Required features for *your* carry revolver

[Tom Fineis]

I am interested in the collective knowledge of PF and the decision tree that goes into selecting a revolver for primary concealed carry purposes.

My goal is to post a poll with features present in revolvers, and folks can select the answers that apply to them. With enough responses, I'd like to be able to narrow down a feature set (or list of specific models) that fit most people. I think this would be valuable to compare my own revolvers to, but also a place that may be a good reference for folks considering a carry revolver and confused on where to start.

For the purposes of this poll, I'd like you to select features you would require to carry a revolver as your primary CCW gun while out in public - IE, not just the ultralight underwear gun you own only for lounging in your robe at home.

[Totem Polar]

The wording “must” is too restrictive. As well, options for a tuned trigger, or a specific trigger pull weight, or DAO might be useful.
As is, I can think of exceptions to each of the current poll categories. JMO.

[Tom Fineis]

The wording “must” is too restrictive. As well, options for a tuned trigger, or a specific trigger pull weight, or DAO might be useful.
As is, I can think of exceptions to each of the current poll categories. JMO.

My hope was that if "must" backed you into a corner you just would not make a selection on that topic. My goal isn't to narrow this down to "the" carry model, but to something like "The majority of PF would be happy with a ___ frame gun with a capacity of ___ with a barrel length around ___ in caliber(s) ___ and the options currently being produced include these models."

I meant to include an option for DAO or traditional hammer but can't figure out how to edit the poll. I know this isn't perfect, but I'm trying to find a range of common choices and not just the most popular make or model.

[OlongJohnson]

I think most of us would like something in the size group of

Colt D frame
Kimber K6
Taurus 856


Smaller and lighter than a K frame, but more shootable than a J frame. Or maybe as shootable as a J frame with larger grips.

It needs to hold six rounds of .38 Special. Pretty much anyone here would be fine with +P SPL. That's another thing: The Cleti who need to buy a bunch of them to make the economics work won't want it enough if it can't chamber .357. If they are to be satisfied, useful design parameters for size and weight are threatened.

DAO and spurless/internal hammer.

Barrel from 2-3 inches.

Good sights with some degree of adjustability, but less snaggy than an S&W or Ruger standard adjustable sight. Like a dovetailed or similar rear that's windage-adjustable, maybe even like the adjustable-height Novak rear. Interchangeable front sight. Aftermarket sight options.

The problem with the three guns mentioned is that reasonable people have reason to suspect all of them for long-term durability/reliability. Alternate-universe scenarios that have been discussed previously include:

Ruger un-f-ing its QC and upsizing either the LCR or SP101 just enough to make it a six-shooter, and no more. I would advocate for applying the LCR trigger concept to the SP106 if they did that.
S&W un-f-ing its QC and upsizing the J frame just enough to make it a six-shooter, and no more. Very much like Taurus did with the 856.


Personally, I had a three-inch K frame. Got a really nice holster and quickly figured out that it was just too big and bulky to really conceal well on my body. I'm better off with a compact semi. So if I was to go with a revolver for primary, it would have to be smaller. But none of the available options are satisfactory. So the J frame covers J frame stuff, and semis are for when I can carry more. The GP can get carried in places where a guy with graying, receding hair can get away with carrying it at 3:00 in a leather holster on the outside of his clothes.

[Salamander]

I think most of us would like something in the size group of

Colt D frame
Kimber K6
Taurus 856


Smaller and lighter than a K frame, but more shootable than a J frame. Or maybe as shootable as a J frame with larger grips.

It needs to hold six rounds of .38 Special. Pretty much anyone here would be fine with +P SPL. That's another thing: The Cleti who need to buy a bunch of them to make the economics work won't want it enough if it can't chamber .357. If they are to be satisfied, useful design parameters for size and weight are threatened.

DAO and spurless/internal hammer.

Barrel from 2-3 inches.

Good sights with some degree of adjustability, but less snaggy than an S&W or Ruger standard adjustable sight. Like a dovetailed or similar rear that's windage-adjustable, maybe even like the adjustable-height Novak rear. Interchangeable front sight. Aftermarket sight options.

The problem with the three guns mentioned is that reasonable people have reason to suspect all of them for long-term durability/reliability. Alternate-universe scenarios that have been discussed previously include:

Ruger un-f-ing its QC and upsizing either the LCR or SP101 just enough to make it a six-shooter, and no more. I would advocate for applying the LCR trigger concept to the SP106 if they did that.
S&W un-f-ing its QC and upsizing the J frame just enough to make it a six-shooter, and no more. Very much like Taurus did with the 856.


Personally, I had a three-inch K frame. Got a really nice holster and quickly figured out that it was just too big and bulky to really conceal well on my body. I'm better off with a compact semi. So if I was to go with a revolver for primary, it would have to be smaller. But none of the available options are satisfactory. So the J frame covers J frame stuff, and semis are for when I can carry more. The GP can get carried in places where a guy with graying, receding hair can get away with carrying it at 3:00 in a leather holster on the outside of his clothes.

Agree with a lot of this.

Because I'm in a smaller town these days, I could get away with a 3-inch K-frame but am not buying a new S&W, not with their current QC.

Of my newer revolvers, the closest is the 3-inch Colt simply because there are no really glaring QC screw ups on this particular example, and because I haven't had to change a single thing out of the box to make it run. The size and weight are perfect, it holds six rounds, wish the sights were a little better. Whenever I can consistently get primers again, I'm tempted to run the hell out of it and see how it holds up.

One caveat is that I'm a little atypical and I really need two different revolvers: Something bigger and with magnum or big bore capability for the woods, and something smaller for in town and 38 +p is fine for the latter.

[Jared]

I voted, but really the only true “must” for me wasn’t on the poll. My #1 requirement is DAO operation with either spurless or internal hammer.

I went ahead and selected must be 38 caliber or above because I am extremely unlikely to carry a revolver below that caliber threshold. It could happen, but it probably won’t.

[gato naranja]

The GP can get carried in places where a guy with graying, receding hair can get away with carrying it at 3:00 in a leather holster on the outside of his clothes.

I am hoping to retire and relocate soon so I can be this guy (without the receding fur). Not sure if I am gonna make it, but it'll be sweet if I can.

I happen to think six shots should be the baseline in a wheelie, and I do not like the wear/tear issues I have seen for myself on alloy and polymer frames. A scaled up slightly, 6-shot, 3" SP101 for .38 Spl +P, having "Novak-style" sights along with a more factory-friendly attitude towards supplying a spurless DAO hammer would go a long way to being just about right for a lot of people like myself, but the "perfect" would be the enemy of the "just about right" and I have no doubt that some experts and influencers would condemn it to an early death.

[JCN]

I am interested in the collective knowledge of PF and the decision tree that goes into selecting a revolver for primary concealed carry purposes.

My goal is to post a poll with features present in revolvers, and folks can select the answers that apply to them. With enough responses, I'd like to be able to narrow down a feature set (or list of specific models) that fit most people. I think this would be valuable to compare my own revolvers to, but also a place that may be a good reference for folks considering a carry revolver and confused on where to start.

For the purposes of this poll, I'd like you to select features you would require to carry a revolver as your primary CCW gun while out in public - IE, not just the ultralight underwear gun you own only for lounging in your robe at home.

That might be like asking “what shoes would you choose to wear in public?”

It’s going to highly be dependent on personal preference and context.

Most of the time when I carry a revolver in public as my only gun:

It’s a 1” NAA Pug in a pocket.

