The 3" DA Revolver
- Thread starter Petrol & Powder
- Start date
Rally
NC Minnesota
David S,
you and Dale are killing me! I’ve been looking for a 631 I could afford for ever. Same holster as my 63, and all kinds of ammo in three lengths ( .32 s&w, .32S&W long, and .32 mag.) In fact, I have some .32 long in the tumbler as I write this!
That’s as bad as Ben posting that picture of his Ruger #1 ss in .30-30! Some day.
you and Dale are killing me! I’ve been looking for a 631 I could afford for ever. Same holster as my 63, and all kinds of ammo in three lengths ( .32 s&w, .32S&W long, and .32 mag.) In fact, I have some .32 long in the tumbler as I write this!
That’s as bad as Ben posting that picture of his Ruger #1 ss in .30-30! Some day.
CZ93X62
Official forum enigma
I spoke of the 2" Model 10 in the other "Snubnose" thread. At about the same time I was putting that snubby through its paces at work, a range-rat buddy of mine from FBI lent me one of his armory's Model 13 x 3" 357 Magnum revolvers. I had use of it for 5-6 months, and did not carry it on duty or for CCW usage. I DID shoot it extensively, though--and I loved it. I put the same set of grips on it as I had on my M-10 x 2", the Pachmayr Compacs. I put several hundred rounds through it, about half 38 Special +P (reloads that duped my shop's carry load, 110 grain JHPs +P). The other half was an amalgam of 357 Magnum loads, esp. Winchester Silvertips or reloads that acted like them with 146 grain Speer half-jacket SWCs. My intent was to buy a Model 13 or 65 x 3" for my own use, but a cash conflict ran counter to that plan. I had money to buy EITHER a newly-approved 45 ACP OR a new Model 13/65......but not both. I opted for the 45, which I certainly don't regret......but I do regret not getting the 3" 357 AND selling off the Model 10 x 2". Not among my more stellar decisions, for certain.
I have handled and considered one of the 3" L-frame 357s. I can manage the existing 686 x 4" in a shoulder rig comfortably, and that is my usual back-country rig whether on or off pavement. The 3" K-frame is appreciably smaller and lighter than the L-frame platforms, though I recognize its load limits. If the Models 13 or 65 x 3" became available again, I would snag one.
I have handled and considered one of the 3" L-frame 357s. I can manage the existing 686 x 4" in a shoulder rig comfortably, and that is my usual back-country rig whether on or off pavement. The 3" K-frame is appreciably smaller and lighter than the L-frame platforms, though I recognize its load limits. If the Models 13 or 65 x 3" became available again, I would snag one.
Last edited:
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
It's no secret that I hold the 3" RB Models 13 & 65 in high regard. For a wheelgun that's carried concealed and carried a lot - it's hard to beat that combination of size/weight/power/accuracy. It is, in my opinion, the revolver equivalent of a Colt Commander, SIG 228 or Glock G19. It's that one step down from the full size duty gun that still retains most of the positive attributes of its big brother.
In a DA revolver, you can step up to a 3" L-frame or a 3" GP-100 but you lose some of that compact "packing" ability the K-frame has. The closest you can come to the 3" mag. K-frame is the old Ruger Speed-Six with its 2.75" barrel.
In a duty rig or open carry, the 4" barrel, even a 4" L-frame, makes more sense. From concealment, that 3" RB magnum really is an excellent fighting tool.
In a DA revolver, you can step up to a 3" L-frame or a 3" GP-100 but you lose some of that compact "packing" ability the K-frame has. The closest you can come to the 3" mag. K-frame is the old Ruger Speed-Six with its 2.75" barrel.
In a duty rig or open carry, the 4" barrel, even a 4" L-frame, makes more sense. From concealment, that 3" RB magnum really is an excellent fighting tool.
