An Optic on a Hammerless J-Frame?

[Old_Grouch]

I’d rather put a low profile laser grip on a j frame like that.

This makes more sense than an optic. At the close ranges that the gun is likely to be used the laser dot would be easily visible and the laser doesn't make the gun any harder to conceal.

 

[Lefty38-55]

The Pachmayr grip makes the 5-shot, .38 Spl., ccw-intended J frame as bulky as a 15+1 shot 9mm SA-35, a full sized Hi Power tribute.

Not really, or not as drastic as you photo shows.

Now these admitedly are NOT the large Pachmayr grips and the barrel of the model 60 is 1/4" longer than that of the Model 36, however your photo perspective of one placed atop the other really distorts the reality to a fair degree. That is a common error using photographs for comparisons. Note that the back of the slide and forward part of the Hi-Power barrel indeed are much larger/longer/wider overall than the J-Frame.

That's why personally, I love the true size-to-size comparison that Handgun Hero online offers.

 

[lee n. field]

I have to admit, I'm a bit conflicted on this one. I've grown to love optics (old eyes), but I just don't think they fit with the general ethos of a J-Frame, especially a hammerless one; those are guns you slip in your pocket.

I guess if you're a hard-core optic guy and a hard-core snubby guy this might make sense?

Shield Arms Revolver Optic Coversion


Larry

Ease of pocket carry is one of the big strengths of snubbys. You can't do that with this.

If you're going to have to belt carry, you might as well go with a bigger gun.

 

[Riomouse911]

Not really, or not as drastic as you photo shows.

Now these admitedly are NOT the large Pachmayr grips and the barrel of the model 60 is 1/4" longer than that of the Model 36, however your photo perspective of one placed atop the other really distorts the reality to a fair degree. That is a common error using photographs for comparisons. Note that the back of the slide and forward part of the Hi-Power barrel indeed are much larger/longer/wider overall than the J-Frame.

That's why personally, I love the true size-to-size comparison that Handgun Hero online offers.


View attachment 1248632


View attachment 1248633

No, it doesn’t.

You do not have the same grip I do on the exemplar provided, nor is the revolver above in your example wearing a 3” barrel.

I just took these again, with my guns, to reiterate my earlier point: adding an oversized grip to a 3” J frame to make it more shootable, makes it as large as a SA-35.
Muzzles in line, 36 on top:


Rear of grips in line, SA on top:


Rear of the grips are in line:


Other than putting them both in your hands to see for yourself, this is the best I can do via photos to compare these two apples.

As I posted before; the 3” J frame in the configuration I have is no more concealable than the full sized SA-35.

Like this Pachmayr grip, the optic mounted on the J frame in the OP’s post will affect the ease of concealing, and drawing from under a garment, the S&W Centennial revolver. Which is what that design is famous for, its easy concealment and no-snag draw.

Stay safe.

 

[Lefty38-55]

… I wudda thought one capable to envision a 3” barrel, ha.

Yeah … those are the SAME size ….. rrrrrrright, LOL!

So I’ll just agree to disagree with you, cheers!

 

[Styx]

Unless it's a full-sized competition or hunting revolver, they do not make any sense IMHO. If someone has vision issues, purchase a modern revolver that has replaceable sights. A large XS Big Dot tritium front night/day sight will be much easier to see than a small red dot. Those laser grips could be a big help as well.

But hey, if it gets the younger tacticool crowd more into revolvers, so be it. I reckon the not will be rails on J-frames so that you can add light attachments too. I just think it's blasphemous to put an optic on a nice classy all steel revolver, 1911, and the like.

 

[cfullgraf]

A number of posts ago, comments were made that a red dot sight would be interesting on a kit gun.

I might try one on my S&W Model 317 (3" barrel) or either my Model 30 or Model 31 (both 4" barrels) if they work on exposed hammer J-frames.

There are some versions of 38 caliber J-frames with 3" barrels.

They would make dandy kit guns.

 

[Riomouse911]

… I wudda thought one capable to envision a 3” barrel, ha.

Yeah … those are the SAME size ….. rrrrrrright, LOL!

So I’ll just agree to disagree with you, cheers!

Wow. Sorry, but apples to oranges comparisons aren’t worth anything. Neither are snarky comments. I responded to your comments with more pictures to alleviate your concerns, and you give back… this.

Here’s a solution to your doubts; go buy one of each, then add the Pachmayr grip like I have. Try it yourself, see just how similar in size and concealabity these two are as configured.

