My Favorite Revolvers

Discussion in 'Revolver Handguns' started by mesinge2, Apr 20, 2011.

  1. mesinge2

    mesinge2 New Member

    1,530
    0
    0
    My Favorite Revolvers (Pic Heavy Thread)

    At notdku's request I am going to utilize this thread to profile my revolvers. I'll try to post a review of one each day in this thread until they're all done, but it might take a little while. In the mine time enjoy some pics : )

    Below are just some of my favorites but I ran out of room on the table:

    [​IMG]


    Here are some that I couldn't get on the table, there are more as well:

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2011
  2. mesinge2

    mesinge2 New Member

    1,530
    0
    0
    Some more, I don't have pictures of the rest though:

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2011

  3. CA357

    CA357 New Member Supporter

    19,847
    3
    0
    "Nice". He said as he drooled on the keyboard.
     
  4. Reinhard

    Reinhard New Member Supporter

    366
    0
    0
    very nice and some of the guns have real nice grips:cool:
    how does the Taurus work for you? I recently purchased a 22magnum but its still in the box and unused
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2011
  5. mesinge2

    mesinge2 New Member

    1,530
    0
    0
    Here the review of my 629 Talo transposted from the review section:

    This Smith and Wesson Model 629 is a Talo Exclusive.

    [​IMG]

    Its has a heavy barrel that makes the 3" barrelled weapon weight only 1.9oz less than the 4" model. The total 39.6oz weight makes shooting heavier loads much less punishing than one would assume.


    At first, I was worried that the recoil was going to be extreme but its actually not bad. At the first range trip I shot 150 rounds worth. The first 130 all double action; I figure in a self-defense situation I won't be cocking a hammer.

    First I fired 50 rounds of 44 Magnum Magtech 240gr. SJSP and the recoil was not that bad at all, color me surprised. Then I went through 50 rounds of 200gr. 44 SPL CCI Blazer (very very mild). Then I shot 30 rounds of the carry load I pick for this gun, Fiocchi Extrema 240 Hornady XTP hollow points. Honestly, I could not tell the difference between these and the Magtech loads. Finally, just for stupidity sake I shot 20rds or Corbon 300gr. penetrator loads. Those were quite snappy, but still managable in SA.

    The group below is the Fiocchi Extrema loads at 10 yards (sorry for the cell pic). I threw two shots away:

    [​IMG]

    Here is the ammo I have used in this weapon to date shot through my chrony (results are per 10 shot average):

    44 Mag Corbon 300 grain - 910fps
    44 Mag Hornady 240 grain - 1175fps
    44 Mag Fiocchi 240 grain - 1122fps
    44 SPL Hornady Critical Defense 165 grain - 915fps
    44 SPL CCI Blazer 200 grain - 720fps
    44 SPL Winchester 200 grain - 772fps

    Here is a video of the 44 Mag Corbon 300 grain Penetrator loads at 17 yards:
    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTVjtoAfum0]YouTube - 3 inch barrel .44 Mag S&W 629-6 Deluxe Talo Edition with Corbon 300 grain Penetrator loads[/ame]
     
  6. mesinge2

    mesinge2 New Member

    1,530
    0
    0
    Review of my 3" SP101 transposed from an old range report thread:

    Every time I go to the gun store I wind up looking at the 3" wheel gun even when I am looking at the "newest greatest auto".
    And it was lead to a 3" model 19-4, a 3" model 64, and a relatively new 3" model 629 being added to my collection.

    I just now bought a Ruger SP101 in 357 magnum with the 3.06" barrel.
    It was just sitting there in the used case for $389.00

    On the first range outing I fired 80 .357 magnum Hornady loads and 100 Magtech .38 SPL loads. It ran perfectly.

