I have one 6" and one CH 6.5" heavy lug/unfluted.

Both scoped with Leupold 2x.

I want to use one for sure with open sights. Gathering opinions here:

Would you prefer the standard model with irons to keep it lighter and handier, or prefer the heavier gun with irons?

The heavier CH scoped was easier to hold at the range, but I wonder if I want the extra weight in if I am to shoot one open sighted....The scoped would likely go in a shoulder holster, but the unscoped would likely go on the hip. I have never shot the CH model other than scoped.

I have used another 657 in past with irons and very happy, though recall Dick Metcalf saying the 657CH was the first handgun he sighted dead on at 100 yds. It does shoot very well, perhaps a tad better than standard, but the 'hold factor' may be the difference.

Thoughts appreciated, as I may unscope both eventually, as they seem actually slower to manipulate sight pic with extra weight of the scope-esp. the 657. Rested is fine, but offhand, the CH scoped seems just too darned heavy and unwieldy.

I have struggled with the same issue. I have 2 model 629 classic hunters with 6" barrels one with fluted and one with unfluted cylinder. The unfluted was scoped until tonight when I "stole" the scope for a new 454 barrel for my encore.
I have made the decision to scope only the Encore and keep my revolvers so they can be easily carried in a hip holster. I typically carry a handgun in addition to a rifle when deer hunting or I simple hunt with the scoped Encore.

I have in the past had TC's in 30/30, 44, 41, 6.5 tcu, 7tcu, and a 6tcu and 223 carbine setup.

I tend to want to choose to limit my handgun hunting to under 100 yds or so, to keep the challenge/fun factor. I know a good scoped rig for long distance can close the gap on a rifle considerably, and I can see myself continuing to do some scoped rifle hunting, but I am getting bored with rifles, just been too easy. Do want to take a deer and perhaps hog with my 357 marlin peep sighted. Thanks.

The added weight of the unfluted cylinder makes the choice a no-brainer. If you are going to leave one scoped, make it the one that is fluted.

Carry the lighter one in a belt rig. The scoped heavyweight can ride best in a pistol rug in your rucksack until you get to your blind.

Doubless, that is what I was thinking, but I also want a portable carry gun, w/o undue weight, and was contemplating shortening a CH to 4-5", keeping underlug and unfluted, looking like a 610 4" unfluted, or 629 classic and using that CH short with irons for a carry gun.

Still tinkering with a Freedom Arms 97 in 4.25 or 5.5 but there is a LOT to think about....in terms of $$$.

I think perhaps a 657 with irons and a good trigger can shoot better than I can hold anyway, and do what I need out to the ranges needed to use it, likely adding v rear and gold bead front sight combo.

I think I have decided to unscope the CH and try it with irons, later shortening if I want less weight. The CH with irons seems like as much gun as one would wish for in 41 either scoped or iron sighted for deer/hogs. I think the scoped CH would be fine with rest, but if I shot without a rest, I might prefer the more manageable (weight wise) std. 657/2x leupold.

I appreciate hearing feedback from experienced shooters, as I hope to get it right the first time and avoid burning time, ammo, and hassle factor re-scoping/zeroing.

The unfluted cylinder adds no strength at all, it is just an esthetic change that makes for a more attractive revolver, at the expense of added weight. But I love the unfluted look too, to the point my 629 Classic was sent back to S&W to have an unfluted cylinder fitted to it.

I have a 654 Silhouette model from FA, and it is a wonderful firearm. But it has a huge price tag, and probably the only real benefits are exceeding strength (which really isn't needed for hunting, IMO) and the faster twist, which is good for heavy bullets. Again, not really necessary; the 210 or 220-grain cast at 1000 fps will readily shoot completely through thin skinned game (including feral pigs) at any responsible distance.

You are talking to a 41 freak. I own nine 41s in various configurations (ten if you count the 410 White Muzzleloader...) But I would be buying a 657 Mountain Gun for carrying rather than paying for having that gorgeous CH cut off. To me, the Mountain Gun in 41 is about as good as it gets. I have one in 45 Colt as well, and it shoots better than I can hold, but it will never be a .41, if you know what I mean. And I cast as well, so I can put anything up to 290 grains in a .41 Mag case.

I think a rear buckhorn and gold front bead might be perfect. I have that setup on my 5-1/2" 41 Redhawk, and it works very well.

And finally, although I have scopes on two handguns, the firearms do not readily lend themselves to being shot scoped. It is hard to find the target in the scope at arms length, to then get a full reticle of light, and finally to hold the revolver still enough to make a decent shot. As you say, the scoped revolver works well with a rest, but shooting without a rest is a brand new game. I use my scopes for working up loads, then shoot unscoped. I guess Metcalf did it right with the underlug sling swivel attachment and the neck sling, but I haven't found anyone that can do that modification yet...

Thanks Doubless, I hear people who 'work up loads with scopes' or with rifles using 'higher powered target scopes' then back down to their choice sights for hunting. Always wondered if it was a viable proposition since you may not get that accuracy anyways when backing down on the precision sights used for targets, to those for hunting, but it cannot hurt.

I know I shot a group of 4 or 5 shots out of 6 in just over an inch with std 657 at 50 yds and cast 215 swc over 9.0 unique. I doubt I could do that w/o scope. It did tell me the gun has the goods!

