 Specials. I had them reamed out to take .357s. I love the 3-inch barrels over the 2.75-inchers, but there is little difference ballistically.




--

Last edited by Stargater53; June 21, 2019 at 10:38 AM.
Stargater53 is offline  
Old June 21, 2019, 11:05 AM   #30
Stargater53
Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2014
Posts: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by arquebus357 View Post
This is for posters who took my bait concerning the disassembly of the Ruger GP100 cylinder.. Neither one ever disassembled one or they would know that you need the screwdriver bit with a hole in the middle That slides down the extractor rod and engages the split slotted nut that holds things together. Maybe you can craft your own tool but if you bugger up that split slotted nut, you are screwed. Most experts will tell you not to take the cylinder apart but if you are re-bluing for example, you need to.
Thanks for the great comments!

The one thing I love about the Rugers is the easy disassembly. The action can be smoothed just by dry firing, with Wolff springs, of course! The modular designs are brilliant.

I've never had to take the cylinder apart, but check out the Security-Six. There's no excess steel, no underlugs, and I like the 2-spring design. I also like my gun to have grips, not studs. Why? Because the GP-100 has, in my view, horrible balance.



I know why Ruger wants the weight up front, but I want the balance to allow for great pointing, and I just don't find the same problem with the Security-Six that I do with the GP100. Even though the gun is forward weighted, the balance of the 686 is far better than the GP-100s, again, in my view.



--
Stargater53 is offline  
Old June 21, 2019, 11:51 AM   #31
dgludwig
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2005
Location: North central Ohio
Posts: 7,034
Quote:
Very true, but putting a gun in a vice and pulling the trigger with a mechanical device has very little to do with real world shooting.
No it doesn't, but putting a gun in a "vise" and pulling the trigger remotely has everything to do with determining how accurate the gun is. Adding the subjective human factor makes the objective accuracy determinate suspect.
__________________
ONLY AN ARMED PEOPLE CAN BE TRULY FREE ; ONLY AN UNARMED PEOPLE CAN EVER BE ENSLAVED
...Aristotle
NRA Benefactor Life Member
dgludwig is offline  
Old June 21, 2019, 12:01 PM   #32
arquebus357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 19, 2016
Location: Atlanta, Georgia area
Posts: 398
For Ruger Security Six mavens you will like this (or maybe not) This is an example of an early model (serial nbr prefix 150). It was in the process of being refurbed and part of the process was to modify the grip frame to accept grips (with slight removal of material from the top) made for later models. This is not a stainless gun.



arquebus357 is offline  
Old June 23, 2019, 05:35 PM   #33
Stargater53
Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2014
Posts: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgludwig View Post
A nicer trigger pull may help you shoot more accurately but trigger pulls, both good and bad, have little to do with the intrinsic accuracy of any firearm.
True. What I think made the 686 no-dash so intrinsically accurate wasn't the action, but headspace, b/c gap, cylinder chamber throat milling, timing (chamber-to-bore lockup).

A revolver is made up of tolerances. One wouldn't think b/c gap would affect accuracy, but I recall an article years ago that indicated the perfect gap was .006. On S&W revolvers, such as the Model 66, the tolerance was .004 -.009. Anything within that was fine. I recall one of my revolvers had a whopping .013. I sent it back to S&W and they moved the cylinder forward so that it measured .006. But then the headspace became excessive! You can't just move the cylinder forward without screwing up the other end! (It's like cutting off three feet of a bed sheet and sewing it onto the other end to make it longer!)

Those were the dark days of Bangor Punta. But when the 686 came out, S&W shrunk their tolerances. And it resulted in a much better revolver. I never saw sloppy construction. I learned of a couple of cops who had 681s that not only were inaccurate, the front sights were being rubbed down by their holsters. Turns out that somebody wasn't watching the heat treat. The specs were dead on accurate with the headspace, b/c gap and such. The steel was just soft and the bullets and holsters were taking their toll. S&W sent them back two new guns that were like match grade accurate.

What are the tolerances now? I don't know. But I know the tolerances on the Rugers have never been as good as the early S&W 686s. Usually, the Rugers will be very accurate with the 158-gr JHPs, but with the 125-gr and lighter JHPs not so much. But cranked into Ransom rests, the S&Ws were almost always more accurate than Rugers. Again, things may have changed today, where computers may play a part in the production cycle --- I don't know.

Back in the late 70s, a fellow on the NRA tech staff showed me how to drop a 125gr JHP into each of the chambers on a .357. Optimally, the bullet should catch in each chamber (don't push them through!). A well-fitted chamber should not let the bullet drop through, he said. For self defense, it's not that much of an issue, but if you compete, you may want to note the chambers and avoid them when accuracy is crucial.

--

Last edited by Stargater53; June 23, 2019 at 05:40 PM.
Stargater53 is offline  
Old June 24, 2019, 11:00 AM   #34
vba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2008
Posts: 355
"The GP is 'rugged', overbuilt, heavier, and unrefined.
The 686 is leaner, lighter, more refined, and more precise."

It is interesting to note that the 686 and GP100 are the same weight:

https://ruger.com/products/gp100/specSheets/1705.html

https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearms/model-686

Last edited by vba; June 25, 2019 at 02:00 PM.
vba is offline  
Old June 24, 2019, 08:43 PM   #35
AreYaSerious
Junior Member
 
Join Date: February 24, 2019
Posts: 12
686 is a smoother gun.
The GP is a tank.

The GP is normally cheaper. Either is a very good choice.
AreYaSerious is offline  
Old June 24, 2019, 10:32 PM   #36
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: Potatoes and Hops
Posts: 11,801
Quote:
It is interesting to note that the 686 and GP100 is the same weight:
Nominally. Not exactly.
And, the .327 Federal version, which is what I owned, weighs more than Ruger's blanket "40 oz". Smaller bore. Smaller holes in the cylinder. More weight.
I weighed mine with two different styles of grips. The list of weights on my wall says the.327 Federal GP100 was 43 oz with factory Hogue grips and an empty cylinder.
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe.
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old June 25, 2019, 02:03 PM   #37
vba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2008
Posts: 355
Of course the .327 version would weigh more. Jeez, I was talking about same caliber.

I even linked to the .357 versions of the guns in question.
vba is offline  
Old June 25, 2019, 02:42 PM   #38
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: Potatoes and Hops
Posts: 11,801
Indeed.
Hence my reply, "Nominally. Not exactly."

The 686 is lighter.
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe.
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old June 25, 2019, 07:04 PM   #39
603Country
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2011
Location: Thornton, Texas
Posts: 3,572
First off, I don’t have a Ruger revolver, but have a 686 and a Python. I bought the 686 to sort of replace the Python. I was afraid the grandkids would finally wear out my Python, so I got the 686 to take over the workload. The trigger pull, SA and DA, of the 686 was not as good as the Python, which was no real surprise. After a gunsmith smoothed it out, the 686 trigger pull is equally good as that of the Python, though I shoot better in DA with the Python.

Accuracy, off hand and off bags are equal, as best as I can tell. If I had to make one shot, for all the money, at a reasonable distance, I don’t know which one I’d pick.

Sorry this has no Ruger info, but I figured what I had couldn’t hurt.
603Country is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07346 seconds with 9 queries