Posted: 9/11/2015 12:30:31 PM EDT
|
Educate me on them. I really like the way they look and the way they feel in my hand, would like to learn more from some owners.
They seem like well built work horses, but I would like to learn more about them as a plat form. Accuracy, durability, ect. Any input would be greatly appreciated 
|
|
Quoted:
the 3" heavy round butt is on my short list of "what I should have bought when they were available"... I cylinder reamed a 4" M10 to make a faux M13 I've been told that reaming a cylinder on a Mod 10 so it will chamber a 357 is risky business. I inquired on several forums if this was safe to do. |
|
I carried one back in the eighties, 3" round butt. I should have kept it but the urge to trade for something different came over me. I can't even remember what that was now.
I shot 158 grain 38 handloads that were virtually the equivalent of 357s, that I read about in Elmer Keith's writings. It digested a good many of those over the years with no apparent ill effects. |
|
Quoted:
Educate me on them. I really like the way they look and the way they feel in my hand, would like to learn more from some owners. They seem like well built work horses, but I would like to learn more about them as a plat form. Accuracy, durability, ect. Any input would be greatly appreciated The 13 is just one variation of the K-frame "platform." The different model numbers designate different features. For example: 10 - .38 blue, fixed sights 64 - .38 stainless, fixed sights 15 - .38, blue, adjustable sights (the 14 is a target variation) 67 - .38 stainless, adjustable sights 13 - .357, blue, fixed sights 65 - .357, stainless, fixed sights 19 - .357 blue, adjustable sights 66 - .357 stainless, adjustable sights (there are a few other K-frames, including the alloy frame model 12 and the various .22 and .32 caliber variations.) All of these are the same size gun, share the same grips, same internal parts, same holsters, etc. All the K-frames have really nice triggers -- a whole different experience than the smaller five-shot J frames. They all feel great in the hand. Wonderful revolvers, all of them. Generally, steel frame .38 K-frame revolvers with a dash-something after the model number are safe for +P rounds. The .357 magnum K-frames are best limited to occasional use of magnum loads. Practice/train with .38s and shoot magnums sparingly. |
|
Quoted:
The 13 is just one variation of the K-frame "platform." The different model numbers designate different features. For example: 10 - .38 blue, fixed sights 64 - .38 stainless, fixed sights 15 - .38, blue, adjustable sights (the 14 is a target variation) 67 - .38 stainless, adjustable sights 13 - .357, blue, fixed sights 65 - .357, stainless, fixed sights 19 - .357 blue, adjustable sights 66 - .357 stainless, adjustable sights (there are a few other K-frames, including the alloy frame model 12 and the various .22 and .32 caliber variations.) All of these are the same size gun, share the same grips, same internal parts, same holsters, etc. All the K-frames have really nice triggers -- a whole different experience than the smaller five-shot J frames. They all feel great in the hand. Wonderful revolvers, all of them. Generally, steel frame .38 K-frame revolvers with a dash-something after the model number are safe for +P rounds. The .357 magnum K-frames are best limited to occasional use of magnum loads. Practice/train with .38s and shoot magnums sparingly. Quoted:
Quoted:
Educate me on them. I really like the way they look and the way they feel in my hand, would like to learn more from some owners. They seem like well built work horses, but I would like to learn more about them as a plat form. Accuracy, durability, ect. Any input would be greatly appreciated The 13 is just one variation of the K-frame "platform." The different model numbers designate different features. For example: 10 - .38 blue, fixed sights 64 - .38 stainless, fixed sights 15 - .38, blue, adjustable sights (the 14 is a target variation) 67 - .38 stainless, adjustable sights 13 - .357, blue, fixed sights 65 - .357, stainless, fixed sights 19 - .357 blue, adjustable sights 66 - .357 stainless, adjustable sights (there are a few other K-frames, including the alloy frame model 12 and the various .22 and .32 caliber variations.) All of these are the same size gun, share the same grips, same internal parts, same holsters, etc. All the K-frames have really nice triggers -- a whole different experience than the smaller five-shot J frames. They all feel great in the hand. Wonderful revolvers, all of them. Generally, steel frame .38 K-frame revolvers with a dash-something after the model number are safe for +P rounds. The .357 magnum K-frames are best limited to occasional use of magnum loads. Practice/train with .38s and shoot magnums sparingly. So say, a 13-4 may be safer to fire Magnums through than a 13-2? I don't want to necessarily feed it a constant diet of 357, I just don't want to worry about the timing when I do run the magnums through it. |
