New to me mod 64... a few questions

[glassman]

I bought a barely used mod 64 yesterday. Stainless, pinned barrel, original wood. Very nice condition overall. On inspection, it has a flat area at 6 o'clock on the forcing cone much like my mod 19. My questions are to it's date of production...how old is it? Serial # D5857XX. Secondly, are there any ammo restrictions I have to be aware of...can it handle a steady diet of +P ammo? Thanks in advance.

 

[gunfan1986]

Well you got a great gun. I have been told by a few people not to shoot hot loads like 125gr +p's through it on a regular basis due to forcing cone issues in the future that may arise. but if you practice with standard 158gr then just use six of the other that you want to use for personall defense to make sure your acurate you will be alright. Hope that gave you allittle insight.

 

[sidheshooter]

FWIW, I've run thousands of +P 158g LSWCHP rounds through my 64, and it is still tight as a drum. I suspect that, if there is any issue, it is only with really light, hot rounds accelerating top strap cutting and forcing cone wear, as gunfan says.

Personally, I think that I might grow tired of +P use before that gun does...

 

[orionengnr]

Since your question is not worded clearly:

I am guessing that you are talking 125 gr 38Spl +p, since I am not aware of 357 +p. If this is the case, fire away. Any revolver capable of any .357 is more than capable of any .38+p.

If you are talking full-power 125 gr 357s, different story. Those rounds have the potential to erode the forcing cone of a K-frame (which you have already noted to have a weak spot), if you can afford to shoot enough of them.

For most of us, this is not a concern. Shooting 158 LSWCs or 125-140 LSWCs in a target load for practice, and 125 gr full-power loads for carry is well within the design parameters of the K-frame.

 

[.41Dave]

Congrats on the new 64 glassman. According to the SCSW, your model 64 dates to 1973-1974. No ammo restrictions. It should digest any .38 special or .38 special +p load without any worries.

orionengnr, unless glassman has one of the 750 64-1s that were made for the Oklahoma Highway Patrol, his revolver is chambered in .38 Special, not .357 Magnum so no worries about hot 125 grain magnum loads.

 

[David E]

Nothing to worry about.

The Model 64 was only chambered in .38 special, so fire away !

.

 

[glassman]

thanks guys

Thank you all for your kind responses. This gun is indeed, chambered in .38 and was well taken care of by it's former owner. That kind of attention will continue in my hands. After reading what you all had to say, I will practice with standard .38 ammo but it's comforting to know that it will take the +P rounds without worrying about damaging anything. Thanks again for helping me out.

 

[revolverforums]

As others say the 64 will handle 38 +P without problem. They were over built 38's made on the K frame for 357's and most came with the heavy duty barrels. I have a pair of them that did service with Brinks for many years before I got them.

 

[gwalchmai]

As others say the 64 will handle 38 +P without problem. They were over built 38's made on the K frame for 357's and most came with the heavy duty barrels.

The 64 is the stainless version of the Model 10. It was designed for the .38, not the .357.

That said, the 64 will handle .38 +P just fine.

 

[revolverforums]

gwalchnai so your saying that the 65 which is 357 is built on a different frame? Sometimes the responses here seem so trivial it's hard to even give them merit.

The 65 and 64 are the same frame with different cylinders, one 357 and one 38, the 64 is not built after the model 10 because it was never made in stainless. According to smith and wessons own book there was never a 357 model 10 made but there was as already noted 750 64's made in 357.

 

[krs]

Those 750 .357's were Model 64-1 built specifically as the Oklahoma Highway Patrol Commemorative and as a prototype for the model 65.

The model 64 is essentially a stainless steel version of the Model 10.

Shall we dance?

 

[revolverforums]

krs the 65 was actually built off the model 13 or so says the smith and wesson catalog says. But the fact that the 64 and 65 use the same frame remains the same, same size, same material which is what my point was.

 

[krs]

Yes, the 65 IS the stainless version of the 13, but both were preceded by 64-1 which was the prototype for 65, as I said.

There are other books, notably the 3rd edition of Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson which I'm somewhat surprised to find you not using for your factual reference.

 

[gwalchmai]

gwalchnai so your saying that the 65 which is 357 is built on a different frame? Sometimes the responses here seem so trivial it's hard to even give them merit.

