Bill,
I have every bit as much pull with S&W as you do.
While they are doing more blued models (they say the stainless customer demand has shifted a bit), I'm not sure they'll re-introduce a blued 4-inch .22 revolver.
In my case, I picked up my near mint 34 off one of the gun auction sites a while back. When I was 10, an uncle introduced me to exploring the back country, old mining areas & so on, something I still love to do today. During a couple of those trips he allowed me to carry his 34 on my belt and we shot it a bit along the way. It was the first revolver I ever got to shoot and it made a lasting impression. They are great classic little kit guns & it was sad to see them dropped from production.
I'd suggest you haunt the Internet, they do turn up & they're well worth searching for. :thumbup:
You should view anything you see in print from the same angle as any other source of information- evaluate it, recognize that opinions and conclusions vary, and if you find something useful for your applications and needs then make it your own. If not, dump it.
Rock,
Straight comparisons are useful, and it's nice to have somebody else do the testing & provide you with a guideline on which gun to buy if you're in the market.
As I have mentioned elsewhere regarding Gun Tests, I know of one specific instance where they got their test sample directly from the same maker who loaned one to me (who knows how many other products reviewed were acquired in the same way without being mentioned?), they do not always understand the use (context) of a given gun they review, and they often base their judgements on what I consider side issues. In two subscriptions I've had with them over the years, several times I saw the equivalent of "Gun A was very accurate and never jammed once, but it had a grip panel that wasn't fitted perfectly. Gun B wasn't quite as accurate and it did jam a few times, but it sells for $200 less, the grip panels were perfectly fitted, and it worked most of the time, so we voted Gun B as the best buy of the two."
Not saying GT is useless, just understand that you need to apply the same criteria in reading their material as you do material from any other source:
Does the writer seem to understand the gun?
Does he (or she) seem to understand how it's used?
Does he understand how the gun compares to other guns of a similar type?
Does he seem to understand the importance of certain features?
Does he give useful info on the physical features of the gun?
And finally- does what he's saying make sense & will it work for me?
The ultimate test of ANY gun, of course, is what a specific sample does in YOUR hand. YOU have to be the final judge, we can only give you info on the gun & how one particular test sample worked for us with conclusions based (hopefully) on a certain amount of experience relative to the subject at hand.
Most of us stick to guns we know something about, I'd be lost trying to cover hunting & sporting shotguns since I have no experience or frame of reference with 'em & I'm very much aware of that.
I think one problem with GT is that they often have people reviewing guns & gun types that don't have a background with them that allows the best basis for reviewing them.
That is not a criticism of any individual at GT.
If you find GT issues useful, keep on buying them. If not, don't, and the same thing goes for any other publication.
Denis
