|
Post by bluetrain on Jan 17, 2019 11:41:43 GMT
One disadvantage I can think of for mid and large frame revolvers (S&W K, L and N Frames) is that with the shorter barrels, carrying and concealment become problematic, especially for those with less than 3-inch barrels. They become very lump-like. That's where a flatter pistol is better. Nevertheless, I still like a K frame with a 3-inch barrel. My favorite was the Model 65LS. I also had a Model 10 with a 3-inch barrel and full underlug, like on the 65LS. S&W made so many variations of their revolvers there for a while that it was hard to keep up. Another interesting little revolver I had was a Model 642, a double-action only in .38 special. That was many years ago.
|
|
tonystark
Member
“I told you, I don’t want to join your super secret boy band!”
Posts: 816
|
Post by tonystark on Jan 18, 2019 3:10:55 GMT
You’re absolutely right, S&W went a little whacky for a while making variants of variants! I always wondered how the 65LS shot, cause the grip is at a different angle than what I’m used to shooting from S&W. I’m sure it’s as great as all their other .357’s 3” and up. I definitely think that anything under 3” barrel and you’re actually losing the effectiveness of the .357 mag round. I saw a video not long ago where snub nosed .357, .38 Special, and 9mm revolvers were all chronographed to see which kept closest to its “advertised ballistics.” I’m not a diehard 9mm fan at all, but I do own several and they do have their uses, but seeing the .357 mag lose a FPS race to 9mm (out of a snubbie or otherwise) was a little depressing! LOL
|
|
Sean (Shadowhowler)
VIP Reviewer
Retired Moderator
No matter where you go, there you are.
Posts: 8,828
|
Post by Sean (Shadowhowler) on Jan 18, 2019 6:39:10 GMT
Saw those tests with MAC also... Big fan of his channel. I also dont bother with anything less then a 3 inch barrel with 357. I had a 3 inch Ruger sp101 and loved it. Before I went to the middle east for a couple years my hiking/camping gun was a 4 inch s&w 686+. Sadly I sold it and am looking to replace it with a 5 inch 686+ performance center. Love revolvers.
The p986 is also a great CC gun, only 7 shots it's true but very accurate for such a small gun and is smaller the P365. I think of the p986 like a Glock 42 or a Kahr... A TINY CC gun you can ware with anything or pocket carry. The p365, G43, Shield... Those are next step up CC guns that are excellent but not quite pocket guns IMO.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Jan 18, 2019 9:55:54 GMT
I actually had a 9mm revolver for a while. Don't remember the number now but it was a S&W K-frame with a 4-inch barrel. They were also made with 3-inch barrels. The cylinder was made special so the rimless cartridge could be used without clip (Don't remember enough part names to describe it). I also had a Ruger single-action with two cylinders, one .357, the other 9mm. However, I never thought there was any particular advantage to the 9mm in a revolver, unless perhaps you only had 9mm ammunition. It used to be popular a long time ago to have a rifle and a revolver in the same caliber. But these days, those cartridges (the .38-40 and .44-40) would be considered weak for a rifle.
One nice thing about S&W revolvers is that you can fit all sorts of different grips to them to suit yourself.
|
|
Sean (Shadowhowler)
VIP Reviewer
Retired Moderator
No matter where you go, there you are.
Posts: 8,828
|
Post by Sean (Shadowhowler) on Jan 19, 2019 3:03:37 GMT
I actually had a 9mm revolver for a while. Don't remember the number now but it was a S&W K-frame with a 4-inch barrel. They were also made with 3-inch barrels. The cylinder was made special so the rimless cartridge could be used without clip (Don't remember enough part names to describe it). I also had a Ruger single-action with two cylinders, one .357, the other 9mm. However, I never thought there was any particular advantage to the 9mm in a revolver, unless perhaps you only had 9mm ammunition. It used to be popular a long time ago to have a rifle and a revolver in the same caliber. But these days, those cartridges (the .38-40 and .44-40) would be considered weak for a rifle. One nice thing about S&W revolvers is that you can fit all sorts of different grips to them to suit yourself. That's still popular with me... I have a Marlin lever action in 38/357 to go with my revolvers.
|
|
tonystark
Member
“I told you, I don’t want to join your super secret boy band!”
