Debating which revolver is best is like asking zealots of different faiths to evaluate the other's religion. Everybody has their own opinion, the right to disasgree and its easy for friendships suffer during heated debate.
These are my opinions and you have the right to disagree. I don't want to encourage bickering in the ranks and do not wish to enter into any debate. These are simply my observations based upon 20 years of experience in the firearms industry dealing with military and law enforcement customers, and as an active shooter who owns many and has shot hundreds more different revolvers over the last 40 years.
I admit prejudice. I worked for Ruger from 1984-87 and was Quality Assurance Manager for its Newport, NH Operations. In my engineering QA and law enforcement advisory capacity I routinely bought competitor's products off the shelf and tested them, often to destruction.
I own only one modern S&W, a 625 Model of 1989 in .45 ACP. My other S&Ws are older pre-war Hand Ejectors. It is true that current S&W revolvers do not exhibit the quality of workmanshop that older ones did. But it is not fair to compare a gun “hand built by little old men with files” against a modern one assembled from interchangible parts produced by automated machinery using the latest computer aided design and manufacturing with on-line statistical process controls. Individually hand made pre-war Hand Ejectors are superb, but no modern revolver could be made with that quality of workmanship today. The strength and durability of the old guns is inferior to those of modern metallurgy.
Older S&Ws produced prior to the mid 1980s do not hold up well when shot a steady diet of +P and Magnum ammunition. Prior to the mid to late 1980s S&Ws were plain carbon steel. Most frames would not even register on the Rockwell “C” scale, being typically 90-95Rb. Larger N frames were no different, just heavier. At that time law enforcement officers usually practiced with standard velocity 158-gr. LRN .38 Special or wadcutters and carried +P or magnum loads only for duty. Practice and qualification was haphazard and often not standardized. It was unusual for a revolver to be be fired more than 1000 rounds during an officer's entire law enforcement career. Durability was not an issue except for a few gun cranks who shot their guns until they wore out, then they got new ones.
That started to change in the 1980s. Law enforcement agencies began requiring officers to quality with the same ammo carried on duty. Qualification became more frequent than annual. When the S&W K-frame .357 Model 19 Combat Masterpiece first came out it was assumed it would be used with standard .38 ammo for practice and officers would carrry .357s on duty.
When agencies stopped buying wadcutter ammmo and started shooting +P and .357 all the time revolvers required more frequent maintenance beyond the user level to remove cylinder end shake, repair timing and to compensate for frame stretch. It was normal for a K-frame S&W to require adjustment every 1500 rounds of service ammunition. It wasn't until the mid to late 1980s that S&W improved their metallurgy to enable revolvers to stand up to a steady diet of service loads. The L-frame and current fully enclosed hammer J-frames have reinforced frame bolsters and heavier top straps to reduce the former tendency of the frames to stretch and for the revolvers to develop end play and go out of timing. Metallurgy also has been improved since the 1980s.
Modern S&W DAs when well fitted and set up have good DA and acceptable SA trigger pull, but not all of them come from the factory that way. Purists will find it normal for a new gun to require some tweaking to be “right."
In the early 80s when Federal agencies were still issuing service revolvers it was typical to buy 100 revolvers and “cherry pick” 60 from the lot for issue to a 60-student new-agent academy class. Each selected gun would then require would 1 to 2 hours of gunsmith time to correct minor defects and to make standard adjustments required so that a field agent's life could depend upon it. During a trainee's time at the academy any little glitches would be adjusted, maintenance required at the user level would be monitored, and the gun inspected at least once during the firearms training phase, and again after graduation before new agents were sent to a field office. During an agent's career the revolver would be touched by an armorer every time they went to an in-service training or qualification.
If you have access to an armorer, or have the tools and knowledge to maintain your own revolvers, or if you either spread your shooting among mulitple guns so that you don't wear one out, or you simply can't afford to shoot alot, the S&W revolvers are nice.
But if you want a beater gun which will always work, in which the design objective was to provide a service revolver which would go 5000 rounds of magnum ammunition with no malfunctions, no parts replacement or maintenance required beyond the user level, buy a Ruger.
The Ruger Service Six here was a security guard training gun. It fired over 100,000 rounds of standard and +P .38 Specials over the last 25 years. It was shot thousands of rounds between routine cleanings, and has a really smooth action just from being shot alot. It came back from Ruger when the security company sent their entire batch to New Hampshire for rebuild, which Ruger did for free. Great customer service. The revolvers were no longer needed for guard training, so the range complex and gun shop maintained by the security company sold them off to Virginia carry permit holders who are range members. I bought one for $275.
Their ten old school revolvers sold in a week. They all shoot like this one.
73 de KE4SKY In Home Mix We Trust From the Home of Ed's Red in "Almost Heaven" West Virginia
.jpg?width=50&crop=0,0,50,50)
