Strongest 357

[donjose]

I am wanting to know which pistol will last longer shooting full house 357mag loads as far as shooting loose?Will be running 180 at 1400 fps Factory Buffalo Bore ammo and will start the hand loading as well.I had read on some other forms that the Smith just wouldnt hold up and wanting to know before we start running a steady diet through the gun.Also several said a gp 100 would be better than the smith?

So would the Smith 686 be stronger than the 357 caliber Stainless Ruger Blackhawk



Jason

[Johnch]

IMO the Blackhawlk

Now if you could find a 357 mag Redhawlk
Those where a tank

John

[9.3X62AL]

I have both revolvers you mention, and the intrepid load work gets done with the Bisley Blackhawk in 357 Magnum. My belief is that the Ruger is stronger than the 686, though I have no actual destruction testing data to substantiate that.

[RobS]

Definitely the Ruger line is a solid place to start.

[Ed K]

Not as strong as a Redhawk but if one were wanting a S&W DA revolver how about a model 27/28?

[BD]

Dan Wesson Model 15

BD

[TDC]

People tend to overlook the S&W 27/28 series N frame revolvers when they make these comparisons.

Remember, S&W makes 4 different frame sizes for the .357. They include J, K, L, and N frames to meet the many different needs of shooters.

Rugers are tough revolvers, but let's not define our bias by omitting the "N" frame S&W models when making these comparisons...

JMHO.....

[Trey45]

Another vote for the DW 15 series, and another vote for the Ruger Redhawk.

[fivegunner]

No!, the Ruger is alot stronger. at least thats what I think.:coffee:

[RobS]

OP asked this:




So would the Smith 686 be stronger than the 357 caliber Stainless Ruger Blackhawk



Jason

[donjose]

So the Blackhawk or the gp 100 both look soild built.I know one is single action and one is double action.So out of those two which one do you think?


Also is there anyone around that will ream out a double action cylinder as well?I was wondering if cylindersmith would do one?

[357maximum]

I do not know about long term durability and destruction testing. I do know that I have owned a smith 586, and a 686, a ruger blackhawk and a DW 15.....the only one that still lives here it the DW15 and it ain't never leaving. It is alot more gun for the money IMHO.

[donjose]

This gun will be for the wife she tried the 44 last night and just to much for her.This gun will be used for pig and coyote and deer as well.

I am still leaning for the 686 since it is already drilled and tapped for the scope mount.Plus I will probally use it for coyote calling some this season.

Jason

By the time I send off a blackhawk and have a tsob installed I am in it for the same money as the Smith

[Guesser]

My entry in this guessing game would have to be a Freedom Arms revolver.

[imashooter2]

The S&W 627 is your gun.

The 686 or GP100 are both tough guns to wear out. But shooting heavy boolit full house magnums all day, you'll come to appreciate the heft of the S&W N frame.

[redneckdan]

TC encore, if you blow up one of these in .357 you definitely messed something up somewhere.

[454PB]

And don't rule out a Ruger Security Six if you can find one. They will fit a womans hands, and are brutally strong.

[roysha]

To answer your question, as much as it hurts my soul to say it, I suspect the monster Ruger will last a bit longer but......

I think you are missing a very important part in your search for a .357. That is, how does the gun fit and feel in your hand(s). I personally do not like the Ruger grip configuration on any of their DA revolvers. This is purely personal and in no way a condemnation of Ruger products

I see someone recommended a Security Six. For me, that is the most miserable, painful recoiling .357 I have ever shot. It only was made bearable after the installation of some aftermarket rubber grips and even then, it still wasn't fun.

I believe that if you are not totally comfortable with the feel and pointability of the gun you won't have to worry about wearing it out because you won't want to shoot it, especially with full power loads.

[bhn22]

S&W 27s & 28s have too short of cylinders for the really effective heavyweight cast bullets. Too short even for 357 cases loaded with Keith bullets! A 357 Redhawk would be my first choice if I wanted a tank. My 357 hunting gun is a 6 in GP100, and it's holding up much better than my 686, and they're both about the same age. If you really want something strong, get a Contender. If you don't mind a single-action, Freedom Arms (expensive) or a Blackhawk.

For all around use? a GP100 would probably do anything you ask of it.

[donjose]

Okay so let me ask this, is the gp100 stronger than the blackhawk?And single vs double action is no concern.