I realize the unfluted is needless in a smith.

What about a Freedom Arms 97? Do you think fluting one 'weakens it' in any capacity? I prefer the nonfluted myself, but seen some fluted ones on the auction sites-not my preference and would not pay the extra option fee that goes along with it anyway since I'd prefer the unfluted.

I see your point about revolvers not being as suited for optics. What about those 'red dot' type sights? Heard some like them alot. I have a problem with a sight that requires a 'power source-ie. battery' that can be a 'weak link' and fail. Not a big deal, but I like the Keep It Simple Stupid philosophy.

Who makes the 'buckhorn sight' by the way? Thanks.

Oh, IF I come across a reasonable 657 MG, I'd be VERY tempted. Thought about a 1006 or 1076 smith 10mm or 610 4", but cannot see why a 610 when I can have a 657!

The buckhorn on the Ruger was offerd by Ruger at one time, as an aftermarket option. I haven't looked, but they may still be available. I am a Smith devotee; the Redhawk just came available at a "weak moment", and it was a 41. So....

I suspect any of the custom revolver shops could either fabricate one or locate one for you. And you might be able to find what you are looking for in a Brownell's catalog as well.

Thanks, I do recall seeing the interchangable front sight kit for Redhawks. Red is out for me as I am color blind and although see it, the green/blue and yellow stand out better for my eyes and against dark backgrounds i.e. in woods.

I would have a weak moment if I saw a 41 in 5.5" Stainless at a good price. Would buy the first 4" Redwawk made if stainless 41. Same of Blackhawk. 44 just does not turn my crank, though I have a very big current interest in trying a 44 special FA 97 with modern loads.

Someone posted pics of a 'chopped/custom 41 Redhawk 4" ' on another site/forum. I might say it looks sweet!

quote:

Someone posted pics of a 'chopped/custom 41 Redhawk 4" ' on another site/forum. I might say it looks sweet!

Hamilton Bowen does that. As a matter of fact, I think the new 4" Redhawk is pretty much a clone of what Bowen Classic Arms does with them...

I am not a Ruger guy, but keep contemplating having a five-shot 41 Mag on a GP100 built. But I am talking about $1500 or so, on my revolver. Maybe when all the kids are out of college...

I was at the shot show orlando jan and requested Ruger to do a GP100 in 41, 5 shot, and also stainless 41 bh and rh, no go they say.

Too bad, hate to 'settle' for a 41 4" RH, but if I were spending that kind of Jack, I'd look at the FA 97. I love the feel of the GP but that is lots of dough. In my mind, I could say that a 41 GP would be an ultimate light weight all around do it all gun. Having a DA would be a bonus, still light in weight. Now Glock lovers would say get a G20 in 10mm and be done. Not a bad option.

I don't like tupperware... I still have memories of the first Glock I ever fired, how it would twist in my hand with every shot. That has all been changed now, but I just don't like plastic; rifles OR handguns. I have one syn stock, and that is on a White muzzleloader. If I could find a lam stock for it, that one would be gone...

Now: back to the GP 41... That is probably my ultimate "wish" revolver. I believe the GP is the best looking Ruger firearm made, and it just screams to be a .41...

And to answer a couple more of your questions: a fluted FA would be like a chromed Python; senseless, and ugly, IMHO.

My father is the only person I know who uses a red dot scope. He does because he is blind in his right eye, and cannot see crosshairs any more. I have never shot a handgun with one, but IIRC, a lot of the "dots" are something like 3 MOA. That is too big for what I want, and would make it very hard to shoot good groups.

agreed, I prefer unfluted myself, and will get one if I get an FA, WHY someone thought it was worth paying for the option, to have a gun that looks worse is beyond me, and likely others agree, as they are not selling on gunbroker.

There are 'dot sights' with small dots which would serve better, i used a 2x or so burris scope once with a floating 'dot' reticle, worked well when you got used to it. I did trade it off.

And agreed. A GP is NICE looking and it does deserve to be in 41, wish Ruger would do them....

Glocks never fit my hand, not the G20, as it is a big gun, but the reliability and accuracy make lots of users happy. I picked up an older S&W 9mm, would be happy to get one like it in 10mm, they fit me. Thanks.

It is too bad Ruger won't do a GP100 in a 5 shot .41 Magnum but since Taurus already does in both stainless and titanium it is no great loss. I have a Ti and a friend has a SS and they are both great shooters.

As to your original question I would do as you first thought...scope the heavier and hip carry the lighter... You might even see if S&W has any 4" stainless barrels left...don't bother asking about Mountain Gun barrels however as I already asked...none to be had. You could even have a good smith shorten the standard profile barrel to 4-5" for easier carry.

Bob

I had a SS Taurus, sold it as the ports did direct recoil straight back, it shot ok, never did serious testing. Wish it were non ported, same cylinder length as smith.

I think given the choice, a smith 4 inch would be preferable, though heavier in std 657, not a bad thing when shooting, also full length cylinder.

I am likely ultimately going to consider chopping a 657 to 4-5", I think it would be a good balance, but for now will play with unscoping one or the other, perhaps both. If I had just one and it were say a 5" standard, I could probably live with it as an all around gun. I hear many owners of the 629 5" Classic love them.

Do think I will upgrade sights on at least 1 657 after I decide whether to chop it down or not.