New revolvers at SHOT/Lipsey's release

[Stephanie B]

Have you been shooting that -8?

Not for a while. The range closed two months ago. It may reopen “soon”.

[fatdog]

I wonder if I can whip up some mouse fart level light bullet (100,125gr?) wadcutter loads and get close to .32 recoil that way, without having to tool up for .32 everything.

A shared recipe here. When I was shooting SASS cowboy matches my load was 125gr flat point from Missouri bullet company, they also offered it in a poly coated version. 3.2gr of Trailboss gave me about 700 fps from a 5.5" barrel, I never chrono'ed it iin a snub but it would probably be about 600 or there abouts. Titegroup and Bullseye burn about the same as Trailboss which I understand is off the market now.

That has been reasonably accurate in every gun I tried it in and certainly low recoil.

I still have a couple thousand of those loaded and when I want to shoot a J frame for more than a few rounds those get pulled out.

Some people I competed with were running the same bullet with 3.1gr of Titegroup which is slightly slower, conventional wisdom in the crowd I hung out with was don't go below that with Titegroup or Bullseye.

The 105's were not around when I was doing that stuff, but I would have tried them I suspect. At some point the lighter you go, the less bearing surface and some guns are not going to like it and start throwing shotgun patterns.

[D-der]

If we are talking about pocket carry, as someone who has both the Sig P365 and various J-frames I prefer the J-frames for pocket carry for two reasons:

1. The back of the frame of a hammerless revolver is shaped so it is much less likely to get snagged on the top of the pocket than a Sig P365.

2. The J-frame grip is easier to establish a shooting grip on when in the pocket than that of the P365.

Though the Sig P365 has many advantages over the hammerless J-frame, the two two main J-frame advantages that I mentioned override everything else when we are talking about pocket carry. I have some pants that allow me to pocket carry a Sig P365 with the 10 round magazine in a pocket holster, but I am not comfortable being able to access it in less than an ideal situation as well as the possibility that the gun might snag while being drawn. In this configuration the Sig carries 10 rounds plus one in the chamber, vs 5 for a J-frame; given the lighter and shorter trigger of the Sig, it is easier to fire accurately and get hits at longer ranges; and I suspect with modern ammo the 9-mm P-365 has better terminal effects than a .38 special fired from a 2" barrel. But for pocket carry it comes down to the 2 reasons that I mentioned above.

One thing to keep in mind is that I have had some of my pants pockets deepened to allow this, since many pants pockets are often too small and tight to allow pocket carry. When I am carrying the Sig P365 it is typically carried IWB and I still carrying the J-frame as pocket carry. A great advantage of pocket carry is that you you can establish a firing grip on the gun and be ready to draw, while appearing as someone who just has hand in his pocket. I think @TCinVA can add something about this.

If I am wearing work clothes, dress slacks, or a suit, I will typically be carrying a Khar PM-9 in a pocket holster because the PM-9 is much smaller and flatter than than a J-frame in pocket carry prints in those types of pants. In this situation for me, a flatter profile is more important even though the J-frame has other advantages. Those types of pants will make the J-frame print like crazy to the point where you look almost look like an X-ray of someone carrying their gun in their pocket.

The bottom line if we are talking about pocket carry, sometimes some factors override others.

As well as the draw, I find the weight distribution of the 365 uncomfortable in my pocket, I've tried leather and Kydex holsters but.. no go, I've got an LCR 9 in my pocket today, not much lighter but carries much better, both comfort and conceal ability wise.

[TCinVA]

One thing to keep in mind is that I have had some of my pants pockets deepened to allow this, since many pants pockets are often too small and tight to allow pocket carry. When I am carrying the Sig P365 it is typically carried IWB and I still carrying the J-frame as pocket carry. A great advantage of pocket carry is that you you can establish a firing grip on the gun and be ready to draw, while appearing as someone who just has hand in his pocket. I think @TCinVA can add something about this.

For me the P365 is a belt gun as it won't draw cleanly out of the pocket.

The gripped-pocket-revolver is a thing I've used to manage a number of unknown contacts over the years...but thankfully I've never needed to present the gripped-pocket-revolver to stop a threat. Just good MUC-ing resolved every situation I've faced heretofore peacefully. The tough part is having a pocket that's big enough to allow you to carry the gun AND to draw cleanly if you have established a full firing grip. That's not always easy to find, especially if you have big hands. I've found that the overall shape of a hammerless revolver makes getting out of a wider range of pockets easier than pocket semi-autos in the same size range.

