A S&W 686-4 Plus with 2 1/2in magna-ported barrel!
.........Sort of like the one I just posted for sale in the Classified area
.........Sort of like the one I just posted for sale in the Classified area
If you had 1,000 Bucks??
- Thread starter CrankinBass
- Start date
Dave T
Member
T-STAR, I'm envious! (smile)
Stainz
Member
I've had a 696 and a 296 for ten plus years; a 642 for 6.5 yr; a 2 5/8" PC627 UDR for 3.2 yr; a 632 Pro for 1.75 yr, and a 351PD for 5+ months. The 642, in a pocket holster, fits all of my britches' front pockets - and is a 24/7 carry. But, with a kilobuck, you could get, gasp, a Governor and an S&W (Galco?) holster, leaving at least three bills for the asbestos fire suit you'll need if you mention in some circles your ownership of it. Me, I'm thick skinned - developed over two years of Governor ownership & use. Certainly lighter than a 3" 625 - or a 2 5/8" PC627 UDR. About six ounces heavier than the 632 Pro. What an ammo selection! Something different...
Stainz
PS What's in my pocket? A 642!
Stainz
PS What's in my pocket? A 642!
bmcgilvray
Member
Well I'm going to be eating a lot of Cornflakes!Hey I have no problem with someone not liking them because they are plastic or ugly or whatever. But the FACTS are: they are durable, accurate, quality guns, made in the USA from a manufacturer that takes care of it's customers. They don't give me quite the same warm and fuzzy feeling I get from some Smiths. But they are close to being the ultimate carry revolver, IMHO. I'm not asking anyone to agree with me.
Cal50: You nailed it brother!
He sure did!
The LCR trigger is notably inferior because it has about a mile of overtravel and feels like a staple gun in comparison with the excellent Smith & Wesson double-action trigger.
I examined Glocks back when they were introduced and have shot other folks' Glocks many times over the years. I didn't like Glocks then and I don't like them any better now. They're monumentally overrated and another gun possessing a trigger with a particular flavor of "yuck." Glocks are neither "perfection" nor even as reliable as their internet reputation suggests. I'm just grateful I'm not required to own a Glock or other handguns of that ilk. They're fine ... for somebody else, and the retail price is attractive enough to get more folks into guns and shooting. That's always a good thing.
For less than the $1000 cap set forth in this thread a 2-inch to 4-inch K-Frame .38 Special or .357 Magnum, a full-sized 1911 or Commander length variant, a Hi-Power, or one of the Smith & Wesson Model 39/59 pistols or their steel-framed offspring all make thoughtful choices for personal self-defense. Even if some of these choices are now discontinued they are well worth it to acquire as used guns if they are sound.
I've owned and shot handguns since the mid-1970s and haven't had a need for plastic guns or DAO triggers. With luck I can go another 20-30 years without needing to acquire such a handgun having features I don't admire.
Only an opinion.
Last edited:
Another 442 would be nice.
The 1996 one is getting pretty shiny and a little dinged up from 17 or so years of EDC.
Took a belt gun out the other day. Totally forgot about Old Reliable 442 in my pocket and was surprised hours later to find that it had ridden along there all afternoon. It's that light and easy to live with...
The 1996 one is getting pretty shiny and a little dinged up from 17 or so years of EDC.
Took a belt gun out the other day. Totally forgot about Old Reliable 442 in my pocket and was surprised hours later to find that it had ridden along there all afternoon. It's that light and easy to live with...
Ruger LCR vs Smith and Wesson 637/638/642
Looks like you posted the same over there with more people preferring the LCR in the end.
It's fine to not like the tactical tupperware guns but Glock is a pretty well proven design and the LCR is in the same innovative design & build category as Glock.
I have a model 36 and it's a testament to craftsmanship but falls short for functionality compared to the LCR. Totally new design & materials in this instance works better for a pocket carry gun.
My LCR trigger is WAY smoother than my 36 but I like them both and would not compare either to a caulking gun.
Last edited:
beach elvis
Member
629 3" or 586 3".
bmcgilvray
Member
"Looks like you posted the same over there with more people preferring the LCR in the end."
They may do as they like. It's not a popularity contest. Some folks follow the crowd. "Conventional wisdom" and all that.
Just because marketing has drummed it into our collective heads that so many of these modern firearms designs are better, and a generation of shooters buys into that notion doesn't make it so. A lot of what may be seen in today's firearms market is cheap. Designed to be cheap to fabricate, and made of cheap materials. Clever marketing and promotion has made current shooters believe that "less is more" so that is what we see in gun rags and on internet forums. Old or new, they all shoot the same self-contained metallic cartridge design that was developed in Civil War times. An no, the new ones don't shoot any better, more reliably, or more accurately than the most respected of the classic designs.
I'll admit that I'm an old geezer who tends to look backward rather than to reflexively embrace the "latest and greatest." I was enthused about the new and used firearms that were popular in the late 1960s to mid-1970s when a budding interest lead to the acquisition of the first guns, as soon as I was old enough. I'm still enthused about those types of guns and am not through playing with them. Observation of the current market finds very little out there that can better accomplish what the firearms of a generation ago can accomplish.
