-LEGENDARY- handguns that you think are over-rated

[Sevens]

Haha, I'm attempting to wrap my brain around a situation where someone has an obvious loathing for a model but yet has put himself through ~NINE~ of them. Nine!

What? Why? And why not an even, round ten?
Couldn't quit after two bad ones? Three? SIX?!

[pete2]

I'll take a 1911 or S&W 19 over anything else for a carry gun. And, yes, I own Glock, Beretta and Rugers.

[Jim Watson]

If you think a Model 19 is overrated, it is because you are not using it as it was intended, 75% Specials for training and practice, 25% Magnums for duty and occasional familiarization with full power ammo.
Also because you are not using it in an environment without common automatics and common hollowpoint automatic ammo.

If you think a 1911 is overrated, it is because you are not happy with seven rounds of hardball and you want a lot of post-military "features" that come at the expense of quality materials and artisanal assembly.

Scortch, you keep saying "S&W K frames... But the gun was originally designed for police work in the 1920s and chambered in 32 Long. Later adapted to 38 Special,"
As best I can tell, the K frame size Smith & Wesson was introduced in 1899 as the first model Military & Police, .38 S&W Special and U.S. Government CTG. It was revised mechanically in 1902 and again in 1905 but stayed the same size and caliber.
The only .32 S&W Long K frames I know of are the scarce K32 and the exceedingly rare .32 Long fixed sight M&P. There are rather a lot of K frame .32-20s out there, though.
True, the first S&W Hand Ejector was the 1896 .32 Long, but that was on what became known as the I frame, later stretched into the J frame to hold .38 Special.

[tipoc]

The title of this thread is Legendary-handguns that you think are over-rated, so right away we're in a hole. Most legendary things are that way for a reason. If the op had started with Legendary Handgun Failures, then that would be more interesting, or at least you wouldn't start out in a hole.

Now the OP dug himself in deeper by choosing 3 decent guns to begin with. Each one earned it's status as a legendary gun or guns.

Then we have the fellas who say that they are over-rated because they are older and no longer make it with "modern combat tactics" or what ever the buzz words are currently. This thinking effects nothing as the Roman Gladius and the Colt Model 1873 are over-rated cuz you'll be outgunned up against a few fellas with an AK or AR. It's pointless thinking.

But the title was what legendary guns that you think are over-rated. Meaning there has to be no logic to it. If you think Shakespeare is over-rated because no one speaks like that anymore and you can't read him then that opinion is as useful as someone that knows what they are talking about. Abe Lincoln is over-rated cuz who wears hats like that?

tipoc

[Carmady]

Abe Lincoln is over-rated cuz who wears hats like that?

Bob Dylan

Tom Petty (RIP)

[Charlie98]

Haha, I'm attempting to wrap my brain around a situation where someone has an obvious loathing for a model but yet has put himself through ~NINE~ of them. Nine!

What? Why? And why not an even, round ten?
Couldn't quit after two bad ones? Three? SIX?!

Because I was always hoping the next one would be better... I mean, they can't screw them ALL up, can they??? The .41 was on my Unobtanium list... I couldn't resist. The .44 was a right handy pistol, and I always wanted a .44SPC... I couldn't resist. I'm weak that way... albeit not with Ruger pistols anymore.

Speaking of legendary overrates... the .44 SPC.

[Drm50]

S&W m19 was a revolver of practical size and wieght for police to have 357 power. The S&W DAs are the best revolvers ever built. Now the Python is the
357 that is over rated and it won't take anymore punishment than a m19. Truth
be known S&W m27 is the Cadillac of 357s.

1911 Colt and Brn Hi power are 2 of the best auto pistols ever built. Over rated?
I don't think most gun guys would agree with that.

The S&W DA revolvers, Colt 1911, Browning HP are the guns that passed the
grade years ago. Other guns are judged by comparing to these models.

Rugers are well built guns but not in same class with S&Ws, Colts & Brownings.
The guns I think of as overrated are Glocks and other plastic pistols. Also the
imported stuff like Taraus, Rossi ect. It's true quality has slipped in newer
models of these guns. By same token the newer models of all the major makers
have had cheapening by bean Counters.

[JJ45]

I know the K-Frame has been around for a while. But I thought Bill Jordan had the most influence on S&W to produce the M19 for the Border Patrol...As was said in earlier posts a lighter weight, more compact .357 than the M27/28...For practice .38s, for duty Plus Ps OR .357s.

