Why doesn't smith make more k frames??

[Vic_vega9]

Anyone have an idea why smith doesn't make more k frames especially in 3 inch. You read everywhere that most revolver guys favorite do all gun is a k frame and the 3 inch is the most loved. I think if they produced they would defiantly sell. I myself have been looking for the old fbi gun m13 3 inch round for a fair price for years with no luck.

 

[Cal44]

I think S&W considers the L frames as the replacement for the K frame.

Also, when the magnum J frames came out, the J frame line "ate into" the K frame territory for small carry-able 357 magnums.

So K frames are kind of squeezed out from both sides.

 

[Vic_vega9]

What a bummer

 

[Warren Sear]

The reason is very simple: it is not as profitable as making other guns.

 

[UncleEd]

While I own quite a few K frames, I like to shoot the 686 Plus
3-inchers and also my Pro Series 5-incher.


In size and weight with the 7-shot cylinder I don't find the 686s to be of a handicap compared to the K frames. In the ProSeries
5-incher the sculpted light barrel really makes it a very handy gun.

Also think about it: The Ruger GP100 is also an L framed size handgun and the classic, much touted
Python is also of the same size (Colt's designation was I frame).

But I must admit the Ks are sweet and a pleasure to shoot, especially in .38 Special.

 

[susieqz]

this leaves people like me out in the cold.
i have to have the weight of an all steel k frame to cushion center fire recoil. my hand won't fit anything bigger.
for me, it's k frame or nothing.

 

[sac-gunslinger]

The same with Ruger's Security Six series of revolvers. Perfect medium frame size, arguably stronger than Smith's K-frames. Dropped in favor of the L-frame sized GP-100 series. I only buy older used medium framed revolvers when I need one, Smiths or Rugers.

 

[silentflyer]

More profit in springs and plastic....

 

[BB57]

I'm in agreement with a couple of the posts above.

Sure, I have a 3" J-Magnum frame Model 60 and it's a great conceal carry revolver, but it's not one I can take out and put a couple hundred rounds through in a session, without wearing out prematurely, and without my hand hurting.

My 3" Model 13 is superb shooting pistol that will tolerate high round counts from frequent practice and yet it isn't too large or heavy to conceal comfortably and effectively.

But it is blued and in the summer in NC, it needs oiled every day to avoid rust that otherwise occurs with the heat, humidity sweat and salt air that goes hand in hand with eastern NC summers.

Consequently in the summer I carry a stainless steel 2 3/4" Speed Six.

I have a 3" SP101 that is also an option, but it's almost as heavy as the Model 13 and offers no real advantage (other than being SS), and as noted above the GP101, like then 686+, is just a little to large and heavy for comfortable concealed carry.

It may be true that the 3" K frame is getting squeezed between the 3" J-Magnum and the 3" 686+, but that's also forcing people who would buy a 3" K-frame to choose the lesser of those other two evils, and given a 3" K-frame choice, I suspect S&W would sell a ton of them.

 

[Boudiepitbull]

The 617s are built on a K Frame, so it looks like S&W likes it as a platform for overbuilt .22s.

 

[DD357]

Nothing more than demand. Autos are very popular for SD and when someone wants to get a wheelgun for that then the J is the usual choice. Once you get to range size guns the L gets the nod. This leaves the K with little a small percentage of the market. (and that's too bad)

 

[old bear]

It's funny how things work. When Smith and Wesson was making 3" barreled K frames they were NOT hot sellers. Some dealers, to get them out of their inventory, were selling 3" K frames at their cost. Now we all want them.

I have a M 65-5 Lady Smith, it's a great revolver to shoot and works well for discrete carry, but I find it a little heavy for true C/C. I much prefer my 2 1/2" R/B K frames.

 

[bigwheelzip]

Might not be your cup of tea, but there is a new design Model 66.

I handled one at Cabela's, and it seemed nice, they even managed to get rid of the flat bottom on the forcing cone.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrV3DTG1IBA[/ame]

 

[DD357]

When I think K I think of the 2, 2.5 & 3 inch guns.

 

[L Pete]

I, as an old guy, don't understand the great desire for a 3" barreled K-frame. I prefer the regular old run-of-the mill 4" version in any K-frame caliber. I know you're going to tell me about how well a 3"er conceals, and to this I say B___ S___! I can conceal a 4"er just as easily as a 3"er, and have better ballistics, a long sight radius, and better balance. It just befuddles me about this craze for the 3" barreled K-frames that I see on this website.

