I am aways looking for quality articles written about carrying a j-frame, to include gear and ammo reviews. It has been awhile since my last search (it's not like these articles are written everyday) and I found this gem this morning:
https://www.officer.com/tactical/fir...sson-model-442
What can I say? This guy somehow has the ability to list "author" on his resume (along with "retired military small arms trainer" - whatever he thinks that is). So much fail.......
Seemed like pretty standard boilerplate. Could quibble here or there, but as you see it where was all the fail?
Hain’t we got all the fools in town on our side? And ain’t that a big enough majority in any town?
Here is an example of poor writing.
Three types were referenced, but only two mentioned. Have to skip down a bit to find the third type, which is the subject of the article, two paragraphs further into the article.Smith & Wesson J-Frames can be divided into three separate categories. There are extremely lightweight models like the 342PD Centennial, which weighs 10.8 ounces, and heavier models like the 19.5 ounce classic Model 36.
I seriously started a reply trying to address each poorly written section, but the entire article is just, well, shit. Here we go (until my brain melts, at least):Originally Posted by Wingate's Hairbrush
"For this month’s Firearms Tactics column I tested the Smith & Wesson Model 442 and Federal 130 grain HST +P ammunition. At the end of this test, I believed that old school is still cool."
WTF? But wait...
"What do I mean by that? J-Frame revolvers, which have been around since the 1950s, are still effective in the modern law enforcement officer’s toolbox."
Well, that didn't clear up your previous statement at all. Onwards.
"Smith & Wesson J-Frames can be divided into three separate categories. There are extremely lightweight models like the 342PD Centennial, which weighs 10.8 ounces, and heavier models like the 19.5 ounce classic Model 36."
Already covered by @farscott
"The heavier ones are more comfortable to shoot, which certainly makes sense. The lighter ones are easier to carry, which also makes sense."
Ok. Both make sense. Cool. No point in really mentioning either in this manner if you are't going to expound on it.
"The .38 Special is a cartridge that can do anything, including operate at pressures that are reasonable for the size and design of the J-Frame."
I'd argue the first point a tad, but the second point is fluff, or "no shit, Sherlock". How about this: The .30-'06 Springfield is a cartridge that can do anything, including operate at pressures that are reasonable for the size and design of the M1 rifle. And we continue...
"A lightweight revolver is something every law enforcement officer should have. They are simple and reliable. Modern cartridges have made them very effective. "
The .38 Special is not a modern cartridge. If that is NOT what he was referencing, then WTF was he referencing? Perhaps he meant loadings, like the Speer GD Short Barrel stuff? IDK. I don't think he does, either.
"J-Frames are also fairly maintenance-free. In all the time I have been testing and shooting revolvers, I have never seen a J-Frame fail. To put this in perspective, the .38 Special is the easiest cartridge to reload in the entire spectrum of cartridges. I reload a lot of them. I run hundreds of rounds through my J-Frame. I shoot my revolvers a lot because I am more likely to carry one than any other gun."
What does reloading have to do with J-Frame reliability? Nothing.
Skipping some minor BS he wrote.
"One of the rules of concealed carry guns to which I adhere is its combat accuracy. "
No, he just shoots like shit. I'm not sure where using the term "combat accuracy" falls on the Dunning-Kruger scale, but I need to know.
"can the shooter confidently place a consistent group into a 4” target at 7 yards? The S&W Model 442 can do this easily."
Yes, the 442 can, but the shooter is likely to NOT. And this about a hostage shot.....
"There is no sighting in for this type of revolver."
Zeroing is what he meant. You know, a basic term in the firearms industry. The rest of that paragraph is decent though.
"...brought his S&W 340PD. It is similar to the Model 442, but handles .357 Magnum, which makes it the perfect hiking and camping gun."
I'm pretty sure I don't need to explain the bad advice given here.
" .357 Magnum cartridges can be rough on the user for all-day shooting."
But it makes the PERFECT hiking and camping gun. You know, the one you don't shoot that much because it hurts.
"several ideal features of the 340PD, like a very bright front sight"
If only there was a proper term for fiber optic front sights, it would probably sound better than "very bright front sight".
"I have medium-sized hands and was able to keep my smallest finger on the front of the gun."
Huh? If there was only colloquialism for pinky. What does he mean by "the front of the gun"?
"How do I know about the durable finish? The S&W I carry all the time was built in the 1970s."
Not a 442 and not the same finish. The rest of that paragraph returns to his reloading and how his J-Frame never failed.
"Shooting it through laminated glass, the first shot traveled only 3.5”
But there is no mention of any other penetration depths. Fail.
"The HST bullet is a bonded bullet, meaning the manufacturer does something so they stay together."
Oh. My. Fucking. God.
"Subsequent shots easily demonstrated that the bonded core works and after barrier penetration was a little better."
But he already had jacket/core separation on the first shot. WTF? Define "a bit better" than 3.5"...
Anyway, this article is full of Teh Suck.
EDIT: Cleaning up my shitty-shitty writing to only be a little less shitty-shitty.
Last edited by echo5charlie; 08-22-2019 at 07:58 PM.
E5C: No worries, your writing was WAY less shitty-shitty than the original article.
I’m seriously considering not reading the article.
Plus I now feel bad that I don’t have a super light and super heavy j frame. Crap I need more revolvers!
357 magnum cartridges can be rough for all day shooting...
IMHO shooting 357 mags out of a 340PD would be a 5 rounds or less proposition. Not much of a “day” at the range. I can barely stand 5 rounds of +P .38 out of one.
The first indication a bad guy should have that I'm dangerous is when his
disembodied soul is looking down at his own corpse wondering what happened.
Everyone starts somewhere. Lighten up.
“If you know the way broadly you will see it in everything." - Miyamoto Musashi
And it's just beer money anyway for most.
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
My brother fired exactly five rounds of .357 out of his super scandium J-frame and then asked me if I wanted to fire some magnums out of it. LOL, I laughed.
Reply With Quote