When my daughter was little, I diaper bag carried a 2” eight shot scandium N frame (Model 327PC) with 135gr short barrel Gold Dot 357 magnums.

These days I’d be fine carry a Ruger LCR9 (5 shot, 2” in 9mm) or a Night Guard (8 shot, 2.5” converted to 9mm) with 124gr Gold Dots.

Or maybe pocket carry a J frame.

But my environment is decidedly low threat.

I would probably carry a 3” 686 (7-shot 357 magnum) with a red dot if there was even a chance I would need it.

[FNFAN]

I would be very interested in an alloy 6 shot hammerless or bobbed j-frame size for pocket carry. My 642 is on me all the time and if I’m doing highway travel, is augmented by a 15 shot 9mm. For hiking it’s either a M-28 in .357 or a 1950 in .44 spl.

[lee n. field]

I am interested in the collective knowledge of PF and the decision tree that goes into selecting a revolver for primary concealed carry purposes.

My goal is to post a poll with features present in revolvers, and folks can select the answers that apply to them. With enough responses, I'd like to be able to narrow down a feature set (or list of specific models) that fit most people. I think this would be valuable to compare my own revolvers to, but also a place that may be a good reference for folks considering a carry revolver and confused on where to start.

For the purposes of this poll, I'd like you to select features you would require to carry a revolver as your primary CCW gun while out in public - IE, not just the ultralight underwear gun you own only for lounging in your robe at home.

Might want to (if possible) add "spurred hammer, bobbed hammer or enclosed hammer" to your poll.

[HeavyDuty]

Sometimes it’s a 2” J. Sometimes it’s a 3” K6s. Sometimes it’s a 3” K. And sometimes it’s a 4” L in .357 or even .44 Magnum.

Like JCN said, it’s a little like asking what shoes I wear in public. It’s all dependent on purpose and location, my choice for a dinner evening on the mean streets of Manchester is probably going to be different from when I’m in the woods practicing the black art of photography.

[03RN]

79800

[JCN]

I would be very interested in an alloy 6 shot hammerless or bobbed j-frame size for pocket carry. My 642 is on me all the time and if I’m doing highway travel, is augmented by a 15 shot 9mm. For hiking it’s either a M-28 in .357 or a 1950 in .44 spl.

https://www.handgunhero.com/compare/smith-wesson-model-642-vs-taurus-856-2-ultra-lite

I’ve been very tempted to pick up a Taurus 856 ultra lite for that reason. 6 shots in a similar form factor to a J frame.

[Dave T]

First, I was surprised to see (from the link above) how well the UL 856 compares to the Ruger LCR.

My current carry revolver is the S&W 389 NG. It holds 7 rounds, is light weight, and hides well in my man purse. When disability allows, it even rides well in a Simply Rugged pancake holster on the belt. I had TK Custom machine the cylinder for Moonclips and installed an APEX Tactical DAO hammer. My carry ammo is Buffalo Bore's Heavy +P 38 Special 158g SWCHP-GC as my arthritic hands can't handle full blown 357 Mag and much of the Magnum punch is lost in the 2.5" barrel. I also had to replace the factory's fixed rear sight as it shot no where close to point of impact. Put on a S&W adjustable rear with the blades outer corners muchly rounded.

Dave

[SSGN_Doc]

https://i.postimg.cc/XvCD05Bc/580-E04-EC-0272-4-D07-9-BC6-5-F0-F2-D0-B39-AD.jpg (https://postimg.cc/SXmG6JrJ)

I don’t know about “Must” have. But the S&W 640-1 Pro blends features I do like.

Weight of the steel frame in a J frame seems a good balance for recoil management with +P and magnum rounds, but not too heavy for carry. Ammo versatility and durability in .357 chambering in a steel frame.
Useable sight.
Longer ejector rod than standard J-Frame .38s
DAO
Trigger was smoothed up from the factory. Heavy is ok when it’s smooth.
Grips are back to a larger grip for assuring repeatable grip with better recoil management than the boot grips in the picture.

[4RNR]

I think most of us would like something in the size group of

Colt D frame
Kimber K6
Taurus 856


Smaller and lighter than a K frame, but more shootable than a J frame. Or maybe as shootable as a J frame with larger grips.

It needs to hold six rounds of .38 Special. Pretty much anyone here would be fine with +P SPL. That's another thing: The Cleti who need to buy a bunch of them to make the economics work won't want it enough if it can't chamber .357. If they are to be satisfied, useful design parameters for size and weight are threatened.

DAO and spurless/internal hammer.

Barrel from 2-3 inches.

Good sights with some degree of adjustability, but less snaggy than an S&W or Ruger standard adjustable sight. Like a dovetailed or similar rear that's windage-adjustable, maybe even like the adjustable-height Novak rear. Interchangeable front sight. Aftermarket sight options.

The problem with the three guns mentioned is that reasonable people have reason to suspect all of them for long-term durability/reliability. Alternate-universe scenarios that have been discussed previously include:

Ruger un-f-ing its QC and upsizing either the LCR or SP101 just enough to make it a six-shooter, and no more. I would advocate for applying the LCR trigger concept to the SP106 if they did that.
S&W un-f-ing its QC and upsizing the J frame just enough to make it a six-shooter, and no more. Very much like Taurus did with the 856.


Personally, I had a three-inch K frame. Got a really nice holster and quickly figured out that it was just too big and bulky to really conceal well on my body. I'm better off with a compact semi. So if I was to go with a revolver for primary, it would have to be smaller. But none of the available options are satisfactory. So the J frame covers J frame stuff, and semis are for when I can carry more. The GP can get carried in places where a guy with graying, receding hair can get away with carrying it at 3:00 in a leather holster on the outside of his clothes.A lot of this.

I tried and found a revolver to be too bulky, even the J- frames. And the grips are nine existent. I can carry something like a Sig 365 (still crappy grips but better) that's thinner, easier to conceal, carries more ammo and faster reloading. But my real problem was mainly the thickness and grip size/shape, everything else was not as important.

That being said if I were to carry a revolver my ideal one would be something resembling the K6 in a 2-3 inch barrel. In 357. Currently the only thing I have that fits what that description is a Ruger Speed Six 2.75in barrel. It would still need to be a DAO and have better grips

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211112/87b324ec5c89be562d89202aa2c83852.jpg



Sometimes it’s a 2” J. Sometimes it’s a 3” K6s. Sometimes it’s a 3” K. And sometimes it’s a 4” L in .357 or even .44 Magnum.

Like JCN said, it’s a little like asking what shoes I wear in public. It’s all dependent on purpose and location, my choice for a dinner evening on the mean streets of Manchester is probably going to be different from when I’m in the woods practicing the black art of photography.I think the OP means most of the time. Not the time you go to church or wedding. Or the time you went to the beach.

Some situations I carry a LCP380, some situations I don't carry at all but 99.99% of the time if I'm wearing jeans and a t-shirt I'm carrying a G19X. That almost never ever changes. Winter, summer, snow, humidity...G19X. Before that it was the G19. I think that's what the OP had in mind.

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

[OlongJohnson]

https://i.postimg.cc/XvCD05Bc/580-E04-EC-0272-4-D07-9-BC6-5-F0-F2-D0-B39-AD.jpg (https://postimg.cc/SXmG6JrJ)

I don’t know about “Must” have. But the S&W 640-1 Pro blends features I do like.

Weight of the steel frame in a J frame seems a good balance for recoil management with +P and magnum rounds, but not too heavy for carry. Ammo versatility and durability in .357 chambering in a steel frame.
Useable sight.
Longer ejector rod than standard J-Frame .38s
DAO
Trigger was smoothed up from the factory. Heavy is ok when it’s smooth.
Grips are back to a larger grip for assuring repeatable grip with better recoil management than the boot grips in the picture.