[357 Terms]

Glocks definitely.

As for the K-frame 357's.....limiting yourself by not being able to shoot a firearm that is chambered in a cartridge that will damage said firearm seems a little ridiculous.

That's like having a Ferrari and putting around in it, getting passed by a minivan because driving like it was intended would hurt it.
If said gun is chambered in a certain caliber, it damn well should be able to handle it!!

[tipoc]

As for the K-frame 357's.....limiting yourself by not being able to shoot a firearm that is chambered in a cartridge that will damage said firearm seems a little ridiculous.

Many get the K frame .357 wrong. But others have addressed that so...

The only thing that will harm most firearms is shooting them a steady diet of the cartridge they are intended for and chambered in. So what's new, if you stand in the rain you get wet.

The logic of the above would make the Kimber K6 revolver and any J frame chambered in .357 "a little ridiculous". Firing a steady diet of heavy and or hot .357 through these revolvers will cause premature wear and more frequent tune-ups. Particularly if the gun is improperly maintained.

Folks know that you pick a gun for the job you want it to do and a round for that task that the shooter can handle well from that gun. Some may decide that if you can't shoot 200 rounds a week of 125gr. jhp at 1300 fps from a 3" model 13 without premature wear to the gun, then the gun is no good. Seems to me "a little ridiculous".

Here is a good load for the .357...

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/10...heck-box-of-20

It's a hunting load. Experienced shooters know that this is not a good load for a lighter weight everyday carry piece. It's a hunting load and only a novice or a sadomasochist would place this load in a J frame or the K 6 or anything but the appropriate gun for the task and expect to shoot it as a steady diet for those guns.

You can shoot a ton of good defensive rated .357 through a K frame. It has been done. But if you don't know the limitations and intent of the gun it can be worn out prematurely or damaged.

tipoc

[357 Terms]

The logic of the above would make the Kimber K6 revolver and any J frame chambered in .357 "a little ridiculous

I'm thinking most people, after shooting 357's out of a J-frame, might see it a ridiculous regardless of the damage to the gun.
As for the K-frames holding up to a steady diet of 357's
.....why does there seem to be a consensus of the "practice with 38's, carry 357's" if the K's can hold up to a steady diet of 357's ?

[Model12Win]

Originally Posted by stephen426

Dons Flame Retardant Suit...

Beretta 92

They are decent handguns, but a bit over-rated in my opinion.

Overrated? It's like the most dogged full size 9 ever LOL.

[Ricklin]

In my experience, if something physically hurts me I shall cease that activity.

Firing full house .357 in a J frame size gun hurts. If it hurts, I don't do it.

Thus I don't carry a J frame in .357, nor do I even own one. 2 rounds with a friends gun was one round too many. In fact the second round was only fired to learn if my grip was why the first round felt like an M-80 went off in my hand. Nope, it was not my grip.

I'll stick with my Glock 19 for my "heavy" carry piece, thank you very much.

[tipoc]

.....why does there seem to be a consensus of the "practice with 38's, carry 357's" if the K's can hold up to a steady diet of 357's ?

Because the above statement is incorrect, wrong.

When the M19 was introduced in 1955 Bill Jordan and S&W said that it was a gun to allow lawmen and others to use their 38 Spl. for practice and use their duty loads in 357 on the job. It was the first time any small framed handgun was chambered in 357 Magnum and it was a game changer. It was built on a beefed up K frame.

Today we take the .357 Magnum for granted. But when first introduced in 1935 it was not. No other load was as powerful. The M19 was introduced in 1955.

Most police ammo in the mid 50's that was .357 was 158 gr. jacketed soft point or lead. Most folks back then did not shoot a whole lot of 357 through their K frames. This was because the 38 Spl. was the most widely used revolver round for self defense and because of muzzle blast and recoil. As time went on this changed. There were few reported issues with the K frames other than premature wear when a lot of .357 was fired and more frequent trips to gunsmiths for tune ups. But that was expected. Most folks forgot the earlier talk about their role. There was no consensus on how to use them, it was forgotten. They were proven to work well with .357 ammo.

