An ideal "gunfighting" revolver.

D

dahermit

New member
I have been mulling the idea of a revolver for fantasy "gun fighting" on my home steel target range. I already have a tuned/modified L frame, square butt, five inch barrel Model 686, and I find it heavier that I think it has to be.
002-1.jpg
Gun is dirty from shooting this morning.
And, having small hands, my hand hardly touches the area that is the difference between the square and the round butts anyway. Beside that, square butts put the weight in the wrong place for accurate shooting (as in barrel weighs for target pistols).
Also, I feel the weight of the gun is a detriment to getting the gun from the holster into action. That is, civilian handguns are what I refer to as "snatch" guns...you have to "snatch" it out and get ready to shoot faster than you would in a typical military situation. (Re: Condition three was the standard for even MP's when I was in the service)
Therefore, I am thinking of getting and modifying (trigger work, hammer bobbing, wide-smooth trigger), a K frame Smith, either a Model 19, 66, or if I cannot find one of those, a model 10.
I would prefer a five inch barrel, but looking at what is available on the used gun market, snubbies, four, or six inches seems to be what is available. Although I have had four inchers, they are a little too short in the sight radius department.
Any opinions or suggestions on the subject?
 
Try a S&W Model 64 from J&G. They are DAO and have bobbed hammers. I've purchased 2 from them and have been happy with both. One is a M64 SA/DA. The other is a NY1 DAO model.
 
+1 on the J&G DAO 64, if you must have a 4 inch. Best gun money I ever spent. Better trigger than my Performance center guns.

My personal favorite "gunfighting" revolver is my 3 inch DAO 13-3 with spurless hammer. One slick sixgun. Everything I need in a revolver and nothing I don't. Regards 18DAI
 
Find a used 6" k-frame with adjustable sights. While it's being worked on, have the 'smith cut the barrel to 5", install a Weigand interchangeable front sight base and a fiber optic front sight. With this system, you can change it out in seconds for another sight if you need or want to.

Although I have had four inchers, they are a little too short in the sight radius department.
Click to expand...

Curious - why so? The 4" version would theoretically be quicker "into action".
 
If you don't have huge hands, get rid of those huge grips. With standard service grips and a Tyler T-grip it will be much easier to handle. As to a K-frame, remember K's and L's have the same size grip.
 
If you don't have huge hands, get rid of those huge grips. With standard service grips and a Tyler T-grip it will be much easier to handle. As to a K-frame, remember K's and L's have the same size grip.
Click to expand...
The picture I posted was of my current gun. It is an L frame...I am looking for a K frame, round butt.
 
Curious - why so? The 4" version would theoretically be quicker "into action".
Click to expand...
Yes, but I find my accuracy so much better with a longer sighting radious...Had a 6 inch 657 that I shot considerably better than my 5 inch 686. I was thinking, maybe a tapered 6 inch M-66/19 for light weight, but long sighting radius.
 
Find a used 6" k-frame with adjustable sights. While it's being worked on, have the 'smith cut the barrel to 5", install a Weigand interchangeable front sight base and a fiber optic front sight. With this system, you can change it out in seconds for another sight if you need or want to.
Click to expand...
I do my own gun-smithing. Other than that, I have no love for fiber optic sights. Flat black against my flat white steel targets...flat white sights against darker objects is my preference. Have been looking at/considering a 6 inch K frame though.
 
In my hands at least, a larger N-Frame revolver with the older-style half-underlug balances better and feels lighter than a full-lug L-Frame even though they're pretty close in wieght. Also, some people opine that a revolver with a tapered barrel is slightly faster on target because the front sight is a bit taller than a revolver with a heavy barrel (I see this debate mainly with tapered vs. heavy barrel M10's). Finally, the shorter the barrel and lower the holster hangs on the belt, the faster you will be able to clear leather and I find a 4" barrel to be about the shortest legth that I can draw with what I consider to be a decent amount of speed.

All this being said, I think that the ideal revolver for what you're wanting should have a barrel no longer than 4", a tapered barrel, and either an unshrouded ejector or half-underlug. S&W Models that fit this description would include the M15, M10, M12, M67, M20, M21, M22, M23, M24, M27, and M28. Also, the Models 25, 57, 29, 625, and 629 typically have heavy barrels but have been made in "Mountain Gun" configurations with 4" tapered barrels.
 