Last edited:
RicinYakima
High Steppes of Eastern Washington
Like the rest, I always wanted a 3" Model 13, but never saw one for sale. However, one orphan rescued was an early un-heat treated S&W 32 WCF with a round butt. The barrel and cylinder were so rusted from shooting corrosive/black powder it was very cheap. Over the years a correct period cylinder came my way from eBay, and barrel that had been bulged from shooting modern jacketed ammo. (The stuff is so under powered that many stick in the barrel and another round fired behind it.) So now it is a three inch and bead front sight from an 1894 Winchester carbine. I only shoot the light 3.0 grains of Bullseye load and zeroed for 25 yards. I did find a Canadian RCMP three inch Model 13 holster to carry it around.
I believe Petrol & Powder that you've put your finger right on it. If you knew you were headed for a fight would you take a hand gun? Being we don't know were headed for a fight and not liking surprises what is the best package to carry when out and about? Something that can be easily stuck in a pocket or something that needs threading on a belt, 5 or 6 shots or a small multi shot auto. Is a 32 okay? 380? 9mm/38? Micro 22 rimfire? Any hand gun short of the 500 S&W is a pretty poor compromise and I'm not sure about the 500 S&W. So Blonde, Brunette or Red Head...2 1/2" or 3" either way you pays your money and take your chances. I like options personally.
CZ93X62
Official forum enigma
I owned one--briefly. Given its role (CCW & close-range felon repellent) adjustable sights are kinda superfluous. The ONLY reason I opted for my 686 x 4" over a 581 or 681 with fixed sights was that the fixed-sight variants were out-of-print by the time I bought the 686.
The 19 x 2.5" shot fine and was tractable in all respects. I played with it for about 6 months and sold it off. It couldn't fire my shop's authorized Federal #357B loadings safely, so it served no purpose. Regs changed since that time, and ammo/caliber choices expanded widely for retirees......but I don't think I would have kept the 19/2.5" in any event. Adjustable sights on a 2.5" barreled carry gun are like camper shells on Alfa-Romeos.
RicinYakima
High Steppes of Eastern Washington
My position is with CZ. Shorter barrel, weights more and bulkier with adjustable sight.
david S, the one that is important is the one in your pocket from the time you get dress until you get naked to go to bed. If you are not armed all the time you are awake, you are not armed. IMHO
Now I like that !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
I'm in agreement with CZ93X62, I actually prefer fixed sights on fighting guns. Fixed sights are less prone to snag on something, fixed sights are tougher and fixed sights don't get out of adjustment.
The 2.5" magnum K-frames are great guns but they just barely make my (totally arbitrary) definition of a snubnose. Revolvers with barrels greater than 2.5" and not over 3"; fit my definition for the 3" class.
A 3" revolver is no longer a snubnose in my little world (your world may be different and that's OK) but 3" barreled revolver IS in a class all to its own. (at least for me , YMMV).
The 3" DA revolver is bigger than a snubnose but it's smaller than a full size 4" barreled duty gun. It has a place.
And David S. - I Completely agree that all handguns are poor substitutes for long guns. We carry handguns because it is impossible to go through daily life with an M-14 held at port arms all day long. And frankly, if anyone knew they were going to a gunfight - they wouldn't go. And if you had no choice and were required to go to a gun fight - you would take a long gun and all of your friends with long guns.
The 2.5" magnum K-frames are great guns but they just barely make my (totally arbitrary) definition of a snubnose. Revolvers with barrels greater than 2.5" and not over 3"; fit my definition for the 3" class.
A 3" revolver is no longer a snubnose in my little world (your world may be different and that's OK) but 3" barreled revolver IS in a class all to its own. (at least for me , YMMV).
The 3" DA revolver is bigger than a snubnose but it's smaller than a full size 4" barreled duty gun. It has a place.
And David S. - I Completely agree that all handguns are poor substitutes for long guns. We carry handguns because it is impossible to go through daily life with an M-14 held at port arms all day long. And frankly, if anyone knew they were going to a gunfight - they wouldn't go. And if you had no choice and were required to go to a gun fight - you would take a long gun and all of your friends with long guns.
Last edited:
Winelover
North Central Arkansas
On a three incher, adjustable sights and exposed hammer would be fine. Since it would be a holster gun, anyways. Not on a two inch, pocket piece. Lasergrips will compensate for fixed sights being slightly off, as well as low light visibility. Then there is the threat management aspect and confidence.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
An old marksmen once gave me this little tidbit of knowledge:
Adjustable sights don't make your group on the target smaller, they just allow you to move that group around on the target.
The advantages of fixed sights are: They tend to be less prone to snagging on clothing/gear. They are very durable. And they do not get "out of adjustment".
The advantages of adjustable sights are: They allow you to center the group on the target. They allow you to compensate for the P.O.I. of different loads.
I've seen poor shooters attempt to correct bad shooting by adjusting the sights (I suspect most of us have seen this). Moving the group around the target doesn't make the group any smaller.
Most experienced handgun shooters will adjust sights to match a particular load and then NEVER touch the sights again unless they change that load. In fact, sometimes fixed sights are altered to match P.O.A. to P.O.I.
There are some guns that I would reject if they were equipped with adjustable sights. There are times when simple is better. And fixed sights do not equal bad sights or poor accuracy. Fine shooting can be done with fixed sights.
There are other times when adjustable sights are a nice feature. It depends on the intended application.
Adjustable sights don't make your group on the target smaller, they just allow you to move that group around on the target.
The advantages of fixed sights are: They tend to be less prone to snagging on clothing/gear. They are very durable. And they do not get "out of adjustment".
The advantages of adjustable sights are: They allow you to center the group on the target. They allow you to compensate for the P.O.I. of different loads.
I've seen poor shooters attempt to correct bad shooting by adjusting the sights (I suspect most of us have seen this). Moving the group around the target doesn't make the group any smaller.
Most experienced handgun shooters will adjust sights to match a particular load and then NEVER touch the sights again unless they change that load. In fact, sometimes fixed sights are altered to match P.O.A. to P.O.I.
There are some guns that I would reject if they were equipped with adjustable sights. There are times when simple is better. And fixed sights do not equal bad sights or poor accuracy. Fine shooting can be done with fixed sights.
There are other times when adjustable sights are a nice feature. It depends on the intended application.
Rick H
Well-Known Member
I like adjustable sights....managed to sight in my 66 and carry it every day for about 10yrs in and out of cars, scuffles and all.....it never "got out of adjustment" or broke. I was able to adjust for different point of impact when changing ammo. Perhaps it has to do with being left handed, but it is rare for me to find a fixed sighted gun that shoots to point of aim. I detest Kentucky windage in a fighting gun. Easier for me to use adjustable sights....or to change sights so they shoot to POI. Frame grooves just don't do it for me.
I understand simpler is better, but only if it doesn't impede usability.
I understand simpler is better, but only if it doesn't impede usability.
Winelover
North Central Arkansas
I'm also left handed. The only adjustable sights that failed for me were the one's that came on my Browning HP. Don't know how that even happened. Never dropped and hardly ever holstered carried. Bad design.........very fragile. Replaced them with Millet adjustables..................back when white outline first got popular.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
The ability to adjust the rear sight has nothing to do with the ability to see the sight.
I'll grant you that many adjustable sights have nice sharp square notches set into a large, perfectly flat black, serrated rear blades that give a beautiful target sight picture. That style of rear sight is easier to see than a tiny square notch cut into a rounded profile, stainless steel top strap. However, the adjustable function has nothing to do with that sight picture. You could weld the adjusting screws tight and the sight picture would still be good - you just wouldn't be able to adjust it. The difference isn't the ability to adjust the sight, the difference is the style of sight.
