.357 v. 9mm

Status
Not open for further replies.
SP101

Following a transitory obsession, I looked up the weights of the Ruger SP101 and the weights of a couple of Smith & Wesson J-frames. the SP101 is the heavier revolver; in my experience a good thing for reducing felt recoil.

Tom
 
tgfang said:
Following a transitory obsession, I looked up the weights of the Ruger SP101 and the weights of a couple of Smith & Wesson J-frames. the SP101 is the heavier revolver; in my experience a good thing for reducing felt recoil.
Good point, Tom. The 3" SP101 = 28 oz; the SW642 (2") is 15 oz.

Surefire, point taken about carrying the SP101 3". But given the above difference between the 101 & 642, the latter would be much easier to carry.

Yes, the latter is a .38, but I'm not interested in a .357 that weighs less than about 20 oz. (I'm reading horror stories about shooting the mag loads in the lightweight Smiths. :uhoh: No thanks.

What I'm doing now is carefully rethinking why I'm interested in a wheel gun. Is it going to become my primary carry gun? If so, then small & light could be good. Why, that 642 is even lighter than my K9. (The latter is 23 oz without the magazine.) The SW 640, that handles .357, is almost as heavy as my K9, so no weight advantage there for carry.

Is it going to be a general purpose "camp" gun, and something substantial enough for "serious" protection against invading hords, but not an everyday carry? If so, maybe I'll still continue to consider an SP101, GP100, 686 or something similar.

This continues to be an interesting exercise in sorting out exactly what I would do with another handgun (in addition to my K9), and how bad I really need it (relative to something else, like another rifle). Unlike some of you folks, I've got limited resources for guns.

Nem
 
MY .02

here you go...

SP101 in .357 with 3" tube for carry
GP100 in .357 with 3" tube for not every day carry
GP100 Combat in .357 with 4" tube, adj site and smaller grip frame from the 3" verision for HD, range
 
If I understand this correctly....and I could be wrong here.... the moon/stellar clips are only needed for ejecting the spent cases. ( You could still poke the individual cases out with a pencil or something, if you needed to. You just couldn't do it all at once, with the gun's ejector, without the clips. )

Meaning that the cartridge still headspaces on the case mouth, and is therefor held firmly in place for firing, with or without the clips being in place.
( Rimmed cartridges space off the rim, rimless ones space off the case mouth )

Anybody out there that can confirm or deny this?


J.C.
 
Taurus 905 & SW 642: a report

So today, while out on business errands, as I was driving by my local gun shop, a powerful tractor beam grabbed my truck and forced it into the parking lot. (I forgot my tinfoil hat, so the beam was effective. Darned aliens. :D )

So, as long as I was forced in there, I decided to go in and investigate the Taurus 905 & the SW 642. (While there, I ordered a CZ 452 Style in .22LR (synth stock, nickel barrel/receiver), but that's a different thread).

The 905 is indeed, very sweet. Great size, fits my hand well. The folks in the shop praised it. Said they've sold several, with no complaints.

I asked about the alleged problem with "moonclips" being a bit flimsy. Yes, they said, perhaps, but they favored a different type of quick load system anyway: something by Galco that was a linear, rubber strip. Two for $7. They claim that they're almost as quick as a speedloader. (Yeah, we'll see another time.)

But the action of the 905 was quite smooth. {Not as smooth as the SW [see below], but smooth.} The price was right at $329. I could live with it. Actually, kind of appealing.

However, I noticed that its weight is very comparable to my K9 at 22 oz. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but as I reconsider this whole question, I'm thinking more and more that maybe what I wanted is a lighter weight (than my K9) carry gun.

Honestly, all the talk of recoil, noise levels, rings in the cylinder, etc has sort of soured me a bit on .357. Even the guys in the store said, "If you're looking for SD against humans, .357 may be a bit overkill." They characterized it as more of a 'range gun' or suitable for defense against large animals (like up in Cosmoline's neighborhood).

