New From Smith & Wesson: Model 360 J-Frame .357 Revolver

Is there a more iconic snubby than the venerable Smith J-Frame? Let’s not argue the point here. Let’s instead note that the Springfield gun giant has just announced a new addition to the already extensive J-Frame lineup. The Model 360 features an unfluted cylinder, black over FDE color scheme, scandium frame and the capability to discretely pack five rounds of .357 deterrence. MSRP = $770. Here’s their press release . . .

Smith & Wesson® Adds Model 360 Revolver to J-Frame Lineup

SPRINGFIELD, Mass., (July 26, 2017) – Smith & Wesson Corp. announced today that the company has begun shipping the new Model 360 revolver, Smith & Wesson’s latest addition to its popular J-Frame revolver line. The Model 360 revolver offers consumers a new choice to meet their need for a lightweight, powerful concealed carry revolver for personal protection.  The Model 360 features a scandium alloy frame, unfluted stainless steel cylinder, Flat Dark Earth combat grips, and is chambered in the .357 Magnum cartridge. The Smith & Wesson J-frame revolver has become one of the most popular small-frame personal protection revolvers on the market, with decades of reliable performance.

Jan Mladek, General Manager for Smith & Wesson and M&P® Brands, said, “With the growing popularity of concealed carry firearms, Smith & Wesson has continued to innovate in the popular J-frame revolver category.  The Model 360, chambered in .357 Magnum and weighing only 14.9 ounces, is a powerful and easy-to-carry option for those looking for a new concealed carry sidearm.”

The new Model 360 J-frame revolver features a lightweight, scandium alloy frame that is capable of handling the .357 Magnum cartridge.  In addition to its lightweight frame, the Model 360 features a black finish, 5-round capacity and Red Ramp front sight for quick target acquisition.

To learn more about the new Model 360 revolver, click here.

For more information about Smith & Wesson firearms please visit www.smith-wesson.com.

 

Smith & Wesson Corp. is a U.S.-based leader in firearm manufacturing and design, delivering a broad portfolio of quality firearms, related products, and training to the U.S. consumer and law enforcement markets, as well as global military and law enforcement customers. The company’s firearm division brands include Smith & Wesson®, M&P®, Performance Center® and Thompson/Center Arms™. For more information on Smith & Wesson, call (800) 331-0852 or log on to www.smith-wesson.com.

comments

  1. avatar Darkstar says:

    Full power .357 in a scandium frame = Ouch!

    Not recoil sensitive but 125gr screamers in the older 340PD was downright unpleasant. Fun, but unpleasant.

    1. avatar Dan Zimmerman says:

      No law says you have to load it with .357. .38 Critical Defense will do very nicely.

      1. avatar Gunr says:

        True, but why pay the extra sheckels. I have a Ruger SLR that weighs the same, in 38 Special. I wanted and got the 3″ barrel to gain a little velocity. The piece will handle 38+P nicely.
        Is this the only grip color (baby poop brown) available? Yech!

    2. avatar Mike Breslin says:

      Deputy Moon says “Great”,it’s about time Smith came out with a new gun with law enforcement in mind.

    3. avatar Ed says:

      342PD works just fine for me. Great to carry all day in a pocket and not even think about the weight. Not real fun to shoot but it’s not meant to be.

  2. avatar Code3Patriot says:

    And they still insist on having the Hillary Hole.

    1. avatar Jericho 941 says:

      My LCR isn’t very pretty put at least it does not have the damn Hillary hole. There is a lock under the grip if you want to lock it, but at least it is hidden. I’ll keep my Ruger and its exceptional trigger.

    2. avatar Ed says:

      Ruger got rid of their lawyer locks in 2013…..Take note S&W!

      1. avatar Jim B says:

        Really, if the lock bothers you it can be easily removed unless you’re mechanically challenged in which case take it to a gunsmith.

  3. avatar Ed says:

    Yet another Hillary hole haunted offering from S&W. I might be a player on this one without that damn hole!

    1. avatar anonymoose says:

      They really need to ditch the ILS on everything, except for maybe a few models (full-sized .38 or .357s?) so they can still sell those to the weirdos who would buy such things.

    2. avatar DaveW says:

      Throw the key away!

