I'm not a fan of lightweight J frames and only own steel frame guns of this size. More controllable and durable. They weigh a few more ounces but that hasn't bothered me for over 35 years. Some will say "I don't even know it' there". I want to know it's there!
Less than impressed with the lightweights
- Thread starter earlthegoat2
- Start date
- Status
snooperman
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,143
steel for me
I have a number of steel snubbys. I have been carrying a Colt detective for years and like it very much. I especially enjoy shooting them as well.I carry in the waist band ,and rarely in the pocket as it is too difficult to draw while seated. I have tried my brothers S&W 642 but did not like it all.I am 68 and retired, and enjoy reloading and shooting. Steel for me. Snooperman
I have a number of steel snubbys. I have been carrying a Colt detective for years and like it very much. I especially enjoy shooting them as well.I carry in the waist band ,and rarely in the pocket as it is too difficult to draw while seated. I have tried my brothers S&W 642 but did not like it all.I am 68 and retired, and enjoy reloading and shooting. Steel for me. Snooperman
Homerboy
Member
Sold my 642. I did not like shooting it. I laugh when I hear guys say "carry a lot and shoot a little". Why would you shoot the gun you carry the most the least often? After 50 rounds of .38 through it, I was done. No fun to shoot at all. I'd rather have a steel j frame, but since those weigh 25 ounces, I now carry my S&W 3913 9MM. Same weight, twice the ammo, faster reloads.
Tequila Mockingbird
Member
IMHO, it's a big mistake to choose a gun based on how easy it is to carry instead of how well you can shoot it. I had a 642 a while back, and ended up selling it because I never was able to shoot it well and didn't want to spend the time or the ammo to become proficient. I ended up with an all steel Model 640, and the difference between that and the 642 is like night and day. The additional 7 or 8 ounces in the 640 enables me to recover from the recoil and get back on target much quicker than I ever could with the 642. And I don't even notice the few additional ounces, even in pocket carry. No airweights for me! 
I can shoot my 642 just fine.
If you can't shoot a gun, it's true, don't carry it.
But the fact that I might enjoy shootig a scoped Mark II Target .22 doesn't mean I should carry it, either.
There's a difference between a toy for a recreational or competitive shooter, and a carry gun. There's also a difference between a hunting revolver, a trail gun for predator defense, and a pocket gun for the city.
Whether one enjoys plinking more with one or the other, doesn't change which one is a better choice for a given use.
Because I might like to shoot a big gun with a full-lug barrel and adjustable target sights, but I wouldn't want to carry it in my pocket?
People who enjoy shooting for its own sake, have their preferences for target guns. These preferences have no real bearing on a CCW revolver.
JohnBT
Member
"Why would you shoot the gun you carry the most the least often?"
Many reasons. Maybe I think 50 to 100 rounds per session is enough when using a 442 or Rohrbaugh - both roughly 15 ounces. If you don't like Airweights stay far away from the Rohrbaugh. (Okay, I looked it up, the 442 is 15.8 and the R9 with an empty mag is 14.3.)
Maybe I just like burning up the hours and lots of ammo plinking with a 5" Colt or FNP-45 that isn't a practical summer carry for me. Or plinking or squirrel hunting with a simple .22 like my father's favorite S&W Model 17 with the 8-3/8" barrel and 2x Burris scope.
Why does a pro race car driver put more miles on their daily driver than on their race car? Which vehicle do they go to when there's money on the line? The answer is, you have to find the right balance for what you're trying to achieve.
John
Many reasons. Maybe I think 50 to 100 rounds per session is enough when using a 442 or Rohrbaugh - both roughly 15 ounces. If you don't like Airweights stay far away from the Rohrbaugh.
(Okay, I looked it up, the 442 is 15.8 and the R9 with an empty mag is 14.3.)Maybe I just like burning up the hours and lots of ammo plinking with a 5" Colt or FNP-45 that isn't a practical summer carry for me. Or plinking or squirrel hunting with a simple .22 like my father's favorite S&W Model 17 with the 8-3/8" barrel and 2x Burris scope.