    Also, I usually use, like, and prefer all wood grips. So, it was odd for me to like a set of stock rubber grips, but I really like the of the recoil with
    the full house hornady loads with these grips. My only complaint was the screw head sticking out of the plastic grip insert and cutting my hand.
    Furthermore, the plastic inserts were nasty looking. Then I found these on gun broker and after a short bidding war, here are the pics:
    (note the recessed screw head)

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]


    And I am amazingly more accurate with it than my 1.875" model 638; even with full house 357 Mag loads.
    It seemed easier to shoot with the 125 grain loads then the 158 grain loads (see below):

    This is a the SP101 at 14 yards with speer gold dot 125 loads:


    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKEKrJMAQV8]YouTube - 3.06" barrel.357 Mag Ruger SP101 at 14 yards[/ame]

    This is a 14 yard group with 158 grain Hornady XTP loads:

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2011
  7. winds-of-change

    winds-of-change The Balota's Staff Member

    29,445
    315
    83
    What a beautiful display of revolvers. I wish I knew what they all were, though. :(

    As most of you all know, I own just one gun and it is a revolver so I have a certain fondness for them.
     
  8. mesinge2

    mesinge2 New Member

    1,530
    0
    0
    Pre-36 vs. 36 part 1

    Thanks, and ask away I'll be glad to explain each one.

    Here goes a profile of my two 36s:

    This is a older blued pined barrel model 36:

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    And this one is not actually a model 36. Since it was made before 1957 it is actually a chief's special. But it is a different frame design then the standard J frame. It was denoted the "baby J frame" and has subtle differences of which I will explain.


    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]


    First notice the latch/cylinder release on the pre-model 36 is flat. This was changed because of its difficulty in opening the cylinder. Also, notice the shape of the trigger guard. The pre-36 is more circular as compared to the model 36 which is oval-shaped. If you compare the right sides of the frame the pre-36 is a 5-screw design and the 36 is a three screw. Also, notice that the hammer is designed differently and its hard to make out in the picture but the pre-36 has the "lazy ampersand" of Smith's youth.
    .
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2011
  9. mesinge2

    mesinge2 New Member

    1,530
    0
    0
    Pre-36 vs. 36 part 2

    As I noted above the pre-36's frame is slightly smaller than the model 36. This is because it was a transitionary piece when S&W wanted a 38 caliber snubbie and they started with the "I" framed 32 caliber S&W revolvers.

    This is the J frame CT grip from the model 36 on the pre-36, note now much shorter the frame of the pre-36 is:

    [​IMG]

    Also, the roll pin on the pre-36 is not a roll pin it is integral to the frame and unremovable:

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2011
  10. mesinge2

    mesinge2 New Member

    1,530
    0
    0
    How do I review my sixes?

    Well I have 6 of them (only have pics of four though, sorry).


    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    IMHO, it is the best revolver ever offered by Ruger. I'll start a brief history on the Security Six. It was introduced in 1968, released in 1971, and in production between 1972-1988. I know that sounds confusing, well it is. That's because there were two major "frame types" released. The early model 150 prefix and below had a "square" butt with a duck's tail on the end of the frame; the idea was to control muzzle flip. The 4" blued model pictured above is a very early 150 prefix model, made in Jan, 19 1972. The end result was that the "duck's tail" stabbed hands upon recoil and it continues to stab my hand when shooting very heavy loads, but not as much as you would think. It takes me about 70 heavy loads before I start to get annoyed. In 1975 they brought out the stainless model. And in short order Ruger followed it with a giant warning message right on the barrel that ticks me off! My stainless 4" above wearing the Kindwood grips is a 151 prefix without the duck's tail but with this warning. But I digress. A rare model is the Stainless 2 3/4" Security Six without the warning message, also pictured above. It took me forever to find one in this condition, see not a scratch:

    [​IMG]

    Many more of the shorter barrel models were made of the Speed six and Service Six variants, buts that another review :). The 6" model above is a recent purchase, I traded a superfluous 4" stainless model for it. For the record, I blame CA357 for this one. Kidding, nothing but love for ya CA357. Anyways, he said to keep and eye out for a 6" security six or a 6" GP100 with a half-lug, so I told my buddy at the shop to call if he got one. Then he bought a GP, and I found a 6" and now its mine.

    Ooops, I hijacked my own thread!

