S&W K vs L frame

[rEVOLVED]

Thanks, Buzzcook. Like I said, almost exclusively .38 specials due to me being broke. And I won't let crud build up. I plan to clean my gun after every trip to the range.

[blackdog_507]

Thanks for all the advice....

This one by chance? - HappyHunting

HH - Yep, that's the one I have my eye on now.....

+1 K if relatively infrequent .357, SD/HD or carry use. Shoot .38s , "medium" 158s for practice or trail, +P .38s for HD. Enough .357s just to acquaint yourself to the gun/round. Have had 66s and, now, the best of the K-bunch IMO as my use is carry/SD/HD where adjustable sights are much less a factor, the 65LS--yes Lady Smith. Lots of hot .357 = L frame. - gak

gak - This sounds about like me, relatively infrequent 357, probably going to keep a few really hot SD Hornady loads around just in case, and I'll probably shoot more mild 357's just to acclimate myself to the handling of the gun so I'm prepared for when I have to use them.

Like I said, almost exclusively .38 specials due to me being broke - rEVOLVED

This also sounds about like me.

I'd go with the 19/66. To me, the K frame handles quicker, points naturally, and isn't muzzle heavy like the 586/686 (of which I also own examples).

I think the K-frame is more nimble, and has a lower bore axis. It's several ounces lighter, too.

Many, myself included, feel that the K-Frame balances better in the hand and, with the half-underlug, is a more attractive looking revolver. Also, the lighter weight and smaller dimensions of the K-Frame makes it a better choice if concealed carry is part of the equation.

These three quotes are pretty much exactly what I'm looking for. I quick handling, nimble gun that feels "right" in my hand

All this being said, I saw a picture of a Nickel 19 with some Jay Scott pearl grips on it and LOVED the look. I handled a 686 at the store the other day (it was NIB, round butt, rubber grips, 7 shot) and it felt like A LOT of gun, which isn't really what I'm wanting. I know another dealer in town who has a couple model 15 38's, would they feel about the same as a 19/66? If I like those, I think I'm going to go 19..... Thanks for all the advice here..... more suggestions welcome!!!!

[orionengnr]

I agree with the statement "Try both and buy what feels right to you."

I have owned both the 4" M586 and the 4" M19/66 (one each).
For my money, the K-frame does everything right.

I liked the 586, and shot it well, but sold it, because I wanted to buy something else and in my economy, the gun that gets carried/shot least gets sold before another one gets bought.

Both the 19 and the 66 are still here.

As is the 5" M-27, but it may be next...

[QuarterHorse]

Never shot my mother's Model 19 Nickel but have my Dad's 586. After handling both, the 586/686 would be the only one I'd go with.

[T. O'Heir]

"...not as easy to handle..." Actually easier. Balance is better. Mind you, that's a personal preference. The fit to your hand is far more important.
Nickle is 19th Century rust preventing technology. SS is not.

[sandbag]

I really like S&W revolvers.
I have to say get a nice N Frame with a partial underlug.
I owned a 586 and couldn't get comfortable with the full lug barrel.Funny,because I also have a Python that has a full lug,but balances much better.
I have a pre-28 Highway Patrolman.In those days the QC at Smith was superb-I also have a 6" 28 and a 6.5" 27-all pinned & recessed.Really nice shooters.
The K Frame 19 is a great revolver,but made for routine shooting with 38's and for business with 357's.
I have a Ruger GP 100 for defensive use -3" barrel and very accurate.It has a nice rubber grip-not pretty but pleasant to shoot even with 125 gr JHP screamers.
I didn't mention the 66 because they had some serious QC problems-more difference than finish between the 19 and 66.My 19 is nickel-I had a blue one that I sold.

[Webleymkv]

I didn't mention the 66 because they had some serious QC problems-more difference than finish between the 19 and 66.

The issues you're probably referencing were ironed out by the time the 66-1 was introduced.

The biggest issue was that early M66 revolvers had a tendency to bind up after they heated up from shooting several cylinders full of magnum ammo. This was solved with the 66-1 by moving the gas ring from the yoke to the cylinder.

Also, early M66's had galling of the internal parts due to them being all stainless steel. This was solved on later models by going to carbon steel internal parts and hard chroming them.

Finally, early M66's had stainless sights that could wash out the sight picture in bright light. Later guns had black sights.

Also, the M66 and M65 seem to be somewhat less likely to experience cracked forcing cones than the M19 and M13.

[rEVOLVED]

I've been drivin myself crazy trying to pick which gun to buy. The local shop has a 66-1 and a 28-2 both in good enough condition. My brother will probably get the 28. I can't decide if I want to get the 66 or get a 28 off gunbroker. How is the 66 recoil with .38s?

[Buzzcook]

How is the 66 recoil with .38s?

It depends. I don't have any problems with average rounds at average speeds. I can't shoot +p rounds all day long.

Even with +p rounds you don't have to worry about loosing control due to recoil.

[Gonzo_308]

Carbine Caleb, I've stolen that pic to use in future situations. I will mark it "Thanks to Carbine Caleb"

[davem]

On another thread I mentioned using 357 cases reloaded to 38 special pressures. In a Model 19 that eliminated the chance of the shorter cases causing a problem although on one gun I've probably put about 5,000 38 Specials through it without any noticeable problem.
Re: recoil. Boy that's a tough one to call. There are little tiny guys that sort of "go with the gun" and shoot 44 magnums without a hitch. Then there are big tough guys fighting the gun that claim a 357 Magnum or even a 45 Gvt has a lot of kick. I think a lot of it depends on how you handle the gun.
Along the same lines, a lot of folks automatically stick on a pair of oversized grips "because they have big hands". Elmer Keith was one tough fellow and had big tough hands and preferred just the old fashioned, regular grip. On his writings I took off my over-sized grips and put on smaller ones. The actual portion of the grip bearing against the web of your hand is actually about the same and I found the old grips better. So, a lot of the recoil situation is a matter of personal style, etc.
L frame or K frame? My guns are my children. And...like human children, I love them equally. Can't help you on that one.

[old bear]

Both the K and L frame are excellent revolvers, with the L frame being a little larger, but not so large that it is cumbersome to carry. Yet IMHO the M-19/66 4” is the classic American made police or self-defense firearm. So unless you were planning on running tons of super hot rounds through it I would opt for the K frame. Remember S&W is no longer making the M-19/66 and they are getting harder to find one in decent condition at a price most can or will afford.

Enjoy whatever you get!

[CarbineCaleb]

Originally Posted by Gonzo_308

Carbine Caleb, I've stolen that pic to use in future situations. I will mark it "Thanks to Carbine Caleb"

No problem - glad it was helpful... it does show the difference between the two - which some claim is nonexistant

[WVfishguy]

I saw a Ruger Security Six today, 161 series, blued, great target grips which I've never seen before (looked like old Herretts made for Smith & Wessons, but they had factory Ruger medallions) nice finish, all for $295 plus tax out the door.

With the Ruger, you get the handling of the S&W 19/66 plus the strength of the S&W 586/686. No locks to worry about.

A lot of people will argue the superiority of the trigger action of the S&Ws, but in the real world, the differences in the trigger pull are moot point when you actually shoot the revolver.

I've got eight Rugers revolvers (possibly one more tomorrow morning), and 26 Smith and Wesson revolvers. I know what I'm talking about.

[laytonj1]

With the Ruger...
I know what I'm talking about.

Let's not turn this into a Ruger vs. S&W thread...
And, I'd have to disagree.

Jim