The first serious issues with the K frame .357 ammo began after the appearance of Super Vel ammo in the 1970s. This was the first more or less reliable jhp ammo that actually more or less expanded for the .357 Mag. Lee Jurras loaded his ammo hot a 110 jhp bullet from a 4" barrel at over 1450 fps and a 125 gr. at very close to 1400 fps. This set a new standard of speed and performance. It became the go to round for many in law enforcement and every other ammo manufacturer followed where Jurras led. This was when the K frames first began to show issues in premature erosion of the forcing cones and occasionally cracked forcing cones. This development took time. As I mentioned the earlier advice from Jordan was forgotten. S&W issued no warnings at any time, none were really needed. There was no consensus on how the gun should be used and a good many ended up abusing the guns. More guns had no issues than the small number that did.

The changes in competitive handgunning also revealed the weaknesses of the K frames. Many were simply shooting them more than ever before with hotter loads. Some did not keep the guns clean.

S&W did beef up the guns some and the erosion and cracking did not effect the stainless steel guns as often as it did the carbon steel guns (for the same reasons that machining carbon steel is easier than machining stainless steel). The area of the frame beneath the forcing cone was again strengthened.

In this pic of an early M13 note the thin area beneath the forcing cone.



When the FBI adopted the M13 as their carry gun back in the day they choose a 158 gr. +P 38 Spl. LHP round as their choice of ammo. Not because the K frame could not handle .357 ammo but because with the hot .357 loads the shooting scores of their agents dropped due to muzzle flash and recoil. They had the sense to match the ammo to the gun and to the skills of the shooters.

The M13 below has many thousands of .357 ammo through it with no issues. It's from the early 1980s. For carry I choose a 158 gr. jhp at about 1,000 fps. It's very manageable.



When folks today say

why does there seem to be a consensus of the "practice with 38's, carry 357's" if the K's can hold up to a steady diet of 357's ?

it's because of the internet and many, many folks having to explain how the K frames 357s developed and why the K frame .357s truly were and are legendary guns.

If you buy a Ford F150 and use it as a F150 they work well. If you try to use them as a Super Duty, well not so much. You can complain about that all day, but the onus is on the driver. If the M19 is not a Ruger Redhawk, don't blame the gun blame the shooter that can't see or feel the difference.

tipoc

[357 Terms]

Quote:
.....why does there seem to be a consensus of the "practice with 38's, carry 357's" if the K's can hold up to a steady diet of 357's ?
Because the above statement is incorrect, wrong.

Ok, if that's wrong, then I'm confused, because in the very next sentence you say...

When the M19 was introduced in 1955 Bill Jordan and S&W said that it was a gun to allow lawmen and others to use their 38 Spl. for practice and use their duty loads in 357 on the job.

So why not practice with what you carry?

[tallball]

I would have to disagree about the Ruger SA revolvers. I have owned three Single Sixes, two Blackhawks, and a Super Blackhawk. I gave one Single Six away as a gift, and still have the others. They are all very good shooters. In general I would rather shoot my BH's than my S&W target revolvers, though it's a close call either way. The SBH is my very favorite handgun of many.


Apparently Charlie 98 had some EXTREMELY bad luck with his Rugers.

[tipoc]

I'm thinking most people, after shooting 357's out of a J-frame, might see it a ridiculous regardless of the damage to the gun.
As for the K-frames holding up to a steady diet of 357's
.....why does there seem to be a consensus of the "practice with 38's, carry 357's" if the K's can hold up to a steady diet of 357's ?

First no one expects the K6 or J frame .357s or the aluminum alloy framed .357s to hold up to a steady diet of the hottest or heaviest .357 ammo available with out needing repair or suffering damage. But like I said, if you pick a gun like these it's on the shooter and not the gun if the shooter shoots it to destruction or damage.

The K frame .357s have proven they will hold up to a steady diet of .357 Mag ammo if you use them as they are built to be used.

That one would find the blast and recoil from an alloy framed gun objectionable is also true for a K frame snubby.

tipoc

[tipoc]

So why not practice with what you carry?

They did and folks still do. But it's a rare knuckle head who only practices with "what they carry".

Some fellas labor under two mistaken impressions. One, is that all .357 magnum ammo is the same. It isn't. Two is that Jordan and S&W said to never practice with .357 Magnum ammo. They fully expected people to do just that.

In 1955 Dept.s would not spring for large quantities of .357 ammo which was always a second place round within law enforcement and more expensive than 38 Spl. That basic situation didn't change for most depts till the late 70s or so. S&W knew that they built a gun weaker than the N frame. They figured folks would get that and use it accordingly.

