Who owns a 2 1/2" K or L frame?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

chaim

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
3,846
Location
Columbia, MD
As some may have noticed I absolutely love the 3" K-frame "snub". It is very handy, the shorter barrel means a few oz. off the weight, it should be easier to conceal than the standard 4", yet with the 3" barrel you have a decent sight radius and you don't lose that much in velocity.

Well, unfortunately, while not impossible to find, they are more rare than I'd like. The 2 1/2" K or L frames seem much easier to find. So, to enlarge my potential options I was thinking...What do you lose with the 1/2" shorter barrel?

I would assume all the plusses due to the shorter size of the 3" are there but even more so. It should be even handier, it is about 1 1/2-2 oz lighter, I would assume it would be a little more comfortable in a IWB holster. Well, how is the sight radius? I know the 2" J-frames have a rep for being tough to learn (and I found I wasn't nearly as good w/ my Taurus 605 as I am with my S&W 65LS), does either the larger frame (which I would assume adds a little to the distance from the rear to front sight) or the 1/2" of barrel, or both together make a big difference v. a 2" J-frame? How about velocity loss? The shorter the barrel the slower the bullet will be. Anyone know the difference between the 2 1/2" v. the 3" in similar revolvers. I don't mean the "standard" formulas people use, which seem to be usually 100fps/inch though I've also heard others, I mean does anyone have a 3" K-frame and a 2 1/2" (or have access to them) who has actually checked (or know of a report along those lines)?

I would prefer the 3". Heck, even just cosmetically I think it looks more balanced. However, if the 2 1/2" K-frame is going to perform similarly and be about as easy to use (sight radius) then I may as well add them to the "try to pick up at a good price" list. Heck, I'm looking for either a .38 or .357 in either blue or stainless for a base gun for modifications to be my carry gun when I get to a CCW state in order to keep my options open so I can get the best overall deal. If the 2 1/2" is close I may as well add it to the list. The more options the more likely I am to find a better deal (I want one in a decent combination of condition and price and the less rare what I'm looking for the better).
 
I have both the 2 1/2 M66 and 686. I lusted after the CS model 3" 686 for a time, but after two near misses I gave up and went for the 2 1/2. I like the L frame a bit more for shooting, and the slightly lighter K or packing (decisions, decisions :p). Overall, the L goes out more often because shooting is what it is all about, and if a little discomfort = better shooting, so be it. The velocity loss in the 1/2" difference doesn't worry me. Velocity differences between individual revolvers can be greater than the "fps per inch" averages, so a good 140 gr.to 158 gr. load should make up for any loss, real or imaginary. The only possible shortcoming is the shorter ejector rod, and I've never had any problem with them. Like the sight radius, it is something to be learned, but it doesn't take long, and practice is fun.
 
Yes, they do. Check it out.

51L.gif


127L.gif
 
I have owned a S&W model 66 2 1/2" for almost 20 years. It was my off duty gun until my agency allowed semi-autos to be carried. The qualification course was the same as for primary weapons, which were 4" 357 revolvers by either S&W or Colt. Course of fire was from 7 to 50 yards, with a total of 24 rounds fired at 50 yds.

I never noticed any apparent difference in score between ny 4" 66 and my 2 1/2". Most of us who carrie the same combination experienced the same thing. The 3" should be just as capable, maybe more so. I really can't see why it shouldn't group almost to the same POA as the 4" as my 2 1/2 only had to be held about 2" high at 50 yds. to hit the ten ring.

Whichever one you choose I think you will be well satisfied.


FIRST RULE OF GUNFIGHTING, HAVE A GUN!!!

SECOND RULE OF GUNFIGHTING, HAVE TWO GUNS!!!
 
I fairly recently replaced my 3" 65 with a 2 1/2" 19 for carry. I shoot a bit better with the 19 even with the shorter sight radius because of the better sights I believe.

I suppose I'd say the 3" gun did balance a little better but frankly I like the looks of the 2 1/2" gun especially since it's blued-very business like.

Only "downside" I found was that I had gotten a bit lazy in techique on expending spent shells. You can get away with being a bit sloppier with the full length ejector rod of the 3" gun than you can the shorter gun. Of course if you turn the gun upside down and give a fairly stiff whack to the rod of the shorter gun the way your supposed to you'll never notice it anyway.