    3. avatar Bohica says:

      For many years I was a devoted S&W fan, owning an assortment of their revolvers. But the Hideous Hillary Hole ended any thought of buying a new S&W. The only exception I have made is a Model 640 Pro: .357 Magnum, it is moon clip compatible (or you can load and extract just fine without a moon clip), and — best of all — no Hideous Hillary Hole!

      Now if they would make their Model 29/629 without it…

    4. avatar Jim B says:

      That’s akin to saying “I really like that house but I won’t buy it because I don’t like the color of the paint in the den.” I mean if the lock bothers you remove it. It is lot easier than painting the den. It takes minutes, 30 at the most even for a mechanical idiot that spends half the time looking for tools. Tools required? As I recall a screwdriver set, a rubber mallet or just a screwdriver handle and some needle nose pliers or tweezers. This isn’t what even could be called gun smithing. If you can’t do this you probably call AAA to change your flat.

  4. avatar Jon in CO says:

    Add a 6th round, and I might be a buyer. Not big on the whole 5-round snubby thing when I can toss a smaller gun with 7 or more in a pocket, plus a faster reload. 357 mag in a barrel that short is pretty much a waste of time anyway, since you won’t get the velocity.

    1. avatar anonymoose says:

      They used to make a 386 with a 2.5″ barrel and 7-shot cylinder, but they discontinued it along with the 329 .44mag, 325 .45ACP 396 .44 Special L-frame, and 315 .38 Special snubbies.

      1. avatar Jim B says:

        The 329 .44 Mag is still made. I have one and love it for its light weight. A gun you carry often and shoot little. I did switch the grips though like about everyone I know has done.

        https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearms/model-329pd

      2. avatar Joel IV says:

        I had a 386 and wish I’d kept it, but a fellow offered me too much to say no.

        At 1lb 1oz 125gr Federals were assertive.

        Can’t wait to get the 360.

    2. avatar Steve A. says:

      Au contraire.. Naturally you won’t reach the velocity like you would in a full sized handgun but it is “SIGNIFICANTLY” higher than .38 special in the same size barrel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27wDLjY5JSs

  5. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    I’ve never been a fan of these ultra-light S&W revolvers in magnum loadings.

    The irony of the J-frame is that you need lots of practice to put rounds on target, quickly, with these guns. It can be done – but you’re going to work to accomplish it.

    Trying to do that practice with .357 rounds in this light a revolver? You’re going to feel intense pain after 5 rounds through this gun. The 20-something ounce .357’s hurt like hell, but a 15 ounce revolver? Pffft. You’ll shoot it probably twice with a full-house .357 round. The first time, you’ll be stunned how much it hurts. Then you’ll tell yourself to “man up” and grip it more tightly, work on your stance, etc.

    After the second round, you’ll just say “Maybe I should reconsider this gun – it hurts like hell to shoot it.”

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      And what about the fact that your bullets are at serious risk to jump crimp in such a light revolver and jam it?

      In my mind the only load that makes sense in a light j-frame snubby are standard pressure .38 Special 158 grain full wadcutters. Even those will be unpleasant to shoot.

      1. avatar Gunr says:

        “Jumping crimp” Wow! That’s something I hadn’t thought, but it’s a valid point. Maybe we can get someone to do a test with different ammo, especially self defense ammo.
        The last round in the cylinder to be fired, could be measured before any of the rounds are fired, and then again after each of the first four are fired.

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Trying to do that practice with .357 rounds in this light a revolver? You’re going to feel intense pain after 5 rounds through this gun.”

      Make that two or three rounds.

      On the upside, when these make it to the used market (and likely considerably sooner than most guns), the round count through them is gonna be low.

      Seeing how they are advertising it for the concealed carry market, why isn’t the hammer bobbed or shrouded?

      I’ve wondered why a snubbie revolver manufacturer hasn’t produced a hammer shroud kit that could be added if someone wanted to convert it to a DAO configuration that won’t tend to hang up on clothing while drawing.

      Silly me, I’ve also wondered why women don’t clearly communicate what they really want.

      *sigh*…

      1. avatar John in AK says:

        Eons of our years ago, somebody produced a set of grips for the 36 that had raised upper ‘wings’ on either side that acted as a hammer shroud, simulating the configuration of the Model 49 with its hammer-protecting frame extensions (the gun wasn’t ‘hammerless,’ as the spur on the almost-normal hammer just barely protruded so that the gun could be cocked by thumb–the real ‘hammerless’ gun was the 42, and had a grip safety).
        If everybody and their grandmother starts buying Model 36s again, I’m sure somebody will ‘remember’ this miracle innovation and put it back on the market.
        On the other hand, while S&W is producing some innovative revolvers that pique my interest, each and every one gets a rapid thumbs-down–because I will NOT buy a revolver with an on-off keyswitch.
        And get off of my lawn.