A six-shooter version of that would pretty much check all the boxes.*


*When I tried to buy a 640 Pro, it was spectacularly defective out of the box. They had skipped a step in manufacturing it. I sent it back. KyGunCo's in-house smith inspected the replacement they were going to send me and it was the same. Then their sale was over. I assume they found all or most of their inventory was like that and sent it all back to S&W. That's one of many reasons I said, "S&W un-f-ing its QC..."

[okie john]

Either a S&W Model 12 or an old-style Colt Cobra with a 3-4" barrel in 357 Magnum with night sights wouldn't be perfect but I could work with it.

Same with a current-production S&W Model 66 if you add the C&S fixed rear sight and a tritium front sight.


Okie John

[SSGN_Doc]

A six-shooter version of that would pretty much check all the boxes.*


*When I tried to buy a 640 Pro, it was spectacularly defective out of the box. They had skipped a step in manufacturing it. I sent it back. KyGunCo's in-house smith inspected the replacement they were going to send me and it was the same. Then their sale was over. I assume they found all or most of their inventory was like that and sent it all back to S&W. That's one of many reasons I said, "S&W un-f-ing its QC..."

A sixth round would be nice I suppose. If I want more capacity, I’m probably jumping back up to my Px4 compact with 15+ rounds onboard and leaving the revolver home. I don’t know if a 6th round would change my mind.

I do see where the slight addition to frame size could also add to the handling characteristics, and on that point, it might change my mind in some circumstances. But I’d have to run the platform through some carry and shooting to know.

I bought this one used, (not shot much, but used.). I inspected this pretty hard in the gun shop before putting money on it. But I was wary based on research revealing complaints on S&W QC.

I’m just getting back into revolvers after a couple decades away from them. So, auto loaders still tend to be where my primary carry comfort zone is at. But the 640 Pro at least represents a combination of a lot of features I like. So, at least S&W got a lot of concept features combined well. So, at least shows their design/concept element is functional. If they can indeed get the QC on solid footing and take feedback and market cues like those represented in the Taurus 856, then…

[jetfire]

My hope was that if "must" backed you into a corner you just would not make a selection on that topic. My goal isn't to narrow this down to "the" carry model, but to something like "The majority of PF would be happy with a ___ frame gun with a capacity of ___ with a barrel length around ___ in caliber(s) ___ and the options currently being produced include these models."

I meant to include an option for DAO or traditional hammer but can't figure out how to edit the poll. I know this isn't perfect, but I'm trying to find a range of common choices and not just the most popular make or model.

I got you fam: "the majority of PF would be happy with a k-frame gun with a capacity of 6 or 7 with a barrel length of 3 inches in caliber 38 Sp or 32 Magnum, with a DA hammer, good trigger, and good sights"

[Zeke38]

As noted in other threads I have been wrestling with this issue for several years. I started out comparison testing 3 revolvers: Smith 640Pro, Colt Cobra 2017, and an SP 101 WC 2.25", I later added a Kimber K6s after I sold the Ruger as it had undersized chamber mouths and all 357 loads showed obvious signs of "high pressure" flattened primers, puddling primers and lousy accuracy with lead bullets. The gun was sent back to Ruger and they didn't fix it. I sold it to a friend who buys "guns that are neat" and hangs them on a wall, this SP I'm referring to has been on that wall over 4 years.

I love the 6th round and the actions on the Kimber and Colt, both outshine S&W easily. What I didn't like about the 640 was the sights and the trigger. The sights were all over the place POI with different or similar bullet weights. They appeared to be regulated for 158 357s.

To cut to the chase I now carry a Colt Night Cobra and it shoots to point of aim with several loads, I love the grip, only downside is the NS needs to be brighter. I just purchased a 3" Colt King Cobra 357 and I'm really enjoying this firearm. 357s are very tolerable but the ideal load for me is the Buffalo Bore 158LSWCHP +P round for serious self protection against predatory humans. I wear the gun in a simply rugged 3 inch rig, their Sourdough model. I use the HKS D frame speedloaders with a 6 round cartridge pouch on the belt. I h ave put a little over 1,000 rounds through these Colt's with no sign of wear and they are both very accurate and shoot to point of aim! The front sight on the KC is fast to pickup and the gun shoots to the sights, and this includes 125 magnums to 158grain BB +P 38s. Vz grips on both and pondering putting the brass bead sight on the NC if they are in stock.

After six years of testing, appraising, handling and shooting of Smith, Ruger, Kimber and Colt's my FIRST choice is Colt. This is ironic as my second issued revolver was a Python and I hated it. I was a dyed in the wool Smith man for years and still own more than my share.

[HeavyDuty]

I got you fam: "the majority of PF would be happy with a k-frame gun with a capacity of 6 or 7 with a barrel length of 3 inches in caliber 38 Sp or 32 Magnum, with a DA hammer, good trigger, and good sights"

A 3” version of my S&W 619 would be very close to my holy grail carry revolver. It’s too bad they never made one.

[gato naranja]

A 3” version of my S&W 619 would be very close to my holy grail carry revolver. It’s too bad they never made one.

Sometimes you have to wonder if they don't make a certain model simply because if they did, nobody would want or need their other stuff.

[BillSWPA]

My opinion, for what it is worth:

Must have sights that are visible in a wide variety of lighting conditions that shoot to the point of aim. I do not care if they are fixed or adjustable if they meet that requirement. However, any sight component containing tritium (which I do prefer) should be easily replaceable and readily available for purchase when replacement is needed.

Must have a decent trigger pull.

A bobbed or concealed hammer is very desirable, and in some instances a requirement.

Appropriately sized and shaped grips for the purpose, with a speedloader cut, are very important. Ample grip options help. I have found that the grip is almost invariably the hardest part of a revolver to conceal.

Good aftermarket support such as holsters is very important.

I think 6 rounds is the correct capacity for IWB carry, but I would likely want 5 for pocket carry.

For IWB carry, 2-3 inches is fine. I have not carried a 4" revolver, so I cannot comment on that. For pocket or ankle carry, 2" is mandatory.

Fro IWB carry, a steel frame is fine and likely preferred. For pocket or ankle carry, an alloy or polymer frame is preferred.

As others pointed out, much depends on the circumstances of carry.

[jetfire]

My "perfect" carry gun doesn't really meet any of those requirements, but it's something that could be created if Ruger would just lift the cease and desist and let me sneak into the factory at night. All I want is a DAO 3-inch LCR in 327 Federal, is that too much to ask?

[jtcarm]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211112/fea39bba9bf069a92e8ec867da68c8cc.jpg

[Totem Polar]

Since we are on to the opinion portion of this thread, I’ll weigh in by noting that I have, or have had, pretty much everything under discussion: SPs and GPs; and many K frames (including the 12); j-frames of all stripes; LCRs; all the new DS-ish Colts (including night and king cobras) Kimber K6; Manurhin MR88… Speed Six… I’m sure I’m forgetting some things.

Right now, the one revolver that is outside of the safe is my 640 pro, for reasons noted by other 640 pro fans, above.

