Post 667. Free of the evil influence. Lead me not unto temptation, I can find it myself, thanks.
Not to be confusing, you all should rest assured that I'm KEEPING my cute little M-36. I never sell guns, I just buy more. That M-36 is a prize, and I have no plans to trade one for the other.
Granted, Smiths are better than Tauruses. But Taurus is the only choice for a .45 ACP snubby. And all of my Taurus guns (Three of 'em, an 82, a 425 Tracker, and a 6" 441.) have been excellent, well-built performers easily capable of giving their more-expensive S&W counterparts a run for their money. For this reason, I'm perfectly willing to buy another one.
Now S&W 396's are a good idea, and the 696 is in the same realm, but the missing ingredient is the .45 ACP. That's the primary motivating element behind something as sacrilegouse as leaving a J-frame home. The .45 ACP has several advantages over the .44 Special. Things like two different extraction aspects for better ejection, short cases and moonclips, larger bore diameter, MUCH greater range of available loads with mucho superior low-speed-funtional hollowpoints, easier reloading due to better cartridge stabilization and rounded, auto-feed friendly bullet profiles, (Jerry Miculek "throws" 'em into N-frames.) and easier/more capacity handling of spare ammo with moonclips versus loaded speedloaders. A .45 ACP snubbbie? Of COURSE you need one! For all the same reasons you need an N-frame 625.
So S&W won't make one? What's up with that? I'd buy one in a heartbeat. I thought the 696 was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and that one had to be pried out of the company with a crowbar despite the loss of market share to Taurus, Rossi, and Charter Arms for years running. I'm not anticipating S&W to come through with something as simple as a caliber change in the meantime, a custom gun built out of an L-frame is too expensive, and a down-sized N-frame is too big. (Unless it's a down-sized version of that rumored .50 S&W is maybe flirting with. That I need.)
The Taurus new-generation snubbies came out of a re-design effort that downsized the Taurus frame to the smallest convenient medium-frame configuration. Now they list "medium-frame" and "compact-frame" in two different spots on their website. They're condensed here and there to make 'em smaller and lighter. Thinner through the topstap, re-contoured barrel, tweaks in the frame shape, that sort of thing. This makes 'em a bit smaller than a stock K-frame. That equates to a significantly smaller frame than an L-frame, which is what the 5-shot Smiths are built on. This does not get them down to J-frame size, but it mitigates the trade-off for larger bore size, somewhat.
Weight is a consideration, also. Steel J-frames weigh in at 19 ounces, Taurus snubbies wiegh 24 onces in steel, but only 20 ounces in titanium. Realistically, this is less of a consideration, as the titanium .45 ACP is not listed on Taurus's website. It might not be conveniently possible because of issues with bullet pulling. Without the minimum weight
and that disagree-able porting, bullet movement under recoil could tie up the gun, as auto rounds usually don't get to have heavy crimps to hold bullets.
I got out my Tracker, and compared it closely against my M-36. The Tracker's a good 3/8" taller at the front of the frame and trigger guard, and it has about 5/8" more grip. (Ribbers are all the same size, and the new snubby is built on a Tracker set-up.) The Tracker has about 3/16" more cylinder diameter, and the cylinder is magnum-length. These differences are what let J-frames go in front pockets. K-frames, even down-sized ones, generally do not. This is why we keep the M-36 around, as sometimes you just gotta go with that front pocket. But if you're holstering on your belt someplace, it's a bit easier to accomodate a slightly larger, heavier gun like the .45. Generally that would translate into a .357, but those are problematical snubbies due to prohibitive blast and recoil. The .45 ACP seems a bit better suited to snubby use under such circumstances. And in the same space, you can accomodate two reloads of moonclips versus one speedloader of .357. That'd be 15 shots of .45 ACP with an extra reload, against twelve shots of .357 with associated nastiness of shooting. Hmmm.
It's really down to intangibles, I guess. If I move relative quality aside as a criteria by presuming a basically worthwhile Taurus, I look at it more as a question of size/concealability versus cartridge efficacy. I regard J-frames as a trade-off with the concealability/great gun aspects of the M-36 outweighing the lack of punch in the .38 Special. I'm wondering if the advent of the .45 ACP in a reasonably compact platform might obviate the neccessity of compromising on cartridge power. A revolver will go places that even the most compact of .45 autos won't. Now we have a dinky .45 ACP revolver for the first time, so I'm re-thinking the equasion.
Personally, I don't much care about porting, really. Porting might blast me in a close-in situation, but it's not fatal. The bullet can be. Getting cooked implies shooting while trying to retain control of the weapon, which seems like a small price to pay. Realistically, I think if I'm close enough to worry about porting, I'm going to have bigger problems with the flash gap. This another advantage of the .45 ACP: it's well known for it's low flash/blast characteristics. Unlike a snubby .357 which is, as we call them ourselves, a pocket rocket. Ideally, I would do without the porting, but it's not enough of a deterrent to keep me from getting a given gun. (I even appreciate it on my Tracker. .41 mag is a handful in a medium frame gun.) Hello, S&W, are you listening?
A "winky" .38 Special in a "Best" S&W, or a "Best" .45 ACP in a "good-enough but slightly bigger" Taurus?
It's an evil question, I tell you. It would be less evil if S&W would get off it's collective butt and produce the .45, but that's not in the cards. This about balancing trade-offs and compromises. Shades of gray, and niggling points of technicality. Opinions, impressions, and other such nebulousities.
Of such is the best of gun doctrine debate. This is great fun.
