The Combat Masterpiece

[doubleh]

Yes, the Model 19 has the ability of shooting 357 Magnum, but before the current design improvements on the Model 19/66, it is not capable of handling a steady diet of full power 357 Magnum loads.

A Model 15 will shoot 38 Special ammunition until the cows come home.

As will the model 19. My first S&W was a model 14 with an 8" barrel but no full length under lug. It might not have been available when I bought mine. Down the road a piece I bought a Dan Wesson 15-3 VH 8 and found I was a better shot with it than the model 14. Sometime later I found my model 19 on display and I traded the 14 for the 19. The failing of the earlier model 19's to stand up to a steady diet of 357 loads has never been a problem for me as I have shot very few in the gun. To me it is an unpleasant experience. The DW is much more user friendly as is the Ruger BlackHawk.

I did have an early problem with the DW. The rear sight adjustment screw would back out under recoil. I did some measuring and found the rear sight on my Super BlackHawk was a perfect fit and got my gun dealer buddy to order one. Problem solved.

 

[Riomouse911]

Besides the Model 68, some 2,000 "Dayton" Ohio distributor guns were
produced as Model 14s with its heavy barrel in 4-inch but with the
Model 15 sight configuration. Also a few small batches reportedly
were made for a couple police departments. This was in the 1960s IIRC.

And in the 1980s the Model 15 name was continued but with the
Model 14 heavy barrel, no longer the tapered one.

For me, however, the Model 15 will always be the 2- and 4-inch tapered
barrel model along with the tapered barrel Model 67.

As an aside, the Models 28 and 27 with their tapered barrels were also
the most appealing of the N-frames.

I like tapered barrel N frames as well. I don’t have any N frame 357’s though (yet?), mine are in S&W’s .44 calibers instead.



Stay safe.

 

[Jim Watson]

there are some 4" Model 14's.

2,000 "Dayton" Ohio distributor guns were
produced as Model 14s with its heavy barrel in 4-inch but with the
Model 15 sight configuration.

Years and years ago, I saw a 4" with the short ramp and Patridge sight of the Model 14. I did not look for the model number, I was fixated on the M19 on the next shelf. It was not of first quality, I had the rear sight run way to the right to get on target although there was no apparent cant of the barrel.

 

[Rodfac]

The light barrel of the Model 15/67 mates perfectly with the .38 Special cartridge. Easy toting, smooth handling and great shooting

That says it all...beautifully balanced and light on the gun belt with enough power for normal daily carry (with handloading or boutique defense loads). I'm especially fond of that light bbl. as it balances in my hand. Mileage varies depending on the shooter and purpose, but a good .38 Spl., say up to the old FBI prescription (158 gr LSWC HP @ 900 + fps) will do for 99% of my needs, Regards to All, Rod

 

[halfmoonclip]

Early, stainless Smiths were really meant to be 'rustproof', including the hard chromed action parts. A buddy's M60 survived a drenching from a roof leak, which he did not discover immediately. I harangued him about it until he let me take it down; turns out all was well inside.
The stainless sights on the 67 are more of that thinking, until cooler heads pointed out that they were hard to see.
Lee's Red Ramps made a kit for an orange sight insert that was bunches brighter than the somewhat muddy factory insert. I put those in a bunch of Smiths, either replacing the OEM, or adding it to things like a M640. I'm sure I did one on that long ago M67, but cannot remember if the gun originally had a factory red insert.
Riomouse, great link about the CHPS M68s. I formerly owned one of their 16" AR carbines, with full length handguards; Colt made them to fit the existing CHPS shotgun racks.
Love the feel of a Combat Masterpiece, although a pencil barreled M64 is great as well. It's the twin of pre-model 10s of the Thirties, when guns were made lighter by machining off unnecessary metal. It's fun with full charge wadcutters.
Moon

 

[amd6547]

After falling in love with my Model 15-3, I bought a used Model 19 with 2.5” barrel. That revolver developed a timing issue after about 200rds of American Eagle 158gn SP 357mag…not the most powerful magnum load.
I had that fixed, because I really wanted to love that revolver. Shooting Magnums in it didn’t bother me at all, and I used the small Magna grips and Tyler T. The timing issue started to return after about 200rds more.
Next, I tried a 4” 686. I just didn’t bond with that revolver. I think, for me, it’s handling suffered in comparison to the Model 15, with the bigger frame and under lug barrel.
My 357 now is a 3” GP100, which I am very happy with… It shoots magnum ammo till the cows come home..

