Best argument I can make for a snub is that Gander Mountain has the Taurus 85's on sale right now for $229. I had to pick one up. I got lucky because they sold out every thing they had on the first day of the sale and I happened to come when the new shipment was still in the back. I have shot a Glock 27 and holding that gun just did not feel right. However the 85 felt great with the way the grip was shaped.
Talk me into a snub...
- Thread starter OtG
- Start date
- Status
The Smith 642 is hard to beat...Also, the smith J-Frame that still has the option of single action fire (concealed hammer on the hump) is one of my fav's
Snubs are a good idea for 2 reasons...
1...snub = reliability..."5 for sure" and all that
2...is also a good platform to teach a novice to shoot (NOT the super lightweights though) with proper ammo of course
Snubs are a good idea for 2 reasons...
1...snub = reliability..."5 for sure" and all that
2...is also a good platform to teach a novice to shoot (NOT the super lightweights though) with proper ammo of course
One argument for a hammerless concealed carry gun is that you will be forced to learn to shoot it double action. It's too easy to fall into the habit of shooting such a gun single action at the range, thus making you less effective should you need to shoot it double action in an emergency situation.
I'm with LB... double action only practice is critical for defense work. Not only for snubs (which really require a LOT of practice) but also for full size revolvers. If someone is so far away that you have time and the need to cock the hammer, chances are you do not have a legitimate self-defense scenario.
No.
A snub is one of the best deep concealment guns. They are small, the shape works well to help hide it in most spots. They work every time. The can be fired, and fired again, out of a coat pocket if needed. Especially in the alloys they are plenty light enough for easy carry. They come in decent defensive calibers.
However, they are also some of the hardest guns to master. A lightweight aluminum snub in even .38spl isn't comfortable to shoot, and even the steel versions aren't as comfortable, or as easy to shoot, as most other guns. This means that: 1) you need to practice a lot to become proficient with them, and 2) unless you love them you won't practice enough. So if you need talked into a snub, you will be better off with a Kahr PM9, Kel-Tec, Bersa .380, etc (this coming from someone who loves revolvers).
The PM9 is a great little gun... but for some reason, I always grab a little snub revo and the PM9 gets to hang out in the safe. It just lacks charisma, I guess. 
Far be it from me to discourage anyone from practice. However, I don't think it's all that critical with a snubbie, for it's intended use as a close range last ditch firearm. Anybody should be able to put two or three in an attacker's chest at close range, and if that won't slow him down enough for you to escape, it just might be your time, IMO.
Mark... you'll enjoy talking with Kim Ahrends. He and his wife are great people. Tell him DHart said "hi".
I think these days there's a whole new breed of snubbies that probably needs more people talking us OUT of them, than into them.
It's no longer your dad's snub-nosed revolver, it's more like a "who's your daddy" revolver now. The new breed is not about being small or particularly concealable, but about cramming power and capacity in a package that's SLIGHTLY LESS UNCOMFORTABLE TO CARRY than a comparable long barreled revolver.
One of my favorites is the Smith & Wesson Performance Center 327, which is a whopping 8 shots of .357 Magnum, in an N-Frame snubby. Right. N-Frame. Even with a 2" barrel, this is a big honkin' serious weapon. The muzzle flash is beastly, like a sideways volcano. You won't just shoot guys, you'll BARBECUE them. This is not a snubby you're going to wear in the pocket of your gym shorts, it's one you'll put in your overcoat pocket or pancake holster because you are pretty sure the very sight of it will send everyone running for cover.
OK, it's Scandium. Nice and light. 21 ounces, when by all rights the gun should be 42 if you want to shoot it accurately at the range. But anyone who says this thing is going to be a joy to carry, isn't thinking clearly. I like the model a lot, but I'm not delusional. Cutting down on the barrel length and weight makes this thing MORE carryable and concealable than other N-Frames, but it's still going to be bigger and meaner than any other traditional looking small-framed snubby for personal defense. So why do I like it? That very seriousness. And that it uses moonclips. You will never want to touch a speedloader again after you use the clips.
I also like the 325PD. Also a Scandium N-Frame. Pretty much the same gun as the 327, but a slightly longer barrel, no Titanium shroud, and chambered for six shots of .45ACP. Which of course means fullmoon clips. Again, another large-frame powerful handgun that is only a snubby and Scandium to make it a BIT less heavy to haul around as a wilderness gun or a uniquely intimidating carry gun. My opinion is, these guns are selling not because they are compact and you can hide them well in clothing, they're selling because they are big and nasty and powerful. It's like the Dirty Harry vibe, but where the shortness of the barrel is actually scarier to look at these days than a real hand-cannon. I worry that we're sometimes losing sight of how things function, the physics of the things, in favor of trying to push the envelope on power with respect to lightness.
Then we come to things like the .500 S&W magnum and the Ruger Super Redhawk Alaskan. The Alaskan is a snub more than the .500, but the only guys who'd carry these things are those who find themselves frequently on Safari, living in mortal fear of large fanged creatures. No Scandium there. I guess there comes a point where it makes no sense to go light. Are we already there with the big snubbies? What do we gain by chopping the barrel AND reducing the weight? I'd argue mystique, that's about it.
I wonder if the 327 and 325PD wouldn't have been even better revolvers if they didn't even TRY to lighten the frame. I'd probably have preferred them in all-steel (and blued).
