School me on S&W 357 revolvers.

Status
Not open for further replies.

solman

Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
291
I have a 6" Ruger GP 100 in 357 for over 30 years. This gun is built like a tank and I have lost count of how many rounds I have put through it. The gun is very accurate but the DA pull on a Ruger is nothing to like. I have always shot SA so I never had a problem with it. Lately I have started to polish up my double action skills as I now am retired and have the time to play. I guess I could have the Ruger tuned up a bit but, I am thinking it's time to add to the stable. The S&W 686 comes to mind but also wonder what other models of S&W in 357 to consider. How does the DA pull on the different revolvers compare? This is strictly for paper punching and plinking. I hand load my 357 to low end power so I can shoot extended time at the range.
I know Colt rereleased the Python and this would be about max on the budget. Hard to find one right now to compare with.
 
First, Id say, just keep practicing with then Ruger as it is, and youll soon find its miraculously getting better as you go. DAO dry fire every day will be a major benefit and help speed things up, and help maintain things. I dry fire a number of different guns every day, and theres always a revolver in the mix. All guns with DA triggers are "shot" DAO too.

Its generally not the gun thats lacking when it comes to this, and its amazing how much better it seems to get, the more you shoot it.

That said, the more you shoot the Ruger, the more youre going to like it, and youre really going to like the Smiths DA triggers. :)

I have Smiths across a number of eras and always found their DA triggers to be about the nicest factory triggers of the type. Pick the model you like, I dont think youll be disappointed.
 
Unless you want to buy new, have you considered a used K-frame Smith in 357? Even one in excellent condition should cost less and may have been smoothed out with use. I'm the second or third owner of my K-38 and K-22 and the triggers feel like butter. And since you will be handloading milder rounds (that's what I do for most of my 357s) you don't need a tank like the GP100 or Redhawk. Just a thought.

Jeff
 
The OP has owned the GP100 for thirty years. If the DA trigger pull hasn’t got better by now it’s not going to. I’ve owned both the GP and a 686. I still have the 686. The GP trigger stages better than the smith but the Smith is much smoother even with its mim parts. The 686 is every bit a tank as the GP.
 
The OP has owned the GP100 for thirty years. If the DA trigger pull hasn’t got better by now it’s not going to. I’ve owned both the GP and a 686. I still have the 686. The GP trigger stages better than the smith but the Smith is much smoother even with its mim parts. The 686 is every bit a tank as the GP.
Youre missing the point. Its not the trigger. And, it usually never is. :thumbup:
 
The 686 SSR in my avitar is my best revolver. I had a deluxe action job performed on it and it has a 10 lb. DA trigger pull with the stock springs.The action is as smooth as glass.A pleasure to shoot.
 
I thought the OP’s post was about not liking the DA pull on the Ruger.
And the likely reason is, that he, and most other SA shooters, are not a DA shooter.

He said he was getting into it and looking for something better.

My point is, the Rugers trigger probably really isnt really all that bad, and put in some time getting used to shooting that way, getting your muscle tone in those muscles used to shoot that way, up to where it should be, and learn to focus on maintaining sight alignment as you stroke the trigger, the "trigger" will get better. But, its really not the trigger thats getting better.

Id be willing to bet, if he switches to a S&W, hes not going to see much of a difference in the triggers, until he does what I suggested with the Ruger. You need to do it with the Smiths and anything else.

Whats always amazed me about these trigger issues is, people seem to be willing to spend a lot of money, and do everything "but" address the main problem. And that problem, is not the trigger.
 
I have not owned any gun for 30 years. However, having owned 2 GP101 and 2 686, I will say I vastly prefer the S&W trigger. Actually, I only bought the Rugers to try and recapture the feel of well worn in 686 I foolishly traded away without paying S&W prices. Neither the 4" nor the 3" quite had the same feel to my hand when I shot them compared to the 686.

I think a lot of it has to do with how the gun balances. The trigger smoothness has a great deal to do with it, but an L frame feels just a bit different than Ruger.

