S&W Model 60

[MikeD7]

I am getting ready to purchase a Model 60 for another carry gun. Does anyone have any experience with this gun? Do you have any suggestions as far as another gun? It must be a .357 DA/SA with about a 2" barrel.

Thanks!

[wv109323]

New S&W's use a lot of MIM parts. They are not that bad but the revolver is not S&W main product nowdays. My brother bought a M-686 and it had to go back to the factory for some rework before the gun could be fired.
I am not bashing S&W, but I would make sure the gun was totally functional before I carried it for SD. I would go with a S&W revolver if I were buying.

[codgerville@zianet.com]

I am getting ready to purchase a Model 60 for another carry gun. Does anyone have any experience with this gun? Do you have any suggestions as far as another gun? It must be a .357 DA/SA with about a 2" barrel.

Thanks!

I have a 3" model 60 that is accurate, and absolutely dependable.

[Kestrel4k]

IMO the holy grail M60 is the -10 .357; the prior revision was .38Spl-only; the later revision is post-lock.

I do like my 60-10, but I thought all the M60 .357's were exposed hammer? If the OP is looking for a carry .357, don't those all have those odder 3-digit model #'s that I'm never able to recall ? :o

[Petrol & Powder]

Lots of time with snubnose revolvers. I am strictly a DAO guy when it comes to snubnose revolvers. That precludes the model 60 for me but not necessarily for you.
The S&W J-frame is one of the quintessential snubnose revolvers of all time. The S&W model 60 was Smith & Wesson's first stainless gun and it has a lot going for it.
I've carried the same alloy framed DAO J-frame for over 20 years and have experience with many other small revolvers, including the 640.
As for the current model 60, I don't think MIM parts are a deal breaker. (The hammer spur would be a deal breaker for me). I don't own any S&W revolvers with the Hillary Hole, but I could probably get beyond that if I removed the lock completely.
I know a guy that has been shooting the same model 60 since the early 1970's and his had survived just fine. The design itself is good.

If it was me, I'd switch to a 640 at the bare minimum. Maybe go with a alloy frame 442 to get the weight down a bit more.

.357 mag in a snubnose isn't a lot of fun to practice with and practice with a snubnose is CRITICAL. If it must be .357 mag then a steel frame is a must. If you can tolerate a slightly bigger/heavier gun, the Ruger SP101 is a little more magnum friendly but the SP really isn't a pocket gun. The SP101 is an excellent snubnose in a OWB holster.
The new Kimber looks promising. Stainless steel, really good sights, 6 rounds, DAO, chambered in .357 mag. However the Kimber isn't cheap.
I'm too old and too set in my ways to offer much opinion on the Ruger LCR revolvers but a lot of folks seem to like them. I did fix one for a friend that the ejector rod backed out of and tied up the action.

There are some other guns that fit the snubnose definition but are pushing the limit of "snubnose".
The 2.5" Model 19 is a helluva a tool but too big to be a pocket gun or a ankle holster gun. Its carbon steel frame is also a problem unless you maintain it religiously. A 2.5" model 66 is better but good luck finding one. The old Model 12 is lighter but still a bit large.

So, My advice would be: find a DAO with an internal hammer (S&W model 40, 42, 640, 442, Kimber, etc.) or an external hammer gun with a bobbed hammer (SP101).
The 640 Pro looks nice - .357 mag, stainless, nice sights, snag-proof design ; what's not to love?

[Petrol & Powder]

206500

Just a few snubnose wheelguns

[Kosh75287]

I have a 3" model 60 that is accurate, and absolutely dependable. I used to own a 3" barrel S&W M36. I think it was one of the best "snub nosed" revolvers I could ever hope to own. Back in the days when chronographs were rare, a friend who owned one and I worked up a "carry often shoot seldom" load that would break 1000 f/s with a 158gr. LWC. It was well ahead of anything that could be shot out of a small-frame .38 Special.

Stupidly, I sold it to buy something trivial, like maybe food or rent, or something...

[EMR]

I had a 2” Model 60-16 that I carried for a while. It was dependable and accurate. I ended up trading it for a S&W 340 M&P for the lighter weight and front night sight.

