Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: BBQ/OC and target revolver?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    RVA, ,
    Posts
    279

    Post imported post

    Greetings all,

    I am new to the OC thing and I'm looking to pick up my first wheelgun. I've always been a semi-auto kinda guy, but I'm in the market for a revolver that I can make into a BBQ gun and also use for some target shooting. I like .357's, so I can use .38s to make small groups in paper. Looking for a large, heavy gun, 5+ inch barrel, with adjustable sights. This will be somewhat of a project gun, so grips, etc. aren't terribly important as I'll probably replace them soon anyway. The most important criteria is accuracy. I'm looking for something in the $500-$800 range, and I'll be shopping for used guns once I decide on a model.

    I know next to nothing about revolvers so I'm really looking for some advice on brands, models, accuracy, and overall quality.

    Thanks in advance for all your help.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844

    Post imported post



    Smith & Wesson 8 Round 357 Rem. Mag/4" Matte Stainless Barrel/Adjustable Sight


    Specifications
    Item: S&W M627 178014 PRO 357 4 AS 8R MSS






    Type
    Revolver

    Action
    Single / Double

    Caliber
    357 Remington Mag

    Barrel Length
    4"

    Capacity
    8 rd

    Safety
    No Manual Safety

    Grips
    Rubber

    Sights
    Interchangeable (Front); Adj. (Rear)

    Weight
    41.2 oz

    Finish
    Stainless






























    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    RVA, ,
    Posts
    279

    Post imported post

    I guess I forgot to add, I'd like to avoid S&W and Ruger because of their complicity with the Clinton administration and the AWB. I'm not opposed to buying them used, but new is out of the question.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844

    Post imported post

    essayons wrote:
    I'd like to avoid S&W and Ruger
    The Devils in the details.

    http://www.beretta.com/index.aspx?m=...c=2&ids=52


    Happy hunting.
    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    S&W does not have the same ownership that made the deal with the Clinton administration and the current ownership of S&W has publicly denounced the prior deal, has stated they think the contract is unenforcible and that they will fight it actively in court if the gov't ever tried to enforce it. The only member of upper management that was at S&W during that deal who is still with the company to the best of my knowledge, was one of the people who resigned from S&W in protest over the deal and then was rehired after the new ownership took over.

    To punish the current ownership (an American company) and the employees of S&W for the sins of the prior owners (a British company) years after the fact and in the face of current ownership's denouncement of the prior owner's actions to be unfair at best. S&W makes excellent quality revolvers (as attested to by my fully functional, still shoot-it-on-occasion nearly 100 year old S&W revolver in my collection) and I would not at this point hesitate to purchase a new one from them.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    RVA, ,
    Posts
    279

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    S&W does not have the same ownership that made the deal with the Clinton administration and the current ownership of S&W has publicly denounced the prior deal, has stated they think the contract is unenforcible and that they will fight it actively in court if the gov't ever tried to enforce it. The only member of upper management that was at S&W during that deal who is still with the company to the best of my knowledge, was one of the people who resigned from S&W in protest over the deal and then was rehired after the new ownership took over.

    To punish the current ownership (an American company) and the employees of S&W for the sins of the prior owners (a British company) years after the fact and in the face of current ownership's denouncement of the prior owner's actions to be unfair at best. S&W makes excellent quality revolvers (as attested to by my fully functional, still shoot-it-on-occasion nearly 100 year old S&W revolver in my collection) and I would not at this point hesitate to purchase a new one from them.
    I was unaware of that... thanks for educating me. I had to dig a bit just to check into what you said. S&W should put some money into publicizing that information, it would probably give them a big boost, as I am not the only one who is (was) still boycotting S&W based on old (mis)information.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    essayons wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    S&W does not have the same ownership that made the deal with the Clinton administration and the current ownership of S&W has publicly denounced the prior deal, has stated they think the contract is unenforcible and that they will fight it actively in court if the gov't ever tried to enforce it. The only member of upper management that was at S&W during that deal who is still with the company to the best of my knowledge, was one of the people who resigned from S&W in protest over the deal and then was rehired after the new ownership took over.

    To punish the current ownership (an American company) and the employees of S&W for the sins of the prior owners (a British company) years after the fact and in the face of current ownership's denouncement of the prior owner's actions to be unfair at best. S&W makes excellent quality revolvers (as attested to by my fully functional, still shoot-it-on-occasion nearly 100 year old S&W revolver in my collection) and I would not at this point hesitate to purchase a new one from them.
    I was unaware of that... thanks for educating me. I had to dig a bit just to check into what you said. S&W should put some money into publicizing that information, it would probably give them a big boost, as I am not the only one who is (was) still boycotting S&W based on old (mis)information.
    No problem. That's why we are here, to learn and share information. S&W soon after the purchase did do some publicity about their positions in opposition to the prior ownership even publishing a few open letters but it didn't get the grass roots distribution that the original deal get which is unfortunate for S&W. It seems that people much prefer outrage to vindication.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Goshen, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    I know William B. Ruger sold us out years ago but he is dead. I have three Rugers I have a SP101 327, GP100 357, and Mark II 22/45, I think they make the best gun out there. I could understand if they still were selling us out.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156

    Post imported post

    Can't go wrong with a Colt Python.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    150

    Post imported post

    I have a S&W 686 4" I just love more than any large caliber handgun for comfort and accuracy. The S&W trigger is a big part of it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    RVA, ,
    Posts
    279

    Post imported post

    Thanks for the replies...

    I've decided on a S&W 686 6-inch, and found one used for just under $500 w/ holster and a few accessories. Is this a reasonable price?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Goshen, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    I just bought a used Ruger GP100, 4 in, it was in excellent cond. I paid $375, so in comp to new I would say thats not a bad price for a Smith. I love a wheel gun, its my primary carry, I carry two speed loaders on my belt as well enjoy.:celebrate

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    363

    Post imported post

    EMSIG,

    You are correct, he's dead, they make great guns.

    BTW, I escaped from Elkhart in 1967, Howdy from an escaped to Free America Former Hoosier.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •