A treat for the J-Frame Guys

[92FSTech]

Lipsey's just announced these. I haven't been so excited about a "new" release in years. Rumor is street price will be around $700. I've gotta get a .38, and would love a .32 as well. I think the enhancements are well thought out, and I particularly like the sights. It'll be a nice, lighter-weight alternative to my 640 Pro!

 

[model1994]

been casually shopping for a lighter one than my 649, and was close to buying a 340 - but this is very interesting. Thanks for sharing

 

[Mongo59]

Too much to spend for a throw down, even if it had Corleone initials on it...

 

[92FSTech]

been casually shopping for a lighter one than my 649, and was close to buying a 340 - but this is very interesting. Thanks for sharing

Yep...it's like a cheaper 340 with better sights and chambered in the caliber that I'm most likely to shoot out of it anyway.

 

[92FSTech]

Too much to spend for a throw down, even if it had Corleone initials on it...

I like all my J-Frames too much for that, even the cheap ones! If you're gonna do that, buy a Taurus

 

[Colt556]

That looks like it would be a nice replacement fo my 37.

 

[Tactically Fat]

That's too many clams, man. Too many clams.

 

[92FSTech]

The scandium guns are going for $950-$1100 these days. The regular aluminum guns are about $550, without the sights, grips, titanium pins, or extra machine work. Even the 43C is $750, and that's a .22. Yeah, I wish they were cheaper, but it's not out of line for the times. Heck, even Ruger SP101s, which used to be the "value" option, are now over $700.

 

[snorko]

That with a 3" barrel would be tempting.

 

[indiucky]

That's too many clams, man. Too many clams.

Wait until you find out what they charge for molded plastic framed firearms.....

 

[tcecil88]

I have always ogled over the 640 Pro. This revolver looks great too. I have always had a soft spot for J-Frames and this new one doesn't help.

 

[Pepi]

Meh ... I'll just keep my beater 638. Sights work fine and the trigger job I did makes it smooth. I don't think the 38 kicks that much either.

 

[MrSmitty]

Interesting, but seems like a .327 magnum would be able to shoot .32 H&R, and all the others, but just chambering it in .32 H&R, you get the old S&W rounds, but not .327 mag.....am I wrong?
Also. to me it seems they are responding to Taurus, and all they're doing with revolvers..

 

[tcecil88]

Interesting, but seems like a .327 magnum would be able to shoot .32 H&R, and all the others, but just chambering it in .32 H&R, you get the old S&W rounds, but not .327 mag.....am I wrong?
Also. to me it seems they are responding to Taurus, and all they're doing with revolvers..

Yeah, I agree. Why not chamber it in .327 Mag as well and give us the option. I have an old Rossi in .32 S&W Long that is not reliable and it would be nice to have a new J-Frame that shoots all the .32 caliber cartridges.

 

[92FSTech]

Yeah, I agree. Why not chamber it in .327 Mag as well and give us the option. I have an old Rossi in .32 S&W Long that is not reliable and it would be nice to have a new J-Frame that shoots all the .32 caliber cartridges.

I agree it would be nice, but they'd probably have to go to a Scandium frame for the .327, which would drive the price up substantially. The H&R Mag is going to be easier on the aluminum frame and more shootable overall, and it keeps these guns in a price range right in between the base model .38s and the high-end PD-line guns.

Bolke and Eastridge are both proponents of standard pressure loads in J-Frames, and it appears Lipsey's consulted with both of them on this project, so the choice doesn't really surprise me. I don't disagree with them...and while I like having the ability to shoot the heavier stuff if I want to, I typically either shoot "light magnum" factory loads (like the Speer 135Gr Gold Dot Short Barrel) or the equivalent, or standard pressure 148gr wadcutter handloads through mine. With the availability of either .32 H&R or .327 Mag right now, you're probably going to have to handload either way, so some degree you can kind of tune it to how you want it.

 

[92FSTech]

Also. to me it seems they are responding to Taurus, and all they're doing with revolvers..

That may well be the case, and if it is, I'm good with it. Credit where credit is due, Taurus has been doing a bunch of interesting stuff with revolvers lately, and if that's what it takes to get S&W off their laurels to produce an improved product, I guess I owe Taurus a thank you. Taurus has released a few revolvers in recent years that peaked my interest, and if I could trust them to deliver a working product backed by good customer service I'd have likely sprung for a few of them. Unfortunately, my past experience makes me leery of getting burned again...S&W on the other hand has always delivered.

 

[MrSmitty]

That may well be the case, and if it is, I'm good with it. Credit where credit is due, Taurus has been doing a bunch of interesting stuff with revolvers lately, and if that's what it takes to get S&W off their laurels to produce an improved product, I guess I owe Taurus a thank you. Taurus has released a few revolvers in recent years that peaked my interest, and if I could trust them to deliver a working product backed by good customer service I'd have likely sprung for a few of them. Unfortunately, my past experience makes me leery of getting burned again...S&W on the other hand has always delivered.

And that is what they have been working for reliability, and quality (I have no skin in the game, I just admire what Taurus has been doing towards rebuilding their brand) They hired a new CEO, and brought Caleb Giddings onboard, he famously trashed a few taurus revolvers, so bringing him in told me they were doing something about their perceived quality problems.. (Sorry to thread jack)

 

[92FSTech]

Not a thread jack at all...it's absolutely relevant. And I agree...they've clearly been making some changes. I'd like to eventually get my hands on one and give them another shot, there's just so many things I want to buy, and limited dollars to do it with, so it's hard to roll the dice on one when the other has established themselves as basically a sure-thing.

 

[model1994]

Interesting, but seems like a .327 magnum would be able to shoot .32 H&R, and all the others, but just chambering it in .32 H&R, you get the old S&W rounds, but not .327 mag.....am I wrong?

You’re right, but I think they’re doing it to pay homage. Also, as someone who used to carry and had to defend it, .327 doesn’t have the best reputation in my experience. so they probably avoided ignorant controversy and interested collectors by doing it.

vindicated by the opinion of the guy in OPs video, every S&W collector (of the utilitarian Fudd type) have told me to find and carry either the 3” k frame or the .32 j frame. but those .32’s are rare, and you could eat chowder for a lifetime with how many clams they command.

 

[model1994]

im ordering the .32 as soon as i can