Jason

[RayinNH]

Either one will handle anything a sane person feeds it...Ray

[gon2shoot]

For the question you're asking, my choice would be the Ruger Blackhawk. It will do everything you want and ask for more.

My wife and daughters shoot Rugers and do well with them, come to think of it, they took mine.

I bought the wife a 686, but she prefered the Ruger after shooting a few rounds. A lot is just what you're used to.

[uncle joe]

smith mod 27, i have a pre mod 27 that has had at least a kazillion rounds through it and it's still pumping them out.

[bhn22]

I personally prefer DA revolvers. I don't believe you would notice a difference in durability between the two. However, being able to use speedloaders to load/ reload is a major plus, as is the swing-out cylinder. These are major shortcomings for single-actions as I see it. I could get around the need for having to cock the revolver manually with each shot, but unloading one cylinder at a time, then loading one cylinder at a time is too cumbersome when hunting. It's okay if everything goes right, but that doesn't always happen. Besides, it would give you another excuse to go shooting. You could practice up on your double-action work, while still having the single-action option if you want it.

[donjose]

I am figuring the blackhawk is probally the strongest after all, looks like Linebaugh guns are built off the blackhawk,supers and vaueros so I think that is the question answered.



Jason

[Art in Colorado]

After shooting several of my handguns my 17 year old niece pronounced the Model 28 as her favorite. She handeled it very well.





http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu23/artincolorado/Anna003.jpg

[MtGun44]

Redhawk, nothing else even close.

Bill

[9.3X62AL]

Don Jose--

The "L-frame" S&W--the 586 or 686 series revolvers in 357 Magnum--are certainly strong enough for any sane 357 Magnum loading ever factory-produced, to include the 1935-vintage Doug Wesson loads that ran 42K PSI+. I fired several THOUSAND such loads from a 586 x 6", and when I sold the revolver to a friend it was as tight as the day it left the factory. Same story with the current Model 686 x 4"......it has a couple thousand of the 42K PSI loads through it, and it is rock-solid as the day I bought it new.

SAAMI pressure standards at present--and reloading data of same vintage--list 36K PSI as top-end pressures for the 357 Magnum. From my 686 x 4", this means 1235 FPS with W-W 158 grain JHP factory loads. The 42K PSI loads I use most have Lyman #358156 atop enough 2400 or 296 to run just under 1400 FPS from the 4" barrel--about 1385-1390 FPS. This is my stop point for the 586/686.

The Bisley Blackhawk--with more of those powders mentioned--can achieve 1550-1575 FPS from its 7.5" barrel. Casings fall free with the loading gate opened and muzzle held vertically, as often as not. No force is required to dislodge them--ever. These loads are marked on the cartridge head with red felt pens, which tumbles away in corncob grit. I DO NOT want these loads finding their way into any of my other 357 revolvers by accident--even the 686 or a fine old pre-27. There is a Model 19 x 2.5" rattling around inside the safe, too--WAY BAD for that ammo and a K-frame to dance together.

[donjose]

Makes since I was only looking at around 1300-1400 for my loads anyhow.So it sounds like as long as I stay under the 1400 mark I will not harm the Smith 686.As i said I like the idea the Smith is drilled and taped for scope base for the wife.And it will allow me to take it when I call coyotes as well.I have been looking and reading about the Lyman 358156 and looked at some load data from this link as well

www.handloads.com/articles/default.asp?id=30

Jason

[longhorn]

I think DonJose and Al are talking about 2 different bullet weights--158gr versus 180gr. I'd be extremely cautious of running 180's at 1400 fps--short case life and battering of the cylinder boss I'd expect relatively soon. You might or might not exceed 42,000 pushing 180's at 1400+, but it sounds like Ruger Blackhawk/Redhawk territory to me.

[zxcvbob]

Freedom Arms Model 83 :D (do a search on ".353 Casull")

[44man]

I just have a hard time saying one is better then another. I just stay away from the strange guns made from funny metal, I like STEEL and gun weight.

[9.3X62AL]

Longhorn--

I think Done Jose and I are on the same sheet of music, both of us having specifically listed Lyman #358156 in public texts and PMs. That is my reference point, anyway--a 155-grain gas-checked semi-wadcutter. I agree that a 180 grain boolit at 1400 FPS is a bit much for any S&W platform, and that you are in the Ruger-Only Toll-Free Dialing Area with such loads.

