S&W Scandium, Titanium question
- Thread starter Weylan
- Start date
- Status
Mastrogiacomo
Member
I'd be really surpised if they came without the internal lock so I'd say, yes they have them. Mine does. They're a S&W gun after all, but I could be wrong. Why are you looking at the Ti-frames? You like pain that much? They're expensive and not worth the discomfort in my opinion. Get something with a little weight on it and you'll fare better when you fire the gun. I'm planning on making my next revolver purchase a nice heavy, model 686.
Mastrogiacomo
Member
I'm surprised...still the Ti-frames have no appeal to me. I never understand why people want to shoot something that light weight. The heavier guns are so much more enjoyable to handle but I guess some people are into pain.
No snub is built for plinking imho. The few shots you may fire in time of need are all the justification they need in my mind. The light weight insures you MAY have it with you when needed while a 20 oz model would surely be left behind in my case. YMMV
M1911
Agreed. I shot the living bejeeziz out of Model 36s and Colt Dick Specials and agents. I am a seasoned pistoleer in regards to DAing off a snubby and hitting a pop can at twenty feet. I guess my remarks should be prefaced by "you should already own a steel frame for your practicing." My advice is for more experienced shooters. If a person is seriously contemplating a FIRST pistol, I would recommend a 22 LR revo. Learn to DA that and hit a popcan at 20 feet, then move to a steel 38 and do the same. THEN and only then, go to a lightweight.
Aside: Seriously, with all the threads about 45 Super, 454 Casull, 480, and larger guns I cannot believe that people think the little scandium critters hurt. I would rather touch off a box full of 357s in my Scanny than a cylinder full in the finest Freedom Arms 454. YMMV.
Agreed. I shot the living bejeeziz out of Model 36s and Colt Dick Specials and agents. I am a seasoned pistoleer in regards to DAing off a snubby and hitting a pop can at twenty feet. I guess my remarks should be prefaced by "you should already own a steel frame for your practicing." My advice is for more experienced shooters. If a person is seriously contemplating a FIRST pistol, I would recommend a 22 LR revo. Learn to DA that and hit a popcan at 20 feet, then move to a steel 38 and do the same. THEN and only then, go to a lightweight.
Aside: Seriously, with all the threads about 45 Super, 454 Casull, 480, and larger guns I cannot believe that people think the little scandium critters hurt. I would rather touch off a box full of 357s in my Scanny than a cylinder full in the finest Freedom Arms 454. YMMV.
Mastrogiacomo
Member
I know with my 442 I can't hit the side of a barn with it, and it's the last gun I'd like to take with me to the range. Still, I'd like a good revolver so I'm looking for the 686, which I hope will be a vast improvement. I plan on using the .38 ammo in it and changing the grip to Hougue if it's not comfortable enough. In a pinch though, I prefer to use a compact Beretta or H&K any day over the light weight, snub 38's...but then maybe I'm a wimp.
Mastro--I remove your double tap and explanation. No extra charge. Johnny
Mastro--I remove your double tap and explanation. No extra charge. Johnny
Last edited by a moderator:
GooseGestapo
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2003
- Messages
- 6,153
My early production 337-Ti .38spl w/3" bbl, adj. sites doesn't have the lock. It is extreamly accurate, and with a standard velocity 158 SWC does not have objectionable recoil. However, that said, I didn't buy it for plinking, but for extended carrying while walking/fishing/hunting. Hopefully, having it will preclude needing it.
Greybeard
Member
Agree with BigG on early 342s (titanium) not having lock. IMHO, some of those older guns too had better triggers out of the box. (There may still be some around that have only fired 5 rounds!)
Had a 342 for 2 years prior to selling to buy 340 (scandium) that I've had for the last two years. Had even forgot the lock was on the 340 until mentioned above. It is the "always" gun as was the 342.
Yea, they can be a pain to shoot with grips that come on 'em. But that was quickly tamed to a large extent with softer rubber grips that cover the backstrap. Unlike the Model 36 which I've had for over 25 years, the 340 goes out the door LOADED at only 14.9 ounces and, compared to some others, is a DREAM to carry.