I still catch myself "cheating" at the range and thumbing back the hammer even though I know I will never get the chance to do so in an emergency. However, when I shoot DA, I do find the 686 groups just a bit better for me than the GP in my limited experience.
 
I think if you want to buy another .357 Mag revolver, you should!

But you should also consider tuning up your GP100. If you've mainly shot SA, the DA mechanisms probably haven't smoothed out much from when it was new. All the GPs I've owned have benefited from an action tuning. One in particular also got shims and lighter springs. This one is smoothest of all, and still totally reliable. It's not an expensive proposition, and after watching a few YouTube videos, pretty easy to understand.
 
There’s no reason you shouldn’t have both the Ruger and the smith.

the Rugers trigger is different in that the cylinder locks up way before the hammer falls and you can feel it. I guess it’s comparable to the wall you feel with a Glock trigger. There isn’t anything wrong with that but many using that as a staging of sorts and that’s a bad habit to get into. Squeezing a trigger should be practiced as a single full motion, not several separate motions.

the smith will definitely have the “better” trigger. If you like to shoot a lot, I’d suggest an L frame. 586, 686. The K frame 19/66ish models are more like .38s that can handle .357. They were meant to be lighter and are not as heavy duty as the L frame.

my subjective opinion is that the gp100 is a better built gun. More heavy duty. But fact is you’ll probably shoot the smith better and you’ll probably never wear it out.
 
The stock GP100 trigger just isn't that good in DA. I have thousands of rounds through mine and I still have to practically bench-press the trigger to fire double-action. My 686 trigger is very good in DA, about as nice as you can ask for a non-raced up revolver.

The GP100 is a single action revolver only for me, and given that I usually like to shoot offhand at targets pry 20-60 yards away, that is absolutely fine. I shoot my 686 in SA 99% of the time too.

If you want to practice shooting 357s DA, get a 586 or 686. The smaller K frames will be lighter but kick more, and I'd rather be punched in the face than shoot a box of 357s through a J frame. The L frames are S&W's closest comparison to your GP100 and also match the size of a Python - that's pretty much the sweet spot for 357 revolvers.

Maybe if your handloads are real creampuffs then a K frame will work, but as TonyAngel said, the K frames are really 38 revolvers that can fire 357. If you are going to run anything warmer then 38 +P, I'd get the L frames just to help soak up the recoil.
 
Last edited:
solman,
The 686 is a fine .357 Magnum revolver that you would get lots of enjoyment from. You also have the model 586. Same as the 686 only blued. There is the model 19, a blued K frame .357 and the model 66 which is a stainless model the same size as the 19. There is also the 327 and 627 series revolvers which are N frame 8 shot revolvers. I am guessing you don’t want a J frame. All the ones I mentioned here are available as New manufacture.

https://www.smith-wesson.com/revolvers filter by .357 Magnum.

If you are looking at used guns here is a nice resource for getting an idea of the older model numbers for S&W revolvers.

https://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/guide-sw-38-357-revolvers/

I hope this helps.
 
I've had several Ruger 686 and Smith L frame revolvers over the years as well as one Smith 19. Like them both a lot but I've always had a slight preference for the Smiths. The triggers are "different", but not necessarily better either way. Once you get used to either I think they both can be shot very well.

But I sold all of those after buying a 28. It just isn't THAT much bigger, in fact it will fit in most of the same holsters and in most cases is actually a little lighter than the GP-100 or 686 since it doesn't have the full length lug under the barrel.
 
I had a GP100 with a very nice trigger DA and SA. I did shim it, but it was pretty nice. I had a Security Six that I didn't think much of the SA trigger, but liked the DA trigger. Rugers do not have inherently bad DA triggers. That said I really do like the K frames, and a nice Model 19 is a pleasure to shoot, and in my hands, easier to shoot more accurately. If you need a reason to get another firearm, buy a Smith, they're awesome! But don't replace that Ruger, compliment it, because it's awesome too.
 
Howdy

You said 'School me on S&W 357 revolvers', right?

