help me pick

[LUCKYDAWG13]

Need a little help with this I'm looking at getting a new to me S&W first up is a model 65 - 3 4" barrel looks vary clean $550
next up is a 686-4 also with a 4" barrel gun looks used not beet up but not as clean as the 65-3 $630 + tax
anyway I'm stuck on witch way to go would the extra $100 bux be worth it for the rear sight
thanks

[Winger Ed.]

As a carry gun, I'd stay with the small rear sight.

Since I'd only use it for target shooting, I'd definitely get the one with the adjustable/target rear sight.
As time goes on, you'll find it is easier to see and get a better/quicker sight picture too.

[LUCKYDAWG13]

As a carry gun, I'd stay with the small rear sight.

Since I'd only use it for target shooting, I'd definitely get the one with the adjustable/target rear sight.
As time goes on, you'll find it is easier to see and get a better/quicker sight picture too.

Thats a good point

[roysha]

As a carry gun, I'd stay with the small rear sight.

Since I'd only use it for target shooting, I'd definitely get the one with the adjustable/target rear sight.
As time goes on, you'll find it is easier to see and get a better/quicker sight picture too.

That pretty much covers it.

[RU shooter]

If Planning on carrying the 65 , shot more the 686

[megasupermagnum]

It is absolutely worth the rear sight. My 3" SP101 with frame notch shoots around 4-5" at 25 yards. My 3" SP101 with fully adjustable rear sight shoots 3" at 50 yards

There is only one single instance I'll give up the rear sight, and that is a gun for pocket carry. Everything else, a rear sight is nothing but an advantage.

[georgerkahn]

Adding my two pennies... Some Birchwood Casey Lead Removing cloth254474and amazingly little effort on your behalf should make either look like new -- obviously as long there are no major scratches or similar in the finish. I've found it takes three 1" square cut pieces to eradicate ALL the black rings/stains on front of cylinder -- but that, too, will come out looking as factory new.
If either revolver locks good, and functions well in both single- as well as double-action operation, I'd go for the 686-4. My reasons include the fact that the 686 always seem to be in high demand, and should you ever wish to sell/trade -- I do believe you'd do quite better than with the 65-3. Further, as others mentioned, the adjustable sight is more than a wee "plus". For what it's worth, way back I had a no-dash 65, and needed to trade it for a firearm I "had to have" -- and surely didn't make any profit vis the 65 -- almost new, and hardly fired as well...
BOTH are great revolvers... I "hear" your tough choice... BEST!
geo

[bdicki]

Nobody said it yet so I'll say it, get both.

[LUCKYDAWG13]

Nobody said it yet so I'll say it, get both.

I wish that I could but I'm starting to think more about the rear sights I'm not getting any younger

[tazman]

I have found, with my eyes, any stainless or chromed handgun that does not have an adjustable rear sight is very hard to aim. The shiny surface of the stainless steel or chrome just disappears and I can't aim them properly.
Blued guns such as a model 13 or model 10 are no problem.
You may never have this issue so the choice will be personal.

[MT Gianni]

In a very few cases S&W was seeing cracked K frames where the forcing cone and frame met. As I understand it that was the reason to go to the L frames, 586/686. etc. I have a great shooting 44 Magnum on a strengthened L frame, model 69.
I would go for the 686 but would be OK with the 65 if I shot mostly 38's and carried 357's, just as the police issued that would do in the 50's, 60's and 70's.

[Winger Ed.]

I had a 6" 'L' frame with the target trigger & adjustable sights back in the 90's.
I only sold it to help buy a Gold Cup.

Of the few years I had it:
I never had a moment of buyers remorse, or had to make excuses for it.

As a carry gun, that big rear sight just looked like it would want to hang up on clothing.

[Petrol & Powder]

What we are talking about are two Stainless Steel S&W revolvers:
One a magnum K-frame with fixed sights and the other a L-frame with adjustable sights.

If the OP intends to shoot a lot of magnum rounds, the L-frame 686 is the clear choice and we are done right there.
If the OP is thinking more along the line of a carry gun that will be used with 38 Special ammo most of the time, the model 65 K-frame becomes the favorite due to its lower weight & bulk. I actually prefer fixed sights for "working" guns. Fixed sights don't get out of adjustment, are less prone to snagging on things and are far more durable than adjustable sights.

I'm going to offer another angle on this discussion, the model 65-3 represents the K-frame, "duty gun" of the past and they are no longer made in that original style. Yeah, you can get a newer model with MIM parts, two piece barrel, internal lock, etc. but S&W doesn't make that classic stainless K-frame Dash 3 model anymore. So if the OP is looking more for a 38 Special that can occasionally shoot magnum rounds, I would vote for the model 65-3. If the OP is looking for a DA revolver dedicated to shooting the .357 magnum, the L-frame is the logical choice.

[LUCKYDAWG13]

I'm content shooting 38 Special loads but like the option of 357 and yes I would put it in carry rotation once in a while

[Petrol & Powder]

I'm content shooting 38 Special loads but like the option of 357 and yes I would put it in carry rotation once in a while
I can't decide for you but I will say that I shoot far more 38 Special rounds than 357 mag rounds. If that sounds like where you are headed, the K-frame is a great gun for that use.

