# You think I'd learn v.357mag



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

I should just stay away from the local dealer. I picked up this today unexpectedly.










I can't complain about the gun. I just hate that I lack self control.


----------



## backlash (Nov 11, 2008)

Nice
A friend called and asked if I was interested in his S&W mod 686 .357 mag.
I already have one but for $400 I didn't have the will power to say no.
No self control at all. Fortunately.


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

Nice Gun!!

I love .357 Mag as SHTF Handguns.

For many reasons I think they are a superior choice in a SHTF requirements set to semi autos (tho semi autos are superior in a pre-SHTF requirements set for miltary/police applications.. just in case anyone wants to point that out)

So congrats to a purchase that fits this site well!!


----------



## ComputerGuy (Dec 10, 2010)

Nice. As far as my SHTF handgun I am still wanting a Springfield 1911


----------



## UncleJoe (Jan 11, 2009)

Boy does that look familiar.  :sssh:


----------



## zombieresponder (Aug 20, 2012)

Lack of self control is the reason I can write messages with handguns.


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

ZR:

you: B========>
Me: B===>


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

It's my first ported barrel so I have some evaluating to do. 

The first complaint (minor) is the fiber front sight quickly gets covered in residue. It only takes a quick wipe to clean so its not too annoying.


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

Very nice, congrats! The older you get the more self control you get. Not with buying guns, but with retaining them. In my youth I would snap up every good deal I could find, then trade them off when something newer and cooler came along. Now I just buy new guns and the old ones head off to the safe until they feel new again. 

When it comes to porting the cleaner the ammo the better. Try out a few different brands and you will notice a difference in how much powder residue shoots out onto your sight. I have a few ported guns and have never experienced all of the negative side effects that some people claim you will with porting. No massive balls of fire, no night blindness, no burned hands or faces and no end of the world as we know it. They do tend to be dirtier and a little louder, but they also have less perceived recoil and muzzle flip. So it's a fair trade.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

Sentry18 said:


> The older you get the more self control you get. Not with buying guns, but with retaining them.


I'm a few short of half a hundred. Much older and I'll begin buying duplicates because I forgot I already had one.


----------



## zombieresponder (Aug 20, 2012)

Sentry18 said:


> Very nice, congrats! The older you get the more self control you get. Not with buying guns, but with retaining them. In my youth I would snap up every good deal I could find, then trade them off when something newer and cooler came along. Now I just buy new guns and the old ones head off to the safe until they feel new again.
> 
> When it comes to porting the cleaner the ammo the better. Try out a few different brands and you will notice a difference in how much powder residue shoots out onto your sight. I have a few ported guns and have never experienced all of the negative side effects that some people claim you will with porting. No massive balls of fire, no night blindness, no burned hands or faces and no end of the world as we know it. They do tend to be dirtier and a little louder, but they also have less perceived recoil and muzzle flip. So it's a fair trade.


I've sold very few, mostly the ones I bought with the intention of flipping for something else. I had a S&W M63 no dash with original box and papers for two weeks. I don't think it had been fired more than 20 times. On the other side of the coin, I'm still kicking myself for passing up a 3" barreled S&W M13.


----------



## HozayBuck (Jan 27, 2010)

BlueZ said:


> Nice Gun!!
> 
> I love .357 Mag as SHTF Handguns.
> 
> ...


*BZ I don't understand your logic, The military hasn't carried a revolver since the early 1900's ( excepting the Air force AP's and most fighter pilots)
The Revolver has many things going for it but in a combat enviroment it is out classed by the auto..

I carried a 1911 in the Corps as my TO weapon for 4 years and never once had a misfire or a jam. I shoot 45 acp in competition in my Gold Cup and P-14 and yes once in a while I may have a stove pipe but clearing that is a nano second issue with training.

my Gold Cup hold 8 +1 and my P-14 hold 14+1 some mags with +2 extenders hold 16 + 1...so, where is the advantage to carrying a 6 shot revolver? even with speed loaders it won't work out unless your ...

Name is..http://video.search.yahoo.com/video...&tit=World+Record+12+Shots+In+Under+3+Seconds

*


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

The only advantage that I can come up with where a revolver would have an advantage over a semi-auto in a SHTF scenario is no magazines to lose. Some feel that the revolver is inherently more reliable as well, but that is presuming the revolver is well maintained and the timing checked and adjusted as needed.


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

HozayBuck,

Allow me to respond by quoting/modifying an earlier post of mine on this subject in a different thread. Excuse the imperfect segway:


"If the question was what is the best police or military sidearm, I would have to concur with you based on the factors you mentioned, semiauto pistols are better.