Done Jose--

Your load data by Skeeter Skelton is my source for the data on 1935-level 357 Magnum loadings. Alliant 2400 has allegedly changed formulation since the time Mr. Skelton composed that article, so approach the load weights from at least 10% below and work up SLOWLY. His data listing 13.5 grains of 2400 with #358156 ("medium load") is my service-load duplicator, and is a near-exact match ballistically for the 158 grain W-W JHPs my agency requires for carry. I have found the 13.5 grain load--and the other listed "medium loads"--to be safe in the K-frame 357 Magnums.

Hope this helps.

[jwp475]

I am wanting to know which pistol will last longer shooting full house 357mag loads as far as shooting loose?Will be running 180 at 1400 fps Factory Buffalo Bore ammo and will start the hand loading as well.I had read on some other forms that the Smith just wouldnt hold up and wanting to know before we start running a steady diet through the gun.Also several said a gp 100 would be better than the smith?

So would the Smith 686 be stronger than the 357 caliber Stainless Ruger Blackhawk



Jason



It will take longer to shoot "loose" the single action. Not a matter of strength, but a matter of design

[MasterGunnerySergeant]

And don't rule out a Ruger Security Six if you can find one. They will fit a womans hands, and are brutally strong.

I was just thinking the same thing. I have rather small hands, actually a small hand and part of another. I always found the Security Six much more comforatble to shoot than my GP-100.

N-Frame Smiths can be difficult to manage with small hands.

[rockrat]

For single action, I would agree with the Freedom Arms, but there is also the BFR and the Seville (if you can find one). The Dan Wesson is also one stout gun.

[exile]

Not to be difficult, but rather than load full-house .357's all day long with heavy boolits, have you considered a .41 magnum? I have a Ruger Blackhawk in .41 magnum and love it, it (of course) will shoot a 210 grain boolit all day long, you can download it if your wife does not like the recoil. I have two S & W's, (.357 and .44 magnum) but tend to baby them with reduced loads, but the Ruger rolls pleasantly in recoil and seems to be "just right" for me. (I am not fond of recoil either). Just a thought.

exile

[buck1]

Blackhawk or Gp100 will serve your needs well, and last a veeeeeeeeeeery long time.

[bhn22]

It will take longer to shoot "loose" the single action. Not a matter of strength, but a matter of design

I'm curious as to how you make this determination. The cylinders in both revolvers turn exactly in the same manner. The GP has a hefty locking bar at the front yoke, so I can't see how there's a measurable difference there. The GP has the same lockup that a Redhawk or Super Redhawk uses, and they last forever.


Plus single-actions are sooo slow...

[Whitworth]

Plus single-actions are sooo slow...

Maybe in your hands.....

The fact that there is no yoke and swing out cylinder makes for a much more solidly "located" cylinder. The base pin doesn't flex during firing like the shortened base pin of the DA revolver, and the big cutout in the frame to accomodate the yoke is an abreviation to the frame's integrity allowing the barrel and frame to bend in the opposite direction of the cutout when firing. More end-shake will materialize in the DA revolver over a shorter period of time due to the increase in moving parts that are taking the load of the recoil.

[jwp475]

Maybe in your hands.....

The fact that there is no yoke and swing out cylinder makes for a much more solidly "located" cylinder. The base pin doesn't flex during firing like the shortened base pin of the DA revolver, and the big cutout in the frame to accomodate the yoke is an abreviation to the frame's integrity allowing the barrel and frame to bend in the opposite direction of the cutout when firing. More end-shake will materialize in the DA revolver over a shorter period of time due to the increase in moving parts that are taking the load of the recoil.



Precisely .

[bhn22]

I'm not trying to start a fight. If I were, I'd post in the 44 vs 45 thread :) However,my experiences indicate that the same person can fire 6 shots, reload, then fire 6 more, much quicker with a DA revolver that with a single-action. At this point, I usually hear that "Bob Munden can do this", or "Thell Reed could do that". Then it's typical to counter with "Jerry Miculek can do this", or "Ed Mcgivern could do that". All of this is moot, the only true comparison that's valid is how the same person handles both guns. I am not saying that single-actions are worthless, and am not knocking the people who own them. I am being as politically correct as I can be, but I'm firm in my opinion on this. I also understand your point about the frame differences, but don't feel it's a real world issue for a 357 magnum, the subject of this thread.