It's no longer your dad's snub-nosed revolver, it's more like a "who's your daddy" revolver now. The new breed is not about being small or particularly concealable, but about cramming power and capacity in a package that's SLIGHTLY LESS UNCOMFORTABLE TO CARRY than a comparable long barreled revolver.
One of my favorites is the Smith & Wesson Performance Center 327, which is a whopping 8 shots of .357 Magnum, in an N-Frame snubby. Right. N-Frame. Even with a 2" barrel, this is a big honkin' serious weapon. The muzzle flash is beastly, like a sideways volcano. You won't just shoot guys, you'll BARBECUE them. This is not a snubby you're going to wear in the pocket of your gym shorts, it's one you'll put in your overcoat pocket or pancake holster because you are pretty sure the very sight of it will send everyone running for cover.
OK, it's Scandium. Nice and light. 21 ounces, when by all rights the gun should be 42 if you want to shoot it accurately at the range. But anyone who says this thing is going to be a joy to carry, isn't thinking clearly. I like the model a lot, but I'm not delusional. Cutting down on the barrel length and weight makes this thing MORE carryable and concealable than other N-Frames, but it's still going to be bigger and meaner than any other traditional looking small-framed snubby for personal defense. So why do I like it? That very seriousness. And that it uses moonclips. You will never want to touch a speedloader again after you use the clips.
I also like the 325PD. Also a Scandium N-Frame. Pretty much the same gun as the 327, but a slightly longer barrel, no Titanium shroud, and chambered for six shots of .45ACP. Which of course means fullmoon clips. Again, another large-frame powerful handgun that is only a snubby and Scandium to make it a BIT less heavy to haul around as a wilderness gun or a uniquely intimidating carry gun. My opinion is, these guns are selling not because they are compact and you can hide them well in clothing, they're selling because they are big and nasty and powerful. It's like the Dirty Harry vibe, but where the shortness of the barrel is actually scarier to look at these days than a real hand-cannon. I worry that we're sometimes losing sight of how things function, the physics of the things, in favor of trying to push the envelope on power with respect to lightness.
Then we come to things like the .500 S&W magnum and the Ruger Super Redhawk Alaskan. The Alaskan is a snub more than the .500, but the only guys who'd carry these things are those who find themselves frequently on Safari, living in mortal fear of large fanged creatures. No Scandium there. I guess there comes a point where it makes no sense to go light. Are we already there with the big snubbies? What do we gain by chopping the barrel AND reducing the weight? I'd argue mystique, that's about it.
I wonder if the 327 and 325PD wouldn't have been even better revolvers if they didn't even TRY to lighten the frame. I'd probably have preferred them in all-steel (and blued).
I will have a Super Redhawk Alaskan, as soon as they become a bit more common and the initial wave of dealer gouging subsides. When fly fishing in bear country, an activity that precludes carrying a long gun, that is the gun I want hanging off my fishing vest.
I would even consider carrying it, in the winter, when I am wearing a long coat, but it would be impractical for daily carry.
I would even consider carrying it, in the winter, when I am wearing a long coat, but it would be impractical for daily carry.
Right. I flyfish in the wild too. I thought of the Alaskan, it's certainly a pretty and sturdy looking gun... but somehow I always feel out of my league shooting .454 Casull. I never felt I mastered shooting it. I know I'd have better shot placement under stress with the .45ACP revolver. No, it's not "certain-stop" if you're fighting in the fur, which god willing I'll never have to do... but I think my chances are more than good enough with 6 shots of a cartridge I'm more familiar with. And the 325 is almost shockingly light to carry. I'm just not sure how much that 20oz. savings matters to me really.
I haven't yet tried the .500 S&W. Some people are saying with the muzzle brake it's not as hard to shoot as the Alaskan.
I haven't yet tried the .500 S&W. Some people are saying with the muzzle brake it's not as hard to shoot as the Alaskan.
I'm planning to pick up a Taurus 44SS for fly fishing. .44 Magnum is the lightest round I dare use in bear country.
Don't forget the 3" and 3.5" barrel revolvers. Some say they are easier to conceal and every little bit of barrel increases the velocity.
Geoff
Who has a two inch S&W Bodyguard.
Geoff
Who has a two inch S&W Bodyguard.
DHart,
Couldn't find their webpage so I ordered them from Brownells. I won't see them until R&R in June anyhow. Can't wait to put them on though. Your's look great. Do you have their contact info?
Mark
Couldn't find their webpage so I ordered them from Brownells. I won't see them until R&R in June anyhow. Can't wait to put them on though. Your's look great. Do you have their contact info?
Mark
Sorry Mark... Ahrends grips are no longer being stocked by Brownells (though they have a little stock left), but you can buy some of the models directly from Smith & Wesson and Ahrends now supplies grips directly to customers. No website just yet, but I hear one is coming. Until then, just give 'em a call.
Kim Ahrends Grips
PO Box 203
Clarion, IA 50525
(515) 532-3449
Also, ask them about their Morado (aka Pau Ferro, Moradillo) wood grips, a great alternative to cocobolo... less red, more of a walnut-brown. Here's what the wood looks like:
Kim Ahrends Grips
PO Box 203
Clarion, IA 50525
(515) 532-3449
Also, ask them about their Morado (aka Pau Ferro, Moradillo) wood grips, a great alternative to cocobolo... less red, more of a walnut-brown. Here's what the wood looks like:
- Status
Similar threads