S&W began producing a modern double action revolver for the brand new 38 Special cartridge in 1899. They looked like this. This is a S&W Model of 1899, that left the factory in 1899.

pmilxqRoj.jpg




The cylinder for this model was the perfect size for the then new 38 Special Cartridge. Not too big, not too small, just right. And the frame was just the right size to house the cylinder without being too big or too small.This frame size became known as the K frame.

pnEsUCMdj.jpg




As the new century wore on, S&W began development of a new, more powerful loading for the 38 Special cartridge. This cartridge was too powerful for the K frame 38 Specials of the day. Given the steel being used at the time, the dimensions of the cylinder were not stout enough to take the pressure developed by the more powerful cartridge, sometimes known as the 38 Super Police.

In 1908 S&W had introduced a larger revolver, for the then new 44 Special cartridge. Because the 44 caliber cartridge was larger in diameter than the 38 caliber cartridge, the cylinder had to be scaled up to accept the new cartridge. The frame had to be larger to accept the larger cylinder. This new frame size became known as the N frame. It was a fairly simple task to chamber the larger cylinders to accept the 38 Special cartridge. When the larger cylinders were chambered for the smaller diameter cartridge, there was more metal left between chambers than with the K frame 38s, so these cylinders would be able to accept the higher pressures generated by the more powerful 38 Special cartridges. So in 1930 S&W introduced two 38 Special revolvers built on the larger N frame. There were two versions, one with adjustable sights and one with fixed sights. Because these revolvers were built on the N frame, originally developed for 44 Special cartridges, the fixed sight version was called the 38/44 Heavy Duty and the adjustable sight version was called the 38/44 Outdoorsman.

This is an N frame 38/44 Outdoorsman.

poLVKDC8j.jpg




The tale continues. The problem was that a K frame 38 Special revolver could accept the 38 Super Police cartridge into its chambers, with possibly disastrous results. So in 1935 S&W introduced a new high powered replacement for the 38 Super Police cartridge. The cartridge case for this round was about 1/10 inch longer than a 38 Special, so the new round would not fit into a standard 38 Special revolver. The new round was dubbed the 357 Magnum. Bullet diameter was the same as the 38 Special (.357). A new revolver, very similar to the 38/44 guns was built on the N frame. This revolver was simply called The 357 Magnum. Early on these new 357 Magnum revolvers were part of a marketing program where the buyer had many choices of features on the revolver, including barrel length, type of sights, grips, and other stuff that I can't remember right now. These revolvers were called the Registered Magnums because the factory registered them to a specific owner. Sorry, I do not have a photo of a Registered Magnum, it is still on my bucket list.

The N frame 357 Magnums were big heavy guns. Bill Jordan, along with several other respected shooters, suggested to S&W that they chamber the 357 Magnum cartridge into a lighter revolver, specifically a K frame revolver. Betting that the material strength of their cylinders had improved enough, in 1955 S&W introduced the 357 Combat Magnum, built on the K frame.

In 1955, S&W changed over to a Model Number system to market their revolvers. The N frame 357 Magnum became the Model 27, and the K frame 357 Combat Magnum became the Model 19. Here is a Model 19-3 that I bought in 1975.

pn6mDsGcj.jpg




Here is a Model 27 that left the factory in 1959.

pnbjW1Znj.jpg




Here is a comparison of the sizes of the Model 27 at the top, and the Model 19 at the bottom. Don't be confused by the appearance of the large Oversized Target grips on the Model 19. The N frame Model 27 is a larger gun and has a larger cylinder.

pn7Prilbj.jpg




Here is a comparison of the two cylinders. Both are chambered for the 357 Magnum cartridge. Notice how much larger the Model 27 cylinder on the right is, and how much more metal there is between chambers. That cylinder configuration goes all the way back to the 38/44 revolvers of the 1930s.

