J frame for carry - all steel vs airweight?

[Classified00]

Hello all,

I'll be heading to a gunshow tomorrow and I'm serious about picking up a J frame for front pocket carry. I'm debating between an all steel model or an airweight. Obviously the airweight would be more comfortable for carry but I want something that I can shoot reasonably comfortably.

I'm eyeing the SW 637 and 642 and the SW 36LS

I have a couple of questions:

* How much difference does 5 or so ounces make (for both shooting and carry)?

* How much of a difference between the above models (for both shooting and carry) and my SP101 (2.25 barrel / 25.5 oz)?

Thanks in advance for any thoughts,
Brent...

 

[Nick96]

I have both a Ruger SP101 .357 2 1/4" and a S&W 642 Airweight .38 Spl +P 1 7/8". The carry differance is significant. As far as I'm concerned, the SP101 is not a pocket carry gun. No problem with size - it's just too heavy. That said though, the SP101 is the ultimate small frame .357 snubby IMHO. It's the smallest & lightest I'd go in a .357 - and I can shoot it fairly rapidly with accuracy with full power factory .357's.

Were I most interested in carrying a substantial caliber revolver in a pocket, I'd go with the "Airweight" S&W J frames. Not the high priced "exotic metal" ultra light versions - but the 15 ounce aluminum frame - stainless steel cylinder & barrel 637, 642, 649 variants. The "Airweight" J frames are completely controllable & accurate in fairly rapid fire with +P .38 Spls (though more than about 30 +P rounds in a string will produce a noticable soreness in the shooting hand). And the J frame I have is suprisingly accurate (like consistant 2" off hand POA groups at 7 yards).

If you want something for pocket carry - I'd recommend a lightweight S&W J frame. If you are looking for maximum power in a small, rugged, reliable & accurate package - then the Ruger SP101 is my recommendation. But the SP is really more of a belt holster gun (IWB or OWB).

Just my opinions based on experience with these two revolvers - others may differ.

 

[denfoote]

I'm carrying the aluminum framed Taurus M85UL. It is light enough to pocket carry, yet does not bite when fed +P ammo. I hear that the scandium guns are a real to shoot!! You might want to consider titanium alloy frame, but I suspect that it will only be a tad better than it's Sc skinned brother!!!

 

[JNewell]

As far as weight alone goes, a lot depends on how you will carry it. If on a belt, the weight doesn't matter a lot. It's a quarter pound difference. If you will carry in the pocket or in some other less-firmly supported manner, you may find the difference matters a lot, from a carry point of view. From a shooting point of view, there is some difference, but I agree that with some modest practice most can control the 642 well. There is a big difference between even +P .38 Special and .357 Magnum, at least IMO.

The differences between the SP101 and the Js depend a little on what model you're comparing it to. The 637 is both noticeably lighter and smaller (especially in the grip area), but I think the exposed hammer minimizes the differences in many carry situations. The 642, however, is IMO very different - carrys and draws much better than either the SP101 or the 60/637. (I should add that I'm comparing the SP101 with exposed hammer - have never owned or shot the DAO version).

I do think that from a pure handling point of view the larger grip and greater weight of the SP101 make it an easier gun to shoot well than a Model 60 (all steel .357)...comparisons with .38 Specials are a little bit apples/oranges.

 

[LynnMassGuy]

IMHO steel J frames are too heavy for pocket carry but they feel like nothing in a tuckable or on your belt.

 

[Classified00]

Great stuff so far, thanks for the replies.

I'm eager to compare a few models side by side.

Thanks,
Brent...

 

[Standing Wolf]

I drop my stainless steel pre-agreement Smith & Wesson model 60 in trousers pockets all the time around the yard. I wouldn't call it light, but it's a lot lighter and more compact than my four-inch Python.

 

[Paul "Fitz" Jones]

Steel Vs Airweight

If you ever shoot reloads of your own, bought at a range or from anywhere I would not own an airweight. As a Rangemaster, a rapid fire course was being fired and I heard a louder thaan usual bang and a yell. I walked up to a shooter standing in his booth looking at his airweight with the top strap and three top cylinders gone. I checked him for injuries and luckily all the pieces of his weapon went into the walls and ceiling of his booth.

