Robert B
Member
Talking K and L frames mostly. Do you like 2.5 or 3 inch bbls? What is your favorite snub?
What bbl length is best for a snub?
- Thread starter Robert B
- Start date
- Status
burrhead
Member
Though certainly subjective, I don't consider 3 inchers to be snubs. The only K frame snub I own is a 2" M12 and, to me, that's just right as was the 2" Colt Lawman MK III is use to have.
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
I consider a 3" or shorter barrel to be a snub, but really 2.5 looks more snubish to me.
I don't own a gun under 3" and really like the look of them. It's also the minimum barrel length where I'm still happy with the velocities generated.
I don't own a gun under 3" and really like the look of them. It's also the minimum barrel length where I'm still happy with the velocities generated.
Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
K frame 3" would be my choice. Proportions are just right for me.
But there's that "best" word. For what or whom?
Favorite vs. "best".
But there's that "best" word. For what or whom?
Favorite vs. "best".
NMPOPS
Member
3" is not a snub. Just a short barre. 2" K-frame .38 is the way to go.
Panzerschwein
member
I wouldn't call a 3" gun a snub. For me, it's probably 2.75" and under in order to be a snub, but I don't think anyone ever wrote down any rules for this LOL!
As for between the two in a K-frame and L-frame, give me the 3" bbl, I'll take a Model 64 round butt with a 3" tube and some magna stocks with Tyler-T grip adapters please.
As for between the two in a K-frame and L-frame, give me the 3" bbl, I'll take a Model 64 round butt with a 3" tube and some magna stocks with Tyler-T grip adapters please.
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
I guess my perception is a little based on frame and cylinder size too. 3" on a L, N, or X frame looks snubby to me. On a K or J frame, doesn't look snubby at all.
Ok I guess 3" is really just a short barrel. I'll go with 2.5.
Ok I guess 3" is really just a short barrel. I'll go with 2.5.
While it isn't a classic "snubby," I vote for a three-inch barrel on any S&W K or L frame revolver. The balance is better and more important - you have a full length ejector rod.
If a 2" length is still preferred in a 6-shot model, you still can't beat Colt's Detective Special.
If a 2" length is still preferred in a 6-shot model, you still can't beat Colt's Detective Special.
gamestalker
member
I have a 66-2 with a 2.5" barrel, and a 66-5 with a 3". I don't honestly know which one I prefer more, they both shoot almost identical on paper. The 3" consistently delivers higher velocity, on average around 50 fps more with the same identical load.
But OTOH, even though it's only .5" shorter, the 66-2 is slightly lighter, which is kind of noticeable for me.
GS
But OTOH, even though it's only .5" shorter, the 66-2 is slightly lighter, which is kind of noticeable for me.
GS
B!ngoFuelUSN
Member
Always tricky defining a 'snub'. My take is that it's shorter than 3", preferably 2 1/2" or less shooting a .38S/.357 or 44S/44M. The 38S/38M is likely the best choice.
For me a 3" works well as a mountain gun, chambered in .44 mag, when you need to easily carry (as a spare) in the woods and want a simple rig for it.
I have a revolver that fits the snugness category. It has a 2 5/8" barrel but it has an S&W N-size grip and game. In fact it cylinder is big enough to shoot 8 rounds of .357 or .38 so it doesn't hide well (It's a 627 2 5/8" PC).
But it is a snubbie!.
B
For me a 3" works well as a mountain gun, chambered in .44 mag, when you need to easily carry (as a spare) in the woods and want a simple rig for it.
I have a revolver that fits the snugness category. It has a 2 5/8" barrel but it has an S&W N-size grip and game. In fact it cylinder is big enough to shoot 8 rounds of .357 or .38 so it doesn't hide well (It's a 627 2 5/8" PC).
But it is a snubbie!.
B
CajunBass
Member
I'm not a big fan of "snubbies." I've owned a few over the years and always think, especially in the K-L frame sizes they look out of balance. With the exception of the Smith & Wesson Model 12 alloy frame "airweight" if I'm going to carry something as big/heavy as a K frame, I'll just carry a little more and step up to a 4". It's not that much harder to conceal.
On the other hand, anything longer than 2" on a J frame looks wrong too.
On the other hand, anything longer than 2" on a J frame looks wrong too.
bannockburn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,307
To me a snubnose revolver should have a barrel of 2" or less. Nothing against the 3" barrel on a K or L frame; I actually like the added length of the barrel and the way the gun balances in my hand. It's just that it's more like a shortened 4" model rather than a 2" snubby.
Panzerschwein
member
Yes, to me, the 3" K-frames feel kind of like a Glock 19. A J-frame w/ ~2" bbl is like a Glock 26, and a K-frame with a 4" bbl is like a Glock 17.
km101
Member
In a K/L frame, the 2.5" Model 19/66 or 686 is the perfect length. Compact, easy to conceal, but still enough barrel to achieve decent velocities.
Vern Humphrey
Member
I really don't see any advantage of a barrel shorter than 3". It will conceal just as well as a 2" barrel, and will be easier to shoot accurately.
GBExpat
Member
FWIW ...
I don't consider a revolver with a barrel over 2" to be a "snubnose" ... the original revolvers referred to by this moniker sported stubby little barrels of 2" or less and I grew up knowing what a proper snubnose(d) pistol was ...
... o'course, all live languages are constantly changing.
I don't consider a revolver with a barrel over 2" to be a "snubnose" ... the original revolvers referred to by this moniker sported stubby little barrels of 2" or less and I grew up knowing what a proper snubnose(d) pistol was ...
... o'course, all live languages are constantly changing.
oldbear
Member
I've always felt that any barrel under 3" qualifies as a snub.