    Back to the profile... In 1988 Ruger broke my heart and discontinued the Sixes. The GP100 is a great gun and many people do not understand the differences between them and the Sixes; well, the differences between the Security Six and the GP100, are as follows: First, the Security Six has a full size grip frame compared to the GP100's "stub" grip frame. Also, the GP100 has a locking piece between the yoke and frame (instead of between the ejector rod and barrel) and a fixed (non-rotating) ejector rod. The reason for the change is more theoretical than real with the main advantage of the GP100 being the front lock-up being right at the front of the cylinder, instead of out on the end of the ejector rod, but that is a slight advantage. The real motivation was that the GP100 is less expensive to produce than the Sixes were. Futhermore, the full under-lug on the GP100 is there to reduce muzzle flip, some like it, others don't; I personally prefer the look of the half-lug for aesthetic reasons only. Other than that most differences are cosmetic, such as the barrel profile.

    And this is why my beloved Security Six is no longer made....
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2011
  11. mesinge2

    mesinge2 New Member

    1,530
    0
    0
    Here is three 6 round groups at 14 yards with the 2 3/4" Security Six using my favorite load: 158 grain Hornady XTP:

    [​IMG]
     
  12. General_lee

    General_lee New Member

    1,264
    0
    0
    Very nice wheel guns I especially like the Security Sixes!
    I drool every time I see my dad's stainless Security Six, maybe one day I'll have the money to get one when I come across one.
     
  13. Neophyte1

    Neophyte1 New Member

    407
    0
    0
    Rugers:)

    mesinge2: Sir, I enjoyed your pictures, and your explanations:)
     
  14. Trez

    Trez Well-Known Member

    4,467
    69
    48
    Wow!! Nice collection...... :eek:
     
  15. mesinge2

    mesinge2 New Member

    1,530
    0
    0
    3" inch K frames

    Before we talk K frames. Let's talk S&W model numbers. Prior to 1957 S&W named weapons such as the "chief's special." But later they went to model numbers. Now these rules are some times violated but the people that made them, but we'll let that slide. Anyway, S&W denotes any two digit number that does not start with a 6 to be carbon steel that is blued or nickel (19, 27, 28, 29, and so on); generally if it starts with a 6 it is stainless steel (64, 65, 627, 629, and so on); if is starts with a 3 that means scandium, and if I remember correctly 4 means aluminum but it looks blued. Now for when S&W breaks S&W's self-imposed model number rules: Take, for example, the second gun to the bottom in the picture bellow, the humpback one. Its a 638, that should mean stainless steel, but its frame is made out of aluminum. hmmm... So I guess because it appears "stainless" that it has stainless model number. For the sake of space, I will stop here.

    oh well, let's talk K frames


    [​IMG]

    Well my most used and carried Smith & Wesson Revolver is my model 19-4 (the blued model wearing the Lamo Camo grips pictured above). It was commonly reffered to the as the Combat Magnum. It was designed for those that wanted the fire-power of the model 27 N frame (large frame) 6-shot 357 but didn't want the weight or size the N frame provided. The smaller frame has a flaw however.

    In the K-frame magnums, the forcing cone dimensions combined with the barrel shank dimensions results in a relatively thin shank at the 6 o'clock position, where a machine cut is made to clear the crane. Basically the forcing cone of the barrel is thinner at the bottom of the barrel where the bullet enters from the chamber. This, combined with numerous report of the forcing cone cracking has lead to a scare accross the interwebz about K frame magnums.

    The problem, however, was less to do with the forcing cone and more to due with improper maintenance and the super hot ammo of the time. Firstly, when lead .38 SPL ammo was regularly shot through the guns for practice then followed by hot jacketed 125 gr. loads the pressure on the thin metal at the area of the forcing cone was increased leading to cracks. Secondly, Super Vel ammunition's .357 magnum 125gr. loads in popular use at the time resulted in most all documented cases of barrel cracking had the bullets moving along at 1700 or more fps with commensurate energy levels. Even their .38 special loadings (in 110gr.) had been clocked at over 1200 fps! The story "cracked forcing cones" gets repeated, but never the details. Later due to these problems Smith & Wesson moved to the L frame models, which are nothing but beefy K frames, without the class :D

    Now to a question I often get asked: What does -4 mean? Well it depends on the model in question. They are revisions of the same gun with minor changes. On the model 19, the ones I know are as follows:

    19-1 (1959): Change extractor rod, right to left-hand thread.
    19-2 (1961): Cylinder stop changed, delete triggerguard screw.
    19-3 (1967): Relocation of rear sight leaf screw.
    19-4 (1977): Change gas ring from yoke to cylinder. (cost-cutting measure)
    19-5 (1982): Eliminate cylinder counterbore.

