I've been "eyeing" the Model 60 with the 3" barrel, adjustable sights, and chambered in .357 Magnum. However, I've heard negatives (from a local gunsmith & S&W revolver fan) on the durability of this J-frame/357 combination. I'm looking for those who own one to give thoughts on durability with a diet of full power rounds. I think this gun would be a great tag-along gun for hunting and hiking.

3" Model 60

The other gun I've picked as a candidate to fill this role is the Ruger SP101. Same general 5 shot configuration, but a slightly beefier design. From the owners I've talked with, the SP101 will easily handle the above mentioned full-power diet.

I have a drawer full of S&W revolvers and several of Ruger's, so I'm not brand myopic... I just want something usable and durable. I tend to lean towards S&W for revolvers, but not if there will be a durability issue down the road.

Thoughts?

Edmo

__________________
TRUTH: Don't delete my posts!

I carried my 3 inch M60-10 as a trail gun, and recommend one for that purpose.
But, I wouldn't feed it a steady diet of full power magnums, both out of consideration for my hands, and the gun.
On the trail, I would carry it loaded with Buffalo Bore 180 gr hard cast "bear loads", but I would not shoot any except in the "gravest extreme" *. They approach the energy level of some .41 magnum loads.
At the range, the M60 is fun to shoot with .38 Special loads.
I used 148 gr plated wad cutters over 4.2 gr of W231., loaded in magnum brass.
If I were going to shoot a steady diet of magnum loads, I would prefer a 3 inch M686.

* From "In the Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection" by Massad F. Ayoob




Best,
Rick

As the notches in the J frame are offset, the J frame cylinder is probably stronger than that of a K frame, which has the notches cut right above the thinnest part of the cylinder.

That said, other things besides cylinder strength figure in when considering the issue of durability. There is also the issue of comfort when shooting.

The model 60 is by far the better carry gun IMO. However, if you are happen to be one of the unusual guys who feels you have to fire full house 125's every round, buy the Ruger. There is no doubt it is a heavier made gun/more durable and it shows when you carry it all day.

I load my 3" 60 with Gold Dot .357 short barrels, which are well researched, excellent loads. There are not full power, but highly effective. I shoot the M60 as well as any of my N frames.

The 60 is a phenomenally accurate little gun, lightweight and easy to carry. Nothing wrong with the Ruger, it's a nice gun, but to my mind, if I'm going to carry a gun that heavy, I'd rather it be a K/L frame.

The durability of my hands/wrists would be my immediate concern, if shooting actual .357 mag ammo (not this heavy special ammo that's currently offered) through a 60.

__________________
What would Jim Cirillo do?

I keep 125 grain .357 Golden Sabre loads in mine for trail use. Like the .357 135 grain Gold Dots, they are less than full power .357s and seem perfect for this fine gun. I use reloaded .38 specials of moderate power for my practice rounds. My hands and wrists will wear out before the gun.

The 60 you have in mind is a phenomenal carry gun, one that will give you many years of service ... even shooting heavy loads. The sights are excellent, though you may want to experiment with grips to find the most recoil-reduction.

__________________
I'm with the banned ...

You might also consider a Taurus Tracker. Same general design as an S&W.

I've owned a 3" barrel Ruger SP-101 in .357 since 1996. I had it Magnaported shortly after I bought it. It has given me excellent service and I could not be more pleased with it. It has easily handled any and all .357 loads I have used in it over the years.
Aside from size and weight differences, the only advantages of a 3" mod 60 would be a better (smoother) action IMO, and a MUCH wider variety of factory and aftermarket grips that are available. (It may also be a little easier to have custom holsters made for a 3" mod 60 than a 3" SP-101).
Adjustable sights on a carry revolver may be considered a plus for some, but a negative by others.

I bought a 3" 60-15 in the early days of The Lock, and was delighted with it. Right up until I oafishly knocked the unloaded gun off a counter onto a hardwood floor, and the lock self-activated. Figuring that was the sort of rough treatment a defensive gun might have to take during a scrape and still come up shooting (and with THE PLUG not yet on the market), I took it right back to the store where I bought it new, and traded it off at a loss.