Posts: 816
|
Post by tonystark on Jan 20, 2019 13:42:55 GMT
Saw those tests with MAC also... Big fan of his channel. I also dont bother with anything less then a 3 inch barrel with 357. I had a 3 inch Ruger sp101 and loved it. Before I went to the middle east for a couple years my hiking/camping gun was a 4 inch s&w 686+. Sadly I sold it and am looking to replace it with a 5 inch 686+ performance center. Love revolvers. The p986 is also a great CC gun, only 7 shots it's true but very accurate for such a small gun and is smaller the P365. I think of the p986 like a Glock 42 or a Kahr... A TINY CC gun you can ware with anything or pocket carry. The p365, G43, Shield... Those are next step up CC guns that are excellent but not quite pocket guns IMO. Tim does a great job reviewing Milsurp rifles/handguns, but I think depending on the manufacturer, he can be a little biased with new firearms on occasion. Still a great channel though. I also traded my 686 Plus towards the PTR-91 I bought, but I’m DEFINITELY going to replace my revolver soon. The age old question remains: S&W or Ruger?! Well I love both, so there in lies my dilemma! 🤔 I know quite a few guys that swear by pocket carry, and there are some really solid, dependable choices out there!!
|
|
tonystark
Member
“I told you, I don’t want to join your super secret boy band!”
Posts: 816
|
Post by tonystark on Jan 20, 2019 14:29:52 GMT
I actually had a 9mm revolver for a while. Don't remember the number now but it was a S&W K-frame with a 4-inch barrel. They were also made with 3-inch barrels. The cylinder was made special so the rimless cartridge could be used without clip (Don't remember enough part names to describe it). I also had a Ruger single-action with two cylinders, one .357, the other 9mm. However, I never thought there was any particular advantage to the 9mm in a revolver, unless perhaps you only had 9mm ammunition. It used to be popular a long time ago to have a rifle and a revolver in the same caliber. But these days, those cartridges (the .38-40 and .44-40) would be considered weak for a rifle. One nice thing about S&W revolvers is that you can fit all sorts of different grips to them to suit yourself. Do you mean the S&W 547 by any chance? Look familiar? goo.gl/images/AVYbaW I think I read somewhere that there were no moon clips or speed loaders for the 547 and the Ruger LCR. I’ve been wanting the Ruger PC Carbine as of late. I have some 33 round magazines that would be a lot of fun af the range. You’re right too, S&W definitely has an interesting array of add-ons! From grips, to fiber optic sights/night sights, to holsters, there’s no shortage of items to customize your revolver the way YOU like it!!
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Jan 20, 2019 16:41:57 GMT
That's the one. That model did not require clips, nor could they be used. There were speedloaders made for it, too, though no doubt impossible to find. Can't tell you anything about Rugers.
An interesting thing about revolvers (and pistols, too, to some extent) is how modifications come and go, as well as the latest techniques. To be a real pistolero at one time, you had to have special sights, special grips, target hammer and target trigger. If it didn't come with a target trigger, you could get a trigger shoe. Special heavy barrels, too. You needed a bull barrel to be competitive. How you were supposed to shoot was forever changing, too. In the 1950s, an up-to-the-minute shooter always shot single-action, which was more accurate, only using double-action close-up, in emergencies. That was so popular that S&W made a single-action only K-38. Then the trend, especially in police circles, went to double-action only. Things change, constantly.
|
|
tonystark
Member
“I told you, I don’t want to join your super secret boy band!”
Posts: 816
|
Post by tonystark on Jan 21, 2019 2:30:02 GMT
I bet it didn’t have a single malfunction did it? The older models are almost always made better! That doesn’t apply to just guns either, I loved driving AND working on older cars. They were built like freaking tanks (quite literally in some cases) and if you had half a brain, or any skill with tools at all, you could save a fortune doing your own repairs! Owning a newer car, which entails having a sensor or some electrical doodad on 90% of the car, there is less, and less that I can work on without a wiring diagram of some kind. In place of a muscle car I’ve found firearm repair & cleaning to be quite therapeutic actually.
