|
|
02-27-2009, 11:38 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Alabama
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Purchasing one of these 2 revolvers this afternoon. Both are new/unfired in original boxes.
Having trouble deciding which one I lean toward prior to inspecting both of them.
I like that the 65 is stainless, but not sure what to think about fixed sights. I like the adjustable sights & look of the shrouded extractor rod on the 19, but a little concerned about maintenance on the 19.
Any recommendations on the purchase of an M65 versus an M19?
Thanks.
|
02-27-2009, 11:38 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Alabama
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Purchasing one of these 2 revolvers this afternoon. Both are new/unfired in original boxes.
Having trouble deciding which one I lean toward prior to inspecting both of them.
I like that the 65 is stainless, but not sure what to think about fixed sights. I like the adjustable sights & look of the shrouded extractor rod on the 19, but a little concerned about maintenance on the 19.
Any recommendations on the purchase of an M65 versus an M19?
Thanks.
|
02-27-2009, 11:50 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Colorado Rocky Mountains
Posts: 1,369
Likes: 631
Liked 109 Times in 52 Posts
|
|
Both are excelent. I own a 3" M13 as well as a M66 and a M19 both 2.5"
Sorry not much help. Why not buy both?
__________________
Formerly know as Lucky Derby
|
02-27-2009, 01:32 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: god bless the USA
Posts: 661
Likes: 75
Liked 149 Times in 61 Posts
|
|
For daily carry I'd go with the 65. Fixed sights are more rugged and the extra barrel length does make a difference. If both were 3 inch guns I'd have a harder time deciding. The 66 may be prettier, but let's face it, adjustable sights on a 2.5 inch gun are really of limited utility.
/cj
|
02-27-2009, 01:39 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 4 Posts
|
|
If you expect to carry this as a weapon I'd do the 65. If you are a handloader and will experiment with ammunition I'd go with the 19. You'll need the adjustable sights.
|
02-27-2009, 01:46 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 1,753
Likes: 232
Liked 688 Times in 252 Posts
|
|
I'd go with the 65. I had a 3" RB M13 years back, and it registered perfectly with my carry ammo, 158 grain LSWCHP+P. Once you find the right load to go with the gun, you'll never miss adjustable sights.
|
02-27-2009, 01:51 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,814
Likes: 180
Liked 2,270 Times in 285 Posts
|
|
I have both . . . and only one year separating them back in the early '80s. Both are in fine shape.
Are you buying for looks or for function?
An M19 2.5" looks great, in either bright blue or nickelplate!
Then again . . . it ain't as fun to shoot, the shorter sight radius makes a big difference in accuracy and the ejector rod isn't long enough to push out the fired cases fully and positively.
For self defense use, the adjustable sights can get out of adjustment, or be moved out of adjustment while you shot different practice loads . . . so it may not shoot where you thought it does later.
The M65?
--Better finish as a "toted" gun for self defense!
--Longer sight radius makes it shoot as good as mose 4" guns
--Sight acquisition and adjustment is virtually instant, allowing faster double action match and S.D. shooting. I've won a LOT of pin matches with this gun!
--Mine shoots exactly to POA at defensive distances, and the sights are snag-proof
--Positive extraction of empties
--It is a tackdriver
I love my M65. I'm not nearly as "warm" towards the M19 21/2" snubbie.
|
02-27-2009, 02:04 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,965
Likes: 3,954
Liked 2,804 Times in 998 Posts
|
|
I have 2 1/2" 19 and 66 revolvers. Aso 3" models 65 and 13 revolvers. as a carry gun when I carry a wheelie (not all that often), it's going to be a fixed sight 3" loaded with 158 gr .357 ammo. both my 13 and 65 have identical POI/POA at social distances.
They don't look as sexy as 1 19 or a 66, but they shoot better, are sturdier from a practical point of view, and carry lighter. JOHN
|
02-27-2009, 02:15 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Alabama
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Thanks for replies.
Tom & John, I think y'all sold me on the 65.
This is a 1st gun purchase. Not sure how much use it will see. Thought process for decision to purchase a gun was home defense, but want something that I can carry, should I decide to.
Thanks again.
b
|
02-27-2009, 02:29 PM
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lt JL:
I have 2 1/2" 19 and 66 revolvers. Aso 3" models 65 and 13 revolvers. as a carry gun when I carry a wheelie (not all that often), it's going to be a fixed sight 3" loaded with 158 gr .357 ammo. both my 13 and 65 have identical POI/POA at social distances.
They don't look as sexy as 1 19 or a 66, but they shoot better, are sturdier from a practical point of view, and carry lighter. JOHN
|
Lt JL; Here's the answer that never came to life:
http://smith-wessonforum.com/e...01&r=3221089#3221089
I have no idea why the Company didn't put this into production but then I've given up trying to figure out the Why and Why Nots of S&W.
|
02-27-2009, 02:37 PM
|
Banned
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 996
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times in 10 Posts
|
|
There is something about S&W fixed sight revolvers that makes the MUCH faster and easier for me to aim (aiming as it related to action and defensive shooting) than the same one with adjustable sights.
If given the choice between a 4" 625 and a 4" 22, I'll take the 22 and replace its goofy retro front sight with a Patridge front with a gold bead.
|
02-27-2009, 02:41 PM
|
Banned
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Liked 41 Times in 25 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by bn163:
Thanks for replies.
