What say yall?
I am getting rid of my Kahr CM9 as I prefer a revolver for pocket carry as a backup on duty.
On duty gun is a Glock 34 and I was debating a 26 on the ankle but prefer to keep my backup at the waistline (pocket) rather than the ankle.
Debating between the S&W 442 No Lock or the LCR in 9mm...
Be Safe
The 442 is a proven reliable system, the new 9mm Ruger less so. I have learned over the years to not risk my life on gear that I am doing unpaid beta testing for the manufacturer.
Me? I'd have a G26 on my ankle and the 442 in my pocket.
The 442 and its ancestors have been around for a very long time. They simply work. I carry in my pocket in a Kramer holster and/or a Renegade ankle holster.
9mm in revolvers can be somewhat problematic with extraction, even with moon clips
I'm not a fan of ankle carry in uniform and it presents some defensive tactics issues when you're fighting with someone.
Having said that and having about $400, would you go with the 26 on the ankle first or the 442 in the pocket first?Originally Posted by Chuck Haggard
The other will probably be bought a little down the road...
I really like the idea of that setup if I have both guns.
If I only have one backup, I might prefer it in the pocket to start though....
442 all day. Reliable & proven.
If starting anew, I'd grab a lock-less 642 instead of the 442, but either over the LCR.
الدهون القاع الفتيات لك جعل العالم هزاز جولة الذهاب
Why the 642 over the 442?
Both are proven, both are stainless. 442 is blackened, which is a plus.
Ok,
I knew the 442 was black, but didn't know of any other differences that would make somebody pick the 642 over the 442...
Correction, the 442 is a carbon steel cylinder. My bad.
Reply With Quote