Help me decide on a carry pistol...

[marksman13]

The LCP was MUCH smoother, and had very very nice fit and finish.

Those were my thoughts exactly. I could get the LCP from my local dealer for $289 out the door. The P-3AT would be $279. The PF-9 would run me about $280. The 642 would be around $400.

Price isn't the biggest issue. I would rather spend money on a firearm that I can pass on to my kids and grandkids than spend a few less dollars on a plastic pistol that is more prone to jamming issues.

 

[texas bulldog]

i chose the 642 even though i greatly prefer an SP101. pocket carry isn't my thing, i guess, and i prefer a little more weight to the gun if i actually have to fire it.

that said, i chose it because i feel .38+P is the most capable round of the ones listed, though the 9mm is close. i favor carrying the biggest or most powerful round that you can effectively conceal and will always carry. that matters more to me than capacity of said round. and of course, reliability is an absolute must.

with those priorities, the 642 seemed the obvious choice. YMMV.

 

[marksman13]

that said, i chose it because i feel .38+P is the most capable round of the ones listed, though the 9mm is close. i favor carrying the biggest or most powerful round that you can effectively conceal and will always carry. that matters more to me than capacity of said round. and of course, reliability is an absolute must.

That pretty much sums up my beliefs on concealed carry. Anybody have any experience with the Speer Short Barrel Ammo? I've heard alot of good stuff aobut it.

 

[Texasred]

I really am looking for a pocket gun right now too. But to be honest with you the pocket gun world has a lotta "ifs". But the Smith 642 seems to be proven, other than that I would go with a Glock 26.(no offense to anyone)

 

[PuntoQuatroCinco]

In the winter you can pack the snubby in yur coat pocket,(in a pocket holster), and casually have yur hand on the gun whenever you feel the need.
Also you can shoot it from inside there when there is and extremely close threat. Also it wont jam up when pressed against the soft parts of yur attacker.

 

[1/7GRUNT]

I voted 642 because of reliability. I really dont think it is all that bulky in the pocket either. Recoil isnt that bad in my opinion.

I own the 442 by the way.

 

[hicksdm]

I have carried a 442 for the past 2 years and simply love it. Easy to operate, reliable, and after some preactice fairly easy to reload. Love mine and it always with me.

 

[8830]

I voted for the 642 as that is what I have. I've carried a P32, P3AT, Beretta 21a and Kahr MK9 and while the autos are flatter the 642 carries just as well is totally reliable. My major problem with carrying an auto in the pocket was the magazine button being unknowingly released and when drawing one shot would be fired and then click. Always having the check for the mag to be seated is annoying and may give away the fact that I'm carrying.

 

[WVMountainBoy]

I voted for the Smith. I'm a 38 revolver fan to the bone. Using modern ammo with +P ratings it is a formidable creature. As far as pocket guns go its the choice for me. The 5 round limit is touchy but they don't come more rock solid in reliability. And you already touched on the aftermarket support.

 

[tblt]

I voted LCP only because you said pocket carry.
I have a taurus mod 85 ultra lite that I carry it's about the same as a 642 in size, but I'm on a waiting list for an LCP because there is times I want to pocket carry and my taurus is too large for that.

 

[jad0110]

But the Smith 642 seems to be proven, other than that I would go with a Glock 26.(no offense to anyone)

None taken.

But be advised the Glocks are often called "Blocks" for a reason. It may have the same basic deminsions has a J Frame, but there is a lot more to it than that. A Glock is fat all over and has a rather large slide projection to contend with, while other than the cylinder a 642 is very thin and rounded. Some are able to cram a G26 into a pocket, so it is doable. But I think even they'd agree that it is at the very upper limit in size for pocket carry. And it'll probably look like you have a laptop in your pocket. Just test one out before you plunk down the cash.

Next to a Kel-Tech P3AT, a J Frame appears huge. Next to a J Frame, a G26 appears huge .

 

[gastonmellon]

642 . Just picked up a 340 as a replacement. Gave the 642 to wife since she is getting her permit also.

 

[golden]

I would go with the SMITH & WESSON because mine has proven very reliable. The KEL-TEC I bought has been a jam-o-matic and cannot be considered for any kind of use.
I have not tried the RUGER, so I cannot recommend it.

Jim

 

[shep854]

Golden, I'm sorry to hear that you have problems with your Kel-Tec. You are right; if the gun doesn't run reliably, DON'T YOU DARE trust it.

