AStone
Member
So, I'll be clear about one thing right from the start:
IMO, there is no "right" answer to the question posed in this thread.
There are (hopefully) lots of opinions,
but there no "right" answer.
YMMV, and all that.
Here's the background for this thread.
I currently own two wonderful revolvers:
* SW 642 snubby (1 7/8")
* SW 686P 4"
I love both.
(I recently divorced myself from semi-autos in favor of revolvers.
That's another story entirely... )
The 642 is my "carry gun" around my studio and home.
I'm not yet CCW but will be soon. Once I qualify for CCW,
the 642 will be my carry in warmer weather.
(My Mika pocket holster is in the mail.)
The 686 will be my "camp and wilderness carry",
and a secondary deer gun (after my Marlin 336),
one that can be pressed into "deer mode" in an emergency,
or while carrying my 39A squirrel gun with a deer tag.
I'm finding, however, that I'd like to own an intermediate between them,
something that I can carry in town in colder weather
when clothing allows concealment of a larger gun, yet not so large as a 686.
I've decided that's going to be some incarnation of a 3" revolver in .38 spl
(perhaps with .357 Mag capacity, but I'm not really concerned about that.
I'm happy with .38 spl for SD. .357 Mag would be icing on the cake,
but I wouldn't be feeding it a steady diet).
So, after some amount of reading and research,
I've narrowed my choices down to mainly two models:
model 60 3" (J-frame) and model 64 3" K-frame.
I've been discussing this issue a bit in a couple of threads
(642 club and K-frame club - see signature for links)
but have decided to take this discussion out of those clubs
since this particular issue is a bit OT for both.
Now, I've done some homework. I understand the following:
* Model 60: .38 spl +P AND .357 Mag (as long as not a steady diet of latter, and the recommendation is to use mostly 158 gr when one does use .357 Mag. 5 rnd. Most relevant factor: 24 oz.
* Model 64: .38 spl. +P. 6 rnd. Most relevant factor: 33 oz.
* Shot placement, shot placement, shot placement.
I think in this case, the most relevant factor for me is weight (and I want a 3" barrel).
I want a revolver that I can carry all day in some holster
(strong side OWB, cross carry OWB, shoulder holster...) comfortably.
I'm a small person. (Well, tall and thin.)
The model 60 is 9 oz lighter. That's just over half a pound.
The model 64 is only 5 oz lighter than my 686.
In my world, that's a substantial difference.
Some have argued that the 64 is just better than a 60.
For example, in addition to holding one more rnd,
due to its weight, it offers quicker recoil recovery times,
and is more stable to point, etc.
(For me, both are important, but for different reasons:
I'm a smaller person - tall and thin - so light is good
to get on target more quickly, and is easier to carry,
but recovery from recoil may be enhanced by added weight.)
What I'm looking for is opinions, from those of you
who own at least one, but preferably both,
about whether the 64 really is worth lugging around given it's increased weight.
Yes, of course I'm open to suggestions about guns that are better than either a 60 or a 64.
(Several have already been suggested to me; e.g., Model 19.)
But I'm setting up this exercise with those two mainly as extremes on the weight spectrum,
and because I have a tendency to buy new rather than used. (That's yet another story...)
Again, this is a highly subjective exercise. There is no right answer.
I'm looking for your personal objective and subjective experiences with these guns.
As is typical for me, I'm way ahead of the game here.
I probably won't purchase another revolver for months.
(That's a financial constraint.)
But I like to do my homework in advance.
Thanks in advance.
Nem
IMO, there is no "right" answer to the question posed in this thread.
There are (hopefully) lots of opinions,
but there no "right" answer.
YMMV, and all that.
Here's the background for this thread.
I currently own two wonderful revolvers:
* SW 642 snubby (1 7/8")
* SW 686P 4"
I love both.
(I recently divorced myself from semi-autos in favor of revolvers.
That's another story entirely... )
The 642 is my "carry gun" around my studio and home.
I'm not yet CCW but will be soon. Once I qualify for CCW,
the 642 will be my carry in warmer weather.
(My Mika pocket holster is in the mail.)
The 686 will be my "camp and wilderness carry",
and a secondary deer gun (after my Marlin 336),
one that can be pressed into "deer mode" in an emergency,
or while carrying my 39A squirrel gun with a deer tag.
I'm finding, however, that I'd like to own an intermediate between them,
something that I can carry in town in colder weather
when clothing allows concealment of a larger gun, yet not so large as a 686.
I've decided that's going to be some incarnation of a 3" revolver in .38 spl
(perhaps with .357 Mag capacity, but I'm not really concerned about that.
I'm happy with .38 spl for SD. .357 Mag would be icing on the cake,
but I wouldn't be feeding it a steady diet).
So, after some amount of reading and research,
I've narrowed my choices down to mainly two models:
model 60 3" (J-frame) and model 64 3" K-frame.
I've been discussing this issue a bit in a couple of threads
(642 club and K-frame club - see signature for links)
but have decided to take this discussion out of those clubs
since this particular issue is a bit OT for both.
Now, I've done some homework. I understand the following:
* Model 60: .38 spl +P AND .357 Mag (as long as not a steady diet of latter, and the recommendation is to use mostly 158 gr when one does use .357 Mag. 5 rnd. Most relevant factor: 24 oz.
* Model 64: .38 spl. +P. 6 rnd. Most relevant factor: 33 oz.
* Shot placement, shot placement, shot placement.
I think in this case, the most relevant factor for me is weight (and I want a 3" barrel).
I want a revolver that I can carry all day in some holster
(strong side OWB, cross carry OWB, shoulder holster...) comfortably.
I'm a small person. (Well, tall and thin.)
The model 60 is 9 oz lighter. That's just over half a pound.
The model 64 is only 5 oz lighter than my 686.
In my world, that's a substantial difference.
Some have argued that the 64 is just better than a 60.
For example, in addition to holding one more rnd,
due to its weight, it offers quicker recoil recovery times,
and is more stable to point, etc.
(For me, both are important, but for different reasons:
I'm a smaller person - tall and thin - so light is good
to get on target more quickly, and is easier to carry,
but recovery from recoil may be enhanced by added weight.)
What I'm looking for is opinions, from those of you
who own at least one, but preferably both,
about whether the 64 really is worth lugging around given it's increased weight.
Yes, of course I'm open to suggestions about guns that are better than either a 60 or a 64.
(Several have already been suggested to me; e.g., Model 19.)
But I'm setting up this exercise with those two mainly as extremes on the weight spectrum,
and because I have a tendency to buy new rather than used. (That's yet another story...)
Again, this is a highly subjective exercise. There is no right answer.
I'm looking for your personal objective and subjective experiences with these guns.
As is typical for me, I'm way ahead of the game here.
I probably won't purchase another revolver for months.
(That's a financial constraint.)
But I like to do my homework in advance.
Thanks in advance.
Nem