Cougfan2
Member
#1 on the Ruger Security Six. A rock solid revolver and can be found at reasonable prices. I have a 6" blue model and I just love the balance of it. A very accurate shooter also.
I need a 357...
- Thread starter bensdad
- Start date
- Status
earplug
Member
K Frame parts
While K frames are now being made again. The new frame mounted firing pin hammers will not work to replace the older hammers.
Do a check on whats available for K frames in the way of parts for older guns.
Last I checked Model 19 barrels were out of stock. There will come a time when the old K frames will be hard to fix.
Can a new spring loaded yoke fit a older frame?
While K frames are now being made again. The new frame mounted firing pin hammers will not work to replace the older hammers.
Do a check on whats available for K frames in the way of parts for older guns.
Last I checked Model 19 barrels were out of stock. There will come a time when the old K frames will be hard to fix.
Can a new spring loaded yoke fit a older frame?
Homerboy
Member
Just sold my 66-2 4" and bought a 686-3 4". Both guns are more than 25 years old. The 66 is a sweet gun, but like others have said, it's a .38 that can handle mild, moderate .357. Don't shoot any 110 or 125 grain .357, and you should be OK. I am 38 years old. I have no idea what my shooting habits are going to be 20 years from now. I don't like being limited as to what I can shoot. if it says ".357 Magnum" on the barrel, I should be able to shoot all the .357 I want. I would either get a 686-4 or earlier (before the lock and frame mounted firing pin) or a new Ruger GP100. I paid $500 for my 686 and after cleaning it up (why do people insist on selling a filthy gun?), it looks brand new. I HATE the Hogue grips that Ruger puts on their new revolvers. I prefer the older grips. You can probably get a very clean Ruger for $450.
bestseller92
Member
Ruger GP100. Super strong, durable, accurate, fits my hand. I paid $440 for mine new last year. Can't find a better .357 for 10x the price, IMO.
Last edited:
Gryffydd
Member
while I agree that the GP100 is a fine revolver, I find it amusing that nearly any time the phrase "'Nuff said" used, enough has in fact, not been said. In this case, WHY the GP100 over the other options.
This has been an extremely informative thread (for me, anyway). I'm taking the S&W 66 off the table based on what has been said about its durability. A fine gun, to be sure, but if it can't shoot full-house all the live-long day, "nuff said."
The hunt is on for a heavier, stronger platform. I won't do SA. One last stupid set of questions before I wear out everyone's patience...
Are the three Ruger models - Security Six, SP101 and GP100 - all in the L-frame category, or is the 101 more like a K-frame and less able to handle lots of 357 shooting? For those who own and shoot a Taurus, how does the frame compare to other 357s? Will it hold up to a high-calorie diet?
The hunt is on for a heavier, stronger platform. I won't do SA. One last stupid set of questions before I wear out everyone's patience...
Are the three Ruger models - Security Six, SP101 and GP100 - all in the L-frame category, or is the 101 more like a K-frame and less able to handle lots of 357 shooting? For those who own and shoot a Taurus, how does the frame compare to other 357s? Will it hold up to a high-calorie diet?
AStone
Member
Bensdad, I'm not a Ruger owner (yet; gonna get a Blackhawk someday), so I'll defer to those who are. Take this with a grain of salt.
J, K, L, N are Smith designations. Ruger doesn't use that system, so one can't label an SP or GP as K or L.
But my recollection from the days when I was actually looking seriously at SP101 and GP100 is that the dealers were telling me that while the SP101 will do fine with full house rnds, if you're going to feed it a steady diet of them, go for the GP. The latter is a beefier frame.
According to Ruger's site, a 3" SP is 27 oz, while a 4" GP is 40 oz. I doubt that difference of 13 oz isn't accounted for by the missing 1" of barrel.
Now, I'll sit back respectfully and let Ruger experts tell you the truth.
In the mean time, let me gently nudge you over towards the Smith fold and suggest that you strongly consider a 686. I owned a 4" before I bought my 65. Totally loved it for its feel alone. Just felt right in my hand, especially once I put a set of Hogue monogrips on it. Shot like a dream.
I'm not saying GP's are fine revolvers. They are fine revolvers. Hands down. But as so many said to me, it comes down to which one feels the best to you. There's no rationality in that decision. Feeling isn't rational; it's based in sensing and intuition.
For me, it was the 686 that felt right, so I bought it.
So, why don't I still have it?