The model 60 is a darn good gun. It just didn’t fill the niche I was looking for.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171024/d3b393b2d9f06a68b98f6c1c49086283.jpg

[bobthenailer]

After having 3 sub nose 5 shot revolvers a Tarus 85 and S&W 360PD & 637 with 2" barrels & fixed sights all shot at least 2 to 5" inches low and about 1" to 2" to the left at 25' or less using bullets from 110 to 180 gr.
all are gone as well as any handgun that I cant get to shoot to point of aim !

IMO I would opt for the S&W model 60 chiefs special or model 60 pro series both are DA/SA in 38/357 with a 3" barrel and adj sights.

[buckwheatpaul]

Mike, I have the old Model 60 and it is a great gun....as I have a 2-1/2" Model 66. Both are great guns but I dont believe that you will gain much from such a short barrel with the .357 Mag as much of the powder will not burn in the barrel....I would opt for the FBI/Dallas P.D. Winchester load that is super soft lead with a deep h.p. they shoot well and when we used them we NEVER had a single incident where the round failed to stop when in the center mass area of the suspect was introduced to one of them!

[Petrol & Powder]

Mike, I have the old Model 60 and it is a great gun....as I have a 2-1/2" Model 66. Both are great guns but I dont believe that you will gain much from such a short barrel with the .357 Mag as much of the powder will not burn in the barrel....I would opt for the FBI/Dallas P.D. Winchester load that is super soft lead with a deep h.p. they shoot well and when we used them we NEVER had a single incident where the round failed to stop when in the center mass area of the suspect was introduced to one of them!

/\ WHAT HE SAID /\

(from another fan of the FBI load in short barreled revolvers)

[EMC45]

Any quality J Frame Smith in good shape will serve you well.

[Char-Gar]

I am not a fan of small frame snubbies in 357 mag. Touch off a shot and everybody around will be blind and deaf. The recoil is significant and the magnum round looses too much in such a short barrel.

IMHO the 38 Special is just the huckleberry for such guns. There are factory and hand loads than will do an excellent job for social work in such handguns.

I have a 3" Chief's Special, a 3" Colt Detective Special and a 2" Smith and Wesson 64. Of the three the 64 is the easiest to control, holds six rounds and is +P tolerant. While not as light as a J frame, in a proper holster it disappears under a shirt and does not pull your pants down to half mast.

[Three-Fifty-Seven]

.....

[Green Frog]

:coffeecom Like everyone else here I have my own totally biased opinion, so here goes... First, I like 38 Spl +P loads for a J-frame. I have some of the old blue colored nickel cased FBI loads from back in the '70s and '80s and they serve as my "factory" loads for "social work." I can load down or up to the same power using Lyman/Ideal 357156 cast bullets for practice. As to the revolver they emanate from, I settled on the Model 60-4. Everything I like in a S&W except a pinned barrel, and it came from the factory with a 3" full under lug barrel and adjustable sights. If I had to pick just one of my several many Smiths for all around use, this would be a strong contender. The 357 chambering is neat and looks good on paper, but in truth, the 38 +P is all I really want to shoot out of a J-frame. :Fire: JMHO, of course and YMMV!

Froggie

[35remington]

Think about the following:

Claiming "no real worthwhile increase in performance" with a snubby 357" while complaining about "horrendous blast and recoil" from a snubby 357 is nonsensical.

It kicks a lot harder because the bullet is going a lot faster. With comparable bullet weights the difference twixt 38 and 357 approximates or exceeds 300 fos.

Calculate the numbers and tell me how that's trivial again? It may not be worthwhile for
you for other reasons, but pooh-poohing the velocity differences is not a valid argument.

No, I do not like snubby 357s either, but I know better than to claim the power difference is somehow smaller than it really is.

[Kestrel4k]

To add to .35Rem's insightful post, there are also those that insist that no .38Spl ammo will expand when shot from a 2" bbl ...
Let's just say that I have never heard of that objection from a 2" bbl 357 lol.

And this is from someone who carries a 2" bbl 38Spl, lol - my 3" .357 is for the wilderness. ;-)

[williamwaco]

I have owned around a dozen J frames in all calibers including .357. Barrel lengths from 1 7/8 to 4 inches.
I have nothing to add to the above. It is all good info.
I would reiterated practice is critical.
I loved them all. You will too.

