Posted on 03/19/2006 8:10:48 AM PST by Copernicus
Could also be some local "expoit" tried to regulate the fixed sights by doin' the ol' tire iron through the cylinder window to get that barrel over just a tad.
"Oh my darling," she said as she reloaded. "I've missed you."
"No, dear. Your barrel--"
Glocks are best naked ! But I will add a rail (streamlight M3) light on mine when at home or hotel just so I don't forget to snatch a flashlight for oh dark thirty noise and nature wazzup walks.
Chuck ?.......:o)
My S&W .357 "Combat Magnum" is a model 66, and it apparently has the K frame. Do I need to be concerned about that gun as far as practicing with magnum rounds? Or any other reason? I got it in 1986 and it has been reliable so far.
Great thread, btw. Thanks for sharing your considerable knowledge.
How come they don't issue L frame revolvers? Then LEOs would have options on what cartridge they load.
I've got the exact same model, with 4" barrel. Love it. See my FReeper homepage. What questions do you have?
Yes, and I like them. They're cheap enough to try out to see if you like them. I made some exacto cuts for the mag release and a bit of trimming on the bottom for the mag well... and the thing has stayed there for years.
I think his direct quote was "No honest man would need more than a 10rd mag"
The 66 is the stainless version of the 19. Unless you're talking thousands of rounds of full house magnums, I wouldn't worry. Tell-tale trouble signs are, in order of severity:
Flame cutting of the frame topstrap just above the barrel forcing cone inside the cylinder window.
Excessive endshake (fore and aft motion of the cylinder when closed) sometimes going so far as causing the cylinder face to rub on the forcing cone. Easily corrrected with shims.
Cracking of the frame on the underside of where the barrel is screwed in. (Thinnest place on the frame) Rare, but it happens.
I wouldn't worry too much. Many of the durability changes made to Smiths were in response to high volume shooters pushing the envelope, particularly in the Model 29.
Liability lawyers love it when individuals get to choose what ammo they use.
But on the plus side, you'ge got the ultimate snub nose.
My confidence in the decision we made just got a little shaken by this article.
But my mind has been put at ease by the other comments. Including yours.
I'm sure I'll have more questions later, though. Thanks.
Nice pic on your homepage!
Thanks much!
---Especially when there are better alternatives - it's not 1835 any more, why should you use a weapon from that era? Here's a couple favorites:---
Your 1911 is closer to 1835 than it is to 2006.
sometimes tho, you just want to drive a stick shift again
Cool!
Send me one of your Glocks and I will try it.
If I like it I will keep it and you can buy another one.
This will work out great!
I've only had 1 Smith that needed warranty work, and that was over 20 years ago during the "Bangor Punta" days where QC was "varied". It was a problem that I would now fix myself. The only 2 other Smiths I've had to open up and work on were made in 1926 and 1954 respectively. Less than two hours total and they both shoot like new.
Also, S&W's warranty department does a good job based reports I've heard from folks who know.
I wouldn't worry.
Wow. I wonder if they could take some guns of that model and production run and magna-flux them to see if there are any cracks in the metal.
I have owned a variety of S&W hardware over the years, but
sold all but my trusty Model 64, bought used in the middle
`90s. The last new Smith I bought was an utter piece of junk,
and even after making S&W replace it, the replacement gun
was as bad or worse. I don't trust S&W anymore, especially
after their sellout during the Clinton anti-gun crusades.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.