Model 64 or 67 Selection

107driver · Mar 5, 2013

Fellow aficionados,

I'm looking for a stainless K frame .38 and could use some advice. Ultimately I want it to end up as a 3" heavy barrel nonported carry piece with fixed sights, but improved over the factory sights on the 64.

I've read here on the forum about multiple catastrophic failures where a barrel heads downrange; are there any particular dash-runs or serial number runs to avoid? I'd also like to avoid MIM parts, if only out of principle.

Because the 3" is hard to find, I'm considering having a 'smith cut down the 4". Is anyone aware of drawbacks to this fix?

I'll probably go with the SDM front blade, but are there favorite fixed rear improvements?

Work has me stuck away from home and my SCSW for a few weeks, so any serial number guidance is greatly appreciated in case I get lucky and find something in the right era and price range online.

Many thanks in advance.

P&R Fan · Mar 5, 2013

I don't think you need to worry about the barrel coming off. If you are, then get a pre 1982 pinned model.

I'd just find a 3" M64. Cutting down a longer barrel sounds like a pain, and would probably cost you more than just finding a 3" to begin with.
Jim

TAROMAN · Mar 5, 2013

What Jim said.
Find a 3" Model 64.
Shoot. Carry. Simple:

Black_Sheep · Mar 5, 2013

3" Model 64's are all around great revolvers...

semperfi71 · Mar 5, 2013

If I may suggest, you might also consider the M65 in the 3 inch category.

They might be more common than the M64 3 inch and they will probably "carry" the same. You could shoot .38 Specials or downloaded .357 Magnums all day in it.

There is probably some .357 Magnum "Cowboy" loads on the market that are not Magnums and loaded down with lead bullets. Hence you would have a facotory .38 Special in a Magnum case, eliminating the "lead ring" in a Magnum cylinder.

mbliss57 · Mar 5, 2013

I agree with others. get a 3". The 67 Combat Masterpiece is a great gun but if your going with fixed sights anyway just stick with the 64. It will be less expensive anyway.
If you want a heavy barrel and a pinned barrel your only choices are a 64-1 64-2. A 64-3 prior to 1982 will of course work but now you have to be more careful which 64-3 you buy. That is assuming you need/ want a pinned barrel. I have a snubby and a 4" both from the 1990s and they are tack drivers. So although I collect mostly pinned barreled revolvers my model 64's are 2 of the 3 that are not. My other non pinned is a model 10-11. It is also a tack driver. None of these barrels have flown down range as of yet!

107driver · Mar 5, 2013

Gents,

Thanks for the input. Here is the link to the failure: http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/156243-model-67-catastrophic-failure.html

Black Sheep: Is that beauty DAO or just bobbed? Did it ship from the factory that way?

P&R Fan: I like the pre-1982 idea. Do you know what serial # range or -# (dash) range that would equate to?

SF71: That may be the way to go, but yup I was hoping to avoid the lead ring.

P&R Fan · Mar 5, 2013

107driver said:
Gents,

Thanks for the input. Here is the link to the failure: http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/156243-model-67-catastrophic-failure.html

Black Sheep: Is that beauty DAO or just bobbed? Did it ship from the factory that way?

P&R Fan: I like the pre-1982 idea. Do you know what serial # range or -# (dash) range that would equate to?

SF71: That may be the way to go, but yup I was hoping to avoid the lead ring.

That link looks to me like a gun that had some issues. Possibly a severe overload contributed.
As previously stated the M64, M64-1, M64-2 and the early M64-3 are pinned. The last number for a 1982 revolver in this series is 9D44500. I prefer Pinned revolvers, and Recessed Magnums and rimfires. (That's why I'm the P&R Fan

) I own a few that are not though, and never worry about the barrel coming off. The only reason S&W stopped pinning barrels was to save time and labor costs. It really shouldn't worry you for a shooter.
I think a M65 is a good idea too.
Jim

107driver · Mar 6, 2013

Jim: Whew, I thought it stood for a fan of Public Relations; thank you for the clarification!

If anyone wants to read Ed Harris via Grant Cunningham on the subject--he hypothesizes that over-torquing and improper chemical use could be the culprits--here is a link: GrantCunningham.com - Revolver Liberation Alliance blog

Black_Sheep · Mar 6, 2013

107driver said:
Gents,

Thanks for the input. Here is the link to the failure: http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/156243-model-67-catastrophic-failure.html

Black Sheep: Is that beauty DAO or just bobbed? Did it ship from the factory that way?

P&R Fan: I like the pre-1982 idea. Do you know what serial # range or -# (dash) range that would equate to?

SF71: That may be the way to go, but yup I was hoping to avoid the lead ring.

I believe it's a factory bobbed hammer due to the contour and uniformity of the finish. The hammer looks exactly like the one that was on a 2" Model 64 Brinks gun I had a couple of years ago. Technically this one is not DAO because it can be fired single action if you are bold enough to cock the hammer back. I can't confirm if this particular gun left the factory that way as I am too cheap to letter it...

Model 64 or 67 Selection

107driver

Member

P&R Fan

Member

TAROMAN

US Veteran

Black_Sheep

Member

semperfi71

US Veteran

mbliss57

US Veteran

107driver

Member

P&R Fan

Member

107driver

Member

Black_Sheep

Member

Similar threads

Latest posts