I love my S&W 65LS. Out of my current handguns, it is my oldest (I sold my first two guns unfortunately). I've long felt 3" K-frame .357mag is "just right." It is small and light enough to carry (with a good belt), large and heavy enough to handle full house magnums, and the 3" barrel handles better than the 4" and provides just enough added velocity over the 2" for better expansion if you use JHP.
That said, I recently went to the range with my S&W 65LS and my new model 3" Colt King Cobra. Even at over 20 years old, well over 10K rounds (I stopped counting about 15 years ago) and untold amount of dry firing, the well broken in 65LS' trigger was a little lacking compared to the relatively new (3 years old) Colt. I had thought the Colt cylinder release would be a disadvantage, but despite years of S&W and Taurus, it really was quite natural. Also, a friend of mine just recently got into guns and bought his first (a Glock 19). He is thinking he may want a revolver for the simplicity for home defense. I actually brought them so he could check them out. He liked the Colt better.
As a small frame, the Colt conceals better and is about 10oz lighter. However, it isn't really fun with full magnums. For carry and home defense, I prefer .38+P JHP over magnums for quicker follow up shots and less noise, so that isn't really a practical disadvantage. Given that, a Taurus 856 Defender would also make for an interesting (and much less expensive) option, and Taurus seems to finally be getting their QC right. A larger K-frame would be good as a field gun to take advantage of the magnums, but for a woods gun (i.e. not all day CCW), I'd rather go with a 4" barrel for slightly less muzzle flip and slightly higher velocity (for even better penetration and expansion). So (and I hate to say this), I think I'd prefer they bring it back, but in 4" instead of 3".