Tom & John, I think y'all sold me on the 65.
This is a 1st gun purchase. Not sure how much use it will see. Thought process for decision to purchase a gun was home defense, but want something that I can carry, should I decide to.
Thanks again.
b
|
If you get the 65 and decide it's not for you, I'll take it off your hands!
I just picked up a 4 inch 65-1 a few days ago (see my thread about the strang "&" symbol) and I'm wanting a 3 incher to match it.
I agree that the two and a half 19 is a "sexier" iron, but if it's a carry gun - who's gonna see it anyway?
|
02-27-2009, 03:56 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 481
Likes: 119
Liked 163 Times in 97 Posts
|
|
I have a 3" model 65 and a 2 1/2" model 66 (stainless 19). I love them both. The only problem I had was finding a holster made for the 3" 65. It took me about 2 months to find one. There are not many who make holsters for this barrel length. Both are great so if there is any way you could swing it get both.
|
02-27-2009, 04:05 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Jackson, Tennessee
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 2 Posts
|
|
I must say that if one was able, by all means just get both of them! Kinda like one will get away and you will always think, "I shoulda got that other one". I have had the 2.5 in blued and stainless, sold them all, but miss them all (3) total over 30 yrs. Always wanted a 3 inch too. Both are just excellent S & W and easy to conceal.
|
02-27-2009, 04:32 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SE-SC
Posts: 1,645
Likes: 1,508
Liked 271 Times in 171 Posts
|
|
For carry I would go with the 65,but it is hard to turn down a snubbie 19.
|
02-27-2009, 09:42 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Coastal North Carolina
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
They are both very fine weapons---but for carry I would definitely go with the 65---the stainless will hold up better to daily holster carry and body sweat, and the fixed sights are, so to speak, bullet proof (sorry--couldn't resist, but seriously nothing to snag or knock out of adjustment).
__________________
Chris K
|
02-27-2009, 09:55 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East TN
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
I know the question is one or the other and in todays economy "both" would be impossible for me. Heck, anything right now is impossible.
Luckily I already have a 3" 65 and a 2.5" 66 and would have a very difficult time trying to decide which one I would part with. I agree with all the posts above. If times get too bad I'll sell a Glock or two.
__________________
John
|
02-27-2009, 10:17 PM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,916
Likes: 3,523
Liked 6,744 Times in 2,626 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by bn163:
Purchasing one of these 2 revolvers this afternoon. Both are new/unfired in original boxes.
Having trouble deciding which one I lean toward prior to inspecting both of them.
I like that the 65 is stainless, but not sure what to think about fixed sights. I like the adjustable sights & look of the shrouded extractor rod on the 19, but a little concerned about maintenance on the 19.
Any recommendations on the purchase of an M65 versus an M19?
Thanks.
|
Both are great. If collecting, go for the 2 1/2 inch 19, but if for use, get the 3 inch 65 because of full length ejection and stainless.
|
02-27-2009, 10:28 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,814
Likes: 180
Liked 2,270 Times in 285 Posts
|
|
Here's a typical, run-of-the-mill results target shot with my Model 65-3 3" barrel revolver. Some are just one ragged hole that eats out the 1" black squares I'm shooting at. Heck, most of 'em are if I do MY PART!
Distance? 10 yards at a 1" target.
It is nice to know that the sights ain't gonna move . . . for this 1984 revolver is a real KEEPER! For a defensive revolver, you can't get any better!
Tom
|
02-28-2009, 04:46 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sunbury, Ohio
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 1 Post
|
|
I too would go with the model 65. I like the 3" bbl and the fixed sights are easy to learn.
|
02-28-2009, 06:46 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: GA
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
My point of view is that you the 65 is a better carry gun. The heavier barrel and full length ejector rod just make a better defense weapon.
My point of view is that if you are getting a revolver for carry get one and get good with it. That means practice with one gun or multiple of the same gun.
The fact that the 19 is better looking is not material because if it is truly a CCW weapon you will not be showing it off. The folks that will see will only see it from the barrel end.
"My humble southern opinion"
|
02-28-2009, 07:32 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Alabama
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Thanks for all the responses. I bought the 65-5, complete with original box, paperwork, & tools. I am extremely pleased with the purchase (both the gun & transaction). Will attempt to post photos sometime today.
Thanks again.
b
|
02-28-2009, 01:01 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 1,827
Liked 1,170 Times in 310 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Glock 'em down:
I agree that the two and a half 19 is a "sexier" iron, but if it's a carry gun - who's gonna see it anyway?
|
The bad guy.
|
02-28-2009, 01:05 PM
|
Banned
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Liked 41 Times in 25 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by CelticSire:
Quote:
Originally posted by Glock 'em down:
I agree that the two and a half 19 is a "sexier" iron, but if it's a carry gun - who's gonna see it anyway?
|
The bad guy.
|
HA! True story!
|
02-28-2009, 07:22 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Alabama
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Here is the 65-5 I picked up yesterday. Thanks again for your input. Much appreciated.
|
02-28-2009, 08:54 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: GA
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
BN163, your new aquisition looks great, Enjoy.
|
|
Tags
|
ccw, ejector, extractor, glock, m13, m19, m65, m66, model 19, model 625, model 65, model 66, patridge |
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|