Totally Stumped

[Doc Holliday 1950]

By chance I was looking at two S&W wheels both in 357 magnum. One was a 2.75” & the other was 3”. If you had to choose between the two, which one would you buy & please tell me why!

I can’t figure this one out. I’ve never owned a Smith.

[Sevens]

I cannot be 100% sure as I don't do snub revolvers and I didn't stay at the Holiday Inn last night either, but the big draw to a 3" barreled S&W is that you still get a full-length ejector rod, making ejection more positive, which is a BIG DEAL if there is any chance that you may ever need to reload during stress. Shorter revolvers lose some of the ejector rod length, so you lose operating range of the rod, and that does not help when ejecting.

Reloading a revolver under stress is NOT an easy business... a shorter ejector rod can make the task even more difficult.

[EIGHTYDUECE]

It would help to know the two models you are looking at. For example, the new 2.75" model 66 has a full length ejector rod.

[m&p45acp10+1]

For me it would be the one with adjustable sights. It is way easier for me to find an ammo I like, and can adjust the sights to the ammo. The thing I do not like about most snubs is the Kentucky windage factor for most ammo you can find to shoot out of it.

[BigJimP]

I own a few S&W snubbies...( model 66 in a 2 1/2" ( K frame) ...and a model 627 perf center model in 2 5/8" ( N frame ) in .357 mag )...the only 3" I own is a model 629 in .44 mag ...

But to me, in a .357 Mag caliber...I don't think you'll find much difference in shooting a 2 1/2" --- 2 5/8" --- 2 3/4" -- or a 3"...barreled gun in the S&W models....yes there is a shade of difference in weight / but all of my S&W's balance very well in my hands so a few ounces is not a big deal ...to me it comes down to the Frame size ( what fits your hands the best -- in my hands it is an N frame )...on a K frame, I have large hands, and my knuckle on my middle finger tends to get right up against the trigger guard and putting 100 rds thru it beats me up a little...where the bigger N frames do not do that ( and you can alter that with grips, etc ) but I just like the larger frame. Even on the N frames ...I use aftermarket grips ...with palm swells ( I prefer wood grips - like Hogue, etc )..that fill my hands better for rapid fire.

To answer your question...the 2 3/4" is a K frame ...and some of the 3" models are 686's or L frames...so I would go with the L frame.../ unless you let me opt for the 2 5/8" model 627 in the N frame ( 8 shot by the way ).

[reddog81]

Whichever is in better condition and has a better price.

[T. O'Heir]

Which one makes no difference at all. However, a 2" Smith 19/66 fits my hand when a regular 4" 'K' frame does not. The 2" has the same grip frame as a 'J' frame revolver. Put a set of Pachmayr's on and you're done.

[UncleEd]

Disagree with M&P45 or others who prefer
adjustable sights for a snubby.

But I don't have any desire to shoot a snubby
much beyond 5 yards; oh OK, 6.25 yards.

But then I felt Ruger was on the right track by
introducing its Match Champion with fixed sights.
An outcry followed and adjustable were offered.

I find it informative that most of today's autos
such as the Glock or Beretta are produced with
fixed sights almost exclusively. Such used to be
for most service revolvers as well.

This is in conformance with the fact that the
practical combat distance for a handgun is
15 yards. Yeah, I know longer shots are taken
and some training involves longer shots.

[Doc Holliday 1950]

My hands are on the smaller size Big Jim and as to preowned vs. NIB, it has to be NIB unless I have an expert with me to buy preowned. both the 686 & K66 have adjustable rear sights and the better ejection rod is preferable. Great advice.

[rodfac]

Doc, which model are you considering? J or K/L frame? In either case, a good set of grips that fit YOUR hands are a big part of wringing every bit of accuracy and comfort out of the gun.

As to barrels, I always prefer the longer 3" models, and with adjustable sights too. The longer barrel conceals every bit as well as the shorter tubes and gives you just that little bit of extra sighting precision. The only drawback to a 3" bbl. may be the availability of good holster selections, however. You'll have to check it out, as I've not bought a holster in years, (make my own), so that might be a consideration. Nevertheless, better sights always allow you to zero the gun to your liking and are more than strong enough for any sensible use you'd consider.

Conversely, my wife has a Model 637, with fixed sights and a 1-7/8" bbl. and the gun shoots to POA with her hold. It does sport a good set of Crimson Trace grips that give her good purchase, even with full +P defensive loads, and she has no problem getting good POA hits out to yds or so. BTW, her carry loads are +P 125 grain JHP's, and she practices with handloads loaded to the same recoil level.

