N Frame and L Frame help me pick a size

[coltoriginal]

I am in the market for a 4" 357 magnum revolver (my 1911 jammed 2x in my last range visit and i am spiteful).

Even though i am a die hard colt fanatic pythons are just too expensive and collectible to be a used and abused nightstand/utility gun.

That said i find myself trying to decide between smith&wesson's

I have recently handled both model 27 n-frame (used) and 620 l-frame (new) but with my medium sized hands they both feel pretty comfortable.. no clear winner so far. I was not allowed to test fire (only dry fire) but am looking for impressions on which one i might develop a preference for in the years down the road (right now it seems po-ta-to po-tah-to, i'm not a very picky person).

do you guys who own/owned both find yourself preferring one size over the other?

am i correct in that a new 627 (8shot) would be the same size as an old model 27? (n-frame is n-frame?) 8 shots is eerily similar firepower to my 1911.

i wouldn't do so with any sort of regularity but can you conceal a nframe if necessary? is an l-frame significantly easier to hide? (what about holster options?)

is the larger n-frame a significantly better/easier shooter?

anyone have a side by side picture of n-frame and l-frame? in my hand in the store there wasn't a clear winner but now that i'm sitting at home maybe i'll see things differently.

thanks for your input

 

[george29]

I like the 619. I once owned a 686 (one of the first models), now they come in 7 shot. I think the N frame is too big for CCW unless with a Shoulder Holster or a Huckleberry. 4" L frame is a great weapon for SD and a woods gun too. The N frame gives you one more for sure but is the weight difference worth it? If 7 didn't do the job will the 8th matter? The Nightguards are also something to consider for carrying a lot, but for shooting less of. http://www.gunblast.com/SW619-620.htm

 

[calaverasslim]

Get your hands on a M66 or M19, either M13 or M65, all 4 are K frame .357s and with your hands, they may be worth a second look. 6 shot and nice

 

[earlthegoat2]

You can still get a Colt.

Trooper, Lawman, 357 Magnum, any MK IIIs or MK Vs. Can be had for decent prices.

Other than that get the L Frame smith as it can take a pounding from hot 357s unlike the K frame. 686s and +'s are good as are Ruger GP100s which are probably stronger than Smith N frame 357s.

 

[girvin02]

If you want to conceal it, I would suggest going with the L-frame. The profile isn't a ton smaller than the N-frame, but the cylinder is considerably smaller in diameter, compared to the N. L-frames can be had in 7-shot configurations. I suggest looking into the 686+ (7-shot) that can be had with a 2 1/2" or 3" barrel.

 

[coltoriginal]

You can still get a Colt.

Trooper, Lawman, 357 Magnum, any MK IIIs or MK Vs. Can be had for decent prices.

I briefly considered the colt trooper but if I'm not mistaken it shares the same firing pin problem that the python and king cobra have. That whole issue about how they can only be replaced/repaired by the colt factory is something i do not like at all in a revolver. I want lifelong durability in a revolver and do not like the possibility of a broken unrepairable firing pin.

Get your hands on a M66 or M19, either M13 or M65, all 4 are K frame .357s and with your hands, they may be worth a second look. 6 shot and nice

k-frame is even smaller than the L-frame isn't it? remember i'm deciding between N and L, I find both comfortable to handle so dont see much need to go even smaller... how much smaller than L is K? i'm actually leaning towards the N right now

 

[1911Tuner]

Or, you could just address the issues that caused the 1911 to burp. It's usually somethin' simple.

That said...I love K-frame Smiths, but they're pretty fragile for hard use with full-power ammunition. The L-frames are much better in that respect, and not being as large and heavy as the N-frames...are more packable. Also being a fan of fixed sights, my favorites are Model 13/65 in K-frame and Model 581/681 in L-frame.

 

[Walkalong]

The L frame is a bit better to carry, just because of its size, but it is still a good bit beefier than a K frame. N frames are OK for carry, but are on the large size for it, IMHO.

My L frame 686 (2 1/2") or 696 (3") is as big as I want to go for carry.

Here are a couple of pics of a K, L, & N Frame. Like girvin02 posted, it's the cylinder size that matters most.

The cylinders are 1.448....1.561.... & 1.707 by my calculation on this Mod 10, Mod, 686, & Mod 28

 

[Oro]

Here are some more views of K vs. L vs. N. Remember, a big part of how it fits your hand is how you grip it. There are, at last count, about 2.4 million different types of grips for a S&W K/L frame revolver! (K and L use the same size grip frame, N uses a slightly larger one. But you can still buy a lot of different grips to make any gun "feel" differently.

For carry, a 2.5" K frame can not be beat. As pictured 31.5 ozs.
For the woods, range, and general defense, a 4" 686 is a great tool. 39.5 ozs
For classic looks, the N frame is great. This is a 3.5" 27. 41.5 ozs

Older guns will have "square" grip frames if 3.5" barrel length or longer. Modern guns (after '94) will all have round grip frames like on the 2.5" K pictured.