That said, have you called Kel-Tec to get help in getting it to work?

Also, consider hopping over to the Kel-Tec Owners' Group http://www.ktog.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl and ask for assistance. One of the purposes of the website is to answer questions about Kel-Tec firearms.

 

[jfh]

I'll second shep854's about using the KTOG forum. When I got my P3AT, I had feed-and-shucking problems--but got it fixed with help from reading there.

I documented my fixes there in the P3AT forum, as well as an SU-16C buildup--do a search on my forum name ("jfh"), and you might find some help on getting the Kel-Tec running.

Jim H.

 

[mjrodney]

Another vote for the J-frame, although I chose the 638 for the added ability to cock the hammer for single action use, should that be desireable.

Adding a set of Crimson Trace grips helps immensely when point shooting.

Carried nearly 100% of the time, in a pocket holster, in Cargo shorts/slacks, with 135g Speer Short Barrel +p ammo.


I also own the P3AT for those rare occasions I'm in dress slacks.

Range time is proving the P3AT to be 100% reliable, but I only use/carry FMJ round nose ammo in it. I believe that round nose ammo will provide the best chance of adequate penetration.

 

[XDGirl]

Out of those choices i would go with the Smith & Wesson 642

 

[Ala Dan]

Before I vote, I will say it depends on just how much handgun experience
you have~? For instance, if you are a novice I would suggest the Smith
& Wesson 642 hands down; as its simple to operate, has a no-snag type
design, and shoots the time tested .38 Special-even +P's if you can stand
it. The auto-loaders are more sleek and compact, hold more rounds, and
are aft sought after by the female crowd; the latter cuz its cool to them,
I guess~? But, you have to know how to clear a malfunction; better known
as a "jam"~! Often times, this will have too occur in a split second; cuz
your life or death could weigh in the balance. So not knowing your own
requirements (and experience?), I voted for the very fine S&W 642~!

 

[KelVarnson]

I'm with mjrodney in encouraging you to look at a 638 if you are already considering a 642. It's challenging to shoot accurately with a snubbie. Having single-action would be helpful, if you ever found yourself in a situation where it was an option. And the 638 is only a little bit bigger than the 642.

I have a 638 and I love it.

 

[Defensory]

I vote "none of the above".

I would avoid Kel-Wreck entirely.

If you feel the need for a snubbie, spend a little more and get the Smith & Wesson Model 649 Bodyguard.

The hammer is shrouded for pocket carry, but not fully enclosed, making single action shooting possible.

The 649 is STAINLESS STEEL, rather than the less durable aluminum alloy of the 642.

The 649 weighs half a pound more, which is actually a benefit in a snubbie, because the extra weight reduces felt recoil and barrel rise.

 

[OregonJohnny]

I have shot 3 out of the 4 guns you listed (P-3AT, LCP, and 642) and own the S&W 642. I'd choose it from the list. I'll tell you what I like about it versus the P-3AT and LCP, and what I don't like about it, although those I will justify in parenthesis().

Like:
• It's a S&W revolver - in other words, it WILL go bang with every trigger pull.
• It's a hammerless revolver - you can shoot it from inside a pocket without worry of anything getting in the way of the firing mechanism.
• Caliber - The energy of a .38 special +P round will beat a .380. Plus, it's a proven man-stopper. Research the history of .38 special and police shootings. Yes, .45 is probably better, but you take what you can get.
• Less can go wrong - without a magazine, slide, recoil spring, ejector, etc., there are less parts that can fail.

Don't Like:
• Bulkier than the tiny .380s. (But the barrel and frame are actually thinner than the entire LCP or P-3AT. The cylinder and grip are the only parts that are wider, but the contoured lines are completely snag-free and don't print too bad).
• Only 5 rounds (but I absolutely would take 5 rounds of .38 special +P over 1 more round of .380).
• Recoil (but with every trip to the range, I shoot the 642 better and the recoil becomes less and less of an issue. Plus, in a life or death situation, I'm not worried about felt recoil).

And there you have it. My long-winded way of saying...get the 642!

 

[sdj]

+1 on the 642.

 

[rj112275]

Come on, post some pics! Here's my Model 38 Bodyguard



I would go for any j-frame first... after that, I think I'll pick up an LCP sometime in the future just for the fun of having a really small .380