But I respectfully disagree that they are better fo our application, because pre-SHTF police/military use is exactly what we are not selecting for, but we, civilian individuals, have many requirements that directly opposed what was selected for in your current pre SHTF police-military forces:

BECAUSE they are professionals they exist in a different requirements set, than that posed for an individual self defender with almost no resuply of parts or armorer services.

Since they presuppose a functioning logistics system they can carry weapons that are more complex to maintain, and that take LOTS of training time to targets well.

Based on my experince (and I dont think many here will disagree) generally those who shot 200 rds out of a revolver will be more accurate than someone who shot 1000 rds out of a M9 or equivalent.

(that might be a slight exxageration but you get the idea)
military and police organizations have the budget to train to overcome a semi autos inherent accuracy disadvantage (moving slide, moving barrell, less balanced etc).

We here do not.

Also pre-SHTF professionals presuppose a working logistics system that will supply them with quality Ammo.
In a SHTF situation you may not get that quality Ammo. semtiautos can only take ammo in a narrow load margin but with revolvers it rarely matters if the round is signifcantly light or hot but a semiautoloading pistol may not rack the slide on a too light load, or get damaged much easier on a too heavy load.

Also revolvers need no magazine and some like the GP100 dont lose time (the Pyhton does, but rugers generally dont)

in a SHTF situation at some point you will likely have to make do with a lot of amateur reloads.
And the 357 mag Revolvers ability in a pinch, to hunt medium game is an additional SHTF requirement that does not exist for the selection process for military/police sidearms.

So we are looking at different conditions and therefore a different requirements set ,than those "miliytary/police experts " selected for.
So what we are trying to do here is determine a requirementrs set based on likely operational environment in SHTF.

Compared to the examples you mentioned, this our, distinct environment will beget different carry solutions out of our operational analysis."



So for a civilian prepper a Revolver is a better choice since its a) much easier to learn to use properly and does not need a big training ng budget. b) almost maintenance free c) much more versatile in its ammo load 

The value of the (significant) advantages that semi auto has otherwise diminishes in a SHTF environment even though it may be crucial in a pre-SHTF military/police application.

So in a situation that presupposes plenty of resupply of quality Ammo and spare parts and armoers services the semi auto pistol is superior. 
in a post SHTF requirements set, for an individual survivor the ruggedness, simplicity and the ability to "digest" marginal ammo loads of a revolver, make it a superior post-SHTF solution.

if you are living in the "deathlands" given equal rounds, would you rather field an semi autoloader or a GP100?
I think the answer is obvious.

I used to do aquisitions for the gov't and we did operational tradeoff analysis like this all the time, ....where sometimes a different and prestigous organization may have come to one material solution but your requirements set for this other orgnaization you are equipping is just different enough, to give you advantages with a different material solution, even though they do nearly the same thing.

A comparable example would be a rifle for a SWAT team vs for an insurgent user...
The SWAT teams gun with night sights, day laser, IR laser, flashlight and a triple clipped magazines meets one requiremernts set.
But it is a superior gun ONLY for that SWAT user in the SWAT envirmentment.

Change the requiremets set to being the Taliban man in the mountains who has to hump every ounce and has no maintenance support, and no battery resupply , even if you give him a tacticool maxed out AR like a domestic US SWAT team carries and he will soon make the rational choice to either discard the gun as inferior for his needs ,... or if he firgures it out..take off all the accessoires that need batteries.,.

if he is lucky he has an MBUS ,..if he doesnt, he may throw the "superior" gun away because he has no way to get batteries for the ACOG so he has no sights and an, AK might be superior for him since it at least has working sights.... 
This maybe an extreme example but you get the idea : )

Another example:
if I had to equip myself or a larger group of average skill survivors in a post SHTF wasteland, I would MUCH rather stumble on a collection of 10x GP100's w/ a 1000rds of .357 Mag total, than on a collection of (cooler) 10x M1911's w/ a 1000rds of .45 ACP total.


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

you're supposed to own one firearm for every year old you are... I'm so far behind


----------



## Startingout-Blair (Aug 28, 2012)

I use both revolvers and autos.


