OP
OP
Pat Riot
Contributing Member
You were correct, it's just that they need to resubmit annually for renewal and each gun on the renewal has to have a fee paid for "Administrative Reasons" from what I understand.
Opinions on .357 Magnum revolvers for higher power loads
- Thread starter Pat Riot
- Start date
- Status
You were correct, it's just that they need to resubmit annually for renewal and each gun on the renewal has to have a fee paid for "Administrative Reasons" from what I understand.
.38 Special
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 7,355
You can posses it, you just can't buy a new one from a dealer, for the most part. I'm not aware of any related prosecutions - though I haven't gone looking - and figure prosecutions aren't really the point. The roster is just another way to deter gun ownership and make anti-gunners feel like "something is being done".
Pat: for steady use with full house .357 magnums, IMHO, you're well served by one of the S&W 586/686 revolvers. As stated by many, the "L" frames were built for that purpose: larger barrel shank, full underlug and some frame modifications produced a truly rugged revolver. The only down side I see is their carry weight...a growing concern for me personally as I approach my mid-70's. But with the right holster rig; the cross chest type you mentioned, that's no longer a problem.
I'm a S&W gun gun & have been for over 50 years now ... and feel Smith's out of the box SA/DA triggers are the industry standard (or at least used to be) and with accuracy that's a given. While I like the older pre-lock models, I'm well aware that they do have weaknesses with a steady diet of hot loads. But as 99% of my shooting, with any caliber really, is at and below 1000 fps, Smith's K frames do nicely in my use.
For me, where I'd want full house .357 loads available in a carry rig, (e.g., for me personally: trout fishing in bear country east of the Mississippi), the cross chest type rigs make the most sense. The same type rig is also very good for rifle deer hunting from a stand...keeping the short gun out of the way while walking in, but still instantly available if needed.
Out west, the same rig works but carrying a forty something caliber revolver is a better choice for defense. In my own experience, I once packed out an elk quarter through 6" snow at high altitude without my rifle...and no back up handgun. On return to the kill site, I found fresh bear tracks in my outbound trail for well over a hundred yards. Why he turned off, I'll never know, but it was the last time I was unarmed in similar circumstances
Best Regards, Rod
I'm a S&W gun gun & have been for over 50 years now ... and feel Smith's out of the box SA/DA triggers are the industry standard (or at least used to be) and with accuracy that's a given. While I like the older pre-lock models, I'm well aware that they do have weaknesses with a steady diet of hot loads. But as 99% of my shooting, with any caliber really, is at and below 1000 fps, Smith's K frames do nicely in my use.
For me, where I'd want full house .357 loads available in a carry rig, (e.g., for me personally: trout fishing in bear country east of the Mississippi), the cross chest type rigs make the most sense. The same type rig is also very good for rifle deer hunting from a stand...keeping the short gun out of the way while walking in, but still instantly available if needed.
Out west, the same rig works but carrying a forty something caliber revolver is a better choice for defense. In my own experience, I once packed out an elk quarter through 6" snow at high altitude without my rifle...and no back up handgun. On return to the kill site, I found fresh bear tracks in my outbound trail for well over a hundred yards. Why he turned off, I'll never know, but it was the last time I was unarmed in similar circumstances
Best Regards, Rod
Last edited:
OP
OP
Pat Riot
Contributing Member
Well, with the discussion on California’s Roster I went back and looked to see which GP100 revolvers were still on the roster. I could have sworn there were 3 approved.357 magnum GP100s. Turns out there are 2. Both are 4.2” barreled models. The NRA version and the Match Champion. I thought there was a .357 with a 5.5” barrel.
Here is a screenshot of the roster showing the only 5 GP100s allowed for sale in California.
I am just a bit perturbed right now.
Luckily S&W’s list appears complete.
A couple of weeks ago my LGS had a GP100 in stock. It was a 7 shot .357 with a 4.2” barrel. They had removed the double action dog to make it single action to legally sell it. It was no longer on the roster as of Jan. 1st.
It was this one: https://www.ruger.com/products/gp100/specSheets/1771.html
They wanted $1032 for it, which is just $37 below MSRP and I figured I could find one cheaper. I was wrong. That’s okay. I won’t have the money to buy my new gun for a few more weeks anyway.
Here is a screenshot of the roster showing the only 5 GP100s allowed for sale in California.
I am just a bit perturbed right now.
Luckily S&W’s list appears complete.
A couple of weeks ago my LGS had a GP100 in stock. It was a 7 shot .357 with a 4.2” barrel. They had removed the double action dog to make it single action to legally sell it. It was no longer on the roster as of Jan. 1st.