The most comfortable one of these guns to light off .357s with is the 686 - the large, smooth target grips provide lots of surface area to disperse the recoil, and the lugged barrel helps tame recoil. It is also the most awkward to carry despite being only 1/2" longer in barrel than the 27 and overall slightly smaller (as well as a tad lighter).

 

[Bill B.]

I suggest looking into the 686+ (7-shot) that can be had with a 2 1/2" or 3" barrel.

Best advice I have seen that didn't come with charge ..............!

 

[coltoriginal]

Or, you could just address the issues that caused the 1911 to burp. It's usually somethin' simple.

truth be told i'm fairly certain it is something simple.. simpler than simple. There is a single magazine which faulted me both times on the last/second to last round, so i'm pretty sure it is the culprit. (that or my dirty gun)

However the malfunctions caught me on a bad day and i'm taking this as an excuse to purchase a revolver... maybe i'm getting old but they've been growing on me lately; who enjoys cleaning mags anyway. (i'll likely throw that mag out, but never considered disowning that 1911)

thanks for the pics of the smith's Oro looking at these i'm actually seeing things differently than while holding them at the store. Seems the main difference is the diameter of the cylinder each gun is built around (between L and N) rather than general frame beefiness. the extra heft of the n frame is apparently misleading

I'm leaning towards the N because i suspect it might be the softer shooter, can anyone confirm or argue this point? ( i realize how subjective that question is, but hey why not ask?)

 

[Stainz]

The top revolver I have below is an oddity, a 5" half lug 686+. Imagine it with a ramp front sight, an inch less barrel, and rubber grips... it would be a 620 and weigh 36.9 oz. Now, imagine the 627 Pro with a ramp front sight and rubber grips. It would weigh 41.2 oz - a whole 4.3 oz more. Now - if you can CC a 4" K or L frame, that N will be no problem. For shooting, that 8-shot 627 is far more fun.

For one thing, you can change that front sight without tools in seconds - the sight is spring-loaded. The regular ramps are pinned - and require care, time, and special tools to replace. The 627 Pro, SKU 178014, is big bucks - $1,059 MSRP - but only $166 more MSRP than the least expensive 4" .357 Magnum, the 620. The 627 Pro is moonclip-ready (Ranch Products has the 8-shot moonclips for $50/50 delivered.) and has a modicum of a trigger job, as delivered. I love mine - my 6" 66 and 5" 686+ have cobwebs on them.



I will admit to CC-ing an L-frame - in my cargo/jeans front pocket. It's a 2.5" enclosed hammer 5-shot .44 Special - the 296 AirLite Ti. It hides in my cargo pants front pocket in a Mika pocket holster - and weighs 18.9 oz empty. I consider the 627 a great range gun - and it would be a great home/Zombie protection gun with enough loaded moonclips.

Stainz

 

[Virginian]

Get your hands on a M66 or M19, either M13 or M65, all 4 are K frame .357s and with your hands, they may be worth a second look. 6 shot and nice.

Bingo. As on target as possible in my opinion.

 

[sparkyguy66]

I have owned/own J, K, L and N-frame S&Ws. I guess you could say I have above avg-sized hands. Holding a Glock 21 is no problem for me like others seem to post, and holding an N-frame S&W is not either. That said, a K-frame is perhaps the best feeling/balanced revolver I've ever carried. That bs about not being able to handle full-load 357 mag is just that ..BS. Ppl read stuff on internet and glaze over the facts, and repeat incorrect info, very sheep-like. Facts are, a steady diet(way more than avg) of hot 125gr bullets shot through SOME k-frames caused flame-cutting of the top strap. Broad stroking of entire line as "weak" has always been an undeserved label on them. Would I shoot hot reloads through a k-frame? Occasionally, but I don't put ANY of my 357s through that kind of torture...it's stupid and asking for trouble(premature timing issues, wear and tare etc). K-frames are great guns.

 

[David E]

The K frame is smaller than the L frame, but NOT in the grip. In fact, the same grips will work on either frame size.

I'd advise against a 620, or any other sleeved barrel S&W puts out (which they are now going back to the one-piece barrel due to problems/public outcry)

A 686 or 19 will serve you well.

 

[Blue Brick]

Neither. Get a Ruger KGP-141.

 

[Stainz]

Shocking to learn how poor those two piece S&W barrels are - and they keep introducing more new models with them! Wow, those folks with the .460 & .500 Magnums - all two piece - must enjoy watching them fly down the range! And, who else has used similar construction?

S&W last indicated the models with 2 piece barrels in their 2005 catalog - because more new models were getting the treatment than not. Admittedly, some retro models wouldn't be 'right' with them. It is easier to assemble and adjust the b/c gap, while having highly accurate and consistent rifling as well as a proper crown, with the separate liner/barrel frame. I can only imagine it's use becoming more common place. The 620, like the last run of the 4" 66 it replaced, has a two piece barrel - and it's an operational plus - just like it is in the 60 Pro, 686 SSR, and 627 Pro. That's fact - not fiction.

