Best "Combat Revolver"

Smith357 said:

I had this 586 built as my "get to my rifle" handgun. It started life as a 6" that got a bubba action job. I bought it cheap, sent it back to the factory for a few mods and made a few minor tweaks of my own.

Click to expand...

very nice
what "-" number?
Did you cut the barrel to 4"?
who made the grips?
refinished of course

breakingbad said:

I wonder if the "future codgers" of today really appreciate how fine is a revolver like the Mtn Gun, and others like it? That even tho' they don't hold 18 rounds of 9mm or 14 rnds of .45 ACP, they are deadly in the hands of shootists. That there is a classic timelessness to these older revolvers that a polymer gun does not have.

Click to expand...

Unlikely...many of the guys on my department, even the younger firearms instructors, HAVE NEVER HANDLED A REVOLVER eek, let alone shot one. Now and again I'll pull out my first duty sidearm, a 4" Model 27, and educate a few of them. I really like that old 27 and would take that into a fight any day of the week.

Texas Star said:

I thought the M-520 was basically a fixed-sight M-28 made for the NY State Police, who chose another gun instead. The 520's were then sold on the civil market. They're N-frames, not L-frames.

Am I confused? The L-frames have names like 586, 686, 681, etc.

My optimum combat revolver is probably my M-66-3 in four-inch with Pachmayr Presentation grips. The Ruger GP-100 is heavier, but kicks less. Not really too bad to wear in the right holster. I prefer the balance of the GP to the M-686. I think it also holds up better over the long run with full loads.

Indoors, I load Plus P .38 ammo. Firing indoors without ear protection with full .357 ammo will not benefit your hearing.

For a concealed gun, the M-65 with three-inch bbl. seems good. Ditto for the Ruger Security-Six with 2.75-inch bbl. and round butt. That Model 19P for the Peruvian police that Joe Kent mentioned and the same basic thing as the Ladysmith M-65 are fine, too.

I prefer stainless steel.

Click to expand...

Thanks for catching that Sir,
Typo and i have changed it. I have "fat" hands and prefer
an N-frame myself. The 520 would work for me.
I like the looks of Blued steel better as a personal preference.

Chuck

There is no best. It ain't the arrows, it's the Indian.....

I'm going to have to say my Ohio Highway Patrol 681. That action is SLICK. Kinda like an ice cube on water. Handles like a dream.

Texas Star said:

I thought the M-520 was basically a fixed-sight M-28 made for the NY State Police, who chose another gun instead. The 520's were then sold on the civil market. They're N-frames, not L-frames.

Am I confused? The L-frames have names like 586, 686, 681, etc.

My optimum combat revolver is probably my M-66-3 in four-inch with Pachmayr Presentation grips. The Ruger GP-100 is heavier, but kicks less. Not really too bad to wear in the right holster. I prefer the balance of the GP to the M-686. I think it also holds up better over the long run with full loads.

Indoors, I load Plus P .38 ammo. Firing indoors without ear protection with full .357 ammo will not benefit your hearing.

For a concealed gun, the M-65 with three-inch bbl. seems good. Ditto for the Ruger Security-Six with 2.75-inch bbl. and round butt. That Model 19P for the Peruvian police that Joe Kent mentioned and the same basic thing as the Ladysmith M-65 are fine, too.

I prefer stainless steel.

Click to expand...

TS,

S&W recycled the M520 model number a few years back and the "new" M520 was indeed an L frame. IIRC, it was a 7 shot .357 and it used a two piece barrel. I believe it also had the LOCK.

Muley Gil said:

TS,

S&W recycled the M520 model number a few years back and the "new" M520 was indeed an L frame. IIRC, it was a 7 shot .357 and it used a two piece barrel. I believe it also had the LOCK.

Click to expand...

Correct Muley Gil,
The newer 520 is indeed an L-frame. 7 shot
I prefer the older N-frame 520's
Chuck

If I had to choose one it would be a model 58.

Joe Kent's 681 & 19Ps

Joe, sorry I was busy today. Was this why you called?

Three of Joe's revolvers mentioned above:






Please excuse the photography.

I have always preferred a 3' model 13. And for a speedload, another 3" model 13. @ K frames are a bit heavier than 1 N frame, way lighter than 2 L frames, no fragile, sissy adjustable sights, and if you add Tylers to the magna stocks, they fit me personally very well.
Leather? we don' need no steenking leather!!

I have never been in a gunfight and hope never to find myself in one, so perhaps my opinions deserve to be discounted. But I have thought a bit about such a situation and it seems to me that:

(1) Adjustable sights are a waste of time and a potential source of delay in producing a handgun quickly. Combat occurs at social distances anyway, which I take to be not more than 30 feet and often less than 20, at which distances adjustable sights have no advantage and even fixed sights are unnecessary for people who have trained adequately with their handguns. A target-sighted K, L or N-frame could be properly configured with a set of cylinder & slide fixed sights if personal preference is for something on top of the gun.

(2) Four inch barrels are at the the outer limit of appropriate barrel lengths for close handgun combat. Three inch barrels are better, and if the caliber is small enough (.38, .357) two or two-and-a-half inch barrels might be better yet. My 24-3, 625-3, or Blood Work .357 are all potentially fine combat revolvers.

(3) If a hotloaded .38 Special round was good enough for the FBI, it ought to be good enough for just about anybody. A gun that handles .38 +P or +P+ loads is effective enough. Larger calibers with roughly equal energy cargoes are certainly acceptable, but guns that shoot rounds that almost guarantee overpenetration are ill advised. .45 Super, sure. .460 Rowland in a converted 625, maybe not. And .44 Magnum? Never, I think, unless you use hand-rolled low power loads in it that are not much more powerful than the hottest off-the-shelf .44 Special loads.

