The Awesome L-frames

The gun I wish they had made was a Stainless Speed-Six in 357 mag with a DAO spurless hammer and a 2 1/2" barrel (as opposed to the 2 3/4" they used)
That probably would have required a slightly shorter ejector rod, something Ruger never did with the DA Six's (they ALL had the same length ejector rod, regardless of barrel length, which was probably why the Speed-Six used a 2.75" barrel instead of a 2.5")

The result would have been a 6 shot revolver with a full size grip that was strong enough to handle magnum loads but was thinner and lighter than the 686 or GP-100 models of similar length. Sort of a heavy duty S&W model 65 with a 2.5" barrel.
Oh well.

I've got a Rossi 720 also. A surprisingly well built gun IMHO. Only problem is the cylinder throats are five different sizes. Some day I'll take the time and trouble to buy an appropriate reamer and even out the throats. Until then it gets jacketed factory ammo.

Keith when you get that reamer, let me know so I can start trying to talk you into doing my Rossi’s cylinder.

I just took in my 357 Rossi 92 to a gunsmith friend of mine to fix the side gate and mag tube as it was almost impossible to load. Once loaded it cycled great with 38’s or 357. I was uncertain whether he would work on the Rossi at all or ask me to leave his establishment. He doesn’t like Rossi’s of a kind. So if he didn’t throw me out, I knew I was in for an extended lecture. Well I got the lecture, about 15 minutes of it. At one point he offered me a trade so he could have the pleasure of throwing the little carbine as far as he could into the Tanana River.

Not a Rossi fanboy but I had a chance to examine the interior of my 720 when I bought it. It appeared to be well designed and constructed. It cycled smoothly and except for the throat issue everything else apppeared to be dimensionally acceptable. It had less than one box of factory ammo through it when I bought it for what I believe was $225.

No other experience with Rossi products but my 720 is a keeper.

Glaciers said:

Well my Rossi 3” 720 weighs in at 31.1 oz’s and my 3” Charter 20.9 oz. the Charter has a fluted cylinder at 1.45 diameter and the Rossi’s solid at 1.465
The SP 101 3” 357 weights 27.3oz with a cylinder diameter of 1.3555
All are 5 shot, but getting Ruger to make the SP 101 in a solid cylinder in 44 SPL I’m thinking is a non starter for them. Weight and size would be right good, but…
So the Rossi is the answer, inexpensive, adjustable sights, and almost as small as the Charter.

Click to expand...

Only problem with that is that they aren't being made anymore..............plus it still has an exposed hammer.

Cylinder diameters from my personal firearms.

CA 44 Special Bulldog is 1.451"

Ruger 357 LCR is 1.285"

a mere .166 difference.................keeping in mind that the 44 Spl generates a lot less pressure than the 357 Magnum.

Yea

Winelover said:

Only problem with that is that they aren't being made anymore..............plus it still has an exposed hammer.

Cylinder diameters from my personal firearms.

CA 44 Special Bulldog is 1.451"

Ruger 357 LCR is 1.285"

a mere .166 difference.................keeping in mind that the 44 Spl generates a lot less pressure than the 357 Magnum.

Click to expand...

Yeah my SP 101 is 1.355 and my Smith model 60 is 1.305, both 357’s. I like hammers personally, but certainly understand desire for hammerless. I’ve considered bobbing the Smith and one of my 101’s.

I’m sold, just waiting on Ruger.

Back to the S&W L-frame topic: A 696, used with shot loads for snake while prairie dog shooting and a standard load with the 240 grain Keith bullet for serious social situations. I've owned two Charter Arms Bulldogs which are great revolvers, but traded for the 696 when it came out. (Target sights)

I also shot it at 140 yards on practice day at the Elmer Keith Memorial Match and caused a stir. Soon everyone was getting their short barreled revolvers and automatics out to try. Surprising what you can do with a stubby barrel at 140 yards when you can see your bullet splash and Aare able to correct.

Elmer Keith Memorial Match

L Frame: I have had my 6" 568 no dash maybe twenty years. Bought it second hand for $185.00. It's hard to shake the idea of having too much money in the gun. Now, I shoot mainly 38 Specials in the gun at our informal matches. These guns are truly awesome.

I recall how appalled people when the pin and recessed cylinder went. Now these handguns of that day are seen as being from the good old times. I'm not ready for two piece barrels, locks, and MIM parts. For a 44 Special here it's a M624 no dash with 6" barrel.

No one complained much about Dan Wesson 2-piece barrels, IIRC. They were superbly accurate.

