A S&W 64-1 needs a good home, could that home be mine?

[MacTech]

On my weekly trip to the toy store I found another revolver that caught my attention....

The first thing that caught my attention was that it was a used pre-lock stainless S&W for $275, usually used S&W's start around $325 and up for decent ones, the cheaper ones are usually in sad shape....

Once it was out of the cabinet for my inspection, I discovered the following facts;
1; it's a 4" heavy-barrel .38 Spl
2; it has fixed sights
3; the rifling is sharp, the crown looks perfect
4; cylinder lock-up/timing is absolutely *perfect*, no end shake, no side-to-side wiggle
5; DA pull is smooth and clean, SA pull is the proverbial "Glass Rod"
6; the stainless finish is largely unblemished, only a little scuffing

So, seeing that the gun was in such good condition, it puzzled me why the price was so low for what felt to be a well put together, precision revolver, I couldn't figure it out.....

then it hit me....

the hammer spur was slightly shorter than I thought it should be, so I look at the rear of the hammer spur, it definitely showed evidence of it being a Bubba-Bobbing-Job, as the polished bobbed area was not uniformly smooth, and there was some minor scuffing/stippling at the back of the frame directly behind the hammer, this may have been the reason for the lower price, due to the bubba'd bob-job

I'm sure I could send it in to S&W and have them replace the hammer with an original spur length hammer, but the bob-job doesn't seem to affect manual cocking too badly as it is.

Needless to say, I'm tempted, it looks to be a very solidly built revolver, it actually looks *OVER*built for .38 Spl, I can only imagine shooting standard power rounds in it would be like shooting a .22LR, due to the weight and balance, the only things I'm hesitant on are the fact that the hammer had been bubba'd, and the fixed sights, I'm used to adjustable sights on my handguns (aside from my Kimber Custom II with fixed sights), generally speaking, how accurate are the fixed sights on a 64 series? any little idiosyncracies I should know about with the 64's?

Even with reloading, my Ruger NMBH .45 Convertible can get a little expensive to shoot on a regular basis, and although I dearly love my Ruger Single Six .22 revolver, I want something with a little more "punch" to it for plinking/target shooting/training new shooters, and the .38 Spl seems ideal

So, how does the 64 series stack up? worth getting, or don't bother?

The gun is on 7 day hold, so I have a few days to think it over

 

[cyclopsshooter]

fixed sights are not all that different than adjustable but they snag a whole lot less if you are going to be carrying it.. i like 64s, they are a good revolver and you shouldn't have any problem finding a replacement hammer. oh, and it wont be like shooting a 22, 38 still has some pop in a k frame

 

[MrBorland]

Based soley on your description, it doesn't sound like a bad buy. The roughness at the top of the spur isn't necessarily evidence of bubba-ing if the rest of the gun checks out and the action is smooth. One thing to look at is the condition of the sideplate screws. If it was a hack job, these may be boogered. Nonetheless, a conditional sale (they agree to a refund if it turns out to have issues) wouldn't be a bad idea.

No issues with the 64, other than it doesn't have the versatility of it's .357mag M65 sibling.

 

[MacTech]

I have no issues with the lack of versatile chambering on the 64, after all, I already have a "Big Bada Boomer" in my .45 Colt/ACP Ruger NMBH 7.5"....

my handgun selection is small (enter tired old boating accident report here....), just a Ruger 22LR/WMR Super Single Six, a NMBH .45 Convertible, and Kimber Custom II sitting at the bottom of the nearest lake, the Kimber would have been my PD/HD piece, the NMBH my woods-walking piece/HD piece, and the SSS my plinking/varmint/training new shooters piece

the 64 would have been a bit easier to CCW (once I get around to getting my Maine CCW) than the Kimber, and I'm a wheelgun guy at heart, I don't suffer from "Magnumitis", and think that a cylinder full of +P 38 Spl. would be a perfectly adequate defensive load

We don't have to deal with too many two-legged predators here, practically none, really, in my 42 years at this location, there have been no break ins or home invasions or the like, the worst I'd have to deal with is coy-dogs, or rabid foxes/raccoons, or perhaps the rare and terrifying Zombie Møøse, and for those critters, I'd be breaking out the Marlin 336 .30-30 anyway....