I guess when we're talking about revolvers there's some difference in the style of the rear sight between fixed sights and adjustable sights. The notch cut in the top strap of a S&W model 10 is a fixed sight just like the solid rear blade on a 1911 is a fixed sight (although somewhat adjustable for windage by drifting the sight). So in that regard, a flat blade may be easier to see than a notch in a top strap, but that's not a function of being able to adjust it.
I'll grant you that many adjustable sights have nice sharp square notches set into a large, perfectly flat black, serrated rear blades that give a beautiful target sight picture. That style of rear sight is easier to see than a tiny square notch cut into a rounded profile, stainless steel top strap. However, the adjustable function has nothing to do with that sight picture. You could weld the adjusting screws tight and the sight picture would still be good - you just wouldn't be able to adjust it. The difference isn't the ability to adjust the sight, the difference is the style of sight.
I guess when we're talking about revolvers there's some difference in the style of the rear sight between fixed sights and adjustable sights. The notch cut in the top strap of a S&W model 10 is a fixed sight just like the solid rear blade on a 1911 is a fixed sight (although somewhat adjustable for windage by drifting the sight). So in that regard, a flat blade may be easier to see than a notch in a top strap, but that's not a function of being able to adjust it.
Last edited:
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
"......it would make little sense to engineer a set of real sights to replace the tiny v notch and paper thin blade on an old revolver and not make them adjustable...."
I disagree, there are very good reasons to make fixed sights. That doesn't mean one needs to make inferior fixed sights.
I remember when the Novak sights came out and they were the hot ticket item. They offered a slick profile that still had a very good sight picture.
You drifted the rear sight left or right to set the windage and locked it down. You picked a front sight just a tad taller than you needed and filed it to set the elevation and you were done. You never fooled with them after that.
There are aftermarket fixed sights to replace the adjustable rear sights on some revolvers that offer the same rock-solid reliability AND a better sight picture.
You pick the right tool for the job.
If you're putting wheels on cars on an assembly line - you don't need or even want an adjustable wrench. All of the lug nuts are identical. You want a socket that fits those lug nuts and something to turn that socket.
If you're a plumber, you don't want one non-adjustable wrench. Pipes and fittings come in many sizes. You want adjustable wrenches and probably several.
Just because something is non-adjustable doesn't mean it's inferior. The guy putting lug nuts on cars on an assembly line doesn't need or even want an adjustable wrench.
There is also some prejudice built into the purchasing decision. Because adjustable sights cost more than fixed sights (due to their added complexity) there is some false perception that they are always better than fixed sights.
There ARE times when adjustable sights are a good idea and there are also times when fixed sights are preferable.
You pick the tool to fit the job.
I disagree, there are very good reasons to make fixed sights. That doesn't mean one needs to make inferior fixed sights.
I remember when the Novak sights came out and they were the hot ticket item. They offered a slick profile that still had a very good sight picture.
You drifted the rear sight left or right to set the windage and locked it down. You picked a front sight just a tad taller than you needed and filed it to set the elevation and you were done. You never fooled with them after that.
There are aftermarket fixed sights to replace the adjustable rear sights on some revolvers that offer the same rock-solid reliability AND a better sight picture.
You pick the right tool for the job.
If you're putting wheels on cars on an assembly line - you don't need or even want an adjustable wrench. All of the lug nuts are identical. You want a socket that fits those lug nuts and something to turn that socket.
If you're a plumber, you don't want one non-adjustable wrench. Pipes and fittings come in many sizes. You want adjustable wrenches and probably several.
Just because something is non-adjustable doesn't mean it's inferior. The guy putting lug nuts on cars on an assembly line doesn't need or even want an adjustable wrench.
There is also some prejudice built into the purchasing decision. Because adjustable sights cost more than fixed sights (due to their added complexity) there is some false perception that they are always better than fixed sights.
There ARE times when adjustable sights are a good idea and there are also times when fixed sights are preferable.
You pick the tool to fit the job.
Last edited: