CCW J-Frame: 642, 638 or 637

[Hapworth]

I am not trying to argue and you are certainly entitled to carry whatever however you want, but perhaps you could provide an example where single-action might be feasible or preferred.

Uh, hello? To show the dude you got the drop on that YOU MEAN BUSINESS...

 

[opr1945]

If you are pointing your gun at someone, I suspect it makes little difference if it is cocked or not. However the likelyhood of an unintentional discharge goes way up if it is cocked in my opinion.

see post #7.

One time I had a Mississippi State Trooper turn and point his .357 revolver directly at me from about 40 feet. I suspect that it was not cocked, but I could not tell and it really did not make any difference to me. I knew he was all business. actually all I could see was the end of the muzzle. I don't have a clue what he looked like. And I am really glad he did not discharge his revolver either intentionally or unintentionally.

 

[Viper225]

In my quest for perfection, I sold my 638 a while back and replaced it with a 442 Pro Moonclip. I picked up a couple J Frame Moon Clip Carriers from TK for my reloads. I really like this one. It is a No Loc also.

My brother owns a 637, as well as an LCR-22. He likes his 637 just fine.

I currently own the 442 Pro and also an LCR-22. I have owned a 49, 649, SP101, LCR-357 and the 638. Depending on how you carry they all will work fine.

Pocket carry is where the list gets smaller. You need Light Weight PLUS No Snag.
That means 442/642 or 438/638 or LCR-38/LCR-357 are the top choices.

As you can see from me owning a 638, 49, and 649 at one point I thought I needed the ability to cock my J Frame. After years of shooting them, I never cock my J Frame anymore.
With the 442 Pro Moonclip I covered another base. I can Speed Reload this J Frame. With the California Competition Works J Frame Moon Clip Carriers I can carry my reloads where I can access them also. I still carry a Quick Strip in my pocket. It has 5 shotshells for a snake reload.

Bob

 

[CarlJ]

Viper how do you cary the moonclips? It seems just carrying in a pocket they might get bent. I am trying to figure out some way to carry a reload or two.

 

[MR.G]

I have owned and shot all three. All three are great guns but I sold the 642 and the 637. I like the 638 for pocket carry because the hammer is shrouded and you can still shoot it single or double action.

 

[chicharrones]

The M642 . . . has an action that is less exposed to debris . . .

Exactly. Covered/concealed hammer for the win if going spurless.

Popping a side plate off just to get the pocket lint out sucks.

At least with the open back autoloaders (P3AT, LCP, etc.) all you gotta do is take off the slide to clean out that open hammer slot. Yet, that sucks too.

 

[scotjute]

Went with the shrouded hammer for the option of single action firing.

 

[marcclarke]

So you feel the lack of the internal lock is more beneficial than the ability to fire in single action?

I hadn't thought about that aspect.

So take the lock out or disable it. $26 for "The Plug" to fill the hole if you remove the locking mechanism. Videos on YouTube for how to do it. Or grind off the locking flag. Or put red Loctite in the lock's keyway.

 

[marcclarke]

Exactly. Covered/concealed hammer for the win if going spurless.

Popping a side plate off just to get the pocket lint out sucks.

At least with the open back autoloaders (P3AT, LCP, etc.) all you gotta do is take off the slide to clean out that open hammer slot. Yet, that sucks too.

This is an often-repeated myth. My 638 does not accumulate any crud or lint inside the revolver. Just wipe the lint off of the outside of the hammer if it bothers you. It is a cosmetic issue only; not a functional issue.

 

[marcclarke]

I'm a little confused here. How does shooting SA add any additional liability on a good shoot than shooting DA?

It doesn't, unless you are a police officer.

 

[skoro]

My choice is the 642. Just about snag-proof when drawing from a pocket holster.

 

[marcclarke]

I'm a little confused here. How does shooting SA add any additional liability on a good shoot than shooting DA?

Clearly one must never use a single-action handgun for self-defense. A 1911? An HK P7M8? Both carried by various US law enforcement agencies? Whatever were they thinking? Don't they know that single-action handguns just go off all by themselves in stressful situations? And that they will be found liable?

This double-action only for self defense is the most poorly thought out crock I have ever heard.

Only a crappy, long, heavy, sight-alignment-disturbing trigger pull is suitable for self defense? Oh, come on.

 

[Hapworth]

This is an often-repeated myth. My 638 does not accumulate any crud or lint inside the revolver. Just wipe the lint off of the outside of the hammer if it bothers you. It is a cosmetic issue only; not a functional issue.

It's a myth because it's never happened to you?

The illusion of the central position.

 

[Hapworth]

Clearly one must never use a single-action handgun for self-defense.

Nobody's saying that -- only discussing the increased chances of accidental or negligent discharge in a high stress situation.

Nothing wrong with debating the points, except when you distort what others are saying, which is an unfortunate thing to do in an otherwise good discussion.

A 1911? An HK P7M8? Both carried by various US law enforcement agencies? Whatever were they thinking? Don't they know that single-action handguns just go off all by themselves in stressful situations? And that they will be found liable?

Sarcasm instead of discourse. Nice.

As noted previously, find the widely-used single action only law enforcement sidearm that's factory set to the pull poundage of a standard S&W revolver in single action.

And, again aforementioned, many departments were (and are) concerned about single action discharge liability; it's why several removed the single action capability during the revolver era, and why today many choose or require single action capable sidearms to have a double action first pull.

This double-action only for self defense is the most poorly thought out crock I have ever heard.

Presumably you hear many.

Only a crappy, long, heavy, sight-alignment-disturbing trigger pull is suitable for self defense? Oh, come on.

Because these are the only choices? A three pound or less single action pull or the terrible double action of your description?

There's quite a bit of room in between extremes, for those inclined to think that way...

 

[dubya450]

Of the three I prefer the 637 because I like the exposed hammer and ability to fire single action if i want. That being said, the only j frame I own is a M&P 360. BTW I know theres a way to remove and plug the lock, is it easy enough to do myself? Or would I need to send it somewhere?

 

[chicharrones]

This is an often-repeated myth. My 638 does not accumulate any crud or lint inside the revolver. Just wipe the lint off of the outside of the hammer if it bothers you. It is a cosmetic issue only; not a functional issue.

Not a myth if it happens in real life. It happens to my pocket carried revolver which I carry 200 or so days a year, only to be spared pocket time by carrying an autoloader on the other days during a year.

I don't have to pop off the side plate each time I clean my revolver, but I do pop it off about once per year. Lint and grit get past the hammer and into the gun. Maybe it is just my pockets and my luck.