captainjohnsofd
Member
I had one years ago and sold it foolishly to a coworker. So.....if anyone has one lying around doing nothing.......
Musings on the 2" M15...
- Thread starter Art Doc
- Start date
kwill1911
Member
David,
I'm wondering what evidence there is that Gen. LeMay was a "revolver guy." There's no question he was THE influence on the Air Force choices for small arms but I think there were other considerations as to why they chose revolvers. He carried a M1911A1 through WWII and owned custom 1911 type guns after the war.
Regards,
Kevin Williams
OP
Art Doc
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
M520F- Of course a 15 CAN be carried, what I said was that it's not the BEST design for the purpose.
I was checking some Gunbroker auctions and saw a 2" 15 that was bid up to $750. I don't get that.
I was checking some Gunbroker auctions and saw a 2" 15 that was bid up to $750. I don't get that.
Good detective gun...back in the day!
I have a 2" Model 15-2 (1962) that belonged to my wife's grandfather. He was a Chief of Detectives in Calif. in the 60's, and he carried it daily in a small suede clip-on belt holster. Back in the day it was a sweet plain clothes cop gun, and my wife and I still shoot it regularly today (she even used it to qualify for her CCW). It is surprising accurate for a snubby, and well balanced. Agreed, it isn't a carry gun that I would choose in this day and age, but 50 years ago they didn't have the choices that we do now. Obviously it's a family heirloom and piece of nostalgia for us, but it's also a beautifully made P&R K-frame S&W.
I have a 2" Model 15-2 (1962) that belonged to my wife's grandfather. He was a Chief of Detectives in Calif. in the 60's, and he carried it daily in a small suede clip-on belt holster. Back in the day it was a sweet plain clothes cop gun, and my wife and I still shoot it regularly today (she even used it to qualify for her CCW). It is surprising accurate for a snubby, and well balanced. Agreed, it isn't a carry gun that I would choose in this day and age, but 50 years ago they didn't have the choices that we do now. Obviously it's a family heirloom and piece of nostalgia for us, but it's also a beautifully made P&R K-frame S&W.
bronco45
Member
I remember attempting to purchase Smiths in the early 70's and 19s were tough to find and 2.5" 19s almost impossible. Even as a LEO 19s were rare on dealers shelves and police supply houses.
Never liked the M15-2 as it felt butt heavy to me and the grip was hard to conceal compared to a 19. Did see them around from time to time and the guys who carried them liked them.
Never liked the M15-2 as it felt butt heavy to me and the grip was hard to conceal compared to a 19. Did see them around from time to time and the guys who carried them liked them.
Doug M.
Member
Collectors have their own criteria which may not be objective, hence the bids on a 2" M15. I agree about the utility of it for my life, but differences of opinion are what make for horse races as it were. Some day I'd like to find an M12 RB for my wife, which she might able to use a little better than a J frame, but again, a niche gun, and probably not as practical a choice as a 9mm Shield.
Hawg Rider,
Most references show the 2" M15 introduction as '64. Does yours letter to '62, or is that where the # fits the lists?
Good shooting.
smithman 10
US Veteran
I agree - BUT, I still own a Model 15 2" barrel and doubt I'll ever get rid of it. In fact, somewhere out there is another nice Model 15 2" I once owned with a round butt courtesy of my gunsmith (who must have thought I was crazy). After I had it mutilated I saw the error of my ways and traded or sold it off years ago. When I happened on another one I bought it immediately.
Of course I have a 2" Model 10. It does carry easier. But the Model 15 snub is great to shoot in IDPA stock service revolver. Shoots just about as good as a 4 incher.
See the middle gun in the attached photo.
Attachments
smithman 10
US Veteran
And they do hold their value!
Musings on the 2" M15....
I've enjoyed reading the opinions in this thread & will admit that my
2" M 15 sits in the safe but I'm fascinated by the fact that
someone went to the time,trouble & expense
to order a full flap, lined & rawhide laced George Lawrence
basket weave holster specifically made for a 2" model 15.I love collecting guns & gun leather!
Regards
turnerriver
I've enjoyed reading the opinions in this thread & will admit that my
2" M 15 sits in the safe but I'm fascinated by the fact that
someone went to the time,trouble & expense
to order a full flap, lined & rawhide laced George Lawrence
basket weave holster specifically made for a 2" model 15.I love collecting guns & gun leather!
Regards
turnerriver
Texas Star
US Veteran
I was an Air Force cop and usually armed only with a revolver and nightstick. I preferred the four-inch bbl. Sometimes carried a .45 auto when the base had that option.
I served with a couple of guys who'd had to carry the M-56 at another base. They said that it was hard to qualify with and, of course, had lower velocity with the already weak service .38 ammo. (We had some commercial .38 Hi-Speed ammo at one base, bought with unit funds.)
Frankly, I think the idea behind the snubs was that LeMay wanted to create an elite image for those who carried them, rather like the prestige issue with detectives usually carrying snubbies in lieu of four-inch guns in most cities. The TV image, etc. That is also why I think the SAC Elite Guard had nickled guns with stag grips. And blue berets!
We even had alarm codes based on words that sounded like terms from Western movies. I doubt they're still classified, but won't repeat them here. This is probably not PC now, but it worked, and most of us had been raised on a diet of Western movies and TV shows.
Those missle crews were in close quarters, and range wouldn't have been a major factor if they'd had to shoot. Unless they were ambushed on the way to work!