Why does a pro race car driver put more miles on their daily driver than on their race car? Which vehicle do they go to when there's money on the line? The answer is, you have to find the right balance for what you're trying to achieve.
John
Homerboy
Member
Don't you think that's a stretch? A full size gun is not as practical based on the size. The difference between a 642 and a 640 is the weight, period. You can just as easily conceal a steel 640 as you can a aluminum 642. And steel or not, shooting 50 rounds here and there from a gun that only holds 5 is a bad idea. Just because you can hit the paper that is not shooting back, doesn't mean you can hit a moving target that IS shooting at you.
Tequila Mockingbird
Member
I'm sure you can. But I'll be the first to admit that I struggled with the lightweight 642. So do a lot of other folks I've observed. In my observation, the absolute worst shooters are those who carry a double action only airweight and come to the range once or twice a year to "practice". Some can't even hit a paper plate at seven yards! And they think they'll be able to shoot accurately in a high-stress situation?
As a previous poster pointed out, there's no difference in concealability between a 642 and a 640. So the only reason to carry a 642 over a 640 is that the few additional ounces are just too bothersome to put up with. I'll gladly sacrifice those few ounces to gain a significant edge in accuracy and speed.
Homerboy
Member
The only advantage an airweight has over it's steel counterpart is pocket carry. I will admit, it was nice just being able to drop that 642 into my front pocket, BUT it is not easy to draw while sitting, you lose a pocket for other stuff (I can't carry my wallet, keys, or cell phone in a back pocket), and one time, while I was sitting at a wake, wearing loose fitting khaki pants, that 642 fell out of my pocket! Nobody saw it, and the holster used was an Uncle Mike's Nemesis! After that, the 642 went into the waistband.
johnnylaw53
Member
For a long time I carried an older mod. 60 I sold it when I decided to go to an small auto almost 3 years ago I saw the light and went back to the snub what I got was the 642 it just feel so much better in the boot when i carry it there which is not often but still it an option when it the only thing that will work. At first I did notice it was harder to shoot then I remember the 60 being but after awhile I really don't notice it anymore. I do think either one will fill the same role just depends on what you like
be safe
be safe
Master Blaster
Member
This is your opinion. Other people's opinions are obviously far different from yours, my own opinion included. For when I carry, the options available, and the clothes I wear during the season that necessitate carrying something smaller than my 5" 1911, the Airweight was a winner for me. Shot some airweights next to all-steel snubbies at the range, and only after about 2 or three cylinders did my hand REALLY notice a difference in recoil or accuracy. Since the odds support that I'm not going to go through three cylinders worth of ammo in an engagement, I'll take the Airweight--which to me is significantly easier to carry in my particular set of circumstances, and allows me to carry in different fashions while wearing a much broader clothing set--which is a real plus to me.
That sums it up really well for me, anyone who carries everyday all the time will disagreee with you as well. after i bought my 642 my old 36 chiefs special sits in the safe, a couple ounces and the lack of a hammer spur makes a big difference in deep concealment and Drawability.
That sums it up really well for me, anyone who carries everyday all the time will disagreee with you as well. after i bought my 642 my old 36 chiefs special sits in the safe, a couple ounces and the lack of a hammer spur makes a big difference in deep concealment and Drawability.
MCgunner
Member
I pocket carry. Lighter the better. .38s are easy to shoot from a 12 ounce gun, even +P. .357s, not so much. I carry a light alloy .38. Yes, steel is too heavy IMHO for a pocket. Lighter the better.
watchtower7
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 30
I started shooting the 642 about 18 months ago and like most noobs I loved the carry aspects but was amazed how poorly i shot and how much it hurt to shoot.
I kept after it though, and when ready to purchase the only gun available was the 642 with CT laser grips so I bought it, never having shot it before.
I shoot much better with the laser grips, with the laser on or off. I guess the @1/2" larger grip makes it a whole lot easier. But at the expense of additional bulk.