I am also fond of the LCR for a “not carrying a gun” gun; 3” J-frames for better sights, ejection rods, and ballistics, and a 4” 66-1 for woods bumming. And, of course, all those guns split around my 65-3 3” RB—which would be the “only” gun, if not for all those other guns that beat it out for each niche that it also does well, as a “do everything well” gun. Ironic, that the 65-3 never sees time outside the safe, considering it’s rep as a “one gun.” (Sort of like folks who have a G26 and a G17 and don’t need a G19, vs people that have nothing, and really need to get a G19…)

Lastly, I’m in that group that really wants a 6-round, 3” scaled-up LCR. Simple, really. Get after it, Ruger.

[blues]

You guys can box up those unwanted 642's, 442's and 340's and ship 'em to me. I'll be a sport and pick up the freight.

At least I won't have to buy new holsters.

(I will admit I'm curious about the Ruger in .327, but your donations should hold me for a while.)

Thank you in advance. ;)

[jetfire]

(I will admit I'm curious about the Ruger in .327, but your donations should hold me for a while.)

Thank you in advance. ;)

So far, the 2 inch version I have is absolutely my favorite carry gun ever. It's everything I already liked about LCRs but with one more round.

[jtcarm]

Kinda surprised at the interest in .32 mags.

Does it have a track record in the real world?

[MDFA]

If you keep this up you're going to make me think I NEED something else... And I don't.... Seriously I have my NEEDS covered. I think. LOL

79827

[FrankB]

79828

Since buying the Colt King Cobra, it’s joined my 642 as an EDC. The KC is on the waist, and the 642 in my jacket pocket.

[blues]

So far, the 2 inch version I have is absolutely my favorite carry gun ever. It's everything I already liked about LCRs but with one more round.

jetfire

What's the recoil comparable to?

[PNWTO]

jetfire

What's the recoil comparable to?

While not Caleb, shooting the Buffalo Bore .32 Long WCs out of friends felt like shooting .38 S&W out of my aunts No 3 lemon squeezer. So very negligible and I think that’s the load that DB likes.

True .327 mags felt just like .357 mags and wouldn’t make for a long range session.

[blues]

While not Caleb, shooting the Buffalo Bore .32 Long WCs out of friends felt like shooting .38 S&W out of my aunts No 3 lemon squeezer. So very negligible and I think that’s the load that DB likes.

True .327 mags felt just like .357 mags and wouldn’t make for a long range session.

Thanks for that, brother.

[TheNewbie]

Please oh please Ruger make what I want (and I bet a few others also). A DAO six shot SP101 with a bobbed hammer.

[Rex G]

I only voted for the one thing that did not have a “must” in it. A 2” to 3” barrel is OK, but is not an absolute, unless I am carrying AIWB, and, at this time, AIWB is not my primary carry method. At AOWB, or at 0300, I may well carry 4”.

All-steel is something that I generally favor, but, I just might buy an S&W Model 12, if I can find a really well-preserved 12-3, or newer, and, I would pay attention if someone were to start making a truly-well-crafted titanium-framed carry revolver. I know little about the Ruger LCR series, but seem to recall that there may be some polymer involved. If DB is OK, with LCR revolvers, I am OK with LCR revolvers. I already use SP101, GP100, and Speed Six revolvers, so, obviously like Rugers.

For reference, I have largely defaulted to revolvers, for primary carry guns, since retiring from LEO-ing. I actually mostly carried G17 Glocks, during the early part of retirement, 2018 into 2019, but gradually reverted to favored revolvers, and by 2020, with the panic-demic limiting my trigger time, it became necessary to use revolvers, as I need frequent live-fire practice to maintain confident in my ability to shoot Glocks. I built an enormous foundation of long-stroke double-action skill, in the Eighties and Nineties, when I used revolvers as duty handguns, and this remains my least-perishable trigger sill set.

[Totem Polar]

The thing about the full-power .327 Feds: they recoil about like 110gr .357–both a good and bad thing, depending upon the launcher you choose—but the hidden ass-kicker is the blast. Full-power 100 grainers from a revolver are, like, pinned 14-16” AR loud. That’s no joke indoors.

[gato naranja]

The thing about the full-power .327 Feds: they recoil about like 110gr .357–both a good and bad thing, depending upon the launcher you choose—but the hidden ass-kicker is the blast. Full-power 100 grainers from a revolver are, like, pinned 14-16” AR loud. That’s no joke indoors.

Like the amount of recoil a "puny" round can generate when launched from a light enough gun, the bark from full-house .327 Federal is something that will surprise a lot of people.

("The reality of this is different than what I THOUGHT it would be," said the cat ruefully.)

[jtcarm]

If you keep this up you're going to make me think I NEED something else... And I don't.... Seriously I have my NEEDS covered. I think. LOL

79827

Nah, everybody needs one more revolver.

[FNFAN]

https://www.handgunhero.com/compare/smith-wesson-model-642-vs-taurus-856-2-ultra-lite

I’ve been very tempted to pick up a Taurus 856 ultra lite for that reason. 6 shots in a similar form factor to a J frame.

I was selling guns full time when Taurus USA was formed back in '88. Their revolvers back then were kind of a nightmare. Their copy of the Beretta 92 did yeoman service as a range gun for rentals and seemed unbreakable. I'm not saying I would never buy a Taurus, but it would be one of the last choices I'd pick.

[jandbj]

So far, the 2 inch version I have is absolutely my favorite carry gun ever. It's everything I already liked about LCRs but with one more round.

Just wish they’d used the lighter weight 38 alloy frame instead of the stainless 357 frame.

OR, S&W could bring back the 32 mag (NOT 327) 432... with a pinned front sight, a la the 340.

Then all would be sweetness and light.

[OlongJohnson]

I was selling guns full time when Taurus USA was formed back in '88. Their revolvers back then were kind of a nightmare. Their copy of the Beretta 92 did yeoman service as a range gun for rentals and seemed unbreakable. I'm not saying I would never buy a Taurus, but it would be one of the last choices I'd pick.

Dagga Boy has endorsed the Taurus 431 as an actual non-suck product. Apparently, a lot of cops used it in snubby/shortish form as an off-duty carry piece back in the day.

[SCCY Marshal]

On the belt?

- Fixed sights

- Steel frame


- K-frame about ideal

- Bobbed hammer

- Square front sight blade

- Painted front sight and blacked rear

- Round butt

- Ideally have Barami Hip-Grips plus adapter to help it stow away in more creative ways

- Caliber of 38 Special, 357 Magnum, whatever

- Barrel between 2" (if primarily using Baramis for carry) and 4" (longer barrels balance out an appendix holster better)

- If longer than 2", a pencil barrel


In the pocket?

- Fixed sights

- Alloy or polymer frame to drop weight

- Caliber between 22 Long Rifle and standard pressure 38 Special, leaning smaller as a hand-off gun to the wife or kid and save on lead/powder to encourage more frequent practice

- Shrouded hammer or hammerless though a bobbed hammer would be tolerable if less than ideal

- Smooth and slick sided stocks about boot grip size or smaller

- Grip adapter if the stocks don't properly fill

- A wider front sight blade than most J-frames

- Make the blade nice and squared off like the belt gun

- Painted front and blacked rear

- Round-butt profile is an absolute must

- LCR-size or smaller, any larger prints too much and fits too few pockets

[FNFAN]

Dagga Boy has endorsed the Taurus 431 as an actual non-suck product. Apparently, a lot of cops used it in snubby/shortish form as an off-duty carry piece back in the day.

That's great! Glad to see they're progressing and if DB says it's good-to-go I'd take it as gospel. I have boxed too many of the early Model 82's up for warranty and don't really have any need or inclination to experiment.

[CSW]

I think most of us would like something in the size group of

Colt D frame
Kimber K6
Taurus 856


Smaller and lighter than a K frame, but more shootable than a J frame. Or maybe as shootable as a J frame with larger grips.