 

[CajunBass]

I have no experience with the 15 but have serious doubts that it exceeds the model 19.

I'm always torn over which I like "better" the Model 15, or the Model 19. The 19 was my first love, no doubt helped along by Bill Jordan and Skeeter Skelton. The Model 15 I sort of discovered on my own. The tapered barrel, the lack of the ejector rod underlug, and the slightly shorter, lighter cylinder makes for a lighter, trimmer, more svelte (a perfect word here), revolver.

I don't think one is "better" than the other, but they are different. A Model 19 using 38 Special ammo, is not the same thing.

I can say I have the same opinion of the Model 24 and Model 29 also.

 

[I6turbo]

I have always been torn between the Model 15 and the Model 19 as to which I like best. Since this is about the Model 15, that's the one for now, and I'm really tempted to say it's edged out the Model 19 overall, but if that's true, it's not by much. I just think of them as "fraternal twins" maybe.

Model 67-1, from 1985.

I also have a 67-1 from 1985, shown lower left below, just below the 586.

I like the K-frame guns a lot, and I LOVE the L-frame 586/686.

 

[CajunBass]

I like the K-frame guns a lot, and I LOVE the L-frame 586/686.

I put a 4", 686 on layaway just today. I've never owned one despite all the Smith and Wesson's I've owned over the years. You better believe if they'd had a 586 like that one you've got, the 686, would still be in the case. Fine looking revolvers you got there.

 

[Rockrivr1]

Have a M15-2 that was my Uncle's service revolver when he was a local police officer in our town. When he passed he left it to me. She's a very sweet shooter. Posing with a chromed M19 and stainless 66.

 

[Great Scot]

Love my Combat Master!

 

[I6turbo]

I put a 4", 686 on layaway just today. I've never owned one despite all the Smith and Wesson's I've owned over the years. You better believe if they'd had a 586 like that one you've got, the 686, would still be in the case. Fine looking revolvers you got there.

From a practical standpoint it's hard to make a stronger case for the blued guns than the corresponding stainless, but the blue ones really have an appeal. Same with rifles for me.

What version of the 686 are you getting?

 

[CajunBass]

A -4, six shot. About as boring as one can be I suppose.

 

[I6turbo]

A -4, six shot. About as boring as one can be I suppose.

You probably know all about it, but some would argue that the -4 was the best 686 ever built. Last version prior to the MIM parts, last one with a hammer-mounted firing pin, factory drilled for optics, no internal lock. If the action or accuracy is any better than my no-dash 1983 model, I can't imagine how it could be possible.

 

[Rodfac]

From a practical standpoint it's hard to make a stronger case for the blued guns than the corresponding stainless, but the blue ones really have an appeal.

Yep...It took me almost 40 years to admit to those simple facts...but half a lifetime of canoeing, back packing, horse, tractor and 4-wheeler use in northern Minnesota, Colorado, Washington, Montana, Idaho & our stretch of KY has built a grudging respect for stainless steel. Easier to keep well cared for, tougher (I think) than highly blued carbon, it makes sense for a working gun far from the chimney smoke.

All of those sensical thoughts, notwithstanding, a finely blued and walnut stocked firearm, be it handgun, rifle or shotgun, is a truly beautiful piece of machinery...a delight to the eye and a pleasure to use & admire with old friends.

Truth be told, I ENJOY, taking care of them. A cpl of Blued vs. Stainless below.