Buy what you want because you want it and it fits your perceptual needs and desires, not because someone else has decided it is right for you. Good luck.

Stainz

 

[r3volv3r]

I'd advise against a 620, or any other sleeved barrel S&W puts out (which they are now going back to the one-piece barrel due to problems/public outcry)

i didn't think the 2 piece barrel was that big a deal.. supposedly it makes barrel replacement easier and gives great accuracy (just what i read, i don't know much about barrel engineering).

just fyi this is the article i read http://www.gunblast.com/SW619-620.htm


If the 620 came blued i'd probably already have one.. can you order one blued? or would that cost a small fortune

 

[David E]

If the 620 came blued i'd probably already have one.. can you order one blued? or would that cost a small fortune

A can of Krylon runs less than $5.00 here......

 

[rishooter]

N Frame

I once had an L Frame 586 and didn't like it at all.
I now own a 27 and 28 N Frame as well as 22-4 and 29 N frames.
I just like the N Frames better,but I'm not using them for CCW.
A K Frame-13,65,19,or 66 are all good CCW revolvers.

 

[r3volv3r]

I have an slightly unrelated question for you knowledgeable smith fans.

How come the cylinder's on N-frame 357's (27&28) do not visually fill out the cylinder cutout? the barrel is pushed in further to maintain the cylinder gap but wouldn't a longer cylinder or shorter cutout be more visually satisfying? (i'm assuming the cylinder is atleast as long as that on the L-frame, however the L-frame fills out nicely)

 

[earplug]

N frame 625 45 ACP

While a .357 is arguably a better stopper then a 45 ACP. You already have a 45 ACP and I want to keep your life simple.
Check out a four or five inch S&W 625. The weight is very close to a full lugged .357 due to the larger holes.
There is a four inch near my pillow.
N and L frames are service size guns. I don't get paid to carry that weight all day.

 

[JMusic]

I carried a 5" 27 and it served me well. My choice in LEO revolers would be the 3.5 inch 27's. Thats my next gun just for a collection. If you buy one learn how to break it in or have a smittly do a trigger and action. I would want one withiout the lock.


Jim

 

[coltoriginal]

hey does the 627 come in blued finish? whats the deal with s&w only doing shiny stainless these days?

and i want to bump this guys question:

How come the cylinder's on N-frame 357's (27&28) do not visually fill out the cylinder cutout? the barrel is pushed in further to maintain the cylinder gap but wouldn't a longer cylinder or shorter cutout be more visually satisfying? (i'm assuming the cylinder is atleast as long as that on the L-frame, however the L-frame fills out nicely)

 

[Oro]

How come the cylinder's on N-frame 357's (27&28) do not visually fill out the cylinder cutout?

Two reasons basically I believe 1) cartridge design and 2) projectile length

The "L" frame was designed as a .357 framed gun - everything about it is to serve that purpose - frame size, cylinder diameter, window length (the "cylinder cutout" is called the "frame window"). The window length on the L is optimized to hold a .357-sized cylinder and have the minimum barrel protrusion into the window consistent with barrel installation and stability. Thus, very little extra "window".

The "N" was designed as a big-bore frame, originally for .44 Specials, but also for .45 Colt. Below is a picture of an N-frame with a .44 Magnum/.45 Colt length cylinder; as you can see, the frame window is completely used.

Though the OAL of a .357 can run near a .44 magnum or .45 colt, you also have to account for "bullet jump" which is the jump the bullet makes from the cylinder across the b/c gap to the forcing cone. For a few different reasons, you don't want powder still burning in the cartridge case while the bullet has it's tail end still in the case, it's bearing surface swaging in the cylinder throat, and it's business end trying to force itself in to the forcing cone. Since .45 colt and .44s will routinely be shot with up to 300 gr projectiles, you need much more throat, not just chamber bore. At the same time, you don't want to waste space with too much unneeded throat, so you optimize cylinder length for the caliber and then set the barrel to meet the cylinder.

Now if you really want to see a big gap in the window, go look at some N frames in short cartridges, like .45acp. You will wee a BIG gap in the window at the front. The corollary to this is that, say, a "4 inch N-frame" will actually have a different overall length based on caliber, but still have exactly a 4" barrel. A .45acp < .357 < .44 magnum/.45 Colt, because the barrel measurement starts at the edge of the barrel meeting the cylinder, not at the frame edge(s). So, I can use the same leather for a 3.5" .357 N frame as I do for a 3" .44 N frame (the barrel length past the frame difference is like 1/4").

hey does the 627 come in blued finish?

Yep, called a 27 (though it is in and out of production nowadays). A "6" first digit means a stainless gun for S&W revolvers. S&W makes stainless revolvers nowadays because that is what the public wants - ease of maintenance, lower production costs - if people wanted blue and were willing to pay for it, they'd make more of them. And they have been lately with the "classic" series/lines. As of this year, though, the 27 is not cataloged though it was out as a limited edition last year and the year before.