Simple: in the end, the 4" barrel didn't work for me. It felt barrel heavy for what I wanted (a camp gun and a winter carry piece, not a hunting weapon). So I sold it.
I looked unsuccessfully for a 3" 686. Didn't find it. Then that 65 popped up for a sweet price. Again, it felt so nice, and I knew I'd be shooting half and half .38 spl & .357 mag, but not so many full house rnds. So, it jumped into my hand and came home.
Someday, I might still find that 3" 686. It'll likely come home, too.
Stainz
Member
The 'experts' have fed you an incomplete meal re the K-frame .357 Magnums. The L-frame allows a larger forcing cone - it's front strap is .040" thicker, permitting a .025" larger OD forcing cone. It's frame opening for the cylinder is taller, allowing a larger OD cylinder - and 7-shot capability. The L-frame also permits a really thin-forcing coned 5-shot .44 Special (I have a 296 & 696 like this.). The grip frame is identical for K & L frames - they take the same grips.
The 66 is a fine firearm. Parts exist - they didn't stop making them until late 2004 - they were still in that year's catalog. The 2005 catalog's replacement for the 4" 66 was the new 620, partially lugged so it would look like the 66, 7-shot L-frame (The 619 similarly replaced the fixed sight 65.). S&W will tell you - any commercial .357 Magnum round can be used in a 65/66. If the thin forcing cone bothers you, use bullets >125gr - and a commercial 158gr .357 Magnum is pretty stout. Below, top down, are a 6" 66 (K-frame - made 1/03), 5" half-lug 686+ (L-frame made in late '03), and a 4" 617 (K-frame '08). Not much difference, huh?
To further muddy the waters, I'll state that as I approach my 61st birthday this month, I am glad to have current S&Ws - especially my most current, like the 627 Pro, etc. I don't mind the IL or MIM parts, either. I love SS! YMMV.
Stainz
PS I reload... my .357 Magnums, all bought new, have seen only .38s and .38-ish loads in .357M cases. Mine will last!
The 66 is a fine firearm. Parts exist - they didn't stop making them until late 2004 - they were still in that year's catalog. The 2005 catalog's replacement for the 4" 66 was the new 620, partially lugged so it would look like the 66, 7-shot L-frame (The 619 similarly replaced the fixed sight 65.). S&W will tell you - any commercial .357 Magnum round can be used in a 65/66. If the thin forcing cone bothers you, use bullets >125gr - and a commercial 158gr .357 Magnum is pretty stout. Below, top down, are a 6" 66 (K-frame - made 1/03), 5" half-lug 686+ (L-frame made in late '03), and a 4" 617 (K-frame '08). Not much difference, huh?
To further muddy the waters, I'll state that as I approach my 61st birthday this month, I am glad to have current S&Ws - especially my most current, like the 627 Pro, etc. I don't mind the IL or MIM parts, either. I love SS! YMMV.
Stainz
PS I reload... my .357 Magnums, all bought new, have seen only .38s and .38-ish loads in .357M cases. Mine will last!
Homerboy
Member
Stainz, with all due respect, you are mistaken.
The L frame was developed specifically to deal with the problems thst the K frame magnums were experiencing. Bill Jordan, the creator of the model 19, even classfied the 19 as "a .38 that can shoot .357's". Now, .357 loads aren't as hot now as they were in the 70's, but if you have a K frame .357, and you shoot lots of .357 (especially 110 or 125 grain), you're gonna eventually have problems. Why do you think S&W discontinued the K frame in .357 while still producing them in .38?
I called S&W a month or so ago before I sold my 66 to "hear it from the horse's mouth". The guy I spoke to said "S&W does not recommend 110 or 125 grain ammo in the K frame Magnums, and 158 grain should be kept to a minimum (generally 1 magnum to every 9 .38's fired)
The L frame was developed specifically to deal with the problems thst the K frame magnums were experiencing. Bill Jordan, the creator of the model 19, even classfied the 19 as "a .38 that can shoot .357's". Now, .357 loads aren't as hot now as they were in the 70's, but if you have a K frame .357, and you shoot lots of .357 (especially 110 or 125 grain), you're gonna eventually have problems. Why do you think S&W discontinued the K frame in .357 while still producing them in .38?