----------



## dsheppard (Oct 18, 2012)

I'm just getting started out with all this. I've been around and loved guns my whole life but just up until this past year never thought about the possibility of having to worry about something like this. As of the date I only have 2 pistols my rugar p85 .9mm and an old snub nosed 7 shot .22lr revolver that was my great grandfather. Both are good weapons and I carry both everywhere I go. There is no perfect weapon. Only a weapon that is perfectly suited to the user. So yes a revolver will make a good shtf gun, so will a semi auto it all depends on the user and the environment


----------



## jsriley5 (Sep 22, 2012)

Love the 357 as a cartridge and when starting new handgun shooters it is usually the second gun I reccomend right after they get a good 22. plentiful versatile plenty powerful for most handgun applications. excellent balance of power, firepower, weight etc. Congrats on your purchase hope it serves you as well as my 357's have and do serve me.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*You are correct*



HozayBuck said:


> *BZ I don't understand your logic, The military hasn't carried a revolver since the early 1900's ( excepting the Air force AP's and most fighter pilots)
> The Revolver has many things going for it but in a combat enviroment it is out classed by the auto..
> 
> I carried a 1911 in the Corps as my TO weapon for 4 years and never once had a misfire or a jam. I shoot 45 acp in competition in my Gold Cup and P-14 and yes once in a while I may have a stove pipe but clearing that is a nano second issue with training.
> ...


You are correct with one exception regarding the military useing revolvers.

The Navy Seals still use the S&W 686 for wet work .


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

Bill did you read my laboriously typed up explanation for HB?


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

> if I had to equip myself or a larger group of average skill survivors in a post SHTF wasteland, I would MUCH rather stumble on a collection of 10x GP100's w/ a 1000rds of .357 Mag total, than on a collection of (cooler) 10x M1911's w/ a 1000rds of .45 ACP total.


I would rather stumble across 10x Beretta 92's w/ 18 round MecGar mags and 1000rds of 9mm.

If we are talking one on one encounters I would not feel out gunned at all with a revolver. But if we are talking group on group, and one side was armed with wheel guns and the other side was armed with semi-autos, the SA group is better armed. They have more capacity, are faster reloading and allow you to lay down a better volume of suppressing fire. I remember back to stories from LEO's in the 70's who died trying to insert rounds into revolvers where the bad guys slapped in another mag and kept on shooting. There is no doubt that the revolver can be an impressive and capable gun. The 30-30 Winchester is an impressive and capable gun as well, but I would not want to arm my camp with them if AR-15's were available.


----------



## zombieresponder (Aug 20, 2012)

HozayBuck said:


> *BZ I don't understand your logic, The military hasn't carried a revolver since the early 1900's ( excepting the Air force AP's and most fighter pilots)
> The Revolver has many things going for it but in a combat enviroment it is out classed by the auto..
> 
> I carried a 1911 in the Corps as my TO weapon for 4 years and never once had a misfire or a jam. I shoot 45 acp in competition in my Gold Cup and P-14 and yes once in a while I may have a stove pipe but clearing that is a nano second issue with training.
> ...


Chopper pilots were still carrying S&W Victory models in Desert Storm. The S&W M66 was used by Navy Seals(not sure on when).

Edit: I'll lay this out there, simply because it's relevant. The majority of repairs a revolver might need require special tools and/or special skills to perform. Rugers aren't immune to bent yokes from snapping the cylinder shut by flicking the wrist. They're not immune to defective parts, breakage, etc. either. No gun is. I can fix pretty much anything on a S&W revolver, and the Ruger's I've worked on have been pretty simple too. I'd be more likely to toss a malfuctioning Cult double action revolver in a scrap heap than to attempt a repair. Most autoloaders do allow at least some drop in parts replacement. That's a definite advantage.

I don't think banking on a single gun not to fail, and therefore not keeping spare parts, is a sound strategy.


----------



## Resto (Sep 7, 2012)

Man thats a pretty Gun. I have just as many Stainless Wheelies as I do Magazine Fed DAOs. I lean toward .44 and .45 ACP these days. I carry my Stainless Wheel Gun (Ruger Red Hawk 5 1/2" not the Super Red Hawk Boat Anchor) when out hunting anything. Revolvers .38 and above are great for Rattle Snake Hunting. Nice score Bro!


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*Yes sir*



BlueZ said:


> Bill did you read my laboriously typed up explanation for HB?


Yes sir , i did and it was very concise !


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

Sentry18 said:


> I would rather stumble across 10x Beretta 92's w/ 18 round MecGar mags and 1000rds of 9mm.
> 
> 1) They have more capacity, are faster reloading and allow you to lay down a better volume of suppressing fire.
> 
> 2) I remember back to stories from LEO's in the 70's who died trying to insert rounds into revolvers where the bad guys slapped in another mag and kept on shooting. .


1) try but this sounds like a miltary requirments set. in a post SHTF world few if any will have the ammo to spare to "lay down supperssive fire". It will be avery few shoyts and make 'em count kind of world.