Maybe it is the middle ground of steel vs. lightweight.
I kept after it though, and when ready to purchase the only gun available was the 642 with CT laser grips so I bought it, never having shot it before.
I shoot much better with the laser grips, with the laser on or off. I guess the @1/2" larger grip makes it a whole lot easier. But at the expense of additional bulk.
Maybe it is the middle ground of steel vs. lightweight.
And that's EXACTLY why I have it.
That's true. And it has nothing to do with the gun.
I'm not telling anyone what gun to carry. I carry a 642, because it is easy to carry and I can hit the target with it. If I couldn't hit anything with it, I would carry something else.
If I freeze up or do something stupid when being shot at, I sincerely doubt that having my 629 in my hand would change that any.
hardluk1
member
I carried a taurus model 85 snubbie for years and a tomcat also for the same amount of time. I got tied of the wieght of the taurus and changed to a charter arms UL that only wieghs 13oz empty and a keltec pf-9. I saved a bunch of wieght with the revolver and a couple oz's with the pf-9. Now after some time with both at the range and have'n my wife and i shoot both revolvers i have a odd result. The charter has more angle to the grip and it lets both of us get a better hold on it and have less felt recoil and muzzle flip. May be the s&w are different as i have not shot one of there real light wieghts. The pf-9 also can be a hand full to shoot but both of these guns are for a single purpose cw use only. I have play guns from 22's to 44mag just for enjoying or hunting and i do shoot the cw guns enought to know i can hit my traget at a good distance with a second fast shot on target and that is what a CW handgun is for . Not shooting hundreds of rounds a week . So as for the lighter handguns i will always go that route. I compair it to shooting a 44mag with 300grain maxed loads. Shoot a box and your ready for something on the lighter side. Or the guy benching a 300 ultramag for elk hunting ,you just deal with it. When it comes a time that you will need it you may not feel the recoil or hear the blast. For the guys that do carry a full size steel gun ,good for you.
JohnBT
Member
"As a previous poster pointed out, there's no difference in concealability between a 642 and a 640."
I know I can't front pocket carry a 649 .357 like I can a 442. I know, I have one of each and I've tried. The difference between 23 ounces and 15.8 is enough to really make a pair of slacks sag and look funny. It's not nearly as big a problem in canvas work pants/bibs/etc.
The Rohrbaugh is lighter and flatter than both of them and it's 9mm.
John
I know I can't front pocket carry a 649 .357 like I can a 442. I know, I have one of each and I've tried. The difference between 23 ounces and 15.8 is enough to really make a pair of slacks sag and look funny. It's not nearly as big a problem in canvas work pants/bibs/etc.
The Rohrbaugh is lighter and flatter than both of them and it's 9mm.
John
armoredman
Member
My Taurus 850 CIA was just returned from the factory, all fixed, (will never use that FFL to recieve anything again), and will test fire tomorrow to see how it kicks, with light, medium, and +P defense loads.
Homerboy
Member
I am a retired cop. I carry all day, every day. I did admit the 642 is a joy to carry, but it was not fun to shoot. I believe in becoming very proficient at your carry gun. 50 rounds here and there is not enough for me. Unless you are going to carry in your pocket (and that mode of carry is no longer attractive to me after it fell out at that wake.), I see no benefit, and nothing but drawbacks.
Enjoy your 642. J frames are great guns. I no longer own one, but might get another one one day. And when I was still on the job, my off duty was a Ruger SP101 in .38. I used to be able to slip that into a pocket if the need arose. I like having my pockets free for other things, especially with a j frame. If you decide to carry extra ammo, where do you put that? So now you have wallet, keys, cell phone, j frame, and a speed strip in your pockets.
OP
OP
earlthegoat2
Member
Good points have been brought up. The lightweights are the best tool for the job when pocket carrying is on the dockett. Certain shooters can handle the lightweights well enough to choose them as their everyday carry.
The form of carry is important as well. I suppose the posts referring to using the heavy ones to shoot and the light ones to carry has some merit as long as there is at least moderate proficiency with the carry weapon.