Apparently a reload without powder was popped moving the bullet into the barrel and in rapid firing the shooter did not stop and fired a live round into it. It was a shocking experience. I have seen it happen with two other weapons one Smith and a Ruger with steel frames and their weapons with stood the incidents.

 

[Coltdriver]

The way a 15 oz model 38 handles standard ammo is perfectly acceptable. You can shoot it, aim it, second shot it and it is very controllable.

Carry is piece of cake because lets face it, you may carry all your life and never pull the pistol.

So the major factor in carry turns out to be weight. You don't want a pistol that weighs two pounds in your pocket! And a holster can mean a formality that does not lend itself to concealment as casually as dropping a light pistol in an available pocket.

I have a 23 oz 9mm j frame for holster carry. But the 15 oz Model 38 will ride in your jacket pocket and you will forget it is there.

The ultralight .357's are too extreme for me. If you can't get an accurate and controlled second shot off what good is it? The controllable .357's are the 20+ ounce versions and more is better.

Five rounds of easily carried .38 ammo is good protection.

 

[Marshall]

New Model 60 here. It works in pocket, on waist or on ankle.

 

[Tamara]

Paul "Fitz" Jones,

I walked up to a shooter standing in his booth looking at his airweight with the top strap and three top cylinders gone. ... I have seen it happen with two other weapons one Smith and a Ruger with steel frames and their weapons with stood the incidents.

I'm wondering...

Please explain how the steel frame will prevent the top three chambers of the steel cylinder from letting go, but the aluminum frame somehow makes the top three chambers of the steel cylinder weaker?

Considering that the cylinder itself on an Airweight J-frame is the exact same cylinder, made of the exact same material as the cylinder on an all-steel J-frame, then I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that cylinder would have split if it was mounted in a reinforced concrete frame.

 

[Brian Williams]

I really like to take my 940 and just slip it IWB in a small nylon slip holster. Great gun and very handy with the moon clips. heavy enough to soak up any recoil but light enough to disappear.

 

[FPrice]

Classified00...

"*How much difference does 5 or so ounces make (for both shooting and carry)?"

It makes a lot of difference in pocket carry. It's hard to believe but the additional weight can weight down your pants pocket more than you may realize. Of course it is also very subjective as to how you perceive the difference; the sturdiness of your pants/belt combination and other dress factors may make a difference. But something I find uncomfortable you may find satisfactory. You have to try it out to find what works for you.

I personally prefer a lighter gun with a 110 grain bullet. Currently I use an older Charter Arms Undercover in .38 Spl with a Federal 110 grain Hydrashok round. I used to use the 110 gr WW Silvertip but found this had a bit too much flash in a 2" barrel.

Again, your preferences may differ as you find something that works for you.

 

[Classified00]

Again, thank you all for your replies.

I ended up going with the 642

It's amazingly light and significantly smaller than my SP101. I've been carrying it in my pocket all evening and I hardly notice it's there (now I need a decent pocket holster). I'm going to dryfire it until I get comfortable with the trigger then hopefully in a week or two I'll hit the range and see what the recoil feels like

Thanks,
Brent...

 

[denfoote]

Well, haul out the digicam and let us see it!!!

 

[farscott]

As someone who has carried an M342PD, and M642-2, and an M60 in the same Kramer pocket holster, I think I have some insight. While the M342PD and M642-2 are not noticeable in the pocket, the M60 reminds one that it is there. However, the M60 is not as annoying as I would have thought, and it is a heck of a lot easier to shoot with my injured hands. My choice (for now) is the M60.

 

[fastbolt]

For what it's worth, I think you'll enjoy your new 642 ...

I own a short-barreled SP-101 DAO ... and older 649 Bodyguard ... and a 642-1.

I bought the 642 after sitting on the fence, undecided, for several years ... The SP-101 & 649 were both too heavy for me to consider them as real pocket guns, unless I was wearing a padded vest in cooler weather, and then they just pulled down on one side unless I balanced the vest with something of similar weight in the off-side pocket. The Ruger was obviously worse ...

I wanted something lighter, but didn't want to be limited to jacketed ammunition in the Ti or the later Sc/Ti guns ...

