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.

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

  1. Full power .357 in a scandium frame = Ouch!

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

      • 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!

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

    • 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.

    • 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.

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

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

    • 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.

    • 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…

    • 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.”

    • 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.

      • “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.

    • “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*…

      • 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.

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

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

    • 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.

  5. 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!”.

    • “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*!

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

    • 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!

      • 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.

    • 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

  8. 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.

    • 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.

  9. 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).

  10. 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

  11. 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?

  12. 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.

    • 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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?

  17. “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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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?

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

Leave a Reply

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