A pity, as it was accurate and seemed very durable.

It did not however, convey the same durability as my 3" SP-101 (I shoot old school .357 loads, myself), which is a tank. As Mr. McCarver states (and as our departed friend Stephen A. Camp demonstrated in a good article), there are other strength concerns than cylinder thickness - I'd put the SP up against the 60 for durability any day.



That said, it strikes me as pretty unlikely that you'd wear either out. If you're planning on a lot of really hot, really heavy loads, I think the SP is a better choice.

__________________
How God has blessed us!

I have had one of these for about ten years, and it has become my favorite trail gun with its excellent combination of carry ease and power. I have shot loads up to 180 gr. with no problem, but do not make it a habit. Overall, I have probably put in excess of 500 rounds through this gun with no problems.

Shooting .357 Magnum ammo in a J-frame is not fun unless you really enjoy very sharp recoil and ferocious flash and blast. Everyone I know personally who owns a .357 J (or, now that I think about it, an SP101) carries +P .38 Special in it. For a .357 trail gun I'd want an L-frame with at least a four-inch barrel if I could still shoot the Magnums (I can't due to arthritis), or a Model 19 at the lightest. YMMV.

__________________
Oh well, what the hell.

I owned a S&W Model 60-10 for a number of years and i did not feed it ANY .357 magnum ammunition because the gun is so light weight the recoil would be unbearable

I have 640 357 shot 500plus 125 gr hp through it with no signs of wear.Iwent through s&w armor school in 1979.The 640 is awsome.I put thousands of rounds through my org 60 whith no problems.However its not a 627.Do yourself a favor,Buy the S&W.thanks,Bob.

I bought one in 1996 when they first came out. Nice gun with .38s not so nice with .357s. The issue I've observed with M60s as well as M19s and early M29s is not cylinder bulge but frame stretch and gas cutting. Picked up a M65 3" that I like better and shoot better. My 3" SP101 is closer to the K frame than to the J-Mag and I shoot it about as well as the M65. If you shoot 500-600 rounds per year either gun will work. If you shoot 500-600 rounds per month the Ruger will outlast you and the Smith.

Edmo,
I have that very gun and it is a great gun. You mentioned putting a steady diet of .357 through it and for the life of me, I can't see the reason. That gun with mag ammo is a flinch maker. zero it with the mag ammo you want and practice with something that will help you avoid the hand surgery later in life. With bullet design and construction, what it is today, they have become a far more important factor than velocity. I do and have done FBI protocol ballistic shoots for a couple of major ammo manufactuers for many years, and there is nothing I have seen of late that justifies the punishment of a mag over one of the better .38 loads now available, especially from a short barreled revolver.

I say go for it. My wife has one exactly like it....has fired several hundred rounds of both .38 Spl. and .357 Mag. ammo thru it without any problems. Just keep it clean, and runs like a clock.

[QUOTE=Edmo;137414853]I've been "eyeing" the Model 60 with the 3" barrel, adjustable sights, and chambered in .357 Magnum.

I have had a S&W model 60 for over a year now. I like the gun but have it for home self-defense. It is great with .38 special loads. The .357 has quite a bit of kick and I prefer shooting the .38's for target practice. I would not recommend it for primarily shooting .357's.

I shoot a model 60 Pro with a 3" barrel. I got it primarily to carry when hiking and fishing the back country. After I swapped the stock wood grips for Pachmyrs, itsoftened the recoil with .357 loads quite a bit, and I don't even feel .38 special loads. But think about why you are getting the gun. As a carry-along for hunting and hiking, how much are you really going to shoot it with full house loads? I'm guessing you'll do like most. Practice with .38's and load it up with magnum loads for the trail in case you need it. You'll have to run into a lot of trouble to shoot that thing enough to wear it out. If you're that unlucky......

