Retro-revolvers for EDC

Kleanbore said:

The author conflates the likelihood of occurrence of a risk with what would be required to mitigate it once it has occurred.

Click to expand...

So do you. You have determined that whatever you carry is appropriate for YOUR threat potential.
How many guns do you carry routinely? (rhetorical question) If you only carry one it should be two. If it's two it should be three. After all, if a 5 shot revolver is inadequate because you may be attacked by 6 or more assailants (or 3 silhouette targets shoulder to shoulder AKA El Presidente drill) then isn't a 17 shot spray-and-pray inadequate because you might be attacked by 18 assailants?
Everything in life; EVERYTHING, requires a risk/benefit analysis. Your analysis may be different than someone else's. That doesn't mean that, by default, theirs is wrong.

IMHO, a medium-framed 3" 38 special revolver is a good carry piece, if you're a revolver person and the weight doesn't bother you.

For me the 3" with smaller grips is significantly easier to conceal than a similar revolver with a 4" barrel and large grips... but the 3" seems to be about as accurate as the full-sized version.

I've been shooting revolvers since the 1980's and am reasonably proficient. I've been shooting semiautomatics since the 1980's and am still pretty "meh". Thus, I carry a revolver.

I only have the poor person's version of the beautiful masterpiece in the article. If I continue to carry it, I'll grind off the hammer spur with my bench grinder. It's okay to do that; it's not a work of art.

Taurus 856 3" is a reasonable approximation.
Even available as a lightweight, clone of Model 12.
But not everybody has favorable experience with the brand.

K frame size is so much more usable than J. Not even a debate. I haven't tried a Kimber or Cobra which look to fall in between, but I'd like to.
3" is just a sweet spot for IWB carrying. It's no harder to carry than a 2.5" but the extra sight radius is a big difference, the balance is better, and you get a full extractor.
4" catches in the pants when sitting and doesn't work well IWB for me and most others I think.
If I was going to cut one down though I might do 3.5 or 3.25. I'd have to think about that.

I’m not sure you need to use retro in front of the word revolver. Chiappa? Not so much. But all other revolvers, retro is implied. Little new in the last 100 years because they work. Example: Compare a 1921 Buick to a 2021 Buick. Do same with Colt Officers Model to my 2021 S&W 586. Basically, same for gun, not so for car.

One detail I feel is crucial is a snag-inducing exposed hammer sacrifices the slick pocketable nature of a hammerless model.

Interesting article. I agree, based upon personal knowledge and experience, that a 2” to 4” K-Frame can be a very handy concealment weapon, and, that JM Custom Kydex does, indeed, make excellent products. I am not so sure about the muscle car analogy. I can agree that some carry revolvers, for sentimental reasons, but I believe that there are truly practical reasons to do so. A revolver does not require that the shooter maintain a firm platform, to ensure proper auto-loading function, which can be important for those of us with aging or otherwise-afflicted hands. A shorter-barreled weapon can be easier to draw from inside the trousers, for those with shoulders that do not articulate so freely.

Blue Jays said:

One detail I feel is crucial is a snag-inducing exposed hammer sacrifices the slick pocketable nature of a hammerless model.

Click to expand...

I was gonna say, I think the only thing the article's author's revolver "needed" was a bobbed hammer.

BobWright said:

Boy! Do I feel old, when someone speaks of a "retro revolver" and displays a stainless steel revolver!

Bob Wright

Click to expand...

I was expecting a thread about cap-and-ball revolvers.

Remember - the Colt Walker was the most powerfull revolver on earth prior to the 357 magnum.

BobWright said:

Boy! Do I feel old, when someone speaks of a "retro revolver" and displays a stainless steel revolver!

Bob Wright

Click to expand...

Agreed! And not only stainless but one with gobs of work done to it!

Bob, like you, I do carry a revolver daily. One of the ones I carry is “retro” in my opinion.


Another one is a new made retro,





And my newest is an oldie with some modern enhancements.




They are all 45 ACP and all use a similar holster


Kevin

TransAmConvert said:

K frame size is so much more usable than J. Not even a debate.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is a debate.

