That's weird as the L frame is still basically a slightly beefed up K frame. The grip and trigger reach is identical to the K frame, and the weight is simular as well, e.g., the 4" 686 is 40.3 oz vs the 4" 19 @ 37.4 oz. 3oz isn't a big difference IMHO.New, in-the-cosmoline-never-fired Yugo SKS. Thought it would make a great plinker or truck gun. Reliable, but too inaccurate and way too heavy. Goodbye.
Glock 36. Carried and shot a lot. Broke three times in my hands (trigger group pins broke). Down the road.
S&W 686. Just somehow not as good a fit as my k-frames (19/64) or N-frames (28/58). I still have this one. Though I don't know why.
That's weird as the L frame is still basically a slightly beefed up K frame. The grip and trigger reach is identical to the K frame, and the weight is simular as well, e.g., the 4" 686 is 40.3 oz vs the 4" 19 @ 37.4 oz. 3oz isn't a big difference IMHO.
I recently read an old post of some saying something similar which is why I ask, plus I'm thinking about picking up an N frame.
I don't know what the weights are on the older Smiths, but on the current models, the weights between the K and L frames very similar. As far as the 64-5 goes, that's not really a fair comparison being that that particular K frame doesn't have an underlug. Other K-frames do.My 4" 64-5 weighs 35.4 ounces, and my 4" 686-3 (a six shot) weighs 42.5 ounces. That's 20% heavier. The heavier barrel underlug and overlug, and the larger-diameter cylinder all contribute. As you mentioned, the trigger LOP, frame size, grip size, etc., all seem pretty comparable.
That extra weight forward of the trigger just seems to mess with the perfection that is the model 64.
Heck, my 4" 28-2 only weighs 43 ounces. And I think it balances better than the 686.
I put a Hogue overlay rubber grip on a CZ-75 and it improved greatly on the scores. Eventually through I traded it for a S&W Modal 10-5, 4 inch el in .38 Special. The Model 10 is a well used and worn bluing revolver, but it is also the best revolver I've ever shot taking several trophies. I like it for my standard carry gun.CZ-75 and the HK P30 series.
Say WHAT? I don't have super-long fingers, but I've always considered the DA trigger reach on the CZ-75, even the Compact, to be too long. But, yes, I agree it's heavy for its size, especially if you're comparing it to a polymer-framed pistol, but for $300, geez, it's gotta be a keeper. It's not so much the weight, it's how it shoots -- soft shooter, easily managed recoil, points well...CZ-75D compact. The trigger reach was WAY to short for my long fingers! The curved trigger pinched my trigger finger on every round! It was also way too heavy for its size / number of rounds it held, no way would I want to carry it. I bought it used for $300 so it wasn't too painful of a mistake.
Say WHAT? I don't have super-long fingers, but I've always considered the DA trigger reach on the CZ-75, even the Compact, to be too long. But, yes, I agree it's heavy for its size, especially if you're comparing it to a polymer-framed pistol, but for $300, geez, it's gotta be a keeper. It's not so much the weight, it's how it shoots -- soft shooter, easily managed recoil, points well...
View attachment 1173018
She's got pretty good taste (and I know the myriad CZ-75 fans on THR will agree). By the way, I also am an unabashed and unapologetic Beretta 92-series fan (and yes, I'm aware the slide-mounted safety goes the "wrong way.")The second pistol I ever purchased and the pistol I learned to shoot with was a Beretta 92... which I still own and love. I figured the CZ 75D compact would be a natural since I already really like DA/SA with a decocker. It just really didn't work for me. Out of all my pistols my girl friend liked the CZ-75D the best... so it has a happy home with someone who appreciates it.
She's got pretty good taste (and I know the myriad CZ-75 fans on THR will agree). By the way, I also am an unabashed and unapologetic Beretta 92-series fan (and yes, I'm aware the slide-mounted safety goes the "wrong way.")