ray45
Member
If you had to choose a personal S&W 357 magnum revolver for everyday hunting and recreational shooting that would last a lifetime of rugged use... which Model and Years of MFG would you choose? Something for the Zombie Apocalypse.
Which Years and Models S&W 357 Most Durable
- Thread starter ray45
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Last edited:
bigggbbruce
Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 27,660
- Reaction score
- 21,285
Probably a 3-4” model 686, vintage probably not important. No disrespect intended toward blued/J-K-N frame proponents.
BigBill
Absent Comrade
hyena
Member
Model 28. If you run out of ammo you can beat 'em to death.
27 or 28 is the only choice.
I'd go with stainless steel:
A 4" 686 or 681. I like older and pre-lock but any will probably do. With the 686+ you can even get a 7 shot.
An 8-shot 627 would be a suitable alternative. Probably go with a 5" barrel. Most of these have the internal lock, the pre-lock ones being much more desirable/expensive.
A distant third option would be a 3" model 60-10 with adjustable sites if you are into J frames.
A 4" 686 or 681. I like older and pre-lock but any will probably do. With the 686+ you can even get a 7 shot.
An 8-shot 627 would be a suitable alternative. Probably go with a 5" barrel. Most of these have the internal lock, the pre-lock ones being much more desirable/expensive.
A distant third option would be a 3" model 60-10 with adjustable sites if you are into J frames.
Golphin
Member
Nickel 27-2..
Gotta look good doing it..
A 28-2 can look good as well.
Attachments
As much as I love N frames, I tend to agree with murphydog. I bough a brand new 27-2 in the mid-1970’s and have shot it for years. I doubt it had 5000 rounds of magnums through it, when I had to send it back to S&W because it was out of time (shaving lead) and it had excessive endshake. There’s a lot of mass/rotational inertia on those big cylinders when you pull the trigger quickly.
The 686-4 Plus is probably one of the strongest and most durable .357’s S&W ever made. I piked the 7–shot version, because the stop notches are between the chambers, which eliminates the thin spots in the cylinder.
Darkenfast
Member
1. "Everyday hunting and recreational..." implies that the gun will be carried.
2. "Zombie apocalypse" implies serious tactical use.
3. "Durable" implies real-world, long-term reliability with full-powered ammunition.
#2 is best met by a high-cap semi-auto. If a revolver is still desired, then there is no reason to restrict oneself to six rounds. That leaves two options: Seven-round L-frames or eight-round N-frames.
#3 would appear to be a slam-dunk for the N-frames, however, I have never seen any scientific evidence for the N-frames real-world better durability over the L-frame.
#1 requires that the gun be carried, and in a #3 situation, carried a lot. This requires decisions on how much weight you want to lug around and how long a barrel you want to haul out of a holster in an emergency. Barrel length has implications for performance of magnum ammunition and sight radius, and also "handiness". It may also have be affected by hunting regulations in your area in non "zombie apocalypse" times. "Durability" may also require sticking to stainless steel vs. carbon steel or scandium alloy. Only you can work out those compromises for yourself.
I would add one more possible screening requirement: availability in a gun-store. If you have to special-order it, you have to rely on manufacturer quality-control or be prepared to argue with the factory and then send it back and wait. Their idea of "meets specs" may not be yours.
Throw all of this in a blender and I come up with what is simply my opinion, based on my thinking process:
FIRST CHOICE: S&W 686+, 4.125" barrel.
Pros: Handy. Not too heavy (39-ish oz., same as a 1911). Seven-shot. A frame size and trigger-reach that nearly anyone can handle. Often seen in gun shops (present shortage excepted), so you can check it out.
Cons: Seven shots. Needs speed-loaders. Barrel length may be too short. (Note: the other length commonly available is six-inch and there are also five-inch variations, which I have NEVER seen in a shop).
SECOND CHOICE: S&W 627 PC, 5" barrel.
Pros: Eight-shot. Custom shop action. Reloads with moon-clips. Five-inch barrel gets better performance.
Cons: I have never seen one in a shop. You'd probably have to special order it and take your chances. Moon-clips in revolver calibers can be finicky as to what brands work in which clips. Weighs more (44 oz.). Trigger reach is slightly longer, which may or may not be a factor with you.
HONORABLE MENTION: The 686+ with a six-inch barrel. You trade off length and weight (43.5 oz.) for a revolver that gets better performance (with less recoil and noise), and is easier to shoot more accurately. Locally, I see these about as often as I see the 4.125" version. The long-barreled revolver is more sluggish to handle, compared with the
shorter model.