        1. avatar Gunr says:

          Would you buy one with an “electronic” lock? Just kidding, don’t want to open up that can of worms!

      2. avatar Gunr says:

        The hammer shroud thing has some valid points, but you’d best put the communication thing to rest, it ain’t gonna happen.

  6. avatar anonymoose says:

    Chambered in PAIN!

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Chambered in PAIN!”

      Do you have any idea how long I’ve waited to do this?

      Thanks!

  7. avatar Turd Furgeson says:

    Ruger SP101
    Steel frame.
    ’nuff said.

  8. avatar Art out West says:

    Why unfluted?

    1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      Lower manufacturing cost. They’re cuts that don’t need to be made for the gun to function.

      In an all-steel or full-sized gun, they’re bits of weight you can shave off.

      1. avatar Gunr says:

        Took the words right out of my mouth!

  9. avatar Son of Alan says:

    That’s going to hurt!!!!!

  10. avatar PROUD chicano says:

    Now S&W is just making shit up.

  11. avatar Setarip says:

    I like it. I don’t particularly like the grips that come on smiths recently. I do really like unfluted cylinders.

    I own a 642, and with Ahrends grips it weighs exactly 16 ounces loaded with 129 grain .38+p. It’s the most painful gun Ive ever fired! The recoil is extremely sharp. The gun is manageable with 130gr fmj target rounds…

    …basically this is the same gun but with .357. It WILL hurt you almost as much as the bad guy. If it weren’t almost $800 I’d buy one just to get my unsuspecting buddies at the range with “hey! Bet you can’t shoot a cylinder full out of this!”.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “It’s the most painful gun Ive ever fired! The recoil is extremely sharp.”

      Physics 101.

      (Most) all guns recoil. On a lightweight gun the brutally fast rise-time of the recoil impulse translates directly into *Ouch*!

      1. avatar Setarip says:

        Yup. I never said anything contrary to basic Newtonian physics. Just mentioned that a lowly 642 is unpleasant with defense ammunition.

    2. avatar Joel says:

      I have now owned three different .38 snubbys. One weighed 22oz loaded (92′ Taurus 85) and shot like a dream. One weighed 190z (stainless first gen Charter Arms) and also seemed to shoot fine. The last one was “the one I really wanted all along” a smith 637 and weighed 17oz loaded with 5 158grain hollow points. And it wasn’t pleasant to shoot. : / It also hit high left at 10 freakin yards. (In single action. Rested on a bench. Multiple shooters.) 2 oz lighter and it completely changed the recoil.

      I don’t think I’ve ever been more disappointed in a gun. I traded it for a CZ 75 that’s a keeper though!

      1. avatar Setarip says:

        Yeah it’s amazing how sharp the recoil is. Although I can put 50-100 rounds of target loads down range in a session and not hurt too bad. Mines also extremely accurate. Did you end up selling that 637? I wonder if the crown was messed up at the factory.

  12. avatar HGTWS says:

    Just get a Model 640 Pro. Steel, .357, night sights and no ILS. It also is cut for moon-clips.

    1. avatar Bohica says:

      Yep. It weighs 22.4 ounces unloaded, has no Hideous Hillary Hole, and it’s not unpleasant to shoot. I load it up with Hornady .357 Critical Defense for carry. It’s also available in .38 Special, .38 Special+P and .38 Special Lite, each of which is potent.

      MSRP is $839 but I paid a bit less than $600, best I recall. I didn’t like the grips so I replaced them with Secret Service grips. It conceals better and provides better handling.

      And with the concealed hammer, I can carry it in a jacket pocket and shoot multiple rounds without snagging.

      I believe that a steel revolver is a better choice than the lightweight exotic metals, etc. That’s my two cents worth anyway.

    2. avatar Ed says:

      Try to find one.

  13. avatar chuck says:

    Fucki­n’ internal lock.
    No thanks.

  14. avatar Richard McGannon, Esq. says:

    If the recoil is painful, it is probably hard to reacquire target quickly, so no thanks. I will stick to the Shield in 9mm for concealed carry and my 1911 for fall and winter.