2) These were anecdotal stories not an expression of a chnaging paradigm... there was no statistically signifcant number of "instances" like that. in the last half century in this country the number of cases like that can probaly be counted on the fingers of one hand.
But the number of cases where one misses their first shot (less likely with a revolver!) are legion.

Even if a revolver gives you only a 10% better chance of a first round hit And I am convinced the difference is MUCH bigger) its still a bigger positve impact than the extra ammo.

Also keep in mind my arguement expressly excludes the police/military paradigm as stated in many different ways in posts in this thread.
I am talking as an application for the civilian individual in a post SHTF environment.

That is what this operational requirements analysis is for, since that is 90% of the audience on this website.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*In my training*



Sentry18 said:


> I would rather stumble across 10x Beretta 92's w/ 18 round MecGar mags and 1000rds of 9mm.
> 
> If we are talking one on one encounters I would not feel out gunned at all with a revolver. But if we are talking group on group, and one side was armed with wheel guns and the other side was armed with semi-autos, the SA group is better armed. They have more capacity, are faster reloading and allow you to lay down a better volume of suppressing fire. I remember back to stories from LEO's in the 70's who died trying to insert rounds into revolvers where the bad guys slapped in another mag and kept on shooting. There is no doubt that the revolver can be an impressive and capable gun. The 30-30 Winchester is an impressive and capable gun as well, but I would not want to arm my camp with them if AR-15's were available.


I was an Officer in the ninetys. In my training, we had the FBI stats on officer involved shootings . In 2000 shootouts , the officers involved fired an adverage of two rounds to end the shootout. In only two instances , was it necisary for the officer to effect a reload. We all carried revolvers and speed loaders. I had an opertunity to switch to a semiauto but elected to stay with the 686 S&W 357 mag I was falmiliar with. I knew that the Glock i was offered was touted to be a better weapon but prefered the falmiliarity of my wheel gun. The Glock just didn't feel like a real firearm without the box of ammo in it. William Hickock didn't elect to change from his cap and ball Colt revolvers for the more modern peace makers either.


----------



## zombieresponder (Aug 20, 2012)

BlueZ said:


> 1) try but this sounds like a miltary requirments set. in a post SHTF world few if any will have the ammo to spare to "lay down supperssive fire". It will be avery few shoyts and make 'em count kind of world.
> 
> 2) These were anecdotal stories not an expression of a chnaging paradigm... there was no statistically signifcant number of "instances" like that. in the last half century in this country the number of cases like that can probaly be counted on the fingers of one hand.
> But the number of cases where one misses their first shot (less likely with a revolver!) are legion.
> ...


1986 miami dade shootout. If I remember correctly, at least one agent was killed while trying to reload his revolver.



> McNeill was then shot in the hand, and due to his wound and blood in his revolver's chambers, could not reload.


They left out the part about bits of bone from his wound in the chambers.

In my opinion, the bigger lesson from the miami shootout is not to bring a handgun to a rifle fight.


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

The Miama Dade shooyt out was a quarter century ago.. in order for it to be of relevance it needs to happen every month.
*As a rule of thumb: If something makes national news ,that means its rare enough to make it irrelvant for planning purposes*.

But based on your bottom sentence you clearly understand its not an apples to apples comparison, and those are the only ones that matter.


----------



## Dakine (Sep 4, 2012)

BlueZ said:


> The Miama Dade shooyt out was a quarter century ago.. in order for it to be of relevance it needs to happen every month.
> As a rule of thumb: If something makes national news ,that means its rare enough to make it irrelvant for planning.
> 
> But based on your bottom sentence you clearly understand its not an apples to apples comparison, and those are the only ones that matter.


I agree on a couple things but disagree on others...



BlueZ said:


> The Miama Dade shooyt out was a quarter century ago.. in order for it to be of relevance it needs to happen every month.


I think it only needs to happen ONCE to me for it to be extremely relevant!  Also, don't forget the BofA robbery in Hollywood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout Now granted both of these are zebra's when compared to looking at a herd of horses, but they do happen, maybe not that often but...

still though, I get your point... it's not common for passers by to whip out an AK and start hosing people down.



BlueZ said:


> As a rule of thumb: If something makes national news ,that means its rare enough to make it irrelvant for planning.


Yeahhhhh, but the entire scenario isnt apples to apples right? news might flash globally today about one kid being abducted. Think about 25 years ago in the context of today. Today we read on-line news headlines of a bus wreck that kills 7 and injures 20, 25 years ago... who cares? Cant cover what happened in New Jersey when you're trying to get print copy to press about what happened in LA this afternoon.

I guess to sum it up, I think that the potential for extreme violence and the current day exposure to crime that already existed because of the evolution of communication are both things that make it not an apples to apples comparison.


----------