It needs to hold six rounds of .38 Special. Pretty much anyone here would be fine with +P SPL. That's another thing: The Cleti who need to buy a bunch of them to make the economics work won't want it enough if it can't chamber .357. If they are to be satisfied, useful design parameters for size and weight are threatened.

DAO and spurless/internal hammer.

Barrel from 2-3 inches.

Good sights with some degree of adjustability, but less snaggy than an S&W or Ruger standard adjustable sight. Like a dovetailed or similar rear that's windage-adjustable, maybe even like the adjustable-height Novak rear. Interchangeable front sight. Aftermarket sight options.

The problem with the three guns mentioned is that reasonable people have reason to suspect all of them for long-term durability/reliability. Alternate-universe scenarios that have been discussed previously include:

Ruger un-f-ing its QC and upsizing either the LCR or SP101 just enough to make it a six-shooter, and no more. I would advocate for applying the LCR trigger concept to the SP106 if they did that.
S&W un-f-ing its QC and upsizing the J frame just enough to make it a six-shooter, and no more. Very much like Taurus did with the 856.


Personally, I had a three-inch K frame. Got a really nice holster and quickly figured out that it was just too big and bulky to really conceal well on my body. I'm better off with a compact semi. So if I was to go with a revolver for primary, it would have to be smaller. But none of the available options are satisfactory. So the J frame covers J frame stuff, and semis are for when I can carry more. The GP can get carried in places where a guy with graying, receding hair can get away with carrying it at 3:00 in a leather holster on the outside of his clothes.

Taurus 856.
I bought this after reading thru the 856 thread, at about page 15???
Bought a 3" steel version, with the front night sight.
Shot it without a single stoppage for hundreds of rounds, installed the Galloway spring kit.
The trigger is really good now. I'm at about 1200 rounds now without a stoppage.

IF I could do anything to make this gun better,it'd be a set of Smith fixed 340 sights, or novaks in the rear, and do away with the milled in sight.

I never shoot the 642 anymore, and have an unfired 1969 Smith 36, that I'll probably sell both in favor of the 856.

[willie]

My steel J frame 30 year old hammerless, .357 Mag with my 45 year old Herrett grips. I shoot it well with 110 gr magnum ammo out to 100 yards. I said hammerless because I'm in a nostalgic mood. I can't hear anyway so ain't worried about noise/blast. Maybe I need to change my name to Fudd Daddy.

[jetfire]

jetfire

What's the recoil comparable to?

With the 32 Man JHP from Federal it feels heavier than 148gr wadcutters out of 38 Spc LCR, but not as snappy as 130gr FMJ. I need to get some of the BB 32 Long wadcutters because as mentioned by others, DB said they’re the shit

[gato naranja]

I never shoot the 642 anymore, and have an unfired 1969 Smith 36, that I'll probably sell both in favor of the 856.

This might be heresy to some, but I see it as a wake-up call. I mean... TAURUS??? Really?? The perennial "rei das armas não confiáveis" of firearms?

Whenever people turn to Taurus and Rossi, you know that US manufacturers are stomping on their own cranks.



DISCLAIMER: I have been burned on Brazilian firearms, but I do see the appeal of that thing... well, if it had a Novak-style rear sight... and maybe it's butt wasn't so big...

[luckyman]

For AIWB use, how much of an issue is a standard exposed hammer? I’ve never holstered one. Eyeing a k6s; the ones with exposed hammers look a lot better to my eye but not if they have significant trade offs actually being carried.

[Wyoming Shooter]

"I am interested in the collective knowledge of PF and the decision tree that goes into selecting a revolver for primary concealed carry purposes."

I'm of the opinion that any revolver would not be an appropriate slection for "primary concealed carry purposes" except under highly unusual circumstances. I love my revolvers and shoot them much more than my semi-automatic pistols. That said, my daily concealed carry pistol is a SIG P365 with Holosun 507K and an extra 12 round magazine. I do sometimes carry a 642 with bird shot when exercising the dog in rattlesnake country.

Heresy, I know.

[SSGN_Doc]

This might be heresy to some, but I see it as a wake-up call. I mean... TAURUS??? Really?? The perennial "rei das armas não confiáveis" of firearms?

Whenever people turn to Taurus and Rossi, you know that US manufacturers are stomping on their own cranks.



DISCLAIMER: I have been burned on Brazilian firearms, but I do see the appeal of that thing... well, if it had a Novak-style rear sight... and maybe it's butt wasn't so big...

I was working part time in a gun range/shop in the early ‘90s. I remember Taurus auto loaders having some issues. Kind of soured me on Taurus, but at the same time two of the range employees had Model 85 snubby revolvers that seemed impervious to problems.

A mid ‘90s Taurus ‘85 obtained a few months back, rekindled my interest in revolvers. The thing locks up as tight as my S&W. Trigger pull is about as smooth, but “different”. Internals look very good. Not a handgun I would have been likely to buy if circumstances hadn’t just put it in front of me at a price I couldn’t pass up. It just seems to refuse to suck like a Taurus is “supposed to”.

https://i.postimg.cc/LXmsjYWB/AE2-A5428-656-C-4758-99-C9-9-C17-D0-E553-B2.jpg (https://postimg.cc/t1myjTpY)

[Cory]

I selected 38spl or larger. Nothing else. If there was an option for hammer that can be thumb blocked, I would have selected that as well. I carry a 637 J frame with a 642 hammer installed. For the times I want a small gun, it's perfect. I would consider a larger gun as long as I can thumb the hammer on reholster.

[CSW]

This might be heresy to some, but I see it as a wake-up call. I mean... TAURUS??? Really?? <snip>



DISCLAIMER: I have been burned on Brazilian firearms, but I do see the appeal of that thing... well, if it had a Novak-style rear sight... and maybe it's butt wasn't so big...

The grips it came with are much more demure.
These are off ebay, oversized, but very comfortable to shoot.

[03RN]

For AIWB use, how much of an issue is a standard exposed hammer? I’ve never holstered one. Eyeing a k6s; the ones with exposed hammers look a lot better to my eye but not if they have significant trade offs actually being carried.

I did trim this one but more out of looking for a project than a perceived need.
79901

[03RN]

"I am interested in the collective knowledge of PF and the decision tree that goes into selecting a revolver for primary concealed carry purposes."

I'm of the opinion that any revolver would not be an appropriate slection for "primary concealed carry purposes" except under highly unusual circumstances. I love my revolvers and shoot them much more than my semi-automatic pistols. That said, my daily concealed carry pistol is a SIG P365 with Holosun 507K and an extra 12 round magazine. I do sometimes carry a 642 with bird shot when exercising the dog in rattlesnake country.

Heresy, I know.

Maybe he should of prefaced it with "those that choose to carry revolvers, I am interested in the collective knowledge of PF and the decision tree that goes into selecting a revolver for primary concealed carry purposes."

[Duelist]

For AIWB use, how much of an issue is a standard exposed hammer? I’ve never holstered one. Eyeing a k6s; the ones with exposed hammers look a lot better to my eye but not if they have significant trade offs actually being carried.

From using my 60-9 that way a bit, the hammer spur sucks. I will be addressing that before I carry it that way again.

[OlongJohnson]

Just leaving this here because it's a current discussion of revolvers in the area where the Colt Cobra lives.

