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.
Neither is really a bad choice. I have a hard time with J frames of any sort (my hands are abnormally large) so I have a distinct preference for the K frames. If you don’t mind buying used, CDNN has trade in 3” model 64’s for just over $300 last I heard. If you decided you didn’t like it, you could always sell it for around what you paid for it.

David
 
I have a hard time with J frames of any sort (my hands are abnormally large) so I have a distinct preference for the K frames.
Click to expand...
Interesting.

We are on opposite ends of the size spectrum:
I've got abnormally small hands.
My 642 with full grip Hogues is just about perfect.

Admittedly, I find my 686 L-frame just fine
for what it is: a large wilderness handgun.

But for city life, I may prefer the J's instead of K's.

I never buy a gun unless I can handle it first.
Fit and feel is everything to me.

I've handled a 60. It felt just about perfect: great balance, great feel.

Not to mention that it'll eat .357M if pressed,
even if not a steady diet,
but will eat them in a pinch.

Not to mention that the 60 3" is 24 oz,
the 64 3" is 33 oz. (Yes, that matters...to me...)

I've yet to handle a 64.

If I can't handle one first, the 60 wins by default.
 
The 64's grip will not feel any different than that of any other K frame wearing the same grips. Directly comparing the 3" HB K frame to a model 60 there is a good deal more weight farther foward in the K frame giving it the feel of a a full sized gun. The trigger reach is a good bit longer on the K frame, a huge plus for me, for you maybe not so much.

David
 
...there is a good deal more weight farther forward in the K frame giving it the feel of a a full sized gun.
Click to expand...
I hear that, and understand its relevance.

In this case, for me,
I think I'm more concerned with
lighter carry weight (comfort over, say, 4 - 8 hours)
than that "feel of a full sized gun".

My 686 has that "feel of a full sized gun" covered.
 
I think you may have already made a decision and are now trying to resolve some dissonance.
Click to expand...
I think I am exploring 2 similar revolvers, one J, one K,
one of which "I'm leaning towards at the moment" (quote from post 50),
where "leaning towards" does not equal "decision".

:neener:

;)

:cool:
 
They are not currently in production.
Click to expand...

Description on Smith and Wesson's web page of Model 64.

My local gun shop quotes the price for a new 64 = $510.
Click to expand...
Well, it turns out that we are both right. (I like it when that happens. ;) )

Smith Wesson no longer makes model 64 with 3" barrels (they quit in 2005 according to their customer service department that I spoke with earlier today), but they still make 4" ones. (Of course, I'm not interested in a 4" barrel on a 64.)

I double checked with my gun store, and they double checked:
their distributor still has several 3" 64s, price as quoted above.

Hmmm.
 
You will find that a good quality gun belt will make all the difference in carrying a heavier gun comfortably. That "distracting" effect you mentioned will be lessened a great deal by a good belt.

I've been thinking of adding a K frame .38 Spl revolver for carry in warm weather as a supplement to my 1911 and N frame .45ACP revolver. Right now I'm leaning toward a new production Model 10 4" bbl on which will be installed Ahrends round butt Cocobolo grips. It won't be too heavy with the right gear and even the harder LSWC+P rounds will perform nicely, especially with a 4" barrel.

Plus, think of how nice it will look sitting next to my 336! :D

I should probably add that I prefer some heft in my guns, and your needs are likely different than mine. Of the choices you listed, I'd go with the Model 64 and not look back.
 
I double checked with my gun store, and they double checked:
their distributor still has several 3" 64s, price as quoted above.

Hmmm.
Click to expand...

Hey Nema, sounds like a get em while ya can situation to me;) .
Says the guy who's been pushing the k-frame all along:D .
 
I have a 2-inch 64 that I would not hesitate to carry and a 3-inch would be fine too, maybe better.
Having said that, I also have a 2.5-inch 19-3 that I carry daily and absolutely love. I carry magnums in it. I also have a 66-2 with 3-inch barrel that is superb but is not carried. Cannot go wrong with a K frame.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I want (and have) one of each. Two favorites, a J and a K, wearing grips that help me put rounds on target.

fitzgrips001op3.jpg
 
Your reading is incorrect there were no model 64's in 1899.
Click to expand...
I think what they're saying in the article Nem links that the M64 is a stainless M10, which was introduced in 1899 as the M&P. So no there were no M64s in 1899, but you guys get the idea ;) .

Nem, I'd also not worry about having to get a new M64. An early M64 with case hardened lock work and hammer mounted firing pin will be worth the search. Talk to Old Fuff - he can explain the difference in craftsmanship far better than I.
 
Voted the 64. Why? Looks like it'd be better streamlined--that, and if I'm firing a revo, I automatically expect it to have 6 rounds--that one less would be :uhoh: . YMMV.
 
66-4 RB

you said you wanted some model specifics on "other" suggestions.....

my wife is very happy with her 2 1/2" mdl 66-4 round butt. she is also tall and thin, and weighs less than 140lbs. the grip helps with concealability, and pushes more directly straight back, rather than rolling upward like a square butt. this helps with muzzle flip for a fast follow up shot. she even likes it with hot-rod 125gr 357 loads. i feel the round butt is a big aid for double action shooting any way.

don't worry about recoil, or slowed reload times from the short extractor. practice is the key to both. the muzzle blast, flip and recoil only bother you at first. didja like the first time you shot yer 870? don't bother you now though, right?

if the six chance cylinder doesn't save yer assets, then you shouldn't have gotten yerself engaged in a fire fight with a basketball team. i believe the military term that applies here is "advance to the rear".

the mythical average shooting happens at less than 20 feet. (90+%) and of those, many at bad breath ranges. if, at the longer 20 foot range range, you fail to drop the perp with six shoots, chances are that six extra trys will just create more permanent hearing damage for yerself.

she out shot all of the men in her CCW class in alaska. the key IS practice. with her kimber pro carry in 45. i won't bother to try to getcha headed that way, as you didn't bother to say why you no longer like semi's. if you do go up to AK, all you need for CCW now is a valid driver's liscense, and a clean record.
 
Z, I hear you re the gun belt. Mine is on order from Galco. (Expected to get it by now ... :uhoh: )

Gunnie, welcome to THR.

...you didn't bother to say why you no longer like semi's.
Click to expand...
Just a word about that, without opening up a whole discussion about it.

In short, I had both revolvers and one semi. I am striving to create for myself a minimalist toolkit of guns that cover my needs. Minimalist because I'm semi-nomadic, and don't want to haul around a lot of guns, and I'd rather have a few that I'm very familiar with and efficient with rather than a lot that I don't shoot often and am not proficient with. (My time to spend with each is limited because I'm extremely busy professionally.)

So, for handguns, I decided to go all revolver for consistency in action. It really boiled down to simplicity for me: simple to shoot (relative to semi's; no worries about jams) and simple to clean.

Nothing more than that.

Nem
 
apples and oranges

i am not a semi only promoter, i just have 40 years and 30K+ rounds invested in learning the 1911 system. it is second nature to me now, and with ammo prices what they are these daze, i don't feel like starting over again.

aside from that, the 45ACP is nearly a perfect self defence load. back before we became so politically correct, the army spent some seven years developing same. this included shooting dead animals. live animals. dead prisoners. live prisoners, convicted of capital crimes. it is just enough to get the job done. i feel this a more effective multi use round than any .35 caliber load, as it starts at the diameter a hollow point .357 would like to get to. it is also a much milder recoiling round.

in hard ball configuration, they penetrate quite deeply, and are effective on large animals one may encounter strolling through the alders at lastfrontier.com. i had to cap a 600lb or so young cow moose with one on a deep snow trail leading to a buddy's cabin when i still lived in the alaskan interior. it had been a very snowy winter, and the moose were scrapping among themselves a long time that spring down in the river valleys they moved to for easier traveling and food. they get very bad attitudes at these times, and she was not pleased to see me in HER way on the shoulder deep snow trail. her head went down, and the hair on her neck and back came up.

keep in mind that moose kill more people in AK than bears.

the first round out of my colt commander was a JHP that bounced off of her head, between her eyes. it hit the porch overhang roof rafters, and landed by his front door. looking at it later, it resembled a cup cake placed upside down on a pancake, and had hair and bone shards inbedded in the lead. the rest were hardball, and the second or third went into her right eye, or i may not have been able to write this to you.

i have a 4" round butt 625 in this caliber also. they are nice for a quick* reload in full moon clips. smith and wesson used to make a scandium framed 5 shot snubbie for this caliber, but i can't find it at their web site now. the price was near 1K$, when it was listed (ouch).

you said you place a high emphasis on how a handgun feels in yer hands. yer onto something there. a wise man once told me the way to pick a handgun for a newbie shooter was to get them to a user friendly store and let them handle every gun in their desired caliber range. tell them to pick a target on the wall somewhere, close their eyes and then point the firearm at it. which ever comes closest to sight alignment when they open their eyes is the one they should learn to shoot. in this drill, different grips can change the outcome, even with the same gun.

if you plan to carry the .357M in AK whence hiking, get a very hard specialty bullet for it. something similar to a "barnes" solid copper offering, in 170 or so grains.

stay outta the alders, and stay off of the ice.

*slightly faster than mighty slow.
 
if you plan to carry the .357M in AK whence hiking, get a very hard specialty bullet for it. something similar to a "barnes" solid copper offering, in 170 or so grains.
Click to expand...
Gunnie, this revolver (60, 64 or something similar) is mainly intended for more substantive carry in town, and will probably get fed a diet of mainly .38 spl +P.

My 686 is my wilderness camp/trail handgun, but for where I am now (Pacific NW), not AK. I'm looking in the direction of AK over the next few years (won't make it for at least four or five years though; pretty committed here professionally for a while).