My Model 60 (J frame) has a 3" bbl. & adjustable sights as I shoot a variety of loads through it, from 125 gr JHP's to 170 gr LSWC's. And too, the longer ejection rod, with the better sights and a good set of grips allow me to shoot accurately well beyond "snubby" distances. With a good hold and light enough to see the sights, I can get 3" groups with my 3" Model 60 at 25 yds. It makes for a pretty good, light caliber, trail gun in fact.

Just a word about holsters: for over 40 years I have used an OWB holster for carry no matter what handgun I've carryied, finding that an IWB just too limiting. So for years, I built, recommended, and carried my guns in a version of the old Tom Threepersons open top Border Patrol type of leather. (El Paso Saddlery has made the best of that design for 100 years if you're looking for one.)

But recently, I bought a Browning Hi-Power that came with Bianchi's version of the Askins Avenger holster that I quickly found worked out even better than my old open tops. The secret is the additional slot for the belt that really pulls the grip portion of the gun in close to the body, resulting in a far less noticeable 'print'. It's so good, in my opinion, that I've built up three of them for my carry guns: two auto's and the Model 60 Smith previously mentioned. It's by far a better 'concealer' and does not hinder nor slow down my draw presentation. It's worth checking out, believe me.

HTH's Rod

[Jim Watson]

Which one makes no difference at all. However, a 2" Smith 19/66 fits my hand when a regular 4" 'K' frame does not. The 2" has the same grip frame as a 'J' frame revolver. Put a set of Pachmayr's on and you're done.

Where does stuff like this come from?
K frame Smiths have either a square butt or a round butt. True, the roundbutt commonly seen on the short barreled guns suits a lot of people, but it is NOT the same as a J frame.

[rodfac]

Jim, are you sure of that statement? I've never heard that before. Rod

The 2" has the same grip frame as a 'J' frame revolver.

[Jim Watson]

Rod, I didn't make that statement, T'Oheir did and I was refuting it.

[David Ozlo]

3 inch

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html

[FITASC]

Where does stuff like this come from?
K frame Smiths have either a square butt or a round butt. True, the roundbutt commonly seen on the short barreled guns suits a lot of people, but it is NOT the same as a J frame

And a RB K frame fits my hands about the best between J and K square. My 19-3 snub with RB is a great gun for shooting.

[UncleEd]

This whole thread is too jimmied up.

[Onward Allusion]

For what purpose? Based on it being a snub, CCW?

The ballistics difference over 0.25" will be minimal. Biggest question will be size, weight, capacity, & length of ejector rod. I was kind of asking the same question a while back. Ended up with the 627. Gotta love 8-shots in a 357.

[Roughedge]

Why not get both, like my wife says you cant have too many guns.

[Onward Allusion]

3 inch

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html

One thing to keep in mind with the BBI tests, is that the gun used was a Thompson Encore. Barrel length is determined from breech face. So 3 inches of barrel is 3 inches of barrel.

Whereas, the revolver's breech face is the length of the cylinder behind the barrel. So from a 2.75" revolver barrel, there's actually ~1.6" more "barrel" length. Yeah, you'll lose 50 to 100 fps but it's still more like 4 inches of barrel. These are still bench numbers. Best way is to chrono the numbers.

[ms6852]

For me, I would choose the 3" barrel, because to my eyes it is aesthetically pleasing to see. Secondly it affords a better balance than the 2.5" barrel. Third makes it easier to point and shoot.

[Doc Holliday 1950]

ONWARD,
Can you explain that one more time the difference between the Smith 2 & 3/4 " & the Smith 3".
My biggest problem is finding a GS that has both revolvers so I can actually feel the difference.

[Doc Holliday 1950]

I found a GS in my area with both the 2.75 "& 3" 7 shot 357 in magnum Smith & Wessons.

The balance of the 3" was very evident to me & so much better than the 2.75". The biggest surprise was "THE TRIGGER IN DA as compared to my Rugers.

All of you S&W people were absolutely correct. WOW!

[Slopemeno]

The real difference is that with a Smith and Wesson K-frame 3" -vs- a 2.75, you get a full length ejector rod throw.

The full ejector rod advantage never materialized for me. I've shot hundreds of different K-frames certifying them for duty as well as shooting other customer's revolvers, and I never had any issues with ejection.

[Old Stony]

Not long back I bought two 3 inch smiths...a model 13 and a model 65. They both come with fixed sights and both surprised me as being very accurate and shooting to point of aim at 7 yards.
I like the 2 1/2 inch 66's too, just a horse of a different color.

[rodfac]

Spend the money on that 3", Doc, you'll never regret it...Rod