Any without a hammer nose
Your least favorite S&W revolver
- Thread starter Wfevans4
- Start date
Well Armed
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2014
- Messages
- 1,102
- Reaction score
- 1,361
All of them at this point.
Piwo
Member
Any Smith and Wesson with an unfluted cylinder. Ugly as sin. Makes the gun look like they skipped a process or two while making it. Also makes it look cheap. Also, why do they do it on any snubby? That seems counter productive....adding weight for no reason. I just can't help but believe the added weight of the cylinder also wears the hand faster on magnum revolvers. Just my thoughts.
Sadly my most recent purchase, a 340PD. I love DAO J frames. I bought this one to save on the weight. It has a heavier trigger pull than a 351C but gritty and stiff too. Very disappointed in the lack of QC. My older 442 has an action that is light years better.
Every model k frame with the new lock profile. I can’t stand looking at them. A total negative with me.
ishootblanks
Member
Any with the "Hillary Hole" !!!
drumminor2nd
Member
I've had two J-frame Airweights that both went bye-bye -- a 37 and a 638. I still have half a dozen grips in a drawer that I tried on them but could never find a comfortable combo to actually shoot them. Wouldn't be opposed to a K frame snub, though.
not a smith, sorry, but I had an sp101 3 inch. trigger pull was around 14-15 pounds (my scale goes to 14 and it was off the scale). had to use two hands and a small crane to pull back the hammer to cock it for single action. changed springs and got it down to 12 pounds, but that still was too much for me. thought the gun looked cool, though, and in single action it was super accurate, but not much fun to shoot (too much work involved). Traded it in and picked up a Model 60-15 3 inch with adjustable sights and love it.
OTOH, to be fair and not slam ruger, my EDC is an LCRx. Trigger was around 10.5 out of the box, after a couple hundred rounds the trigger is down to around 9. and smooooooth!
OTOH, to be fair and not slam ruger, my EDC is an LCRx. Trigger was around 10.5 out of the box, after a couple hundred rounds the trigger is down to around 9. and smooooooth!
hkcavalier
US Veteran
Sacrilege on here I know, but for me it's the Model 19/66. Just not the right size for the .357 cartridge, and the "shoot .38s and carry .357s" mantra doesn't sit well with me. J frame .357 snubs for the same reasons (and even more so). .357 revolvers get relatively pleasant and controllable in the 45oz range, at least for me.
Last edited:
walkin' trails
Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,310
- Reaction score
- 727
Right now it’s my Model 43c. If it ends up working the way it’s supposed to, then I won’t have any least favorite S&W’s.
cowboy94916
Member
The 500 smith and wesson in any iteration. Not remotly interested I don't need the bragging rights. I just don't see the point. I would carry a rifle just as easily, as that chunk of iron and incur less muzzle blast and recoil with better accuracy. Now if they put the caliber in a PCC or AR platform it might be useful and more accurate.
Well here goes. I know these are fighting words around here. But I’m going with model 27/28. If I’m toting an N frame it may as well have a caliber starting with 4.
bigggbbruce
Member
"floating firing pin" changed the look forever.
drumminor2nd
Member
That is why I sold my 27-3 -- too much metal in the hand for too little going downrange.
My 22/32 Heavy Frame Target. I even had it worked on by Chicoine, and it never could shoot well. Was also too light to do any serious target work.
jkingrph
Member
My model 342. Scandium frame and barrel shroud, titanium cylinder. So lightweight it plain hurts to shoot.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,536
- Reaction score
- 6,218
My wife's Model 63. We bought it as an understudy to her 67. She found the trigger too heavy. I found it a combination of a gun too light and a trigger too heavy. It's been a safe queen since a deer hunt 40 years ago.
Similar threads