I understand the limitations of the .357 Mag for AK wilderness carry. If/when I go up there, my "hiking gun" would more likely be either my 870P with slugs, an 1895G in .45/70 or - if hand gun - a Ruger Alaskan in .454C. ;)
 
News flash: new horse in the race

Well, I confess, I'm not necessarily thinking straight yet. :scrutiny:

I chilled last night while sharing just a bit too much food and drink :evil: with a bunch of friends and colleagues. Now, it's Saturday "morning" (at least in my twisted night-worker world),
and I haven't had coffee yet. (Water is heating now.)

But it's OK, cause it's the first day of a two-week "vacation" (where vacation means mostly stay here and get projects done that I can't at other times because I'm too fr'kin busy :what: and maybe get a few days hiking in the mountains if I'm good and get every thing else done ...).

At least, I don't have to do the normal routine for two weeks. Life is good.

So, all this as prelude to the proposition that I'm adding here.

While the coffee water is heating, I've been dry firing (with snap caps) my 686+ 4". I don't mention often enough how much I adore that revolver. It feels good. It fits me, even if it is on the large side of appropriate fit. I like it's heft for shooting (even if less so for longer carry, which I haven't done yet. Still working on carry system for wilderness carry with and without a backpack with waist belt).

It's got the smoothest trigger of any revolver I've ever handled. (Admittedly, I am a relative novice compared to many of you, so that numbers in the dozens. Still...)

It's double action is smooth as clean glass, and so intuitive (those two nearly equally space felt clicks just before hammer fall takes out all the guess work...I KNOW when it's going to drop...).

SA ... Whew! All I gotta do is think about it and "Bang!". I'm not sure there's really any movement in my trigger finger, just a thought manifest through my finger. (Yeah, I'm using hyperbole there; just a metaphor for how easy it is.)

So, anyway, while I'm dry firing this beautiful machine, practicing my Bill Jordan draw/fire routine (with and without aiming), and my Jerrry Miculek drills ( :what: ), I had a thought.

<thought> "Wait a minute ... If I'm considering buying a model 64 that weighs 33 oz, why not just go with another 686+ 3" which is only 3.5 oz more. Even though its main function would be .38 spl duty, it does have a better digestive system for full house .357 mag than the 60 does, and is actually 5/8" shorter than a 60 to boot, so it's concealability would thus be no more challenging than a model 64." </thought>

Admittedly, it's an L-frame. But my main criterion is shorter than my 4", longer than my snubbie, and .38 spl capable. The 60 still appeals greatly due to its lighter weight, but still ...

Hmmmm. :scrutiny:

Any thoughts? Opinions are welcomed.
______

Oh, by the way: current poll results:

60: 26
64: 42
other: 7

I guess "other" now includes 686+ 3" ... :rolleyes:
_________

OK, coffee water is hot ...
 
Last edited:
<thought> "Wait a minute ... If I'm considering buying a model 64 that weighs 33 oz, why not just go with another 686+ 3" which is only 3.5 oz more. Even though its main function would be .38 spl duty, it does have a better digestive system for full house .357 mag than the 60 does, and is actually 5/8" shorter than a 60 to boot, so it's concealability would thus be no more challenging than a model 64." </thought>
Click to expand...
64 has a narrower cylinder, 60 is narrower still; the width is a bigger concern than 5/8" length when talking concealability. K Frames have a balance that has to be fondled to be understood.

Another thought:
Perhaps you should stick with a 4" revolver. A 620 is an L frame but the lighter bbl taper and partial underlug may be make it a more practical option than either 686.
 
Last edited:
64 has a narrower cylinder, 60 is narrower still; the width is a bigger concern than 5/8" length when talking concealability. K Frames have a balance that has to be fondled to be understood.
Click to expand...
And all this wise advice offered from some motel room on the road somewhere during a move.

Where you at, Uga? There yet? Tired of the highway, no doubt, checking into THR for some diversion...
____

My problem so far with "fondling" a 64 is that
no one in these parts has one in stock.
The 60's are all over the place; but no 64's.
 
Current results:

Mod 60: 27
Mod 64: 42
Other: 8

I was greatly influenced by an article that I read last night.
Right now, I'm leaning strongly in one direction
(of those three).

Which one?

I ain't sayin'. :rolleyes:

Don't want to bias the voting.

I could still change my mind.

:D
 
I had a 3" Model 64 which I unfortunately traded for a 3" 60. The 64 was a great shooter and nightstand gun, but too heavy for me to carry (I'm 5'10, 160). I had problems finding IWB holsters for the 3" 60 (which had the lock) so I traded it for a 2" Model 60 (no lock) in .357 which, in my opinion, is a perfect carry piece.
 
I traded it for a 2" Model 60 (no lock) in .357 which, in my opinion, is a perfect carry piece.
Click to expand...
Blade, would you be willing to offer more about why it seems the perfect carry piece for you, please?
 
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