Don't like airweight snubs.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The hardest recoiling gun I've ever shot was a scandium Smith with full throttle .357 loads.

I don't shoot .357s in any of my J frames for that reason. Even my .357 Model 60 only gets 38+Ps and standard velocity .38s when I have them.

I'm not a fan of the alloy guns, but probably for different reasons than most have stated. The weight difference is not a factor for me. As I have gotten older, I like stainless steel better. Easier to keep and if the finish gets marred, its easy and cheap to fix.
 
I don't think a j-frame really has a place in a world where the PM-9 and other autos that compact exist.

you gain a lot in capability with a PM-9, and gain little, if any, weight.
 
Air Weights

I personally like the air weights, I have a mod.642 in my pocket now. I never leave home without it. I use the +p loads. It's only for personal protection, and it is so easy to conceal. My wife and several family members also carry them. some with the pink grips. I sometimes forget it's there, got to the court house door saw the sigh and had to go back and lock it in the car. At short range it works fine. If I want to shoot at longer range,I'll use my 1911 Colt, if it's longer range I'll use my Ruger 44 mag with 2x scope (try sticking that in your front pocket) it boils down to carry what fits the need. Also have Ruger MarkIII Target, 38 Short Colt and old H&R 22 contvertable lr/mag. But those don't fit my carry needs.
 
First there is nothing new about the airweights. They have been around for about 60 years. Airlites have only been around for about 15 years, so while significantly newer, I wouldn't call them new.
I own one of each, a M38 Airweight Bodyguard and a M342Ti Airlite Centennial. These are purpose built weapons. No, they are not fun to shoot. They carry very well, even in the pocket of shorts or sweat pants only held up by an elastic band.
I have actually found that the opposite is true. I find the weight of a standard steel J frame to be more than I want to pocket carry, but if I am going to carry on a belt, I would just as soon have a larger, heavier weapon, such as a 3"-4" K frame or a 3" Ruger SP101. (I will admit to wanting a 3" M36-1)
So we all have are opinions and feelings on the matter.
 
I don't think a j-frame really has a place in a world where the PM-9 and other autos that compact exist.

you gain a lot in capability with a PM-9, and gain little, if any, weight.
Really? While that PM9 is a good little gun, (I owned one) it will jam (and so will any other auto) if fired from inside a coat pocket. It becomes a single shot. Also an auto can easily go out of battery if you are forced to push the muzzle into some street urchin's gut. The revolver, on the other hand, will reliably work in either of these scenerios.
While I would never fault anyone for choosing a small auto, as they do have thier advantages. They are slimmer and easier to hide. Some of them are easier to shoot well.
 
I don't think a j-frame really has a place in a world where the PM-9 and other autos that compact exist.

If that were true ~ they wouldn't be making them.
 
I got around the too light/too much recoil by finding an S&W 431PD in 32 mag. Weighs about 13oz., six shots and has reasonably light recoil. Drop it in your pocket and forget its there. Plus the ammo is light compared to 38 special loads.
 
Really? While that PM9 is a good little gun, (I owned one) it will jam (and so will any other auto) if fired from inside a coat pocket. It becomes a single shot. Also an auto can easily go out of battery if you are forced to push the muzzle into some street urchin's gut. The revolver, on the other hand, will reliably work in either of these scenerios.
While I would never fault anyone for choosing a small auto, as they do have thier advantages. They are slimmer and easier to hide. Some of them are easier to shoot well.

A revolver can be prevented from firing if you get a finger between the hammer and frame, or grip the cylinder tightly enough.

The issues you presented are unlikely to come up, and even more unlikely if you remember that those situations cause a problem and take steps to avoid those situations.
Autos have a longer sight radius and better trigger than revolvers. they can be reloaded faster, carry more rounds, and they're smaller. Those benefit you every time you use the gun.
 
Those ultra light snubs in 38 special are snappy even with target loads, but I guess it would not be noticeable with the adrenalin flowing. For those who are really recoil sensitive, they can always load 'em with 38 LC if they can find them.
 
Whenever the subject of inherent, or at least potential, reliability comes up when discussing the smallest of revolvers and pistols, I think back to over 20 year's worth of time watching folks shoot a variety of each in practice or qual courses of fire.

Ignoring the problems exhibited by .22's & .25's when it comes to really diminutive pocket pistols, the .32's, .380's & small 9's offered more feeding problems and general stoppages for their user's than the little revolvers.

Every once in a while you'd come across someone who didn't seem well practiced with their snub revolvers, and they might short stroke the DA/DAO trigger for a subsequent shot, but that's happened with some folks using one or another of those smaller 9's with their really long DAO triggers, too.

The revolvers seem more tolerant of budget ammunition issues, too.

Grip stability, especially when some amount of stress seems to be exhibited by a shooter, or their attention may be distracted from their grip, may be an issue for some folks when shooting really small pistols. Revolvers sometimes seem to be less sensitive to shooter grip stability issues.

These are things that probably some of the many things which ought to be carefully considered by each potential owner & user of either design when they're considering which will best serve their needs.

Granted, there are always going to be those folks who claim their little pistols have been perfect for them, and that's certainly to their advantage. Good for them. They deserve no less.

It's just that overall, the folks who found their small revolvers to be less problematic when completing courses-of-fire (not standing around making leisurely, slow-fire shots) outnumbered those who had similarly satisfactory experiences with their pocket pistols. Some of the problems experienced by small pistol owners were easily identifiable as shooter-induced (grip interfering with slide movement), some as maintenance (not cleaned or lubricated; weak magazine springs, etc) and some as ammunition problems (power to cycle the slide; sensitive to bullet nose profile). Things like that.