[tazman]

I own a Model 60-4 with a 3 inch barrel and adjustable sights. It is 38 special only.
I can shoot it very nearly as well as my model 15 or model 14. I am quite comfortable using it for concealed carry or whatever else I might use a handgun for.
I make no claims about the 38 special cartridge other than it is easily controlled and accurate in my particular pistol. I would rather have a slow hit than a fast miss.
With the bullet in the right spot, it doesn't matter if it expands.

[Drm50]

I can't cheer lead for stub nose revolvers but I can for S&W revolvers, they are the most fool
proof, dependable and accurate revolvers you can buy. I own around 3 dozen from 22lr to 45cal.
Most of mine are 6", a few 4s & 8 3/8". I get stubs all the time on trades but have no use for them. Like someone said they take a lot of practice to shoot well. I can't shoot them but off a
rest they shoot, so it's me not the gun. If I was going to buy a CCW it would be a S&W. I have
a S&W that is 100yrs old this year, sound as a dollar. Several that are 75yrs old in same shape.206595206596206597206598

[winelover]

Have five snubbies. The Model 60 (38 SPL) has the heaviest trigger pull of the lot. That includes a CA Bulldog with shrouded hammer. BTW, I also have no use for an exposed hammer on a carry piece. I went so far as making a set of grips, that shoud the hammer of the Model 60. Have two 642's, one is a Talo edition. Talo has the better trigger of the two. The 357 LCR has the best sights and best trigger, out of all of them.



206606206607

Winelover

[Petrol & Powder]

I don't consider a 3" barrel to be a "snubnose" but that's just my own arbitrary definition. A 3" barreled J-frame is too big for pocket carry or an ankle holster in most situations. If you're going to carry a 3" barrel and the requisite OWB or IWB holster that goes with that gun, you might as well step up to a K-frame, just my opinion - YMMV. Same holds true for large grips. I see folks that can't shoot snubbys with small grips (they do require practice) so they install huge grips on the gun. That solves the grip problem but it also eliminates the reason for carrying a snubnose J-frame in the first place. If you're going to make the J-frame the same overall size of a K-frame; you might as well carry the K-frame.

I'm not criticizing the 3" barrels or large grips, just pointing out that those features destroy the one advantage of the snubnose and that is its ease of concealment. I think a 3" barreled DA revolver is an outstanding self-defense tool, it's just no longer a snubnose in my opinion.

The 2.5" K-frames with adjustable sights (models 19 & 66) are great guns but right at the ragged edge of what I consider to qualify as a "snubnose". The 2" K-frames with fixed sights (models 10, 12, 64) are a little more snag-proof and the fixed sights are tougher in general. But they're not really "pocket guns".

The Ruger SP101 with a 2.25" barrel and spurless hammer is kind of "in between" the J-frame S&W and the 2" K-frame S&W in terms of overall size. Personally I think it's a bit too big/heavy for pocket carry but some people state they can pull it off. It is a solid gun and a good performer.
When you get right down to size & weight, the 1 7/8" DAO J-frame is the easiest to conceal. Add the feature of a lightweight alloy frame (model 442 or old model 42) and you've got the best combination to conceal & carry.

[Char-Gar]

Petrol....I totally agree that a 3" barrel revolver is not a "snubby" and not suited for pocket carry.

I favor the 3" barrel because, the velocity out of a 3" barrel is closer to that of a 4" barrel than a 2" barrel and the longer sight radios is also a help in hitting what I am shooting at.

I carry the 3" Smith and Colt in a pancake style belt holster. These small revolvers do not show under a one size larger shirt. I live in a tropical climate and such shirts are pretty much standard. Like most older males, I do not have a waist anymore to catch the revolver, so the lesser weight becomes important.

The 2" Model 64 is a snubby, although not a pocket pistol. It is not so heavy as to pull my pants down and in a Simply Rugged Sourdough holster, the hammer is covered. In this holster, both the handgun and my hide are protected from each other. I would highly recommend this holster for somebody looking to carry a revolver concealed on the waist. It can be used IWB or OWB. I am not a fan of IWB holsters and I have had quite a few and everyone, either for a revolvers or autopistol have gouged my spare tire. This 2" RB K frame is easy to carry and easy to hit with. It is my go to carry gun these days.