To learn more read Jordan's book, "No Second Place Winner".

tipoc

[Model12Win]

Bill Jordan also negligently killed a fellow officer by doing a quick draw demonstration in his office with a loaded gun.

[tipoc]

How does that relate?

tipoc

[357 Terms]

They did and folks still do. But it's a rare knuckle head who only practices with "what they carry".

Count me as a knucklehead I guess.
My reloads mimic the recoil and POI of my defensive loads in 357 and 45acp, it just seems logical to use the same caliber for practice in my defensive carry guns.
.....and my knucklehead doesn't play with loaded weapons.

[Old 454]

Anything Kimber....Glock..uggg.... those freaking high priced 1911's...

[RC20]

I agree fully the Glock is over rated.

It brought the worst of the gun world into peoples hands. New physical injury conditions had to be coined to describe it.
1. Glock Butt
2. Glock Leg.

44 SW Magnum: Have to agree, 41 is better overall with less recoil

1911: That is where things get dicey. The 1911 was a military fighting gun, not a civilian master piece. Some custom versions are masterpieces. Certainly not overated as a military side arm. Much like a Glock it had/has its safety issues and the normal carry was never a comfort to me. I have no idea what the fascination with the duplicates are though.

To me the best Semi auto design is the DA. H&K with the possibility of the safety takes it a bit further. Otherwise Sig etc with the heavy trigger or cocking it is great.

There may be better, but for for more of a Python or a PPK feel, HK P30 feels better than any gun (has changeable grips) and just functioning, it has what Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance refers to as quality.

As its subjective, then if you want a better discussion, you need to define it.

One guy says Glock is wonderful as its the most produced hand gun in the world.

For me, its a dangerous item that I would never own.

The 1911 was a fine combat hand gun for its time, but it does not have a time proof configuration, there are much better (DA) out there.

PPK may not feel and shoot as good, but it to has a quality all its own.

Which you prefer to carry is a whole different aspect. Then they are tools.

I had a huge laugh a while back, a 1911 custom seriously costly ($2000 plus) and how wonderful it was and how accurate (close to 3 inch groups at 25 yards). Wow. All show and no go.

[44 AMP]

Anything marketed as "Perfection" is over rated.

[tipoc]

Count me as a knucklehead I guess.
My reloads mimic the recoil and POI of my defensive loads in 357 and 45acp, it just seems logical to use the same caliber for practice in my defensive carry guns.

Then you don't practice with what you carry but a reload that mimics that load. Likely, as many do, a FMJ or lead bullet rather than an expensive commercial jhp. OK. This places you outside of knucklehead territory. Unless you want to take that name on for yourself which is your call.

(BTW, bullet weight plays more of a role in POA/POI than does velocity, the latter will effect felt recoil as you increase. This is why you can have fixed sight .357s shot to point of aim with 158 gr. bullets in both calibers.)

It's also likely that you select a round and load for your weapon that you can handle from that gun, is suited to the gun and is suited to the task. A load that helps you shoot accurately at speed.

But if you find that the K frame is too light a gun for your wants and needs then get an L frame or a Ruger. Those options are available and may be better guns for what you want to do. But it is a knucklehead call to then curse the superb K frame because it's not a stronger L frame or a Ruger SP100.

Know your gun and don't demand it be something else! Use the right tool for the job!

As many generations of shooters know from experience, you don't have to always shoot the same load you carry to practice with and develop good basic or advanced handling and accuracy skills. You have to shoot a variety of ammo, usually to settle on the best load for a shooter and a gun for carry. Once you've got that, regular practice with it helps keep that skill up but that in no way excludes the use of lighter practice ammo to develop and retain skills.

S&W used to make 3 separate revolvers of identical weights and build for three different calibers, 22, 32 and 38 Spl.

Shooting tons of 38 Spl. from a K frame in no way does now or did it back in the day prevent you from practicing with .357 carry defensive ammo. Provided you keep the gun clean and maintained regularly. That was the meaning of what Jordan said, meant and did.

These men and women were experienced gunnies when the gun came out in 1955. The Combat Magnum, it was called in 1955 it became greatly popular in law enforcement and sports shooters and that only grew. Do you think for a minute that our forefathers never practiced with .357 magnum carry loads? Do you really think that they flocked to a gun that could not be practiced with with carry loads?

tipoc