I called S&W a month or so ago before I sold my 66 to "hear it from the horse's mouth". The guy I spoke to said "S&W does not recommend 110 or 125 grain ammo in the K frame Magnums, and 158 grain should be kept to a minimum (generally 1 magnum to every 9 .38's fired)
I have Smiths and Rugers and they are both fine guns. Eye appeal is in the beholder imho. The Rugers are somewhat more rugged, the SP101 is heavier that any compact Smith. The SP101 is made for continuous full power loads, weight difference between it comes from less barrel and a 5 shot cylinder as opposed to a 6. My model 28 and 14 Smiths have somewhat better triggers that my Security Six and Sp101, though the difference isn't that great. Continuous dry firing the SP101 has really smoothed up the trigger. You can't go wrong either way.
I only have 3 or 4 Taurus revolvers and they are all perfectly good guns. but they are not quite a quality match for the Rugers or Smiths.
I only have 3 or 4 Taurus revolvers and they are all perfectly good guns. but they are not quite a quality match for the Rugers or Smiths.
IMHO I would say the Security Six is closer to the K frame and the GP-100 is closer to the L frame. I have not handles a SP-101. All three have a reputation for longevity, especially the GP-100.
I traded my GP-100 in favor of other .357's, but it is a fine gun. For something you are going to shoot a ton, it would be a good choice. They are still being made as well. My favorite .357 is the Trooper MK III (somewhere between an L & an N frame), but that is my favorite. I like the look, the feel in my hand, the accuracy etc. For you it may be a different gun. The Security Six is another gun that just feels right in my hand. It ranks right after the Mk III for me, and is built like a Swiss watch.
If you step up in size from the Mk III, it's the M27/M28 class. I do not have a 27, but I do have a 28 and it is a fine gun.
I do want to try a King Cobra someday, but don't want to buy one to try one, although I have done that with other guns. Quite a few actually. I can't wait forever for certain guns to show up around here. I picked up a King Cobra at a show here, and the feel did not WOW me, so I haven't ponied up 6 bills or better to try one.
PAPACHUCK
Member
As much as I like the S&W and Ruger 357's, don't pass on a Taurus if you get a good deal on one. My M66SS4 is a 7-shot .357 in stainless steel with nice adj sights and a comfortable grip. It is surprisingly smooth and accurate.
True enough. And there will also eventually come a time when .357 ammunition and components are unavailable. As John Maynard Keynes famously said, "In the long run, we're all dead".
I would not let the distant spectre of future parts unavailability deter me from purchasing a 66, or any other firearm. Properly used and maintained, a decent revolver such as a S&W should last at least one or two lifetimes and will not need parts replaced ... and as mentioned previously, there are plenty of parts currently available.
You know best what your own shooting habits are. I would say that for the great majority of shooters, a 19 or 66 will be perfectly serviceable (not too many people "shoot full-house all the live-long day").
Heavier and stronger is good, but there is no such thing as a free lunch. I like my 6" Model 28 (N frame) but it is a large revolver: great for shooting, not so great for carrying. L frame is a reasonable compromise.
You pays your money and you takes your choice.
MCgunner
Member
If you wanna carry it, if carry is the primary concern, look for a Ruger SP101. Just for shooting, an L frame, a GP100, a Blackhawk, whatever.
easyrider604
Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2008
- Messages
- 735
While I absolutely love my Smith Wesson L - Frames, I seldom shoot full magnum rounds through them.
For full load magnum duty, I bought a Ruger GP100. It modern design and robust construction begs for a steady magnum diet with no complaints. I also find the grip design better for magnum recoil absorption. I have the old style rubber grip with wood insert and it fits my hand perfectly.
If limited to only one 357 magnum revolver, it will be my GP100.
For full load magnum duty, I bought a Ruger GP100. It modern design and robust construction begs for a steady magnum diet with no complaints. I also find the grip design better for magnum recoil absorption. I have the old style rubber grip with wood insert and it fits my hand perfectly.
If limited to only one 357 magnum revolver, it will be my GP100.
Stainz
Member
Homerboy,
With all due respect, reread my post. I state that the 65/66 are better with over 125gr - but they will last even with the lower weight/high velocity rounds. What's the worst that could happen - and some at S&W will tell you this could happen with as little as 10k, while other's insist 40k of such rounds - a cracked forcing cone? A new barrel, and they have plenty, will remedy that. The lockwork is the same between the K/L frames. Perhaps common sense should prevail... the 586 (blued) and 686 (SS) L-frames went into production in 1980 - the K-frame .357Ms weren't dropped until 2005. It took a quarter of a century. Remember - the frontstrap of the L-frame is .040" thicker, permitting a .025" larger OD forcing cone. That's it.