And, speaking only for myself, I've come to think that even the smaller SP101 just feels too large for carry. And as for studio defense, my 870P will be here shortly, and is a whole 3-5 dbl quieter :rolleyes: than a .357 with a LOT more power.

So, next I looked at the SW 642.

SSSSSWWWWWEEEEEEEEEETTTTTTT!!!!

At 15 oz, it's light as a pea shooter.
Admittedly, next to a .357 it IS a pea shooter.

Small. Even tiny. Good feeling. Fits my hand well, even if my little finger has to fold under the grip.
Still, that makes it small. I can live with it.

Action smooth as glass. Cylinder opens smoothly.

I tried it out in my pocket, both my Carhartt vest & my BDU's. Smooth fit with and without a synthetic fabric pocket holster.

I thought to myself, "Self, I can see you carrying this out way more regularly than the K9, let alone a .357. Leave it by the truck keys. Pick up the truck keys, throw the 642 into the pocket, and off to the {choose one or more} grocery, bookstore, discussion seminar, hardware, Saturday hike...

Price: $389.

I felt good about myself, thanks to what I've learned on THR, that I was able to correct one store employee who contended that the .38 spl +p ranks even with the 9mm.

"No it doesn't", I objected.

He goes to get a Remington catalog listing velocities for Golden Saber ammo.

"Well, you're right", says he. "9 mm is about 150 fps faster than the .38 spl +p."

With confidence I smiled.

Still, even given that, I like that little 642.

They claim it is THE best selling pistol in the store. For every other pistol, they keep one in stock. For the 642, they keep 2-4 in stock, and still sell out of them.

I was proud that I walked out without it, however.

Still waffling a bit. Think I'll sleep on it for a few more days...or weeks.

Nem
 
Last edited:
Nematocyst-870 said:
.....
I asked about the alleged problem with "moonclips" being a bit flimsy. Yes, they said, perhaps, but they favored a different type of quick load system anyway: something by Galco that was a linear, rubber strip. Two for $7. They claim that they're almost as quick as a speedloader. (Yeah, we'll see another time.)
......

Nem

Nem, the speed strips aren't applicable to a revolver that uses rimless ammo, like a 9mm or .45 acp.... There's no rim there for the strip to grab on to and hold.

Which is the whole point in the moon/stellar clips; they give the revolver something to eject the cases by.

So, the gunshop folks were blowing smoke up your backside when they suggested that speed strips were better than moon, half-moon, or "stellar" clips for an auto pistol-caliber revolver. 'Cause it just ain't so.


J.C.
 
Jamie C. said:
Nem, the speed strips aren't applicable to a revolver that uses rimless ammo, like a 9mm or .45 acp.... There's no rim there for the strip to grab on to and hold.J.C.
J.C., that could be my bad.

I think they had the speed strips loaded with .38 spl. Perhaps I was too vague, and even incorrect to suggest that they implied the strips would work with 9 mm. (We didn't talk about them with .45.)

I got a lot of info today, on top of too many irons in my fire this week. Haven't had a 'real' day off in weeks, what with the move and all.

Thanks for the clarification. I understand your point.

Nem
 
I had a S&W 940 with the moonclips and I have carried 6 rounds of 9mm in a speed strip. The problem with that is the reload after loading from the speed strip is done with a pencil or other dowel to push out the empties. I carry a loose moonclip in my pocket loaded with 5 rounds of Speer golddots for my 9/642, but I could use a speed strip. Moonclips make for very fast reloads. Get the 642 and a few Hk speed loaders, shoot it and have fun.
 
Brian, are the speed strips you use specifically designed for 9mm?
I can see where one could be designed to work with rimless cases.... I just didn't know anybody had bothered.

If they aren't, what caliber are they for, and do you have any trouble with the rounds falling out due to the strip being jostled around?

Either way, I stand (or sit, as it were ;) ) corrected. :eek:

Oh, and thanks for confirming that 9mm revolvers ( S&W revolvers, anyway... can't imagine Taurus being much different, although it is possible... ) will indeed work without clips, even if ejecting spent cases does become a bit more complicated.