My personal view is that the MIM-parts and Lock issues are non-starters in the search. Other will passionately disagree.
I enjoy thought experiments like this! Hope this helps others think it through.
2. "Zombie apocalypse" implies serious tactical use.
3. "Durable" implies real-world, long-term reliability with full-powered ammunition.
#2 is best met by a high-cap semi-auto. If a revolver is still desired, then there is no reason to restrict oneself to six rounds. That leaves two options: Seven-round L-frames or eight-round N-frames.
#3 would appear to be a slam-dunk for the N-frames, however, I have never seen any scientific evidence for the N-frames real-world better durability over the L-frame.
#1 requires that the gun be carried, and in a #3 situation, carried a lot. This requires decisions on how much weight you want to lug around and how long a barrel you want to haul out of a holster in an emergency. Barrel length has implications for performance of magnum ammunition and sight radius, and also "handiness". It may also have be affected by hunting regulations in your area in non "zombie apocalypse" times. "Durability" may also require sticking to stainless steel vs. carbon steel or scandium alloy. Only you can work out those compromises for yourself.
I would add one more possible screening requirement: availability in a gun-store. If you have to special-order it, you have to rely on manufacturer quality-control or be prepared to argue with the factory and then send it back and wait. Their idea of "meets specs" may not be yours.
Throw all of this in a blender and I come up with what is simply my opinion, based on my thinking process:
FIRST CHOICE: S&W 686+, 4.125" barrel.
Pros: Handy. Not too heavy (39-ish oz., same as a 1911). Seven-shot. A frame size and trigger-reach that nearly anyone can handle. Often seen in gun shops (present shortage excepted), so you can check it out.
Cons: Seven shots. Needs speed-loaders. Barrel length may be too short. (Note: the other length commonly available is six-inch and there are also five-inch variations, which I have NEVER seen in a shop).
SECOND CHOICE: S&W 627 PC, 5" barrel.
Pros: Eight-shot. Custom shop action. Reloads with moon-clips. Five-inch barrel gets better performance.
Cons: I have never seen one in a shop. You'd probably have to special order it and take your chances. Moon-clips in revolver calibers can be finicky as to what brands work in which clips. Weighs more (44 oz.). Trigger reach is slightly longer, which may or may not be a factor with you.
HONORABLE MENTION: The 686+ with a six-inch barrel. You trade off length and weight (43.5 oz.) for a revolver that gets better performance (with less recoil and noise), and is easier to shoot more accurately. Locally, I see these about as often as I see the 4.125" version. The long-barreled revolver is more sluggish to handle, compared with the
shorter model.
My personal view is that the MIM-parts and Lock issues are non-starters in the search. Other will passionately disagree.
I enjoy thought experiments like this! Hope this helps others think it through.
dmthomp32
Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2016
- Messages
- 905
- Reaction score
- 1,309
For your intended uses, Id go N frame as many here have confidence that frame laughs at .357. I'd opt for stainless just for durability of the finish and finish it with an 8 shot cylinder. That revolver will get it done with style. For the diversity of uses listed 3-5" barrel.
Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk
hkcavalier
US Veteran
627 8 shot 5" barrel.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 3,331
- Reaction score
- 2,612
I also would pick one of my 3" - 4" 686's.
Out of the gate my preference is mid-1990's L and N frames, pre-MIM with hammer-mounted firing pin. Think 686-3 and dash 4, 29-5 and dash 6, and 629-3 and dash 4. My 27 and 28 are old school dash 2, pinned and recessed.
I enjoy my N frames, but for all around general purpose and field carry I have to give the nod to the L frame. My order of preference:
686-4 7-shot 4" (or a 629-4 Mountain Gun .44 Magnum).
686-4 6-shot 6".
28-2 4" or 6". Matte finish, built for field and duty use.
27-2 5" or 6". All around classic S&W.
Consider the K-frames, too. I have a 13-2 3" that is perfect for packing in the field.
I enjoy my N frames, but for all around general purpose and field carry I have to give the nod to the L frame. My order of preference:
686-4 7-shot 4" (or a 629-4 Mountain Gun .44 Magnum).
686-4 6-shot 6".
28-2 4" or 6". Matte finish, built for field and duty use.
27-2 5" or 6". All around classic S&W.
Consider the K-frames, too. I have a 13-2 3" that is perfect for packing in the field.
Last edited:
Herky Bird
Member
I’m partial to my 2018 6.5” Model 27-9. I prefer a long barrel without the nose-heavy underlug of the 586/686, the N-frame size fits my XL/2XL hand-size and the single-action trigger is even better than my Colt 1911 National Match. And, it can handle my current favorite magnum load.
