I there really justification to charge 2x the price for a S&W???????? You guys in the know ... help me with this one ...... ok...just checked the same site from the other thread ... they arent 2x as much ... they are 50% more....
When I make a gun purchase I check with local gunshops or FFL guys. I have found a few that will sell the gun for cost plus shipping and tax and tack on 20 bucks for profit. Just a thought.
rugar better internal mechanism, a little heavier but worth it. Smith makes great revolvers, and so does taurus, but taurus doesnt have nearly the prodction quality standards, some are great some are junk
Revolver? May I suggest one of these, I want one...bad. http://www.rossiusa.com/product-details.cfm?id=190&category=15&toggle=&breadcrumbseries=
I dont own any S&W revolvers, I can't justify the price. I own a few Rugers and a couple Taurus. The taurus arent bad, but I'd go with rugers, especially if its a hunting revolver. People really slam Taurus, but I've have good luck with them. For me it came down to that I really like the grip of a single action revolver compared to most DA's. And the Taurus "raging" series was a little too thin gripped for me. The Tracker series is much nicer grip to me. Ever consider a Contender? You can still use a straight wall pistol cartridge if that's your legal requirement.I'm debating purchasing one of those myself.
Ryan, this thread was wondering about the justification in Price difference ... I was curious as the the quality vs price deal with those two named guns .. I think I have settled on the Ruger if I go the pistol way ,,
There is certainly a quality difference and it is probably justifiable based solely on that. But I guess it boils down to the individual as to whether they need or want that difference in quality.