As far as the new K-frames, well, down the road, I'll have to check into the new Model 66 version, and see how it stacks up against the old. If the newer M-66 shoots as accurately as my newer Model 67 does, I'd be extremely happy. I'd also have to feel that if Smith and Wesson can bring back this very popular handgun from the old days, why can't they re-introduce a Model 65 to go along with the M-66. I love fixed sighted gun, too.

 

[jake1945]

I just bought a NIB K frame with 4 inch barrel in 38 special. I like it!

 

[Brian in Oregon]

The appeal of a 3" barrel is it is as short as you can go yet still allow a full length ejector rod. The 2" and 2.5" barrels require a shorter ejector rod that won't completely clear the empties from the chamber.

I don't care for J frames. My hands are too large for them. By the time a grip is installed that fits me, might as well have a K frame. And indeed, that's what I did - found a 2" S&W Model 12.

In fact, my trigger finger was constantly getting hung up on the trigger guard of my long gone Model 36 when I tried to pull it fast. I milled a scallop into the front of the trigger guard, removing a round area to about half the width of the guard. This allowed my finger to clear without removing the entire trigger guard.

I'd welcome a round butt 3" Model 65 or Model 66, but they just don't turn up that often.

As for the 617, I don't know why S&W put a heavy underlug barrel on it. It should have had the same barrel style as the 66. In fact, for a given amount of weight, I'd rather it had a longer barrel, like a stainless version of the Model 53 .22 Jet in 8-3/8". Since only the unnecessarily heavy 617 was all that was available, I've made do with my old Model 18 and figured S&W wasn't going to make what I wanted.

Yeah, I'm picky. Lots of lost sales over the years.

 

[S&W Rover]

I have a 65-5 with 3" barrel and just bought a 686-8 Plus with 3" barrel -- they are both great, but very different guns -- most obviously when held side-by-side in direct comparison. What a difference a quarter inch or a few ounces makes! The 65-5 feels light and slim compared to the 686.

A friendly article about 3" K frames which has some nice pics and makes some of the same points posted here: http://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/three-inch-k-frames-glock-19-revolvers/

 

[Rpg]

The reason Smith has backed away from K frames is simple: they make more money devoting their resources to plastic guns.

 

[jchaney38]

Well at least they could make a model 10/64 with a three inch barrel. I have other guns for .357 magnum rounds if I want to go that route since the k frame isn't the best for that. Although j frame .357's are out there. Haha, if its all about the money what can you do, I never knew they didn't sell that well in the past. It is what it is. I sure do want one though.

 

[BB57]

I, as an old guy, don't understand the great desire for a 3" barreled K-frame. I prefer the regular old run-of-the mill 4" version in any K-frame caliber. I know you're going to tell me about how well a 3"er conceals, and to this I say B___ S___! I can conceal a 4"er just as easily as a 3"er, and have better ballistics, a long sight radius, and better balance. It just befuddles me about this craze for the 3" barreled K-frames that I see on this website.

How do you conceal carry your 4 inch K frame?

I've often stated that a 3" will conceal as well and as comfortably as a 2", but beyond 3" I start having issues carrying IWB and sitting down with a 4".

I'm an average sized guy and 4" is just too long to work well with IWB carry. And, try to find 4" IWB holsters....

 

[shocker]

I don't have to think too much on this one, consumer demand - whatever niche the K's filled is better done in most shooter's minds with a subcompact or compact auto in 9 mm, 357 Sig, 40, or 10 mm (do a size comparison of a Glock 19, 23, or 29 to a K).

 

[DD357]

How do you conceal carry your 4 inch K frame?

I've often stated that a 3" will conceal as well and as comfortably as a 2", but beyond 3" I start having issues carrying IWB and sitting down with a 4".

I'm an average sized guy and 4" is just too long to work well with IWB carry. And, try to find 4" IWB holsters....

Yep; 4" IWB and sitting don't work well for me either. No interest in carrying OWB.

 

[L Pete]

Yep; 4" IWB and sitting don't work well for me either. No interest in carrying OWB.