I know the 'real' reason the 65/66 were dropped. It's the same reason the 'new' 619 hasn't been cataloged much since it's entry in '05. LEO's don't carry .357M revolvers anymore. Security guards are fine with .38's - or they were - sales of 64/67's have dropped dramatically, too. Everyone likes the capacity of a bottom-feeder.
Company's react to customer's reactions - albeit sometimes slowly. Witness the Ruger SRH introduction - a .44M that wouldn't launch it's barrel, like the early RHs did. Of course, the RH's problem was in assembly - and they corrected that - they still co-exist together in production some two plus decades later. The Ruger SP101, like the first SS revolver, the S&W 60, started life as a .38. The SP101's frame opening was lengthened - so a cylinder of .357M's longer than 125gr bulleted versions - could be loaded. Such models gained aan X suffix on the model number. The 60's became .357Ms, too.
While we are on the Ruger/S&W comparison - look at a 4" GP100, KGP-141, vs the 6-shot 4" 686, SKU #164222. The Ruger, with it's massive shroud, weighs 40 oz, while the S&W weighs 39.7 oz. The Ruger is cast SS construction, while the S&W is hammer forged and heat-treated. Yes, the Ruger's muzzle flip is less - the heftier barrel/shroud - and higher hand hold due to the grip design promotes this.
The K frame .357M filled a niche for years. Lite weight meant easier all-day carry for LEO's. The famed 'practice with .38s; carry .357Ms' helped with recoil-altered target/practice shooting. Full power 158gr .357Ms are a handful in a K-frame - and L-frame - recall they both came initially with wood grips. I think either frame size will outlast the usual shooter. The key is to get something you can afford and that feels & looks nice - to you. Me, my last to go .357M will likely be the new 627 Pro, an 8-shot 4" N-frame I bought 5/08. I had to sell a few Rugers to buy that one. YMMV.
Stainz
With all due respect, reread my post. I state that the 65/66 are better with over 125gr - but they will last even with the lower weight/high velocity rounds. What's the worst that could happen - and some at S&W will tell you this could happen with as little as 10k, while other's insist 40k of such rounds - a cracked forcing cone? A new barrel, and they have plenty, will remedy that. The lockwork is the same between the K/L frames. Perhaps common sense should prevail... the 586 (blued) and 686 (SS) L-frames went into production in 1980 - the K-frame .357Ms weren't dropped until 2005. It took a quarter of a century. Remember - the frontstrap of the L-frame is .040" thicker, permitting a .025" larger OD forcing cone. That's it.
I know the 'real' reason the 65/66 were dropped. It's the same reason the 'new' 619 hasn't been cataloged much since it's entry in '05. LEO's don't carry .357M revolvers anymore. Security guards are fine with .38's - or they were - sales of 64/67's have dropped dramatically, too. Everyone likes the capacity of a bottom-feeder.
Company's react to customer's reactions - albeit sometimes slowly. Witness the Ruger SRH introduction - a .44M that wouldn't launch it's barrel, like the early RHs did. Of course, the RH's problem was in assembly - and they corrected that - they still co-exist together in production some two plus decades later. The Ruger SP101, like the first SS revolver, the S&W 60, started life as a .38. The SP101's frame opening was lengthened - so a cylinder of .357M's longer than 125gr bulleted versions - could be loaded. Such models gained aan X suffix on the model number. The 60's became .357Ms, too.
While we are on the Ruger/S&W comparison - look at a 4" GP100, KGP-141, vs the 6-shot 4" 686, SKU #164222. The Ruger, with it's massive shroud, weighs 40 oz, while the S&W weighs 39.7 oz. The Ruger is cast SS construction, while the S&W is hammer forged and heat-treated. Yes, the Ruger's muzzle flip is less - the heftier barrel/shroud - and higher hand hold due to the grip design promotes this.
The K frame .357M filled a niche for years. Lite weight meant easier all-day carry for LEO's. The famed 'practice with .38s; carry .357Ms' helped with recoil-altered target/practice shooting. Full power 158gr .357Ms are a handful in a K-frame - and L-frame - recall they both came initially with wood grips. I think either frame size will outlast the usual shooter. The key is to get something you can afford and that feels & looks nice - to you. Me, my last to go .357M will likely be the new 627 Pro, an 8-shot 4" N-frame I bought 5/08. I had to sell a few Rugers to buy that one. YMMV.
Stainz
AStone
Member
That's a well-written post right there ^.
- Status
