Concealing a snub-nose vs. sub-compact
- Thread starter Skribs
- Start date
- Status
bhk
Member
I pocket carry both small semi-autos (Kahr p380 and a Kahr PM40) and a SW642 revolver. In jeans, the revolver is less recognizable as a firearm than either of the autos. The autos may be flatter, but even in good holsters they still appear to look more like a firearm to the semi-trained eye. Hard for some to believe, but it is true. A pocket with a revolver in it definitely looks like a pocket with something in it, but a firearm doesn't doesn't come to mind for the average observer.
bikerdoc
Moderator In Memoriam
Salty said,
I agree. For me now a Smith snub, or a CZ compact, fit the bill.
silversport
Member
unless your Smith is an Airweight...or Scandium...or Titanium...then the comparison changes quite a bit...as well as their loaded weight...(more bullets should weigh more shouldn't they???)
Bill
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
For the slight difference in weight and bulk, Ill take the added ammo capacity, and the overall better shootability and versatility of the 26 over the snubbies any day.
The problem when you compare paper specs and dimensions (same goes for ballistics too for that matter), youre not getting the full or true picture, just numbers. More often than not, the difference in the "numbers" is really meaningless in the real world. They look good on paper for someone trying to push their point though.
The only real way to know if one will work better for you, is to actually use both for a reasonable amount of time to make a reasonable decision. You have to carry and shoot the guns, and shoot them from how youre carrying them too, to make a decision. There really is no other way. Whats good for you, may not be for me when I actually give your way a try.
I carried and shot lightweight snubbies a lot longer than Ive owned Glock 26's, but I pretty much instantly shot the 26's better than the snubbies I have a lot more experience with.
Since I carry both in the same basic holsters and places, I can make a realistic comparison between them. I havent found the little extra bulk and weight of the 26 to make one iota of a difference in carrying one. The real difference comes once the gun is drawn and shot.
The problem when you compare paper specs and dimensions (same goes for ballistics too for that matter), youre not getting the full or true picture, just numbers. More often than not, the difference in the "numbers" is really meaningless in the real world. They look good on paper for someone trying to push their point though.
The only real way to know if one will work better for you, is to actually use both for a reasonable amount of time to make a reasonable decision. You have to carry and shoot the guns, and shoot them from how youre carrying them too, to make a decision. There really is no other way. Whats good for you, may not be for me when I actually give your way a try.
I carried and shot lightweight snubbies a lot longer than Ive owned Glock 26's, but I pretty much instantly shot the 26's better than the snubbies I have a lot more experience with.
Since I carry both in the same basic holsters and places, I can make a realistic comparison between them. I havent found the little extra bulk and weight of the 26 to make one iota of a difference in carrying one. The real difference comes once the gun is drawn and shot.
hardluk1
member
And the other 20% is way wider than most any small light weight semi-auto. Looking at 14oz pistol and a 14oz revolver the size is very compairable with the thinner overall is the semi-auto. Now compared to a 9mm pistol you can get a lighter 38 or 357 with a couple s&w but boy are they costly and with a +p 38 they will get your attention when shooting and the 357!! Just ain't funn to shot. I carried 21 oz revolver for 20 years , Stil have a 13oz revolver but darn near never carried it and gave it to a family member. I have been way more comfortible carry'n a small 9mm then a revolver in a pocket ir IWB. Just simply thinner over all and can keep the weight as low as all but s&w's scadium models.
carbuncle
Member
I've had semi autos and revolvers: all I can contribute to the discussion is that I carried my Taurus 85 (.38 snubby, steel frame with standard hammer) for a couple of years in an Uncle Mike's clamshell and it concealed as well or better than any gun I had carried up to that point (3 full-size service 9mms and one .40, G30 & G26). Subsequently, my BG 380 conceals better now but of the two the edge on caliber goes to the .38 while my PPS .40 wins hands down on weight, caliber and ease of reload. The PPS pretty much disappears in any carry format I've tried so far, it's my current EDC.
I actually have a 442 on my wish list because I really like the .38 snubby format, for me it worked great in the past and i can think of several contexts where I'd have a use for it again.
I actually have a 442 on my wish list because I really like the .38 snubby format, for me it worked great in the past and i can think of several contexts where I'd have a use for it again.
gbran
Member
My 3 small guns
The Kahr PM9 is the easiest to conceal. The Airweight is next and the Glock G26 is the biggest of the 3, but has a 10+1 capacity. It is close, but not quite pocket carry, unless you use cargo pants or bigger pockets.
