Which S&W .357?

[Comrade Mike]

A shop local to me has a new in box smith and Wesson model 13 I've been eyeballing, but the price is rather up there at almost 700 dollars. Others have suggested I get a 586 instead, in the opinion of THR which would be a better bang for my buck? I'd like to buy both but that's out of the picture for the time being.

 

[ryan3465]

An old 586 or a new production 586? How much do you plan on shooting heavy 357 Magnum loads or will you mainly be shooting .38's?

 

[Peter M. Eick]

Ryan his the key. If you are going to reload and push the loads to "full power" then you have to question if the 586 is even enough gun. Stat thinking about a model 27 if you are going to push it. If you are going to shoot 38's and stay mild with a few occasional 357's then either will do but I personally like a bigger framed gun over the smaller. Given your choices I would go 586.

One my own though, I buy 27's and 28's. I don't have a single smaller model S&W 357 Mag.

 

[Unistat]

I love my Model 13 almost beyond description, but $700 is just too much. I paid $300 for a lightly used 13 without original grips (it had Hogue grips) or any other original ephemera.

 

[gamestalker]

What about an M66 or a 19? They can be had for $400 - $500 -ish. They aren't really the cream of the crop S&W's, but my 66-2 and -5 have stood up to the test of time, and full tilt loads with zero issues, other than the FP on the -5.

GS

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I agree, $700 is way too much for a M13. That's a fairly good price for a M586 but nothing to brag on. The M586 is an L frame and will handle large numbers of 125gr full house Magnum loads. The M13 K frame will carry much better IMO so you will need to decide which is better for you.

 

[bikemutt]

A S&W model 13 is a very nice gun but $700 is a stretch IMO.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

An 'old' 586? How can a gun that was not produced until 1980 be considered old?

When I want to shoot full house 357s, I take out one of my Model 28s. My Model 27 is pretty, I prefer to put the wear on the 28s.

 

[osteodoc08]

I've really enjoyed my 586 and 686's. That being said, if you want full tilt, all the time. I'd be looking at a Blackhawk or GP-100.

The L frames with 4" barrels balance the best for me and fit me the best. But that may not be the case for you. I shoot my 586 the most out of all my 357 revolvers

 

[Comrade Mike]

I have a model 10 that is a dedicated .38. I'm not going to be shooting many if any .38's out of a .357 revolver. I intend to shoot well... magnums! The smaller frame and high price tag of the 13 makes it seem like a poor choice right now. A 4 inch highway patrolman looks like the way to go right now.

 

[YJake]

If you intent to shoot only magnums the 586 would be the way to go. An N-frame 27 or 28 would work as well, but for carry and range use the 586/686 just balances and carries better for me.

-Jake

 

[evan price]

Most of the money that $700 NIB model 13 has is because, well, it is NIB.

If you are looking for an investment that price seems a bit steep but the popular saying with collectible S&Ws (and they don't make them 357 K's anymore) is: "You didn't pay too much, you bought too soon!"

If you want a shooter, I would look elsewhere, because as soon as you start using that 13, the value will evaporate.

Honestly one can find 686's for that money without a lot of effort. If you want a 686 that is.

 

[bannockburn]

I love my Model 686 and would definitely go with an L frame over a fixed sighted K frame if a steady diet of .357 ammo is being considered. As others have pointed out the $700 price tag on the minty Model 13 would soon be lost once you start shooting it. Also try looking into finding a used Model 28; a great workhorse of an N frame revolver which should also provide you with a "better bang for your buck".

 

[CajunBass]

If I paid $700.00 for a NIB Model 13, it would have to have the box, papers, tools, etc., and I wouldn't shoot it. I'm out of the collecting game now, but true NIB guns with the accessories don't grow on trees. I might never see another one.

I have never cared for the "L" frame guns for some reason. If I wanted a shooter, I'd keep looking for a "K" or an "N".

 

[bigtubby]

Is the Model 13 a 3"? and is it P&R? if so and is NIB with all docs I would buy the 13. I don't care for the full lug on the 586's and 686's and there is nothing better handling than a 3" K frame. I wouldn't pay the $700 for a 4" 13

 

[W.E.G.]

Get the one you REALLY WANT.

...but only if you are actually going to use it on any regular basis.

 

[Kernel]

A model 13 has fixed sights. They’re suppose to make it easier to “clear leather“, or something. In my view, it makes it harder to shoot well and therefore less desirable. Quick-draw ain't a primary concern for me (my shooting range doesn't even allow holsters). I'd much rather have a 586, 66, or 19 to shoot with S&W's superb adjustable sights.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

A model 13 has fixed sights. They’re suppose to make it easier to “clear leather“, or something. In my view, it makes it harder to shoot well and therefore less desirable. Quick-draw ain't a primary concern for me (my shooting range doesn't even allow holsters). I'd much rather have a 586, 66, or 19 to shoot with S&W's superb adjustable sights.