    The other K frame is a model 64, the stainless version of the venerable model 10. Mine is a 3" heavy barrel model in .38 SPL (the .357 model is the model 65). A supremely accurate weapon that often out shoots my 4" and 5" barrel models. I find the K frame 3" barrel model is the perfect balance between concealability and shootability.

    Happy to answer any questions. :)

    --End Today's Profile--
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2011
  16. mesinge2

    mesinge2 New Member

    1,530
    0
    0
    Sorry, for the late answer but I didn't see the question before. The 22 mag is a hand full without the ability to full your hand. Its fun with 22 LR rounds and cylinder but the muzzle flip is so exagerated with the magnum rounds that I feel as if I am going to drop it. Also, if you think you can shoot it from your pocket think again:

    [​IMG]

    On the Taurus question, which one? I have 4 up there. A .38 SPL model 85 without hammer spur, the judge (not practical, but fun), the 8-shot 357 magnum 608, and the 9mm model 905 snubbie. I like Taurus's revolvers, but don't trust their pistols; I have had bad experiences with their pistols.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2011
  17. mesinge2

    mesinge2 New Member

    1,530
    0
    0
    I purchased a Taurus Judge when they first came out. I just wanted it as a fun range gun. And man, I tell you it got bad press on the interwebz faster than the 45 colt it fires travels. I don't carry it as a SD weapon. I prefer a 357 K/L sized frame revolver or a government 1911. With that said, and with those people all a twitter of their tiny .380s; if given a choice between an LCP/P238/P3AT or a Judge. It be a judge.

    Now to the report: I was impressed with the 45LC ammo, and the small shot ammo. This target is some #7 (or #7 1/2 or #8 I can't remember) shot ammo and Winchester silvertip 225 grain .45 Colt ammo at 7-yards. It is two cylinders loaded in this order: shot, shot, 45, 45, 45; then shot, 45, 45, 45, 45. I figure the shot shell distracts and the Colts finish the job.

    [​IMG]

    Then came the buckshot, the spread with the long-gun designed ammo is crazy. The following is 5 subsequent shots with Winchester Super-X .410 Bore 2 1/2" OOO Buck with 3 pellets from the 2.5" Chamber Judge with 3" Barrel at 14 yards.

    [​IMG]


    Then I tried the Federal Premium Personal Defense .410 Handgun 2 1/2" OOO Buckshot with 4 pellets. This is the same gun and the same range (14 yards):

    [​IMG]


    Amazing improvement. I think the trick is that the pellets of the Federal are contained within the wad therefore clustering the shot.



    With these velocities and the 71 grain ball weight it is like four 36 percussion balls hitting in a space of 2.5 inches. My thinking is that Jesse James killed pretty well with a 36 percussion and 20 ball rounds in five pulls of the trigger is impressive. The buckshot might not be the best but the gun seems fine as a defensive weapon the way I have it loaded: with a Wincheter 000 buck with the wide spread first, followed by the tight spread of the Federal 000 buck, then three .45 Colts. I would not want to be on the other side of this!
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2011
  18. Boyerracing343

    Boyerracing343 New Member Supporter

    1,461
    0
    0
  19. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    Not to jack the thread, but anybody know why they did this? My nephew wants GP100-style grips (old style, with the rosewood inset) for his Redhawk, but can't find them due to the difference in frame style, grip stub vs. full frame.

    Also, i was glad to see that the purpose-made shot ammo for the Judge grouped better than the long-gun feed. I wonder about the specialty rounds that have a few shot and three mini-slug things that look like watch batteries & their impact.
     
  20. mesinge2

    mesinge2 New Member

    1,530
    0
    0
    Its not a Hijack at all that is the purpose of this thread.

    If you have a question, ask away. :)

    As to your question: It was done to shorten the grip for concealment and the abbreviated grip frame of the GP-100 reduces the overall weight of the gun significantly. Yet, they made up for the weight reduction with the full under-lug barrel. Go figure, :rolleyes: