• You are using the old High Contrast theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

S&W .357 K frame

Status
Not open for further replies.

ArchAngelCD

Member.
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
27,172
Location
Northeast PA, USA
OK, S&W brought back the 4" M66 and this year released the 3" M66 too.

Who would like to see the 3" M65 brought back too? I know I want one. Fixed sights would be great for CC.

IMO the M13 would be even better...
 
I'd vote for the Model 13 in 3" trim. One of the true K-frame classics. Model 65, meh. The new matte stainless finish S&W is using is pretty boring, so I'd personally prefer blued.
 
Agreed that the S&W M-13 / 65 3" HB is a fine handgun. However, I am not sold on the new, two piece, shrouded barrel configuration.
I had a 4" M619 back when they first came out. I was very pleased with the accuracy or the two piece barrel. It's another gun I wish I had not sold. (Fixed sights like the M65 but with a 7 round cylinder)
 
Unfortunately it isn't a true 3" S&W 66, it is the 2.75" barrel. If they brought back the 3" barrel m65 or 13 I'd probably buy two or three

Yeah, when I read the first post I was all "WHAT DID I MISS!?!?!" and then I realized we were talking about the 2.75" 66, and I realized the answer to the question was "nothing."
 
Are you really telling me you are going to jump on me about writing 3" instead of 2.75"? When carrying or shooting there is no real difference between the two.
 
Could definitely go for a 3" Model 13 or Model 65. Had a 4" Model 13 years ago and really loved the balance and handling of that gun. Same thing with a Ruger Speed Six I use to own.
 
S&W is where it is now and will never change....As it is run by the Accountants and Attorneys. NOT by anyone who gives a hoot about Smith products, or shooters or anything else, other than PROFIT.

The TRUE 3" 13/65 with a traditional barrel will never return....unless they deem it profitable. The two piece barrel will prevail as it is easier to manufacture...thereby profitable.

Smith is unfortunately not the Company it once was.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you really telling me you are going to jump on me about writing 3" instead of 2.75"? When carrying or shooting there is no real difference between the two.

I don't mean to jump on you, I was just disappointed because I love 3" K-frames and had thought Smith and Wesson had reintroduced one to production without me knowing.
 
S&W is where it is now and will never change....As it is run by the Accountants and Attorneys. NOT by anyone who gives a hoot about Smith products, or shooters or anything else, other than PROFIT.

The TRUE 3" 13/65 with a traditional barrel will never return....unless they deem it profitable. The two piece barrel will prevail as it is easier to manufacture...thereby profitable.

Smith is unfortunately not the Company it once was.
While many (if not most) of us favor the older S&W revolvers, one suspects that there are just as many of us who have positive experience with the newer versions. I went through my "damn the lock" phase and have evolved into a "If it suits my needs, I'm gonna buy one" mode. S&W is still putting out a darn good revolver, and they're not being made by accountants and attorneys. The very fact that S&W has ramped up its "Classic Series" models as well as paying homage to a number of its older thoroughbreds, i.e., the Model 66 and 586, should tell you that the company is, in fact, concerned about what shooters think, and want.

Unless you haven't been paying attention lo these past thirty years or so, you haven't noted that we just can't hand-make guns the way we could in the old days and still pay our employees. Yeah, profits do matter for the folks that run the companies, but there are still an awful lot of quality firearms being produced ... as there are still a lot of the guys sitting around moaning about how things just aren't as well-made today as they were in the old days. Some of us, however, were actually around in the old days and can appreciate that there's still guns getting made today just as well, or better, than in the past.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If they used ONE PIECE BARRELS and dropped the Hillary lock, I'd be happy with a new S&W 66.

But they won't.

Deaf
 
I've thought about getting one of the "new" 66's but I'd want a 4" barrel. I just have enough guns I don't shoot, so I've held off on it. I had a 69 for a while and really liked it. I sold it when some new bright shiny thing caught my eye. Almost bought it back again a few weeks later. I'm fickle. What can I say?

