|
|
05-16-2013, 06:35 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Inman,SC
Posts: 270
Likes: 4
Liked 133 Times in 45 Posts
|
|
Why did the full 2 inch snubbies fade?
I bought a 642 wih a full 2 inch barrel a few years back. I noticed they are no longer offered and see very few of them for re-sale.
I like the little extra sight radius and it is no more difficult to conceal. Not sure how much velocity increase there might be.
Why were they not popular?
|
05-16-2013, 06:50 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,202
Likes: 9,079
Liked 1,921 Times in 1,043 Posts
|
|
I have no idea. I used to want the 637 version and never could find one.
|
05-16-2013, 07:23 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 mike56
I bought a 642 wih a full 2 inch barrel a few years back. I noticed they are no longer offered and see very few of them for re-sale.
I like the little extra sight radius and it is no more difficult to conceal. Not sure how much velocity increase there might be.
Why were they not popular?
|
The one pictured is a 2 1/2 inch. Many years ago, they also made 3 inch ones with the exposed, rather than shrouded, ejector rod.
|
05-16-2013, 07:48 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northeast Texas
Posts: 3,707
Likes: 6,257
Liked 6,354 Times in 2,185 Posts
|
|
Times and Preferences are Changing Some....
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike56
I bought a 642 wih a full 2 inch barrel a few years back. I noticed they are no longer offered and see very few of them for re-sale.
I like the little extra sight radius and it is no more difficult to conceal. Not sure how much velocity increase there might be.
Why were they not popular?
|
I think a lot of revolvers in this size are being replaced by the much more popular three inch versions. The three inch is just about as easy to conceal and it just feels and shoots so much better than a 2 inch.
Add to the above the increasing number of especially younger shooters that are opting for the compact semi-autos, and I expect the demand for the 2" revolver has just dropped to the point it is not worth it to make many of them.
|
05-16-2013, 08:05 PM
|
Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Louisville, KY, USA
Posts: 19,336
Likes: 53,737
Liked 38,387 Times in 11,802 Posts
|
|
A "full two-inch barrel" would only be an eighth of an inch more than the 1.875-inch barrel of my 640, built in 1990--am I missing something here?
__________________
Oh well, what the hell.
|
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
|
|
05-16-2013, 08:06 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,063
Likes: 310
Liked 405 Times in 105 Posts
|
|
I have never seen a gun with that barrel length. Wow
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
05-16-2013, 08:21 PM
|
|
Moderator
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 26,914
Likes: 995
Liked 19,050 Times in 9,317 Posts
|
|
Also, perhaps them not fitting a standard holster for a 2" barrel J frame.
__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220
|
05-16-2013, 10:06 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: North Carolina, USA
Posts: 1,470
Likes: 1,342
Liked 1,961 Times in 664 Posts
|
|
As with most changes we've seen from S&W it may very well have been a cost saving method to reduce the amount of steel they go through. Who knows if ten years from now the J frames go to 1" inch barrels.
__________________
Ephesians 6 (Armor of God)
|
05-16-2013, 10:23 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Just West of Houston
Posts: 3,468
Likes: 787
Liked 4,674 Times in 2,062 Posts
|
|
Since lighter high volume semi autos came out most all of revolver lines have been thought of as not enough gun as well as to much gun weight and size considered. I have just recently chosen to go with a revolver for CC. It only has 5 shots .38 or .357. I figure in most cases if 5 isn't enough then I am probably dead anyway. I do carry an hks speed loader. I actually feel safer with a revolver than a semi auto.
I think we are now seeing more interest coming back for revolvers.
|
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
|
|
05-16-2013, 10:36 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6
Likes: 13
Liked 2 Times in 1 Post
|
|
I just saw on the smith website a 640 "pro series" with 2.125" for $809
|
05-16-2013, 11:06 PM
|
Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Louisville, KY, USA
Posts: 19,336
Likes: 53,737
Liked 38,387 Times in 11,802 Posts
|
|
I'm still not getting it. If you mean shortening the J-frame barrels from an even two inches to 1.875 was a cost-cutting measure, it occurred at least 23 years ago (mine was manufactured in 1990 with the 1.875 barrel), and I think the latter length was used for a long time before they lengthened them to over two inches in recent production.