[/IMG]
The Kahr PM9 is the easiest to conceal. The Airweight is next and the Glock G26 is the biggest of the 3, but has a 10+1 capacity. It is close, but not quite pocket carry, unless you use cargo pants or bigger pockets.
Maple_City_Woodsman
Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 430
Even one of the thicker glocks is still slimmer than a 5 shot J-frame.
harmon rabb
Member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2009
- Messages
- 2,699
we talking IWB carry? if so...
with a snub, the thickest part of the gun is the cylinder, and that's usually riding BELOW your belt line. with a semi-auto, the thickest part of the gun is usually the grip, and that's riding ABOVE your belt line.
also, the curvy shapes of a snub tend to look like natural folds of your shirt when the snub prints, so often printing doesn't actually look like printing. the butt of a semi-uto looks like the butt of a semi-auto when it prints. no way around that. because of this, i note that when carry my sp101, i have to pay much less attention in my shirt selection than i do when carrying my EMP.
and note, i carry a semi-auto 99% of the time.
now, if we're talking about pocket carry, the roles are reversed. snubs stink for pocket carry compared to flatter, more compact semi-autos. a kahr pm9 is easier to conceal in a pocket than a j-frame... and that gives you 7 rounds of 9mm vs. 5 rounds of 38spl.
with a snub, the thickest part of the gun is the cylinder, and that's usually riding BELOW your belt line. with a semi-auto, the thickest part of the gun is usually the grip, and that's riding ABOVE your belt line.
also, the curvy shapes of a snub tend to look like natural folds of your shirt when the snub prints, so often printing doesn't actually look like printing. the butt of a semi-uto looks like the butt of a semi-auto when it prints. no way around that. because of this, i note that when carry my sp101, i have to pay much less attention in my shirt selection than i do when carrying my EMP.
and note, i carry a semi-auto 99% of the time.
now, if we're talking about pocket carry, the roles are reversed. snubs stink for pocket carry compared to flatter, more compact semi-autos. a kahr pm9 is easier to conceal in a pocket than a j-frame... and that gives you 7 rounds of 9mm vs. 5 rounds of 38spl.
mdauben
Member
Revolver = small, roundish, indestinct lump under your clothing
Auto = small, gun-shaped lump under your clothing.
Not saying that revolvers are always supperior to similar sized autos when it comes to concealment, just that there is more to it than just the width at the widest point of the gun.
No XD or Glock is truly sub-compact, in my opinion. Chopped, yes, but still wide, and with slides that protrude to the rear, proportionately more than with revolver frames, particularly so when the revolver has a spurless hammer. I explained this in more detail in the similar-subject thread you started in the revolver section.
I can hide length inside my pants, or with a long cover garment, outside the pants. I can hide grip length under the drape of the cover garment. That darn protruding rear of a striker-fired pistol's slide tends to poke out at the worst place possible. I call that a "Glock bump" because as my colleagues started switching to Glocks in large numbers, I could tell without asking what was under their shirts. (Really, now, how many folks wear their mobile phones canted at the 15-degree angle of the FBI cant?)
Width is width, and autos are generally wide all over. A revolver is only wide
at the cylinder.
This does mean I only carry revolvers. It just means revolvers are simpler for me to conceal than some autos.
I can hide length inside my pants, or with a long cover garment, outside the pants. I can hide grip length under the drape of the cover garment. That darn protruding rear of a striker-fired pistol's slide tends to poke out at the worst place possible. I call that a "Glock bump" because as my colleagues started switching to Glocks in large numbers, I could tell without asking what was under their shirts. (Really, now, how many folks wear their mobile phones canted at the 15-degree angle of the FBI cant?)
Width is width, and autos are generally wide all over. A revolver is only wide
at the cylinder.
This does mean I only carry revolvers. It just means revolvers are simpler for me to conceal than some autos.
TexasBill
Member
My S&W M637 is 1.3 inches wide across the cylinder. The next-widest point is across the grips, which is 1.1 inches. A Glock 26 is 1.18 inches wide. We're talking an eighth of an inch difference which doesn't mean much one way or the other.
My 637 fits in the front pocket of my jeans. It's in there with some other items (not keys or coins) and it is pretty hard to make out as a handgun. It's easy to conceal in an IWB holster.
