Revolver advice

[LloydXmas250]

I started a thread a few days back about CCW. I've been looking into many different kinds of small autoloaders in both .380 and 9mm and a little bit at .38 snubnoses. I have to say the idea of a snubnose is growing on me but I'm not exactly sure why. Maybe it's the light weight, or simplicity of the design, or the awesome caliber, or the small size. Anyway, I'm seriously considering a revolver for CCW at least part of the time until I can settle on an autoloader.

Since my only experience with revolvers is a very very old double action .22, I need some pointers in what makes a good revolver. So far I've found the LCR and the S&W 442 to be among the top ones that interest me. I like the grip and have read that the trigger on the LCR are great. But the 442 has been around longer and is probably more widely used, it's smaller, and from what I've seen it's less money. Only thing I don't like about the 442 is that the grip seems to go into a straight part of the frame and it doesn't look like a comfortable grip. Either that or the recoil may just push the metal frame into the hand. Anyway, if anyone could give me some pointers and some advice I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance.

[mrvco]

I have a S&W 438 and it definitely takes some practice to get comfortable shooting it. You also need to get comfortable with reloading from speed strips. But all in all, it's a reliable and reasonably accurate pocket gun (even though most of my pockets don't seem to be designed with pocket guns in mind).

[Crazy88Fingers]

Just about anything you buy from S&W and Ruger will be a good gun. My best advice would be to hold them, shoot them if you can, and pick out the one you like most in your price range.

Also, J-frame grips are really easy to find. So don't let awkward grips steer you away from a gun you otherwise like.

[Flakbait]

There are a ton of aftermarket grips for S&W revolvers so I would not get too caught up on the standard grip if you don't like it.

Shooting small revolvers is significantly different compared to full size semi autos and larger revolvers. I would plan to devote some time to practice and dry fire.

The S&W 442/642 are the most popular revolver models made by the company for a reason.

Ruger and Smith & Wesson make quality products and stand behind their work with lifetime warantees so you can't go wrong.

Folks tend to hang on to their small revolvers so they are a bit hard to find used. That is an indication to their popularity and convenience.

[5whiskey]

Just about anything you buy from S&W and Ruger will be a good gun. My best advice would be to hold them, shoot them if you can, and pick out the one you like most in your price range.

This is the only advice you really need. Stick with S&W or Ruger, shoot different models until you fall in love.

[American Eagle]

If you are going to get a snub nose revolver, stick with a S&W stainless steel, or the Ruger which is also made out of steel. You will appreciate the extra weight vs. a light weight scandium frame. The extra weight will make it easier to manage the recoil.

[LloydXmas250]

Is the LCR a lot of plastic to keep it light? I'm not opposed to it, I'm just not sure. And the 442 is scandium? Is a different model the stainless steel version? Also, I've seen the hammerless S&Ws and shrouded hammers that are there to cock if needed but recessed so it won't snag. Any feelings towards that?

Thanks for the advice guys.

[ScotchMan]

The 642 is stainless steel, the 442 is aluminum alloy. Neither is scandium, the night guard series is scandium I believe.

The LCR contains polymer in the frame, one of the first revolvers to do this (another is the S&W Bodyguard). Polymer is tried and true in the likes of Glocks but some people still don't like it in their guns.

Recessed hammer is definitely preferable to a full-size one, but my recommendation is no hammer on a defense snubbie. You will be tempted to practice with it and you should not consider the hammer in a self-defense situation; you won't have time, you probably shouldn't be taking shots you need it for, and there have been legal situations regarding them as well.

If I was buying a new snubbie today, I'd get an LCR.

[dyl]

Both the 642 and 442 have aluminum alloy frames (no scandium added) and both have steel barrels and steel cylinders. They weigh the same. Aside from the difference in colors, at some point there used to be a difference in the steels - the 642 for sure currently has a stainless steel barrel and cylinder while the 442 cylinder + barrel used to be carbon steel that was blued - I'm not certain if this still holds true. (they may color a stainless cylinder dark these days) - doesn't mean much to the shooter except better corrosion resistance. There's also a slight difference in the design of the front sights (there were in mine anyways). The 442 front sight is a rounded ramp while the 642 has a little bit of a cliff/shelf.

If you go to www.smith-wesson.com and browse the revolvers they will tell you which model is made out of what and how much it weighs. Also a good resource: genitron.com and compare a few firearms side by side (stats wise).

