Just For Informational Purposes-

[Ala Dan]

not being up to date on the new Smith & Wesson Ti and Sc
revolver's, which one do you favor and why? In checking in
on Guns America, I see that the prices of both are definitely
out rageous. My next question, besides being lighter in
weight; what makes these any better than the stainless
steel model's? All replies are welcome, and as always
certainly appreciated.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

 

[labgrade]

Zip experience with any of 'em, but suspect the weight savings, when hanging on your hip, is the selling point.

I've a S&W Al 317, 11 oz .22LR, 8-shot & it's an absolute joy to tote around - accurate & yada ... 'course, there's not the recoil of the heftier rounds to contend with in a .22 For this particular niche, it serves the intended purpose quite well.

Since Taurus started to tout their .41 mag lightweight Trackers, I always wanted one, & that solely due to the light weight & of having a mag-capable handgun that wouldn't "drag me down." I'm a backpacker-type & the rambling around is easier with the lightweight stuff.

For a carry/woodsie piece, I can see the advantages, but with the attendant recoil in the heftier calibers, I'd be suspect of fun/comfortable "trigger time" so necessary in a SD/carry piece.

+ the price tag hurts more than the imagined shooting.

 

[VictorLouis]

Yes, I believe the sole marketing criterion is weight

I mean, steel has obviously been proven quite durable for handgun applications.

Politics aside, I don't care for the Scandium guns. The addition of that alloy to the Titanium/aluminum mix was to make it durable enough to withstand magnum loads(per factory catalog). First of all, the guns are light enough that magnum loads are likely unbearable save for all but the most brawny, or masochistic of shooters. Secondly, I think that little fold of steel inserted in the topstrap above the flash gap is just waiting to be/cause a problem, IMHO. I guess the Scandium alone doesn't quite make it durable enough.

I found a little-used 342. So far, I like all but the trigger, which can be a problem on most any of the newer Smith's. That's fixable. Also, it seems to drop lightweight bullets dramatically lower than the point of aim. I've yet to try anything in 158, but I think they will be the solution. Having owned a 442 for years, which I later sold, I think this gun is a viable substitute. The 20% lighter weight is quite noticeable in pocket carry, though less so on the ankle. On the belt, or IWB, you'd keep checking to make sure it was there, I assure you.

 

[labgrade]

"On the belt, or IWB, you'd keep checking to make sure it was there, I assure you."

Funny.

My hunting Bud, lost his own S&W 317 twice in one day! due to a crap holster that kept falling off his belt. I found it both times in the woods & gave it back. Told him that three time's the charm & would keep it after that. He never knew it was missing, & did keep better track of it after that!

11 oz on your hip, & in a decent holster, is too small/light to notice & have found myself checking time after time to make sure mine's still there. A wonder of a lightweight.

The 317's just a nice 'n handy woods gun & not (necessarily) a SD shooter, although it's better than no gun at all & has been carried as such, at times.

Yada.

Adjustable sights, super lightweight & fills a nice niche at times ... we've a coupla these & won't likely get rid of 'em any time soon.

Very much a keeper for what they do & what we use 'em for.

Not a Ti or Sc, but still feedback regards these lightweights.