...In my hands at least, a larger N-Frame revolver with the older-style half-underlug balances better and feels lighter than a full-lug L-Frame even though they're pretty close in wieght...
Click to expand...
N-frames do have a better "carry-up" to the next chamber in rapid fire. I find the K frames "snappy", instead of having the smooth rotation of the larger frame, cylinders.
Your experince matches mine when it comes to full-under lug L frames compared to the half-under lugs of the N frames. As mentioned, I shot my M57 (6 inch N frame), a whole lot better than my M686 (5 inch L frame).
 
I do my own gun-smithing. Other than that, I have no love for fiber optic sights.
Click to expand...

I just threw the FO out as an example. The beauty of an interchangeable sight is you can choose what you like and change it in seconds. If a 6" barrel is cut, you'd need a front sight base anyway.

Since you do your own 'smithing, you're probably aware the butt of a SB can be converted to RB. Just in case you find an otherwise good SB k-frame donor. ;)
 
Since you do your own 'smithing, you're probably aware the butt of a SB can be converted to RB. Just in case you find an otherwise good SB k-frame donor.
Click to expand...
Yup...They even have Hogue mongrips for square frames that have been converted(but different from monogrips for factory round frames), to round frames. But, it would be a whole lot easier to just get a round frame to begin with.
 
Last edited:
I find my 3 inch guns clear the holster a bit faster then my 4 inch M10 in IPDA style shoots.

IMHO Since the is a 'gun fighting gun' pin point accuracy is not the primary concern COM hits count not one ragged hole. Along with Clearing the holster and fast reloads.

I think a 3 inch GP 100 could work very well for your stated use. The extra weight soaky up the recoil too.
 
You seem to be into this much further than I will ever be, hermit, but I own both a 6" 686, a 4" 586 and a 4" Ruger Security Six. The Security Six is by far the quickest handling of the lot. Much lighter and less bulky than the 586 and mine shoots better as well.

If you're not wedded to Smiths, you might take a look at the Security and Speed Sixes. There seem to be a lot of them around and they're not too pricey.
 
Go by what S&W named them,,,

Model 15/67 Combat Masterpiece,,,
Model 19/66 Combat Magnum.

Or simply a good Model 10.

There's not really much need to look further.

Aarond

.
 
Last edited:
My favorite was a S&W Model 13 and I've had lots of revolvers. Sooner or later I suppose it would have fallen apart with a lot of magnum loads but I didn't shoot that many of them. I probably didn't have it more than twenty years before I traded it for one of them new-fangled automatics.

I liked the balance, meaning the weight distribution. I've had others that were close but they all lacked something or had too much of something else. I didn't care for adjustable sights; they can get hung up on things. A five inch Model 10 or pre-model 10 had very nearly the same balance but a "real" Model 10 with a five inch barrel is scarce and the older ones aren't supposed to be used with +P ammo, they say. A K38 was actually quite nice but the longer barrel (a Model 14 that would be) didn't work as well as a 4" for fast holster use and there were those fixed sights. Just the same they were very popular for police use for some time.

Both an L-frame and an N-frame were on the heavy side, though I had variations of both that were really good but the K-frame was the one you wanted to be using for a fast draw. The CS version of a 686, if I remember all the right designations, was still a good gun. I never had a 581 or 681 (again, if the model numbers are correct) but I always wanted to give one of them a go. A regular barrel Model 10 was actually faster from the holster but it lacked the "pointability" of a heavy barrel. Some three inch barrel variations had tolerably good pointing characteristics, too, if they had an underlug. I actually had a Model 10 that had an underlugged 3-inch barrel, which made it a most unusual revolver.

Back when some policemen got paid more if they had good scores on the pistol range, so-called bull barrelled (as opposed to one with a cow barrel) revolvers, usually just a modified Model 10, had some popularity but after a week in the holster, they tended to feel a little too heavy.

I presently operate no revolvers.
 
You seem to be into this much further than I will ever be, hermit, but I own both a 6" 686, a 4" 586 and a 4" Ruger Security Six. The Security Six is by far the quickest handling of the lot. Much lighter and less bulky than the 586 and mine shoots better as well.
Click to expand...
I am further into it, because I am retired and I like to work on guns, especially S&W's. I have the time, some extra money and the inclination. With as much shooting as I do in my home range, I must keep working on my fantasies to keep my practice fresh. I do not care much to work on modern Rugers.
 
Sharpdressed Man, Nice gun but have ruled out the N, L frames as too heavy for the current fantasy. I have a three-inch, 5-shot, .44 spl. (S&W 696) that fills the niche that you photographed. In the quest for something lighter, faster (to snatch and fire).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top