pmw8GBK6j.jpg





The problem with the K frame 357 Magnums, such as the Model 19 was that there was a flat relief cut onto the bottom of the forcing cone. This feature goes back to about 1905 or so with all K frame S&W revolvers. The relief was there to clear the gas collar on the cylinder. This meant that the forcing cone was slightly thinner in this area. This is a photo of the clearance cut on the bottom of the forcing cone of a Model 13-2, another 357 Magnum revolver built on the K frame. This was never a problem with normal velocity 38 Special ammunition, but with some high velocity 357 Magnum ammunition the forcing cone could split at this thin spot.

plceHdghj.jpg




This design flaw did not exist on the N frame revolvers because the cylinder was a larger diameter. This is the forcing cone of an N frame Model 28 357 Magnum revolver. Notice there is no flat cut onto the forcing cone, it is the same thickness through out its diameter.

po0MWJzAj.jpg




This is the reason S&W developed the L frame. Slightly larger than a K frame, not as large as an N frame. This is the forcing cone on a 357 Magnum S&W Model 686. No weak spot milled into it.

pmSg5ha9j.jpg




That's about all I can 'school you' about S&W 357 Magnum revolvers.

There are J frame 357 Magnums, but I don't own one. Much too much recoil in a small package for me.
 
There's a difference between the feel of the DA triggers but not enough to make a significant difference in shootability. The Ruger is easier to tune. I'm not telling you this to discourage you from buying a 686 but for you not to have too high of an expectation on what a stock 686 will provide you.
Both the Ruger GP100 and the S&W 686 come in performance tuned trims. This may be what you're ultimately after.
I've owned K and N frames but haven't owned an L. Most of them have disappointed me at one time or another and I no longer own them.
 
my gp100 had the wolf spring kit and i changed the trigger rebound spring and the hammer spring.i have a new classic series smith 586. i changed the trigger rebound spring but left the original hammer spring. both guns felt much better afterwards. i have had the gp100 longer by several years .

i find the da trigger pull of the 586 to be far smoother(more linear is how i would describe it- same force required throughout)) vs the gp100. gp 100 feels like you have to exert more force initially and then smooth but long trigger pull( i suspect from greater rotational inertia of the thicker cylinder in the gp). both are good guns and if i am shooting the gp more i will shoot the 586 worse for the first few cylinders and same vice versa if i shoot the 586 first.

i do stage my trigger pulls and it seems easier to do with the gp100. the 586 will sometimes surprise you( more approproate for a non staged trigger pull).
 
Personally, I prefer S&W revolvers but that is mostly on appearance. The Ruger DA/SA revolvers look frumpy to me.

But you cannot fault Rugers for their reliability. I do have a couple GP100's but they are chambered in 44 Special and a Redhawk chambered in 45 Colt.

I like my S&W K-frame guns but I shoot mostly 38 Special level loads in them. Back in the day, I did crack the forcing cone on my Model 19 with a steady diet of full power, 158 grain loads. (Note, the current production Model 66 and I suspect the Classic Model 19 have been revised to eliminate the weakness in the early Model 19's).

If I were to shoot lots of full power 357 Magnum ammunition, I'd get an S&W L-frame (Model 586 or 686) or N-frame (Model 27, 28, or 627 family) or a Ruger GP100.

There are lots of good comments already posted, particularly from Driftwood Johnson.
 
It sounds like you're ready to try a S&W 357. If you've got a range that will rent you one or a friend that owns a 686 that would be ideal. As far as other Smith 357s you could get good advice on the S&W forum but an older k frame model 19 that hasn't seen a lot off 357s through it comes to mind. If you want to shoot a steady diet of 357s you probably want a heavier framed (L or N). You can try a 10# or 12# reduced power main spring in your GP in about 5 minutes and @$18 . The biggest trigger difference I find on my Smith revolvers is how much quicker the hammer drops after lock up than the Rugers. I do better with my GPs if I don't stage the trigger but pull smoothly through lock up. My GP100 triggers are very smooth after a few thousand rounds, hammer/hammer dog shims and polishing the edges of the main spring strut. If what you dislike about your GP trigger is the long pull, trying a Smith would be a good idea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top