Basically, the 64 would be a range toy/possible CCW piece, I just love the solidity of it's construction and the heavy barrel, I love tools that are overbuilt for their purpose, that are built to last, and I definitely get that feeling with that 64-1....

 

[lemaymiami]

I've owned and carried both the 64 4" heavy barrel, and the 64 2" round butt (and still have the model 10 heavy barrel I was first issued at the end of 1973... the 10 is the blued steel version..- of the model 64). All were first rate service weapons that were only put away (or sold) as high cap autos were allowed on my department (and that's another tale entirely). What made the 64 so attractive at the time was where we were in the day to day heat and weather of south Florida.

The lack of adjustable sights on a service weapon (for daily carry in every condition possible along with all the dings and just plain insults that implies) is a definite plus in my opinion since there's little to go wrong in the aiming department. Now for the only thing I didn't like about the one 4" model 64 that I carried daily for almost five years... At range sessions with lots and lots of use the weapon would begin to bind slightly as it got hot. Never enough to alter its usability but enough to bother me. Our armorer (or the fellow that passed for an armorer back then on a small 100 man department) told me that the tolerances were tight enough in that particular weapon that the very slight expansion from the heat (after 100 rounds or more of continuous use) was enough to cause the symptoms it had. I never found that to be the case with the model 10 in blued steel (and that's why I still have it to this day).

Most users will never fire a revolver so much that it really gets hot, but range sessions where each course was a minimum of 60 rounds can get that way in the heat of summer.

I'll be interested if any other stainless revolver users have ever run into this kind of complaint. It was enough to sell that weapon and move on in my case. The two inch 64 was absolutely flawless in every respect except that it was a six gun in a very bad world (1973-to roughly 1983 in south Florida was a time when a battle rifle might not have been enough some days...). I wish I'd never sold it, but it had to go to make way for a hi-cap compact nine (also by S& W...).

 

[MacTech]

Well, it's home now
I traded a Ruger 10/22 I never really warmed up to towards it, kind of a no-brainer really, the 10/22 was a '70's vintage gun, I wasn't happy with the accuracy, or the trigger pull, yes, I could have swapped in a better barrel and reworked the trigger group on the 10/22, but why should I have to do that to get it to shoot decently?

besides, I already have plenty of .22 rifles anyway, the 10/22 was purchased on a whim because I felt like giving the 10/22 another chance, dunno why I keep trying the things, this has been 10/22 #3, and the oldest of the three, still leaves me cold, and accuracy-wise it can't compare to my Marlin 25, Marlin 39A, or CZ 452 Ultra Lux.... the 39A has it beat on versatility as well, being able to handle a mix of S, L, and LR cartridges in the same tube, wheras the 10/22 is limited to LR length and doesn't handle ultraquiets well, becoming a straight-pull bolt action

anyway, on to the 64-1 content....
I was wrong on the endshake and side to side wiggle, there is just the *tiniest* amount, well within spec, the timing is dead on, actually locking up a hair before the hammer came to full lockback, rifling is sharp and clean, crown is perfect, and the fixed sights align naturally, the screw heads look to be clean, yes they had been removed, but they show no signs of being buggered up

I do have a couple questions about the 64 though.....
even though the firing pin is on the hammer itself, it looks like the gun has some form of hammer block, if I pull the trigger and keep it pulled, the hammer will descend fully and the firing pin will strike the primer, if I pull the trigger, release it and ease the hammer back down, the hammer will not fall completely forward, I'm assuming this means I can safely carry the gun with a live round under the hammer? like with the transfer-bar equipped Rugers?

I'd assume since the firing pin is on the hammer, that dry-firing on an empty chamber is a big no-no, and that I should use snap caps with this style of firing pin system?

Photobucket album

 

[Rem.222]

Sounds like it's functioning right. Hammer has been shortened but as long as it works don't worry about that. I should be a pleasure to shoot and work for defense too. I had one years ago traded it for a 357 mag that never shot near as well. Enjoy!