size comparison: medium-frame revolver vs. "full-size" autopistol


PDA






W.E.G.
March 3, 2010, 04:40 PM
Ruger Security-Six .357 Magnum and Glock 22 .40 caliber

interesting

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/pistol%20pics/securitysixcomparedG22.jpg

If you enjoyed reading about "size comparison: medium-frame revolver vs. "full-size" autopistol" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
fireside44
March 3, 2010, 05:01 PM
Nice Ruger.

RyanM
March 3, 2010, 05:05 PM
I noticed the same thing a few years ago, with the same two brands.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=63292&stc=1&d=1188621708

A Ruger SP-101 is only a tiny bit smaller than a Glock 23. Both are about the same power, shot for shot, with factory ammo. But one holds 5 and the other holds 13+1.

Oro
March 3, 2010, 05:26 PM
A Ruger SP-101 is only a tiny bit smaller than a Glock 23

You call that tiny, I call it huge. What's not shown in that angle is the comparative width at different points, and also the massive space occupied by the rear of the slide.

Volumetrically, which is what matters most when you are attempting to effectively conceal a gun, the Glock 23 is probably 40% or so larger than a Ruger 101. Heck, my Colt Commander conceals much better than the Glock 23 because of the width issue.

Both are about the same power, shot for shot, with factory ammo

I have never been able to find .40 S&W that compares well with what .357 magnum can do. 10mm and .357 are extremely comparable, but a .40 is no 10mm. I bought a Glock 23 for carry, and ditched it very quickly to go back to a S&W 19 2.5" (similar to the Ruger SP101). The ease of carry difference single shot firepower of the six-shot .357 was lightyears different than the 23. I don't hate the 23, but it's no winner in the size comparison with a mid-sized revolver.

RyanM
March 3, 2010, 05:48 PM
I have never been able to find .40 S&W that compares well with what .357 magnum can do. 10mm and .357 are extremely comparable, but a .40 is no 10mm.

Over the chronograph, 158 gr factory ammo out of a 2.25" barrel was about 1,000 fps even. That really is about what a .40 will do (the numbers on the boxes tend to be really exaggerated). You can't compare numbers on the box, or velocities through a 4" revolver barrel vs. a 4" auto barrel. You also can't compare felt recoil. 125 gr fullhouse .357s were only going 1250 fps, about what 9mm +P+ does, but those things turned my hand beet red after 50 rounds!

Factory ammo just isn't a really good performer out of a snubby. Handloads, on the other hand, you can easily load up to 158 gr at 1200+ fps in an SP-101. Of course, that probably would have absolutely murdered my hand.

And personally, I found the G23 more comfortable and concealable, because it doesn't have the big bulge in the center. I prefer a very forward cant on my holsters, so the back of the slide is never an issue.

Different strokes for different folks.

The Lone Haranguer
March 3, 2010, 06:32 PM
RyanM, who made the sights for the Glock?

Another striking comparison is the mini-Glock (26/27/33) vs. a small-frame, two-inch revolver.

RatDrall
March 3, 2010, 07:32 PM
Revolver and auto pistol rounds are totally different, or can be, in the revolver's favor. Auto pistol rounds have to feed into chambers without causing a malfunction, which limits the design of the projectile. Revolver rounds are manually placed in the cylinder, leaving the bullet design open.

A 158 grain pure lead hollow point moving at 1000 fps out of a revolver is better than any auto pistol round in similar weight moving at a similar velocity.

As far as carrying, my 4" K-frame conceals easier. My Glock 17 looks like a big "L" under my shirt, but the K-frame looks like a love handle thanks to the rounded curves.

jhvaughan2
March 3, 2010, 08:03 PM
but the K-frame looks like a love handle thanks to the rounded curves.
I know what you mean :D... oh you are talking about the gun's rounded curves... never mind.

RyanM
March 3, 2010, 08:16 PM
RyanM, who made the sights for the Glock?

They're TruGlo TFOs. Tritium and fiber optics. I really like them. In daylight, they glow. In the dark, they still glow. With indoor lighting, they don't glow so much, but are still visible and colored. Nearly any lighting, you've got a green front and yellow rear dots. Consistency is always good.

Oro
March 3, 2010, 09:16 PM
Over the chronograph, 158 gr factory ammo out of a 2.25" barrel was about 1,000 fps even.

I get about 1,250fps out of top factory ammo in my 2.5" .357 with 158gr. I can also buy factory ammo that can do 1,000 fps. Cherry picking ammo comparisons doesn't help. .40S&W is not comeptitive with a .357 in power in similar barrel lengths (and the actual rifled barrel length on a Glock 23 and a 3" revolver are about as "similar" as it gets between the platforms).

pezo
March 3, 2010, 11:10 PM
Notice the grips. The grip is the one thing that sticks out, especially if carrying IWB. The disbarraged cylinder bulge of the revolver will tuck nicely concealed. The semi pistol grip bulk would have me concerned. It's definately apples and oranges.

If you enjoyed reading about "size comparison: medium-frame revolver vs. "full-size" autopistol" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!