Considering buying revolver for conceal carry alternative ?

[mrltc]

For a range revolver a S&W 686 is tough to beat. Love mine. 4 inch barrel. Like shooting a .22 with .38 specials. Very manageable even with full house .357 loads. Noise and flash is really something. Gets attention at the range.

The LCR for carry is great. I like mine in .38 for carry but if you are recoil sensitive the .357 version has a steel vs. aluminum frame and the added weight dampens recoil. You don't have to run .357's through it.

The LCR is a generation ahead of the J frame, IMO. Better trigger, lighter (vs. steel or way cheaper vs. scandium), less recoil.

This is the type of info that is important, if I am not mistaken a 38 is just as effective in getting the job done if need be. Lets be realistic...law enforcement carried this type of weapon for many years and it did the job ! A 357 is great....I actually have had better accuracy with a Smith & Wesson 357 with a 3 inch barrel than my 40sw shield....but for concealed carry, the shield is better. The 357 Smith & Wesson was a friends who was a LEO back in the day....but I don't want to try to carry that concealed .

 

[taz-2005]

Want a carry revolver....something that will get the job done if need be, and can be carried concealed and with comfort. I do carry everyday and want to have the option of a semi- auto as well as a revolver. This forum offers info from experienced individuals and that is great !

There have been good opinions here but who cares what I carry or what this person carries? What I or some one else likes is meaningless. You have to ask yourself some basic questions:

What type of action do you want? DAO, traditional or a shrouded hammer?

What caliber? 38 or 357?

Material? Do you want as light as possible or do you want some heft to it?

Only you can answer these questions and once you do you can narrow it down to the right make and model for YOU.

 

[Billsail]

This is the type of info that is important, if I am not mistaken a 38 is just as effective in getting the job done if need be. Lets be realistic...law enforcement carried this type of weapon for many years and it did the job ! A 357 is great....I actually have had better accuracy with a Smith & Wesson 357 with a 3 inch barrel than my 40sw shield....but for concealed carry, the shield is better. The 357 Smith & Wesson was a friends who was a LEO back in the day....but I don't want to try to carry that concealed .

.357 is miles ahead of .38, in terms of ballistics (translate to "stopping power"), even from a short barrel. However some of the .38+P self defense rounds, Speer Gold Dot, and others, for example, are extremely potent, and should get the job done.

 

[seanc]

The worst thing to ever happen IMO is marketing snubbies to first time shooters and specifically marketing them to women. This has essentially given them a rep as junk, non accurate newbie "ladies" guns. It was brilliant from a marketing perspective to move guns that had fallen out of favor generally. But this was a huge disservice to both the guns and the people they were being marketed towards, here I refer to new shooters, not women.

Revolvers are inherently more accurate than semis. Revolvers have far less moving parts, allowing for greater consistency, and therefore accuracy. There is no slop built into a revolver the way there is in a semi. The barrel never moves and ther will never be an issue with lock up, feed ramps or barrel being slightly out of alignment.

The fact that it takes far more practice to shoot them accurately is not a failing of the gun, but of the shooter.

 

[taz-2005]

The worst thing to ever happen IMO is marketing snubbies to first time shooters and specifically marketing them to women. This has essentially given them a rep as junk, non accurate newbie "ladies" guns. It was brilliant from a marketing perspective to move guns that had fallen out of favor generally. But this was a huge disservice to both the guns and the people they were being marketed towards, here I refer to new shooters, not women.

Revolvers are inherently more accurate than semis. Revolvers have far less moving parts, allowing for greater consistency, and therefore accuracy. There is no slop built into a revolver the way there is in a semi. The barrel never moves and ther will never be an issue with lock up, feed ramps or barrel being slightly out of alignment.

The fact that it takes far more practice to shoot them accurately is not a failing of the gun, but of the shooter.

You make some valid points.

I think the whole marketing of guns to women has been comical and condescending. Most manufacturers will just slap a pink grip on and voila, while Smith has and has had various "lady smith" guns. (Which to me was silly, I really like the satin stainless of the model 60 LS vs the standard gun) The funniest one I have seen is a distributor that did a run of Keltec .32's with a gold rose on the slide and was calling it the "Lady Keltec". I think S&W for instance is doing a better job with their advertising now. Some of the ads I've seen for the Shield in particular are pretty good.

As far as accuracy I think for the instead distance they are fine. Most sights are minimal which makes sense for the intended role. I think there is a lot of unrealistic expectations of accuracy at longer distances.

Just my .02.

 

[Portagee]

my LCR is a 38+P, I thought the 357 LCR was bigger or so I was told, decided to go with the smaller one for carry purposes.

 

[Mr_Irritating]

Serious question here, why carry a revolver when semi's have so much more capacity?

