Looking for a CCW revolver

Blaster229 · Jun 21, 2020

Boom Boom said:
In real life, it doesn't help, not for me anyway. Takes focus off of the target and there's a loss of situational awareness.

Lasers are no different than red dot sights.
Same principle, but both poorly executed by the shooter.
They aren't aiming devices. People try aiming them in for a perfect bullseye.
A person is better off working on point shooting techniques instead of using lasers or dots.
Then you have people who co witness them with the iron sights. Really?? Lol

Magnumite · Jun 21, 2020

People can say what they may, but small handguns in larger calibers are advanced user guns. Or for those dedicated to lotsa practice to use them effectively not only two handed but also from from retention, one handed and with reasonable cadence to test followup shot capability. Do some weak hand it there, too...with any gun you shoot a good bit.

After practicing with these guns follow up with a 22. Any flinches from shooting the ccw will show up then and you can “straighten yourself out” before you head home. I typically shoot any gun I may use defensively first. Stone cold since that is how it will happen if the time unfortunately occurs. Then I have the other guns I practice with to help avoid the flinchies from following me home.

miles71 · Jun 21, 2020

Blaster229 said:
It's what I carry when I don't feel like carrying, pistol.

I have its twin, but I put some rosewood grips on mine.

TD

Art3 · Jun 21, 2020

I have a snubby Ruger SP101, and I love it. It is a very robust little gun that doesn't feel like it is always slipping out of my big hands. I don't carry in public, but I've stuck it in my pocket while puttering around the farm a few times when it seemed prudent. It fit great in a front pants pocket...easy enough to retrieve (though I wouldn't call it quick draw), and inconspicuous. The problem: it's just too heavy for that

Constantly hiking up one side of my pants did nothing for conceal-ability or any sort of productivity. Maybe a proper holster or suspenders would have helped, but that defeats my intent.

I bought an LCR, and it seems to be a perfect replacement for that particular duty. I can still hold onto and shoot it OK. At about half the weight (13.5oz to 26oz), it is no more cumbersome in the pocket than a cell phone. You can get LCR's in .357, but that's adding weight back...and you've seen the arguments about whether .357 is really of that much more value in a little gun anyway.

Bob A · Jun 21, 2020

Personally fond of the old S&W M42; Centennieal Airweight. Completely concealed hammer, DAO, 5 shots, grip safety (which can be pinned if you don't want/need that function) and weighs about 11 oz.

OMCHamlin · Jun 21, 2020

AKbythebay said:
I want it primarily as a concealed carry gun. So size and weight are very important. I realize this will not make for an enjoyable range gun, but I have plenty of those already. This will be almost exclusively used as a carry gun.

Small size more important to me than weight, but light weight would sure be nice too for comfort.

I'm pretty familiar with the Rugers. Just curious to see if anything else has entered the market to compete directly with them that I may be overlooking?

Here you go! (But seriously, even though that's mine, I'm still not crazy about the brand, but they cornered the market in that level of small snubby.) Mine does shoot and carry very nicely, in a pocket holster Mika made for that gun. Mine was not the first, either, apparently.

I think another I'd look at would be an LCR in .38 Spl, with their Hogue supplied "Boot" grip. I had a 2" 357 LCR, sold it and got a 3" .357 LCRx for a woods gun. The .38 feels wicked light though, and I like that.

AKbythebay · Jun 21, 2020

Bob A said:
grip safety (which can be pinned if you don't want/need that function) and weighs about 11 oz.

Can you tell me more about this? The safety is one of the things pushing me away from the S&W. I have heard that the safety can sometimes accidentally lock while firing the gun. Not sure if this is still an issue or not? But if i could permanently pin it to the unlocked position that would be something I'm interested in.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Bob A · Jun 21, 2020

AKbythebay said:
Can you tell me more about this? The safety is one of the things pushing me away from the S&W. I have heard that the safety can sometimes accidentally lock while firing the gun. Not sure if this is still an issue or not? But if i could permanently pin it to the unlocked position that would be something I'm interested in.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Removing the wooden grips will expose a pin that can be inserted to lock out the grip safety function. The grip safety itself has not proven to be an issue for me, but as I mentioned, its use is optional. The DAO trigger is sufficient safety in my view.