|
Quoted:
So say, a 13-4 may be safer to fire Magnums through than a 13-2? I don't want to necessarily feed it a constant diet of 357, I just don't want to worry about the timing when I do run the magnums through it. I don't know how you get that a later number means it's safer to fire magnums. I don't believe that's true at all. Newer is not necessarily better. There were some positive design changes but at some point in the evolution, S&W started making changes that actually cheapened the product. As a general rule, older is often better when dealing with Smith and Wesson (and most gun manufacturers, for that matter). BTW, the main issue with magnum loads was with the lighter bullets (125g, I believe). IIRC, the problems were mostly splt forcing cones. Frankly, you won't want to shoot enough magnums though a K frame to do it harm. It just wouldn't be that much fun. If you're going to be shooting that many magnum loads you probably should be looking at an L or N frame anyway. Enjoy the K frames for what they are: delightful mid-weight revolvers with great triggers and handling characteristics. Some of them allow you to shoot .357 magnum loads but there's no reason to go crazy about it. There are better choices if hot loads are your thing. |
|
Quoted:
I don't know how you get that a later number means it's safer to fire magnums. I don't believe that's true at all. Newer is not necessarily better. There were some positive design changes but at some point in the evolution, S&W started making changes that actually cheapened the product. As a general rule, older is often better when dealing with Smith and Wesson (and most gun manufacturers, for that matter). BTW, the main issue with magnum loads was with the lighter bullets (125g, I believe). IIRC, the problems were mostly splt forcing cones. Frankly, you won't want to shoot enough magnums though a K frame to do it harm. It just wouldn't be that much fun. If you're going to be shooting that many magnum loads you probably should be looking at an L or N frame anyway. Enjoy the K frames for what they are: delightful mid-weight revolvers with great triggers and handling characteristics. Some of them allow you to shoot .357 magnum loads but there's no reason to go crazy about it. There are better choices if hot loads are your thing. Quoted:
Quoted:
So say, a 13-4 may be safer to fire Magnums through than a 13-2? I don't want to necessarily feed it a constant diet of 357, I just don't want to worry about the timing when I do run the magnums through it. I don't know how you get that a later number means it's safer to fire magnums. I don't believe that's true at all. Newer is not necessarily better. There were some positive design changes but at some point in the evolution, S&W started making changes that actually cheapened the product. As a general rule, older is often better when dealing with Smith and Wesson (and most gun manufacturers, for that matter). BTW, the main issue with magnum loads was with the lighter bullets (125g, I believe). IIRC, the problems were mostly splt forcing cones. Frankly, you won't want to shoot enough magnums though a K frame to do it harm. It just wouldn't be that much fun. If you're going to be shooting that many magnum loads you probably should be looking at an L or N frame anyway. Enjoy the K frames for what they are: delightful mid-weight revolvers with great triggers and handling characteristics. Some of them allow you to shoot .357 magnum loads but there's no reason to go crazy about it. There are better choices if hot loads are your thing. Just trying to understand is all. I'm fairly new to the wheel gun world. Thank you for your patience and explination, that is pretty much the answer I was hoping to get. Now it is just a matter of finding one at the right price. I appreciate the help! |
|
Quoted:
