788Ham
Member
SP 101, 3.06" barrel, about as light of a revolver I want to shoot with +P 38's and .357's. A tad heavy on the barrel end, but thats what I wanted when I bought it. I had an Airweight, too punishing.
I just upgraded to a S&W 340PD in 357
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.
amd6547
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..."
It would serve just as well if it wouldn't keep five shots on a pie-plate at 15 yards from a machine rest.
I am well aware of those limitations. I was pointing out that autos are not perfect either. Also revolvers have a simpler manual of arms, and are probably a better choice for for people who do not, will not spend a lot of time learning how the gun works and practicing with it.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.
I have tried it. With very different results. 5 jackets from yardsales. Albeit the gun was smaller, so it had less muzzle blast. Tomcat .32. I also think that the design of the jacket might come into play.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
FWIW, a local shooting school had a pocket pistol class. I went to Goodwill and bought a couple of cheap jackets and fired a P9 from the pockets with good results. Without a high speed camera I'm guessing a little here, but I think that the muzzle blast inflates the pocket and keeps the fabric from interfering. In any event, I didn't have any problems until maybe the 25th round. By that time there was a big ragged hole in the pocket, and I tended to push the muzzle thru the hole, letting the ragged hole edges finally get into the action. I only had two jackets, so it's not like I have a huge sample, but I think autos in jacket pockets might work better than you'd think.
Get some $3 jackets and give it a try.
Also revolvers have a simpler manual of arms, and are probably a better choice for for people who do not, will not spend a lot of time learning how the gun works and practicing with it.
It's simpler and easier to teach people to hit things with a Glock 17 or 19 than it is with a model 10, and its certainly easier to teach someone to hit with a glock or other auto, than a model 36 or 37
I hate them because smith puts an embarrassingly bad trigger in them. I love the concept, hate the execution.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