A few contrasting quotes on snubs

C

Carlo

New member
I like to put one expert against the other, at times, it helps remembering no one has an ultimate truth.
According to copyright rules, I post short senteces only.

Askins
About the S&W M&P 2": "The gun makes the BEST of belly gun types with the 2" barrel...what is probably most handy is that the frame has sufficient size and deph so as to give the gunner a fistful to hold to..."

About the Chiefs Special "This gun is the ultimate in extra light belly models in the 38 spl cartridge. Suitable for gunners with small hands"

Weston
About S&W M&P 2": "This weapon is chambered for the 38 spl and is a fine, full sized, short barreled gun carrying a cylinder load of six cartridges" (he goes on praising the airweight model)

About Colt DS, Cobra and Agent: "It may be that it is the size and shape of the grips, but in this small gun field these three Colt weapons have a pointing or punching characteristic worthy of a service revolver"
(in fewer words: he means they can deliver defensively directed fire like a service revolver, a huge compliment)

Gaylord
About Colt Marshal, S&W M&P 2" and the S&W .357 M. 3&1/2":
"These guns have large grips, heavy cylinders and frames, and nowhere enough barrel to balance them in a holster. Why anyone would carry around so much excess weight in a weapon having such ineffective ballistics is beyond me"
 
K

KyJim

New member
These guns have large grips, heavy cylinders and frames, and nowhere enough barrel to balance them in a holster.
Click to expand...
I am wondering what exactly this means. I've never worried about "balancing" a gun in a holster. Maybe that's because I buy holsters that fit the gun?
 
C

Carlo

New member
Gaylord was a holstermaker, he had a shop and crafted custom holsters. I guess his point was that it was difficult to make a good holster for large frame snubs, one that kept the weapon from moving as the wearer moved. His opinion was that, as holster guns, 3" and 4" revolvers were far more effective than 2" revolvers.
I don't make holsters, so I don't have this problem and honestly I'm with Askins on this one because I think the shorter barrel allows for effective carry and presentation from more positions than the longer barrel.
 
E

Eagle0711

New member
I'm not clear on the OP's question or what point is to be made, but I'll give it a blind shot.
The S&W model 10 with a 2" barrel is being compared to a chiefs model. The obvious differences are the model 10 has a K frame, holds a 6th shot, has a flat main spring as compared to a coil spring for a smoother DA trigger. A larger frame may feel better to someone with a larger hand, and the heavier cyl. feels smoother when the pull is started and inertia carrys it thru the DA stroke with the perception of superior smoothness. The same points could be made for the 357 model 27 with a 3.5" barrel as compared to the smaller guns.
Bottom line is try them all and see which works best for you.
 
C

Carlo

New member
Well, I have no point of my own, here, since I've already made up my mind and I'm with Askins on this matter.
Yet, the three of them have different points.
Weston is not really into putting a gun against the other to praise one and discount the other, this said, he's a Colt DS guy, when it comes to snubs (many, many people were and would still be if the gun was still produced).
Askins seems to be concerned with ergonomics and recoil control: if you want a snub, the best one is the one you can grip and control the best (he really dislikes all airweight weapons for that matter).
Gaylord's point is the most complicated to explain. He seems to imply that, if you can carry a medium-large frame revolver, you can carry one with a 4" barrel. In a strong side hip holster, that may be true. His opinion is that the lack of weight and leverage of the shorter barrel lets the grip move more, when you carry concealed (even this may be true, if the holster is a soft one).
I disagree with Gaylord when it comes to non strong side hip holster carry, though. I just don't get into the "ineffective ballistics" part for that would be an endless argument (I do disagree with him, though).
 
W

woodguru

New member
It seems that people's perceptions get formed on specific exposures and incidents.

A great example would be when I favored .243 as it has always been a favorite cartridge since my first Sako I got when I was 19. Someone told me to try a 6mm Remington as it had a bit more powder capacity. I picked up a Mauser custom with some of the most gorgeous wood you could ever ask for. I was used to Sakos in several calibers that would shoot half inch with factory loads and ragged holes with handloads.

I take the Mauser out and it wouldn't shoot under 3", I was appalled. Now I understand it's actually a good cartridge and has the potentially inherent accuracy traits of a .243 (maybe not). But I was all through with 6mm Rem. and left with a bad taste in my mouth.