Just trying to understand is all. I'm fairly new to the wheel gun world. Thank you for your patience and explination, that is pretty much the answer I was hoping to get. Now it is just a matter of finding one at the right price. I appreciate the help! Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So say, a 13-4 may be safer to fire Magnums through than a 13-2? I don't want to necessarily feed it a constant diet of 357, I just don't want to worry about the timing when I do run the magnums through it. I don't know how you get that a later number means it's safer to fire magnums. I don't believe that's true at all. Newer is not necessarily better. There were some positive design changes but at some point in the evolution, S&W started making changes that actually cheapened the product. As a general rule, older is often better when dealing with Smith and Wesson (and most gun manufacturers, for that matter). BTW, the main issue with magnum loads was with the lighter bullets (125g, I believe). IIRC, the problems were mostly splt forcing cones. Frankly, you won't want to shoot enough magnums though a K frame to do it harm. It just wouldn't be that much fun. If you're going to be shooting that many magnum loads you probably should be looking at an L or N frame anyway. Enjoy the K frames for what they are: delightful mid-weight revolvers with great triggers and handling characteristics. Some of them allow you to shoot .357 magnum loads but there's no reason to go crazy about it. There are better choices if hot loads are your thing. Just trying to understand is all. I'm fairly new to the wheel gun world. Thank you for your patience and explination, that is pretty much the answer I was hoping to get. Now it is just a matter of finding one at the right price. I appreciate the help! Yep, that's the challenge. The search is half the fun, though. |
|
Quoted: Just trying to understand is all. I'm fairly new to the wheel gun world. Thank you for your patience and explination, that is pretty much the answer I was hoping to get. Now it is just a matter of finding one at the right price. I appreciate the help! Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So say, a 13-4 may be safer to fire Magnums through than a 13-2? I don't want to necessarily feed it a constant diet of 357, I just don't want to worry about the timing when I do run the magnums through it. I don't know how you get that a later number means it's safer to fire magnums. I don't believe that's true at all. Newer is not necessarily better. There were some positive design changes but at some point in the evolution, S&W started making changes that actually cheapened the product. As a general rule, older is often better when dealing with Smith and Wesson (and most gun manufacturers, for that matter). BTW, the main issue with magnum loads was with the lighter bullets (125g, I believe). IIRC, the problems were mostly splt forcing cones. Frankly, you won't want to shoot enough magnums though a K frame to do it harm. It just wouldn't be that much fun. If you're going to be shooting that many magnum loads you probably should be looking at an L or N frame anyway. Enjoy the K frames for what they are: delightful mid-weight revolvers with great triggers and handling characteristics. Some of them allow you to shoot .357 magnum loads but there's no reason to go crazy about it. There are better choices if hot loads are your thing. Just trying to understand is all. I'm fairly new to the wheel gun world. Thank you for your patience and explination, that is pretty much the answer I was hoping to get. Now it is just a matter of finding one at the right price. I appreciate the help! |
|
I have 13-1 or -2, can't remember right now, with a 4" barrel. I feed it any and all loads, and have for several years with no problems. I like the ruggedness of the fixed sights, nothing to break. It is very accurate and a dream to carry in a Galco combat master leather holster. It rides high and at a forward cant so even getting in and out of vehicles it does not get hung up in the seat belt catch.
Any of the models listed above, in the other reply, are great pieces for anyone's collection. I own the 64, 13, 15 and a 686. Love them all but carry the K's. P |
|
The problem with 357 Magnum loads and the K frame was the lighter bullets. If you use 140 gr and heavier there will be no accelerated wear.
I had a bunch of K frame 357s and always used 158 gr Magnum ammo. Never had a problem. Any 38 Special load is fine. The K frame is just right for the 357 Magnum cartridge IMHO. S&W has brought out the M66-8 with a beefed up frame and barrel that they say have solved the problem. I would go with that one if you want a new one. |
|
Quoted:
In my opinion the Model 13, specifically the 3" is the ultimate carry revolver. Just wish I could find another to add to the collection: http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w559/sanausnol/e947298d-e96d-4ddf-b4f1-406c45d3ed3c_zpsm98zafa2.jpg What do you use for a holster for carrying them? |
|
Quoted:
What do you use for a holster for carrying them? Quoted:
Quoted:
In my opinion the Model 13, specifically the 3" is the ultimate carry revolver. Just wish I could find another to add to the collection: http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w559/sanausnol/e947298d-e96d-4ddf-b4f1-406c45d3ed3c_zpsm98zafa2.jpg What do you use for a holster for carrying them? I use a Desantis paddle holster. Has worked well for me for a few years now. |