(4) Unless you have huge hands and forearms that contribute their own mass-damping effect to your gun's recoil picture, I think that heavy guns are better than alloy guns. Steel's the word. My 296 is almost a perfect combat revolver as it comes from the factory, but it is just too darn light. Whey didn't they make that one in stainless as well?

I think stocks represent a major variable that must be designed and custom shaped on an individual basis. Hands come in different sizes and proportions. If your finger length is longer than your palm length, you need one kind of stock design. If the opposite is true, another. Assembly-line combat stocks usually don't work for me because the one-size-fits-all grooves just aren't correctly spaced for the diameters of the third segment of my fingers. I have experimented with different grip designs, and the semiauto-like straight stocks produced for revolvers by Fuzzy Farrant come closest to being right. I have designed some K and N frame stocks for short-barrel, high recoil revolvers that actually feel pretty good but look ridiculous. If I ever get my courage up I will post pics.

Here's a couple of my "combat" revolvers. Top is my 67, with it's Hoyt duty holster. Yeah, adjustable sights aren't necessary, but it sure makes qualification more fun. Middle and bottom is my old off-duty gun, a 10-8 3", slicked up by the Armory. Holster is an old Bianchi. Both guns are .38s...it's what I HAD to carry. And I didn't feel too sorry for myself, actually.
Bob

Joe we really need to see some more images of that wonderful 581 you have concocted.

My combat S&W offerings

I'm a newbie to the forum, but have been a life-long fan of Smith and Wesson revolvers. I own and love to shoot any of the models in .38 special. In particular, the model 10,14,15 and 64.They are all accurate, reliable, and will get the job done. In a "combat" situation, I lean more toward the .357 for it's excellent record of one-shot stops, and would have to go with a model 19, or 66. Not to say I don't love the Smiths in .41 or .44 and .45 calibers, I do. But my favorites are the "k" models. Here are a couple of models that get my vote as a "best combat magnum". In the first pic is top to bottom: my 686, 64, and 66. Second pic is model 15,66,and 64.

Some beautiful revolvers in this thread, probably all of them qualify as the "best" combat revolver.

Back in the day - like 30 years - I thought this was a pretty good choice - and never really felt "undergunned" carrying it. Our load was the Remington 125 grain +P.

First are we talking concealed or open carry or dont care if its occasionaly accidently seen? In open carry or dont care, we usualy will go a little bigger than CC. In uniform we never OC a snub. I ride atv a lot and carry a bigger revolver in the boonies than I do in my pocket on the road. Most everything in life is a compromise. If I knew I might get in a gunfight I wouldnt be there to start with. Its first for me what can be packed comfortably. That means light and packable. Of course the caliber has to be big enough to do the job. I agree, fixed sights, 3" barrel and at least .38 special in a revolver. 2" is the shortest, 4" the longest. I have a number of adjustable sighted revolvers and that doesnt stop me from carrying them.
On the quad where I pack the most, I can take any gun I wish as I have a bag or box that will accomidate every gun I own. If I am traveling and staying in cheap motels I want a concealable snub in my pocket. I think we need to really define the situation you are usualy in to be accurate here.

feralmerril said:

First are we talking concealed or open carry or dont care if its occasionaly accidently seen? In open carry or dont care, we usualy will go a little bigger than CC. In uniform we never OC a snub. I ride atv a lot and carry a bigger revolver in the boonies than I do in my pocket on the road. Most everything in life is a compromise. If I knew I might get in a gunfight I wouldnt be there to start with. Its first for me what can be packed comfortably. That means light and packable. Of course the caliber has to be big enough to do the job. I agree, fixed sights, 3" barrel and at least .38 special in a revolver. 2" is the shortest, 4" the longest. I have a number of adjustable sighted revolvers and that doesnt stop me from carrying them.
On the quad where I pack the most, I can take any gun I wish as I have a bag or box that will accomidate every gun I own. If I am traveling and staying in cheap motels I want a concealable snub in my pocket. I think we need to really define the situation you are usualy in to be accurate here.

Click to expand...

Read the original post again by Joe ... don't overthink it ... what is the best combat revolver?
Take into account anything you want to and pick one gun.

The correct answer, however, is the 686 + Mountain Gun

I know, I know ... the real correct answer is "the one you have with you" ...

I used to think I knew the answer to this question, now I'm just confused. For me, I think the .357 gives the best combination of utility, power, portability, accuracy and so on. So, I picked a 4" GP-100 for a while. My favorite BUG is a no-lock 342 Ti. Love the little thing, and actually shoot it pretty well.

Then I got a 586 L-Comp from the Performance Center and thought I had found perfection. Pretty darn close too.

But, now I am leaning to my 627 Pro-Series. 8-shots of N-frame goodness cut for moonclips! I think my search is over. Backed up with the 342 Ti, I may look "obsolete" carrying a revolver, but they are dead reliable, accurate, and powerful. Simple manual of arms too.

The Highlander said:

But, now I am leaning to my 627 Pro-Series. 8-shots of N-frame goodness cut for moonclips!

Click to expand...

Yeah - I have an M&P R8 - it has a 5" barrel and a rail for a light if needed. I like that gun a lot - if I had to bug out with just one revolver and concealment isn't an issue then it is probably that one. But if I had a pre-lock 686+ Mtn Gun I would pick it over my R8.

If it was a combat pistol I would probably take my XD 45 Tactical.