Hail Gun Gurus and Wheelgun Wielders!
Well my user handle outta tell you what kind of gun I like (I have an auto too don't worry
) but I'm in a dill pickle.
The good news is I know I'm going to have a CCW at some point this year. I put off getting it for lots of reasons, but the time has come!
I've already done most of the research, and I figured out the following:
#1. I want something no longer than 6-9/16" long with the grips on it.
#2. As long as I go with a 5 shot cylinder, it seems the other proportions of the gun will work.
#3. I'll be carrying in a large pocket or on an ankle most of the time.
#4. I want a shrouded hammer.
#5. .357 magnum out of a little gun like this is just beyond me at the present time.
#6. I prefer stainless steel.
The thing I'm still very iffy on is caliber. I'm down to 2 realistic choices:
-.38 Special - The good point here is I currently stock this anyway because .357 costs too darn much. The other good point here is that I am familiar with it, and the final good point here is that it's not a "rimless" cartridge. See below.
The bad point here is that I'd like to stop buying .38 Special entirely. I'd like to get my handgun calibers down to 9x19 and .357. I've only got 5 guns but each of them uses its own type of ammunition. I plan to expand my collection and I don't want each new gun to eat a different caliber. I would like to only stock 9mm, .357, 12 gauge, 7.62x39, .22LR, and probably .308 in the end. I like my full size autos in 9mm and my full size wheelguns in .357, I like my shotguns in 12 gauge, and I think the 3 rifle calibers I mentioned would handle anything I ever wanted to do. No I don't reload. My entire firearm collection, if sold, wouldn't even pay for the basic supplies and I have no space to set it up anyway. I operate on a shoe string.
- 9x19 - This would seem logical. As I said, I favor this caliber for my autoloading handguns, and as a guy that operates on a shoe string, it's an extremely easy caliber to own. It's a compromise caliber that fits my needs well. I don't really see it as being any better or worse per se for defense of my own person than .38 Special.
The only two things that kill it are pretty major.
First of all I have a fear of moonclips in a dedicated defense gun. I have an irrational fear of a moonclip bending. I think I could get over this if I dedicated 5 or 6 clips solely to carry. Basically I would never shoot brass out of them unless some sociopath tries to rearrange my face.
The other thing is, I quite frankly cannot find anything in this caliber besides the Taurus 905. I have nothing at all against Taurus Revolvers or Rossi. I have lots of time in behind Rossis. While I freely admit I like my Smith a lot better, the Rossis are enough gun to get the job done.
My ideal piece would be if we could take a Smith 638 and have it chambered in 9x19 instead.
Some problems here:
#1. As far as I can tell, this gun doesn't exist. Maybe somebody made something like it once, but not any more.
#2. I would like a shrouded hammer but the forces of nature are against me. I can't believe this option isn't the most popular between the 3 choices (regular old hammer, enclosed hammer, shrouded hammer). I realize it's not easy to cock it compared to the kind of hammer I am used to, but who can say I couldn't benefit from having the option? However, this option seems to cost about $100 more. I can find a 642 for $100 less than I can find the 638. Ditto for the similar Taurus models, and in fact I can't find anyone who will sell me a shrouded hammer Taurus or Smith unless it was blindly special ordered and I don't know if I'm that brave. Also, the feature is not worth the extra $100 to me.
I've handled the 637 and Taurus 85 and they were both great. I don't want a snag on the draw though. The little snubs in some of the easier to fire calibers are lots of fun to shoot too. I reckon the same version of either of those guns with a different style hammer would work great.
I think that's what I'm stuck with, either that or the Taurus eqivalent. But for the slight price difference I prefer the Smith. Ruger just doesn't seem to make what I want at that price point otherwise I'd sure consider them. They seem to want $80 more for the same basic platform, don't seem to offer a shrouded hammer, and I am certainly not married to Ruger even if I do like Ruger.
Maybe I just don't understand something technical that would explain why the shrouded hammer option costs more. I can see its being unpopular because it would be awkward to use, but it seems to me the difference between a normal SA/DA and a SA/DA with a shrouded hammer would be a small, superficial hump on the frame of the gun, and why limit yourself to DAO when you can be snag free and still have SA/DA operation?
It really blows my mind nobody makes what I'm looking for exactly in this configuration and caliber. Is there some technical reason or ballistic reason they don't make such a thing? I do realize it is a little weird to ask for a compact 9mm revolver with a shrouded hammer, but it certainly seems feasible to manufacture one and I can't imagine there's not a market for it.
At present, I'm looking at the 642, which I like very much despite its shortcomings. It's the least amount of compromises. I'm willing to put up with the expense of stocking another caliber I don't really need if it means I can have a carry piece that #1 I will trust and #2 I will carry. Am I going to do any better?
I did play around with the thought of going with .45 ACP since I am going to have to buy a caliber specifically for my carry piece anyway and they do make compact 5 shot DAO pieces in this caliber, but I have no idea how it would feel to fire a .45 out of a small revolver. My thinking was the recoil has to be much more manageable than .357 because the cartridges designed for automatic pistols tend to have pretty light recoils on the whole and the recoil out of a full or Commander sized frame 45 really isn't so awful. It just seems kind of... useless to have both .38 special and 9x19 in the same stockpile of ammo but I don't own a .45 yet and probably never will, and like I said if using .38 means I have a good carry piece that I will actually trust and carry, it's probably worth it.
Sigh... I hate playing the compromise game. Am I pretty much stuck with the 642? Not that it's so terrible , just that I'd like to do better if possible.
Well my user handle outta tell you what kind of gun I like (I have an auto too don't worry
) but I'm in a dill pickle.The good news is I know I'm going to have a CCW at some point this year. I put off getting it for lots of reasons, but the time has come!
I've already done most of the research, and I figured out the following:
#1. I want something no longer than 6-9/16" long with the grips on it.
#2. As long as I go with a 5 shot cylinder, it seems the other proportions of the gun will work.
#3. I'll be carrying in a large pocket or on an ankle most of the time.
#4. I want a shrouded hammer.
#5. .357 magnum out of a little gun like this is just beyond me at the present time.
#6. I prefer stainless steel.
The thing I'm still very iffy on is caliber. I'm down to 2 realistic choices:
-.38 Special - The good point here is I currently stock this anyway because .357 costs too darn much.
The other good point here is that I am familiar with it, and the final good point here is that it's not a "rimless" cartridge. See below.The bad point here is that I'd like to stop buying .38 Special entirely. I'd like to get my handgun calibers down to 9x19 and .357. I've only got 5 guns but each of them uses its own type of ammunition. I plan to expand my collection and I don't want each new gun to eat a different caliber. I would like to only stock 9mm, .357, 12 gauge, 7.62x39, .22LR, and probably .308 in the end. I like my full size autos in 9mm and my full size wheelguns in .357, I like my shotguns in 12 gauge, and I think the 3 rifle calibers I mentioned would handle anything I ever wanted to do. No I don't reload. My entire firearm collection, if sold, wouldn't even pay for the basic supplies and I have no space to set it up anyway. I operate on a shoe string.
- 9x19 - This would seem logical. As I said, I favor this caliber for my autoloading handguns, and as a guy that operates on a shoe string, it's an extremely easy caliber to own. It's a compromise caliber that fits my needs well. I don't really see it as being any better or worse per se for defense of my own person than .38 Special.
The only two things that kill it are pretty major.
First of all I have a fear of moonclips in a dedicated defense gun. I have an irrational fear of a moonclip bending. I think I could get over this if I dedicated 5 or 6 clips solely to carry. Basically I would never shoot brass out of them unless some sociopath tries to rearrange my face.
The other thing is, I quite frankly cannot find anything in this caliber besides the Taurus 905. I have nothing at all against Taurus Revolvers or Rossi. I have lots of time in behind Rossis. While I freely admit I like my Smith a lot better, the Rossis are enough gun to get the job done.
My ideal piece would be if we could take a Smith 638 and have it chambered in 9x19 instead.
Some problems here:
#1. As far as I can tell, this gun doesn't exist. Maybe somebody made something like it once, but not any more.
#2. I would like a shrouded hammer but the forces of nature are against me. I can't believe this option isn't the most popular between the 3 choices (regular old hammer, enclosed hammer, shrouded hammer). I realize it's not easy to cock it compared to the kind of hammer I am used to, but who can say I couldn't benefit from having the option? However, this option seems to cost about $100 more. I can find a 642 for $100 less than I can find the 638. Ditto for the similar Taurus models, and in fact I can't find anyone who will sell me a shrouded hammer Taurus or Smith unless it was blindly special ordered and I don't know if I'm that brave. Also, the feature is not worth the extra $100 to me.
I've handled the 637 and Taurus 85 and they were both great. I don't want a snag on the draw though. The little snubs in some of the easier to fire calibers are lots of fun to shoot too. I reckon the same version of either of those guns with a different style hammer would work great.
I think that's what I'm stuck with, either that or the Taurus eqivalent. But for the slight price difference I prefer the Smith. Ruger just doesn't seem to make what I want at that price point otherwise I'd sure consider them. They seem to want $80 more for the same basic platform, don't seem to offer a shrouded hammer, and I am certainly not married to Ruger even if I do like Ruger.
Maybe I just don't understand something technical that would explain why the shrouded hammer option costs more. I can see its being unpopular because it would be awkward to use, but it seems to me the difference between a normal SA/DA and a SA/DA with a shrouded hammer would be a small, superficial hump on the frame of the gun, and why limit yourself to DAO when you can be snag free and still have SA/DA operation?
It really blows my mind nobody makes what I'm looking for exactly in this configuration and caliber. Is there some technical reason or ballistic reason they don't make such a thing? I do realize it is a little weird to ask for a compact 9mm revolver with a shrouded hammer, but it certainly seems feasible to manufacture one and I can't imagine there's not a market for it.
At present, I'm looking at the 642, which I like very much despite its shortcomings. It's the least amount of compromises. I'm willing to put up with the expense of stocking another caliber I don't really need if it means I can have a carry piece that #1 I will trust and #2 I will carry. Am I going to do any better?
I did play around with the thought of going with .45 ACP since I am going to have to buy a caliber specifically for my carry piece anyway and they do make compact 5 shot DAO pieces in this caliber, but I have no idea how it would feel to fire a .45 out of a small revolver. My thinking was the recoil has to be much more manageable than .357 because the cartridges designed for automatic pistols tend to have pretty light recoils on the whole and the recoil out of a full or Commander sized frame 45 really isn't so awful. It just seems kind of... useless to have both .38 special and 9x19 in the same stockpile of ammo but I don't own a .45 yet and probably never will, and like I said if using .38 means I have a good carry piece that I will actually trust and carry, it's probably worth it.
Sigh... I hate playing the compromise game. Am I pretty much stuck with the 642? Not that it's so terrible
, just that I'd like to do better if possible.