Skribs, if you're going for .357 Magnum, don't go for the LCR or the lightweight Smiths. Get the Ruger SP101 or the Smith Model 60. Snubbies require a fair amount of practice to be good defensive guns and firing Magnums through an ultralite can be a painful experience. Sure, you'll do most of your practice with .38 Specials, but if you're going to carry Magnums, you need to have some practice with them, too.
You can save yourself some money and get the LCR chambered for .38 +P and do just about as well as you can with the hotter loads.
My 637 fits in the front pocket of my jeans. It's in there with some other items (not keys or coins) and it is pretty hard to make out as a handgun. It's easy to conceal in an IWB holster.
Skribs, if you're going for .357 Magnum, don't go for the LCR or the lightweight Smiths. Get the Ruger SP101 or the Smith Model 60. Snubbies require a fair amount of practice to be good defensive guns and firing Magnums through an ultralite can be a painful experience. Sure, you'll do most of your practice with .38 Specials, but if you're going to carry Magnums, you need to have some practice with them, too.
You can save yourself some money and get the LCR chambered for .38 +P and do just about as well as you can with the hotter loads.
I don't really like to carry any guns IWB. It's just not a comfortable option for me. In the warmer months, if I need an invisible gun I stick with the LCP. It just disappears in my pocket.
In the cooler months, I tend to keep a .38 LCR in my jacket pocket in a pocket holster. I have an OWB holster if I want to pack it around, but if i'm going OWB, I might as well pack a bigger gun.
I really like my LCR. I actually don't shoot it quite as well as my LCP. However, the trigger on the LCR is ridiculously nice out of the box. Just a really well made snub nose revolver at a great price.
In the cooler months, I tend to keep a .38 LCR in my jacket pocket in a pocket holster. I have an OWB holster if I want to pack it around, but if i'm going OWB, I might as well pack a bigger gun.
I really like my LCR. I actually don't shoot it quite as well as my LCP. However, the trigger on the LCR is ridiculously nice out of the box. Just a really well made snub nose revolver at a great price.
I carry a 340pd IWB and pocket holster. Empty 12.5 oz Great gun. Jeans carry no problem. The handle helps break up the lines a semi auto shown in the same pair of pants. That being said I just ordered a Kahr PM9 for my IWB carry. Empty 14 oz. The semi auto lays flatter on my body that the revolver. In either case I feel the secret is in the holster. If you thought the gun costs a lot of money wait until you get into the holster world. Now, I have given you an excuse for buying both, or scared you into buying an ASP?
451 Detonics
Member
If you are planning on pocket carry I have found the revolver, particularly the 442/642 style with their sloped frame draw much easier than the square of the semi-auto. In a jacket pocket the hammerless revolver also has the edge.
beatledog7
Member
I've never CCW'd a semi-auto; I have only carried a semi-auto when in uniform. I am currently researching a subcompact semi-auto for CCW, but until I find one that feeds and cycles as reliably, conceals as well, and draws as cleanly as my 642, I'll stick with the latter.
I've carried j-frames, lightweight j-frames and many different sub-compact 380 and 9mm semi-autos in my pocket.
Of all of them, the j-frames hide a little better simply because of their rounded shape. Of course, you have the tiny 380s like the Keltec P3AT, Ruger LCP, and Kahr P380 that hide better than the j-frames because they're just so thin and small.
The gun I prefer to carry though, that's in my pocket right now, is a Kahr PM40. I prefer it, not because it's the easiest to conceal but because it's easier to shoot, carries a bigger heavier bullet, and uses magazines that are faster, easier and more reliable than speed loaders or speed strips to load.
The PM40 is only a tad bit larger and heavier than the PM9 I carried before it and they both hide well enough in the pocket to not have to worry about it.
Of all of them, the j-frames hide a little better simply because of their rounded shape. Of course, you have the tiny 380s like the Keltec P3AT, Ruger LCP, and Kahr P380 that hide better than the j-frames because they're just so thin and small.
The gun I prefer to carry though, that's in my pocket right now, is a Kahr PM40. I prefer it, not because it's the easiest to conceal but because it's easier to shoot, carries a bigger heavier bullet, and uses magazines that are faster, easier and more reliable than speed loaders or speed strips to load.
The PM40 is only a tad bit larger and heavier than the PM9 I carried before it and they both hide well enough in the pocket to not have to worry about it.
I pocket carry pretty much 100% of the time.
It's comfortable and I don't need to change what I wear to carry.
http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/9651/dscf00862.jpg
I think a revolver might be a little bulky in the pocket (for me).