  15. avatar Michael says:

    no thanks, like my 60s….

  16. avatar RogUinta says:

    Full disclosure: I’m a S&W fan. I recently had the opportunity to play with a S&W J-frame, a Ruger SP101, two Ruger LCRs, two Kimber K6s, and two Charter Undercover 38’s that were all next to each other in the same display case. My summary:

    0) Don’t buy a Charter. Don’t even touch one–it’ll give you revolver AIDS
    1) Kimber’s triggers were surprisingly poor considering the price
    2) Ruger’s trigger was inferior to S&W’s, but not by too much
    3) S&W’s push-forward cylinder latch is ergonomically inferior for me (left-handed) compared to Ruger’s and Kimber’s button-style latches
    4) Ruger needs to offer a snubby-sized 6-shot in .327 Fed. Their 6-shot SP101 in .327 Fed with a 4-inch barrel is the answer to a question nobody ever asked.
    5) Polymer revolvers are … icky. Big and blobby yet strangely lightweight, with an ugly grip.

    So for me, in general S&W snubbies get the nod thanks to their best-for-the-price DA trigger.

    That said, I don’t get what S&W is doing here. There is nothing interesting about this new offering except that the cylinder isn’t fluted. They need to step it up and put out a 6-round J-ish frame or change their cylinder latch (or both). Or innovate in some other unexpected way. And get ride of the goldarned Hillary Hole.

    1. avatar Joel says:

      Smith is trying to make money. These will sell. It’s a cool looking revolver that will appeal to a lot of people. I’d rather have the ‘classic model 36’ myself. But more options are always good.

    2. avatar N8thecowboy says:

      Either you don’t know or you don’t count it because it’s an ‘icky’ polymer revolver, but Ruger does offer a six shot 327 Federal magnum snubbie in their LCR line. Just FYI.

    3. avatar Dave M says:

      Have done a somewhat similar comparison and was shocked to find the Kimber K6s trigger to be no better than my SP101’s or LCR. I also totally don’t get the fascination with Smith triggers either, no better and usually worse than my Rugers. To each their own, but SW will never find a place in my collection.

  17. avatar Ralph says:

    As a devoted Smith & Wesson weenie, I have no interest in punishing myself by firing full-on .357Mags from a 14.9 ounce snubby.

    Oh, sure, I could only shoot .38Spls from the M360, but I already have a M642 snubby for that, and it cost a bit over half of what this little M360 revolver costs. And the M642 is pretty damn snappy firing plain-Jane .38Spls.

    I love you, S&W, but I’m passing on this.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Yup. What the weenie said.

    2. avatar Jack Gordon says:

      Could not agree more. No defensive revolver should have a hammer spur any longer. This relic of a bygone era serves no purpose at all in the gun’s designated personal defense role. Better still, the hammer should be shrouded as it is in the S&W 642: no snagging means far less danger for the individual carrying the gun in a pocket and the ability to shoot from inside that pocket if necessary. There is also no advantage whatsoever in loading a gun this light with .357. The short barrel will ensure it gives nothing more than a lot more bang and flash, but nothing on the receiving end of the lead. The 642 is tough enough to master with .38 Spec. ammo and kicks perceptively more with +p loads. Load a snub with wadcutters and you have all the defensive capability a gun this size can reasonably deliver. Period.

  18. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

    I am not gonna get me one of these.

  19. avatar DaveW says:

    I have a S&W J Frame Mod 60 (no pin, no dash) .38Spl in stainless steel. It was S&W’s first foray into stainless steel. It’s a short barrel revolver in .38Spl and is fine for what is considered the normal range for a personal level confrontation. The .38Spl isn’t weak at close range, and yet it doesn’t break your hand like the .357 which I Have in a S&W K Frame Mod 19-3. Often, I wear gloves, but, even so, I have to take a break after a couple of reloads, which is a problem I don’t have with .38Spls and the Mod 60.

    I did change out the hammer which had had the spur removed for CCW. Since the 60 is new to me, I wanted to get used to it in stock configuration. I also changed out the grips to Laser Trace (green).