It was this one: https://www.ruger.com/products/gp100/specSheets/1771.html
They wanted $1032 for it, which is just $37 below MSRP and I figured I could find one cheaper. I was wrong. That’s okay. I won’t have the money to buy my new gun for a few more weeks anyway.
OP
OP
Pat Riot
Contributing Member
Thank you. It’s beginning to look like an S&W is going to be my choice unless I come across a used GP100 that isn’t priced too high.
Pat: I've never run across a GP100 here locally when I had the cash or inclinations, but it's one of those itches that I have yet to scratch. I've had a lot of experience with Ruger's SA's over the past half-century but not one of their DA's. Probably time to correct that oversight!
Just took a look at Ruger's web site. They show both available for ~ $950 to $1030 MSRP and with fully adjustable rear sights...a must for me. SS or Blued, they look pretty good. That Hogue Mono-Grip is a good idea, at least in my usage. On my M69 Smith, it pretty well soaks up the recoil and totally eliminates the 2nd finger bruising.
Best Regards, Rod
Just took a look at Ruger's web site. They show both available for ~ $950 to $1030 MSRP and with fully adjustable rear sights...a must for me. SS or Blued, they look pretty good. That Hogue Mono-Grip is a good idea, at least in my usage. On my M69 Smith, it pretty well soaks up the recoil and totally eliminates the 2nd finger bruising.
Best Regards, Rod
Swing
Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,644
I have one of those S&W 686 7-shooters and it has been great. Beautifully made, nice fancy grips, dead on accurate, and recoil very pleasant with both .38 Specials and standard .357 Magnum loads. Since that was on OP's list, a plus one for that option. 
Sergei Mosin
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 1,918
As you’re leaving CA soon, why not wait until you’re in a state where you can buy what you want? Think of it as a way of celebrating your escape.
OP
OP
Pat Riot
Contributing Member
That may happen, but the money I plan to use is money from a California agency. I can think of nothing better than to use that money to buy something the folks in charge here hate.
Good point. That isn't preferred but could be a solution.
Diamondback Dave
Member
Any comment on 7 rd gp100 losing durability due to the extra chamber? I’ve also seen some chatter on the Ruger forum about cartridge rim width from some brands preventing the the insertion of the 7th rd? Are these big issues?
Any comment on 7 rd gp100 losing durability due to the extra chamber? I’ve also seen some chatter on the Ruger forum about cartridge rim width from some brands preventing the the insertion of the 7th rd?
Now that's an interesting thought...7 shot cylinders reduce weight - generally good IMHO, but you give up some of the robust construction Ruger's are justly famous for, I'd think. Too, I've not read or heard about cartridge rim interference issues....Rod
Now that's an interesting thought...7 shot cylinders reduce weight - generally good IMHO, but you give up some of the robust construction Ruger's are justly famous for, I'd think. Too, I've not read or heard about cartridge rim interference issues....Rod
OP
OP
Pat Riot
Contributing Member
Apparently some folks discovered that certain brands of ammo have a 7th round binding issue. I did a DDG search and found a few references to this. Apparently it was an ammo issue, not a Ruger issue, but I didn’t read everything.
Here is a copy and paste of the search I did.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ruger 7 round rim interference&ia=web
Diamondback Dave
Member
Thanks! I am stuck in the 686 vs gp100 limbo, leaning toward the gp100 (7 shot) for its vaunted robustness but then started overthinking of course. I prefer hot .357 loads and it finally hit me that 7 chambers = thinner steel in between those heaters—anyone have an opinion? Or any anecdotal support of either yay or nay on reduced ruggedness? And yes from what I read that rimlock really is more of an ammo issue (can always file a few rims flat on two sides and keep em handy I guess!)
)
LaneP
Member
I have no doubt Ruger engineers have accounted for the cylinder wall thickness and strength with respect to containing .357 chamber pressures, that would be "job 1" before marketing such a design. My concern would be the rim binding issue that appears to be a "thing" with even common, industry standard cases according to some initial research. Those rims are right against each other. I guess for now it's 6-shots for me until these have been wrung out. Plus, I can't call my hogleg a "six gun" if it has 7 shots
OP
OP
Pat Riot
Contributing Member
Plus, I can't call my hogleg a "six gun" if it has 7 shots
You can call it “a Sixgun Surprise”.
Six rounds and a surprise.
OP
OP
Pat Riot
Contributing Member
Sixgun with a double surprise
S&W 327 Night Guard
S&W 327 Night Guard
Palladan44
Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2020
- Messages
- 1,903
I believe the L frames have yet to be proven that they ARE NOT just as strong as an N frames.
They're not as big or heavy, but other than that that's the end of it from my experiences with both.