I'm the lone dissenter who never cared for the old Model 13/65 (or the heavy barrel Model 10/64). I've bought a couple, thinking "I'm going to like these. Everyone else does." Nope. I never did. I finally gave up on them.
 
Yeah, I agree. It's disappointing they won't remove that stain on their name even though it's not necessary.
And it's strange they DO make some J frames without that Hillary lock AND they have one piece barrels!!! Strange and frustrating.

Deaf
 
And it's strange they DO make some J frames without that Hillary lock AND they have one piece barrels!!! Strange and frustrating.

Deaf
I'm fairly sure the Centennial J frame has a no lock option because it's a popular BUG for law enforcement and they refuse, for the most part, to use a gun with a lock that can fail and disabled the gun.
 
While many (if not most) of us favor the older S&W revolvers, one suspects that there are just as many of us who have positive experience with the newer versions. I went through my "damn the lock" phase and have evolved into a "If it suits my needs, I'm gonna buy one" mode. S&W is still putting out a darn good revolver, and they're not being made by accountants and attorneys. The very fact that S&W has ramped up its "Classic Series" models as well as paying homage to a number of its older thoroughbreds, i.e., the Model 66 and 586, should tell you that the company is, in fact, concerned about what shooters think, and want.

Unless you haven't been paying attention lo these past thirty years or so, you haven't noted that we just can't hand-make guns the way we could in the old days and still pay our employees. Yeah, profits do matter for the folks that run the companies, but there are still an awful lot of quality firearms being produced ... as there are still a lot of the guys sitting around moaning about how things just aren't as well-made today as they were in the old days. Some of us, however, were actually around in the old days and can appreciate that there's still guns getting made today just as well, or better, than in the past.

Never stated they made a poor product , or that quality arms were no longer being produced. It is simply not the Company it once was. I'll keep all of my older Smiths. I prefer pinned and recessed and one piece barrels.

The new Classic series may be an homage to the older
Smiths but they don't really compare.
 
I have the 2.75 inch M66-8, and am still evaluating it. It was "ventilating" particles, according to S&W terminology. I just got it back from S&W today. I like the two piece barrel and the new detent lockup. I think the barrel will eliminate the sight alignment issues, and maybe the slight constriction at the frame threads, since the high torque crush fit should not be necessary.
Unlike older two piece barrels, the new ones are not obvious from the side. They look more like they have a recessed crown. The design has eliminated the need for a flat spot on the bottom of the rear part of the barrel. Before I sent the revolver back for warranty repair, which went off without any problems other than the need to wait 6 weeks, I found it to shoot as well as I can tell.
I would prefer to have the same satin finish as my M640Pro, but I can live with the bead blasted finish. I have replaced the rubber grips with Ahrends finger grove boot grips, that I have finished with Tung oil, after reshaping slightly to fit my hand. While the gun was back for repairs, my new Lobo Gunleather Original Pancake holster arrived.
Per the repair slip, they recut the forcing cone and repaired the yoke. The need to repair the yoke makes me think that the "venting" (spitting) was caused by mis alignment of the cylinder chambers and the barrel. The almost non existent forcing cone probably didn't help.
The overall quality now seems very good, with a BC gap of .004 inch. Much better than gaps of twice that that I have measured on other new S&W revolvers that I have had over past several years. Lockup is very tight.
I am loading ammo for a range test on Monday.

Best,
Rick
 
Last edited:
For me it's not just the completely un-necessary lock. The two piece barrels are more a statement about "cheapness" on the part of the manufacturer than it is about "innovation". And the frame mounted firing pins are so much more inefficient than the hammer mounted version of earlier models I won't own another one. Trying to get a decent DA trigger pull while still igniting every brand of primer (my requirement for a defensive revolver) is like juggling jello.

I'm stuck with two of the newer guns now and I'm trying to convince myself I have to admit I was stupid in buying them and sell them for a loss, like all the other guns I've sold over the years.

As an aside: how do people make money selling guns? I've never managed that in 50 years as a handgun owner/shooter. (LOL)

Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top