BTW, back about 1960, holster maker Chic Gaylord decried the way that heavy-framed guns with short barrels holstered. It was hard to get them balanced right and they didn't hug the body and hide as well as guns with three-inch or longer barrels. I think his pet peeve was the 3.5-inch M-27, but the snub M-10 was also on his "unfavorite" list.
I served with a couple of guys who'd had to carry the M-56 at another base. They said that it was hard to qualify with and, of course, had lower velocity with the already weak service .38 ammo. (We had some commercial .38 Hi-Speed ammo at one base, bought with unit funds.)
Frankly, I think the idea behind the snubs was that LeMay wanted to create an elite image for those who carried them, rather like the prestige issue with detectives usually carrying snubbies in lieu of four-inch guns in most cities. The TV image, etc. That is also why I think the SAC Elite Guard had nickled guns with stag grips. And blue berets!
We even had alarm codes based on words that sounded like terms from Western movies. I doubt they're still classified, but won't repeat them here. This is probably not PC now, but it worked, and most of us had been raised on a diet of Western movies and TV shows.
Those missle crews were in close quarters, and range wouldn't have been a major factor if they'd had to shoot. Unless they were ambushed on the way to work!
BTW, back about 1960, holster maker Chic Gaylord decried the way that heavy-framed guns with short barrels holstered. It was hard to get them balanced right and they didn't hug the body and hide as well as guns with three-inch or longer barrels. I think his pet peeve was the 3.5-inch M-27, but the snub M-10 was also on his "unfavorite" list.
semperfi71
US Veteran
Interesting to me that this thread has occurred.
I am intending to purchase a good 2 inch M15 when I find one and therefore have thought over the revolver and come to about the same conclusions as SaxonPig. However I still want one.
It may well be that General LeMay and the M56 was the impetus for the M15 and also perhaps (an assumption) is that about the time of entry for the M15 Americans in general were wanting more adjustible sighted revolvers and perhaps this was due to the newly increasing variety of .38 Special loads available.
I gettin' one jest as soon as my GunFund recovers from other excesses!
I am intending to purchase a good 2 inch M15 when I find one and therefore have thought over the revolver and come to about the same conclusions as SaxonPig. However I still want one.
It may well be that General LeMay and the M56 was the impetus for the M15 and also perhaps (an assumption) is that about the time of entry for the M15 Americans in general were wanting more adjustible sighted revolvers and perhaps this was due to the newly increasing variety of .38 Special loads available.
I gettin' one jest as soon as my GunFund recovers from other excesses!
Engine49guy
Member
Just went through my pics and found my old 15-3 snub ,
It was definately purdy but I kept comparing it to the Model 66 and Model 12 snubs
Unfortunately anything it did well the other 2 did better,
Interestingly there have been two locally recently for $350 Both tempted me but I kept thinking if it was only a RB or had a 3" underlug barrel I would probably own 2 right now.
It was definately purdy but I kept comparing it to the Model 66 and Model 12 snubs
Unfortunately anything it did well the other 2 did better,
Interestingly there have been two locally recently for $350 Both tempted me but I kept thinking if it was only a RB or had a 3" underlug barrel I would probably own 2 right now.
"...but it's also a beautifully made P&R K-frame S&W."
Hawg Rider, you might want to check your M15. S&W only recessed Magnum and .22 rimfire cylinders.
Hawg Rider, you might want to check your M15. S&W only recessed Magnum and .22 rimfire cylinders.
I bought a nickel 2" 15 off GunBroker a little over 2 hours ago for $330! Looks like it's scratched some, but that's easily fixed, I do believe... especially at that price!
I dont think that is a very accurate statement.
Round Butt vs Square butt, the footprint is so similar, and the rear sight unit barely adds to the footprint. Really unless you were pocket carrying would the adjustable sight unit be a detriment.
My point wasn't that it COULD be carried, rather that it WAS and IS carried. Apparently it IS the best design for the purpose. I HAVE a 12 that has a RB and shoots to POA. It is lighter, but the 15 is barely faster and noticeably more accurate to shoot. Both the higher sights and the Rogers grips contribute. It seems to me perfectly logical on your part to assume that fixed sights and stock RB grips would be better, and I would ordinarily assume the same thing, but I have found in practice that the adjustable sights and Rogers grips are BETTER, and have NO drawbacks in practice.
I hope that that $750 2" 15 was NIB. Mine was a shooter, and I paid $155 for it just a few years ago. What does a new 2" K-frame .38 with a Plug go for these days?
Last edited:
Kevin, that was definitely sloppy phrasing on my part. I didn't mean to suggest that General LeMay preferred revolvers to semiautos, but that he was open to their use in a military context. LeMay was certainly interested in small arms training and marksmanship for AF personnel. While other short-barreled revolvers had previously seen use in the Air Force, the M56 was the first one to be ordered with adjustable sights. I took that to be an expression of LeMay's desire to see personnel trained to use compact sidearms as effectively as possible, not to mention his desire to acquire sidearms for the AF that had the capacity to be used effectively.
Didn't mean to mislead; just wanted to offer a quick answer to a basic question in the thread.
kwill1911
Member
No harm, no foul. Just thought maybe you had some evidence about LeMay's preferences that I was unaware of.
Regards,
Kevin Williams
OP
Art Doc
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
Ooooookaaaaay.... Now a couple of guys want to argue that the round butt is not better for concealment than is the square butt. I would have thought that to be an unarguable point...
Similar threads
