Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevens
One of the popular gun magazines of the day attempted to settle the score, I want to say it was either Shooting Times or Guns & Ammo, but they pitted two brand new revolvers against each other in an "accelerated wear test", nothing over spec and no outright abuse, just PILING up the round count on each revolver attempting to see if they found a trend where either revolver would distinguish itself as tougher, better or longer lasting.
If I remember correctly, they ended the test at 10,000 rounds each because they couldn't see either one distancing itself from the other.
|
Where were you a couple of years ago when I asked if there was any real evidence of the GP100s “superior” durability?
I got all manner of whacky opinions from folks who didn’t seem to know what “exhaustive” and “empirical” mean. Even some misguided souls who thought there was such a thing as “Ruger-only” .357 load data (I wonder if they’re still with us?)
It stands to reason a gun rag would declare a draw. They’re not going to risk losing ad revenue from either manufacturer.
I have no dog in the fight as I’m not really a fan of either. At least in .357.
On the other hand, the 10mm GP100 is a game changer for me. I just recently traded for a match champion. It’s not that I’m super-impressed with the gun so far (I haven’t shot it much) but the possibilities for a medium-frame 10mm revolver. Moon-clipped .40s for IDPA, and full-house 10mms if I want to hunt with it. Whether it warrants my enthusiasm remains to be seen.
Now if S&W would do that on an L-frame (or even bring back the 646), especially with a Ti cylinder, I’d be all over it.