Opinions on S&W mdl. 637 for carry?
I am considering one of these. I have looked at the search and found little help for my question. What is your opinion on them? Thanks.
0
-
You can't go wrong with any S&W J frame. I have a 640-442- and a 1964 36 I bought new.
We looked for a while at gun shows for a 637 for a friend as he wanted a external hammer on one.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ni hao
I am considering one of these. I have looked at the search and found little help for my question. What is your opinion on them? Thanks.
Smith 637 is my own personal preferred carry gun (with others to choose from).
Main reasons I like it are:
-Lightweight (15 oz) and fits in a pocket.
-As close to 100% reliability as you can get in a pocket-sized pistol.
-More powerful than any .380.
-Simple controls (easy to work when adrenaline destroys fine motor control).
Some people prefer the hammerless 642, and that's a good choice too. Advantages of 642 are less possibility of snagging on draw, and one less control to worry about. Some people think a hammer on a revolver tempts the user to cock the hammer, and the light trigger weight on a cocked-hammer gun can lead to a negligent discharge.
I like the hammer since I can cock the hammer for a light trigger pull and more accurate shot. . .if I want to. Also, I see the hammer snagging the pocket as an extra SAFETY feature. . .gun won't fall out of my pocket by mistake.
Way to draw the hammered gun is to place the thumb of your shooting hand over the hammer during the draw, preventing snagging.
****
Edit: Responding to below.
My own carry 637 is the 637-2 with the internal lock. I own a number of Smith revolvers, and this is the only one with the lock.
I've also heard individual reports of Smith locks engaging under fire, but I've never seen it actually happen, and I don't know what to make of these. Defective individual gun? Misuse of the lock by the owner? At least one of the reports I read was of an airweight .44 magnum locking by mistake. . .that shouldn't happen, but at least its sort of understandable.
Personally, I've put at least 500 rounds through the gun (including at least 3-4 full boxes of +P rounds) and the lock has never engaged. I have never used the locking feature, except just to check it out once or twice when I got the gun. I'm not worried about this gun locking by itself under fire, and I have no problems carrying it.
If you are worried about that possibility, its not terribly difficult to permanently disable the internal lock.
I've also heard that Smith has recently released a small run of NEW airweight J-frame revolvers WITHOUT locks. These won't be legal for sale in every State, but if legal in yours, you might be able to find one. And of course you could always buy a "pre-lock" 637, though those are a bit tough to find.0 -
I owned a 1950's vintage Model 37 years ago. The only appreciable difference between it and the 637 is that the 637's barrel and cylinder are manufactured of stainless steel rather then blued carbon steel.
To make a long story short it was a great gun to carry but it couldn't hold up to sustained firing. It went out of time with a very low round count shortly after I got it.
If you intend to just carry the 637 for serious social purposes, and just run a box of 38's through it for practice once a year, it's good to go. If you on the other hand want something that's built like a tank and will take sustained shooting of 38's & 357's go with the Ruger SP 101.0 -
quote:Originally posted by rufe-snow
I owned a 1950's vintage Model 37 years ago. The only appreciable difference between it and the 637 is that the 637's barrel and cylinder are manufactured of stainless steel rather then blued carbon steel.
To make a long story short it was a great gun to carry but it couldn't hold up to sustained firing. It went out of time with a very low round count shortly after I got it.
If you intend to just carry the 637 for serious social purposes, and just run a box of 38's through it for practice once a year, it's good to go. If you on the other hand want something that's built like a tank and will take sustained shooting of 38's & 357's go with the Ruger SP 101.
Well, to be clear, the current manufacture 637 is actually built on a different frame than the older 37.
Like all the current J-frames, the 637 (which is ONLY available in .38+P, not .357) is built on a slightly larger beefed up frame designed for .357s. This is apparent if you look at the 637 vs say the older Smith models 36 side by side.
I can't comment on specific differences in metallurgy between the 50-60s era alloy frame guns and the current ones, though I think the current ones are also stronger in that way too.
The current +P rated airweight Smith guns have been "torture-tested" and unlike the older alloy frame guns, *DO* hold up to thousands of rounds of full +P pressure ammo.
With respect to the Ruger SP101, its not really a fair comparison, since that gun is all steel and therefore considerably heavier than the aluminum alloy framed Smith.
Current model Smith 60 (all stainless steel) would be a fairer comparison to the Ruger SP101. The Smith may not be quite as tough as the Ruger, but it is pretty darn strong and you'll probably wear out your index finger before you wear out that gun firing .38+Ps through one.
Alternatively, if you don't like the Smith (for whatever reason) Ruger does make a lightweight alloy (or alloy/polymer) framed small .38 revolver called the "LCR" that is probably a more fair comparison to the 637.0 -
Very good, you cant go wrong. 0 -
Dad has 2 Airweights. The 442 I bought him a few yerars back and he was so thrilled with it he went and bought a 642 "hammerless". He is pleased as a Pig in Poop with both. While I cannot say it does NOT happen, after close to 300 rounds through each gun the internal safety has never engaged. As a rule, I unlock the gun and leave the key in the case; much as I hate the S&W and Remington locks, I've never seen/had an issue. I would HIGHLY recommend any Airweight, older or new, as they are amongst the most reliable "oh crap" lightweights ever made. 0 -
Thanks to one and all for your replies. Seems this is what I am looking for. I am fairly certain I will pull the trigger and buy one.
Thanks again.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
7 comments