Smallest most lightest PRACTICAL revolver?

[Cheeseybacon]

What would you guys say is the smallest and lightest revolver out there that is still what one would consider "practical"? By practical I mean nothing less than .38 spl, and large enough that you can get more than one finger around the grip. No derringers or microscopically small .22s.

I was thinking that a snubby S&W airweight probably fills this category, but I'm curious as to what else is out there.

 

[Ala Dan]

Probably, the 12 oz. scandium frame Smith & Wesson 340PD in .357 magnum.

 

[crankshop1000]

The S&W 642 is arguably the best small carry gun ever.When you consider cost,power,size and weight, it is unbeatable.

 

[armed85]

My Smith & Wesson 642 fits in my pocket just as my keys and wallet do. Unless I need it, I wont notice it's there.

It's not a precise weapon, nor is it very fun to shoot, but for the role of a gun that can be carried with nearly any type of clothing, a J-frame revolver is hard to beat.

 

[Sistema1927]

Another vote for the 642. "Practical" is it's middle name.

 

[mavracer]

jragsdale,
put crimson trace ct405 grips on it.it becomes precise and much more plesant to shoot

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Colt Detective Special.

 

[Logos]

Model 19 Smith in the 2.5 barrel.

 

[MikeJ]

+1 for the 642/442. This is as light as I want to go and shoot .38's, no .357's for me in a gun that small and light.

 

[rino451]

+1

Probably, the 12 oz. scandium frame Smith & Wesson 340PD in .357 magnum.

 

[ArmedBear]

It's not a precise weapon,

I would disagree wholeheartedly. The things are SHOCKINGLY accurate and shoot tiny groups. Those frames must be really stiff.

What they are is downright painful to shoot. Buy one for self-defense, not as a target gun! Practice with something similar, but a lot heavier.

 

[scubie02]

the lightweight j frames have their place, and it's true the 642 just seems to fit better than most others. It does take alot more practice to shoot well, however, and they are certainly no fun with +P's. The 2" K frame model 10's otoh are *****cat's with +P's. But they are more of a belt gun.

If you can find one, the 32 H&R mag j frames offer energy similar to the 38 spl with 6 shots. The hammered version j frames are easier to shoot well, btw, with the option of single action, but of course slightly less concealable somehow, partially from the lack of an external hammer, obviously, but also because the grips are slightly different

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Although the 12 oz. Aitlite scandium frame Smith & Wesson revolvers are lighter than the 15 oz. Airweight revolvers they are not more practical. They will cost you more than twice the price at ~$900 instead of ~$375. I have a Bodyguard J frame Model 638 and I'm very happy with it. The M642 and 442 are also very good choices. You probably won't find a smaller .38 Special revolver than those I just mentioned.

 

[deputy tom]

Yet another vote for the 642.tom.

 

[glockman19]

Another 442/642 fan here. And I do think it is more practicle than the 340.

 

[Curare]

My vote would be my mid 90s 640-1 in .357 Magnum. It isn't the lightest, but you need some weight to be PRACTICAL with .357 Magnum. I sold my 642 to go up in power without sacrificing controllability. I also was disappointed in the fit and finish of the 642 and the damn lock.

I'm hoping for something in between the 640 and 327--a scandium J frame in .357 with a STAINLESS cylinder for cost savings, ease of care, and a couple ounces more weight.

 

[DAdams]

Dan

Probably, the 12 oz. scandium frame Smith & Wesson 340PD in .357 magnum.

Whoa, that just ain't right.

642/442 is probably your best value or check out a M&P 340 if you want to get in at 13 oz and a couple other "upgrades".

 

[ugaarguy]

There is a reason that the 642 is S&W's current top selling handgun. I prefer the shrouded hammer bodyguard types myself. However, the theme remains the same that aluminium airweight S&Ws just have it. I've no desire to shoot 357 Mags in a gun that small & light. For the price, weight, and practicality of .38 Special in the format the airweight J's are tough to beat.

 

[sm]

I am in the camp with OLDer J frames with steel and aluminum as being the lightest and most practical.

I do NOT want a newfangled alloy that is not going to offer me the choice of ammunition in weights and loading I want, nor requires special care of metal/ finish.
I want to be able to shoot as much as I want and not be restricted by newfangled materials.


I am old school, 158gr loads were the loads designed to shoot POA/POI and I happen to like this weight of bullet in a dedicated 38spl.

Gimme a OLDer Model 37, 042, 442, Bodyguard...
Metallurgy was better IMO and I damn sure do not want another key to keep up with.

Then again a all steel Model 36 is darn hard to beat, or its steel counterpart the Model 60.

 

[fiVe]

IMO, you can't beat a 642 in a Mika round-cut pocket holster. It's an easy carry--very comfortable.

 

[jt1]

I have tried many and have settled on the 642-2 with 158 LSWHP+P carried in a Mika or Nemesis. Not too heavy or too light. Stock grips. A basic, no frills, 24/7 pocket gun with a non-functional lock.

 

[evan price]

Taurus Total Titanium snubby.

 

[Starter52]

+1 on the Model 37.

 

[ok41]

Yep, what y'all said about the 642. Hell to hold with +P loads, fairly accurate and very nice to carry. Practice lots with mine stuffed with wad cutters.

 

[WC145]

If memory serves, the lightest .38spl around was the S&W 342PD at 10.8oz, they quit making them a couple of years ago. Great gun, felt like a toy. Hold a 342PD in one hand and a 642 in the other and the 642 actually feels porky by comparison.

I believe the Charter Arms Off-Duty is lightest currently available at 12oz.

*Correction - The 337PD was lighter than the 342PD by 1/10 of an ounce, 10.7oz total. The weight difference came from having an exposed hammer so the frame had slightly less metal to it.