Primary carry: SW 60 3" (J) v. SW 64 3" (K)

Primary carry: SW 60 3" (J) v. SW 64 3" (K)

  • SW Model 60 3" (J)

    Votes: 41 35.7%

  • SW Model 64 3" (K)

    Votes: 59 51.3%

  • Other (within constraints of this exercise)

    Votes: 15 13.0%
  • Total voters
    115
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rumor has it that Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson are kowtowing
to consumer demand for J's and L's to the exclusion of K's.
Click to expand...

That's been the case for years. In an overall view the demand for mid-frame revolvers has dropped way down. Two obvious reasons: (1) Law enforcement change to pistols, and (2) a strong used gun market well supplied by law enforcement revolver trade-ins.

However K-frame revolvers will be found in reasonable numbers at dealers/distributors that specialize in police trade-ins, and on the several Internet firearms auctions. The problem is that these fine guns are no longer inexpensive if they are in excellent or better condition, but they are still priced under new guns, even when they are new-in-box.

From S&W's point of view it makes sense to push the L-frame at the expense of the K, but customers looking for a concealable sidearm that's larger then the J-series often disagree.
 
I have a 3in. K and I have a Taurus 605 2in.(similar in size to the M60). I have holsters for both. The 605 gets more carry. It's overall size is smaller than the Kframe. For me, the model 60 would be the better choice, especially for primary CCW.
 
I voted for the model 60, because you are going to carry a lighter gun more often, and there is a big difference in size. Frankly, I can't imgaine carrying a K-frame gun as much as a J-frame size. All the extra weight and balance for quick recovery time won't do crap when you left the gun at home because it is so heavy that it's a burden.

Do yourself a favor. Stick with the 60.

BTW- MY preference was for a SP101 3" but I already read about your prefrence for Smith's. But seriously...the ruger is sooooo nicely balanced....
 
The Mod 60 J-frame is trying for a comeback!

This just in...

Overnight, perhaps as the larger, heavier Model 64 was resting,
the Model 60 made a substantial attempt to take the lead,
and is coming up fast!

Current numbers:

60: 14
64: 21

We here at THR News 870 will watch this development carefully ... :scrutiny:
 
Just to reiterate what I think is the main issue for me...

Ben addressed the point that I am probably most concerned about in this decision:

Frankly, I can't imagine carrying a K-frame gun as much as a J-frame size. All the extra weight and balance for quick recovery time won't do crap when you left the gun at home because it is so heavy that it's a burden.
Click to expand...
It's the weight issue that concerns me the most here.

Even more than .357 capability (60) and one more shot (64), it's the weight.

Admittedly, even though I've had good holsters for my handguns, I'm just now getting around to ordering a good gun belt. (A 1.5" Galco is in the mail.) I know that's going to help distribute weight better.

Still, back when I owned a Kahr K9 (23 oz), and had an excellent holster for it (High Noon Topless), I still found its weight distractingly heavy for any length of time. I found myself carrying my little 642 all the time. (I recently sold the K9 to buy my 686, which I reasoned would make a good camp and wilderness gun, but in that case, it doesn't need to be concealed. I'll probably carry it either in a chest holster, or in a shoulder holster.)

But as I've mentioned, the 642 - as fine as it is - just doesn't melt my butter in all cases at all times. So far, I can't hit crap with it beyond about 7 yds (which admittedly is most important, but still). And an extra inch on a barrel will add just bit more oomph to the trajectory of .38 spl, and a few more ounces will help with control.

I made the conscious and long deliberated decision to "get out of semi-autos", and move back to my roots with revolvers. (That's another story entirely, and I won't explore it here.) But I miss that 3" barrel that I gave up with my K9, which, while still very compact for carry, contributed to more accurate shooting. That's what I'm after here.

I'll confess right here and now to having already developed a fondness for the 64 :rolleyes: , even though I've not handled one yet (where as I have handled a 60, and liked the way it felt). There's something about the way the 64 looks, not to mention all the good arguments that have been offered so far in its favor.

Yet as appealing as the 64 is, its weight concerns me for the same reason that Ben mentioned above. The 64 is 33 oz; the 60 is only 24 oz (1 oz heavier than the K9 that I didn't like carrying as much, gun belt caveat mentioned again).

Thanks again to all expressing opinions here. As always in THR-assisted gun decisions, I'm learning a lot.

