I'm sure many of you know how I picked up a 629 that S&W butchered. Then foolishly bought a 686 thinking what's the chances of stepping in a pile of dog poop twice? Well S&W has proven that they are selling dog poop.

Can any of these 3 guns be that worse than my current situation? Neither the 629 nor 686 made it past 50 rounds without failure. And neither have had more than 101 rounds through them. I will not be using these guns in any form of self defense of hunting. Solely range fun.

For the price I paid for the 686 I could buy two of these guns. For the price I paid for the 629 I could buy all 3 and a box of ammo. I'm not sure exactly which model I want. What I am looking at:

Taurus 3" 357Mag with preferred front sight $354

Armscor 4" 38Sp $237

Rock Island Snub in 38Sp $249

Based off of my one very positive experience of owning and shooting one Taurus revolver I'd go with Taurus.

I too was looking at cheap revolvers and after some research I personally favored the Rock Island M206 and M200. They were $229 when I was looking so seems like they went up.

I know your looking at lower priced revolvers but have you considered a Ruger?

I honestly feel that Rugers could easily outlive an Apocalypse.

I had an SP101 that I loved. Shots tens of thousands of rounds through it. Started to not time right so I dumped it.

Then got a GP100 that I really didn't enjoy.

So I'm 50/50 in Ruger. And realistically after spending so much on these Smiths that I am not sure if I want to spend $700+ for a Ruger.

So, instead I ended up ordering the Taurus. $400 after tax and $18 blood money. The front sight is orange and my eyes need that. That was the deciding factor. I'll probably end up picking up the little Rock Island too for giggles.

Bummer.

Old Growth, I get it. But, realistically I've spent over $700 on the 686 and over $1,000 on the 629. I'm at the point where I don't want another brand to let me down. More precisely another brand I think of as quality to let me down.

So, I bought the Taurus. I'll probably get it in 3 weeks. I'll take it too the range and run 100 rounds through it. If it makes it through without any hiccups then I will decree that Taurus is better quality than Smith & Wesson. I have a feeling I am going to be shouting from the rooftops about how much more reliable the Taurus is. LOL.

Lastly, don't blame me, blame S&W! That 629 and the 686 were supposed to be my range toys. I had planned on shooting several hundred rounds per trip out of them. (I planned on a lot of special loads.) I won't have to chase the brass around.


*End of public television program announcer's voice* "This thread is brought to you by, the shoddy work that Smith & Wesson is pumping out."

One thing to remember is that s$w has had it ups n downs and seems to be a down lately.

Ruger has always been a sold 85-90 percent mfger. Not the best/nicest around, but always a solid 8-9 out of ten for 75 years.

Any OK quality gun/revolver sold by Taurus is usually made by Rossi or someone else and rebadged.

You couldn’t give me a tore-ass semi tho. Pure junk.