[jwp475]

I'm not trying to start a fight. If I were, I'd post in the 44 vs 45 thread :) However,my experiences indicate that the same person can fire 6 shots, reload, then fire 6 more, much quicker with a DA revolver that with a single-action. At this point, I usually hear that "Bob Munden can do this", or "Thell Reed could do that". Then it's typical to counter with "Jerry Miculek can do this", or "Ed Mcgivern could do that". All of this is moot, the only true comparison that's valid is how the same person handles both guns. I am not saying that single-actions are worthless, and am not knocking the people who own them. I am being as politically correct as I can be, but I'm firm in my opinion on this. I also understand your point about the frame differences, but don't feel it's a real world issue for a 357 magnum, the subject of this thread.

The subject of this thread was which would "shoot loose first" a double action or a single action 357 magnum and the fact is that a double action will "shoot loose first" in 357 magnum or your choice of caliber. The double action will shoot loose first in any caliber fo that matter

[tuckerdog]

In my opinion GP-100 6". I was witness to a gp being fired several times w/a jacket fused to the forcing cone the person doing the shooting couldn't understand why it recoiled so hard so i fired it,lets just say pressures had to be through the roof and the revolver was non the worse for wear. after the jacket was removed and the piece given a thorough insp by a very good smith it was determined no damage and all parts were within factory spec's.
he has since seen the light and no longer shoots bullets,I cast for him all he needs

[Lloyd Smale]

no stronger 357 has been made then the redhawk. But bottom line is about any 357 with maybe the exception of a K frame smtih is stout enough for any sane loading a guy could dream up for a 357.

[missionary5155]

Good morning
Dan Wesson !! I shot 2 seasons of STEEL with my model 15-2 with a 10 " barrel. The load was a 180 grain GC seated out to the first groove with a load of 296 that I will not publish.
I still shoot the revolver every time up and it is just as accurate as the day I bought it in 1978.

[jwp475]

no stronger 357 has been made then the redhawk. But bottom line is about any 357 with maybe the exception of a K frame smtih is stout enough for any sane loading a guy could dream up for a 357.

The Redhawk is certainly stronger than the Blackhawk in terms of "blowing one up", but the fact remains that the single action will take longer to shoot loose with SAAMI spec loads.

[cajun shooter]

Having been to the armorer schools of Ruger and S&W I will say that they both build some strong guns. A lot of you are talking about the models 686 which is a L frame gun. S&W had too many of the K framed guns such as the 19, 66 shooting loose with a steady Diet of full house loads. They came out with the L framed guns which have more metal and heft for Law Enforcement Depts that shot the 357 mag JHP loads all the time. They were the perfect size for most cops. They are NOT AS STRONG AS THE N FRAME THOUGH!! Most all Ruger guns are built like battle ships but have short comings also. You will not see a PPC or Bullseye shooter using a Ruger. The lock time is terrible on them and the trigger hammer will not perform as the Colt and S&W revolvers. They also have problems in the barrel and throat areas with sizing. The RedHawk and The Freedom arms SA would be my choice to shoot the loads in question. One last thing. Most all shooters who read this including myself will wear out before most of the guns spoken about. The 686 had a firing pin bushing which is in the recoil shield problem. The factory sent us all the parts and tools to make the fix as it would be impossible for them to repair all the guns themselves. We fixed and test fired each gun which were about 600 in numbers 24 times each. I did not care if I ever shot another 357 mag when I finished.

[Markbo]

I went through this a while back myself. I went an entirely different route. I purchase J.P. Sauer & Son "Western Six-Shooter". It had two things I wanted. It is a Colt look-alike and it has more meat in the cylinder than any other .357 I am aware of. I cannot comment on the quality of the steel, but it IS West German made.

Like Lloyd said... any sane loading guy... I was not looking to re-invent the .357 max. I just wanted a gun that would shoot high end 180gr bullets and accurately. Done and done and without the unnecessary bulk and weight of a Redhawk - of which I am a huge fan! I just don't like it in .357.

[donjose]

Is the new Vaquero in 357 the same strength as the Blackhawk?I thought I read some were that it is built on the same frame as the blackhawk, as far as shooting these heavy load 158 grain booltis at 1400 fps?