It's imposable to determine which one is best. As there are so many choices, that were designed for different uses.
My M-640 has a 2 1/8" barrel and it works just fine of deep C.C. My M 19/66's both have 2 1/2" barrels, and are just fine for discrete carry.
I recently purchased a 3" barrel M 65-5 Lady Smith. It's a joy to shoot with any ammo I'm willing to put through it Yet it feels heavier than either of my K frames, I'm sure it will become my go to discrete carry revolvers.
It's imposable to determine which one is best. As there are so many choices, that were designed for different uses.
My M-640 has a 2 1/8" barrel and it works just fine of deep C.C. My M 19/66's both have 2 1/2" barrels, and are just fine for discrete carry.
I recently purchased a 3" barrel M 65-5 Lady Smith. It's a joy to shoot with any ammo I'm willing to put through it Yet it feels heavier than either of my K frames, I'm sure it will become my go to discrete carry revolvers.
fastbolt
Member
If running a factory 3" barrel with a S&W K/L snub, the 3" barrels allow for a full length extractor, providing for full extraction, while the 2.5" barrels have a shorter extractor/extraction of empty cases.
Trying to debate the difference between calling one or another revolver a "snub" or a "short-barreled" revolver is a trivial pursuit. In the days of service revolvers (when I started in LE), "duty" barrel lengths mostly were taken to mean 4" - 6 1/2", and 2" - 2 1/2" were usually considered "snub" models.
The 3" S&W revolvers were usually considered akin to being a snub (close enough), but with the added advantages (over the 2 1/2" S&W's) of longer extraction/ejection, as well as a bit more barrel length to boost velocity.
The poor Ruger Security/Speed-Six owners were often left out in the cold, with their barrel lengths of 2 3/4", but us Ruger shooters considered them snubs, and shot the living daylights out of them.
Now, my M36 nickel 3" heavy barrel is still a "snub" in my mind, as were the pair or early production Charter Arms 3" .44 Bulldogs (suppressing a shudder remembering them) ... but their 3" lengths, like the larger framed 2 1/2" K's and Security/Speed-Sixes, made them more belt guns than pocket holster snub guns.
Trying to debate the difference between calling one or another revolver a "snub" or a "short-barreled" revolver is a trivial pursuit. In the days of service revolvers (when I started in LE), "duty" barrel lengths mostly were taken to mean 4" - 6 1/2", and 2" - 2 1/2" were usually considered "snub" models.
The 3" S&W revolvers were usually considered akin to being a snub (close enough), but with the added advantages (over the 2 1/2" S&W's) of longer extraction/ejection, as well as a bit more barrel length to boost velocity.
The poor Ruger Security/Speed-Six owners were often left out in the cold, with their barrel lengths of 2 3/4", but us Ruger shooters considered them snubs, and shot the living daylights out of them.
Now, my M36 nickel 3" heavy barrel is still a "snub" in my mind, as were the pair or early production Charter Arms 3" .44 Bulldogs (suppressing a shudder remembering them) ... but their 3" lengths, like the larger framed 2 1/2" K's and Security/Speed-Sixes, made them more belt guns than pocket holster snub guns.
Combat Engineer
Member
"Trying to debate the difference between calling one or another revolver a "snub" or a "short-barreled" revolver is a trivial pursuit." [fastbolt]
Trivial, but fun.
When I think of a snubby, I think back to my childhood to that popular TV show 'Peter Gunn,' about a smart, tough (and very cool) gumshoe and his sultry blond jazz singing girlfriend. His carry (left of center, cross-draw) was either a 38 Colt Detective Special (early shows) or a 38 S&W Chiefs Special, either of which pretty much define the snubby...a 2" barreled 5 or 6 shot small 38 spl revolver, ideal for close quarter fighting. Still the world's most popular revolver.
Even tho there are short-barreled 2.5" to 3" revolvers a plenty, in larger calibers (i.e. 40, 44, 45), they just don't feel or look like a snubby should, they are not a classic 2" snubby.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Talking K and L frames mostly. Do you like 2.5 or 3 inch bbls? What is your favorite snub? " [Robert B.]
Well if you are talking K & L, I would have to go with the 2.5" S&W L-frame 396 Night Guard 44 spl.
Trivial, but fun.
When I think of a snubby, I think back to my childhood to that popular TV show 'Peter Gunn,' about a smart, tough (and very cool) gumshoe and his sultry blond jazz singing girlfriend. His carry (left of center, cross-draw) was either a 38 Colt Detective Special (early shows) or a 38 S&W Chiefs Special, either of which pretty much define the snubby...a 2" barreled 5 or 6 shot small 38 spl revolver, ideal for close quarter fighting. Still the world's most popular revolver.
Even tho there are short-barreled 2.5" to 3" revolvers a plenty, in larger calibers (i.e. 40, 44, 45), they just don't feel or look like a snubby should, they are not a classic 2" snubby.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Talking K and L frames mostly. Do you like 2.5 or 3 inch bbls? What is your favorite snub? " [Robert B.]
Well if you are talking K & L, I would have to go with the 2.5" S&W L-frame 396 Night Guard 44 spl.
Last edited:
fastbolt
Member
Yep, I remember the Peter Gunn TV show. I still like the theme music.
Nothing quite as iconic as a revolver from those days.
Nothing quite as iconic as a revolver from those days.
I carry a 2.5" or a 3" .44 Spl. every day. Pretty much covers everything for me. With a good belt and holster almost anything is packable. My favorite movie gun has to be that blued 4" N frame Mel Gibson carried in "Payback". "Hey, nice balance!" I also remember Peter Gunn. Great theme song.
- Status