Still had I run across one of the rare 3" M-19's when I was looking for a replacement...3" k-frames do seem to balance so nice.....

Lotta help aint I;)
 
I was going to get a S&W 3" F-Comp but ended up buy in a 2.5" Model 66 instead. If you get one with a Milt Sparks IWB Versa Max2 holster, you should be a happy, well armed camper. Dennis
 
I have the 2-1/2" model 686 seven shot. Have learned to shoot it well. Sight radious took some getting used to. Also have the 686 seven shot in the 3" barrel. 1999 manufacture with the round butt. Only made about 500 of them. Can't comment about the way that it shoots, because I have never shot it. It does look nice, and the guy that I bought it from had fired it about 100 rounds and said it shot great. Would sell the 3" 686 plus to you, if you were in Florida.
 
Would sell the 3" 686 plus to you, if you were in Florida.
Click to expand...
Well, MR.G, one of the schools I'm applying to is in southern Georgia and if I go there I will be living in either Tallahasee or Jacksonville. Hmmm, if that happens I may see if the offer still stands.
 
Oh, for the performance question I had I found something that helped. In a 2 year old gun mag I had laying around I noticed a test of all the "new" Scandium revolvers from S&W. They did both the 386 Mountain Lite (3.2" L-frame in Scandium) and 386PD (2.5" L-frame in Scandium). There was only a 18-32 fps difference in the averages of the different brands/loads they used in the two different barrel lengths (though the standard deviations in the same loads usually showed a larger spread of velocities in the 2.5"). The 386 Mountian Lite has .2" more barrel than the 3" revolvers I love so I am guessing, that generally the difference between a 2 1/2" and 3" will be even a little smaller. So it doesn't appear that I should expect a major performance difference and with either barrel length using either .357mag or +Ps with a quality hollowpoint I should see expansion.

Anyone know if I can expect the K-frames to have a similar, basically insignificant, difference between the two lengths.

Anyway, I still would prefer the 3" since I like its looks better and I feel it handles better. But based on this article and the feedback here I guess I shouldn't shy away from a nice 2 1/2" if I see one (though I guess once I got it I'd have to be sure that I could eject smoothly and confidently enough with it before I'd use it for any defensive purposes).
 
Well, I've got what I think are three relevant points to offer here...First, and it may just be me, but I absolutely DETEST the not-quite-long-enough ejector stroke of the two-and-a-half inch barreled Smiths...MUCH PREFER the "Full-length" ejection of the three-inch guns...
Secondly, when I still had a two-and-a-half inch 66, I found that, due to the short sight radius, the sight picture was WAY too "Tight" for my liking...that is, there was not nearly enough "Daylight" on either side of the front sight blade when the sights were aligned...narrowing the front sight to about .100 inch fixed that...
Lastly, I don't believe that there is a SIGNIFICANT difference in velocity between the two barrel lengths...I think that you'd see enough variation between "Identical" sample of the SAME barrel length that it would be impossible to quantify the difference that losing one-half inch of barrel length would make...MY two cents' worth, anyway....mikey357
 
Regarding the short ejector rod on the 2.5" models...

I've never had a case stick in my Model 19 to the point where the extra half inch would have made any difference to speed ejection at all.

I use the "gravity assisted" method -- muzzle pointing up, with the palm of the hand firmly applied to the end of the ejector rod.

Do this SMARTLY. More than once I've come away from competitions with my palm bruised and bleeding from operating the ejector rod. Older Smiths are nice in that sense, the ones that have the mushroom-shaped head on the end of the rod.

Keeping the muzzle pointing up also helps keep unburned powder from getting under the extractor star, and also helps keep a case head from slipping under the star.
 
...let's see...you can get an extra half-inch of barrel, sight radius AND extractor rod, OR...beat the meat of your hand--wait, that's NOT what I meant to say--beat the PALM of your hand BLOODY...hhmmm...I'M NOT into THAT MUCH PAIN...BTW, I DO KNOW the "Proper Technique"...but, as I said, I DETEST the short ejection stroke of the two-and-a-half inch Smiths, and PREFER the three-inch--or longer--barrels on MY GUNS...guess that's why they makes Fords and they makes Chevrolets....mikey357
 
I have a snub nickel 19 and a 3 inch 13. There just isn't much comparison. The 13 balances totally different. I may shoot the 19 better because of the sights, but the 13 does well also.
 