Then there were those folks who really liked their small pistols, but handled and shot their small revolvers better over the same courses-of-fire ... and vice versa, of course. ;)

I try to never get too involved in someone's choice of firearm being lawfully carried as a dedicated defensive weapon. It's not something that's going to have to work for me, after all, but for whoever it is that's doing the choosing.

I look more toward skillset and mindset issues than simple equipment issues and selection.

In more recent years, as the J-frames have seemed to catch fire in the imagination of younger shooters, I've seen some folks who had bought one or another of the newest 5-shot wheelguns for either off-duty or secondary weapon usage. The majority of these younger folks learned their handgunning skills on pistols, not revolvers. It could make for some frustration as they had to relearn a lot of their foundation skillset when it came to grip, trigger control and follow-through on sight picture or sight alignement (even when just indexing the weapon for very clsoe range shots).

I still miss the days when cops learned their handgunning skills using DA revolvers ... (or at least came to LE work with revolver skills). :D

I'll say a couple of other things before I stop rambling ...

When I was doing some shooting with a couple of the then-new .500 S&W Magnums (4" & 6"), I found the recoil to be heavy, but the recoil impulse to be less painful, overall, compared to when I was shooting one of the Ti/Sc 5-shot .357 Magnums. Sure, I demonstrated I could make fast and accurate doubles and triple using the little beast out to 10yds, but it punished my hand much more than the bigger .500 Magnum.

Although my pair of M&P 340's are chambered in Magnum, and I've used various Magnum loads in it (for both quals, practice and to find those which didn't exhibit signs of bullet pull in my gun) ... I carry one or another of the +P loads I favor in my other +P rated Airweights, not Magnum. As well as I can shoot them with the Magnum loads, I can shoot them faster (and longer) using the +P loads.

That's where I draw the line for myself. Everyone else has their own opportunity to develop and express a preference for where and how they may choose to accept compromise for a really small, lightweight and conveniently carried defensive handgun.
 
Last edited:
Am I the only one who really doesn't care for the new airweight smith and wesson snub nose revolvers. I've always thought they were just too light. I have a smith and wesson model. 60 made in the late 70s and it has some weight to it but its not like its pulling your pants down when you carry it. Its heavy enough to obsorb some recoil and light enough to carry comfortably. I just never got the practical use of having something thats as light as the airweights are, does anyone else agree
I still love the S&W alloy snubs, particularly the Centennial type.
 
I don't like the airweights either. My brother let me shoot one he owns. My hand was stinging after 5-shots. How anyone practices much with those is beyond me.

I picked up a 640-1. Stout with 357, but I can do a 50 round range session and still feel my thumb. :) TJ
 
Yeah well snubs are designed for ranges where if you have to use the sights you probably shouldn't be handling firearms.

There is so much wrong with that statement it's amazing. The only one that really matters is the poster's failure to think about the topic.

If the shooter cannot hit out to 25 yards with a carry gun, then he or she needs practice.

It's a very different problem if the gun is not capable of hitting at 25 yards. Small snub nosed revolvers are capable of making hits at such distances.

The shooter needs to seriously think about the nature of self-defense if he or she is carrying a gun that is not capable of hits at 25 yards and/or he or she cannot make hits with that gun.

End reality check.
 
I think I'm still a bit resistant to change. It took years before I'd carry a gun that wasn't a revolver and more years to accept handguns with plastic frames. I still like my old '74 Cheif's Special with Pac grips. I can fire it until it gets too hot to remove the brass without any discomfort to my hand. The only disadvantage is the carry weight and I can live with that.
 
If the shooter cannot hit out to 25 yards with a carry gun, then he or she needs practice.

25 yards with a snub at the range, sure. Do-able.

25 yards with a snub in a self-defense situation? Not so do-able and will probably land you in prison if you did.
 
I bought a 642 about a year ago. Fired 10 rounds out of it and hated it. It was sold immediately. I know that's heresy here on THR where the 642 is the greatest carry gun ever invented. But it was just plain painful to me. And I'm not averse to recoil. Double Tap's 158gr .357mag our of my SP101 was just plain fun.
Mild .38s out of the 642 were painful, and not fun at all.

I'm just not a snubby guy. Give me my Ruger LCP over an LCR any day. The LCP points naturally for me, I am more accurate with it than with a snubby, and the recoil is not bad at all. I loved my SP101 3"bbl, but wouldnt want a shorter one. Noooo thank you.
 
I like the airwight I have but I have not shot +p loads through it yet. It carry's well and even though I have a holster for it now I usually just stuff it in a pocket. Much nicer than my 1911 for carrying.
 
Last edited:
And I'm not averse to recoil. Double Tap's 158gr .357mag our of my SP101 was just plain fun. Mild .38s out of the 642 were painful, and not fun at all.

Really?

My 642 is painful with Buffalo Bore's +P 158 grain lead bullets, this was the only ammunition I have run throw my 642 that I consider painful, I still choose to carry it. I have shot a number of different manufacturers +P ammo and find it is reasonably easy to shoot let alone "mild .38s".

I like the Airweight revolvers for carry and even for the range. It does take practice but we all like to shoot so why not practice. There are other choices and I won't fault anyone for choosing a heavier and therefore easier gun to shoot.
 
If you find the Airweight "painful", you most likely are not holding it correctly.
"...25 yards with a snub in a self-defense situation? Not so do-able and will probably land you in prison if you did...."--What nonsense. I can see it now..."oh, that bad guy 25yds away is shooting at me...I better run and hope he is as bad a shot as me..I read on the Internet I can't shoot that far..."
 
I buy/keep at any given time only a few guns at any given time and shoot them all A LOT so for me it's more peace of mind as far as durability. When I say "a lot" I mean weekly trips of 250 rounds.

Steel feel better to me when I shoot that much and I for the most have to worry about it blowing up in my face. I also doubt I'd get as much range time with a 12oz revolver.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top