I handled the rental Cobra at the range last night a bit. Interesting cylinder stop details. The stop is offset far to the right, like the Kimber. But the cylinder turns clockwise, so the stop is driven toward the center of the frame, instead of being retained by the sideplate like on the Kimber. The cylinder notches are offset from the chambers and the clockwise rotation allows the notches to be tapered in the direction that buys further clearance. The cylinder stop itself is notably angled to match. (See my recent comments on the MR73 cylinder stop and notches in another thread.) All of this promotes a smaller overall cylinder diameter, as I have also noted for the Kimber. The unique thing I noticed was the ramps leading into the notches are curved, where S&W and Ruger make them straight. I'm not sure there's any benefit to that, but it looks nice. The more important thing was that I didn't notice any burrs at the end of the ramps.

[TheNewbie]

I selected 38spl or larger. Nothing else. If there was an option for hammer that can be thumb blocked, I would have selected that as well. I carry a 637 J frame with a 642 hammer installed. For the times I want a small gun, it's perfect. I would consider a larger gun as long as I can thumb the hammer on reholster.

We share this. If I could get a no lock 637 (or a real dream 337), I would bob the hammer, convert to DAO and get real sights put on it.

I wish that converting the LCRx to DAO was possible. If anyone could figure this out, it would be JCN.


Maybe I should just get a 637 and remove the lock.

[JCN]

We share this. If I could get a no lock 637 (or a real dream 337), I would bob the hammer, convert to DAO and get real sights put on it.

I wish that converting the LCRx to DAO was possible. If anyone could figure this out, it would be JCN.


Maybe I should just get a 637 and remove the lock.

https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144338

Should be similar: remove side plate and see the notch where the SA catches and grind that.

But I agree with the other opinions in the thread I linked, grinding off the hammer spur is good enough for me.

I have a number of bobbed hammer revolvers that you can still technically put into SA mode but it won’t happen accidentally or without particular effort.

For a pocket revolver I almost would go the opposite of Cory and want an internal hammer so I could shoot from inside a jacket pocket without the hammer getting caught on a subsequent shot. It’s one of the things I like about my 340PD over the Taurus M380.

Revolver triggers are sufficiently long and heavy that I don’t require thumbing the hammer on reholstering.

[TheNewbie]

https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144338

Should be similar: remove side plate and see the notch where the SA catches and grind that.

But I agree with the other opinions in the thread I linked, grinding off the hammer spur is good enough for me.

I have a number of bobbed hammer revolvers that you can still technically put into SA mode but it won’t happen accidentally or without particular effort.

For a pocket revolver I almost would go the opposite of Cory and want an internal hammer so I could shoot from inside a jacket pocket without the hammer getting caught on a subsequent shot. It’s one of the things I like about my 340PD over the Taurus M380.

Revolver triggers are sufficiently long and heavy that I don’t require thumbing the hammer on reholstering.


Actually if I could just grind off the SA notch on an LCRx without even bobbing the hammer, I would be happy. Simply taking of the notch shouldn’t effect anything else, or would it on an LCR?


Page 32 has a parts diagram.

https://ruger-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/_manuals/lcr.pdf

[JCN]

Actually if I could just grind off the SA notch on an LCRx without even bobbing the hammer, I would be happy. Simply taking of the notch shouldn’t effect anything else, or would it on an LCR?

Without being snarky, just asking a clarifying question:

Why not just bob the hammer? 15 seconds with a Dremel cut off wheel.

I don’t like hammer spurs on carry revolvers as they can snag on clothing or in a pocket.

[Cory]

https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144338

Should be similar: remove side plate and see the notch where the SA catches and grind that.

But I agree with the other opinions in the thread I linked, grinding off the hammer spur is good enough for me.

I have a number of bobbed hammer revolvers that you can still technically put into SA mode but it won’t happen accidentally or without particular effort.

For a pocket revolver I almost would go the opposite of Cory and want an internal hammer so I could shoot from inside a jacket pocket without the hammer getting caught on a subsequent shot. It’s one of the things I like about my 340PD over the Taurus M380.

Revolver triggers are sufficiently long and heavy that I don’t require thumbing the hammer on reholstering.

I'm completely confident my 637 could fire from a jacket pocket. I'll try to nab a video of that in an old jacket if I can remember. The 642 hammer comes out of the frame enough to block with thumb, but it's really minimal. Maybe I'll try to get a better picture of that.

Most people don't worry about thumbing a hammer on revolvers, the cylinder also has to turn, and the DA is there. I just really perfer it and it gives me the warm and fuzzy with AIWB.

[TheNewbie]

Without being snarky, just asking a clarifying question:

Why not just bob the hammer? 15 seconds with a Dremel cut off wheel.

I don’t like hammer spurs on carry revolvers as they can snag on clothing or in a pocket.


With the LCR, I’m not sure if it would increase the likelihood of light strikes. I also wonder if you could put an LCR hammer in an LCRx.


My point was I would prefer a DAO bobbed hammer but if I could only have one, it would be DAO.


No snark detected. I figured if anyone could look at the diagrams and see if it was even possible, it would be you.


Looking at the parts idk. https://www.gunpartscorp.com/gun-manufacturer/ruger/revolvers-ruger/lcr

[JCN]

I'm completely confident my 637 could fire from a jacket pocket. I'll try to nab a video of that in an old jacket if I can remember. The 642 hammer comes out of the frame enough to block with thumb, but it's really minimal. Maybe I'll try to get a better picture of that.

My concern was if there was a very floppy pocket lining that could get in between the hammer and firing pin especially after the first shot. It’s theoretical of course but I still like internal hammers for pocket revolvers when available.

[TheNewbie]

I'm completely confident my 637 could fire from a jacket pocket. I'll try to nab a video of that in an old jacket if I can remember. The 642 hammer comes out of the frame enough to block with thumb, but it's really minimal. Maybe I'll try to get a better picture of that.

Most people don't worry about thumbing a hammer on revolvers, the cylinder also has to turn, and the DA is there. I just really perfer it and it gives me the warm and fuzzy with AIWB.


I’m with you. It may be overkill but I think it does more good than harm.


Did you keep the lock in yours?

[Cory]

I’m with you. It may be overkill but I think it does more good than harm.


Did you keep the lock in yours?

So far. I'll get rid of it eventually, but right now it's not a priority. My understanding is that it's mostly caused problems in lighter guns than mine. I haven't had any problems with it turning on, so I'm not in a rush. But I don't like the idea of it's failure so it'll go at some point.

[JonInWA]

It'll probably never happen, but it would seem like there's some significant interest and potential in Ruger resurrecting the 3" barreled Postal Inspection version of the Speed Six, with a set of decent grips and with an adjustable sight varient with rugged sights...Standard and Heavy barrel varients would be nice, too.
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/911950739#:~:text=Ruger%20GS33-PS%20Postal%20Inspector%20Speed%20Six%20-%20w%2F,Seller%20for%20Payment%20%202%20more%20row s%20

For that matter, I suspect that we'd be quite happy simply with a 3" stainless Security Six with decent grips...

A smooth/rounded trigger and bobbed spurless hammer version/option might be food for thought as well. And a 9mm version...

Meanwhile, I'll happily make do with my 4" with a modern Ruger rear sight, Millett Orange Bar front sight and Trausch grips.

https://i.imgur.com/SaYcth4h.jpg

Best, Jon

[gato naranja]

For a pocket revolver I almost would go the opposite of Cory and want an internal hammer so I could shoot from inside a jacket pocket without the hammer getting caught on a subsequent shot. It’s one of the things I like about my 340PD over the Taurus M380.

Revolver triggers are sufficiently long and heavy that I don’t require thumbing the hammer on reholstering.