Jason

[Heavy lead]

Is the new Vaquero in 357 the same strength as the Blackhawk?I thought I read some were that it is built on the same frame as the blackhawk, as far as shooting these heavy load 158 grain booltis at 1400 fps?

Jason

The New Vaquero has a shorter cylinder and obviously a shorter frame to go with it, whereas the Blackhawk (at least the New Model Blackhawk) has the full length .44 cylinder and frame. I cannot load the NOE 358429 (or the Lyman) in .357 brass to the crimp groove in mine. It's a slick little revolver, although the grip frame is much too small for my hands. My revolver likes the NOE 358180WFN with a 15 grains of Lil'Gun, shoots accurate and is a stout load, don't think it would ever shoot loose, but I've only fired 500 or so of these rounds along with another 500 of the 358429's (in shortened .357 brass) with 12.5 of 2400.
I have a new mould from Mountain Molds that is a gas check 80% meplat 180 grain mould that I designed a longer nose on to use more capacity of the .357 in this. I've got a couple hundred loaded up I'm going to shoot this weekend in this and my GP100. If I had to buy one or the other it would be the GP100, it's more accurate and fits my hand much better, also it will take the 358429 seated to the crimp groove in full length brass as well. These are the only .357's I have, not a favorite of mine to be honest, but they both shoot good.

[pmeisel]

Between a Blackhawk, GP100, N frame Smith, and L frame Smith, I'd get the one that felt best in my hand.

They are all pretty strong. Not enough difference to trump feel.

If strength was the only consideration I would get a Redhawk, but it's a lot bigger gun than any of the others.

Lloyd has it right, they are all strong enough for anything that should be loaded and shot.

[donjose]

So the The New Vaquero will be okay for full house 158gr loads?


Jason

[9.3X62AL]

Not sure about the New Vaquero--I believe it is smaller-/lighter-framed than the Blackhawk. It would certainly be fine with SAAMI-spec (36K PSI) loadings.

[Andy Griffith]

Don't get stainless in either gun. Stainless will gall much faster because it is softer. Although, it wouldn't make a difference how not the load was that was shot in it, but how many times it was actioned and shot with any load.

Of course, this will only become an issue after about 50K+ rounds. :-P
I've seen galled cylinder stops on stainless Blackhawks and stainless S&W's, but usually on the big frame guns with heavy cylinders.

Blue guns do seem to take more to scratch, but of course you can't clean them up the same way and they look worse when scratched.

As for strength, either gun will let go catastrophically if too hot a handload is touched off. I know of two Blackhawks that went to pieces at the club at the hands of one careless, and one ambitious handloader. Cases full of bullseye only work well once!! :groner:

[Dale53]

Who cares which is "stronger"? It only needs to be strong enough.

A Smith, by far, has the most pleasing action. Nearly ALL of them have near perfect triggers single action. All will smooth up with a minimum of work to nearly wonderful!

I consider a Model 19 to be "too tender" for extended use of full house .357s. However, a Model 27 or 28 is definitely NO tender. They will hold up well under heavy use.

My choice is the Smith 686. It has a longer cylinder so I can use most any bullet I desire (a particular favorite is the Keith 358429) and crimp in the crimp groove as designed. It is heavy enough to handle long term use of full house loads. It has a FINE action, both double and single. It is a premier revolver, period.

I have a number of Rugers and like them but when it comes to actual use the triggers on Smiths cannot be beat. Triggers are often the key to good shooting.

YMMV
Dale53

[44man]

Long ago there was an old timer at the IHMSA matches in Ohio. He used a S&W .357 with only God knows what loads. After every 5 shots he had to go to 2x2 post and beat the ejector rod to empty the gun.
All I could do was shake my head! :veryconfu

[BABore]

Whichever way you decide, please consider the cylinder length. You stated that you were planning on using 180 gr boolits. In some of the guns mentioned, it can be a tight fit. I would be picking the strongest gun with the longest cylinder. This will allow you to seat the boolit normally and apply a good crimp. You also have a later choice of a custom boolit design that allows full use of the longer cylinder where you can benefit from the increased powder capacity.

[TDC]

+++ what Dale53 said.....

There is a reason why police officers rarely, if ever, carry or use single action handguns. Fast loading and reloading in combat situations is critical. Additionally, the choice of single or double action use with double action pistols and many auto-loaders are what make single action handguns a "non-contender" in the law enforcement field. Some would say the same issues apply to a self defense/hunting firearm.

