Chunky Snubbies: Fish nor Fowl or Sliced Bread?

doubleh said:

I read that book but all I remember about it is the name "Will Graham" and the title. I'll have to visit the library now.

As to snubbies, chunky or otherwise. I don't shoot them very well so don't one at all and don't plan to.

Click to expand...

Odd arm for a fed. It was a Bulldog .44 Special, short and ugly with its startling big bore. It had been extensively modified by Mag Na Port. The barrel was vented near the muzzle to help keep the muzzle down on recoil, the hammer was bobbed and it had a good set of fat grips. He suspected it was throated for the speedloader. One hell of a mean pistol when it was loaded with what the fed had waiting. He wondered how the woman would stand up to it.

The ammunition on the stand beside them was an interesting progression. First there was a box of lightly loaded wadcutters. Then came regular service hardball, and last was something the rangemaster had read much about but had rarely seen. A row of Glaser Safety Slugs. The tips looked like pencil erasers. Behind each tip was a copper jacket containing number-twelve shot suspended in liquid Teflon.

The light projectile was designed to fly at tremendous velocity, smash into the target and release the shot. In meat the results were devastating. The rangemaster even recalled the figures. Ninety Glasers had been fired at men so far. All ninety were instant one-shot stops. In eighty-nine of the cases immediate death resulted. One man survived, surprising the doctors. The Glaser round had a safety advantage, too--no ricochets, and it would not go through a wall and kill someone in the next room.

Click to expand...

Then after seeing the prices for these things at a gun show I rescued it, dusted it off and retired it to my safe.

Click to expand...

labnoti said:

I thought there was fairly broad consensus at least with regard to semi-automatic pistols, that barrel length did not effect concealability nearly as much as the grip size. Are revolvers different? Not in my experience. A 6" barrel is just as easy to conceal as a 3".

There is a bit more to it than concealability. Revolver barrels can weigh considerably more with length, especially ones with a full underlug. However, unless it's an ultralight aluminum/scandium revolver of dimunitive size, revolvers just weigh a lot. Is it really worth the compromise of a snub barrel to have it weigh 38 ounces instead of 44 ounces? Either way, it's heavy. What's more, that weight is a virtue when firing hot magnums. Really, compared to all the <25 oz. revolvers, the stout weight of a larger one is almost essential to great performance with anything but the wimpiest loads like .38 Special.

So the snub nosed revolvers don't conceal better, and although they weigh slightly less, that is a disadvantage when actually using it. Besides the lower weight and higher felt recoil with heavy magnums, the short barrel gives up the weight precisely where it is most desireable to limit muzzle flip. It also results in shorter sight radius that makes precision aiming substantially harder. What's more, the short barrel handles poorly. It's easier to swing quickly onto target, but it lacks the inertia to stay steady on target -- think of a short-barreled, rear-weighted shotgun versus a long-barreled, forward-weighted shotgun for trap. One might get a shot off sooner with the quick-handling gun, but it's more likely to be a miss.

Then we have to consider the short-barrel ballistics. In my experience, the 3" barrel produces good results with .357 Magnum, but not .38 Special. With the Magnum, it demands a slower powder like HS-6, Longshot, or Power Pistol for good results. The "Magnum" powders like 2400, IMR4227, H110, Lil'Gun, No.9, do offer slightly more velocity but at the waste of nearly half the powder charge. The situation with shorter 2" and 1.875" barrels is even worse. Five, 5 1/2, and 6" barrels make the most of the mid-range powders and when stepping up to the magnum powders they deliver big gains in velocity. One might argue that the high-velocity magnums aren't necessary for the concealed-carry role of the snub-nosed revolver. I tend to agree with that, but the shorter the barrel, the larger mass of a slower burning powder is needed to achieve "adaquate" velocity for good penetration and expansion of hollowpoints. With the longer barrel, a lower mass of a faster burning powder can be used to similarly achieve an adaquate velocity. The overall result is substantially less felt recoil not only because the gun weighs more and has a heavier muzzle, but also because it's blowing out less powder mass to send the bullet at the same velocity.

So what does the snub-nosed actually do better? Is it really good for anything?

Click to expand...

Pat Riot said:

Here is my S&W model 36 with a Hogue “Monogrip”. I had to change gripson it. While the factory grip with the added T - Grip made it look cool I had to readjust my grip every other shot. The Monogrip really helped my grip on the gun but also made it appear a bit “chunky”.

View attachment 885632

View attachment 885633

I like the grip so much I plan to put one on my 60 Pro and my 63.

Click to expand...

Fiv3r said:

This thread kinda piggybacks off the Big Bore Snubbie one from a couple of days ago, but it's just different enough I thought it might be worth a short discussion.