The scandium j-frame (the size you are talking about) revolvers are much more expensive but shave off a couple ounces and can shoot .357 magnum. There is an increase in energy/velocity with the magnum round but not as much as a gun in a longer barrel. Example: M&P340. A gain of about 100 fps but it's not like we should go bear hunting now (details, check out www.ballisticsbytheinch.com looking at 2 inch barrels)

It sounds like you also referred the S&W 638 or "the humpback". I don't have one, I don't think I could get over the looks! And although I wonder how useful a Single Action trigger pull would be for me in an emergency I can see how it would be fun at the range/plinking. Although folks tend to use bigger guns for plinking

As far as it hurting your hand - try shooting some lighter bullets around the neighborhood of 135 grains. When I first started I shot all 158 grain bullets loaded warm (sellier and bellot) and it was less pleasant. Things are much better now.

Pocket carry is nice with these little revolvers!

The 640 is an all-steel revolver, same j-frame size but heavier. It can handle .357 magnum too. You have to deal with the weight but it sounds like some don't mind. But the lightweight ones work well for carry for me.

Vocab: "backstrap" the part of the grip that comes into contact with your palm, facing the shooter.

Things I didn't know about j-frames and was concerned about: They can be really accurate even at much longer distances (you can look up Hickock45 video on j-frame on youtube) the accuracy is there in the gun but it's up to the shooter to learn.

[FlyFish]

The 642 frame is alloy, the barrel and cylinder are stainless. Nice guns - my wife and I each carry one.

[TheDeej]

Nope, the 642 is the same gun as the 442 other than the "color", per the smith site.
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/w...layErrorView_Y

The only reason I know is because I was thrown arie because its the same price, I would have loved a steel revolver over aluminum, but only the cylinder is steel, I figured the barrels would be too, but the site doesn't say that.
I have a 442 and enjoy it. It is a little more punch in the hand, but, I like the reliability of a wheel gun. The only reason I went with smith over Ruger is because they just are not around in my area. A sp101 in .357 came into one of the pawnshops and I looked at it and talked to my buddy who works there about it. I thought about it all night, went in the next day to buy it and my buddy had already put it on layaway.
I have shot a LCR, but, it was in .357, it was a ride! But, I would choose it over the bodyguard .38 since its got a funny placed cylinder release, and its only with a laser.

The previous posters are correct, Ruger &Smith seem to be the best options. I don't know what your used/pawn finds are, but older Colt snubs are becoming more available. I only own a .38 detective special that was a factory fitz special from Colt. I shoot it.though, its starting to get a little loose (it was built in 1933) so it doesn't see much range time.

Just whatever you get, shoot it. Learn it. They are addictive. I have sold all my polymer autos, now I'm filling in there spots with big bore revolvers.

[ScotchMan]

Oops, sorry. I was thinking of the 640. I hate S&Ws numbering system, one of the minor reasons I prefer Ruger.

[Gbro]

You will appreciate the extra weight vs. a light weight scandium frame. The extra weight will make it easier to manage the recoil.

The LCR is very mild in recoil, that is in .38Spec. IMO I have a S&W victory that recoils much more than the LCR.
I do have to be very cautious when gripping the LCR as it will ride muzzle high. My hands are big so I need a low grip where my little finger will be under the grip.

I like the grip and have read that the trigger on the LCR are great.

I find nothing great about the LCR trigger. It reminds me of the quality cap guns of my youth, You remember, back when caps popped!

[bikerbill]

Revolvers certainly have a lot to recommend them, and I occasionally carry a Smith 637, the exposed hammer version of the 642 .... however ...

The .38 is NOT an "awesome" round ... it's usually considered at the bottom end of acceptable in SD situations, and five rounds is a serious limitation on your ability to defend against more than one BG ... In addition, in my experience, a lightweight 2-inch revolver is very difficult to shoot accurately under the best of circumstances and takes a serious training effort to make it a useful tool for SD, which means you have to train with it constantly to maintain your ability to shoot it accurately ... +p ammo simply ups the difficulty level with more recoil ... Folks here will tell you they can shoot them accurately at 25 yds, and I never argue with those claims, but if they're true, I'm guessing they practice ... a lot ...

That's why my EDC is a Kahr PM9 ... I can shoot it far more accurately than the snubbie, it carries 7 rds instead of 5, and can be reloaded far more quickly than a snubbie ...

I can justify carrying the 637 when I'm taking a quick trip to the store or bank in my peaceful small home town ... and I'm alone ... but when my wife and I are out, or we head to the big city (Austin, in my case), my PM9 or Kimber UCII are with me, along with a reload ...

Lots of folks here will tout the .38 snubbie as a great SD gun ... for the reasons above, I prefer a semi-auto, for capacity, ease of reload and the reduction of recoil ...

Your money, your life, your choice ...

[Idahoser]

I love revolvers. In a lot of instances, I would recommend a revolver over an auto. The most important one is when you're recommending a carry gun for somebody who is not a "gun person". If you are not going to practice A LOT, if you don't just "like guns" but instead (I think most of our wives fit this description) carry because we want them to, then they are not going to be able to operate an auto pistol with the intuitive "my hand just knew what to do" when the chips are down. They WILL be able to operate the revolver that way.