The L-frame is the clear choice if you intend to shoot a lot of magnum rounds. If the gun will essentially be a 38 Special gun that is occasionally loaded with 357 mag rounds, the K-frame has a lot going for it.

[rfd]

an interesting dilemma of sorts and i asked that of myself awhile back and came up with this answer - i have an S&W 642 j-frame snubby .38spl 1.875" w/frame rear sight for EDC, and an S&W 67 k-frame .38spl 4" w/adj. rear sight for range and target (and even EDC during the "more clothing" months if need be). i have no need for a .357mag nor a hi-cap pistol as the aforementioned guns work well enuf for me, ymmv.

[charlie b]

And I am the opposite. If I am carrying a revolver it is for the extra oomph of the magnum rounds.

[bigted]

So early on I found training manuals from both OSP and FBI and set about training myself in defensive shooting in a instinctive shoot emergency need condition.

I learned to shoot in instinctive mode NOT "sighting" in particular but having your revolver/pistol "under" line of sight and using perifial sighting only and focusing on the objective with every instinct focused on your decision to or not to engage your adversary. Upon the decision to engage ... never losing track of adversary's ... single or more ... in double action ... with your weapon in your lower , slightly out of focus ... "aim" center of mass and continue firing and advancing in the offensive mode till no threat is detected.

In this condition ... getting your weapon in battery as quickly as possible ... is primary ... therefore a snag or catch of any kind is very much to be avoided.

No bulky rear sight and a blaze orange or even vivid white front in a smooth angled configuration is to be sought.

7 or 9 inch groups are perfect at "combat" range ... from touching distance to 20 or so FEET. After this distance the threat of endangering self drops very dramatically.

However if squirrels n rabbits and utmost accuracy is to be required ... those high "snagable" sights are a must.

Just my 2 cents ... prolly worth exactly what you paid for it.

[Mk42gunner]

I like K frames better than L frames, had both a 6" 586 and a 4" 686 years ago, they both went down the road fairly quickly, I have a 4" 65-3 right now that will probably stay for the duration.

I mainly plink with it with .38's and few less than maximum .357 Magnum rounds; if I want to shoot full snort .357's I have Rugers for them.

Robert

[Dan Cash]

Contrary to many experts here, I will suggest the model 65. If the sights don't pleas you, paint them black. The 65 will likely have a superior trigger and unless it has been beaten to death by .357 mag 125 grain ammo, you can probably shoot it the rest of your life and not wear it out. The 125 grain loads are responsible for the cracked forcing cones on the K frame Smiths. I have one stainless model 66 and a model 19 regular steel revolver which have had far in excess of 2000 rounds of .357 mag ammo through each of them. They are tight and crack free.

That is a lot of ammo. How much do you think you will shoot? If the price of the gun is an issue with you and you are not already a caster and reloader, it is unlikely you will buy enough .357 to wear out your revolver.

[M-Tecs]

You didn't state the intended usage. If its a SD carry gun the model 65. If it's for hunting, plinking, night stand usage or target the 686. All things being equal I prefer the older non-MIM parts in the 65, however, the adjustable sights and the L frame verse the K frame wins out for most usages except for SD carry. For ranch carry or defense against black bears and such the 686.

[LUCKYDAWG13]

I'm looking for a range gun that I could carry but more of a range gun

[M-Tecs]

Fixed sight guns are a thing of beauty when they POI correctly. Range guns tend to be shot mostly at paper targets or things like cans or 12 gauge hulls. Having to hold off for POI while you buddies are smoking you isn't a lot of fun.

[bigted]

LD ... 586. Very well made and for your needs ... purrrfect!

[LUCKYDAWG13]

Well I was able to get out and look today LGS had the same type of revolvers that i was looking at the model 65 nice but the sights
are just not working with my eyes The 686 would work but not quite what I'm looking for then I looked at a model 60 pro with a 3" barrel
looked good and felt good in my hands but the Trigger not so good and the sights just dont work for me ether then I looked at a
Ruger SP101 with a 4" barrel It felt good in my hands and the fiber-optic sight is Awesome have the day off on Monday going to look at a few more

[bigted]

Take a look at the GP100. Ruger got it rite with it.

[LUCKYDAWG13]

Take a look at the GP100. Ruger got it rite with it.

I just started looking for one
the only thing about the SP and GP100 that I dont like are the grips I also came across a model 66-8 in my price range but it had a 4" barrel I just want to get it right the first time with this one

[megasupermagnum]

The SP101 is a bugger to find good grips for. The GP100 on the other hand has a wide range of grips available.

[LUCKYDAWG13]

The SP101 is a bugger to find good grips for. The GP100 on the other hand has a wide range of grips available.

I was under the impression that the grips for both the SP101 and the GP100 were the same style but just larger

[megasupermagnum]

Nope. The only interchange is the GP100 and Super Redhawk. The SP101 is very limited in grip options, and all of them are small. It's really a shame the SP101 has been more or less just left as a small carry gun, and nothing more. With all the 4.2" barrel versions around for how long now, 15 years, you would think somebody would come out with a target grip for a man size hand.

If the GP100 appeals to you, I would go that route. I love my SP101 as a carry gun, but if I were happy occasionally carrying a GP100, it is a better all round gun.