  20. avatar Nynemillameetah says:

    1. Nope, not buying an internal lock S&W.
    2. Nope, not buying a magnum that light.
    3. Internal locks seem to fail more on light Smiths.
    4. Smith makes one or two snubbies without the lock, so they can make anything without it should they choose.
    5. The lock seized on Farago’s 686, iirc.
    6. The locks are easy to disable.
    7. Still, I won’t provide S&W with the financial incentive to keep the lock by buying one.
    8. YMMV

  21. avatar Gregolas says:

    Does anyone else see the irony of using a scandium to make a ultralight frame but an unfluted steel cylinder to add weight? What kind of schizo designed this thing?

  22. avatar MSgt B says:

    If we’re going to be looking at wheel guns, how about the Ruger Blackhawk 9 shot in .357? 2.75 in. barrel and the cylinder is sans flutes. Weighing in at 44 ounces, this is not a pocket mouse gun and dare I say it, at 9 rounds (moon clip) it out runs the Sainted 1911.

    1. avatar Winterborne says:

      Hmmm, sorry, but I think you mean the new Redhawk in 357. And it’s an 8 round revolver, a’la the S&W 627.

      1. avatar MSgt B says:

        My bad, the extra toe picked the 9. You’re right, 8 shot. No excuse for not knowing the difference between Red and Black. Can I beg off on age?

        1. avatar Winterborne says:

          Is all good. ?

  23. avatar TP says:

    It still has the lock – no thanks.

  24. avatar Tal says:

    ” 5-round capacity”

    Blasphemy.

    The standard I know. But blasphemy none the less.

    1. avatar Gunr says:

      I know, 5 rounds ain’t much, but maybe you could start carrying a little NAA magnum in you pocket to help you get over the blasphemy part.
      Works for me.

  25. avatar Adam Warlock says:

    I can see S&W keeping the internal lock on models they had when the locks first appeared due to legal reasons, but I can’t believe they can’t find any legal wiggle room to leave it off new models and phase it out through old model attrition.

    With Republican majorities in Congress and Trump in office, they’re is still too scared get rid of the lock. Especially with declining sales, what easier way is there to spur sales by getting rid of something they know is an abomination.

  26. avatar Specialist38 says:

    The only thing new are the FD grips. The 360 has been around a while.

    Make them $ 350 and no goober hole and I might buy one.

  27. avatar tiger says:

    Enough whining about having a locking system. It is as backwards as complaints about cycle helmets or car seats. S&W has too many legacy costs to sell you a gun for $350.

  28. avatar Will says:

    It’s the best that 1890’s technology has to offer, and at the low, low MSRP of only $770!
    Seriously, are there actually people who buy these things, and pay anything close to that price?

    1. avatar Gunr says:

      I would hope not. I only paid a skosh over four bills for my Ruger SLRX in 38 +P, and that’s about all most folks can handle.

    2. avatar AJ187 says:

      Yeah, but they’re not poor like you.

    3. avatar Mr. WOLF says:

      If you mean revolver than yeah I do and will. Reliabilty smokes capacity anyday

  29. avatar FU Springfield Armory says:

    “Let’s instead note that the Springfield gun giant…”

    Please don’t use the word “Springfield” to refer to S&W. Now you’ve gone and triggered me worse than a left wing liberal. I need to quickly find a safe space for my mind since I singularly associate the word Springfield with Springfield Armory.

    1. avatar Pseudo says:

      Relax. Just put on a Buffalo Springfield album.

  30. avatar Mr. WOLF says:

    Wish it held 6

  31. avatar Mr. WOLF says:

    Crucify me if u want my friends but I been digging thus 7 shot Taurus Tracker w a 4 inch ported barrel. It’s great. It retired my Glock 19 to the gun safe.

  32. avatar BgDnTX says:

    Unfluted? Ugly tan grip? 5 Round? 357 under 16 oz? What dummy at S&W thought this one up?
    If they brought back the Model 19, I’d be on that in a heartbeat.

  33. avatar BgDnTX says:

    S&W, as well as many others, offer guns for sale. They are not in business to make a gun that can be effectively used for its intended purpose. Bottom line? What’s the flavor of the month?

  34. avatar Dave M says:

    If you want a light .357 stubby that you can fire .357 loads in without cringing, the only answer is the Ruger LCR. Actually enjoyable. The Polymer frame dampens recoil while the Scandium intensifies it.

  35. avatar Frank says:

    A lot of holsters for the J frames come with cylinder fluting molded into the leather or polymer for a closer fit. So this is one J frame model that may fit as well in a lot of holsters, due to that unfluted cylinder.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email