Trust me I get exactly what you’re saying about about “this competition slide and grip” or “that competition trigger or magwell”......etc. Personally I like my firearms to stay quite utilitarian. I use them to shoot and for protection, not to put pretty things on and have a relationship with! LOL I’m not saying that other people shouldn’t put accessories on their firearms, cause owning a handgun/rifle/shotgun is a truly personal decision, I’m just saying that the most “upgrade-wise” that I do is add night sights (and only on my carry and home defense choices) and buy a holster for my carry guns. Maybe that makes me boring, but if you put lipstick on a pig, it’s STILL a pig 😉 Ironically there are still Sig Sauer “DAK” model’s still floating around, though I seriously doubt any L.E Officers actively choose them for a duty gun! Speaking of single action specific guns, there’s actually a CZ 75 variant that’s for “competition use,” and it’s a SAO model, just like the K-38. There are also some people who convert Milsurp pieces into “modern” versions, or create a Franken-Rifle out of piecemeal parts. To each his own, but to me it’s kinda sacrilegious. When I think of an OLD rifle with modifications of any kind, it brings me back to when I watched Quigley Down Under with Tom Selleck for the first time. He had that 1874 Sharps rifle with a Vernier Sight, which back in the late 1800’s wasn’t a “factory sight.”
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Jan 21, 2019 4:51:01 GMT
I'm probably the exception is not recommending long range sessions, even as low as 100 rounds, especially for the Ruger SP101. As has been discussed in other threads, small guns are less than pleasant to shoot and once you fire off more rounds than you might normally carry, your opinion of the wisdom of choosing a small gun will cause second thoughts. I realize that may not be practical, given that you can probably only make it to the range once a week or so and you have to cram everything into a short period with a crowd waiting for your place at the firing line. Besides, the cost adds up. All about the context I think. I don't go to the range just to have fun, but I also don't go to the range to punish my hands. I always make sure to bring at least one "fun" gun to end the session with, and my carry gun to train with. For now, that means a 1911 will always be how I end my sessions since that's the most pleasant handgun I have to shoot, but my carry guns always see the first shots on the range (I especially like shooting cold, trying to simulate a little bit of what a DGU would be like). Carrying a small gun will always be a compromise, but if you live in a non-permissive place (basically everywhere except open carry states), you have no choice but to bring a smaller-than-you-would-want handgun.
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Jan 21, 2019 5:01:04 GMT
You’re absolutely right, S&W went a little whacky for a while making variants of variants! I always wondered how the 65LS shot, cause the grip is at a different angle than what I’m used to shooting from S&W. I’m sure it’s as great as all their other .357’s 3” and up. I definitely think that anything under 3” barrel and you’re actually losing the effectiveness of the .357 mag round. I saw a video not long ago where snub nosed .357, .38 Special, and 9mm revolvers were all chronographed to see which kept closest to its “advertised ballistics.” I’m not a diehard 9mm fan at all, but I do own several and they do have their uses, but seeing the .357 mag lose a FPS race to 9mm (out of a snubbie or otherwise) was a little depressing! LOL Tim did 357 a disservice there in my opinion, choosing one of the worst 357 loads out there for the test against one of the best 9mm. All other 357 vs 9mm tests online (Paul Harrell, Gun Sam, tnoutdoors, etc) have the 357 far exceeding a 9mm in velocity. Moreover, the best 38 Special +P would actually rival a 9mm and even best its non +P+ versions in original loadings. That said, I would much rather shoot a 9mm than a 357 any day.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Jan 21, 2019 10:26:38 GMT
I think there has always been a "they don't make them the way they used to" attitude for just about everything. Curiously, the same people seem to say that you shouldn't buy a new model when it first comes out. Wait until they get the kinks worked out. People say that about cars, anyway. So apparently nothing comes perfect and nothing stays perfect. But for a while, things are perfect.
A couple of examples I can think of relating to guns are about revolvers. The more recent (and it isn't that recent by now) concerns those barrels without pins on S&W revolvers. On some of my older revolvers, they were easy enough to tap out, so I don't know what good they did. Colt never had them. But Colt never reduced the number of screws holding the side plate. S&W eliminated them one by one. They're down to two now but they've added a lock.
Once upon a time, S&W revolvers had a so-called long action. Then they switched to the short action. Suddenly the older long action models became the thing to have. They were infinitely superior to the new-fangled models. That was just a few years after I was born.