I've carried a pocket pistol of some sort for most of the last 20+ years, with most of that being a J frame. Life in a non-permissive environment meant that on some occasions that was my only gun. In others it was a secondary pistol that I could deploy immediately while still looking normal.

Note that this is a different thing than the Patterned Compliance approach. That's a whole different concept.

Because I've been carrying a J frame for so long, the prospect of a factory gun built to sustain large round counts with actual fucking sights, a good trigger (feedback I've heard so far is that it's the best revolver trigger they've tried) and nice touches like chamfering the edges of the charge holes and the cylinder so it goes into and out of the holster better is irresistible. I've always had a love/hate relationship with the J and this solves most of the hate for the terrible sights and difficult trigger. The stocks remain to be seen. I'm sure they're nice for shooting but they will probably still be subject to The Law of J Frame: stocks that are great for shooting are terrible for concealment.



Of those three revolvers (Two S&W "Bodyguard" revolvers and one Model 12 K frame) the one in the center with the crappiest sights was the most accurate revolver I fired when I had these three out at the same time. It was pretty easy to shoot it well because of that lovely set of Rogers stocks. Which naturally makes it impossible to even fit in a pocket, much less carry that way. Grip on a handgun is the equivalent to tires on a car. It's literally where the rubber meets the road. It's the foundation of our control and our accuracy with a handgun. The sights are nothing more than a reflection of what you're doing on the grip and the trigger.

There tends to be an inverse relationship between the concealability of the stocks and how much rubber they put on the road for us. If these VZ stocks have hit a sweet spot where they're shootable and concealable in a pocket, hallelujah. I'll find that out when Lipseys ships my guns, I suppose.

The bottom line if we are talking about pocket carry, sometimes some factors override others.

Absolutely. It's a compromise and often the compromise I've made with the J is having something it was a struggle to use well past 15 yards (or even 5 in my early days) so that I had at least some means of presenting a gun should someone insist on lethal violence. This was an informed decision as I knew that mere presentation of a firearm early in the situation tended to solve the problem. And while revolvers are not exactly the paragons of durability and reliability fuddlore would have us believe:



...in that size category they do tend to work better and crucially will work even if we have a really bad grip on them.

...which is likely if you're digging a small handgun out of a pocket to protect yourself.

[jtcarm]

@JCN
Is that it for spinny announcements?

[D-der]

Any idea what the finish / durability is on the 432 / 442 is ?
I've seen some rough older black J's,might be tempted to stay with the 642 finish, doesn't show the wear and tear so much.

[CCT125US]

Any idea what the finish / durability is on the 432 / 442 is ?
I've seen some rough older black J's,might be tempted to stay with the 642 finish, doesn't show the wear and tear so much.

Great question. I've got a 442 that definitely shows some wear. When I had asked about a 642 in another thread, the finish durability was brought up. Apparently it is even less durable, IIRC.

[TheNewbie]

Hopefully these show improved QC and are great additions to the line up. The range reports will be fun to read.


Maybe one day they will release a version with a hammer and no lock, but until then, I’ll stick with my quasi DAO LCRx. A J-Frame would be nice as it’s a bit smaller, but having a hammer is a must for me.

[SwampDweller]

Anyone know if and where the 442UC’s are available yet? If not, anyone know when and where they will be?

[jh9]

Great question. I've got a 442 that definitely shows some wear. When I had asked about a 642 in another thread, the finish durability was brought up. Apparently it is even less durable, IIRC.

With the caveat I'm not a J-frame guy...

Prior to like 2010 on the 642 IIRC they were using some sort of clear coat over paint(?) on the barrel, cylinder and yoke to color match the aluminum frame. That was notorious for peeling off.

Also worth noting that the base model 442/642 are the least expensive J-frames that S&W makes. I assume part of keeping the cost down on those is the less expensive finish. I think it's less blue/stainless and more like the cheaper paint finishes (i.e. cera/dura/whatever "coats") that were popular there for awhile.

Someone with up to date information can probably comment more definitively on what sort of finish S&W is using on their aluminum guns today.