I was always advised that the true internal hammer guns were the only way to go for reliable in-the-pocket use. If a person has a spare coat, all the time in the world and takes things slowly and carefully, it is no big deal to get one shot off with about any revolver that will fit with your hand around it. As you say, that next shot (or any shot in a hurry) tends to find or create a fold of fabric to embarrass the operator. I witnessed this for myself decades ago when an old coat was sacrificed to test the efficacy of a hammer bob job. Despite fair amounts of care and fiddling, it was still way too easy for the hammer to hang up somewhere in the cycle.

[JCN]

Cory


https://youtu.be/LyFUal98Rq4

I did this just now.

My thought being if I had to fire multiple shots from a jacket pocket and pieces of the pocket lining start coming apart and the gun is pushed up and back with recoil into the lining….

[JCN]

With the LCR, I’m not sure if it would increase the likelihood of light strikes. I also wonder if you could put an LCR hammer in an LCRx.

My best understanding from gaming revolver world is lightening the hammer actually DECREASES the chance of light strikes because the lighter hammer accelerates more quickly and since KE=1/2mv^2 you get more bang for your buck with a faster hammer strike than a heavier hammer.

jetfire

If at some point you’re dead set on making it DAO I have a couple of LCRx that I can open up and look through.

[TheNewbie]

My best understanding from gaming revolver world is lightening the hammer actually DECREASES the chance of light strikes because the lighter hammer accelerates more quickly and since KE=1/2mv^2 you get more bang for your buck with a faster hammer strike than a heavier hammer.

jetfire

If at some point you’re dead set on making it DAO I have a couple of LCRx that I can open up and look through.


Thanks. If I go this route I’ll let you know.


Your point about cloth interference with the gun is well taken. For me, the trade off of a hammer to thumb is worth the risk. Still, I get someone choosing differently.

[Cory]

Cory


https://youtu.be/LyFUal98Rq4

I did this just now.

My thought being if I had to fire multiple shots from a jacket pocket and pieces of the pocket lining start coming apart and the gun is pushed up and back with recoil into the lining….

I completely get the concern. There are a few things that can mitigate this in my mind, some I need to find out more about.

1. That might ignite the primer anyway.
2. The cylinder being bound up is probably at least as likely.
3. Firing may move material away from weapon.
4. We have the ability to choose our jackets without similar material.
5. Pocket guns may be holstered in pants instead of jackets, negating firing from the pocket. This is a variation of use on the same overall need for a weapon.

So far, my 637 has been for use AIWB with plans for pants pocket. The other stuff I'd have to check.

[JCN]

I completely get the concern. There are a few things that can mitigate this in my mind, some I need to find out more about.

1. That might ignite the primer anyway.
2. The cylinder being bound up is probably at least as likely.
3. Firing may move material away from weapon.
4. We have the ability to choose our jackets without similar material.
5. Pocket guns may be holstered in pants instead of jackets, negating firing from the pocket. This is a variation of use on the same overall need for a weapon.

So far, my 637 has been for use AIWB with plans for pants pocket. The other stuff I'd have to check.

I think an exposed (preferably bobbed) hammer carry revolver is completely reasonable and would have zero concern about carrying one AIWB or pants pocket like that. I don’t think clothing interference with the hammer is likely, but one of the super niche roles of a revolver for me is a sweatshirt pocket or jacket pocket ability to fire without removing the firearm from the pocket. Like elevator kind of situation.

[vtfarmer]

I completely get the concern. There are a few things that can mitigate this in my mind, some I need to find out more about.

1. That might ignite the primer anyway.
2. The cylinder being bound up is probably at least as likely.
3. Firing may move material away from weapon.
4. We have the ability to choose our jackets without similar material.
5. Pocket guns may be holstered in pants instead of jackets, negating firing from the pocket. This is a variation of use on the same overall need for a weapon.

So far, my 637 has been for use AIWB with plans for pants pocket. The other stuff I'd have to check.

Also- When carried in a pocket the gun is pointing at least somewhat downward. To fire at an attacker you have to pivot it upwards. If you push the gun foreword as you do this, it tightens the jacket material to the point that it doesn't have any slack. Years ago my pocket snubby was an unaltered Detective Special. I did some dry fire experimenting and pushing forward while firing I never had anything catch. If the material is taut, it doesn't get between the hammer and frame. And recoil occurs with the hammer down, so nothing can catch on the front end of the hammer during recoil. And pushing forward again following recoil tightens things up again and creates space behind the hammer. I was satisfied enough that I never sacrificed a coat to live fire. Your pocket lining may vary.

[03RN]

My best understanding from gaming revolver world is lightening the hammer actually DECREASES the chance of light strikes because the lighter hammer accelerates more quickly and since KE=1/2mv^2 you get more bang for your buck with a faster hammer strike than a heavier hammer.

jetfire

If at some point you’re dead set on making it DAO I have a couple of LCRx that I can open up and look through.

I have only heard that colt detective specials sometimes have light strikes with bobbed hammers.

[Duelist]

I'm completely confident my 637 could fire from a jacket pocket. I'll try to nab a video of that in an old jacket if I can remember. The 642 hammer comes out of the frame enough to block with thumb, but it's really minimal. Maybe I'll try to get a better picture of that.

Most people don't worry about thumbing a hammer on revolvers, the cylinder also has to turn, and the DA is there. I just really perfer it and it gives me the warm and fuzzy with AIWB.

Cory, are you sure you have a 642 that has a hammer spur exposed? 638s and other Bodyguard frame guns have shrouded hammers that the tip can be touched where it rises from the humpback frame, and of course the 60, 36, 37, and 637s have fully exposed hammer spurs, but every 640, 340, and 642 I’ve seen (including the one I’ve owned since 2004) has a completely enclosed hammer you can’t see or access without popping the sideplate.

[Duelist]

I have only heard that colt detective specials sometimes have light strikes with bobbed hammers.

Balance of mass and velocity. The 1970 DS I had did not have a bobbed hammer, and never had trouble with light strikes, either. I think I would rather have put a shroud on it than bob the hammer.

If I had it to over again, that is probably the one gun I wouldn’t have sold. No real regrets, but I liked it. It was worth more as a collector than as a shooter/working gun (got over two times what I paid for it when sold), so selling didn’t bother me, but I still just liked it.

[blues]

Balance of mass and velocity. The 1970 DS I had did not have a bobbed hammer, and never had trouble with light strikes, either. I think I would rather have put a shroud on it than bob the hammer.

If I had it to over again, that is probably the one gun I wouldn’t have sold. No real regrets, but I liked it. It was worth more as a collector than as a shooter/working gun (got over two times what I paid for it when sold), so selling didn’t bother me, but I still just liked it.

I regret selling the S&W Model 36 I bought in 1983, which a partner bobbed the hammer on sometime in the early 90's. (Did a great job.)

Sold it in 1995 and often regret it, especially since it was one I carried on and off the job back then. Live and learn. I didn't feel the sentimental attachment back then...but I do now.

(All I have left of it now is an old holster, Tyler T-Grips and the original wood grips.)

[OlongJohnson]

My best understanding from gaming revolver world is lightening the hammer actually DECREASES the chance of light strikes because the lighter hammer accelerates more quickly and since KE=1/2mv^2 you get more bang for your buck with a faster hammer strike than a heavier hammer.

I've seen that before in 1911 forum discussions. Look at the power source. Stored PE = 1/2 kx^2. When the trigger breaks, the potential energy stored in the hammer spring is converted to KE of the moving parts (hammer assembly, ~1/3 of the spring, and hammer spring strut, if present). The KE should end up equaling the PE released from the hammer spring minus friction losses (another reason that eliminating friction is a good thing). Hammer inertia doesn't come into it.