Colt, for its part, earned the scorn of the would-be gunfighter fraternity (men only) when they introduced the firing pin safety, which of course spoiled everything. Just like the grip safety, it was totally unnecessary. After all, the serious gunfighter would pin down the grip safety--for safety's sake, of course. We all know that perfection was achieved before most of our grandparents were born. One of my grandfathers was born the year the Colt Single Action Army revolver was adopted, by the way, a most perfect revolver. Oh, and another thing; it's okay to say automatic pistol. That's what it says on the side of a Colt Government Model: .45 Automatic Caliber. But I don't mind if you call it a semi-automatic. But I think I'll keep on calling it a .45 auto.
|
|
tonystark
Member
“I told you, I don’t want to join your super secret boy band!”
Posts: 816
|
Post by tonystark on Jan 22, 2019 2:00:08 GMT
You’re absolutely right, S&W went a little whacky for a while making variants of variants! I always wondered how the 65LS shot, cause the grip is at a different angle than what I’m used to shooting from S&W. I’m sure it’s as great as all their other .357’s 3” and up. I definitely think that anything under 3” barrel and you’re actually losing the effectiveness of the .357 mag round. I saw a video not long ago where snub nosed .357, .38 Special, and 9mm revolvers were all chronographed to see which kept closest to its “advertised ballistics.” I’m not a diehard 9mm fan at all, but I do own several and they do have their uses, but seeing the .357 mag lose a FPS race to 9mm (out of a snubbie or otherwise) was a little depressing! LOL Tim did 357 a disservice there in my opinion, choosing one of the worst 357 loads out there for the test against one of the best 9mm. All other 357 vs 9mm tests online (Paul Harrell, Gun Sam, tnoutdoors, etc) have the 357 far exceeding a 9mm in velocity. Moreover, the best 38 Special +P would actually rival a 9mm and even best its non +P+ versions in original loadings. That said, I would much rather shoot a 9mm than a 357 any day. I hate to say it, cause I know Tim’s opinions can be “swayed” on occasion (like saying the HK VP9 is junk, or saying the FN 509 is crap because of one didn’t pass his “gauntlet test”) but 125gr is a really good weight to showcase .357 mag. The problem is the barrel length. Out of a 4” barrel a .357 mag would absolutely crush 9mm. Just as you correctly stated Paul Harrell demonstrated quite plainly. Just because 9mm can keep a consistent FPS out of a snub nosed revolver doesn’t make it a “superior” caliber. It just means it keeps consistent speeds out of a 2 3/4” barrel or a 4” barrel. BUT once you reach 4” barrel sizes the .357 mag dominates 9mm. I think if Tim had used 158gr for the .357 mag the gap would have been much worse, but I don’t think that was the real reason he made the video...... I think the .38 Super, on the other hand, is on par or exceeds 9mm. If I had the choice of a 9mm or .357 out of a snub nosed, I’d choose the 9mm simply for the fact that you can get back on target MUCH faster, helping accuracy. However, out of a 4” barrel I’d shoot .38 & .357 Mag all day! Then again I can shoot a 50rnd box of 240gr 44 Mag (Remington HTP) at the range before my hand starts giving me the finger......no pun intended LOL
|
|
tonystark
Member
“I told you, I don’t want to join your super secret boy band!”