J.C.
 
Nema, if you have ruled out the SP-101 due to size and weight, and you are looking for something for pocket carry, you could do much, much worse than a S&W 642. And $ 389 is not a bad price for one. Get one of those, and the latest flavor of the month in .38, the Speer Gold Dot .38+p in 135 grain JHP, and you will be good to go.

PS: I forgot to mention: if you buy a S&W or Taurus revolver, resist, resist, resist the temptation to take off the sideplate and 'look around inside'. There is a legion of stories about people who did this and chewed up the screws, bent the sideplates and lost tiny yet vital parts from the interior lockwork. Please do not do this unless you have the proper tools and shop manuals. Many a gunsmith has earned lots of money from people who tried this and subsequently brought the gunsmith a bag of parts to reassemble. If you are worried about cleaning the interior of the lockwork of a S&W 640/642 or Taurus 850/650/851/651, here is what I do:
  • Remove the grips
  • Using your favorite gun cleaner spray with a straw attached, put the straw up through the bottom of the frame and hose out the lockwork to remove any grit, dirt or congealed lubricant. Dry fire the action and allow the spray to drain out. I shake the revolver vigorously while draining it.
  • I then take some Breakfree CLP spray with a straw attached, and again hose out the lockwork and dry fire the action about 50 times or so. I then prop the revolver upright muzzle down on a piece of newspaper and allow the remaining lubricant to drain out.
  • Dry fire the action another 100 times or so
  • Replace the grips

This method does a fine job of cleaning and lubing the lockwork without the risk of damage. If you want to go further than this, as an example to hone the lockwork, this should be done by a competent gunsmith.
 
Brian & Millcreek, thanks for the nudge on the 642. I woke up thinking about it this morning. (Which could be a bad sign, because I usually wake up thinking about women... :uhoh: ).

I'm so strongly leaning towards that little gun...

MillCreek said:
PS: I forgot to mention: if you buy a S&W or Taurus revolver, resist, resist, resist the temptation to take off the sideplate and 'look around inside'. <snippage> If you are worried about cleaning the interior of the lockwork of a S&W 640/642 or Taurus 850/650/851/651, here is what I do: ... <snip>
Good point, MC, thanks for the heads up.

Guess I hadn't even thought about cleaning that gun with the concealed hammer; now that I think of it, yes, I can see it would present some unique challenges. Your method sounds quite workable.

Nem
 
N-870;

Sorry to be a killjoy, but I think you're going the wrong direction in looking at a Smith 642. I have one, and carry it as a backup. It's a fantastic revolver.

However, I think it defeats your original reasons for wanting a revolver. (Disregard if you've changed your reasons. This is a free country, change your opinion as often as possible and make your buying decisions) You basically want a bedside pistol that will allow broader ammo availability in case of shortage. Implicit in your reasoning is shootability for general range use.

Many new handgun shooters gravitate to small pocket revolvers for the cool factor. The sacrifice all other considerations to minimize size and weight. They're kind of like rapiers, so specialized in what they do, they're almost useless for other things.

In fact, snubbies are not very easy pistols to shoot and not very fun at the range. Also, they are only adequate bedside guns because they're difficult to shoot accurately. Before any jumps on my case about the relative effectiveness of a snubby for a house gun, I think we can all agree that a 4 inch full sized revolver is easier to handle. The prime reason for a snubby is pocket concealability. Absent that need (you have a Kahr), a full sized gun is better for all around use.

A full sized pistol is easier to shoot, and more fun at the range. The more you shoot, the better you will become. A .357 has more ammo options than a .38 spl.

There's been a lot of talk about relative recoil and noise of these pistols. Absent Buffalo Bore 180 or 200 grain loads, the average .357 loads are easily handled by most police recruits. You current shooting interest shows me that you would place in the top 30% of police recruits in shooting ability. You will have no issue handling a .357 at the range and otherwise. Plus, should you desire, you can shoot .38 spl in it. I would recommend a 4 inch gun for your uses.