Revolvers don't need a second hand to rack out a dud. I prefer autoloading pistols for capacity, ease of reloading and ergonomics.

 

[Delta L Varmint]

I've had a few small carry guns and I keep going back to my trusty, no fun to shoot but easy to carry, S&W 442 w/apex duty trigger job. I can carry it in any way imaginable because it's fairly lightweight and it's shape is fairly organic and doesn't print. Glock 27 was way too big and blocky for a pocket. Lahr PM9 was too blocky, it printed too much in a pocket for my taste. The Keltec PF9 was a little better. Back to the 442 every time. I really like the SP101, but it's a bit heavy for edc, I DO want one for a "night stand gun.". I am really excited for the Heizer derringer to get the MA ok, I'm really intrigued by it.

 

[M1911]

Lahr PM9 was too blocky, it printed too much in a pocket for my taste.

Odd. I find that the PM9 prints less than the 642/442.

I really like the SP101, but it's a bit heavy for edc, I DO want one for a "night stand gun".

Why would you keep a small revolver as a night stand gun? Since you don't have to conceal it, you can use a larger gun with higher capacity and a longer barrel. If you want to stick with a revolver, the 4" S&W K and L frames are great. If you want to go with Ruger, the GP100 is a good gun.

 

[Mr_Irritating]

Odd. I find that the PM9 prints less than the 642/442.



Why would you keep a small revolver as a night stand gun? Since you don't have to conceal it, you can use a larger gun with higher capacity and a longer barrel. If you want to stick with a revolver, the 4" S&W K and L frames are great. If you want to go with Ruger, the GP100 is a good gun.

A good beside gun begins with 12 gauge... or, ends with AR15...

 

[Delta L Varmint]

Odd. I find that the PM9 prints less than the 642/442.



Why would you keep a small revolver as a night stand gun? Since you don't have to conceal it, you can use a larger gun with higher capacity and a longer barrel. If you want to stick with a revolver, the 4" S&W K and L frames are great. If you want to go with Ruger, the GP100 is a good gun.

I have better "night stand" guns, I just want one. I had a 3" stainless k-frame in .357 that I (shouldn't have) sold. I think that's probably one of the best "night stand" guns. Of course this is MA, so I can't leave a loaded gun in an unlocked nightstand anyway.

 

[M1911]

I have better "night stand" guns, I just want one. I had a 3" stainless k-frame in .357 that I (shouldn't have) sold. I think that's probably one of the best "night stand" guns.

While I'd love to have a 3" K-frame (just because -- I've got a 2 1/2" and a couple 4"), I'd rather use one of my 4" K-frames for a night-stand gun. More sight radius is better when you don't have to conceal it.

 

[Billsail]

This ^

 

[rocket500]

.357 is a far better man stopper than .38, but .38 is no slouch. Shooting a .357 indoors, in the dark, with no hearing protection is going to make you temporarily blind and if you're lucky only temporarily deaf. Fine if you have one bad guy and hit him center mass. Not good for a follow up shot.

 

[taz-2005]

.357 is a far better man stopper than .38, but .38 is no slouch. Shooting a .357 indoors, in the dark, with no hearing protection is going to make you temporarily blind and if you're lucky only temporarily deaf. Fine if you have one bad guy and hit him center mass. Not good for a follow up shot.

I would not want to shoot anything indoors without hearing protection.

Table 3. CENTERFIRE PISTOL DATA

.25 ACP 155.0 dB
.32 LONG 152.4 dB
.32 ACP 153.5 dB
.380 157.7 dB
9mm 159.8 dB
.38 S&W 153.5 dB
.38 Spl 156.3 dB
.357 Magnum 164.3 dB
.41 Magnum 163.2 dB
.44 Spl 155.9 dB
.45 ACP 157.0 dB
.45 COLT 154.7 dB

http://www.freehearingtest.com/hia_gunfirenoise.shtml

 

[Lank]

S&W J Frame 442 with +P's

Great everyday CCW

 

[Lank]

I would not want to shoot anything indoors without hearing protection.



http://www.freehearingtest.com/hia_gunfirenoise.shtml

dBA?

 

[taz-2005]

dBA?

Huh?

 

[PATRON]

S&W 500

 

[M1911]

.357 is a far better man stopper than .38, but .38 is no slouch. Shooting a .357 indoors, in the dark, with no hearing protection is going to make you temporarily blind and if you're lucky only temporarily deaf. Fine if you have one bad guy and hit him center mass. Not good for a follow up shot.

So keep some electronic muffs on your nightstand. Problem solved.

 

[Terminator03]

So keep some electronic muffs on your nightstand. Problem solved.

