Best EDC revolver

[RealGun]

Quote:
I had new guns in mind.

You're placing stipulations not mentioned in the OP. You can't have an intelligent discussion on this if you pretend that the only guns in existence or in use are those made in the last 30days.

Quote:
Historical perspective doesn't interest me much, but don't hold that against me.

Obviously. I really don't know how you came by this opinion but the 19/66 are two of the popular handguns of all time. They are not some obscure revolver built for a few years and are now unobtainable. K and L frame .357's have been produced concurrently since the L's inception. The K-frame model 66 is in the current catalog. Get a clue already.

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/w...layErrorView_Y

Quote:
I resist the prices of desirable old Smiths.

Apparently you resist educating yourself on desirable older S&W's at all. The current 66 has an MSRP of $850. If you can't find an older 19 or 66 for that or less, you're not looking very hard.

Quote:
Some of these old dream guns are too expensive to even shoot.

Hogwash. I've never spent more than the MSRP of the current 66 on any of my "dream guns".

Quote:
Many of them are fugly anyway.

As has been previous discussed many times, you are in the extreme minority on this, thankfully.

That's a lot of ad hominem, just because you don't like trigger locks, MIM, and such. What if I preferred new guns and wouldn't like the price of New Old Stock or couldn't even find an example?

On the K frame, what if the new guns are actually a "magnum" frame like the J frames, evolving to better handle.357 Magnum?

The model 66 Combat Magnum is a recent reintroduction. Wanna bet the frame is not exactly the same, more of a magnum evolution?

Try not to let it be so obvious that you think you are elite, looking down on us pedestrians.

I do have the Smith & Wesson book on my Kindle. I just thought it was reasonable to take Smith's website at its word, as follows:

Smith & Wesson website

Medium Frame (K)
The K-Frame revolver is one of the most important innovations in Smith & Wesson history and was built specifically to handle the .38 S&W Special cartridge. Since its introduction, the K-Frame has been a favorite for military and police professionals as well as target shooters and enthusiasts. Today's K-Frame is available in .22 LR and .38 S&W Special.

Large Frame (L)
Smith & Wesson L-Frame revolvers are built to suit the demands of the most serious firearms enthusiast. Available in six and seven shot cylinders, the L-Frame has a strong, durable frame and barrel built for continuous Magnum® usage. As police officers and hunters will attest, this firearm is made to withstand heavy use.

 

[boricua9mm]

What model is this? I cannot see it from the photo. This, and the 586 L-Comp looks like what I want. 3'' seems to be the perfect size, what do you guys think?

That is my 3" model 65-3, as pictured on the first page of this thread. I think that the 3" K-frame guns are the sweet spot for a .357 Magnum that will be carried. They are heavy enough that they are not excruciatiangly painful to shoot; in fact I find them quite pleasant, especially with grips that fill in the area behind the trigger guard. You get the full length ejector rod, plus a little extra sight radius over the typical snub-nosed revolver.

My objective opinion on this particular setup is that the stainless-on-stainless sight picture is lacking. Some paint on the front sight helps, but I find that I drastically prefer the sight picture of adjustable sight models. If you find an adjustable sight model that has a pinned front sight, you have the capability of customizing both the rear and the front to your liking. Some think adjustable sights are fragile, or that they are too sharp. Neither of those has been a concern/problem for me, but we are all different.

 

[David E]

As a side note, the S&W Model 13 (3" k-frame .357) was the duty gun for the FBI for a number of years. They loaded it with .38's unless the agent in charge authorized magnums for a particular situation. IE; they carried .38's 99% of the time.

The Model 65 is but a stainless steel version of the Model 13

 

[boricua9mm]

That's a lot of ad hominem, just because you don't like trigger locks, MIM, and such. What if I preferred new guns and wouldn't like the price of New Old Stock or couldn't even find an example?

The real-world value of pre-lock S&Ws has indeed gone up. Only someone who is unaware would sell an excellent condition model at the old $400 and under ballpark. CraigC is correct, however, and one could find an excellent conditon pre-lock gun anywhere from $500-$700. Comparing that to what S&W charges for a new revolver, it really isn't a raw deal at all.