Maybe after you've been here longer than a month you'll get the feel of the place and understand the responses better. I notice this isn't the only thread in which you're arguing with the general flow...


No. I'm saying that the 64 is a stainless M-10, which was designed to be a .38. The 13 was also a mod of the 10, but the 13's cylinder was strengthened to handle .357 Mag.

This is pretty easy to verify, seeing as how the M&P was made and sold in .38 SPL for many years before the .357 Mag was developed.

 

[revolverforums]

KRS you mean this one that I did get my information from. The question was could he shoot 38 +P which I said he could and noted it was made on the same frame that 357's are. Now I'm just dealing with a pissing match of stupidity for my statement which is correct.

 

[.41Dave]

To clarify:

The models 10 and 64 are both chambered in .38 special, with the only difference being that the model 10 is blue or nickel, and the 64 is stainless.

The models 13 and 65 are both chambered in .357 Magnum, with the only difference being that the model 13 is blue or nickel, and the 65 is stainless.

The S&W models 10, 13, 64, and 65 are all built on the K frame. The only difference between the models 10/64 and the models 13/65 is that the models 10 and 64 are chambered in .38 special, while the models 13 and 65 are chambered in .357 Magnum with a slightly longer cylinder to accomodate the longer .357 Magnum cartridge.

To muddy the waters a bit, there are a FEW model 10-6s and a FEW model 64-1s that are chambered in .357 Magnum that were prototypes that eventually became the models 13 and 65.

Without looking closely, all of these guns will look and feel pretty much the same. All will fit in the same holsters.

I hope that helps.

 

[krs]

KRS you mean this one that I did get my information from. The question was could he shoot 38 +P which I said he could and noted it was made on the same frame that 357's are. Now I'm just dealing with a pissing match of stupidity for my statement which is correct.

Well dear, you may have the book but it won't guarantee reading skills nor will it provide clarity if viewed with muddied perceptions. It's amazing to me that you would call anyone here stupid, yet you have done just that at least twice that I've seen this morning.

You said :

"They were over built 38's made on the K frame for 357's"

and I submit that you cannot know that. Since the only model 64 chambered in .357 was that version known as 64-1 and since the model 65 was introduced following 64-1 as 65-1, not simply 65, could any assumption be made from that? Since by the statement made in the volume which you do not read the 64-1 ONLY was the prototype for the model 65 introduced as a .357, and nowhere was the model 64 itself so identified it seems to me that your statement was not correct as you claim it was, and this whole pissing match as you call it is of your own pissy making.

 

[revolverforums]

So KRS your saying the 65 and 64 use different frames? Or are you saying you would argue the fact that the sun came up this morning.

And just so you know if you want to quote someone at least use the quote= and then people know who your quoting. I shouldn't have to tell you that since you pretty much know everything. Example

You said:

See how much easier that is?

 

[gwalchmai]

Of course, no one would suggest that the frame is the only component in a revolver to consider when evaluating its strength. The strongest frame on the planet won't matter if the cylinder blows...

Well, no one with a lick of sense.

 

[krs]

I think that there's that distinct possibility or why would only the 64-1 be the prototype for the 65? S&W has always seemed to hold their magnum calibers in a high regard, meaning that through the history of developing pistols for the caliber they have exhibited caution a caution best exemplified by their triple lock original chambering. So is the frame different? Not so you could see surely, but I'd allow for the possibility that there may have been attention paid to the metallurgy not given the .38 special versions. As I said we cannot know that from our record, but it doesn't take an engineering change for my wife to add a little more sugar in a cake.

I guess I mean that I would not pretend to such a knowledge of all things S&W to the point of calling someone with a slightly different wording of the same thing 'stupid'.

 

[gwalchmai]

I'd allow for the possibility that there may have been attention paid to the metallurgy not given the .38 special versions.

That's a good point. Many say that since the M25 is built on the same frame as the M29 you can run 30,000 psi .45 Colt loads in it, but it's not such a good idea...

 

[krs]

The sun did not come up this morning.

 

[revolverforums]

The sun did not come up this morning.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[krs]

We haven't seen the sun in weeks, and I'm not a short pudgy guy either, 'revolverforums'.

 

[David E]

The frame sizes are the same.

The 65 did spring forth from the 13. The 13 sprang forth from the heavy barreled Model 10. Ergo, the 65 evolved from the 10

Are we done yet?

Sheesh !

.