As for the noise, I assume that you wear ear protection when shooting. Hearing protectors will protect you from the noise and blast of the .357. Yes, there is difference, but not uncomfortable on an indoor range. If you ever need to shoot the pistol without hearing protection, I assume it will be in an exigent circumstance, and you will be grateful for the extra power of the .357, even if it's just a warning shot to scare off a sleepy black bear.

A .38 spl revolver might be a good idea, but I would definitely buy a used one for the cost savings. A 4 inch Smith model 10 is an excellent choice, but I think it's worth an extra $50 and get an adjustable sighted model 15. Again, the shootability at the range and in your house, should you need it, will allow you to work on your handgun skills. A snubby will be difficult to shoot alot and become proficient.

-John
 
John C said:
The prime reason for a snubby is pocket concealability. Absent that need (you have a Kahr), a full sized gun is better for all around use.

Well, his kahr is a k9, not a pm9/mk9.

But I agree that where the snubby shines, is pocket concealability. Has taken a tangent from optimizing all around use.
 
John C said:
Sorry to be a killjoy, but I think you're going the wrong direction in looking at a Smith 642.
John, thanks for your ideas. Don't worry about being a 'killjoy'. My life is so good right now, I doubt that killing my joy is possible.

I may or may not take your advice, but all advice is useful to me in thinking through this issue.

However, I think it defeats your original reasons for wanting a revolver. (Disregard if you've changed your reasons. This is a free country, change your opinion as often as possible and make your buying decisions)
Hey thanks for that re-enforcement. This has been a long decision process. Glad to know others understand and support it.

You basically want a bedside pistol that will allow broader ammo availability in case of shortage. Implicit in your reasoning is shootability for general range use...Before any jumps on my case about the relative effectiveness of a snubby for a house gun, I think we can all agree that a 4 inch full sized revolver is easier to handle. The prime reason for a snubby is pocket concealability. Absent that need (you have a Kahr), a full sized gun is better for all around use.
Indeed, when I started this thread, I was thinking of a .357 for a 'bedside' weapon.

But as JLH correctly pointed out, I own a K9, which I consider to be my main handgun now. (It's 18" to the right of my mouse as I write this.) At this point, I'm looking more to buy a lighter weight carry piece that will be more convenient for EDC than the K9. The latter requires a holster, and I will carry it when on extended road or camping trips, and around the studio (I work nights, often with the bay door partially up on hot summer nights).

But for that quick dodge out to the grocery, or coffee shop, or a favorite cafe, I'd rather stick something smaller in my pocket than put on the holster.

AND, i've ordered my 870P. (FINALLY! It's on the way!!!). It, loaded with some 00 or #1 buck, will be my bedside weapon. (My studio has three layers of locked doors, the last of which is upstairs. I'm a light sleeper. Ain't no way I won't hear some drug-crazed idiot trying to break in.)

{Please remove ski mask when entering after business hours. :evil: }

So now, I've moved to thinking of getting a revolver for SD carry.

I looked at some lighter weight .357's (esp the SP101) and 9 mm (Taurus 905). Great guns both.

But right now, I'm liking the 642 a bunch. (Heaps. Very much. Probably going to buy one this week.)

As for the noise, I assume that you wear ear protection when shooting.
At the range, of course. My concern is more if I ever have to fire said weapon 'at home' (in the studio).

I do plan to leave a set of ear protectors near the 870P, just in case, but if I hear something going 'bump' in the night, why do i think I won't put on the ear protectors?

The 870 is only 3db quieter than the .357, but that's a LOT, given that the dbl scale is logarithmic.

A snubby will be difficult to shoot alot and become proficient.
I heard that. Fully understood.

Found this great essay about becoming proficient with a snubby as a result of some THR thread. (This one? Can't remember. So many great threads here. We're weaving a fabric of many threads. THR rules.)

Again, thanks for your thoughts, John.

Regards,

Nem
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top