My M42 is old enough to be C&R. I don't think the modern iterations of the design have the grip safety. (I just like older pistols better).

I also like wadcutters as an SD load. They do serious things to tissue, and the recoil is negligible. I'm probably in the minority here on that viewpoint. Fortunately, I doubt I'll get the opportunity to verify my position on the subject. At any rate, normal-pressure ammunition is the preferred load for alloy framed revolvers, with good reason.

I might mention the S&W models 38 and 49 which give the option of single-action as well as double-action fire, while retaining the concealed hammer for smooth draw. Colt offered a hammer shroud that had the same effect for their Detective Special-type revolvers.

Boom Boom · Jun 21, 2020

AKbythebay said:
Can you tell me more about this? The safety is one of the things pushing me away from the S&W. I have heard that the safety can sometimes accidentally lock while firing the gun. Not sure if this is still an issue or not? But if i could permanently pin it to the unlocked position that would be something I'm interested in.

You can get them brand new without the lock. It's relatively easy in MD to find a 642 without it. My 642 doesn't have it.

AKbythebay · Jun 21, 2020

Boom Boom said:
You can get them brand new without the lock. It's relatively easy in MD to find a 642 without it. My 642 doesn't have it.

Then I have to pay for the damn lock that I will use one time and toss out. Is it worth paying for that to avoid getting the internal lock on the 642?

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Boom Boom · Jun 21, 2020

AKbythebay said:
Then I have to pay for the damn lock that I will use one time and toss out. Is it worth paying for that to avoid getting the internal lock on the 642?

Won't matter. MD requires the separate barrel lock even if the gun has an interal lock. Stupid but the way it is.

Some FFLs let you bring your own. You can't leave the FFL's store with the handgun if you don't have the barrel lock.

AKbythebay · Jun 21, 2020

Boom Boom said:
Won't matter. MD requires the separate barrel lock even if the gun has an interal lock. Stupid but the way it is.

I don't believe that's true. The last gun I bought had a keyed lock on the hammer and I did not need to purchase the additional separate lock.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

DutchV · Jun 21, 2020

OMCHamlin said:
Here you go! (But seriously, even though that's mine, I'm still not crazy about the brand, but they cornered the market in that level of small snubby.) Mine does shoot and carry very nicely, in a pocket holster Mika made for that gun. Mine was not the first, either, apparently.

I think another I'd look at would be an LCR in .38 Spl, with their Hogue supplied "Boot" grip. I had a 2" 357 LCR, sold it and got a 3" .357 LCRx for a woods gun. The .38 feels wicked light though, and I like that.

Did the Taurus come from the factory like that? That's a really short barrel.

miles71 · Jun 21, 2020

Would it be bad to have a gunsmith remove the internal lock?

TD

Bob A · Jun 22, 2020

miles71 said:
Would it be bad to have a gunsmith remove the internal lock?

TD

Easier to buy one without the lock.

Better yet, spend $30 for a FFL03 (C&R) and have your pre-lock firearm shipped straight to your door, with no need to concern yourself with MD's stupid law. It'll nearly make you believe you're a real citizen.

Bob A · Jun 22, 2020

AKbythebay said:
Then I have to pay for the damn lock that I will use one time and toss out. Is it worth paying for that to avoid getting the internal lock on the 642?

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

It's possible that I misunderstood your earlier question. The revolver I was writing about has no internal lock, merely a grip safety.

AKbythebay · Jun 22, 2020

Bob A said:
It's possible that I misunderstood your earlier question. The revolver I was writing about has no internal lock, merely a grip safety.