I have a 3" 60 and shoot .357 and .38 spl through it.
I have seen a lot of threads about J frames and 357 mags in general. My engineering mind does not believe that S&W would design a gun to shoot .38 spl and occasionally .357s...just from the legal liability they would not sell it to shoot .357s at all.
Doing so would be a terrible business decision and engineering recklessness. Not that I personally want to shoot .357s all the time but, the gun has to hold up to them if it is sold to do so.
They took the K frame Model 19 off the market and went to the L frame when that design proved not to be able to hold up the the hotter 125 gr .357 loads. So why would they start/keep selling the J frame if it was not designed to handle the load?
Just one mans opinion.

__________________
John 1:17
NRA Life Benefactor

Let's put this in perspective.

Is the SP-101 beefier and therefore more durable? Maybe.

But, ask yourself, you with the drawer full of S&W revolvers, when's the last time you wore one of them out?

Get the gun you like and don't look back.

__________________
USAF, 69-92
Vietnam, 72-73

Well, make sure you don't cycle the DA trigger too fast. When I was managing a decent-sized gun store in the late Eighties and we handled large police department trade-ins, I saw manydozens of out-of-time S&W magnum revolvers. I've only had one S&W revolver come out of time myself (a Model 13 that was not abused), but that's an easy fix.

Anyway, is that "worn out"? Or is it generally pilot-error wear-and-tear? FWIW, as far as serious wear goes (as was stated above), there are things that can go wrong other than the cylinder (compare the forcing cones . . .), but it's unlikely.

I've yet to see a worn-out or out-of-time SP.

__________________
How God has blessed us!

You can't go wrong with either.

I have a 60-9 2" and a 642 pro. IMHO; few people would enjoy shooting .357 out of a m60.

Really, if you want to intentionally hurt your hand (and damage yourself), just shoot hot .38 specials out of a 642. At least that way you won't ALSO go DEAF from the noise you'll get from shooting .357s out of it.

Hey, where's the pics in this thread?!? 60-9 wearing Hogue Bantam grips.

Attached Images

IMG_5452.jpg (90.3 KB, 81 views)

__________________
But then, what do I know?

Thanks for all of the replies...

I'm not a glutton for recoil punishment, but rather just wondering how "dainty" the 3" 60 would be with full power loads. After talking with the mentioned gunsmith, it sounded like this gun was almost a magnum in name only and prone to the various problems you can get when you stuff too much power into too small of gun.

I already have several revolvers I take along with me in the woods, but they all are heavier than the Model 60 would be. One which was with me in the woods of Alaska is my "flinch-master". This gun is a 4" 629 Mountain Gun and with full power 44 Mag loads it is a handful. Magnum rounds now see more duty as woods rounds and my lighter 44 handloads get the range time. The power (and weight) of this gun isn't needed for woods protection now that I live in Arkansas where the bitey-scratchy critters don't grow as big.

I know S&W makes lightweight snubbies in .357 so I would think a stainless gun with a longer barrel would less snappy and likely stronger over time than the alloy snubs. The 3" Model 60 would be a lighter gun than my 686 or 629 for all day carry in the woods. Additionally, the 3" barrel would give me a sight radius advantage over a snubbie and provide a little more time to burn powder before it turns into the fireball blast from the nose.

I just thought it was a neat concept for a revolver - Thinner, lighter, yet with a 3" barrel and good sights. I wouldn't employ it in a primary self defense role, but rather a light general purpose sidearm for in the woods.

Edmo

__________________
TRUTH: Don't delete my posts!

I currently own a model 60 in .357mag with a 2'' bbl. I carry it with .357's, but prefer to shoot .38's.Years ago a friend and I had model 66's, we used to shoot handloaded 125 gr. .357's constantly.Never knew you weren't supposed to shoot that load through them.His forcing cone cracked.Luckily mine didn't.If a k frame couldn't handle .357's I fail to see how a j frame is going to hold up with any bullet weight full house .357 loads.I have a couple of model 27's that I shoot my .357's through with no worries.Still shoot my model 66 too, but with diffferent loads and not as many.