I ended up going with the 642, and it's the best decision I've made for a very lightweight off duty weapon in years. It fits in either pants or jacket pocket, and carries like it's not there. In my denim or leather jackets, I simply forget it's there when riding my motorcycle. In many types of slacks it simply disappears in the front pocket, especially if you're using a decent pocket holster.

All but one of the instructors on our staff now owns one model or another, and it's become the most common off duty weapon among most of us, because of its lightweight and ease of carry under the widest range of circumstances. A growing number of the better shooters in our agency have been adopting one or another of the latest lightweight 5-shot revolvers. One of my friends who used to carry either a 3913 or a Kahr K-40 off duty, now carries a new 442 off duty almost exclusively. He's a fairly active IDPA participant, so he spends a reasonable amount of time practicing, and he started spending a lot more time practicing with his new 442. He was pretty surprised by how accurately he could shoot his new little gun.

Now ... J-frame revolvers, and especially lightweight J-frame revolvers, DO take extra practice and training in order for most folks to shoot them accurately. I started spending a lot of range time with my 642, shooting both standard & +P ammunition ... and took advantage of having a 442 & 640 in our training vault by spending a lot of time shooting them when I wasn't shooting my 642. The 640, which was an early one rated for +P+ .38, allowed me to use a lot of some 110gr +P+ ammunition we were using up for training. That made shooting +P feel more comfortable in my 642.

After shooting a LOT of .38 ammunition through all of the guns, I felt more comfortable carrying the 642 off duty.

I also apply some bright neon orange sight paint to the front sight every couple or so cleanings, so my 51 year old eyes can see it better under different light conditions. This helps me.

During the CCW classes, I've noticed that a lot of folks that have a hard time shooting their J-frame guns claim to have a hard time "seeing" their sights. It's much harder with the older guns with the really narrow front sight blade & rear notch, too. A lot of them tend to elevate the front sight enough to "see" it, but don't realize that they're significantly raising it above the rear notch ... and then are surprised when they shoot 1-2 feet higher than they think they're aiming, even at 7-11 yards.

J-frames require more practice than larger guns ... but it's possible to shoot these little guns very acurately, with sufficient effort on your part and proper practice.

They're great little guns.

One of the guns I'd like to add to my collection before I retire is one of the newer 649 Bodyguards, chambered in .357 Magnum. I really like my older 649 chambered in .38, and I'd like to have one of the newer models. Even though I find the 642 more comfortable to carry in a pocket ... and I have a Quad-Ported Ruger SP-101 which makes shooting 125gr Magnums very controllable and almost pleasant ... the little steel 649 is an enjoyable J-frame in which to shoot standard pressure .38 ammunition, and I can well imagine the newer model is even better in this regard.

I'm not sure you can have too many variations of the J-frame.

 

[Serpico]

You made the right choice...I have the 442 (same gun in blue) and I owned a model 60...no comparison in pocket or on ankle...I sold the 60 to a detective friend of mine and sometimes when we go out and I am taking the P7. he asks if he can borrow my 442 for his ankle since his 60 starts to weigh on him...and yes, we both have the same, very comfortable renegade ankle rigs....

 

[dowop magnum]

How about the 642 with the laser sights from the factory?
Works great for these 59 yr old eyes wearing trifocals.

 

[sturmruger]

I have a 637 and it has turned into one of my favorite guns to shoot. Learning what the proper sight picture is was hard to learn, but once I got the hang of it I have been able to shoot it very accurately. I have not bothered to shoot pst about 15 yards. Inside of 15 yards I have been very accurate.

 

[magsnubby]

j frame carry

Glad to hear you went with the 642. It's one sweet little snub. Out of all my snubbies the 642 is my favorite. Kinda ruined it for pocket carry with the Hogue grips but it still carrys easy with one of those little metal clip draw things.

 

[smithandwesson]

The 642 is a very good choice!

 

[Classified00]

Thank you all for the positive comments!

I have really bonded with this gun. The size and weight are just right for me. I've done a considerable amount of dry firing and I'm just about where I want to be as far as keeping the sights where they belong. If all goes well, I'll take it to the range next week.

My only complaint is the Uncle Mike's boot grips. After removing them and reapplying them, I have a gap at the bottom rear of the frame. I'm going to order Hogue's Bantam grips and give them a try.

Thanks again,
Brent...