Chaim, you've got a lot of good input here. I've got a model 19 2.5" and a 686 4" (and a 642). Never owned one of those 3" K-frames but my friend behind the counter at the local shop carries a Model 65 (3" HB) and swears by it. Keep this in mind: the difference is not only sight radius, velocity, and balance, but FIXED versus ADJUSTABLE sights. Will you be more accurate with adjustables? Will losing that 1/2" sight radius affect your aim? YMMV. Personally I'd stay with the Model 65 for carry. Get a 19 snubnose for your collection if you desire as they are getting scare (at least the early models are, or so it seems to me). Good Luck. ACP.
 
Mikey357,

The ejection method that I describe is NOT just for the short-barreled guns.

If you baby the ejection procedure, you can end up with a rim skipping under the ejector star.

Then you do have an annoying situation on your hands.

Or in a self-defense situation, a potentially fatal one.

Smartly rapping the ejector rod to clear the brass from the cylinder is no different than smartly rapping the base of a magazine to ensure that it's seated correctly in a semi-auto handgun.
 
Mike Irwin, I AGREE about the CORRECT way to "Speed-eject", IF the revo is being used in a "Serious" situation...THAT having been said, the ONLY revolvers I have EVER had "trap" an empty under the extractor star were S&W K-frames...and , in my LIMITED experience--only been shootin' S&W's since 1974 or so--the "short-barreled" ones are the MOST likely to do it--trap an empty under the "star"--so, for THAT reason, AS WELL AS the others that I mentioned, I AVOID the K-frame guns that have LESS THAN full-length extraction...kinda' like I don't put the plugged-in boombox next to the bathtub when I'm bathing...you get the idea....mikey357
 
(THIS is GOING to BE fun...)

YES the K-FRAME revolvers WILL trap CASES under THE ejector STARS, but THEY are BY no MEANS the ONLY ones TO do SO. babying THE cases OUT of THE cylinder CAN result IN a TRAPPED case WITH any OF s&w's REVOLVERS.

the ONE advantage THAT the FULL stroke EJECTOR rods DO have OVER the SHORTER rods IS that IF you DO get A case TRAPPED, the EXTRA length GIVES you A little MORE room IN which TO clear THE jam.

TO my WAY of THINGING, the ONLY reason FOR the SNUBBY revolvers IS for POSSIBLY serious WORK. as SUCH, they SHOULD be HANDLED as IF being USED in A serious SITUATION, even IF you ARE at THE range.

WOW, typing THAT was HARDER than I thought IT was GOING to BE!
 
I hate when you guys fight! [Blueduck runs crying from the room];)

Speaking of that though, I've yet to get a 357 case stuck under the the star of my 2 1/2" gun, had it happen on my full ejector guns with no real problem getting the case out (just a little fiddling).

If it does happen with the 2 1/2" are you pretty much stuck having to unscrew the ejector rod to get it out or is there a quicker way???
 
"If it does happen with the 2 1/2" are you pretty much stuck having to unscrew the ejector rod to get it out or is there a quicker way???"

Yeah.

You hold it in one hand so that you can keep the ejector rod fully depressed and then finagle the case out with the fingers on your other hand.

A leatherman tool does a good job in this. Grab the rim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Practical CCW differences between S&W M60 & M64 ~2" revolvers?
Replies
4
Views
826
aguyindallas
A
M
  • Locked
Barrel to frame ratio.
Replies
7
Views
582
9mmepiphany
9mmepiphany
Brian Williams
  • Locked
Is "K is to L" like "L is to N"?????
Replies
6
Views
625
C.R.Sam
C
C
  • Locked
Which is more concealable, a 4" K-frame or a 3" L-frame?
Replies
12
Views
2K
chaim
C
C
  • Locked
Thinking about a new carry revolver
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
sidheshooter
S
Back
Top