S&W Model 67 or Model 10

[Jokerman]

I'm down to getting either of these two .38 Spl revolvers in 4" bbl. Which is better in what ways for what? The only differences I know is the 67 has adjustible rear sights, is stainless steel as opposed to blue carbon, and has a .375" target hammer as opposed to the 10's .265" semi-target.

Just what do those numbers about the hammers mean? And anything else you can give me insight into about these two guns would be much appreciated. My choice so far is with the 67. I like stainless.

 

[Baba Louie]

Hammer numbers equal width where thumb meets metal.

Adjustable sights are oftentimes preferred unless up close and personal (self defense only) is object of firearm, as opposed to shooting different loads at targets (paper or animal). You know, the old point of aim, point of impact thing?

Stainless is good.

So is blue tho.

As .38 special rd.'s come in many variations, the 67 should do you well.

If you're thinking one load only and practice for shorter ranges, maybe the 10 would suffice, but the 67 can do both well with one better.

Make sense?

Adios

 

[Old Fuff]

The "67" is the stainless steel version of S&W's K-38 Combat Masterpice. In blued or nickel plated carbon steel it's called the model 15. The were both considered "target grade hoster guns" in the days when police officers carried .38 revolvers.

The model 10 is an up-dated version of the old Military & Police, which is as basic as you can get. Verry good when only the most simple will do.

The numbers relate to the the thickness of the hammer spur. The bigger the number the wider the spur. Generally wider is better.

 

[ChristopherG]

My guess is you'll get wizened old timers telling you that nobody makes anything like those old 10s anymore, and maybe they're right But I gotta tell you, I handled a 67 yesterday (okay, it was a 67-1, with the pin on the hammer, so maybe a little old, I dunno) that had the most fantastic feeling trigger of any Smith I think I've felt. Man, it made me wish I didn't feel the need for 357. Almost. Anyway, if that 67 was any indicator, they can be beautiful guns.

 

[Frenchy]

My guess is you'll get wizened old timers telling you that nobody makes anything like those old 10s anymore, and maybe they're right

WE'RE RIGHT!!

 

[Jokerman]

Wow, you guys are great. All good info, thanks. Anyone else can add something, do.

At first, I wanted a Model 66 because of it's great reputation and it's ability to hold .357 rounds but then I decided I would not be using .357 at all and I understand using .38's in a .357-designed chamber will make for a dirtier chamber and a velocity drop for the .38, so may as well get a dedicated .38.

 

[ChristopherG]

Hmmm. Well, yes, you're gonna have to clean the chambers of a .357 if you shoot .38 from it; but you're gonna have to clean the chambers anyway, and it's not going to be any harder, to tell the truth. It really only becomes an issue if two things happen. First, you fire a bunch of .38, and don't clean the gun; and then, you try to chamber a .357. The crud ring (which is going to be there regardless of what revolver you shoot) will just be in the wrong place--it'll be where the slightly longer .357 case wants to go. This is a non-issue, as is the notion you might hear, that you'll get better accuracy or blah blah blah with a dedicated .38. If you want one for some indeterminate reason, then go for it; but there's a good reason why millions of people (including myself) shoot thousnads of .38 shells from .357 guns; it works just fine. And, .357s are easier to find, and perhaps even cheaper in some incarnations, and indisputably stronger and potentially longer lived. I'd definitely get a 66 or a 65 (well, I'd get the 66, 'cause I like sights that adjust; I also like guns that are easy to take care of, thus the stainless choices). Really, I'd get a 686, but that's not what you asked
What's it for, anyway? You gonna pack it, or just shoot it at calm targets, or train your cat to shoot it, or what?
cg

 

[Jokerman]

ChristopherG: I want it mostly to shoot at calm targets and have it as a home...or rather, a one room, defense weapon. My primary home defense is .45 H & K.

But your last post is making me re-consider getting a 66. If I was using it primarily for home defense or to shoot .357, I'd get a 686 then.

 

[ChristopherG]

Yeah, a 66 is a neat gun (or a 19, if you like fastidious cleaning and wiping). It's got a natural feel, and I've been tempted to get one myself, but I want to shoot IDPA with my revolver, and the 686's lug barrel helps tame recoil and thus (potentially) shortens follow-up speed. For slow shooting, and just to have around, I'd be tempted by something like the 6" 66 I saw this morning. Man, with that sight radius, I bet you could shoot the (something very, very small) off a (something also very small, but not quite as small). Really

 

[jdege]

Bought one just today

Minnesota having just passed its shall-issue law (hoorah!), I've signed up for an instructors class, to be held this weekend.

Just got an email with the details, and they ask me to being at least one each revolver and semi-auto. The idea, apparently, being that if you're going to teach, you should have a minimum competency with both.

Now I have a few semi-autos, but I've never owned a revolver.

I'm always looking for a reason to buy a new gun, and this seemed to be one of the better ones.

So I walked into my friendly neighborhood gun store (Outdoorsman in Hopkins, MN), looking to pick up the cheapest working revolver they had.

There was a Taurus .357 that was priced quite modestly, but the Smith model 67 just jumped out at me.

From the serial number, it was made in 1972, mint condition, original box and accessories.

So no, it wasn't the cheapest working revolver in the store, but it is truly beautiful workmanship.

 

[Clemson]

Either a 66 or a 67 will work great for instruction. I personally own 3 model 66's and have never owned a 67 (although I do have a 4" model 15, which is the blued version of the 67). ANY of these guns would be a better investment than that Taurus (Ugh!).

Good luck!

Clemson