Should I make this trade?

[megatronrules]

I got a friend who had a S&W 360SC .357. This is the scandium/titanium J-frame. I've owned the same gun in the black PD finish. He wants trade for my Glock 36 both guns are in the same shape that being very good to excellent.

I know that the 360sc costs a lot more than the Glock and the glock is tough to carry iwb or on the belt due to a back injury. What are your thoughts on this is it a good trade?

 

[Swami]

My idea of a "good trade" is when both parties are happy with the end result. If you and your friend will be happier swapping pistols, go for it!

Personally I think you are getting an outstanding deal.

 

[JRH6856]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So is value. If both parties end up with something they can use better than what they had, it is a win-win deal.

 

[Iggy]

To me, that's a no brainer, but I have to admit I'm a wee bit biased.

 

[rxspeed88]

make the trade.

 

[TennJed]

i would do the trade, mainly because the glock is a more common gun. You would have less trouble replacing it if you decide you want both

 

[Don357]

DO IT!!!!!!! A Smith & Wesson is worth 5 glocks.

 

[Tomcat47]

^ What he said......

 

[MTD]

Your friend has asked for the trade and as your fellow "forum-ers" have chimed in that "you're ahead"; you should move forward and complete the trade.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

Depends on how much recoil you like. Firing a full-house .357 out of a Scandium gun is a little like touching off my .45-70 Contender. Dangerous at both ends.

 

[PabloJ]

YES. Something assembled from parts made of rarer earth metals is preferable to plastic and ordinance steel.

 

[mrvco]

Shooting full-house .357 magnums out of that j-frame might just fix your back.

 

[45bthompson]

I love Glocks. That said... Yes you should trade him. If you are not happy you can always get enough resale out of that s&w to replace your Glock.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I carry a M442 daily so you know how I feel about the trade. I like revolvers better for carry than semi-autos and if the trade makes you both happy DO IT! Money wise you're getting the better deal. If you shoot .38 Specials in that revolver it will last as long as the old M&P do...

 

[cyclopsshooter]

I'd do the trade, but:

Shooting full-house .357 magnums out of that j-frame might just fix your back.

I have never shot more than 4 .357s through mine.

 

[ORHunter79]

I a huge Glock fan, but this is a trade I would definitively make.

If you end up not liking the Smith, I'm sure you can easily trade it for another Glock.

 

[KenW.]

The only reason I might possess a Glock is if it came as part of a swap as a sweetener. The only reason I'd keep it is to do the same later.

I do not happen to be a Glock guy.

 

[2wheels]

Make the trade, if you don't like the wheelgun then sell it. You don't lose either way.

 

[SwampWolf]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So is value.

Not really. Certainly what passes for "beauty" is subjective by definition. But what constitutes value is a whole lot more objective. To use an admittedly extreme example, a Wilson 1911 pistol has a lot more value than, say a Hi-Point, no matter how the eye beholds it. That's why they publish "Blue Books" and the like.

In the case in question, most people, I think, would agree that the Smith revolver being discussed will fetch more money on the "open market" than the Glock pistol and, that being the case, might should be a factor for the op contemplating the trade at hand to consider.

 

[JRH6856]

In the case in question, most people, I think, would agree that the Smith revolver being discussed will fetch more money on the "open market" than the Glock pistol and, that being the case, might should be a factor for the op contemplating the trade at hand to consider.

If I wanted to trade for something I intended to sell, I would be concerned with relative market values, but if it were something I intended to keep, I might value the items differently, based say upon need and usefulness to me.

If I had a revolver that I had little use for, and wanted a Glock that I had a use for, the Glock would have more value to me. And vice-versa. If I had a Glock but wanted a revolver instead because it better served my needs, the revolver would have more value...to me. You might value them differently. But you are a beholder with a different eye.

 

[gordy]

I would in a heartbeat

 

[rskent]

I would not.

For me a Glock 36 is on the threshold of excessive recoil and a scandium J frame is way over the top. To me it’s just a curiosity and not a usable handgun.
For me if you can’t make good hits with a hand gun one handed with either hand and make good follow-up shots with it than what’s the point. Now if your
goal is to make noise at the range and maybe get a few laughs watching you friends shooting it then by all means make the trade. Good clean fun is priceless.
You can always pick up another Glock.
Steve

 

[tuckerdog1]

That's a trade I'd make.

Tuckerdog1

 

[SwampWolf]

Quote:
In the case in question, most people, I think, would agree that the Smith revolver being discussed will fetch more money on the "open market" than the Glock pistol and, that being the case, might should be a factor for the op contemplating the trade at hand to consider.

If I wanted to trade for something I intended to sell, I would be concerned with relative market values, but if it were something I intended to keep, I might value the items differently, based say upon need and usefulness to me.

If I had a revolver that I had little use for, and wanted a Glock that I had a use for, the Glock would have more value to me. And vice-versa. If I had a Glock but wanted a revolver instead because it better served my needs, the revolver would have more value...to me. You might value them differently. But you are a beholder with a different eye.

The term "value" has a lot of connotations, I suppose. If "value" has to do with a sentimental attachment (it was my grandpa's gun and I want to keep it for that reason), I have no problem. The projected monetary worth of a firearm takes back-seat to the emotional context of the firearm. If the term "value" has to do with the intended purpose (for instance, an expensive single-shot target rifle worth tons more money than, say, a Glock pistol but the purpose being a pistol needed for ccw), of a firearm I have no problem. The intended use of a firearm takes precedence over everything else. But the term "value" in context with the op's query has to do with the monetary worth of the firearms being considered in the trade. And in that situation, what a firearm is worth, in terms of its monetary "value", has nothing to do with "the eye of the beholder" and has everything to do with what the guns in question are worth to a prospective buyer (or trader, as in the case at hand) in a free-market milieu.

 

[philoe]

Like others have said, .357 out of that scandium frame is not something you want to do unless you have to. Shot a buddy's once and I didn't even shoot all 5 rounds. Once you get past that, the trade is a no brainer. Go with the revo.