Best regards, Rod

​

 

[CajunBass]

You probably know all about it, but some would argue that the -4 was the best 686 ever built. Last version prior to the MIM parts, last one with a hammer-mounted firing pin, factory drilled for optics, no internal lock. If the action or accuracy is any better than my no-dash 1983 model, I can't imagine how it could be possible.

Sorry, my mistake. I went back and checked the layaway receipt. It's a -6, not a -4. Doesn't matter to me really since things like locks, MIM, and frame mounted firing pins don't bother me.

 

[Old_Grouch]

a finely blued and walnut stocked firearm, be it handgun, rifle or shotgun, is a truly beautiful piece of machinery...a delight to the eye and a pleasure to use & admire with old friends.

Truth be told, I ENJOY, taking care of them.

AHA! So I'm not the only one that thinks this way.

 

[Zeabed]

This is, from what I've been able to learn, my nickel-plated K-38 Combat Masterpiece that dates from 1955 based on the serial number. I understand that they didn't call this the model 15 until 1958.

 

[cfullgraf]

All of those sensical thoughts, notwithstanding, a finely blued and walnut stocked firearm, be it handgun, rifle or shotgun, is a truly beautiful piece of machinery...a delight to the eye and a pleasure to use & admire with old friends.

Me too. I do not mind caring for blued firearms.

I’ve avoided nickel plated guns for the most part but I have one or two in the mix.

Nothing wrong with nickel plated guns, I just prefer blued ones.

Most of my new revolvers are stainless except for the “Classic” series guns I’ve purchased.

 

[Mark_Mark]

View attachment 1179544

I was about 9 years old when my friend and I discovered a stash of old Stoeger's Shooter's Bibles in his basement. Seeing ads like this screenshot from the internet made the Combat Masterpiece a grail gun decades before that term was born.

So, I can play. I'll see your Model 15 and raise you one.

View attachment 1179546

only $71.50 back in the days!

 

[CajunBass]

only $71.50 back in the days!

Well, sure, but you have to remember what people got paid back then. That looks like a really low price NOW, but in the 60's when I was drooling over those same Shooters Bibles, it looked like all the money in the world. I knew I'd never be able to afford one, and it would be another decade or so before I could.

 

[J-Bar]

Well, sure, but you have to remember what people got paid back then. That looks like a really low price NOW, but in the 60's when I was drooling over those same Shooters Bibles, it looked like all the money in the world. I knew I'd never be able to afford one, and it would be another decade or so before I could.

My father was a real estate executive in the mid-1950s, earning about $7000 a year, so the Combat Masterpiece would have been 1% of his salary. Wiki says the average income for full time workers in 2022 was about $56,000. One percent of that is $560, not far from today's prices. So the gun maintains its relative value.

 

[Mark_Mark]

My father was a real estate executive in the mid-1950s, earning about $7000 a year, so the Combat Masterpiece would have been 1% of his salary. Wiki says the average income for full time workers in 2022 was about $56,000. One percent of that is $560, not far from today's prices. So the gun maintains its relative value.

I think $56,000 is for an average worker who would buy a average Glock for $499

A realtor Executive these day would be a min of $180,000. And at 1%, that would be $1,800 for that Smith. I think back in the days, people had a few gun, but these days, people have a few Dozen Guns

 

[halfmoonclip]

Rodfac, your 67 must be somewhat earlier than mine. The early ones had stainless adjustable sights, and even lack the red insert on the front sight. Yeah, the stainless sights are harder to see, and I've painted the front sight on mine.
Moon

 

[Rodfac]

Rodfac, your 67 must be somewhat earlier than mine. The early ones had stainless adjustable sights,
and even lack the red insert on the front sight. Yeah, the stainless sights are harder to see, and I've painted the front sight on mine.
Moon

That’s my M-67-1 in my earlier post; a Louisville Police turn-in, with SS front (plus orange insert), & blued rear sights. Don’t know if they are original to the gun, but suspect that they are. The orange insert works well for me, framed by the blue rear, in most any light. Rio and some of the other LEO’s might have alternate opinions as to the front sights utility in their line of work. Best regards Rod