Size Difference Between K and L frame

[BBW]

Can anyone tell me if there is any actual size difference between the K and the L frame? I know that the L frame is beefier and that SW stopped using the K frame for 357s because they were afraid they weren't holding up well. But what I'm wondering is if the frame is actually larger, or if there's just more metal in some key areas.

A few years back I had a model 19 that, idiot that I am, I sold. It's one of those guns that I wish I could have back. So I'm thinking I might buy another one. But then I'm looking at the 586 L-Comp, which looks like a hell of a gun. But none of the dealers around here have one, so I can't pick it up and feel it. But if it's the same size as the 19 I know I'll like it.

Thanks,

Ben

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Look at the specifications.

 

[steveracer]

I'll say this:
The L-frame is bigger than Smith set out to make it.
I have a 629 Mountain Gun (N-frame) that fits in my old 686 holster. Fits just fine, like it was made for it. I recently tried my buddies 586 in the same rig, and it fit fine. Soooo, The N-frame is only slightly larger than the L-frame.
That said, you could never fit my N-frame guns in K-frame leather. Never. The K-frame is noticeably smaller.
I think I would go with N-frame if the only choice was "bigger than K-frame" with the shining exception of the 696.
Steve

 

[Oro]

Useful info:

If you measure it, the L frame is about 1/8" taller and on the cylinder exactly 1/8" wider in diameter. A 4" "L frame" 686 weighs the same as a 4" N-frame. It is slightly smaller than a N frame, but it is appreciably larger than a K frame.

Bottom line owning many of each - if I want a 2.5" gun, I want a K frame - it's concealable. If I want a field or target gun, I want a 4" L frame 586/686. Better weight to control recoil, and stronger.

So it's how you want to use it. HD and target, get a 586/686. Conceal, get a 2.5" 19/66. This presumes .357 use, if you are using .38 mostly, then it doesn't matter.

 

[BBW]

Thanks guys, that's what I was looking for.

Sounds like a lightly used 19 or 66 may be in my future. I don't get to the range often enough anyway, so the odds that I'll beat it up by shooting too many full-house 357 loads out of it are slim.

What I really want is one of the old 66 f-comps. But I emailed Smith and they have no intention of bringing those back I'm afraid. The only one I can find for sale is for $1600 on Gunsamerica. Too rich for my blood.

Ben

 

[Stainz]

Check out the S&W Performance Center 67 F-comp, SKU 170324 & MSRP '09 $1311. It's a 3" 35 oz SS 6-shot revolver similar to the 66 F-Comp except for the caliber, matte black finish, and night sights. If you're going to shoot .38 Specials & +Ps anyway, the fact that it's cylinders won't chamber .357Ms shouldn't matter. Probably run a kilobuck new from a decent dealer - but it's a premium PC shop gun. The regular SS 67 is only available in 4" exposed lug, SKU 162802 & MSRP $822, at 36 oz - probably $640 in a decent store.

The actual replacement for the K-frame .357Ms a few years back was a 'crossover' of sorts - the L-frame 619 for the 65 and the 620 for the 66. Like the 686+, except for the barrel's short lug, they hold seven rounds. The 620 is a bit less, both in mass and cost, than a 686 or 686+.

It looks like a significant difference in cost going from the 3" 686+ to the 67 F-Comp. The cylinder OD goes from 1.43" to 1.56" going from a K to an L frame, that eighth plus inch may be a problem in some holsters. Reverse isn't so bad, as my R. Mika pocket holsters made for my 2.5" L-frame 296 also fit my 2" K-frame 10 - just a bit loose.

Stainz

 

[pogo2]

Picture of both

I have both frame sizes and the L frame is slightly larger. Here is a comparative picture of a K frame model 66 with an L frame model 686.

 

[BlindJustice]

From S&W online catalogue & Specs.

N-frame
Model 627 4" Bbl.
Overall Length or
O.A.L. = 9 5/8"
Empty Weight = 42 oz.
L-frame
Model 686 4" Bbl.
Overall Length or
O.A.L. = 9 5/8"
Empty Weight = 40 oz.
however it has the full underlug whereas the
627 does not... THe N-frame is bigger in width
for the barrel/forcing cone to screw in, as well as
it gains weight in terms of being longer in length
in the vertical
K-frame
Model 64 4" Bbl.
Overall Length or
O.A.L. = 8 7/8"
Empty Weight = 36 oz.
So this K-frame is several oz. lighter as as
well as .75 inches shorter in O.A>L. = looking
at a side view ALMOST the same diameter cylinder but more material
ahead of the cylinder,

Here's my example of an N-frame 625 5" full underlug
in .45 ACP since I own them both,
OAL= 10 5/8"
Wt. Empty = 45 oz.
617 6" Bbl. 10 shot .22 LR
OA.L. = 11 1/8" ( 4" Bbl. model = 9 1/8" )
Wt Empty = 45 oz. ( 4" Bbl. model = 41 oz.
so a 5" Bbl. equivalent they don't make would be
O.A.L. = 10 1/8"
Wt EMpty 43 oz.

so a K frame is about 1/2" shorter and 2 oz. llighter
for thsoe two particluar models.

Randall

So the sight radius on my 6" bbl 617 is a 1/2" longer than
the 625 5" Bbl. eh? To make sure I should measure them
both since S&W doesn't list the spec.

- what a concept!

625 is 6 3/8" sight radius
617 is 7 1/8" sight radius
duh, .75 inches longer in the lenth of the
frame area which contains the longer and larger
diameter cylinder in the N-frame as well as a
thicker frame forward of the cylinder areea.

Randall