I theory that is a good solution, but in actual practice, maybe not so much. I was awoken to the sound of shattering glass in the middle of the night a couple of months back, and I instinctively grabbed my sidearm, and 250 lumen flashlight, but didn't even think (or care to take the time) to grab the plugs that were right within my grasp. This is for two reasons, 1) in a high stress situation like that your potential hearing damage falls WAY down the priority list (at least for me anyway), and 2) I prefer to have my senses as acute as possible to detect movement/location of a potential threat. ymmv...

 

[Almostelmo]

I don't think he was serious...

 

[Brian5582]

I carry a 60Pro about 30% of the time in a crossbreed and love it. Pleasure to shoot with 357 loads and is a tack driver with the 3" barrel

 

[M1911]

I theory that is a good solution, but in actual practice, maybe not so much. I was awoken to the sound of shattering glass in the middle of the night a couple of months back, and I instinctively grabbed my sidearm, and 250 lumen flashlight, but didn't even think (or care to take the time) to grab the plugs that were right within my grasp. This is for two reasons, 1) in a high stress situation like that your potential hearing damage falls WAY down the priority list (at least for me anyway), and 2) I prefer to have my senses as acute as possible to detect movement/location of a potential threat. ymmv...

1, electronic muffs are easier to put on than plugs. 2, electronic muffs enhance your hearing.

 

[Terminator03]

1, electronic muffs are easier to put on than plugs. 2, electronic muffs enhance your hearing.

I agree that the muffs are easier to put on, but also take up a lot of space. There is also the issue of having to actually turn them on, which could be cumbersome in the dark. I know you mention them "enhancing your hearing", but that doesn't seem to be the case with the ones I have (cheap HF ones). Yes, I can hear people talking much better than wearing regular muffs obviously, but I don't feel like my hearing is better than when they are off my head. Maybe higher quality one would be better in that regard, not sure. I definitely think its a good idea to use hearing protection if you have the time or wherewithall to do so, but personally if I have the time to fumble with finding and turning on electronic muffs, that time would be better spent getting to a rifle or shotgun rather than just using a pistol, but that's just me.

 

[boscru]

I am very happy with my Ruger LCR .38 Sp/.357 magnum. The trigger is very smooth and gives no surprises. It being a snub nose, it requires a lot of practice to shoot accurately, but that's the nature of any snubber.

Easy to conceal. No hammer or sharp edges that can be caught in any clothes.

It being chambered in .357 makes it very versatile. Feed it a .357 magnum Vital-Shok 180 grain cast core, and it has the potential to stop a black bear. Feed it .38 Special 90 grain Critical Defense Lite, and my 98 year old grandmother can comfortable use it for self defense.

In the not too distant future, when Massachusetts laws allows for only one gun per household, my LCR .357 magnum is the one I will keep.

one gun per house??????? but wait a minute all the libs say they have no intention of taking your guns away.......sarcasm

if you opt for the ruger, it carries easily even in shorts. i can't speak for the s&w airweight as i've never held one but i know it's a big price difference. i made the mistake of buying the ruger .38. the .357 is only about 2 oz. heavier. that said i have no complaints with the .38

someone (fudd?) told me at the range not to fire it too much as it might fall apart

i'm guessing i've put about 750-800 rounds through it as it is my edc and i practiced A LOT to make sure i could instinctively put all 5 on center mass @ 25 feet


recoil????? thats for girlie men to worry about

 

[rocket500]

I wouldn't want to shoot indoors either without hearing protection, but if I had to (and if I had to I would) then .357 mag is close to the bottom of the list if what I would want to be shooting. I don't think you can rely on being able to utilize hearing protection. You may only become aware of an intruder when they are entering or have entered the room. But if all I had was .357 and there's a guy in a ski mask in my room then .357 is what we shoot!

 

[taz-2005]

I wouldn't want to shoot indoors either without hearing protection, but if I had to (and if I had to I would) then .357 mag is close to the bottom of the list if what I would want to be shooting. I don't think you can rely on being able to utilize hearing protection. You may only become aware of an intruder when they are entering or have entered the room. But if all I had was .357 and there's a guy in a ski mask in my room then .357 is what we shoot!

Look at the chart I posted earlier, anything is going to hurt indoors without protection.

 

[RHJJ]

Someone kicks in my front door and heads for the bed rooms, my life is more important than a hearing issue. Take this from someone that has jackhammered concrete drums and ran high speed carbide teeth saws. I know what hearing loss is.

 

[boscru]

Look at the chart I posted earlier, anything is going to hurt indoors without protection.

i agree 100000000% but if my security system goes off in the middle of the night i will grab the 12 guage pistol grip and worry about the hearing damage later (actually might be a good defense to police questions----huh??????? what did you say officer?????)