Comparing any double action handgun to any single action is relatively futile. They are both "birds of a different feather" for most of their design purposes.

To me, buying a handgun based strictly on which is the strongest would be like buying a dump truck to race at Indianapolis. It surely would be the "toughest" vehicle out there but I think I'd opt for the vehicle most suitable for the race...

JMHO... Flame suit on...:smile:

[MtGun44]

The question was "strongest" IIRC. Dale and I called it, frankly there is no contest for
strongest - it is the Redhawk. All the other stuff is valid opinions, but not particularly
related to the original question. I have lots of different .38/.357s and like different
ones for different things.

Bill

[jwp475]

The question was "strongest" IIRC. Dale and I called it, frankly there is no contest for
strongest - it is the Redhawk. All the other stuff is valid opinions, but not particularly
related to the original question. I have lots of different .38/.357s and like different
ones for different things.

Bill



The question from the opening post is NOT which is Strongest, the question was which one will shoot loose first and the answer is the double action


The opening post



I am wanting to know which pistol will last longer shooting full house 357mag loads as far as shooting loose?Will be running 180 at 1400 fps Factory Buffalo Bore ammo and will start the hand loading as well.I had read on some other forms that the Smith just wouldnt hold up and wanting to know before we start running a steady diet through the gun.Also several said a gp 100 would be better than the smith?

So would the Smith 686 be stronger than the 357 caliber Stainless Ruger Blackhawk



Jason

[Ekalb2000]

Don,
I have both the GP100 and Blackhawk. I love shooting single action revolvers. Bet every time I go to the range, the GP seems to find its way into the bag. But if I was shooting heavy boolits and loads form one, I think I would do it from the Blackhawk. This is strictly my personal preference. No scientific data included.

Have you thought about a 357 carbine? They have near zero recoil. And with the loads you are talking about, would be a real handy firearm for pig hunting at pistol distances. Just a thought.

andy

[harvester]

A Colt King Cobra in stainless.

[Bullshop]

I have a Ruger Bisley 357 mag. The frame and cylinder are the same as a 44 mag or 45 colt. I am pretty sure the cylinder is the same diameter as the SBH 357 max only shorter. It is maybe too heavy for a 357 but if anything it is stout. It handles hot loads better than my Marlin 357.

[44man]

It is always a hard question for me because i have owned many,
many revolvers of all makes. I have shot hundreds of thousands of hot loads and with proper lubrication I have never harmed a single gun. I have never seen "frame stretch" or any of the other problems.
The S&W can not take heavy recoil from heavy boolits but can take high pressure loads.
The only S&W I had to fix was one where the jerk snapped the cylinder shut by the TV method and bent the crane. I bent it straight by hand! It was an early .38 before better steel.
I don't think you can harm a double action with a double lock up for the cylinder as long as you don't try to shoot real heavy boolits.
Can a Ruger take more? Sure, but then you are over normal loads too. If I want something with more thump, I use a bigger gun.
If you want to use heavy boolits at the limit, get a single action.
Then, there is the SRH, hurt that thing and you are trying to shoot to the moon! [smilie=l:

[Char-Gar]

IN spite of my love for the N frame Smiths, if I wanted a brute strong pistol to fire super charged .357 magnum loads it would be something on the New Model Riger BH frame. A few years back, Paco Kelly loaded some blistering loads for a Bisley Blackhawk in .357 Mag, with great results.

[txbirdman]

My strength comparison is based on two revolver I once owned at the same time. One was a Blackhawk and the other a Model 15 DW. I got a load from a well know gun magazine and tried it in the Blackhawk. It shot very well and had substantial power. In fact, I used that load for a couple of years with no problem whatsoever. One day I load and fired 3 rounds in the Model 15. The brass had to be pounded out of the cylinder. Eventhough no apparent damage was done I discontinued the use of that load and concluded that the BH was a stronger revolver.

[derek45]

Does anyone remember the S&W 686 vs Ruger GP-100 magazine ads from the 1980's ?

Ruger claimed to be stronger because of it's thicker topstrap.

S&W replied that there 686 was Forged steel, not investment cast like ruger.


http://jeffersonian.therealgunguys.com/pics2009/ad_686vsgp100.jpg