By "Chunky Snubbie" I mean a revolver less than 3" (or maybe equal to, as I find that a bit debatable but I'm not a hardliner on it. Being 3" may even make it "chunky" by definition) that goes against the grain and philosophy of what a snub nose excels at. Basically, being packable and concealable.

There are a few different ways they may do this. Maybe they shoehorn another round above what is normal for their frame size. Maybe the are chambered in a cartridge that just isn't usually married to a gun that compact. They, in theory, trade off the convenience of what a J frame offers and neuter the performance of a longer barrel. They are, as the title implies, neither fish nor fowl.

But dang it...I kinda adore them.

I see them as a compromise, as a gun with the corners cut enough that I will actually pack one around. I have had well over a dozen 4-4+" barreled revolvers and nearly all of them are gone. I dont keep range toys. If I will not carry a gun either in the streets or on the trail then it goes to the chopping block. I simply won't dress around 4" of barrel.

Conversely, my snub nose collection has grown with each purchase. Three Charter Arms, a couple of NAA minis as back ups, I think I still have a j frame airweight somewhere in the collection. However, my eye is drawn toward the unique, the disproportionate, the gargantuan for its class. Where it would be reasonable to concede that the trade offs are greater than the benefits, I see an advantage over the j frame worth the effort, be it energy or magnitude of firepower as I rarely pocket carry a revolver making the size of a j frame mostly moot on a belt.

The prime examples in my collection are my Charter Arms Pitbull in .45 acp that holds 5 rounds without the need of a moon clip and sports a 2.5" barrel. My other example is the 686+ I picked up yesterday. Nearly identical in dimensions to the Pitbull but holds 7 rounds of .357 and weighs nearly twice as much. I have also said that if I ever saw a .45 colt Bulldog XL in the wild, I would be all over it. I just really gravitate toward stubby guns.

As for the new 686+, it's kind of funny. I stopped in the LGS the other day to unload a couple of guns that I hadn't shot in a couple of years. I ended up getting a better trade on them than I was expecting. I was thinking about another Charter Undercover. However with my trade in value, I got the itch to replace my 4" 686 i sold off foolishly 10 years ago, and almost pulled the trigger on the one they had under the glass. Then i saw the 2.5" 686+ sitting next to it. They had it on special, so I opted to take a look at it. If felt identical to the 4" but just seemed to hang in my hand like an old friend. I dunno if it is the bigger cylinder and shorter barrel but it felt much more neutral than the 4" 686 or 66 I was eyeing.

So, an inch an a half shorter makes it so that it doesn't stick out under my shirt and it carries that "sneaky" 7th shot. Thumbing back the hammer or dry firing double action makes it feel just like my old lost friend. I had to take it home.

View attachment 885260
Group shot of the two big snubbies with my "always carry" Black Widow. New grips for the 686+ are coming tomorrow. I'm holster shopping today.

I have come to the conclusion that I AM a snubbie guy. I don't hunt. I dont shoot from a bench at 50 yards. I carry and I shoot at combat distances at the range. I walk in the woods in a part of the country where the extra oomph out of a longer barrel isn't needed. The convenience of a shorter barrel outweighs the lack of performance compared to its longer brethren. As long as they are heavy steel, I shoot a 2" snubbie just as well as a 4" at 10-15 yards.

So, what say you all? What is your stance on the Chunky Snubbie? Be it .357, .44, or some flavor of .45.

Click to expand...

Reinz said:

Pair of Colt DeFective Specials that are Not defective.

View attachment 886625

Click to expand...

F1 said:

Why do you call them "defective specials". That's the gun I originally carried on my job, the old model, made in the 1950's I think, blued, heavy, bulky, the hammer tore up my clothing until I filed it down, but very reliable and accurate too.

Click to expand...

Fiv3r said:

I usually like to pop on the smallest grips I can conceal on a carry revolver, but I think I may have changed my tune with these Pachmayr Renegade grips.
View attachment 886693

Slightly thicker than the stock rubber, they offer a full hand hold on the gun yet being smooth finished, my shirt doesn't stick to it so the revolver actually conceals better.

I tried a compact rubber Pachmayr grip early in the week, and they are just substandard. Plus, I'm not sure how much I would shoot full .357 with an exposed back strap. The Renegade grips fully cover the frame of the gun and fit about 97% well. There is a small gap about the width of two pieces of paper toward the hammer, but I dont think it will cause any issues.

I'm kinda glad I gave them a try. Amazon had a set that were "used" in as much as the package had been opened which I got for half price. Fair deal, I think.

Click to expand...

Reinz said:

I really like those grips! I have never seen them before. They remind me of the Eagle Grips “Secret Service” like on this 6 shot 32 HR J Frame below.

I wrote off Pachmeyer grips long ago because I can’t stand rubber grips on a gun. The extra grip given just doesn’t offset the fugliness for me. I will now look into them, thanks!

View attachment 886788

Click to expand...