Smith wanted to incorporate the strength of the N, with the deployability of the K......and hit the note just about perfectly.
Believe it or not, the heavy rotational inertia of the N frame cylinder fired often In double action can wear on the lockwork quicker than one might think.
Think twice before any rapid firing of the light .38s in ANY revolver really. Think of how quick that cylinder is slamming that bolt with every shot.
This is far worse on a revolver than HOT loads. I've seen more revolvers go out of timing than crack a forcing cone, top strap cut to the point of render or just be eroded so badly from jacketed nuclear magnums. Do HOT loads put more wear on the lockwork of a revolver? A little bit, but not much.
They're not as big or heavy, but other than that that's the end of it from my experiences with both.
Smith wanted to incorporate the strength of the N, with the deployability of the K......and hit the note just about perfectly.
Believe it or not, the heavy rotational inertia of the N frame cylinder fired often In double action can wear on the lockwork quicker than one might think.
Think twice before any rapid firing of the light .38s in ANY revolver really. Think of how quick that cylinder is slamming that bolt with every shot.
This is far worse on a revolver than HOT loads. I've seen more revolvers go out of timing than crack a forcing cone, top strap cut to the point of render or just be eroded so badly from jacketed nuclear magnums. Do HOT loads put more wear on the lockwork of a revolver? A little bit, but not much.
Thanks! I am stuck in the 686 vs gp100 limbo, leaning toward the gp100 (7 shot) for its vaunted robustness but then started overthinking of course. I prefer hot .357 loads and it finally hit me that 7 chambers = thinner steel in between those heaters—anyone have an opinion? Or any anecdotal support of either yay or nay on reduced ruggedness? And yes from what I read that rimlock really is more of an ammo issue (can always file a few rims flat on two sides and keep em handy I guess!
I have a 686 and I want a GP100 in 357. I have a GP100 in 22LR. I'll comment since you're overthinking. That's my specialty. I want a GP100 even more after purchasing 4 S&Ws. Not because I regret buying 4 S&Ws, just because maybe it's time. Since I have a 686, maybe I'll get a half Lug GP100. Talking about a reduced weight 7 shot cylinder (that I'm confident is plenty strong / modern), I wonder if it's heavier loaded than a loaded six-shot cylinder. A smart person was mentioning the fatigue of a rotating cylinder coming to an abrupt stop. If the loaded 7-shot is heavier...Well...I just wonder.
Diamondback Dave
Member
So...would you go for the 6- or 7- shot go...?
Diamondback Dave
Member
Sorry not go, meant GP
Archie
Member
I carried a .357 Magnum revolver as a humble but lovable Border Patrol Agent about six years.
Just for background: The Model 19 did have some problems with the forcing cones cracking. That is a serious problem as barrels are practically impossible to replace. The new ones don't fit right and the old ones are used up. The problem was identified as being uniquely connected with the higher velocity 125 grain loads. They worked well on malefactors, but they cracked the bottom of the forcing cone. And the recoil is 'snappy' at least with any full magnum load. In full transparency, I also had a S&W M13, which is the same as the M19 but with fixed sights. Same K sized frame. I did stretch the top strap on the receiver, giving the cylinder a bit of endplay and a rather larger gap from cylinder to forcing cone. But I did fire somewhere between 150 and 300,000 rounds to do that. Shot a lot in those days, I did.
I've never used a 327 Night Guard, but it's supposed to be lighter. Snappier recoil.
Most reasonable.Pat Riot said:
First, I will echo and endorse the advice of 'nofendertom': Get proper grips that fit your hand. That alone is a world of difference.Pat Riot said:
I have a couple of the older, pinned barrel N frame revolvers in .357 Magnum. Two have 3.5 inch barrels. They are loud. The third one has a five inch barrel and is rather pleasant. (Compared to the shorter, lighter guns.) The five inch revolver is still loud, but not as much as the short barreled ones.
I have a 581 S&W. Same as the 686 except it has fixed sights and is blued steel. I shot it a bunch as well. Still have it. Good revolver.
No experience with the Ruger GP100 or Redhawk, so no comment. I did carry a Security Six for a year. Great gun but not made any more. Generally speaking, Ruger makes good guns.
Hope that gives you some information.
OP
OP
Pat Riot
Contributing Member
Yes, it does. Thank you. I agree regarding grips. The wrong ones can make handling and recoil unmanageable. If I end up with a 27 “Classic” they appear to have the same grip as my Model 25-15. That one is a very nice grip for a wooden grip.
Here’s a photo. They are similar in feel to Altamont Ropers.
Had to edit to fix Otto Communista intrusion…
Last edited:
- Status