Where did you read that? Fixed sights have nothing to do with 'quick draw'. A proper holster for a revolver with adjustable sights will have a cutout around the sights so they do not snag.

For many years, the great majority of revolvers had fixed sights. Like these. The one at the top is the older style, from the 1920s, the one at the bottom is from the 1940s. The bottom pattern is the way S&W is still making their fixed sights today, and it is easier to see than the earlier version.



Early S&W Handejector adjustable sights looked like this. They were delicate and easily damaged. They were generally only used for target shooting. Rugged service, like daily carry by police, dictated something that would not be easily damaged, so police departments usually bought revolvers with fixed sights.



'Modern' click adjustable rear sights like these that S&W uses today, on the models that you mentioned, did not appear until about 1940. And they are still less rugged than fixed sights that are milled into the frame. It is fairly easy to snap off the blade on one if it is hit just right, trust me on this.



There is nothing more inherently accurate about adjustable sights than fixed sights. Nothing. Adjustable sights allow the shooter to adjust his sights so that different loads will print to the same point of aim. But if you know how to use them, fixed sights are just as accurate. I was knocking a tin can around at 25 yards yesterday with a Smith made in 1920 that had a rear sight just like the one at the top of the first photo.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I was going to comment on the sights and their accuracy but it looks like Driftwood Johnson already did that quite well, and I agree with him...

 

[L-Frame]

Repeating what many have said here, $700 is too high. Regarding asking others' opinions, as you can see by the responses, to each his own. As you can see by my tag, I'm a huge L-Frame fan. N-frames, whether a 27 or 28 are wonderful guns, they just never seemed to work well for me. K's are great guns also but I always gravitate back to L's. They just feel right to me. I have a pre-lock 4" 686 under my bed and have 2 3" GP-100's that I use for carry. I've tried so many that I finally settled down to this basic size. You simply have to handle them and if possible shoot something like them and decide based on what feels "right" to you.

 

[Oro]

I agree with L-Frame. I have in .357 a few K-frames in 2.5" and 4", L frame in 4" (had a 2.5", too), and have 3.5" and (had) 4" N frame.

Of them all the 2.5" K's gets carried, the 4" 686 gets shot. The others sit and look pretty or got sold. The 2.5" L frame and the 4" N (28) got sold as they didn't really offer anything others didn't do better. The 4" L frame weighs the same as a comparable 4" N, but critically, it is more compact with a lower bore axis and full barrel lug. It shoots so much better than an N frame apples-to-apples.

 

[Kernel]

Never said anything about accuracy in my earlier post. Adjustable sights (or a magnified scope) do nothing to make a firearm more accurate. They just make it easier, under most normal circumstances, to hit what you’re aiming at.

To deny the superiority of the sight picture of adjustable sights is laughable. Have you seen a race gun? The sights are MASSIVE and fully adjustable. A silhouette pistol - ENORMOUS sights. Not only adjustable but often FINGER adjustable - the front sight too! Handguns for ANY kind of competitive shooting - adjustable sights. (Accepting Cowboy, of course. But even in that sport they are allowed - and widely used - in some matches).

As for “clearing leather.” At this point isn’t that belief just accepted as common knowledge? Every other post on THR has something in it about the advantages of fixed rear sights for concealed carry, pocket carry, fast presentation, not snagging, not clogging with lint, KISS, etc, etc. etc. (BTW, I searched the word “snagging” on THR. Twenty PAGES of replies. Yes, the snagging topic has been covered a time or two).

Don’t most fast-draw shooters remove their front sight completely? They must think there’s some speed advantage or they wouldn't do it. That sport is all about how fast you can “clear leather.“ Maybe nobody told them they just needed a sight-channel in their holster. But the point is moot, since their sights aren’t even used. In the demonstrations I’ve seen the shooting is all done from the hip. Blink and you'll miss it.

Thanks for the great pics and history lesson. Those are some nice old Smiths. No doubt fixed sights are more robust. But I’m not in need of a ‘solider proof’ or a ‘duty carry’ design. My firearms don‘t see much rough service. Ironically, my hunting guns see the harshest use, and those mostly wear scopes - the most fragile sight possible.

There’s no denying fixed sights were standard for a long, long, time. That’s how Colonel Colt made’em back in the day. But, times change and new things come along. Thankfully, we all have the option to buy what we like best.

So, sorry if I ticked anyone off or violated some unsaid protocol. Thought I was just sharing my opinion. Yes, I prefer revolvers with adjustable sights. I admit it. Even, perish the thought, on single actions! I’m guilty. Is there a 12 step program?