M65 3" or M19 2.5"

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Andy Taylor]

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?

 

[Chuck Jones]

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

 

[S/W - Lifer]

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.

 

[safearm]

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.

 

[tom turner]

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.

 

[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

 

[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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Wyatt Earp]

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.

 

[Glock 'em down]

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?

 

[Black Knight]

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.

 

[Bobwtn]

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.

 

[S&W-Keeper]

For carry I would go with the 65,but it is hard to turn down a snubbie 19.

 

[Chris K]

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).

 

[HenrySCTN]

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.

 

[shawn mccarver]

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.

 

[tom turner]

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

 

[Bandersnatch]

I too would go with the model 65. I like the 3" bbl and the fixed sights are easy to learn.