It's likely that a higher velocity strike on the primer tends to promote activation of the primer due to the dynamic aspects of thermodynamics and chemistry in the primer.

I don't have a good explanation for why lightening the hammer on a Ruger SA is widely reported to reduce reliability.

[JCN]

I've seen that before in 1911 forum discussions. Look at the power source. Stored PE = 1/2 kx^2. When the trigger breaks, the potential energy stored in the hammer spring is converted to KE of the moving parts (hammer assembly, ~1/3 of the spring, and hammer spring strut, if present). The KE should end up equaling the PE released from the hammer spring minus friction losses (another reason that eliminating friction is a good thing). Hammer inertia doesn't come into it.

It's likely that a higher velocity strike on the primer tends to promote activation of the primer due to the dynamic aspects of thermodynamics and chemistry in the primer.

I don't have a good explanation for why lightening the hammer on a Ruger SA is widely reported to reduce reliability.

Thanks for that! Would be super interesting if someone was set up to measure firing pin velocity and test different hammers.

[TheNewbie]

I've seen that before in 1911 forum discussions. Look at the power source. Stored PE = 1/2 kx^2. When the trigger breaks, the potential energy stored in the hammer spring is converted to KE of the moving parts (hammer assembly, ~1/3 of the spring, and hammer spring strut, if present). The KE should end up equaling the PE released from the hammer spring minus friction losses (another reason that eliminating friction is a good thing). Hammer inertia doesn't come into it.

It's likely that a higher velocity strike on the primer tends to promote activation of the primer due to the dynamic aspects of thermodynamics and chemistry in the primer.

I don't have a good explanation for why lightening the hammer on a Ruger SA is widely reported to reduce reliability.


So bobbing the hammer might cause light strikes an LCR? I’m not the brightest bulb and when it comes to physics, I do my best!


Why are bobbed hammers on S&Ws non issues?

[03RN]

So bobbing the hammer might cause light strikes an LCR? I’m not the brightest bulb and when it comes to physics, I do my best!


Why are bobbed hammers on S&Ws non issues?

Ive read because they have enough mass bobbed or not.

[JTMcC]

I'm well out of the mainstream, but my required feature is the ability to drive a bullet into (and preferably thru and out of, but c'mon lets be realistic:rolleyes:) the vitals of a normal size bull quartering away. If I have a fighting chance of doing that I'm content and consider it usable, even if not ideal, for all of the lesser size things in my world.

I'll add that it has to something I have on me all day ever day so the X frames, etc won't work.

[Cory]

Cory, are you sure you have a 642 that has a hammer spur exposed? 638s and other Bodyguard frame guns have shrouded hammers that the tip can be touched where it rises from the humpback frame, and of course the 60, 36, 37, and 637s have fully exposed hammer spurs, but every 640, 340, and 642 I’ve seen (including the one I’ve owned since 2004) has a completely enclosed hammer you can’t see or access without popping the sideplate.

I don't have an exposed hammer 642. I have a 637, which I removed the side plate and swapped the standard exposed/spurree hammee from and installed a 642 hammer that is normally hidden. After dinner I'll post a picture.

[Duelist]

I'm well out of the mainstream, but my required feature is the ability to drive a bullet into (and preferably thru and out of, but c'mon lets be realistic:rolleyes:) the vitals of a normal size bull quartering away. If I have a fighting chance of doing that I'm content and consider it usable, even if not ideal, for all of the lesser size things in my world.

I'll add that it has to something I have on me all day ever day so the X frames, etc won't work.

So, what do you use?

[Cory]

Duelist and I think TheNewbie asked before.


https://youtu.be/jDKli5rwBHo

[TheNewbie]

Duelist and I think TheNewbie asked before.


https://youtu.be/jDKli5rwBHo

Me gusta. Yo quiero.

[JTMcC]

So, what do you use?

329PD currently.

[TheNewbie]

Now I’m wondering if I could put an LCR hammer in an LCRx and get what I want.

[JTMcC]

I could (and have) carried .45 ACP and .357 happily (with careful bullet selection) but bigger IS better or at least somewhat faster killing in my experience.
I'd be perfectly content with a 500 JRH or a .480 Ruger in a short single action if it wasn't for the slower reload times. So my choices involve major compromise that covers a wide range of ground, none of it perfectly.

[JAH 3rd]

Quite satisfied with my S&W model 13, 3" heavy barrel, round butt .357.

[jtcarm]

So bobbing the hammer might cause light strikes an LCR? I’m not the brightest bulb and when it comes to physics, I do my best!


Why are bobbed hammers on S&Ws non issues?

I seriously doubt it.

Bobbing decreases mass, but increases the velocity of the hammer.

IDK if he still does it, but gunsmith Mike Carmoney used to remove almost the entire back half of S&W hammers on his competition guns (known as the “Carmonized” hammer.)

They’re verboten in IDPA major matches because it allows the hammer/trigger to function with the cylinder open.

I don’t suggest getting that radical on a carry gun, but it’ll still go bang, and the reduced mass contributes to a lighter DA pull.

[UNK]

The poll should have two options one for pocket carry and one for belt carry. For me those are two entirely different guns although I do waist carry a j if Im in sweats.
I’d really like to see a Scandium 357 or 9mm K frame, with a 3” barrel and carry comp 6 shot option as well as a similar option for 38 Special with aluminum frame and no carry comp.
Replaceable front sight option for both and adjustable sights.
Steel trainers for both.
I have a dream…😎😁… that will likely never happen. And if they built that its gonna be expensive. They would probably sell in the tens.

[JWintergreen]

I wholeheartedly agree with some of the earlier posters that extolled the virtues of the D frame sized revolver. They are only slightly bigger than a J frame/LCR, easier to carry than a medium frame revolver (K/L frame), easier to shoot than most pocket revolvers, and they hold six rounds. The perfect carry revolver size in my eyes.

My ideal carry revolver would be a quality S&W or Ruger competitor to the 856, K6S, Cobra/King Cobra, and Charter Police Undercover.

Stainless, fixed sights, three inch barrel, hearty ejector rod, and chambered in .38 Special (.357 Magnum would be fine as well).

[Zeke38]

5've been on this journey since 2014. I've been through the Smith 640 Pro, the Ruger SP 101 WC, the Kimbers 2 and 3 inch. I've reduced it down to a Colt KC 3" with 38/44 level loads or Remington Golden Sabers 125s in 357 which the KC shoots to POA. Six shot, 3", with great grips. Only complaint with the Kimbers were the grips, just couldn't get the right purchase. The Smith 640 while I loved the gun the sights were wonky in POA/POI was never the same, and the gun was load finicky.

Colt KC has the 3" barrel, brass bead front sight, six shot, and Magnum capability, with great grips, great size and weight. Done Deal!

[314159]

I've not read the whole thread, but if it hasn't been mentioned: must accept a red dot sight for any new design that isn't a pocket gun.

[Rex G]

The thing about the full-power .327 Feds: they recoil about like 110gr .357–both a good and bad thing, depending upon the launcher you choose—but the hidden ass-kicker is the blast. Full-power 100 grainers from a revolver are, like, pinned 14-16” AR loud. That’s no joke indoors.
Useful point of reference. Thanks!

[WDR]

I've not read the whole thread, but if it hasn't been mentioned: must accept a red dot sight for any new design that isn't a pocket gun.

Blasphemous! :mad: