S & W 442. Light, simple to use, easy to conceal, and a lifetime warranty. Chambered for .38 Spl., a cartridge well known for being both versatile and effective (easy to find and fairly cheap too). The pocket autos are fine and dandy (I have one) but they require a lot more attention than a good, basic, well made revolver
CCW pistol
- Thread starter blary54
- Start date
I can't stand the the myth about revolvers being more "simple." They have far more moving parts and when they break, they break. I suppose they are alright if you don't like to shoot a lot.
As a factory trained Armorer for both Beretta and S&W weapons systems, I can partially agree with your comment regarding a revolver being more "simple" than an autoloading pistol. However, the statement was "..simple to use".
Incorporate the issues of failure to feed, fire, eject, and/or extract into the equation of auto vs. revolver. Also consider what basic cleaning process is simpler between the two....and how lack of said maintenance adversely affects one more than the other.
I humbly suggest that no matter which of the aforementioned firearms "breaks", the owner had better be real sure what he/she is doing if they decide to repair it on their own. Most people really have no business removing the sideplate on a revolver (nor is there a need unless it is really broken but good). Again, to ensure an auto pistol is properly serviced after use, it must be field stripped and properly reassembled. Not difficult if you (again) know what you're doing, but you would be amazed how many "experienced" shooters experience pistol malfunctions because of incorrect reassembly after cleaning. All-time favorite?? Putting the magazine spring in backwards. Unbelieveable how often that happens. That being said...yes, a revolver; much simpler...to use.
Very right on ease of use and certain malfunctions but like I said, once a revolver malfunctions it usually does so hard. I've seen far more revolvers bind up to the point that a gunsmith is required than semi autos. I don't recommend revolvers for shooters but for gun owners, they're OK. That's it.
Kind of partial to the ParaOrdnance P13 .45. Concealable and 13 shots of .45, 14 if you carry one in the pipe. Great gun, super knockdown power.
For concealed carry? That thing is huge. Not to mention its air soluble finish and spotty QC.
I have been using and carrying weapons since the military - long ago. I'm currently a certified NRA instructor, an affiliate instructor with Defense Training International and a quadruple Gunsite graduate. I think almost all beginners are better off with a .38 revolver, preferably one with adjustable (thus visible) sights. The minimum training round count should be at least 300 and probably more like 500, then at least 50 rounds a month in practice. The minimum skill level is to put one round into a pie plate at 25 feet within three seconds from the time your hand first touches the gun. Those who cannot do it consistently should practice until they can.
Totally agree (almost)...back in the day when I was actively teaching defensive shooting, we focused (no pun intended) on the Flash Sight Reference technique which pretty much takes the rear sight alignment concept out of the equation. Surely not precision shooting, but an excellent tactical/self-defense method of effective shot placement. I was/am of the belief adjustable sights had more of a downside than advantage when it came to Concealed Carry defensive weapons: 1) Adjustable sights can easily snag on clothing or otherwise hang up when quickly drawing a weapon from concealment. 2) They can get thrown out of alignment if knocked around and/or bumped, easliy enough during routine carry. Indeed I too am of the belief a beginner (and experienced shooter for that matter) would have a hard time improving on a lightweight .38 cal revolver as a reliable defensive weapon for daily carry. Lots of rhetoric about lack of "firepower" (read that as only 5 or 6 rounds) and the relative ineffectiveness of the .38 caliber round is spoken. I suggest the .38 round is indeed more versatile and effective than most of the .380s I see being carried by so many. Also, I recall reading statistical data that indicate the vast majority of confrontations are finished after 2 or 3 rounds have been fired. And if that were not the case, even a full-size M1911 has a total capacity of 8 rounds. I'm thinking effective shot placement is gonna do an individual much more good than a couple extra rounds in a fight....
Acmemfg: We are on the same page, certainly. I find modern adjustables stay adjusted and don't fall off. This is not a battlefield environment, where everything goes to hell. I like them, and the large, aftermarket fixed from some sources, because they allow the new shooter to attain quickly my preferred version of the flash sight picture, which does involve the rear sight. I live in the wide open West, where confrontations sometimes occur at a distance calling for aimed fire. The Speer Gold Dot 135 is a relatively new round, designed at the request of NYPD especially for snubbies, which many of their officers carry off duty. On water jugs, it acts like a pretty good 9mm. Not only is the .380 marginally less effective, it comes in the form of itty bitty autos, none of which I trust for very good reasons. Thanks for your supportive comments. Maybe somebody will pay attention to two guys who have pertinent knowledge and experience...but probably not.
I have never felt a need for adjustables outside of Bullseye. Know your zero at vary distances with your carry ammo.
A revolver is very good for teaching trigger control - the foundation of pistol shooting. That being said, should you decide to pursue additional training and/or compete, you'll need a good semi auto.
A revolver is very good for teaching trigger control - the foundation of pistol shooting. That being said, should you decide to pursue additional training and/or compete, you'll need a good semi auto.
When in the states I carry Taurus 709 slim in a Kholster. Very light and comfortable.
As the years go by, I find myself preferring something a little smaller for daily concealed carry.
This is my current companion, a NAA Guardian .380...
This is my current companion, a NAA Guardian .380...
A non panicked well placed round, from a .22, 32 cal. 380, or a 9mm. is far more effective than a missed round from a 45 acp, or a .357 mag. or for that matter any other round.
Last edited:
This is the essential point, and it comes down to practice. Opinions among instructors vary, but I am comfortable recommending 100 rounds per month at the range, with an additional 100 rounds of safe dry fire at home. As for panic, that falls under tactical training, which may have some value, or experience, which has a great deal more. However, no matter how experienced you may be, or confident of victory, it is pretty hard to stay serenely calm when things come unstuck. So, skill level deteriorates. With practice, you can default, under stress, to enough ability to stay alive.
you mentioned you didnt want to start a cal. debate, and i understand that.. but i think it is worth mentioning that 9mm is readily available, and cheap.
.......something to consider if you are going to have a membership at a range to practice at and so forth.
.......something to consider if you are going to have a membership at a range to practice at and so forth.
I agree with you (missed this comment when you said it, so I'm late) and you are obviously speaking with the experience of someone who has burned a lot a powder and seen a lot guns fired, especially in high level classes.
But I think you are missing the boat by dismissing revolvers as being only good for people who don't shoot a lot. I think a lot of very knowledgeable people use 'little revolvers' like S&W 442s and 642s for back up and or hot weather, deep concealment carry.
A very bright former SWAT guy and current high level bodyguard that I know recently made a statement that represents a heckuva reality check (to paraphrase): most of us are gun carriers a lot more of the time than we are gun fighters.
For example, a P7M8 is faster to reload and might be a better "gunfighting" gun than the older, heel-mag release P7...but the older P7 sure is perfect in an inside the waistband holster with nothing to snag on, etc.
I use a S&W 642 for backup quite often, and I am sure there are few platforms around that will function more perfectly for FIVE rounds after being carried around in a dusty/linty ankle holster or pocket holster, no matter how much I limp-wrist it(if I am wounded, say) or no matter the ammo (bad primer, etc.) but no, it wouldn't be what I would take as my primary to a Larry Vickers pistol class.
So in that sense, I agree with you. I shoot a Glock a lot more than the 642...but I find the 642 a nice tool in the toolbox, too.
Last edited:
if we could actually carry in Canada, the S&W model 59 would be one of my choices.
I've carried a Kimber 1911, an XD 4inch 9mm, a glock 26, glock 22, glock 30, and a glock 23. My favorite by far was the glock 23 in a Tommy Theis holster.
www.theisholsters.com
great holster and a great gun.
www.theisholsters.com
great holster and a great gun.
I am partial to revolvers. I carry an NAA Pug most of the time, .22 mag. I forget I even have it at times. Otherwise a trusty S&W .38 638. But, whatever you carry make sure you can shoot it well.
A friend of mine just qualified for his CCW with his NAA Pug. They were laughing at him when he took it out, until he put all five shots within an 3" radius on the target at 10 yards.
A friend of mine just qualified for his CCW with his NAA Pug. They were laughing at him when he took it out, until he put all five shots within an 3" radius on the target at 10 yards.