On the K frame, what if the new guns are actually a "magnum" frame like the J frames, evolving to better handle.357 Magnum?

I don't think it's so much that the J-frame Magnums are "Magnum frame evolution" so much as it is the fact that no one can physically tolerate enough Magnum loads out of that size in order to wear one out.

Just because S&W does or does not currently offer something is not an indicator of whether or not it should have ever existed. It is simply a matter of what they think would sell, measured congruently with the time and costs associating with producing it and supporting it.

When you claimed that the only 6-shot .357 options begin at the L-frame, my first reactions to your posts was "Surely you know about the Model 65, 66, 19, etc." I mean, you didn't simply forget about S&W's most popular revolvers, right? As a result, I think your posts came across as if you were expressing your opinion that 6-shot, K-frame .357 Magnums are nothing more than .38 Specials with different barrel stampings, or that they are simply unsuitable for shooting Magnum loads. It has been my experience, as well as the experience of many others, that this is not the case.

 

[cheesebigot]

Lots of love for the S&W, but I see some contenders with low representation...

1. Must be rather compact. (It must be able to be carried unseen easily).
2. Must have 6 shots or more.
3. Must have adjustable sights (Or can be fitted with adjustable sights)
4. Must do both DA and SA.
5. Must be accurate.

1. Check
2. Check
3. Check
4. Check
5. That's on the shooter, but check.

 

[CraigC]

That's a lot of ad hominem...

I suggest you look up the meaning of "ad hominem" before using it again. Firstly, I have not attacked you. Secondly, you have displayed such a lack of knowledge on the very existence of S&W K-frame .357's, some of the most prolific firearms in American history that perhaps you think an education on them is a personal attack.

...just because you don't like trigger locks, MIM, and such.

None of those things were even brought up. I said nothing negative about the new guns at all. It is you who wants to pretend that the old guns do not exist and for IMAGINED reasons. Matter of fact, I bought a new 442 last week.

What if I preferred new guns and wouldn't like the price of New Old Stock or couldn't even find an example?

I can see how someone would object to buying older guns at less than new prices.

They're everywhere, you should know this.

On the K frame, what if the new guns are actually a "magnum" frame like the J frames, evolving to better handle.357 Magnum?

No, that would be the L frame.

The model 66 Combat Magnum is a recent reintroduction. Wanna bet the frame is not exactly the same, more of a magnum evolution?

I'll take that bet.

Try not to let it be so obvious that you think you are elite, looking down on us pedestrians.

How do you figure that? Like I said, I have NEVER paid more than the MSRP for any of my "dream guns". No, the truth is that I take issue with folks who speak with authority when their knowledge is obviously lacking. If you don't know about S&W K-frame .357's, that's a big hole. Don't attack me for pointing that out. Sorry, this isn't a class war either. THAT is ad hominem.

 

[CraigC]

On topic, I've always liked the idea of carrying a 2" K-frame, be it a model 19, 15 or 10. I've just never actually done it.

 

[Old Fuff]

I have, and abandoned the idea in favor of the slightly smaller/lighter Colt Detective Special.

The 2” barrel on an S&W K-frame is too short to balance the frame/handle/cylinder’s mass. Going to a 3” or longer barrel is another matter entirely, and as a bonus you get a full length ejector rod.

The K-frame/2” package is too big for pocket carry, and usually requires an IWB or OWB holster, and because of the short barrel the butt tends to tip away from the body. Of course all of these negatives can be overcome for the most part, but after trying I decided it wasn’t worth the effort when better alternatives were available.

 

[tomrkba]

N-Frame with 3" barrel in 45 ACP, 44 Special or 44 Magnum.

 

[RealGun]

OP's criteria:
1. Must be rather compact. (It must be able to be carried unseen easily).
2. Must have 6 shots or more.
3. Must have adjustable sights (Or can be fitted with adjustable sights)
4. Must do both DA and SA.
5. Must be accurate.