It is way too early to know what the ultimate durability/lifespan of the J-magnum design is. It was only introduced 17 years ago.

I have several J-Magnums. I have owned them since the day they came out. My ankle gun changed to a J-magnum as soon as possible.



I use several as training firearms. My oldest J-magnum only has a little over 7000 full magnums through it so far. Many of us have qualified with that J-magnum or another with full magnum ammunition.

These are not supposed to be fun to shoot. They are supposed to be easy to carry and provide as much power as possible to help get you out of a bad situation

My only 3" J-magnum is a model 60 pro. It is too new to make a durability comment on. Less than a 1000 Magnums so far.

I never thought that J Frames (regardless of bbl. length) should be shot with 357 Magnums. Just too much recoil, muzzle flash, unburned powder coming out of the barrel therefore most of the velocity advantage of a 357 is wasted because the powder is burning outside the barrel. A J Frame really is at it's best with the one of the top rated 38 special +P's and like Buffalo Bore, Speer Gold Dots or the tried & true Rem. R38S12 FBI load. If you want to shoot occasional .357's then a M65, M66, M19 with 2 1/2 - 3" tubes is a better way to go.
Just my .02 cents.......

My previous post was about whether a J frame could handle the .357 from an engineering standpoint..frame & cylinder.
Many seem to think it cannot & I disagree strongly.
But your suggesting that it is not the best frame (actually barrel length) from a a ballistics standpoint I completely agree with that. I think a 4" is the minimum tube size to get really good benefit from the round and a 6" is better. You get some benefit from a 3" but the round was made to be used in 4" tubes or longer for maximum benefit.

__________________
John 1:17
NRA Life Benefactor

Just for the record: I have absolute confidence that the S&W J-frame .357s can handle the cartridge from an engineering standpoint.

But the call of the original question was regarding long-term durability in comparison to the Ruger SP-101 . . . and I feel the lighter S&W loses out there.

__________________
How God has blessed us!

In 1991 I purchased an M60 3",in 38 special to replace my M36,2", in .22 LR as my trail gun. Low power 38 SWC lead bullets are cheap to reload, as easy to shoot as .22s and the 3" bbl increases velocity over the 2", points better, and still is easy to conceal. For anti-social carry I load +P 125 grainers. The recoil is mild and very accurate. This is a gun I will never part with.

The Ruger is definitely a stronger beast than the J frame. That is theory anyway because my guess is that you will wear out your hands and wrists and a couple of your buddies' hands and wrists before you wear out a J frame shooting full house .357s.

I'd pick the one you like best and not worry about it. If you do ever wear it out, it's a tool so replace it. I realize that goes against the grain of some folks here but I see all firearms as tools to be used. If something is so rare that I can't use it as it was intended to be used, I probably don't need to own it (unless I'm buying it solely for an investment which looking at N frame prices, I wish I had bought up a lot of them and put them away instead of putting $ in a mutual fund).

S&W + = adjustable sights and a better trigger. Also light weight which makes carry easier.

Ruger + = More weight for less recoil. If you are fixed sight fan, the Ruger has them. One thing I saw recently was a SP with an AO Big Dot tritium front sight and what looked like a Novak low mount rear sight. While that isn't going to give you a precise sight picture for us "mature" shooters it is a set of sights that can be seen without glasses which is a plus.

I have an SP101 and a 640. Both are excellent guns. The Ruger, as has been mentioned in previous posts, is heavier and bulkier. I use mine when I need to conceal a handgun in which I can carry heavy .357 loads in the mountains. The 640 is also quite a nice handgun. I generally carry 158 gr. rounds, although I'm trying to find some more 135 GDHP SB for it also. I wouldn't hesitate to carry it, either. However, and this is just my personal rule, if I'm going to carry anything really heavy and hot in .357 (180 gr. and above), I'll carry the Ruger.

__________________
Dave Frost