David Wilson, can you help me here?
And even if they did reduce the length from an even two inches by one eighth of an inch, what possilble effect could so small a change have on sight radius and balance? A few feet per second of velocity, maybe, but better sighting?
Forgive me if I'm just too damn dense to see it, but it isn't registering for me.
__________________
Oh well, what the hell.
|
05-17-2013, 12:41 AM
|
US Veteran Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 20,361
Likes: 24,260
Liked 16,154 Times in 7,408 Posts
|
|
It isn't registering for anyone here. The bbl. length being discussed is 2 and an eighth inch. That came with the full lug snub barrels.
I imagine that S & W felt this was the best length for balance , exractor rod length and looks. Most of their J-frames went to .357 chambering then, too.
Last edited by Texas Star; 05-17-2013 at 01:46 AM.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
05-17-2013, 11:06 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Louisiana, USA
Posts: 510
Likes: 352
Liked 99 Times in 40 Posts
|
|
I believe that the 642 shown is one of the short lived batch from 2010 that was made with a 2.5" barrel and a longer ejector rod. There is an article about them with lots of pictures in the May/June 2010 American Handgunner. Bud's still shows them on their website here S&W M642 38 2.5 DAO FS MSLVR $476.00 SHIPS FREE
|
05-17-2013, 11:11 AM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 13,996
Likes: 5,008
Liked 7,702 Times in 2,624 Posts
|
|
I'm not sure I have anything to offer other than impressions and suppositions, but I never thought the J snubbies had two- inch barrels. They were either 1-7/8 inch for the basic J-frame, or 2-1/8" on the J-magnum frame.
I have it in mind that the I-frame snubbies (.32 HEs, .38 Terriers) had barrels that were exactly two inches long, but I could be wrong about that.
__________________
David Wilson
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
05-17-2013, 01:23 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 10,146
Likes: 14,193
Liked 12,746 Times in 3,482 Posts
|
|
I don't know why S&W changed. The Ruger SP101 comes in a 2 1/4" barrel, which is perfect. But the Ruger is a slighty larger and heavier gun then the S&W snubbies.
__________________
John
|
05-17-2013, 03:48 PM
|
Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Louisville, KY, USA
Posts: 19,336
Likes: 53,737
Liked 38,387 Times in 11,802 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCWilson
I'm not sure I have anything to offer other than impressions and suppositions, but I never thought the J snubbies had two- inch barrels. They were either 1-7/8 inch for the basic J-frame, or 2-1/8" on the J-magnum frame.
I have it in mind that the I-frame snubbies (.32 HEs, .38 Terriers) had barrels that were exactly two inches long, but I could be wrong about that.
|
Thanks, David, it's good to know I'm not completely losing it.
__________________
Oh well, what the hell.
|
05-17-2013, 04:31 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 12
Liked 535 Times in 209 Posts
|
|
In my circles , people who actually DO CARRY all the time , use classic 2 inch J frames a lot.
I own a no dash 642 and a no dash 640.They get carried a lot.
As a second gun , back up at work , warm weather gun etc.
The only THREE inch revolvers that I carry are K and L frame.
|
05-17-2013, 07:30 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 281
Likes: 205
Liked 180 Times in 59 Posts
|
|
Did they fade ? I think they are getting more popular. I may be wrong but . ... I am Interesting in hearing your options.
|
05-18-2013, 10:20 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: A Burb of the Burgh
Posts: 14,792
Likes: 1,673
Liked 19,897 Times in 8,797 Posts
|
|
OP did you measure from the front of the cylinder or frame.... that looks like a 2.5 inch barrel
IIRC....... a few years back there was a thread that "concluded" that S&W barrel length was within spec. if it was plus or minus 1/8 inch.
Last edited by BAM-BAM; 05-18-2013 at 10:23 AM.
|
05-18-2013, 12:13 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Antonio Texas
Posts: 410
Likes: 109
Liked 321 Times in 151 Posts
|
|
Someone at S&W has a sense of humor and wants to drive folks like us on this list nuts agonizing over it.
Best answer I can come up with.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|