Never could get the hand of IWB carry, guess I just haven't done it enough.
It's comfortable and I don't need to change what I wear to carry.
http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/9651/dscf00862.jpg
I think a revolver might be a little bulky in the pocket (for me).
Never could get the hand of IWB carry, guess I just haven't done it enough.
fastbolt
Member
I'd post some of my comparison pictures again, including a 642-1 & G26, but pictures can be deceiving in some ways.
How the actual firearms slip into and out of the mouths of real pockets in various garments (slacks, jeans, shorts, jackets, coats, etc), and how they sit and hang inside those pockets (in pocket holsters), is much more telling and relevant.
Then there's the body shape of the wearer to take into consideration.
In my case, changing brands and cuts of different slacks & pants has a very noticeable effect on whether I'm able to safely, practically & effectively (and comfortably) pocket carry one of my smaller pistols or a S&W J-frame.
As has been said elsewhere, the square & blocky profile of a G26/27 does look like a brick inside one of my slacks pockets. Even setting that aside, I've experienced that they won't easily (or in some cases, at all) slip into my jeans pockets. My cargo shorts and many jackets & coats will work for the diminutive Glocks ... but my J frames, and my CS9, are much less obtrusive and easy to spot. The little Glocks are noticeably heavier than my Airweights, too. Even heavier than my 649, for that matter. They kind of remind me of when I used to carry my SP101 holstered, in a vest pocket.
The revolver cylinder is much better positioned along the length of the gun to make it seem easier to practically conceal, even in the tight pockets of some of my tighter jeans. The grip is easier to reach in and grab, being slimmer at the rear, as well as move it up & out of the mouth of the pocket while tightly grasping it with my hand. Not something I can do with my little Glocks in those pants.
Weight? The Airweights (and Airlites) have an advantage. This advantage can easily become a disadvantage when live-fire is involved, though.
Choose your level of acceptable compromise carefully and well, for your anticipated and perceived needs, as well as your clothing and your level of skills. This isn't a one-size-fits-all sort of issue, I'd think.
The J's, especially the Airweights & Airlites, are easy to carry ... but can be harder to shoot, and that's probably somewhat of an over-simplification.
I prefer my J's when it comes to pocket carry in pants & shorts.
I prefer the little Glocks (SW999c, CS9, etc) when it comes to those situations when I want to either carry "more" gun, and don't mind the extra weight of gun & magazine(s) in jacket/coat pockets ... or when I want to carry a belt-holstered weapon.
I've often felt that many folks who found it "more convenient" to carry a little J-frame couldn't shoot it nearly as well as they could a subcompact Glock (or other compact/subcompact pistol). That being the case, how well were they really served when carrying a dedicated defensive weapon which they might not be able to shoot well under ordinary range conditions, let alone under the conditions which may occur in an actual shooting situation?
I've invested a lot of time carrying & shooting revolvers over the years, and I've worked hard to refine my revolver skills because of the several J-frames and SP101 I own. I can shoot them well enough that I increasingly relied upon them for off-duty, and now retirement usage ... but I wouldn't have wished to have carried a 5-shot DAO revolver as a primary duty weapon when I was working, actively involved in working cases and being sent hither and yon to active crime scenes.
This is one of those individual decisions that is easier to make when the individual carefully considers their own level of knowledge, training, practice & experienced ... their own anticipated situations and circumstances in which they feel they might require to actually use the weapon ... tempered by their experience and some common sense when it comes to risk assessment.
I don't make these sorts of decisions for anyone other than myself, and I've always looked at them as being affected by any number of variables, even for myself. I may have given myself over to carrying issued compact pistols for the several years leading up to my retirement, meaning I found the compacts better suited to my plainclothes assignment, and even acceptable when pressed into use for a uniform gunbelt ... but I didn't make that choice for anyone else. That remained for them to do.
What works best for you, in your daily life and activities, considering your skills?
Not my call.
How the actual firearms slip into and out of the mouths of real pockets in various garments (slacks, jeans, shorts, jackets, coats, etc), and how they sit and hang inside those pockets (in pocket holsters), is much more telling and relevant.
Then there's the body shape of the wearer to take into consideration.
In my case, changing brands and cuts of different slacks & pants has a very noticeable effect on whether I'm able to safely, practically & effectively (and comfortably) pocket carry one of my smaller pistols or a S&W J-frame.