Nem
 
Other

Nem, my little SP101 has grown on me over the short time I've had it. At 27 oz a 3 & 1/16" 357 Mag SP101 splits the difference in weight and size between the two S&Ws. It's larger and easier to control than a J, yet thinner and lighter than a K. I know you're shying away from a Ruger, but the SP may be just the compromise you seek.
 
What S&W needs to do is reintroduce the M12 with 2'' and 3'' tubes.
I oted 'other'-somethin like a Ruger SP or a Taurus M817.
 
I know you're shying away from a Ruger, but the SP may be just the compromise you seek.
Click to expand...
Uga, you make good points about weight there. And since several of you are rattling that Ruger cage, I'm going to reconsider it. Next time I'm at the gun shop, I'll have them pull that SP-101 out again for a look.

And for the record (even though I'm picking words here, I guess in an effort to honor Ruger and Ruger owners), it's not really so much that I'm "shying away" from Ruger as pulled towards Smith Wesson.

For example, for me, the difference between Ruger's GP100 and the 686 I wound up with could have been measured in microns. The difference in feel was so slight as to be almost imperceptible, but it was there.

Now, with this intermediate sized revolver, my main reason for sticking with SW is almost irrational: it's a desire to stay with the same maker as much as anything else. Both my rifles (336 and 39A) are Marlins, and someday I'm likely to add an 1895G in .45-70, also Marlin.

It's that kind of thinking here with revolvers. Once I go with a particular maker, I prefer to stay with it. For many, that's just bullheaded, and it may be, but on some level, it makes sense to me (even if I can't articulate it very well).

Anyway, bottom line: yes, I'll definitely reconsider the SP-101 in this decision.

I'm also open to advice about a used 3" SW that will fit that "intermediate weight" category.

Nem
 
Last edited:
I didn't vote and I have close to the 2 choices, I have a 60-4 and a 13(blues brother to the 65) and a custom 4" pencil barrel 65(Maggie version of the 64)


I right now am carrying my 642 as a 642 and the 9mm cylinder is in my 60.I know how you feel and I often wonder if I should be carrying one of the other guns.

The 642, It just disappears on my hip, in a pocket or even in a shoulder bag.
With the 940 cylinder, the 642 is a real handful, close to a 357s punch along with the additional recoil.

The 60-4 as a 38 is a hoot and it is easy to fire and control, accurate and not a real problem to conceal. With the 9mm cylinder installed it really has some power, 147gr JHPs are sweet and the moonclips just jump out with the long ejector rod.

The 13(64 holding it's breath and on steroids) it is a great gun, carries well and delivers a great punch. What is not to like. it is a little muzzle heavy but that helps reduce muzzle climb. One of the best fighting guns ever made. The only way to best this one is to get a new cylinder specifically chambered for 9x23 and run moonclips.

The 65 with the pencil barrel, it is my all around gun. it would be a toss up whether I would take this 65 or the 60-4 as an only gun. The 65 was built to do a few things (for me that is) very well. Be as lightweight and corrosion resistant as possible while having a long enough barrel to get as much as easily carriable out of the 357 while being as accurate a possible. This may seem like a conundrum, but if you would have a chance to shoot this you would know just what I mean.
 
The most convenient weapon is seldom the most effective one
Click to expand...


Now that is sure true! I picked the K frame mainly because I have large hands and have trouble shooting the small revolvers. The main problem is carrying in the summertime.
 
The 60-4 as a 38 is a hoot and it is easy to fire and control, accurate and not a real problem to conceal. With the 9mm cylinder installed it really has some power...
Click to expand...
<comic sound of a cartoon car screeching to a halt, and backing up for another look>

Huh? Did you say a 9mm cylinder on a 60?

Now, I may be accused of being still wet behind the ears, but that's news to me:
that you can put a 9mm cylinder on a SW .38 spl.

Yeah, I know: caliber nearly identical, and I knew that Taurus made a .38/9mm revolver (I forget it's number).

But I didn't know - or just never considered - that it could be done with a SW.

I'm assuming that's something a gunsmith would do, though, rather than just popping out the stock cylinder yourself and popping the new one in.

Still, that's very interesting.

I'm also assuming that it can be done with other .38 spls, like the 64. Right?
 
940 is a SS centennial very similar to your 642, and that is why I got my 642 to purchase a 940 cylinder and replace my heavy 940 with a self built 942. Before I sold my 940 I purchased my 642 and swapped the cylinders. It worked and wow what a handful. I have shot my 9(6)42 with full house loads only a few times. I practice with 38s or some real low pressure 9mms and know that the 9(6)42 will work as I need. My 642 is technically not +p rated, but if I need to it will do what I want and with power and accuracy.


