Darkenfast
Member
As a poor person, I'm interested in working-class guns. I currently only have 9mm in center-fire, but I used to be more of a revolver guy, specifically .357s. I also really think that six-inch barrels have a lot of advantages in magnums. This post is just to get some conversation going.
I have often admired the L-frame (used to have an early 586, way back), and I think the 7-shot "Plus" version is the pinnacle in a lot of ways. But besides the price, those L-frames are heavy, and I don't have a ton of upper-body strength. The six-inch 686+ weighs 44.3 oz. That weight helps with recoil, of course, but the handling is sluggish for me. My first firearm (centuries ago), was a six-inch Ruger Security Six. Not sluggish at all. I'm sorry S&W never made a long-barreled 620 (remember those?). I think for some people, it isn't the length of the longer guns that is a problem, it's the weight.
Back to weight and length and being poor. I've been watching and reading a lot of reviews of the Rossi RM66 (have yet to see one). Most of the reviews on YT are of over-the-counter examples, not selected samples sent to gun writers. The weight is 34.4 oz. The gun is a slim six-shot. It seems to have a decent action. It's not pretty, but "beauty is as beauty does", and those funny looking grips seem to do a good job of handling recoil in the lighter gun. You get the sight-radius, reduced blast/noise, and velocity advantages of the longer tube.
It seems to be running over $300 dollars cheaper than the Smiths. If you look at the threads in the 1980 and Newer Revolvers section, are you getting that much better QC out of S&W, these days? Even from the PC guns?
What say the brethren and sistren? Is a poor person (especially out in the country), really that much worse off with an RM66 in an Uncle Mikes holster (gasp!)? There seems to be some affection for old H&R and Iver Johnson and such in this Other Firearms section. This seems to fall in that category.
Any other candidates?
I have often admired the L-frame (used to have an early 586, way back), and I think the 7-shot "Plus" version is the pinnacle in a lot of ways. But besides the price, those L-frames are heavy, and I don't have a ton of upper-body strength. The six-inch 686+ weighs 44.3 oz. That weight helps with recoil, of course, but the handling is sluggish for me. My first firearm (centuries ago), was a six-inch Ruger Security Six. Not sluggish at all. I'm sorry S&W never made a long-barreled 620 (remember those?). I think for some people, it isn't the length of the longer guns that is a problem, it's the weight.
Back to weight and length and being poor. I've been watching and reading a lot of reviews of the Rossi RM66 (have yet to see one). Most of the reviews on YT are of over-the-counter examples, not selected samples sent to gun writers. The weight is 34.4 oz. The gun is a slim six-shot. It seems to have a decent action. It's not pretty, but "beauty is as beauty does", and those funny looking grips seem to do a good job of handling recoil in the lighter gun. You get the sight-radius, reduced blast/noise, and velocity advantages of the longer tube.
It seems to be running over $300 dollars cheaper than the Smiths. If you look at the threads in the 1980 and Newer Revolvers section, are you getting that much better QC out of S&W, these days? Even from the PC guns?
What say the brethren and sistren? Is a poor person (especially out in the country), really that much worse off with an RM66 in an Uncle Mikes holster (gasp!)? There seems to be some affection for old H&R and Iver Johnson and such in this Other Firearms section. This seems to fall in that category.
Any other candidates?