FWIW, I would not hesitate to recommend a 342 as a viable alternative to 340. 342 is an ounce lighter and 38+Ps are not a whole lot slower than .357s out of 2" tubes - and don't have quite the muzzle blast. But some folks just like 12-ounce flamethrowers ...
Related "accuracy" discussion currently at http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11767
Had a 342 for 2 years prior to selling to buy 340 (scandium) that I've had for the last two years. Had even forgot the lock was on the 340 until mentioned above. It is the "always" gun as was the 342.
Yea, they can be a pain to shoot with grips that come on 'em. But that was quickly tamed to a large extent with softer rubber grips that cover the backstrap. Unlike the Model 36 which I've had for over 25 years, the 340 goes out the door LOADED at only 14.9 ounces and, compared to some others, is a DREAM to carry.
FWIW, I would not hesitate to recommend a 342 as a viable alternative to 340. 342 is an ounce lighter and 38+Ps are not a whole lot slower than .357s out of 2" tubes - and don't have quite the muzzle blast. But some folks just like 12-ounce flamethrowers ...
Related "accuracy" discussion currently at http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11767
Mastro: You might want to consider a model 19 or 66 instead of a 686. The 686 was designed because the 19/66 will loosen up if given a steady diet of .357 Mag. If you're just planning on shooting .38 Spcl, then there's no need for 686 and the 19/66 are cheaper. I also prefer the balance of the 19/66. YMMV.
Don't get me wrong, the 686 is a fine gun. But why pay for the extra heft when you don't need it?
Don't get me wrong, the 686 is a fine gun. But why pay for the extra heft when you don't need it?
twoblink
Member
So... I was bored one day and a friend bought a Ti and I figured I didn't need the use of my hands, and so I shot 125grain JHP 357Maggies out of them..
Well... What can I say... My hand still hurts! Light guns? Great for CCW, not really for shooting..
Well... What can I say... My hand still hurts! Light guns? Great for CCW, not really for shooting..
Mastrogiacomo
Member
They're pretty to look at too! I've got to confess, they're easy to pick up and hard to put down -- great toys. I really considered buying the T-frame style of my 686 model. Looks like such a cool gun but when I read the reviews online from people that used it -- I could feel their pain from in front of my computer. I'll stick with the heavy weights, thank you.
I've got to confess, they're easy to pick up and hard to put down -- great toys. I really considered buying the T-frame style of my 686 model. Looks like such a cool gun but when I read the reviews online from people that used it -- I could feel their pain from in front of my computer. I'll stick with the heavy weights, thank you. 280PLUS
Member
geez, i don't know about you guys...
Hasn't any of you yet heard (?) a word I've been saying around here? First off, whats the problem with the lock? Why, I don't think I've actually ever put it on. I'm not really sure it even exists, if you catch my drift. Oops, did I say that? But anyhow, for you lightweight lovers that hate the recoil, once again and almost ad nauseum at this point, I refer you to the S&W Model 332 / .32 H&R Mag.
Left to right you see: .32 acp / .32 h&r mag / 9mm luger
~ 14.25 oz. loaded
.38~ 200 Ft/Lb x 5 shots
.32 h&r~ 190 Ft/Lb x 6 shots
and much more funner to shoot over and over and over...
notice the wear marks on the cylinder...
Plus the first thing most people say when they see it is,
"Is that a .357?"
so that in itself might be a bit of a deterrent in a touchy situation.
Hasn't any of you yet heard (?) a word I've been saying around here? First off, whats the problem with the lock? Why, I don't think I've actually ever put it on. I'm not really sure it even exists, if you catch my drift. Oops, did I say that? But anyhow, for you lightweight lovers that hate the recoil, once again and almost ad nauseum at this point, I refer you to the S&W Model 332 / .32 H&R Mag.
