Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Combat Revolver ?

Discussion in 'Handguns: Revolvers' started by fxstchewy, Jan 19, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Driftwood Johnson

    Driftwood Johnson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,869
    Location:
    Land of the Pilgrims
    Howdy

    As far as S&W is concerned, it's just a marketing term. Here is my Model 19 that I bought in 1975. Notice what the paperwork says.

    Model_19-2.jpg

    The original idea was, there was only one 357 Magnum, a large frame S&W, built on the N frame. When it was first introduced in 1935 it was simply called The 357 Magnum. That was the model name.

    IMG_0222_enhanced.jpg

    Later, when a slightly lighter weight 357 Magnum was needed, the Combat Magnum was developed on the slightly smaller K frame.

    That's really all there is to it.
     
  2. Jaymo

    Jaymo Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,530
    Driftwood, those are some nice revolvers.
     
  3. Deaf Smith

    Deaf Smith Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    4,678
    Location:
    TEXAS!
    Combat as in... Combat Magnum.

    [​IMG]

    My M66-1 above on left is a Combat Magnum. The Security Six on the left, aw man it's ever a better Combat Magnum. Both are tight, both shoot right on the money. The M66 takes +P .38s all day and the Security Six uses low end magnums all day.

    Yes I could stuff in top .357 loads but I do like my Combat Magnums to last!

    They are both good to ride the river with.

    Deaf
     
  4. Iggy

    Iggy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,011
    Location:
    Wyoming
    BlindJustice,

    Those are some home made grips.. I couldn't afford factory targets on a cop's salary back in '66.

    I destroyed the modified magnas that came on the gun for the hardware.:eek:

    Now those modified magnas would probably sell for more than the gun.:banghead:
     
  5. w9trb

    w9trb Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2006
    Messages:
    65
    Location:
    Illinois
    How does the L-frame 586 fit into the S&W scheme. We used .38 Masterpieces in USAF and when I got out I latched onto a 586 as it seemed just like what I used in the service, except it was chambered for .357. It has been a very good pistol all these years. I wasn't aware at the time that I was buying an oddball, but it has treated me well.
     
  6. tipoc

    tipoc Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,912
    There was nothing oddball about the 586. S&W produced the 6 shot carbon steel guns with the full length underlug from about 1980-1999. They were sold in a 4", 6" and 8 3/8" barrel lengths. They were the first L frame 357s and named the "Distinguished Combat Magnum". A 7 shot L frame "Carry Comp" 586 with a 3" barrel was also marketed. They were discontinued in 1999.

    The stainless steel 686 is the same gun but in stainless and often 7 shot.

    The specific name is marketing.

    tipoc
     
  7. w9trb

    w9trb Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2006
    Messages:
    65
    Location:
    Illinois
    Thanks tipoc, I just love looking over these revolver threads, especially when there are photos. True confession, I own a Glock 21, but it is a cold mistress. I just don't feel the love, the Smith just evokes so much of the blue steel and walnut era.
     
  8. 9mmepiphany

    9mmepiphany Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    18,822
    Location:
    northern california
    The 586 and 686 were both introduced at the same time and their cylinders were chambered for 6 rounds...the 7 shot 686 was the 686 Plus. At the same time, they offered the same gun with fixed sights...these were the 581/681.

    The "Distinguished" part of their name refers to the original intent to contest the PPC Distinguished Match (non-bull barrel) against the 6" Python, where the 6" M-19 was at a disadvantage with it's lighter barrel.
     
  9. rcmodel

    rcmodel Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Messages:
    59,082
    Location:
    Eastern KS
    I keep thinking George Patten, Charles Askins, Elmer Keith, Skeeter Skelton, and Bill Jordan didn't have any strange aversion to adjustable sights on a combat revolver.
    They seemed to prefer them in fact.
    (Askins & Jordan were probably in more gunfights and killed more men then all of us put together!)


    I prefer them too!

    I have carried adjustable sighted handguns for the better part of 50 years, and have never broke or knocked an adjustable sight off yet.

    And I'm getting too old to start doing it now for sure!

    rc
     
  10. CraigC
    • Contributing Member

    CraigC Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    15,044
    Location:
    West Tennessee
    I think the adjustable sights on a S&W are robust enough that there should be very little worry about losing zero or breaking them. Even Ruger's aluminum rear sight is pretty tough. I've only seen one break, on my brother's 22/45 but he could break a hammer. To set one's mind at ease, there are steel replacements available from Ruger, Millett (defunct), Bowen and Reeder.
     
  11. Iggy

    Iggy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,011
    Location:
    Wyoming
    I've managed to muddle along with adjustable sight concealed carry guns for the 36 years since I left LE, without breaking a sight or ripping my clothes drawing the gun.

    Newholsters.gif

    Don't have covered triggers guards on the holsters and haven't shot myself in the butt either.:evil:
     
  12. rcmodel

    rcmodel Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Messages:
    59,082
    Location:
    Eastern KS
    On the off chance you did somehow knock an adjustable rear sight screwy??
    So what?

    You still got a front sight.
    And if you still got a front sight, you still got a combat revolver.

    Thats the only thing you should be looking at in a gun fight in the first place!

    The adjustable rear only comes into it's own if you want a gun that shoots where it looks at long range with the loads you are using.

    And that's always a good thing to have in combat.

    rc
     
  13. lemaymiami

    lemaymiami Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,765
    Location:
    south Florida
    What I posted earlier was strictly my own opinion (and we'll get back to that opinion in a moment...). I have seen more than one officer's revolver that had the rear sight knocked out of alignment and needed adjustment to get the guy back on target years ago. The problem with all of this, as I see it, is that you'd never know anything was wrong until you tried to hit something using those sights... that's why I prefer a simpler setup for daily carry. Most armed citizens take excellent care of their sidearms (and certainly aren't in the business of rolling around in the gutter with anyone while carrying a weapon). Unfortunately in the world I lived in we jumped, climbed, fell, and did lots of things that were hard on uniforms and the gear. That's the reason I said what I did...

    As far as real combat on the street with firearms... I consider a pistol to be what you used when you couldn't get to something heavier. For many years I never went to the party without a shotgun in my hands - and never regretted it. I only fired one shot on the street in 22 years... and that one round of buckshot did exactly what it was designed to do -it ended the confrontation right then. Living with that isn't something I'm proud of at all...
     
  14. Iggy

    Iggy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,011
    Location:
    Wyoming
    Deleted.. guess I'm a liar.:cool:
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2013
  15. JShirley

    JShirley Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    20,911
    Location:
    Atlanta
    I'd be careful about assuming things like kills. I was on a mortar team in combat, and I'm certain there are many THR members who've killed more folks than I.

    For what it's worth.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page