Need a 6, 7 or 8 round capacity .357 for a serious concealment PDW revolver?

The 686/686+ cylinder is larger than the K frame. Everything under the cylinder is K frame. Hopefully Mike Irwin will keep me honest there.

AZTrooper, look in the Catalog link on TK Custom's www.moonclips.com and look at the link for .38 spl/.357 magnum clips. The clips do not completely surround the round and the cylinder is cut out just enough to accept the moonclip. About 1/5 to 1/4 of the rim circumference sits on the remainding cylinder face.

There is no tendency on the loads I have used for the base to balloon, either, as some have suggested. I don't know whether the brass is just thicker at this point, but it does make sense that even with the moonclips there would not be enough support to prevent ballooning if the tendency existed. Again, I have shot some moderately hot .357 magnum loads with no problems.
 
Greetings Red Bull.

The 686 series w/4" barrels have full-length barrel underlugs. The M66 K-frame 4" does not, and its barrel is more tapered toward the muzzle. For me, the K-frame 'balances' much better in the hand. However, many prefer the more muzzle heavy feel of the L-frame. The 7-shot(+) model loses an unnoticeable amount of weight with the addition of the extra chamber. There is a very limited edition of the 686+ called the Mountain Gun that has the best of both worlds, IMO. The tapered, slimmer barrel of the K-frame w/o the underlug, and the extra round.

Taurus makes their M66 in both variations, apparently, with and w/o an underlug. Six shot or seven. Rugers are 6-shots only. They provide their fixed sight, 4" GP-100 models with "K" style barrels, but the adjustable sighted gun gets the "L" type barrel. Go figure. The older Security Six guns are an excellent choice too, and they are also profiled like a K-frame M66. All of the Rugers have a modular design which allows for easier "total disassembly" for cleaning than a Smith or Taurus would. The trade off is that they are not known for their smooth, light triggers as on the Smith. If I were to depend on a revolver in a combat 'field' situation, with constant exposure to muck and filth, it would be a Ruger. But, since I thankfully do not, I prefer the Smith action.

As to loaders, I can speak for the HKS and Safariland only. The HKS is probably the more popular one. The rounds are loosely held, and you must jiggle the bullets slightly to line them up into their chambers. You then must twist the aluminum release knob at the top to ulock their rims and allow them to drop into place. The Safariland model that I have for the K-frame holds the cartridges in a in a nearly rigid position. The 'push' of the loader down into the cylinder automatically releases the rounds. The advantage is that the cylinder need not be oriented perfectly vertical in order for you(and gravity) to fanangle the rounds into their chambers.

I hope this helps. :)
 
I have always stayed away from moonclips because I thought you had to load and unload 6 (or 8, whatever) and I wanted to be able to do a tactical reload. I will have to consider converting at least one of my K-frames now. Thanks for the info.

One other question, have you ever had trouble with getting brass stuck under the star with those modified cylinders?

[This message has been edited by AZTrooper (edited September 30, 2000).]
 
I have never had a problem with brass getting stuck under the star. However, I almost always use the moonclips except for slow target shooting.

Not possible to do tactical reloads of a couple of rounds if the moonclip is in the gun--carries the rim too high. You have to dump the clip and reload. Moonclips are faster than a partial tactical reload--it's 7 or 8 in at once and out again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top