As has been said elsewhere, the square & blocky profile of a G26/27 does look like a brick inside one of my slacks pockets. Even setting that aside, I've experienced that they won't easily (or in some cases, at all) slip into my jeans pockets. My cargo shorts and many jackets & coats will work for the diminutive Glocks ... but my J frames, and my CS9, are much less obtrusive and easy to spot. The little Glocks are noticeably heavier than my Airweights, too. Even heavier than my 649, for that matter. They kind of remind me of when I used to carry my SP101 holstered, in a vest pocket.
The revolver cylinder is much better positioned along the length of the gun to make it seem easier to practically conceal, even in the tight pockets of some of my tighter jeans. The grip is easier to reach in and grab, being slimmer at the rear, as well as move it up & out of the mouth of the pocket while tightly grasping it with my hand. Not something I can do with my little Glocks in those pants.
Weight? The Airweights (and Airlites) have an advantage. This advantage can easily become a disadvantage when live-fire is involved, though.
Choose your level of acceptable compromise carefully and well, for your anticipated and perceived needs, as well as your clothing and your level of skills. This isn't a one-size-fits-all sort of issue, I'd think.
The J's, especially the Airweights & Airlites, are easy to carry ... but can be harder to shoot, and that's probably somewhat of an over-simplification.
I prefer my J's when it comes to pocket carry in pants & shorts.
I prefer the little Glocks (SW999c, CS9, etc) when it comes to those situations when I want to either carry "more" gun, and don't mind the extra weight of gun & magazine(s) in jacket/coat pockets ... or when I want to carry a belt-holstered weapon.
I've often felt that many folks who found it "more convenient" to carry a little J-frame couldn't shoot it nearly as well as they could a subcompact Glock (or other compact/subcompact pistol). That being the case, how well were they really served when carrying a dedicated defensive weapon which they might not be able to shoot well under ordinary range conditions, let alone under the conditions which may occur in an actual shooting situation?
I've invested a lot of time carrying & shooting revolvers over the years, and I've worked hard to refine my revolver skills because of the several J-frames and SP101 I own. I can shoot them well enough that I increasingly relied upon them for off-duty, and now retirement usage ... but I wouldn't have wished to have carried a 5-shot DAO revolver as a primary duty weapon when I was working, actively involved in working cases and being sent hither and yon to active crime scenes.
This is one of those individual decisions that is easier to make when the individual carefully considers their own level of knowledge, training, practice & experienced ... their own anticipated situations and circumstances in which they feel they might require to actually use the weapon ... tempered by their experience and some common sense when it comes to risk assessment.
I don't make these sorts of decisions for anyone other than myself, and I've always looked at them as being affected by any number of variables, even for myself. I may have given myself over to carrying issued compact pistols for the several years leading up to my retirement, meaning I found the compacts better suited to my plainclothes assignment, and even acceptable when pressed into use for a uniform gunbelt ... but I didn't make that choice for anyone else. That remained for them to do.
What works best for you, in your daily life and activities, considering your skills?
Not my call.
rodinal220
Member
Can't beat a J frame platform.I find this my go to choice for my travel kit.I have a G27,while a nice gun,cannot conceal like a J frame style gun.I can hide a J frame in a pocket,IWB,OTWB,shoulder holster,whereas the G27 is not a pocket gun and is thick,IMHO.
DAdams
Member
I like the S&W M&P 340 with CT grips in a Mika Pocket Holster for all around concealment summer or winter. 14 ounces loaded is about all I want to deal with in the pocket.
For deep cover I have a Seecamp .380. and LCP would probably suffice for this mission also, but they came out after I bought the Seecamp.
I have a Kahr PM9 but even it was too heavy for pant pocket carry.
I wouldn't mind a Kahr PM .380, but no further ahead with it than the Seecamp.
For deep cover I have a Seecamp .380. and LCP would probably suffice for this mission also, but they came out after I bought the Seecamp.
I have a Kahr PM9 but even it was too heavy for pant pocket carry.
I wouldn't mind a Kahr PM .380, but no further ahead with it than the Seecamp.
itsallgood
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2011
- Messages
- 7
I have a kahr p380 and this carries very well in the pocket. However, after 3-4 hundred rounds, I still have some issues with the slide locking open before it is empty, so I don't carry it as yet. I also have a S&W 340pd. I am a smaller guy, and this gun prints a great deal in my pocket, even in cargo pants, unless carried in a lower pocket which is more difficult to access. I added a clip draw to the 340pd and it carries at the belt like it isn't even there.
- Status