You boys just need to pull your pants up, and quit wearing 'em "gangsta" style. No problem for me carrying a 4" barreled K-frame IWB. But,.......if you want discomfort, just carry a 5" or greater barreled revolver in a Border Patrol style holster on a River Belt while riding in a patrol car for hours and hours a shift for days and days. These old holsters dropped enough that the butt of the revolver as at the top of the belt. A 4" barreled revolver is perfect as it doesn't push up or you're not sitting on the barrel. With my IWB holster, the muzzle isn't even close to touching a seat bottom or digging into you outside butt cheek. A good IWB holster should place the butt of the revolver an inch or two just below your rib cage on your side with your belt covering the cylinder and forward part of the trigger guard in pretty the same position as a high-ride OWB holster does. Now, if you're wear your IWB as an AIWB, I can see where that could be a problem, so, my answer for this is "Don't Do It". There is just too much valuable stuff in the event of an AD that could get damaged. I really don't have any idea why you all have this problem, but I don't and I'll continue to carry my old round butt M-64 with its 4" barrel, and let the real "he-men" carry their J-frame .357s.

Once again, I'm still thinking about the new M-66. Does anybody have any experience with one that has a goodly round count? If so, please elaborate.........

 

[BB57]

You boys just need to pull your pants up, and quit wearing 'em "gangsta" style. No problem for me carrying a 4" barreled K-frame IWB.

Well...there's "gansta" style, there's "normal" and then there's "old guys with their belt up near their armpits".

 

[BB57]

I don't have to think too much on this one, consumer demand - whatever niche the K's filled is better done in most shooter's minds with a subcompact or compact auto in 9 mm, 357 Sig, 40, or 10 mm (do a size comparison of a Glock 19, 23, or 29 to a K).

It's deceptive. If you just go with overall length, width and height dimensions pistols and revolvers can look pretty similar. What isn't reflected is the total volume of the pistol versus the revolver.

For example a pistol that is 1" wide will be 1" wide over it's entire length, and the grip frame will be comparatively large and also consistent in depth and width through it's whole length.

Contrast that with a revolver, where the maximum width only exists at the cylinder (and then only at one point on the circle), the grip is smaller, thinner, and not rectangular in shape, and the barrel is only about 1/2" wide.

The end result is much less bulk and volume in the revolver, even if the overall LxWxH dimensions are identical or even slightly larger than those of a comparable pistol.

If you've carried both revolvers and pistols, you've already figured that out.

 

[Kframerbluvr]

A 4" K frame carried OWB just requires a longer cover garment than a 2 or 3 inch barreled version. The longer barrel lays along the hip and keeps the butt of the gun close to the body.
I carried a 4" M64 off duty years ago like this with no real problem.
That being said, if S&W or another reputable maker would make a six shot 3" lightweight K-frame sized .38 with fixed sights, I would liquidite some Austrian Tupperware and buy at least two of them.

 

[L Pete]

Well...there's "gansta" style, there's "normal" and then there's "old guys with their belt up near their armpits".

I'm old, but not that old. Besides, that's difficult to do with jeans.....

 

[ISCS Yoda]

I, as an old guy, don't understand the great desire for a 3" barreled K-frame

I don't understand it, either. Maybe it's perfect for a full length ejector rod to work, maybe it's even better for velocity and accuracy, but for my money the 2" K frames are the bees knees. Three inch barrels look good (I have one in a 686+) but they don't do much for me in the world of concealed carry. That extra inch makes the gun that much harder to hide if you wear it OWB and that much more difficult to be comfortable with IWB.

I have minimal use for J frames although I have several - they're just nowhere near as easy to shoot as a 2" K frame and, especially Airweights, you really cannot comfortably put in the kind of practice hours that you can with an all steel K frame snubbie. If you shoot a box of 50 rounds through a J frame you won't do it again for awhile. I can shoot two hundred through a 2" K frame and not even think about it.

If S&W made any K frames in 2 or 2.5 inch barrels I think they'd sell well. If they're trying to keep costs down then a 2" Model 65 would satisfy for the .357 Magnum folks and more than satisfy if you're sticking to .38s.

Just mi dos centavos.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Shocker didn't say that the Tupperware was inherently superior to revolvers, just that the majority of current day purchasers think so.

I remain still enamorated with 2 inch K frames. Not because I *can't* carry a longer revolver, but because I really like the 2in on purpose.