MIM parts do suck, though my two S&W examples that have those components haven't melted or disintegrated (yet).

People complained about Ruger's investment-cast receivers and components, too. I think people don't like ANYTHING new, different, or re-introduced, PERIOD. I fully include myself in that group, I must add. Guilty as charged--I'll plead to that sheet, straight up.

The two-piece tensioned barrel and sleeve arrangement is certainly a break from tradition, but it makes sense for speed of assembly. Dan Wesson used that system for different reasons, but it seems to work fine. In fact, the tensioned barrel may even have some advantages.

MIM parts are one of those things that people love to hate. I think CZ is right that we all just hate change. MIM parts probably will not generate much praise, but they do seem to work.

Ruger’s use of cast steel is one of the industry’s great innovations. Ruger found a way to reduce manufacturing cost without sacrificing strength. Ruger perfected the technique and has put it to good use. Truth be told, I suspect Ruger’s competitors were a bit jealous when Ruger capitalized on the process and were able to hit a lower price point while, maintaining high quality.

I wasn't real impressed with Glock pistols or AR-15-series rifles--until I started using them. Neither design is my "Very-best-favorite", but they are quite useful.

I happen to be in the same boat of not liking change. I believe that’s a common thread in the pre-computer generations.
Black rifles I just shunned them, my first step into black rifles was a wood stocked Mini 14 ranch rifle. Never got very warm and fuzzy about the Mini’s, owned 4 or 5 over the years. Bought my first AR about 5 years ago. Well the lower was a Christmas present from a friend. It sat in the box till 2 years ago. I finally picked up an upper and the rest of the parts to make it a “rifle”. I liked it!!! Had to contain my enjoyment or my friends and relatives would think I had embraced the dark side. Just sold my last Mini and all the mags.
But shoots great, handles good, ugly as sin, I will never embrace the looks, but the functionality is very nice. Only going to allow 2 or 3 of these rifles in the gunroom and they have to stay in the corner away from my lumber and steel guns.
Glocks are a different thing. I will hold the line there. No Glocks.
I have embraced SS handguns simply because they are becoming like Locust. Can avoid them. A person must have new horizons, but within limits.
Now Ruger builds some nice stuff as everyone agrees, innovative, strong, reliable, and they stand behind a firearm if there’s a problem. But, Smith & Wesson’s are graceful, beautifully made and just a joy to shoot. I have foolishly sold way to many Smiths over the years and like most which they were in the box instead of a memory. I’ve had lots of K, N, and a few J frames but only the one L frame to date. There’s a like new 586 6” with the original box for sale now locally for $850, not sure of the year, but, it’s a 1990’s gun I believe, but I’m going to have to pass on that beauty. I have as many Ruger’s as Smith’s I believe but, a person just can’t have to many.
The problem with the Smith’s if you let one go, you might not be able to replace it without have a good bank account. Mine certainly comes and goes in the cash department. An occasional time of plenty, followed by extended droughts. Far more of a drought lately.
Point in fact at least for me is I picked up a 625-2 5” model 1989 back in 89 or 90. Loved the gun, shot great, but, in a moment of “magnum” craziness I sold it. Shortly I regretted that sale in particular. They are awesome pistols as anyone that owns one will tell you. It’s been till this spring before I could get my hands on another 1989. This one will only leave through my estate to my kids.

many of those Rossi's were built on old S&W equipment that's why they so closely resemble a smiff.
it also answers a lot of questions about the cylinders.

oh and Keith put me in line to have 2 357 Rossi cylinders re-cut too... LOL

I have a 586 no dash,,8 3/8ths,,it is scary accurate,,could be the most accurate handgun,i ever owned.because of the long barrell,it is one of them rare guns that,,if you miss,its totally on the operator...

You guys. I just let a friend talk me out of my one and only L frame.

What kind of friend does that?

I only have one L frame. Not even a Smith. It’s a Taurus Tracker in .357. Fun accurate revolver.

Never laid eyes on a Taurus revolver, here or in Detroit. Apparently, not in demand. An occasional Charter Arms could be found in Detroit. Almost purchased a stainless CA 38 snub nose, instead of my SS Model 60. Charter had a much better trigger..............got talked out of it. Never seen any CA revolvers, here. I purchased my Fit for Duty Bulldog off GB.

Would never purchase a Taurus, sight unseen. Factory warranty being iffy, at best.

I’ve had mine for over 20 years with nary an issue. Lucky maybe…..

david s said:

Like Glaciers my only L frame is an odd ball. The 3 inch model 696 a 5 shot 44 special.

Click to expand...

I wish I never sold mine....