Why no 2" M13's or M65's?

[Black_Sheep]

Considering the popularity of 2" 10's and 64's why do you suppose S&W never produced 2" 13's and 65's? They would make a great carry piece...

 

[texmex]

Just a guess that the three inch allows for a full length ejector rod, higher pressure of the 357 Magnum makes it harder to eject without a full length ejector rod. The k frame is not really a pocket gun no matter what so 3 inch not much of a handicap over a two inch. There were certainly plenty of 2 inch 38 M&Ps and Combat Masterpieces though.

 

[629shooter]

I'm not surprised that neither a 2" 13 or 65 was produced. Like texmex said, ejecting spent Magnum cases from a 2" barreled revolver isn't a "graceful" act. Longer ejector rods are a good thing.

That being said, I am surprised that a 2.5" 13 or 65 was never produced, given the popularity of the 2.5" 19 and 66.

Heck, I would like to see the 681 reintroduced(without the ILS, and while I'm dreaming, give me a RB 3" with a dovetailed front sight (without any porting.)

 

[Hapworth]

Agreed that part of the reason is the longer .357 cases and ensuing extraction nuisance. Too, in the heyday of the K-frame snubby, most defensive .357 was very hot by today's standards and both the ballistic and recoil factors out of a 1-7/8" barrel may have been deemed prohibitive.

But the biggest factor I'd wager is S&W didn't want to eat into their snubby 19/66 or 10/64 sales...

 

[gkitch]

With the 357 magnum, the shorter the barrel the more it becomes a flamethrower and the less it can be accurately defined a "magnum". Many considered the 2.5" a bit too short for this caliber as a good deal of powder gets burned up well after the bullet leaves the muzzle.

 

[jhvaughan2]

i agree the 3" is better, but if that is the reason for no M13, why was it not the reason for no 2" M19?

my guess it that the decision was not base on logic, just marketing demand. The M13 was never that popular in the first place. People just love the style of under lug and target sights, even if they served no real need for them. Just look how long it took to come out with a fixed sight .357 in the first place. The 38HD had a fixed (service) and target models. When the .357 came out there were two target models. it was not until 30 years later till the M13 was even available.

 

[SLT223]

I understand what you're all saying about ejector rod length, but both the 19 and 66 in 2.5" have short ejector rods.

 

[loeman]

Heck, I would like to see the 681 reintroduced(without the ILS, and while I'm dreaming, give me a RB 3" with a dovetailed front sight (without any porting.)

Yeah, why no new 681s? IMHO, this model is significantly more appealing than the 686s especially as a field gun. And if they gave us a choice of barrel lengths and butt configuration I'd have my ultimate revolver. I think I'd go for a 3 inch, 681 with round butt. Sorry for the thread drift, the mention of 681s gets me excited.

 

[Hapworth]

I understand what you're all saying about ejector rod length, but both the 19 and 66 in 2.5" have short ejector rods.

Yep, and comparatively they are more difficult to extract with as a result, so even more so an even shorter rod.

 

[Kernel Crittenden]

... why do you suppose S&W never produced 2" 13's and 65's?

Obviously, since they are fixed sight models, S&W didn't think there was any point. Hence the 2-inch M19 and M66 and their fine target sights. The question should be, "Why didn't S&W put the adjustable silhouette front sight on the snubbie M19 and M66?"

 

[BAM-BAM]

IIRC; the story I always heard is that the 3" round butt Model 13 w/ full length ejector rod was developed for, and at the request of, the FBI to issue to new agents.

Looking to check this fact in the SCS&W I noted that the model 13" was introduced" in 1974 for the NYSP.......... can we assume; that they wanted a 4" service revolver???

So I'm guessing that the 3" and 4" barrel lengths were "chosen" by the original issuing agencies????

By the way all the other points put forth make sense to me......I seem to recall that the 2.5" 19 became common with FBI agents vs. the older and heavier 3.5" 27 popular in the 1930s...... and beyond

 

[Doug M.]

The one inch difference from the 10/64, or .5 inch difference from the 19/66, does not make a real difference in how well in conceals in a good holster, but does help with maintaining ballistic performance. The additional length also helps with practical (as opposed to mechanical) accuracy. It also gives the full length ejector rod. Remember that the initial purchasers were LE folks who had specific performance criteria in mind.

For all around use, concealed or not, the RB K frames of 3" are outstanding; only a 4" w/RB is close. Look how the cult of the 3" M66 pays a serious premium for one when found. As a shooter's tool, it beats the living heck out of a 2.5" model. Personally, I view the 2.5" 19/66 as a solution in search of a problem.

 

[texmex]

When the 357 was introduced, S&W never dreamed they would be used as duty guns. All the barrels were 8 3/4 inch (later 8 3/8). They would cut the barrel to any length you ordered. Each gun was basically a special custom order with numerous options for barrel length, grips and sights. The first one went to J. Edgar Hoover. Apparently a lot of FBI agents wanted them and they wanted the shortest barrel possible. That turned out to be 3 1/2 inch. It also turned out to be really good looking. When the first K frame 357 came out, it was envisioned from the start as a duty weapon. That lead to it being offered in 4 inch and 6 inch for uniform and 2 1/2 inch for plainclothes. I think the 2 1/2 inch was designed to look as much like the 3 1/2 inch N frame as possible. Later, some were made in 3 inch. I guess someone noticed the added 1/2 inch didn't make it much harder to conceal and the longer ejector rod was nice. The 2 1/2 inch was just too good looking to be replaced. With no shroud for the ejector rod and no tall target front sight, the 13/65 was never going to look sexy like the 19/66 so there was no reason for a 2 1/2 inch. Shortening the barrel from 4 inch to right in front of front locking lug results in a 3 inch barrel by default. Looks better also.

 

[riverrat38]

The 357 MGN looses .135 inch of effective barrel length over a 38 SPL, due to the longer case. Effective barrel length is measured from the base of the bullet when it is chambered in a gun. In the MGN case it is that much closer to the muzzle. A little over 1/8 inch.

Best,
Rick

 

[cndrdk]

When I was in the police academy back in the early '70's this question (2" .38 vs. 2.5" .357) was raised. Our firearms instructor, (FBI instructor), told us the .357 has so much speed/power out of the cartridge case that it needed the extra half inch barrel length to obtain proper bullet spin for accuracy. He (instructor) knew his S&W revolvers. In class we had to completely disassemble our revolvers and re-assemble our revolvers several times. He would occasionally walk by our work station checking our progress and secretly drop (or remove) an extra screw or spring. Then we would have to do it all over trying to find our mistake. During this time we also stoned/deburred/lubricated the internals. Good instructor and good learning that has stayed with me all these years.

 

[Biggfoot44]

A. S&W had plenty of sales of 3in M13 and M65's.

B. By the time M13 and M65's came about during the later stages of Revolver Era , the thinking of the times was favoring full length extraction as a virtue.

 

[Zipdog]

Yeah, why no new 681s? IMHO, this model is significantly more appealing than the 686s especially as a field gun. And if they gave us a choice of barrel lengths and butt configuration I'd have my ultimate revolver. I think I'd go for a 3 inch, 681 with round butt. Sorry for the thread drift, the mention of 681s gets me excited.

Getting ready to convert one of my 681's barrel length and round butt it. Started a new thread about it. I'm excited.