Which Snubbie?

[vcs700s]

I am new to revolvers and have a new S & W 620 in .357 that my wife bought me.

I am now looking for a backup snubbie.

Is this a good gun?- Like new S&W Model 64 No Dash 38 Special. Mfg in 1975

I am also looking at a S&W Model 36 Mfg in 1959- similar condition.

Are these both good choices? I am looking for something that is concealable and will be something I can handle at the range. I understand these are a little heavier that some of the airweights.

Any leaning towards one or the other? I have been told they are about the same size.

I look forward to the experts help as I am new at this.

 

[Meeteetse]

The 64 and the 36 are both good choices. The 36 is very concealable and a good shooter with non +P loads. I carry one about half the time when I am not using my 442. I am not as familiar with the 64. If you can shoot them both, that may help make your decision.

 

[vcs700s]

"If you can shoot them both, that may help make your decision."

No chance to shoot them as I found them on the net.

 

[Meeteetse]

In that case, I personally would choose the 36. One of the all time great hide-out guns.

 

[Piraticalbob]

The 64 is a K-frame with 6 shots, a little larger than the J-Frame Model 36 with its five shots. The 64 will be a bit heavier and harder to conceal, it's not really a pocket gun the way that the 36 is.

 

[Meeteetse]

Piraticalbob beat me to it. I forgot the 64 is a stainless K-frame and larger than the blue 36. One additional shot is its advantage and even though it is heavier a short barreled medium frame gun is easier to shoot.

 

[Haywood]

642 or 442

 

[rhatimi]

Get a ruger sp101 in .357mag you can bet it's one of the most reliable snubbie out there.

 

[Oro]

The 36 IS the all-time classic back-up gun, as Meeteetse said. A 1959 variant would have great history and character and be a great choice, easier to carry than the 64.

OTOH, if the 64 is a snubbie (most are 4" square butt models), it might be interesting, especially if it is a 3" barrel vs. a 2". Those are more rare and collectible. But a 3" is harder to carry vs. a 2", so it's up to you in that regard.

I don't think anyone has said this in detail yet, so here goes:

1) the 36 is "J frame" - it's frame is the smallest revolver frame S&W makes - thus it's limit to 5 rounds of .38. A 2" round-butt model should weight about 21 ozs I think (empty). It can fit in an ankle holster or most decent sized pockets. IWB carry is pretty easy.

2) the 64 is a "K frame" - a S&W "medium" frame. It will hold 6 rounds and is larger. I think a 2" round butt model should weigh about 31 ozs (empty). It is not really ankle gun sized. You can IWB carry them pretty easily, but it takes a large pocket to conceal one. The frame on the 64 is more comparable to your 620 (which is an "L frame", a slightly beefed up K frame).

The 36 is a bit harder to control, but it is not difficult for a competent shooter.

 

[AdamSean]

I would go with the model 36. I like little snubbies. I always find myself packing a snub-nosed revolver over any of my auto-loaders.

 

[rainbowbob]

I love my "Chief's Special" Model 36. I carry it daily in either a Mika pocket holster or an IWB holster.

 

[shotgunjoel]

I like the 442 and the SP101. The 442 was the first handgun I ever shot. It is a great little gun and can be suprisingly accurate little gun. The thing weighs something like 14 or 15 ounces. The SP101 is just a great gun. It has a longer barrel though. I really like the SP101.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I own a number of J frames and like them all. i would suggest going to a gun shop and look at/ hold several different models and see which feels good in your hand and which you like better.

Like said above, the M64 and M36 are quite different revolvers. The M64 K frame is the stainless version of the classic Model 10 which is a good revolver but harder to conceal than a J frame.

 

[DaveinPA]

I have and carry J frames and a M64 2" snubbie. I had always felt the J frames were much easier to carry, but finally tried using appendix IWB for the M64. To my surprise it was nearly as easy and shoots just so much better. The smaller J frames will require more training time (at least for me) than the larger K frame. I think it is worth it though.

 

[Stainz]

To show you relative size, from top right CW:

696 3" L-frame SS (.44 Spl) 35.5 oz
296 2.5" L-frame (.44 Spl) 20 oz
10 2" K-frame (.38 Spl +P) 30.5 oz
642 1.9" J-frame (" " ") 15.5 oz



The 2" 10 is identical to a 2" 64 - except that the 64 is SS.

I would keep that 620 for range plinking and home defense, and get a snubby for a CCW. The 64 you mentioned - if a 2"-er like my 2" 10 above - is a great 'carry' piece - with six rounds - just heavy! I carry either that 642 or 296 in a pocket holster made by Robert Mika. The 642 can carry in any pants, the 296 needs my cargo pants. They draw without snag, since their hammers are internal. Before the pocket holsters, I seldom carried the 296 or 10 - they required a belt holster. Now I carry all of the time.

Since the missions are so different, I'd suggest - if you can get or already have a CCL - that you consider a pocketable protector - like the 642 above or it's blued brother, the 442. They run $400-$420 new in decent stores and chains - and will have a lifetime warranty. Not the most fun gun to plink with, they weren't designed for that - they are to protect your bacon. Check out "The 642 Club Part Deux" here for more info.

Stainz

 

[Gardien]

I just picked up my 642-1 (no ILS) last week and love it.