Snubby .357

Status
Not open for further replies.
My Taurus has a 3" barrel, so I guess it's not a snub. It's a very fine shooting weapon, though. I think the SP101 is a stronger gun and no more expensive new than the various Tauri. Taurus is an option in lighter guns, but I kinda prefer a little more weight in a magnum handgun, anyway. Like the Smith J frames, the Taurus is only a few ounces lighter, too. For the strength, I'll pick Ruger. I do have an ultralite Taurus .38, but we're talkin' .357s here.

Rossi has a very reasonable price, but until they do something about the firing pins on those things, (they've been snapping for over 20 years, long running problem) I'll take a pass as far as self defense revolvers go. I had the firing pin snap on a 971 20 years ago and I STILL hear about this with frequency. Otherwise, the guns are REALLY decent expecially considering the price.
 
Last edited:
MCGUNNER, i share your beliefs about the early S&W K frames in .357 magnum..

as many reloaders like myself are primarily the ones having issues with them. I like the N-frame model 27 much better for that reason. Bill Jordan convinced S&W to make the K frame 357 magnum in 1955 . The ruger guns are a great buy and will take the most punishment for sure. I have several and I am glad to see Ruger produce the new guns since old Bill has passed on. The Sp101 is a dandy little 357 magnum for the money and is one of their best sellers.
 
Another vote for 3 inch Sp-101. My favorite gun of all time. I shot 180 and 200 grain corbons in mine. Not fun but what you need for a small carry gun here in the wilds of Alaska. I have had for years a S&W model 65 in 3 inch that I really like.
 
The ruger sp101 is a great gun and built like a tank but can get up there in price. I just ordered a Rossi stainless 2" 357 brand new for $305.
 
Your answer is partially correct...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Smith and Wesson wanted to simplify the line of medium size guns but the K frame problems brought that on. The K frame has been around more than 50 years and those older guns , especially around the forcing cone were too weak to take a steady diet of magnum loads. Hence, the beefed up L frame around the frame where the barrel is attached. Use a micromiter and you will see the difference between these two frames at that point. I will concede that better steel in the later made K frames helped but S&W had a better design in the 586-686 etc and went with that for good reason.


I will partially agree with you. However, your explanation, nor anyone elses for that matter, explains why S&W continued to offer the K frame magnums for 25 years after the introduction of the L frames.

The 686 is a great gun, but I'm not getting rid of my 3 inch 65 for one.
 
I'd go with the SP101, they carry just fine in the right holster. Definately NOT a pocket revolver - at least not for me but they fit all other needs for a .357 carry gun. We're debating the merits of revolvers that weigh within a few ounces of each other here. Look at what a full size auto weighs empty. Cocked and Locked - could you please tell me where you got the front sight in the photo of the SP101. I've been looking for some aftermarket front sights for mine.
 
Cocked and Locked - could you please tell me where you got the front sight in the photo of the SP101. I've been looking for some aftermarket front sights for mine.

The front sight is a Mepro Light Tru Dot Tritium Night Sight. I got this one from Gun Broker. Top Gun Supply, Midway, and Optics Planet usually have them listed. Brownells also shows them but they have the highest price.

Tap the roll pin out, clamp the new sight firmly in place, drill a new pin hole in the new sight (use barrel pin hole as a guide), do the Loctite thing and put the pin back in.

384771601.gif
 
However, your explanation, nor anyone elses for that matter, explains why S&W continued to offer the K frame magnums for 25 years after the introduction of the L frames.

Because they were selling. Civilian sales were near 100 percent of the revolver market by the 80s when the L frame came along. The police agencies weren't buying revolvers anymore. Most civilians don't shoot enough high pressure stuff to wear out a revolver, even a J or K frame. As long as the gun was selling, why not market it?

I have no source for this, it's just logic.
 
Yes the k frames in 357 magnum....

were more popular than the new , full lug 586-686. Many people , still today like the looks of the K frame 357 and its heft far more than the 686. I would bet that S&W sold far more K frames in 357 in the early years after the introduction of the L frame , than they did the newer L frame guns. The K frames are a nice looking gun and they balance well too.
 
I do not have a 686 but still like my model 19...

model 13, and 65, even though I know their weaknesses, I just do not load them up as hot anymore. They are good guns and I like the feel of them better than the newer L frame guns. I do have a model 27 N frame that will take very hot loads, but that is a different story.Like MCGUNNER said , the vast majority of shooters will not wear out a K frame gun.
 
You are right, Ala Dan - that 2.5" 66 is a keeper! I guess, with my Saturday purchase of a new 2 5/8" PC 627, my snubby .357M hunt is over - for a while! The 2.5" K-frame is one natural pointer, however.

For the K-frame detractors, the front strap did not allow a large enough OD barrel end/forcing cone. The L-frame's front strap is .040" thicker, permitting a forcing cone .025" larger in OD. This fixed the imagined Achille's heel of the K-frame. It was hypothesized that with the move towards lighter bullets, ie, <125 gr, the attendant higher velocity and hotter gases would eventually cause thermal stress cracks on the thin edge of the forcing cone, Of course 'eventually' was not specified - 20k rounds or 50k rounds, no one knew. The replacement forcing cone was on the end of a new barrel, certainly not an unheard of replacement item for an older revolver. I have a 66 - and I know of folks who have owned 19 & 66 models for lots longer than I have had mine - I have never met someone who 'shot one out of timing' or had a cracked forcing cone. Of course, my friends - like me - use 140+ gr .357Magnums. My usage is minimal - I load mild Magnums - really glorified .38s.

Oh - the L-frame's cylinder opening is taller, permitting a 7-shot cylinder. Then, in the later nineties, they had to fit a five shot .44 Special cylinder & barrel - with an even thinner edged forcing cone. Not a problem - that .44 Special round is mild - low pressure - low gas velocities. Normal SAAMI spec'd ammo is fine. The K & L frames take the same sized grip, too.

Fear not a K-frame snubby - just stoke it with 140+ gr .357 Magnums. I'm happy with the FBI loads - the +P 158 gr LHPSWCs - they'll meet my great grandkids one day if I stick with such a diet. See my earlier picture of a J, K, L, & N frame snubby for size comparison.

Stainz
 
I've always used factory 158 grain JSP in my 65 and maybe thats why I've never had a problem with any K frame I've ever owned. Although my wife's cousin has a M19 that has seen a lot of handloads over the years that would make any gun cringe (I wouldn't use them in my gun even if I did use reloads, which I don't) and its still working fine.

I'm a big fan of the old Metro load (38+P, 158gr LSWCHP) in my 642 which is a great little snubby.
 
Thanks C&L! I'm on my 2nd replacement sight now, looks like another is in store. The originals get shined up quite easily. Do they offer different heights or just the standard? Thinking of my wife's 2" SP101, she uses .38s and needs a higher sight.
 
[/ATTACH]


Can't go wrong with the SP101
I particularily like the Sack Peterson stag grip inserts.
 

Attachments

  • 067.jpg
    067.jpg
    292.6 KB · Views: 8
  • 082.jpg
    082.jpg
    265.5 KB · Views: 8
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top