Your least favorite S&W revolver

[Wfevans4]

Just curious, what is your least favorite S&W revolver and why?

 

[SGT ROCK 11B]

Anything made in the last 25 years.

Revolvers just seemed better quality in the 1950s and 1960s.

 

[Nerdsonice]

Any of the hammerless(shrouded or bobbed). I spend too much time at the range shooting single action.

 

[flundertaker]

Not really a fan of the model 10 or anything without an adjustable rear sight or shrouded ejector rob.

 

[SWOH]

My 642 - had to go back because the barrel was poorly rifled. Doesn't seem all that accurate even after it got a new barrel, unlike the Colt DS-II snubby I owned, that, when it wasn't breaking springs or going out of time, could make tight groupings, proving a snubnose can be accurate. I guess I second within the past 25 years as being a dealbreaker.

 

[rwsmith]

Can't really say I've got one. Whatever you buy, you bought the design and if there's nothing WRONG with it, the trick's on you. Even my model 38 Airweight, that hurts to shoot is a fine light weight for carry gun. And it doesn't hurt enough to keep me from shooting it, especially in an SD situation. I've got its heavier cousin, the model 36, too.

 

[DR505]

My 686-3 Classic Hunter. I haven't used it in 25 years. I prefer N-Frames.

 

[CajunBass]

Any J-frame. I've owned a dozen or so. Just never really warmed up to them.

 

[afret]

Any revolver with a longer than 3"or so barrel with a full underlug. Don't like the looks. JMHO

 

[Goony]

Nothing against this model per se, but I once had a new 681 that punched holes nowhere near point of aim, and it didn't even group those particularly well. Just one that wasn't up to snuff.

 

[BillinAlamo]

Easy. A Model 19 with 2 1/2-inch barrel. Okay with .38 Special, but beyond obnoxious with full-house .357. It turned me off to the magnum.

 

[gunbarrel]

This probably border-lines on sacrilege to some, but I hated my 1970's vintage K-17.

I understand this is fairly common in that model, but it had one chamber with a small diameter that required pouncing on it witm my hand to dislodge the empty in that chamber.ar. In addition, it was no target gun--far from it. I tried many different types of ammo, HV & SV with the same results. I was a bullseye pistol shooter for many years, and the K-17 was a big disappointment. And at tbat price, I felt that I shouldn't have to work in the small chamver, ir have it worked on.

Got rid of it and never looked back.

 

[Pizza Bob]

I bought a new 25-5 when they first came out. It was one that had the humongous throats. It didn't group at 7 yards, it patterned - and half of those keyholed. It was stolen in the mid-80's, only gun I didn't regret losing.

Adios,

Pizza Bob

 

[MelvinWalker]

Anything in .32 caliber

 

[Oldgunslover]

L-Frame ones with long barrels, too much weight forward.

 

[TJm15.38]

Anything in .32 caliber

I tend to agree. I really like the looks of my 31-1 snub gun, but I don't see myself carrying the gun because of the relatively heavy double action pull and the low power of the cartridge. I don't plan on getting rid of it.

 

[Lance Boyle]

My 686-3 Classic Hunter. I haven't used it in 25 years. I prefer N-Frames.

Well that’s where I differ only because of hand size. I have a model 28 in excellent almost as new shape but it’s less natural in my hand than the other frame sizes. The J frame is almost too small. I have two J frames though, a 63 kit gun and a 31-1 .32 S&W Long 4”.

 

[Lance Boyle]

Easy. A Model 19 with 2 1/2-inch barrel. Okay with .38 Special, but beyond obnoxious with full-house .357. It turned me off to the magnum.

I own no snub guns but would add one with the right deal. I’d honestly lean toward the all steel guns, preferable six chambers and I think .38 plus P is where I would top out at. I am self aware enough to not want to shoot magnums there.. I said it lol. That said I’d prefer a snub in .38 special but if the right deal came along in .357 I’d buy it and stick to .38s.

 

['79 Magnum GT]

This probably border-lines on sacrilege to some, but I hated my 1970's vintage K-17.

I understand this is fairly common in that model, but it had one chamber with a small diameter that required pouncing on it witm my hand to dislodge the empty in that chamber.ar. In addition, it was no target gun--far from it. I tried many different types of ammo, HV & SV with the same results. I was a bullseye pistol shooter for many years, and the K-17 was a big disappointment. And at tbat price, I felt that I shouldn't have to work in the small chamver, ir have it worked on.

Got rid of it and never looked back.

I took my M-17 to the range a few weeks ago after not shooting it in years. I clean forgot about the spent cases refusing to be extracted. I figured I just didn't clean the cylinder well enough so I scrubbed each chamber really well this time hoping that was the problem. I'll go back this week and see what happens

Rick

 

[Yendor357]

I’ve had a few stinkers over the years.
A 624, 4 inch that simply would not group well. Gone
A 17 that I had to pound the empties out of. Gone
A 2.75 Model 69 that I simply did not get along with at all.

By and far away, the worst is the new 686 Plus MG that I bought 6 weeks ago. I ordered it. It was a piece of junk aesthetically and functionally. I tried to return it, unfired, to the shop where I was (please note, past tense) a frequent, long time customer. I had it 2 days before I sent it back. Out $1200 with nothing to show for it. Smith has had if for well over a month now. Nothing.

However, I being the Eternal Optimist that I am, a week ago I bought a plain jane 3 inch 686 Plus. I was able to examine it before I bought it. $920 out the door. Long story short, the 3 inch has turned out to be fantastic. Very accurate. Very good looking. The action has really slicked up nicely. I plugged the hole. Fantastic gun/ fantastic value, the polar opposite of that MG.