Sorry my fault. When you said grip safety I thought you were talking about the new style internal lock that comes on these guns located just above the cylinder release lever.

I've heard complaints that it can engage (lock) in it's own when firing. I hope this has been fixed. This lock would meet the standards of the required Maryland internal locking mechanism. The POS Rossi I had had it on the back of the hammer.

DutchV · Jun 22, 2020

miles71 said:
Would it be bad to have a gunsmith remove the internal lock?

TD

There are plug kits made to remove the lock and fill the hole. I've never installed one, so I don't know if that's complicated or not. Probably simpler to hunt down a non-lock version of the revolver, if you don't already own one.

Dogface · Jun 24, 2020

I've owned quite a few S&W 5 shot revolvers both on duty and off. I currently have a hammerless Taurus 85 UL, that was given to me, and my newest acquisition, a Ruger lcrx .38+P.

The Ruger definitely has the advantage over many other choices for two reasons. 1. It is incredibly light, especially in the pocket. The .38 is a polymer and aluminum alloy frame, with steel barrel, cylinder, trigger, etc. It you go .357 it gains weight.

2. The trigger pull on the Ruger is smooth and consistent. There is a "friction reducing cam inside the trigger group" This innovation prevents "stacking" a fancy term for getting harder, as you pull the trigger. Very nice.

It's not an automatic, so there is no setting the trigger. You have to pull the trigger the whole distance on every shot, but it is smooth and no up-hill weight gain.

For me the only negative are the sights. Or lack thereof. Your mindset has to be that it is a short distance gun, and you focus on the front sight (painted white). Aftermarket improvements include Lasers, and Truglow etc. Bare in mind that I am shooting with 70 yr old eyes. I'd buy the Ruger again.

AKbythebay · Jun 24, 2020

Dogface said:
I've owned quite a few S&W 5 shot revolvers both on duty and off. I currently have a hammerless Taurus 85 UL, that was given to me, and my newest acquisition, a Ruger lcrx .38+P.

The Ruger definitely has the advantage over many other choices for two reasons. 1. It is incredibly light, especially in the pocket. The .38 is a polymer and aluminum alloy frame, with steel barrel, cylinder, trigger, etc. It you go .357 it gains weight.

2. The trigger pull on the Ruger is smooth and consistent. There is a "friction reducing cam inside the trigger group" This innovation prevents "stacking" a fancy term for getting harder, as you pull the trigger. Very nice.

It's not an automatic, so there is no setting the trigger. You have to pull the trigger the whole distance on every shot, but it is smooth and no up-hill weight gain.

For me the only negative are the sights. Or lack thereof. Your mindset has to be that it is a short distance gun, and you focus on the front sight (painted white). Aftermarket improvements include Lasers, and Truglow etc. Bare in mind that I am shooting with 70 yr old eyes. I'd buy the Ruger again.

Thanks for your comments, they are very helpful. I'm slowly leaning more and more toward the Ruger. No gun is perfect, but for my needs (compact, lightweight, reliable carry gun) the Ruger seems to tick the most boxes.

With regard to the sights, thought I read that the front sight is removable on the Ruger (as opposed to the S&W)? If so I wonder what improvements could be had in replacing the sight with a fiber optics sight or something else more visible? I would like to do that as long as I don't make the gun less concealable. I don't want a fancy sight that gets stuck in my pocket on the way out. Lasers aren't my thing on a gun like this. This would be for close quarters defensive carry use only. I don't see a laser sight making much sense in this situation.

Great comments on the trigger. I have read similar but it's good to hear that directly from a MDS member :thumbsup:

Looking for a CCW revolver

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

God loves you, I don't.

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Eqinsu Ocha

όυ φροντισ

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

όυ φροντισ

Hold my beer. Watch this.

Ultimate Member

Hold my beer. Watch this.

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

όυ φροντισ

όυ φροντισ

Attachments

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Woofer

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics