Taurus 38 special "View"

[snooperman]

Anyone shot this 9.7oz revolver in 38 special? Opinions? It must be painful to shoot. My old Colt Agent at 15oz is enough for me to handle.

 

[Sam1911]

I haven't shot one, but I played with one a little at the big PA Outdoors show last year.

The grip is about the same size as my big toe. I asked one of their reps if they'd made him shoot it yet and with a bemused look he said, "Uhhhh....no."

You certainly could start with powderpuff loads and work your way up. Probably should.

 

[GRIZ22]

Haven't fired the Taurus but the 9 oz Smith is painful with wadcutters and std grips.

 

[Yo Mama]

I had an old 85 that just sucked. Very unreliable with a forcing cone issue, and was a pain to shoot. The ultra lightweight View can't be much better.

 

[snooperman]

GRIZZ22, I didn't know S&W made a 9oz 38 sp revolver?

 

[bannockburn]

I might try it with some very light wadcutter loads but it sure wouldn't be at the top of my list of things to do.

 

[bannockburn]

I might try it with some very light wadcutter loads but it really wouldn't be at the top of my list of things to do today.

 

[armoredman]

Would be absolutely excellent with wax loads...
I can easily conceal a much larger and easier to use sidearm than that View...it's a curiosity, and oddity, something that will be looked at years from now with the same eye we cast on Edsels.

 

[Haywood]

The few articles I have read about it stated that it is not somthing you would want to shoot a lot. I also saw a video wear it drew blood on a lady shooting it. As much as I like Revolvers and dislike small semi autos, before I wood carry a view I might have to go with a small semi auto.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I'd image it would be... interesting... to shoot this gun with Buffalo Bore Heavy .38 special +P 158 grain loads!

 

[Jaymo]

The only way I'd shoot one is with blanks,.

 

[Hoppes Love Potion]

I'd load it with these and call it good:

 

[C0untZer0]

Maybe they should chamber it in 380 AUTO, it is lighter than the M380 by about 6 ounces.

 

[Old Fuff]

Actually Taurus makes a slightly smaller/more conventional revolver chambered in .380 ACP in combination with moon-clips; and I've given it some consideration. Why they didn't use this platform as the basis for the View I'll never understand - but as a larger .38 Special I have no interest in it whatsoever. I will be surprised if it's still in the catalog next year.

Incidentally the .380 tips the scale at 15 ounces, and that's light enough for me.

 

[snooperman]

Ljke Old Fuff, I would be surprised to see this revolver in its present form in the marketplace for too long. I also think in a 32 H&R it might fair better. One could shoot 32 long or even 32 ACP since it is semi rimmed. I like the size and concept but not in 38 special. For now I will stay with my trusty Colt agent with 6 shots.

 

[snooperman]

That said, there are some new dandy loads for the 80gr 380 ACP that probably would have been a much better choice for this revolver that would have gotten my interests.

 

[JR47]

I had an old 85 that just sucked. Very unreliable with a forcing cone issue, and was a pain to shoot. The ultra lightweight View can't be much better.

I have an older Model 625-3 that broke on the first shot. Therefore, the newer S&W revolvers can't be much better.

It's actually amusing that, although we've had such tiny revolvers for decades, people always come up with the "I bet that recoil is terrible" comment. For all of those years, Police carried the I-frame and J-frame as back-up, or, in the case of detectives, for primary. This in the day when soft grips, or even custom grips, were unheard of. The mantra of the day was "carried a lot, shot a little".

Why do we seem to insist that we fire hundreds of rounds every outing with every gun? You best believe that hunters don't shoot two or three boxes of .500 S&W, or .460 S&W every time they practice. Yet, they do quite well in the fields.

The little guns are not for everyone. However, just because one doesn't personally have a use for them does NOT make them useless to others.

 

[snooperman]

Well, I have a S&W "I" frame in 38 S&W and it weighs twice as much as the "View" from Taurus . Hardly an equal comparison in recoil. That said, I like to practice with my carry guns here at my farm range and do so frequently by drawing from the pocket and/or belt Holster as well. I think it helpful and fun to do so. My 2 cents,,, Snoop

 

[Old Fuff]

Well, I have a S&W "I" frame in 38 S&W and it weighs twice as much as the "View" from Taurus

Those little I-frame revolvers are neat, but (excluding the stocks) all steel construction. The .380 Taurus is about the same size, but has an aluminum frame that drops the weight to 15 ounces. If ultra-lightness was the principal consideration that could be further reduced, and a complete View package would weigh less then 9 ounces, combined with a cartridge that was much better then .38 Special for this application.

I agree with your views concerning an I-frame size revolver as a 6-shot/.32 H&R Magnum, but Taurus has already tried that and it didn't go over. Should I find one in the used market I'll likely jump.

 

[Sam1911]

Wow, if they went like the M380 and made the View a .380 instead of a .38 Spc, they could make the cylinder shorter and frame smaller and then that thing would be TINY.


Instead of the 9 oz., 3-1/2" long behemoth that it is...

 

[snooperman]

Old Fuff , there is a Taurus 32 H&R 6 shot on gunbroker now for $350 #440612715 ,, but it is compensated and I hate those little holes in a carry gun for up-close work. This gun was in the market for several years and weighs 16 oz, and it did not sell well. But to me the "VIEW" may change that a bit since it is so light and small, a 32 with 6 shots could make it more attractive to a much larger conceal carry market that we have now.

 

[Waveski]

No , thanks.

 

[19-3Ben]

I actually agree with one of the above suggestions about making it in .380. As long as they were marketing to the "make it as small as humanly possible" crowd, they should have gone with a .380 so they could shorten the frame and cylinder by just that little bit more.

Honestly, for me, the Ruger LCR at only 13oz is so light that anything lighter would just kind of be a waste.

One thing I can't see at all, is how they used titanium cylinder and barrel and kept the street price so low.

 

[shlike]

That has to be the ugliest gun I have ever seen!

 

[MCgunner]

That has to be the ugliest gun I have ever seen!

You've never seen a Nagant revolver? How's about a Dardick?

I love my old M85UL i bought in 96 and is still one of my preferred carries. It's 17 ounces and has a rubber boot grip that is actually decent. i cannot fathom that the View would be very comfortable to shoot, but it sure would be light in the pocket. I'll pass, though. 17 ounces isn't intolerable. I begin to notice revolvers when they reach low 20 ounces unloaded, like steel J frames. I'd rather have a better grip and more bulk in my pocket just for shootability.