S&W - Are You Listening?

[armorer951]

Nope....they're not listening.

 

[Hillbilly77]

Never mind that ugly stainless garbage. How 'bout bringing the Model 19 back?

You mean like this stainless garbage, I hope you are kidding.

Well, I was kidding about the "garbage" part.
I stand by my "ugly stainless" remark.

I never have liked stainless guns. I prefer blue steel and wood stocks - on all guns.

 

[357-RevolverGuy]

And if not a 3 inch, I'll take a 2.5. Why on earth did they stop making snub K frames? Do they think people don't carry them?

 

[PatriotX]

Anyone else want a Model 69 in 3-inch ?

Methinks it would sell well.

 

[Damol]

I just want a 3 inch M57.

 

[falcon1]

Anyone else want a Model 69 in 3-inch ?

Methinks it would sell well.

And also offering a three-inch barrel assembly for sale so that the Model 69 could be converted, but still retain the original barrel also.

 

[Blueford]

I Know my mod. 10 3" is not & will not be for sale.

 

[rwsmith]

Well, when the craze dies down.....

I assure you, they are not listening. too much money to make selling M&Ps, Shields and their rendition of an AR.

When the plastic gun craze dies down and S&W needs to have some products to goose sales, they have plenty of classic guns to make runs of.

 

[rwsmith]

LUDDITE!!!

Well, I was kidding about the "garbage" part.
I stand by my "ugly stainless" remark.

I never have liked stainless guns. I prefer blue steel and wood stocks - on all guns.

Blue steel and wood is good. Stainless and rubber grips are good, alloy frames are good. Nickel is good (well maybe). Chrome plating is good. Parkerizing is good.

And I don't have to worry about damaging the 'finish' on my 686.

PS: I will agree though that blued and wood grips look GREAT!

 

[caleb4387]

I dint think they will with the 3 inch 686 doing so well

 

[shawn mccarver]

I agree with this. A 3 inch round butt version of the new 66 is a great idea. Please, no silliness, such as porting, slab-sided barrels, or barrels with silly looking front sights set back an inch to allow a huge unnecessary and unsightly hole in the top of the barrel. I can remove a lock if I wish, but I cannot replace the steel from unnecessary holes in the barrel.

 

[shawn mccarver]

Is the modern K-frame any different than the modern L-frame?

I have seen you hint at the idea that current production K and L frame revolvers actually use the same frame. I would be surprised if that were true, but one way to find out is to see if the hammer for the new 66 and the new 69 are the same. If the 69 uses traditional L frame dimensions, and the new 66 uses traditional K frame dimensions, the L frame hammer should be taller, and thus, not the same part. Anyone have a CURRENT parts book or DVD?

 

[caleb4387]

I don't think it would do else with the 686 3 inch selling so well

 

[riverrat38]

The L frame has to be bigger, or else they couldn't put a 7 chamber cylinder in it. The cylinder is larger to avoid having to put a flat spot on the barrel to allow the cylinder to close. Also, try to put an L frame gun in a quality fitting holster like my Lobo pancake. No fit. Or, weight the gun. A few ounces heavier. Only a few! The 3 inch M686 is a nice gun.
With the new M66, the two piece barrel eliminated the need for the flat spot. My complaint with the new K frame guns is the bead blasted finish. Not bad looking, but we lose the ability to buff out slight finish damage. The gun would need a new blasting! That makes it more fussy, like "blueing" or Nickel plating.
The two piece barrel does make sight alignment independent of the barrel torque. A good thing!
They could eliminate the IL by making a 3 inch K frame Centennial, which are the only frames they don't drill. Double action only is not a bad thing in a carry gun. A big brother to my M640 Pro.

Best,
Rick

 

[KSDeputy]

I want a stainless model 65 with a heavy 3" bbl.

 

[wadcutter1]

Yes, a 3" model 65 would be ideal (or better yet scandium version), but offering a 3" model 66 would be less tooling. I'd buy either.

It seems like an obvious market to exploit considering the demand for used 3" k-frames. That being said, it's also very obvious no one likes the lock and it doesn't seem that anyone at S&W notices or cares.

I do have a 3" 686, but to me an L-frame points better with a 4" barrel. On a k-frame the 3" barrel balances it just right.

 

[2ndAmendmentNut]

S&W - Are You Listening?

Like another member said, Ruger is listening. I am a die hard S&W fan, but with the used market drying up and the prices climbing the only new wheel guns I have bought in several years have been Rugers.

Personally I would like to see the Night Guard line brought back without the IL. MIM parts are fine and the frame mounted firing pin really is an improvement from a practical perspective.

 

[HarrishMasher]

Like another member said, Ruger is listening. I am a die hard S&W fan, but with the used market drying up and the prices climbing the only new wheel guns I have bought in several years have been Rugers.

Personally I would like to see the Night Guard line brought back without the IL. MIM parts are fine and the frame mounted firing pin really is an improvement from a practical perspective.

Interesting you mention the Night Guard Line. In my opinion that was the last big revolver push/innovation S&W made. They went all out with the NG line...K,L, and N frame versions in 38, 357, 44sp, 44mag, 41mag, 10mm, and 45acp. They were expensive and did not catch on. Amazing guns in my opinion. I love my 386NG and carry it often.

Unfortunately, I think the Night Guard series was the last big push/innovation we will see for revolvers from S&W.

 

[DFrame]

I want a 3 inch 69!

 

[ladder13]

Ruger may be listening but I don't care , still holding out for Smith to come to their senses.