Posts: 816
|
Post by tonystark on Jan 22, 2019 2:15:29 GMT
I think there has always been a "they don't make them the way they used to" attitude for just about everything. Curiously, the same people seem to say that you shouldn't buy a new model when it first comes out. Wait until they get the kinks worked out. People say that about cars, anyway. So apparently nothing comes perfect and nothing stays perfect. But for a while, things are perfect. A couple of examples I can think of relating to guns are about revolvers. The more recent (and it isn't that recent by now) concerns those barrels without pins on S&W revolvers. On some of my older revolvers, they were easy enough to tap out, so I don't know what good they did. Colt never had them. But Colt never reduced the number of screws holding the side plate. S&W eliminated them one by one. They're down to two now but they've added a lock. Once upon a time, S&W revolvers had a so-called long action. Then they switched to the short action. Suddenly the older long action models became the thing to have. They were infinitely superior to the new-fangled models. That was just a few years after I was born. Colt, for its part, earned the scorn of the would-be gunfighter fraternity (men only) when they introduced the firing pin safety, which of course spoiled everything. Just like the grip safety, it was totally unnecessary. After all, the serious gunfighter would pin down the grip safety--for safety's sake, of course. We all know that perfection was achieved before most of our grandparents were born. One of my grandfathers was born the year the Colt Single Action Army revolver was adopted, by the way, a most perfect revolver. Oh, and another thing; it's okay to say automatic pistol. That's what it says on the side of a Colt Government Model: .45 Automatic Caliber. But I don't mind if you call it a semi-automatic. But I think I'll keep on calling it a .45 auto. “I think there has always been a "they don't make them the way they used to" attitude for just about everything. Curiously, the same people seem to say that you shouldn't buy a new model when it first comes out. Wait until they get the kinks worked out. People say that about cars, anyway. So apparently nothing comes perfect and nothing stays perfect. But for a while, things are perfect.” VERY well said! I bought the Sig P320 when it first came out, and that’s something I rarely do, and everyone was complaining about “drop safety.” With the P365 I gave Sig a full year to work out all their issues before I bought it. However as you put it, “nothing comes perfect or stays perfect.” Well except Colt single action revolvers! 😉 Actually my next gun is going to be a single action revolver. There’s no way I could afford an actual Colt revolver, even the Pythons, without selling a kidney or two, but there are some Colt clones that come relatively close. I’m thinking a 5-6” barrel and chambered in .45lc. I used to say .45 auto all the time, but I got sick of gun terminology Nazi’s trying to “correct” me by saying if it’s not fully automatic then it’s semi-auto 🤯
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Jan 22, 2019 10:13:10 GMT
If I were going to carry a gun everyday, which I don't (being retired, there are some days I don't even leave the house), my first criteria for a gun would be, 'how does it carry.' Under most circumstances, it would need to be concealed, and I think pistols are easier to conceal than revolvers--generally speaking. But I have made my choices of what handguns to actually buy based on several other considerations and at any given time, I have only had a relatively limited number of guns to choose from. So the choices are always limited.
The same with cars. I've had a real variety of cars over the last 50 years but there are only a few that I wish were sitting in the garage (instead of my wife's car--mine's outside). Performance wise, it would be a Rover 3500. Utility wise, it would be a Series Two Land-Rover. Of cars I've never owned, it would be a Triumph Stag. For guns, it would be, uh, let me think about that.
|
|
tonystark
Member
“I told you, I don’t want to join your super secret boy band!”
Posts: 816
|
Post by tonystark on Jan 24, 2019 0:57:58 GMT
www.google.com/amp/s/abc13.com/amp/5-shot-and-3-dead-after-home-invasion-in-east-houston/5097015/ It’s funny you mentioned not leaving the house, cause this guy in Houston, Texas had 5 armed guys break into his house. He picked up, of all things an AK-47, and killed 3 even though he shot all 5 of the home invaders! Even though I have an AK, it wouldn’t be my “first” choice for a home defense firearm. Then again I have neighbors VERY close to me, so over penetration is a big concern for me. Choosing a carry gun, truck gun, home defense gun, is a very personal choice, so I get what you’re saying. I’d like a Land Rover or my 84 Bronco back, but the way gas prices are I’d end up paying $85 at each fill up! I do miss the 4X4 wheel drive and the ability to drive over sidewalks (foolishness from my teenage years of course). Hah, it’s definitely not easy to “pick” all the guns we want to buy, or have enough money to do it. 😁
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Jan 24, 2019 1:18:06 GMT
Doesn't say much for Texas, does it? The thing is, I belong to one of those religions that tends to frown on killing someone.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jan 24, 2019 4:35:58 GMT
Doesn't say much for Texas, does it? The thing is, I belong to one of those religions that tends to frown on killing someone. I agree if your talking about potential crime waves in the state or criminals contemplating the killing of homeowners. It certainly says that a group of criminals shouldn't attempt a home invasion while armed & wearing ski masks while looking to rob the occupant. Bet the next home invasion group think twice. Nobody likes killing...unless maybe the criminals. Appears Texas may have some sensible gun laws, as the gun was a simple semiauto...NOT an AK47 (implying full auto "machine gun"). Seems the surviving bad guys need to find religion, as the dead have already "settled up" with the Lord.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Jan 24, 2019 11:14:45 GMT
Yes, Texas has liberalized their gun laws.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jan 24, 2019 20:31:27 GMT
Yes, Texas has liberalized their gun laws. If that means easier access to tools that protect against gangs of masked, armed home invaders...winner winner, chicken dinner.
|
|