.380 in my opinion gets the same bad reputation that comes from the typically smaller and harder to hold pistols it's configured to. I've had and shot a few that if they were the only ones I've ever shot I'd be all through with the caliber. Forward to liking the perfectly hand filling size of of the Beretta 86 Cheetah and it has the kind of accuracy you are used to seeing with bigger guns. Shooting with other guys where we are using 9mm's and .45's I'll tell them to try the .380 and it is invariably impressive to guys who otherwise have already discounted the cartridge.

A friend of mine has a little .380 Mustang, I had him on my back deck where I have a burn barrel at 55 yards away so we were trying to hit it with his .380, trying to hit it being the operative word. He was making excuses for the caliber being for close range defense and I pointed to the groups of holes that were four or five inches in spread all over the barrel and told him those were a .380, he wanted to know from how far away and I told him from right here. He told me I was full of bull so I went in the house and brought it out and proceeded to punch another group of holes in a remaining relatively clear space (with the Cor-Bons that were in the mag at the time).

My point was that this was a guy with quite an array of guns and calibers but he wasn't even aware that a .380 could possibly shoot like that. That caliber is mostly judged by the pocket gun standard, not a better sized gun.

What's my point you ask?

Heck I don't know, do I have to have one? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
S

savit260

New member
My impression of what Gaylord is saying is... that if you're going to bother carrying something that big, why give up the barrel length which would also sacrifice ballistics Let's face it... K and N frames are NOT pocket guns.

A 4" barrel mid or large frame revolver is no harder to conceal than a 2" mid or large frame in an good IWB holster, AND they do "ballance" (for lack of a better word) better in many holsters IMO. More weight being at or below the belt line. Meaning they stay tucked into your side (more leverage being longer I guess) than the short barreled guns.

I believe what Gaylord also may have meant was save the short barrels for the small framed pocket guns where the compromise is a needed to fit in a pocket.
 
Last edited:
C

Carlo

New member
woodguru, I just felt like sharing these three quotes, this is a revolver forum after all and they may have been of use to someone.

savit260, I agree with you about Gaylord's intentions. But I find the concept of "belly gun" to fit a good snub too. As a matter of fact, I was pondering on getting a snubnose revolver to have on me in the house (faster than opening the safe to get my .357). One of the problems of in house carry is that you tend to be casual dressed and have no appropriate belt for carrying an heavy gun, which would have to hide under a sweater, usually. I thought a model 10, or better a 12, 2" maybe a good compromise in the "belly gun" type.
 
J

Jimmy10mm

New member
Askins seems to be concerned with ergonomics and recoil control: if you want a snub, the best one is the one you can grip and control the best
Click to expand...
I agree with that 100% from my experience. I'm not an expert though. :)
 
L

Lashlarue

New member
I've only had one short barreled revolver and it was a High Standard Sentinel,great pocket gun , but it was a 22lr.This was long before Texas passed their CHL law.I had a written permit to carry as I was the treasurer for North Houston National Little league and had to make night deposits at Texas Commerce Bank on Airline drive, I can think of no place more dangerous , other than 3rd or 5th ward in Houston.Older S&W are fine but the latest with the infernal lock, they can keep.
 
S

savit260

New member
One of the problems of in house carry is that you tend to be casual dressed and have no appropriate belt for carrying an heavy gun, which would have to hide under a sweater, usually. I thought a model 10, or better a 12, 2" maybe a good compromise in the "belly gun" type
Click to expand...

My first "good" revolver was a pre model 12. While it was a FANTASTIC revolver, it was still not a "pocket gun". Worked best on a belt. Looked like a can of WD-40 in a pocket and difficult to draw.

My personal solution to the "around the house" revolver is something small enough to fit in a pocket. For me that is a short butt Colt Cobra with a set of Agent sized stocks on it. A J frame would work well for that as well, but minus one round.
 
D

DG45

New member
Its a case of different strokes for different folks, like buying a Ford or a Chevy used to be. You've got your diehard proponents of particular makes, and never mind the facts.

If you want a better gun, buy a gun with a longer barrel.
 
C

Carlo

New member
Well, yes experience tells the story, but experts warn you :D , after all they have been doing well for long. I hardly ever find a word of advice a waste.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top