The point I was trying to make, that @lee n. field and several others clearly got, was adding the optic to the snub greatly detracts from the Centennial’s intended purpose; great concealment and ease of draw. It becomes larger and bulkier. For the effort, using another design (Hellcat,365 etc.) with an optic would be a better option than bastardizing the centennial.

I also have two hammerless S&W J frames, 642/442, and carried a 640 .38 in a pocket for several years. The design doesn’t lend itself to optics, there is no way I would buy another side plate to hang an optic (or the giant Pachmayr grip I put on that 3” 36) on such a revolver for ccw use.

Disagree all you want to about how similar in size these guns I used as examples are. I merely added pictures to demonstrate the point that you can alter these J frames from handy pocket guns to the size of full sized guns, like I did to my 36. Until you go out and see for yourself, it is certainly your prerogative to hold whatever opinion you choose. But please don’t insult others who may hold a different one, you’re better than that.

Sorry folks. Now, back to the thread.

 

[.38 Special]

I often carry a 340PD OWB under a coat. The size of the thing isn't really the issue. Rather, it is the weight which matters. On a bad back day, I really don't want any more weight on my belt than is absolutely necessary. The issue is that the tiny sight radius makes the gun very hard to hit with, and if we can address that without adding significant weight, it might actually make sense to do it - even if the first impression is kind of goofy.

 

[westernrover]

Lasers suck. Witness that no serious training program or school entertains them.
The reflex sight is great. Witness that many training schools have "red-dot" specific classes.
I've had j-frames, red and green lasers, and reflex sights.
The reflex sight addresses the biggest shortcoming of the j-frame -- the rear gutter sight with short sight radius.
It does not make sense to me to attempt to prescribe the distance at which use of force will be required.
Any handgun will fit in the pocket. I can put a Mk23 in mine. Why anyone would limit themselves to a j-frame beats me, but adding an optic to it certainly makes sense.

 

[luzyfuerza]

Lasers suck. Witness that no serious training program or school entertains them.

There is ONE practical use for a laser that I can think of. They amplify gun movement during a dry trigger press, and this can help new shooters who are working on improving their target focus and trigger press smoothness in their dry practice.

Other than this one use case, yea, lasers are pretty useless.

 

[SKILCZ]

I have to admit, I'm a bit conflicted on this one. I've grown to love optics (old eyes), but I just don't think they fit with the general ethos of a J-Frame, especially a hammerless one; those are guns you slip in your pocket.

I guess if you're a hard-core optic guy and a hard-core snubby guy this might make sense?

Shield Arms Revolver Optic Coversion


Larry

Interesting concept. I would try it on one and leave another without it and compare.

I'm a big fan of dots, and one of the biggest shortcomings (IMO) of a lot of J-frames is the sights. You can paint them to make them more visible, or you can buy something like a 640-1 with real sights, but a dot wins out for aging eyes, IMO. If your argument is that a J-frame is a pocket gun for bad breath distances and point shooting, then I would agree that the dot may not make much difference. However, if you have to make a shot at longer than bad breath distances, I could see a dot winning out. It would obviously impact the ability to pocket carry, however. Pros and cons, like everything else, but if I had a spare J-frame sitting around and money to burn, I'd throw an optic on one and see how I liked it.

 

[defjon]

I love j frames. I've argued up and down with the capacity kings on these boards for years.

Optics are silly on a j frame. One thing about j frames is that if you have a good model, they are capable of incredible practical accuracy.

in my experience they are reach a lot further out that other pocket class pistols (hellcats, ec9, p365).


It isn't an easy platform, but it's very rewarding if you put in the time and effort.

 

[DT Guy]

I always find it odd when folks talk about how a certain type of defensive firearm is for certain 'distances.' Unless you're carrying one gun for 0-5 feet, another for 6-30 feet and one more for 30+ feet, how's that work?

I have no idea how far away an attacker will be when I have to defend myself, and it won't matter what 'distance' my gun is 'intended' for, I'm going to need to shoot at whatever distance the ATTACKER chooses.

Now, if we were all assassins, this might make more sense-but I'm going to have to shoot back at somebody who picked the distance for me.

Larry

 

[conan32120]

I would have to wonder why a civilian in these united states would feel he had to shoot someone 30' away. I would think if that were to occur the legal issues would be overwhelming

 

[Rockrivr1]

There is ONE practical use for a laser that I can think of. They amplify gun movement during a dry trigger press, and this can help new shooters who are working on improving their target focus and trigger press smoothness in their dry practice.

Other than this one use case, yea, lasers are pretty useless.

Agree that they are useless. My 642 came with one and even with brand new batteries you cannot see the dot during day. Especially if its in sunlight. Complete waste.