 

[tomrkba]

People have been recommending a K-Frame with 2 1/2" barrel. I found this combination to be difficult to shoot fast and accurately. It did carry well. I recommend the OP shoot one before buying if possible. I disliked shooting 357 Magnum through it. Shooting 38 Special +P was easier, but at that point you may as well get a semi-auto. As a consequence of the snubby's performance, I switched to the S&W L-Frame/Ruger GP100 with 4" barrel and haven't looked back.

If you must have a 2 1/2" barrel, just get it over with and buy a Ruger Alaskan. It carries well in the appendix position and only needs night sights, chamferred charge holes and boot grips from Badger (it accepts Ruger GP100 grips). It is an excellent 44 Special launcher. At a measley 50 ounces or so, it is about as compact as it needs to be for 44 Magnum.

 

[mdauben]

I picked up a S&W 386NG last year and I really love it. Much lighter than my 686 on the belt, but still big enough to handle magnum ammo fairly easily.

 

[NMPOPS]

I fail to see why you require Adjustable sights on a concealable snubby?

 

[LUCKYDAWG13]

I fail to see why you require Adjustable sights on a concealable snubby?
__________________

i was thinking the same thing my little 3" SP101 shoots to point of aim i see no need
for adjustable sights on it

 

[RealGun]

"shoots to point of [YOUR] aim". The windage-only rear sight on the SP101 327 Federal Magnum is what I need as a left-eye-dominant shooter. I am more interested in bulleyes than groups just somewhere in the area. I am not interested in shooting Kentucky windage at only 20 feet. The only point and shoot I do is with my Glock, and I appear to be pretty good at it.

 

[HexHead]

The L-frame is also available now with a 5-shot cylinder. The new .44 Magnum Model 69.

Aside from the adjustable sights, a Colt Detective Special fits the OP's criteria nicely. Colt's D-frame is sized between a J-frame and a K-frame, making them very easy to carry concealed. One of mine is one of my EDC options for pocket carry.

 

[Haywood]

I pick Two of these every day

 

[Hunter2011]

Lots of love for the S&W, but I see some contenders with low representation...



1. Check
2. Check
3. Check
4. Check
5. That's on the shooter, but check.

I have looked at these guns on youtube. Looks are totally different but they seem to shoot very good. There are only two dealers in South Africa that I am aware of that sell these guns. I have requested a pricelist of all the available models. Waiting 3 days now. I will phone them to remind them about my mail. Really, customer support here in my country sucks big time with gunshops. It is just a pity that they don't make a 3'' barreled model.

I want adjustable sights as I could never in my life shoot to a perfect poi with any handgun I have owned before that had fixed sights. The gun I want must have a 3'' barrel, not mentioned in my first post, but a bit later on. 3'' are not snubbies anymore, I think.

I can get a very well looked after Ruger Security Six for not a lot of money. But two things put me off a little. It is not chambered in .357 Magnum, but in .38 Special.
There is nothing wrong with .38 Special, but as a .357 magnum can fire .38 as well, it would be a better better option for me to get something in .357 rather. Secondly, its got a 4'' barrel. 1'' longer than the max size I want for now. Maybe I must just try to look past these two things...

Ps. Is it safe to shoot +P .38 Specials in the Security six, chambered for .38 Special?

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Most of your requirements go against each other. A K frame will hold 6 rounds but it's not all that small like a J frame. Many of the good carry revolvers have fixed sights and with good reason.

The S&W M12 fits everything but for the adjustable sights but it is light and holds 6 rounds. The M15 has adjustable sights but is heavier than the M12.

There is the Colt Detective Special but they are hard to find and parts are almost impossible to find. Colt will no longer work on them either.

There is one option that is current and can be bought new, the Charter Arms Police Undercover revolver is a J frame size revolver which holds 6 rounds of .38 Special and weighs only 20oz. BUT, no adjustable sights...
http://charterfirearms.com/products/Charter_Undercover_73840.asp

 

[RealGun]

A K frame will hold 6 rounds but it's not all that small like a J frame.

That seems a value judgment about what "compact" means. What would "subcompact" mean in revolver terms? In relative terms, a K frame is compact compared to N frames. S&W defines a K frame as 38 Special or 22 LR.