TransAmConvert said:

and you get a full extractor.

Click to expand...

Depends on the gun.

StrawHat said:

Agreed! And not only stainless but one with gobs of work done to it!

Bob, like you, I do carry a revolver daily. One of the ones I carry is “retro” in my opinion.

View attachment 1032790
Another one is a new made retro,

View attachment 1032791



And my newest is an oldie with some modern enhancements.

View attachment 1032794


They are all 45 ACP and all use a similar holster


Kevin

Click to expand...

All are eye-catchers, but that holster! That looks like a treasure!

Bob Wright

Buffalo Bore claims it's hard cast .38 S&W cartridges are SD worthy and pressures won't hurt my Colt. I bought a few boxes and they shoot well. And I've actually carried this, but in all honesty felt a little under-gunned. My wife loves it and shoots the eyes out with it.

Kleanbore said:

Certainly. but we should not conflate the likelihood of occurrence of a risk with what would be required to mitigate it once it has occurred.

Click to expand...

Right, so why do you only carry two guns? Why handguns? If you should be prepared to mitigate any threat shouldn't you be carrying an AR or shotgun at port arms when you go to the mail box?

There was an old gunzine article that ran the .38 S&W through all the calculated formulae for effectiveness, Hatcher, Taylor, and several others. The conclusion was that the .38 was comparable to the .380 auto. And there are a lot of .380s being sold, somebody thinks them adequate.

Kleanbore said:

Size and weight, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Click to expand...

Kleanbore said:

Concealable.

Click to expand...

So what I'm hearing is that you've assessed your situation and decided, all things considered, what is best for you.
Cool. I do the same thing.

Old_Grouch said:

Right, so why do you only carry two guns? Why handguns? If you should be prepared to mitigate any threat shouldn't you be carrying an AR or shotgun at port arms when you go to the mail box?

Click to expand...

Reductio ad Absurdum.

It is ridiculous and not very productive to attempt to mitigate any threat that may possibly arise. What the sensible person does is prepare for plausible threats and does so in a practical manner.

Carrying a handgun and an extra magazine or two is practical. Carrying a rifle around is not.

2, 3, even 5 attackers is plausible. 27 Ninjas with Uzis is not.

Without getting into the debate, if one wants to get a revolver for concealed carry, one could easily do so with a great deal less trouble and expense.

This article is nothing more than the author's excuse to show off his fashion statement and his ability to afford expensive custom gunsmithing services.

Kleanbore said:

...I have compromised on capacity.

Click to expand...

And I imagine just about everyone here is content to let you do that in peace.

I read this in my email yesterday. Didn’t like the term retro! You can almost tell his age by the work he had done. Novak Sights, slab sides barrel and a paint job. Two tone bothers me too! If he wanted retro he should have stayed with the original gun and maybe a cut to 3” I could agree with. I also have some issues with any gun that is highly modified being used as a primary carry gun. Guess some folks haven’t spent much time in a court room. As gun people we admire good work. 12 of your community members depending on where you are from might be able to be convinced how much more “deadly” the gun has been made with all that work! Old school looking revolvers do have that edge in a court room, something that is seldom discussed in these threads. When you have to account for every round fired and justify “yes justify” your choice of a firearm in court too much bling is not good.

I really miss my trusty 69 Chevy truck. It had a 3 on the tree, no power steering, no power breaks, doors, windows, and no air. But it had a 194 straight 6, and a low geared posi-track rear end and would pull anything the chains would hold on to. It also topped out at 72 on flat ground and was spray painted woodland camo. I loved that truck and stupidly sold it. The paint was the only thing I changed on it, nothing else needed it.

I now have a 1974 Smith model 67 no dash and for me it is perfect as it is. I have wanted a 4” heavy barreled target revolver for many years and could never afford a quality one. I much prefer the older things as they were usually built better with more care and attention than the newer stuff. Until recently I carried a Glock 17/17L daily but now carry a Springfield Range Officer 5” 1911 9mm with 10 round mags because I shoot it so much better. I’m realizing I probably won’t need 17 rounds and 10 will do, but the reality of it for me is 6 may just be enough and I may start carrying the Smith.