Shooting in a pocket, or fouled in clothing, or (something I've considered important) shooting while 'grappling' (rolling around on the ground, rasslin, gun squeezed between bodies where you can't even see the gun, much less the sights), the 'hammerless' revolvers are the only guns likely to afford followup shots.

I don't have a particular problem with 'extreme' guns for somebody who knows what they're doing and chooses it from it's contemporaries. This means "extremely" small, or "extremely" light, or "extremely" powerful, etc. In other words the "basic" or "standard" configuration (a medium size, made of all steel, with a barrel length of 3" or 4", shooting something in the .38 Special neighborhood) should be the "starting place" from which you depart, BASED ON SHOOTING THIS A LOT along with the 'extreme' gun you're considering.

So, this means that I think it's foolish to recommend a .25 or a light weight OR AN AUTO for any beginner (ESPECIALLY women).

[ScotchMan]

While I agree with the spirit of the last post, I think some autos approach the simplicity of the revolver. The Glock style, consistent trigger pull, no manual safeties, would be one. As long as it is loaded and chambered, someone who has never fired a gun could make it go bang with no instruction at all.

[Streetprowler]

I agree with 'hoser, although I would put a finer point on his comment:

...shooting while 'grappling' (rolling around on the ground, rasslin, gun squeezed between bodies where you can't even see the gun, much less the sights), the 'hammerless' revolvers are the only guns likely to afford followup shots.

Even the simplest of autos in the above sort of fray may tend to go out of battery, not even affording an initial contact shot. If a human being can move twenty feet in two seconds - and they can - you may find yourself in a position where threat has escalated to someone laying hands on you already, in which you may have to draw not optimally, but when possible which likely means one-handed and in close-quarter combat with someone who is also armed. That is the time to deploy a revolver.

[zombieslayer]

I like the 442. I own a 642 and its light and comfortable to carry. My edc however is a 640. Its heavier than the airweights but when carrying i really dont notice the extra weight. Its very comfortable and is stainless. Which imo is much better for durability and for actual shooting. It has less recoil and if you're willing, its capable of shooting .357's all day. I carry .357's in mine and recoil isnt too bad. The recoil with an airweight shooting +p's is comparable, imo. So for a few extra ounces and a couple hundred bucks more you can get a 640. To me, its worth it.
My mom fell in love with my 642 so its now hers.

[Ashlander]

I'm with ZombieSlayer: I have both a S&W 640 and 60. They are .357 capable but I load 38 Sp+P. The added weight is nothing -- but it helps manage recoil. And it's far harder to crack a steel frame.

I also agree with Scotchman -- I have to keep a S&W catalog handy just to keep track of all the model numbers.

[Crazy88Fingers]

Scotchman:

While I agree with the spirit of the last post, I think some autos approach the simplicity of the revolver. The Glock style, consistent trigger pull, no manual safeties, would be one. As long as it is loaded and chambered, someone who has never fired a gun could make it go bang with no instruction at all.

In my experience with first time shooters and Glocks, that first round will likely be the only one they get off. Unless they know how to deal with a stovepipe.

[LloydXmas250]

For those of you who have a S&W J frame and are saying if you had to start all over you'd get an LCR, what's the reasoning behind it? Those that like the J Frames better, is there a specific reason with the guns or is it just something you've had so it's what you like?

[ScotchMan]

I think I'm the only one who said that. And I don't own a J-frame, but I have fired one. I really dislike S&W's built-in locks, though I don't buy into all the hype about them on the Internet. I also like the LCR trigger pull, don't mind (or actually prefer) polymer in my guns as it lightens it without increasing recoil too much, IMO. The J-frame is an old design, nothing wrong with it, but the LCR is a little more modern, and takes advantage of new technologies. The S&W Bodyguard does as well, but I hate the cylinder release. Finally, I generally like Rugers, and I think the LCR is a good value.

[LloydXmas250]

You're right. I have seen others in other forums where I've read about the two say the same thing so that's why I wondered. I've never handled either yet and I keep flip flopping while studying it online. I can see things I like in both. I wish there was a way to combine aspects of both.

[ScotchMan]

You might consider the Bodyguard. Built-in laser makes it a great value. If you can get over the cylinder release being on top, its polymer like the LCR.

[Clifford L. Hughes]

LloydXmas250:

Both the Ruger Sp101 and any of the Smith & Wesson's J frame revolvers are excellent revolvers. I like the Smith's because they are lighter than the Rugers. The Smith's J frame hammer models can be tuned up to make Colt Python's owner envious. I like my Smith 442, however, I wish that I had bought a 642 because my eyes can pick up the sights better in low light. This is a small inconvience because in a self defence I most likely will be point shooting for center mass.

Semper Fi.

Gunnery sergeant
Clifford L. Hughes
USMC Retirec