It seems that Ruger's only presence in truly "small" frame revolvers is .22, and then only in single action. The SP101 is compact but a bit heavy for a 38 Special pretending to be a 357 Magnum. To me, it is overshadowed by the S&W Model 60 Pro Series. I own both and feel like I would know.

My best compact/subcompact is an Interarms Rossi model 88, which fits a J frame 2" holster. My Interarms Rossi 851 and S&W 67-1 seem pretty slim and lightweight, possibly meeting the size and weight that the OP intended, but those are K frame or Diamondback clones. Those are 4" barrel guns, however. All of those are 38 Special only, none rated for +p.

 

[boricua9mm]

When doing direct comparisons to semi-auto guns of a known clasification (i.e., "compact" and "sub-compact"), it is easy to see that round-butt K-frame guns are comparable in overall size to a Glock 19. If we're talking abnout a 3" K-frame gun, then the only big difference in overall size is found in the thickness of the revolver's cylinder.

Doing the same comparison between a J-frame and a Glock 26 (sub-compact), you likewise see that they are comparable save for the girth of the cylinder.

Personally, I don't think it's all that difficult to discern something that is "compact" to one that is truly "sub-compact." In the case of an Every Day Carry gun, the OP must first decide how this gun is going to be carried. Much like one wouldn't pocket carry a Glock 19, we wouldn't expect you to be able to pocket carry a K-frame.

 

[RealGun]

Big bore, heavy frame guns with short barrels are not what I would call compact. They're boat anchors. I think we're all over the place in interpreting what qualifies as compact, so it's not like the meaning is a no brainer.

 

[boricua9mm]

Well, that's the first time I've ever heard anyone refer to a .30 caliber revolver as a Big Bore.

Compact is a size reference, not one of weight. The gun must be easily concealed. An all-steel K-frame, especially a round-butt gun with a 3" or shorter barrel, is easily concealed and carried. Federal Agents, LEOs, and Citizens have been doing so for a very, very long time, but as you've already mentioned, let's not let a little bit of history sway your opinion.

 

[CraigC]

Big bore, heavy frame guns with short barrels are not what I would call compact. They're boat anchors. I think we're all over the place in interpreting what qualifies as compact, so it's not like the meaning is a no brainer.

Everything is relative. Some folks have no problem concealing a 4" N-frame or 5" 1911. Whether it's due to their body type or type of dress or both.

 

[Hunter2011]

When doing direct comparisons to semi-auto guns of a known clasification (i.e., "compact" and "sub-compact"), it is easy to see that round-butt K-frame guns are comparable in overall size to a Glock 19. If we're talking abnout a 3" K-frame gun, then the only big difference in overall size is found in the thickness of the revolver's cylinder.

Doing the same comparison between a J-frame and a Glock 26 (sub-compact), you likewise see that they are comparable save for the girth of the cylinder.

Personally, I don't think it's all that difficult to discern something that is "compact" to one that is truly "sub-compact." In the case of an Every Day Carry gun, the OP must first decide how this gun is going to be carried. Much like one wouldn't pocket carry a Glock 19, we wouldn't expect you to be able to pocket carry a K-frame.

I will carry it the same why I am carrying my pistol. This is the only way I have been carrying all along. Maybe there are a better way, but I carry IWB at just a little bit in front of 15H00.
Even though a revolver is always thicker than a pistol, because of the cylinder, it does not really seem to be a deal breaker. My father owns a Charter Arms Under Cover Special. The cylinder is much thicker than my Taurus PT709. But for some reason it carries, and conceals a lot better than my pistol. When I put it in my jeans pocket, it melts away, not so my small pistol.
But I want a bit bigger than this revolver. Sure, it will be too big to pocket carry. But I think a 3'' .357 Magnum, or even a 4'' .357 Magnum in medium size will be able to be carried easily enough.
The Rhino revolver suggested might be even better, since the cylinder is not round but rather flat at the sides, which can help with carry a lot.
I hope this explains my ''needs'' a bit more.