Now at to the larger grips. For certain they are a big aid in accuracy. With these grips, I can shoot even the 2" J frame with excellent accuracy. I do carry my 2" Chief Special, with the larger grips in a pocket holster and have not found the larger grips to be any kind of a draw back either in concealment or bulk. On the contrary, I find them easier to grasp in the pocket. When the handgun clears the pocket, my hand is exactly where it should be for fast and accurate shooting.

Everybody has their own opinions, experiences and predilections, but the above are mine. This is where I have come after decades of carrying and shooting revolvers. Others can do as they wish. For grins, here is my Chief Special with Mustang grips. It is my pocket snubby and works for me.

[texasnative46]

MikeD7,

I carried a "circa 1966-67" Model 60 "snubbie" every day for well over 15 years off-duty. - ImVho, the earlier the Model 60 the BETTER, as the oldest ones seem to be better quality/finished in every way than the revolvers made in the last decade.

Fwiw, it will generally NOT be difficult to find a S&W "J-Frame" in mint or even "as new" condition if you "look about", as MANY of the small frame S&W & Colt's revolvers were often carried every dat but seldom fired.
(One of my boarding-school chums found a Model 60 at the Austin Gun-show last year that internally LOOKS unfired. - The PO said that his uncle, who bought the revolver in the 1970s, fired the little "snubbie", "maybe as many as 10 or 12 times" in >3 decades.)

Note: When I finally found one that I could afford, I passed my Model 60 along to a female detective in the department & bought a Model 64 "snubbie", which fit my hands better.
(Now that I have a very petite lady in my life, I wish that I had kept the Model 60, as my handguns are ALL to big for her small hands.)

yours, tex

[Petrol & Powder]

Char-Gar, there's no doubt that the 3" tube yields better velocity and better sight radius than a 2" barrel.
The 3" tube is one of my favorites when I don't want to carry a snubnose.

I also share your opinion on the IWB holster. They have their place but I far prefer an OWB style. The OWB isn't much more difficult to conceal and is far more comfortable.
I can't shoot a J-Frame with the factory wood grips but with a Tyler T-grip added or a set of Boot Grips, the gun is manageable and still no larger than the factory gun.

[Kosh75287]

I'm not sure why ANYone would choose to carry a j-frame revolver, if they could carry anything else. To MY mind, these revolvers are ideal for situations in which one must be armed, but must not be DETECTED as being armed. Beyond that, I don't get it. MY "ballistic goal" for MY M36 was 158gr. at 1000 f/s, which I obtained without stretching anything (though probably not without exceeding +P+ pressure levels). I'm not sure that I could get 300+ f/s over that in a 2.5" k-frame and if I could, I'm pretty sure it would be no fun to shoot them for any length of time(my reloads for my M36 were obstreperous enough, as they were!). If a situation exists in which a 2.5" k-frame can be carried without detection, then so can a 4" k-frame, or a FireStar in .40 S&W, a Taurus M431 in .44 Special, or an Officer's Model in .45 ACP.

[Petrol & Powder]

To each his own.

[Char-Gar]

What he said ^^^^^^^^

[MikeD7]

Thank you everyone for the input. I think that I am going to take a closer look at the M&P 340.

[Char-Gar]

Petrol....I got my first 2" Chief Special in 1965 and it was the all steel round butt version. I found it difficult, if not impossible, to shoot with factory stocks and bought a Colt Cobra for my short barrel 38. The Cobra was heads and shoulders easier to shoot than the Chief Special.

Somewhere back in the dim past, I read an article by Skeeter Skelton about his "Little Guns". He had a 2" Chief Special (nickle plated) that he carried in his work. He allowed that he didn't do well with the round butt version, but the square butt moved the pistol just far enough back in the hand from the trigger to change the whole dynamic.

So, I tried the Chief Special again, but with the now defunct square butt. Darn if Skelton was not right. The square butt made the little handguns far easier to shoot. Since then I have hunted up square butt Chief Specials. Both my 2" and 3" versions are of the square butt variety. With a grip adapter the square butt is a good shooter, but I still prefer my larger Mustang grips.

