It just had too many problems to be economical to fix. So, now I am looking for a new revolver. Rough duty, but it's gotta be done!
My choices have narrowed down to the Smith 686 3 or 4", 66 2 3/4" or the Ruger GP 100, or Match Champion, if I can't find the 3" TALO Wiley Clapp special edition. It won't happen often, but I can carry a 4" revolver concealed very easily, but am somewhat recoil sensitive, so the 3" J frame is not a contender. To shoot up all of the several thousand cast and Plated boolits I have accumulated through the years, I am going to standardize on ~.38 Spl +P levels loads for fun/carry, and experiment with full wadcutters @~ 800 fps for SD purposes.
I had considered going to 9mm, but as I already have the reloading equipment for .38/357, and I like the caliber. While I was at the shooting range Wednesday, I met a fellow from Montana, and he had a family of Smiths...688, 60, and an aluminum-frame snubby. He offered to let me shoot his 6 inch 686, and I was in LOVE!
Problem was, he didn't want to sell it! Now: I can buy any of the new revolvers I want, but will I be better served by waiting and looking for older, pre-lock Smiths, or an older Ruger, even if I have to pay almost what I would for a newly-manufactured gun? A local gun store has an '87-88 GP 100 that looks to be in pretty good shape. If I pass on that, it will be looking at LGS and gun shows for a good replacement. I don't feel really good about Gunbroker, and sight unseen type of deals.
I am definitely no expert, but all of the Smiths and Rugers I looked at today appeared to my relatively uneducated eye, well-made, with no visible dings, goobers or other nasties. Given the constant complaining about quality levels of current Smith and Ruger offerings, is it better to go for older, well-maintained shooters?
Thanx