I traded my 642-2 in scandium for a stainless steel mod. 60 with a 3-inch barrel.

The 642 was very hard on my skinny old hands. The short barrel meant that I wouldn't make a respectable group.

The new (to me) gun is marked 38 S.&W. SPECIAL CTG
(It's not in the S&W website catalog.) I called S&W. They said it was made in March, 1991. !!!

I. Did I make a good trade?
2. Is this a better gun?
3 When did S&W quit making the Mod. 60 in 38 spl?

Thanks, guys.

The 642 is an aluminum alloy frame. Not quite as light as scandium.

If you want a heavier gun the model 60 definately is. Is it better? Personal preference. Did the 642 have the internal lock? The 60 doesn't so that is a plus. Overall, yes I would trade even up or even add some boot. Not sure when the 60 went to .357 mag.

I have one like your's.
It is a 60-4. It is in 38spl. with a
full underlug.

You did not say what kind of deal
you made on the trade.
Was it an even trade?

But, I think you will be very pleased
with the 60.

Regards,
Old 112

Yup, even trade.
The 60 is flawless on the outside. There is a small rust pit under the grip and some light surface rust down at the end of the butt. The innards had never been lubed. The previous owner had never fired it, but I don't think he was the original owner. Nevertheless, it shows no wear at all, so it's easy to assume that it has been fired very, very little. I cleaned every part and shined up the reset block and the frame where it slides then lubed that and all the pivots.

Upon assembly I tried the action and - oh my, it's so smooth I can stage the trigger now, and when it's cocked, oh Lord, that's a scary light trigger. There's a half-cock position that's a little harder to fire from. I'm glad there is a firing pin block or this would be a four-shooter.

I can hardly wait to go see what I have.

I personally think you came out ahead in this one.

The .38spl was discontinued sometime in the late 90's.

I have a 3" Model 60 with target sights that I shoot very well. It is a great trail gun:



My daily carry is a S&W Model 642. It is much lighter and more practical for pocket use.

Dale53

Dale53, my gun looks just like your picture,adjustable sight, 3-in barrel, big grip and all that shiny steel. Yum!

I admit love for the Model 60. Carried one for some time and still have it beside the bed. I think you did good on this one.

Just for your information, S&W revolvers don't have a "half-cock" position. If yours does, you may want to have a gunsmith look at it. I raised an eyebrow at two of your comments. The other one was "when it's cocked, oh Lord, that's a scary light trigger." Both of these conditions indicate to me that a previous owner did a not so correct action job on your gun. It could be dangerous. FWIW

I have a 60 and agree with Ken L. I would have a good gunsmith check it to on the safe side. There is no 1/2 cock position at least on mine.

I owned a model 60 and ended up getting my hands on a 640 in .357 mag.



I now use this gun in my home for home defense.

__________________
Just a Voice in The Crowd!!!

airman,

Have you adjusted the mainspring strain screw at the bottom of the front grip strap? Sometimes if that's adjusted too light, it can make the SA trigger pull too light and also cause a hang up when cocking that could resemble a 1/2 cock notch. Try tightening that screw or adjusting it and see if it solves the issues.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

I have a 60 in 357 mag and i love it! The double action trigger is so much better then my m&p340 triggger.

__________________
6 will do the job!

His gun is a J frame, and won't have that screw.

stiab,

Thank you!!! duh! (red faced)

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

I have suspicions too, now. I didn't see any changes to the hammer but I'm gonna look more closely at the trigger.

Ken-L, here's a pic of it in half-cock position.(if I'm lucky)

For the historians, it's a 60-4 serial BFVxxxx. Factory said Mar. 1091.

I put 25 rounds thru it from SA today. It shoots wonderfully well. Very light pull. I'm guessing less than three pounds. I hafta find a way to measure that.

OK, guys, I've cleaned and disassembled this 60-4 again to see if there has been any aftermarket smithing done. I examined the hammer and sear minutely with a loupe I use to look at phono needles. The step on the hammer is short and square with no file or stone marks. The sear has a slick surface like it was stoned just enough to square it up without taking any off the edge. The edge itself looks like it has never been touched. There are two tiny wear marks from today's shooting, I suppose. So I conclude that the gun is still in factory new condition.

I compared the SA trigger on this gun with those on my other guns, all of which are striker-fired autos. Each was a little different but all were harder to pull than this revolver.

Think what you may, my friends, but until something bad happens, I'm just going to enjoy it.

Now let me see if I can upload two pics of the innards.

Attached Images

	IMG_0467.JPG (86.5 KB, 43 views)
	IMG_0468.JPG (91.1 KB, 43 views)

I have your gun's sibling, also with a BFV prefix. It's at the top right in this photo:

It appears that the sear notch of the hammer is catching on the double action sear of the trigger. Its really not supposed to do that, but shouldn't cause a problem other than an occasional ftf. Just be sure to pull that hammer all the way back when shooting single action and enjoy the seemingly light trigger pull. Have a gunsmith check it for you just to see what it is. It may be more than you think and just a nice smooth release. Enjoy your new toy, they're great little guns!

Ken L has it right. Thanks.
I cut out two donuts of cereal cardboard to make a dry fire pad for the firing pin. Now I'll practice at home until I can get to the range again.
And again. And again.....

I have a model 60 that I bought in 1999 and it's a .357. So, they quit making them in .38 sometime before that.

The last "Dash" model for the model 60 before going to .357 is the "Dash"-7. The -7 changes were the wider front and rear sight.