Before I sold my 940 I also tried it's cylinder in my 60-4 and it fit and the charge holes all lined up fine. Sooooo.. When I got the 940 cylinder for my 9(6)42 I tried it in my 60-4 and it works great. With the 9mm cylinder installed my 60-4 gives me almost 357 capability and very fast unloads and reloads.

Fitting this cylinder is a gunsmith job.

Sorry if I confused the situation a bit. Get the 64 and get some +p 38 specials and shoot the rifling out of it (gonna take a looooonnnnnggggg time).
You have the 642 for hidey-hidey.

b
 
I have a Model 60 3". It's just a sweet gun to shoot. .357 rounds are a bit stout out of it, but .38's are just fantastic. The gun is way more accurate than I am. When it comes down to it, it just feels right in my hand. Good balance between size and concealability. If I could only keep one handgun, I'd keep this one.
 
On the previous page, Arch wrote:

I just can’t seem to find a 3" K frame locally for over a year now.
Click to expand...
I've called every shop within an hour's drive of here. None of them have a Model 64.
Sportsman's Warehouse doesn't even have it on their list of "can get".

My local gun shop can order one, but they don't carry them regularly anymore.
 
Here's an informative review of the Model 60.

As a 642 owner (which is a 637 without an exposed hammer)
who uses full grip Hogue Monogrips on the 642,
I found this comment thought provoking:

Comparing the Model 60 with a Model 637, everything lines up exactly, down to the smallest contour and detail of the frame: the frame, hammer, trigger, trigger guard, cylinder, and cylinder release are all identical. Where it differs is in the longer grip, longer extractor rod, and the beefier barrel. The longer extractor rod makes it considerably easier to knock the empties clear of the cylinder during a reload.
Click to expand...
I can't find a similar review for the 64.

Anyone?
 
You may have a bit of trouble finding useful reviews of a K frame as they predate the internet by about 8 decades and about as much of a known quanity as a firearm can get. Did you have any specific questions?

David
 
Did you have any specific questions?
Click to expand...
Hmm. Yes.

They may "predate the Internet by about 8 decades"
(actually more than that according to my reading {see below}),
but they are still being produced today.

So - specific question - why aren't there more reviews of their performance compared to - say - Model 60?

Just because they've been around since 1899 (*)
doesn't mean that a contemporary review of their performance isn't justified,
particularly compared with other contemporary .38 spl revolvers.

Does that help?

(*) Smith & Wesson's Model 64 revolvers are available in two versions.
The .38 with a 3" barrel ... and the .38 with a 4" .... Both were introduced in 1899...
Click to expand...
 
Your reading is incorrect there were no model 64's in 1899.
They are not currently in production.

Why aren't there more reviews of their performance compared to - say - Model 60?
Click to expand...

I imagine the answer is that they are considered a known quantity with little new to be added to the extensive library of information about the type.

Just because they've been around since 1899 doesn't mean that a contemporary review of their performance isn't justified,
particularly compared with other contemporary .38 spl revolvers.
Click to expand...

That may be true, but I think that you are likely to see such a comparison anytime soon. However, there are a multitude of people here on THR that have extensive experience with both 3" Model 60's and 3" K frames that could elaborate on any particular points of comparison that you might be interested in.

David
 
My source is S&W's customer support line.

Call S&W and ask. That's what I did. A young lady came to in Jan. looking for advice on a first handgun. She ended up picking a 3" 64 and set out looking to buy one. A local shop owner (and S&W direct dealer) told her S&W wasn't making Model 64's anymore, but he would check distributors. She came back to me and I called S&W and spoke to a nice young lady that verified what the dealer had said.


David
 
Very interesting.

I'll check with my local shop again tomorrow and ask them to verify availability. In the past, when they've checked availability with their distributors, and availability comes up "yes", they get it in.

If the 64 is not currently available, then, poll over: I'll go with a 60.
(Which I'm leaning towards at the moment for other reasons, anyway...)

Let's see how far down this rabbit hole goes...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I
  • Locked
sw 686 3" barrel
Replies
14
Views
1K
420Stainless
4
Cump
  • Locked
  • Poll
Help me choose a new carry revolver
2 3
Replies
53
Views
3K
Cump
Cump
A
  • Locked
  • Poll
60 v 686
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
glocktoberfest
G
W
  • Locked
3 inch Revolver for IWB Carry
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
RMW59
R
F
  • Locked
3 inch Carry Revolver
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
RidgwayCO
R
Back
Top