Here is my 1954 Flat Latch Chief Special before it got introduced to Mustang grips.

[Catshooter]

The old "a short barreled .357 hardly gets you much more that a .38" is from the old days when gun writers didn't own chronographs and thought they needed to sound smart.

I've chronoed the .357 in a 2.5 inch barrel: 180 grain cast at just over 1250 fps wasn't hard and was below max. I think that'd be a tuff in a .38.


Cat

[Petrol & Powder]

Char-Gar, You'll get no dispute from me that a Colt Cobra (or Detective Special or Agent) is easier to shoot than a round butt J-frame with the little factory wood grips. Those old "D" frame Colts fall right in between the S&W J-frames and K-frames in terms of size. The grips are still small on the Colts but way easier to hang onto.
I've never really warmed to the DA action of Colt revolvers. They are an animal all unto themselves but they were good revolvers. In today's world anything with "Colt" stamped on it and in half way decent condition, requires a second mortgage to obtain.

I have seen a few square butt J-frames but they are pretty rare. I have no doubt that a square butt J-frame would be easier to shoot and the size penalty between Square Butt & Round Butt is minimal. That flat latch, square butt model 36 with a Tyler T-grip is fine looking little gun.

A few months ago a friend let me shoot his old S&W model 40 and it shot beautifully. I tried my best to buy it from him but to no avail. Those old J-frames were solid guns.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Catshooter; a .357 mag will absolutely outperform a 38 Special even in a 2" barrel. (that doesn't mean I really want to shoot a magnum in a snubnose but that's a different topic)
I agree that the misinformation concerning reduced performance of the .357 mag in short barrels is often repeated. Even with the loss of velocity due to a short barrel the .357 mag STILL starts out much faster than any 38 Special of the same weight. I'm not real keen on shooting magnums in short barrels but there's no doubt that they are moving along at a good clip when the depart the barrel.

[Bigslug]

I'd forget the SA option and go to the hammerless (internal hammer) 640 and learn to run DAO. They're surprisingly accurate once you do.

Not having the hammer snag is a plus, as is being forced to practice with the trigger mode you'll be using if you have to break it out for real. The SA trigger is a crutch to prop up a lot of crappy technique for a lot of folks on the range - better to walk without it.

[DHDeal]

I've had a model 60 357 Mag with the 2 1/8" underlug barrel for 20ish years. The day I bought it, I put 5 Federal 125 grain 357 Mags through it. Terrific recoil and a muzzle blast easily seen in daylight. Would love to see it in full darkness.

I've always likened it to a miniature donkey: looks cute as hell until it kicks you then it ain't cute anymore.

Anyway, after the action was smoothed up, the trigger pull was very good. I carry it occasionally still loaded with the ammo mentioned above. Regardless if I hit anything, I'm sure to set something on fire with the muzzle blast.

[Three-Fifty-Seven]

....!

[Three-Fifty-Seven]

... ;)

[texasnative46]

Char-Gar,

AGREED on the Cobra/DS/Agent BUT in my days of carrying a "snubbie" every day I was stationed near the ocean & "out on the island" you could watch your blued/nickeled handgun RUST. = Thus my purchase of the Model 60.
(YES, a SS handgun will corrode when constantly exposed to ocean spray/salty air but far less quickly.)

yours, tex

[Char-Gar]

Petrol...Spot on about the different DA trigger pull on Colts vis-a-vi Smiths. Back then we all knew the difference and had our preference. Smiths was a straight through pull, but the Colt pull stacked before the hammer fell.

I spent many hours DA shooting the Colts, from the New Service on down. The stacked pull of the Colt could come in handy, to let you know when the hammer was going to fall. Of course at belly gun range, who cared?

With a gun held to my head, I would cop to liking the Smith pull better, but the Colts are not shabby either.

[Char-Gar]

Tex...Down here on the coast, I could go duck hunting in the Laguna Madre and there was a coat of red rust on my Browning by the time I returned home. I learned to give the metal a coat of car wax (Liquid Turtle Wax) before going out and that stopped the rust issue. Of course this was long before there was such a thing as stainless steel firearms.

[texasnative46]

Char-Gar,

Fwiw, I used to use Johnson's Paste Wax for the same purpose.

yours, tex