All in all though it seems the lightweights are being favored over the steel frames which could mean some good deals on heavy snubbies for some.
The form of carry is important as well. I suppose the posts referring to using the heavy ones to shoot and the light ones to carry has some merit as long as there is at least moderate proficiency with the carry weapon.
All in all though it seems the lightweights are being favored over the steel frames which could mean some good deals on heavy snubbies for some.
Building a gun that is lightweight but more difficult to shoot has never made any sense to me. I couldn't care less about how heavy my CCW piece is. And the reason given by folks who claim if it's too heavy you will leave it at home is B.S. If you leave it at home you're priorities are questionable.
I think it's important to remember that every defensive firearm is the result of a number of compromises.
Revolvers resembling Jerry Miculek's guns are probably the fastest, most effective fighting revolvers. Anything else represents a compromise in absolute performance potential, in return for other benefits.
Adjustable sights are necessary if you want serious accuracy from a revolver. But they can hang up or even break in carry scenarios.
A steel revolver is faster to get back on target than a lightweight, with magnum ammo especially. But a lightweight is easier to carry around all day, and it works.
It's all about whatever tradeoff you think works for you.
Like I said, I can shoot my 642 well enough for what I want from it -- but I'm sure I shoot my 686 better with the same ammo. However, actually having the 642 on me a lot is worth the performance reduction.
That's all the question is: for you and what you think you need, what features do you trade for what? There's no free lunch, so we all have to make that call somewhere.
A 640 is hardly an ideal fighting revolver, either; it just represents some slightly different compromises than a 642.
There's no absolute "good" or "bad" -- all the guns work.
Revolvers resembling Jerry Miculek's guns are probably the fastest, most effective fighting revolvers. Anything else represents a compromise in absolute performance potential, in return for other benefits.
Adjustable sights are necessary if you want serious accuracy from a revolver. But they can hang up or even break in carry scenarios.
A steel revolver is faster to get back on target than a lightweight, with magnum ammo especially. But a lightweight is easier to carry around all day, and it works.
It's all about whatever tradeoff you think works for you.
Like I said, I can shoot my 642 well enough for what I want from it -- but I'm sure I shoot my 686 better with the same ammo. However, actually having the 642 on me a lot is worth the performance reduction.
That's all the question is: for you and what you think you need, what features do you trade for what? There's no free lunch, so we all have to make that call somewhere.
A 640 is hardly an ideal fighting revolver, either; it just represents some slightly different compromises than a 642.
There's no absolute "good" or "bad" -- all the guns work.
armoredman
Member
Here's my Taurus CIA ultralite, with Remington 158gr LSWCHP +P ammo, weak hand only, 7 yards, double action only, only way it can be fired.
Works for me, even if it IS a wrist twister!
Works for me, even if it IS a wrist twister!
armoredman
Member
Dagnab double tap...
very true about all handguns being a compromise.
the 642 works for me because:
1. if you're already going to give up that much barrel lenght and grip frame depth, you mind as well get the weight benfit of an alloy frame as well
2. i accept the fixed sights because i know that i can zero them for the load i select and i'll be good for at least 25 yards
3. the lack of a hammer removes any tendency to snag and forces you to practice DA like you should
part of the decision process should be figuring out the point of diminising returns...for me that is the 300 series
the small J-frame also benefits more from a tuned action than larger frames. the smoother cycling is more noticable when trying to hold a lightweight steady during the trigger stroke
the 642 works for me because:
1. if you're already going to give up that much barrel lenght and grip frame depth, you mind as well get the weight benfit of an alloy frame as well
2. i accept the fixed sights because i know that i can zero them for the load i select and i'll be good for at least 25 yards
3. the lack of a hammer removes any tendency to snag and forces you to practice DA like you should
part of the decision process should be figuring out the point of diminising returns...for me that is the 300 series
the small J-frame also benefits more from a tuned action than larger frames. the smoother cycling is more noticable when trying to hold a lightweight steady during the trigger stroke
- Status