Left to right you see: .32 acp / .32 h&r mag / 9mm luger
~ 14.25 oz. loaded
.38~ 200 Ft/Lb x 5 shots
.32 h&r~ 190 Ft/Lb x 6 shots
and much more funner to shoot over and over and over...
notice the wear marks on the cylinder...
Plus the first thing most people say when they see it is,
"Is that a .357?"so that in itself might be a bit of a deterrent in a touchy situation.
Mastrogiacomo
Member
@M1911
Thanks for the revolver recommendations. I'll definately look into it.
Thanks for the revolver recommendations. I'll definately look into it.
Mastrogiacomo
Member
Just visited the smith and wesson page. Can't find a picture of the model 19. Did I misunderstand you?
Mastrogiacomo
Member
@M1911
Did an engine search and saw a picture of it. I think it's a little big for me. I'd like to be able to have the option for carry as well as my permit changes -- I hope. The guns look nice but I think the 686 has a better grip and probably more what I'm looking for in a gun. Maybe at some point, I can find it at the range to decide one way or the other prior to making a trip to the gun shop. By the time I have some money set aside, I may go for a Sig P220 or else another Beretta if I can get a Class A. Or...maybe the H&K will be allowed in this state. Otherwise, I'm sure the 686 will likely be the next revolver I pick up. Thanks for the suggestions though.
Did an engine search and saw a picture of it. I think it's a little big for me. I'd like to be able to have the option for carry as well as my permit changes -- I hope. The guns look nice but I think the 686 has a better grip and probably more what I'm looking for in a gun. Maybe at some point, I can find it at the range to decide one way or the other prior to making a trip to the gun shop. By the time I have some money set aside, I may go for a Sig P220 or else another Beretta if I can get a Class A. Or...maybe the H&K will be allowed in this state.
Otherwise, I'm sure the 686 will likely be the next revolver I pick up. Thanks for the suggestions though.tomkatz
Member
mastro...the 19 is a smaller frame size than the 686, if I understood you correctly I think you said the 19 was too big for you? I have a 66(stainless 19)and a 686, and I would say they grip the same, if you put the same grips on each gun. Both excellent guns IMO.....tom
Kahr carrier
Member
Model 19 is a K Frame and the 686 is an L frame ,But the grip frames are the same .If those are to big for your hands you might want to try a S&W 640 or 60 in 357 they are built on the J frame.
Mastro:
The Model 19 and 66 are K-frame pistols. The 19 is no longer made, but there are plenty of used ones around. The 66 is pretty much the same as the 19, but the 66 is stainless and the 19 is blued. The 66 is still made in 2 1/2" and 4" barrel lengths.
The 686 is an L-frame pistol. The L-frame is larger and heavier than the K-frame. So if you think the 66 is too big, then the 686 is right out because it is bigger and heavier. For example, the 2 1/2" 66 weighs 32 oz and the 4" 66 weighs 37 oz. In contrast the 2 1/2" 686 weighs 35 oz and the 4" 66 weighs 40 oz. In other words, for a given barrel size, the 686 is 3 oz heavier than the 66.
Regarding grips, as others have said the grip portion of the frame is the same for both the 66 and 686. The grips themselves can be easily changed with a screwdriver.
The Model 19 and 66 are K-frame pistols. The 19 is no longer made, but there are plenty of used ones around. The 66 is pretty much the same as the 19, but the 66 is stainless and the 19 is blued. The 66 is still made in 2 1/2" and 4" barrel lengths.
The 686 is an L-frame pistol. The L-frame is larger and heavier than the K-frame. So if you think the 66 is too big, then the 686 is right out because it is bigger and heavier. For example, the 2 1/2" 66 weighs 32 oz and the 4" 66 weighs 37 oz. In contrast the 2 1/2" 686 weighs 35 oz and the 4" 66 weighs 40 oz. In other words, for a given barrel size, the 686 is 3 oz heavier than the 66.
Regarding grips, as others have said the grip portion of the frame is the same for both the 66 and 686. The grips themselves can be easily changed with a screwdriver.
- Status