 

[DT Guy]

I would have to wonder why a civilian in these united states would feel he had to shoot someone 30' away. I would think if that were to occur the legal issues would be overwhelming

And I would wonder why a civilian in these United States wouldn't try to defend himself against an attacker 30' away. If retreat or cover were available, I'd certainly use it; failing that, I don't think I feel compelled to be a bullet sponge for someone simply because they're beyond some arbitrary distance from me.

When you consider that 30' is less than the distance between the furthest ends of two parked cars in most situations, I'd be rather hesitant to simply sacrifice myself at the altar of hypothetical legal issues rather than try to survive.

Bad guys these days could be using handguns, braced 5.56 'pistols' or who knows what; all I'm ever going to have (unless they break into my house, in which case it's game on) is a handgun, so why on Earth would I not defend myself with it, regardless of the distance they attack me from?

The right to self defense doesn't magically disappear if the attacker is 31' away....

Larry

 

[GEM]

Look at the distance in a house of worship. Longer than 30 feet? Down a school or business corridor?

 

[chicharrones]

Lasers suck. Witness that no serious training program or school entertains them.
The reflex sight is great. Witness that many training schools have "red-dot" specific classes.
I've had j-frames, red and green lasers, and reflex sights.
The reflex sight addresses the biggest shortcoming of the j-frame -- the rear gutter sight with short sight radius.
It does not make sense to me to attempt to prescribe the distance at which use of force will be required.
Any handgun will fit in the pocket. I can put a Mk23 in mine. Why anyone would limit themselves to a j-frame beats me, but adding an optic to it certainly makes sense.

As pointed out long ago by someone here at THR, lasers are a poor choice for police or military due to no one knowing who’s dot is on a target. So training those people with lasers is useless.

For a single civilian concealed carry person with a pocket shooter, a laser grip (particularly on a fixed sight revolver) can make a good low light back up sight system that doesn’t add any girth to the gun.

 

[R_P_K]

With the double action trigger pull on a J-frame being so heavy I'm not sure that dancing dot is going to help as much as they think it will

 

[westernrover]

I would have to wonder why a civilian in these united states would feel he had to shoot someone 30' away. I would think if that were to occur the legal issues would be overwhelming

If they can hit me with their rifle, how are they too far away for me to have the option to respond with the use of lethal force?

 

[Pat Riot]

Well, these devices must be selling. They’re out of stock on the RMSc mount models.
They still have adapters available RMRcc models.
The price was a bit of a shocker at $150.

From their website these devices are only made for:

• Shield Arms has manufactured the R.O.C. that provides an optic mount specifically for Smith & Wesson® models 442, 642, 432, 43C, 351C.

Here’s the website again so you dont’t have to go searching.

Revolver Optic Conversion (R.O.C.)

The R.O.C. allows the mounting of a red-dot optic on a S&W J-frame revolver.

www.shieldarms.com

I could see myself putting one of these on my model 63…if they ever made a mount for that one.

 

[cfullgraf]

Well, these devices must be selling. They’re out of stock on the RMSc mount models.
They still have adapters available RMRcc models.
The price was a bit of a shocker at $150.

From their website these devices are only made for:

• Shield Arms has manufactured the R.O.C. that provides an optic mount specifically for Smith & Wesson® models 442, 642, 432, 43C, 351C.

Here’s the website again so you dont’t have to go searching.

Revolver Optic Conversion (R.O.C.)

The R.O.C. allows the mounting of a red-dot optic on a S&W J-frame revolver.

www.shieldarms.com

I could see myself putting one of these on my model 63…if they ever made a mount for that one.

I can see the red dot sight on a Centenial S&W Airweight defeats the pocket conceal ability of the Centennial format.

But, a red dot sighted kit gun has some merit for back woods operation. I’d be interested in a red dot sight on my 3” Model 317 or my 4” Model 63. Both eould be great at the back woods fishing camp or for critter control around our hobby horse farm.

I’m guessing that the hammerless side plate guns have a different bolt pattern as the hammer version. I need to compare a couple of my examples.

I have a 22LR Model 43C so it might be a good test bed while the manufacturer is designing a side plate for the DA/SA j-frame pistols. Assuming their “eyes are not bigger than their tummies” and they rush a crappy design into production.

 

[DT Guy]

I'd really like someone to make an analog to that Colt model for adjustable sight S&W revolvers; I think they're a much more appropriate platform for an optic, compared to a J-frame.

I'd like to see what my 686 SSR could do with a dot....


Larry