Cheap is not necessarily bad. More folks are shooting because firearms are affordable and attainable. It doesn't mean though that these wonders of cast steel, aluminum alloy, and plastic have rendered the more traditional firearms of a generation or more ago unreliable and ineffective. The older designs are just as good as they ever were and better than the majority of firearms marketed today. We'll leave it to others to determine just which firearms are the good ones.
If a person has a thousand dollars to spend on a revolver then he can do better than to limit himself to only what is trendy, popular, or "in" at the moment.
They may do as they like. It's not a popularity contest. Some folks follow the crowd. "Conventional wisdom" and all that.
Just because marketing has drummed it into our collective heads that so many of these modern firearms designs are better, and a generation of shooters buys into that notion doesn't make it so. A lot of what may be seen in today's firearms market is cheap. Designed to be cheap to fabricate, and made of cheap materials. Clever marketing and promotion has made current shooters believe that "less is more" so that is what we see in gun rags and on internet forums. Old or new, they all shoot the same self-contained metallic cartridge design that was developed in Civil War times. An no, the new ones don't shoot any better, more reliably, or more accurately than the most respected of the classic designs.
I'll admit that I'm an old geezer who tends to look backward rather than to reflexively embrace the "latest and greatest." I was enthused about the new and used firearms that were popular in the late 1960s to mid-1970s when a budding interest lead to the acquisition of the first guns, as soon as I was old enough. I'm still enthused about those types of guns and am not through playing with them. Observation of the current market finds very little out there that can better accomplish what the firearms of a generation ago can accomplish.
Cheap is not necessarily bad. More folks are shooting because firearms are affordable and attainable. It doesn't mean though that these wonders of cast steel, aluminum alloy, and plastic have rendered the more traditional firearms of a generation or more ago unreliable and ineffective. The older designs are just as good as they ever were and better than the majority of firearms marketed today. We'll leave it to others to determine just which firearms are the good ones.
If a person has a thousand dollars to spend on a revolver then he can do better than to limit himself to only what is trendy, popular, or "in" at the moment.
Last edited:
Sounds nice, could you post some pics when you get it back?
jjbrewst1
Member
I would try and buy a 625-3 and then save up some money for some combats and off you go!!
luangtom
US Veteran
lhump1961
US Veteran
I like these but for CC I would go with the 3" 65. K frame balance, dehorned and smooth, load choices almost unlimited. I would swap the magna's for a nice set of Hogues but other than that ready right out of the box. Mine is the LS version so I will have to make do with that...
There may be others more "tactically" appropriate but you did ask for my choice, right?
There may be others more "tactically" appropriate but you did ask for my choice, right?
Attachments
Last edited:
Green Frog
Member
Thread Drift Alert: The OP distinctly said "Concealed Carry." This implies small enough to conceal and light enough to carry. There is a reason they built the Chief's Special, it's so it will be a good weapon while being small enough to conceal in certain social situations and light enough to carry without weighing you down excessively. You can go hammerless if you wish, and can even go to a lightweight alloy frame, but if you want a true concealed carry piece, it should be a 38 cal J-frame. "But," you may ask, "what if you are expecting to face trouble?" In the words of the old Ranger, "Ma'am, if I was expecting trouble, I'd have brought my shotgun!" 
JMHO, YMMV.
Froggie
PS For me, It would be an early, pinned barrel Model 60 with a custom set of stocks, carried in a pocket holster.
Note Correction due to fat, sloppy fingers!
JMHO, YMMV.
Froggie
PS For me, It would be an early, pinned barrel Model 60 with a custom set of stocks, carried in a pocket holster.
Note Correction due to fat, sloppy fingers!
Last edited:
Thread Drift Alert: The OP distinctly said "Concealed Carry." This implies small enough to conceal and light enough to carry. There is a reason they built the Chief's Special, it's so it will be a good weapon while being small enough to conceal in certain social situations and light enough to carry without weighing you down excessively. You can go hammerless if you wish, and can even go to a lightweight alloy frame, but if you want a true concealed carry piece, it should be a 38 cal J-frame. "But," you may ask, "what if you are expecting to face trouble?" In the words of the old Ranger, "Ma'am, if I was expecting trouble, I'd have brought my shotgun!"
JMHO, YMMV.
Froggie
PS For me, It would be an early, pinned barrel Model 66 with a custom set of stocks, carried in a pocket holster.
Finally, someone said 66. My 66-1, or 649-2 for a really concealable gun in a pocket holster. I also really like my Colt Cobra.
lhump1961
US Veteran
LOVE the 66...have a 3" but the 65 IMHO with the fixed sights is enough of an advantage to edge out the 66 for CC...those adjustable sights play havoc on jacket liners!
Really enjoyed my 442 until my wife liked it more... have since gone back to using the old standby 19-3 2.5", simply hard to go wrong with a snubby k frame. But I am working on finishing up a M-12 project gun...so it might get worked into the rotation.
I like the new nickel lemon squeezers they're making now too.
I like the new nickel lemon squeezers they're making now too.
