Revolver advice

LloydXmas250

New member
For those of you who have a S&W J frame and are saying if you had to start all over you'd get an LCR, what's the reasoning behind it? Those that like the J Frames better, is there a specific reason with the guns or is it just something you've had so it's what you like?
 

ScotchMan

New member
I think I'm the only one who said that. And I don't own a J-frame, but I have fired one. I really dislike S&W's built-in locks, though I don't buy into all the hype about them on the Internet. I also like the LCR trigger pull, don't mind (or actually prefer) polymer in my guns as it lightens it without increasing recoil too much, IMO. The J-frame is an old design, nothing wrong with it, but the LCR is a little more modern, and takes advantage of new technologies. The S&W Bodyguard does as well, but I hate the cylinder release. Finally, I generally like Rugers, and I think the LCR is a good value.
 

LloydXmas250

New member
You're right. I have seen others in other forums where I've read about the two say the same thing so that's why I wondered. I've never handled either yet and I keep flip flopping while studying it online. I can see things I like in both. I wish there was a way to combine aspects of both.
 

ScotchMan

New member
You might consider the Bodyguard. Built-in laser makes it a great value. If you can get over the cylinder release being on top, its polymer like the LCR.
 
LloydXmas250:

Both the Ruger Sp101 and any of the Smith & Wesson's J frame revolvers are excellent revolvers. I like the Smith's because they are lighter than the Rugers. The Smith's J frame hammer models can be tuned up to make Colt Python's owner envious. I like my Smith 442, however, I wish that I had bought a 642 because my eyes can pick up the sights better in low light. This is a small inconvience because in a self defence I most likely will be point shooting for center mass.

Semper Fi.

Gunnery sergeant
Clifford L. Hughes
USMC Retirec
 

Sarge

New member
I shot my first LCR today. This 'un was a .357 loaded with Fiocchi's 142 grain Magnum load. This loads lists at 1420 fps and clocked 1152 from an old 2 1/2" Model 19, which has a substantial B/C gap.

It was not unpleasant to shoot in the LCR and I managed a 3" group at 15 yards with the first cylinder, pretty close to point of aim. The action was lighter than I expected and you can feel the cylinder lock well before the sear trips, allowing for precise shooting when needed. I note that the front sight is pinned in and it's only matter of time before someone offers a night sight.

I don't like revolvers with plastic hineys, partially because I wouldn't have a clue how to get inside one. Still, I came away impressed. At least Ruger got the color right this time.
 

rodfac

New member
I'm an advocate for revolvers for civilian CCW use....for the following reasons:

Simplicity of design:
With a revolver when you pull the trigger, double or single action, and you get a new cartridge for each pull should the primer fail to fire. With an auto, you need to cycle the slide. Too, generally, revolvers of quality make (S&W, Ruger, and Colt) in the CCW sizes, have better triggers, both single and double action than run of the mill autos. Since you're on a gun forum, I'd make a guess that you're fairly familiar with handguns and will train to perfect your response to a CCW situation. But if you're buying with the thought that other family members may need to use the weapon, (who may not share your enthusiasm for firearms), complexity and the training and practice to deal with it become a factor. The revolver shines here...very simple...pull the trigger. With an auto, you've got safeties, magazines, and the racking of slides to contend with.

Ammunition:
Better choices, here for revolvers, generally, than autos. You can pick lead alloy SWC's for practice and switch to the more potent +P fodder for carry use. And too, revolver ammunition, generally, is less expensive. In the past, autos have relied on clean, quality ammunition with limited choices as to bullet nose profile to feed properly; though this is becoming less of an issue. And I'd say that the often maligned .38 Spl, in its +P ammunition, is no slouch for a defense choice. The .357 needs no disclaimer and even at snub nose barrel lengths, offers plenty of penetration with good expansion. While no realistic defensive CCW hand gun round is a fight stopper with one shot to the thoracic region, the .357 probably comes closest, at least in smaller sized weapons easily carried concealed.

Customization to fit your hand:
I'd say that it's easier to find a set of grips that will make virtually any revolver fit your hand. With autos, what you get from the factories is about it...either it fits or not. The incredibly small, very easy to conceal autos can be a chore to hold on to and do good work at defense distances...In my hands, (medium size adult male), even the diminutive S&W J frames are easy to shoot well, even with +P defense ammo. I've not had that experience with the Ruger LCP's, Kel-Tec's and others. BTW, if you're looking for good after market grips that fit well, conceal well, and are a definite advantage in night encounters, you might try the Crimson Trace offerings...they're on my wife's S&W M-637 as I write this...expensive...but very good.

Drawbacks for a revolver choice:
Bulkier through the cylinder area for carry, tho, with the S&W J frames, you'll hardly notice.
Slower to reload in a CCW situation...unless you're a LEO, I don't give this drawback as much weight as any of the others. It's possible you'd be confronted by a slew of attackers or a protracted gunfight, but it's about the same likelihood as being struck by lightning...and like lightning strikes, it's better to stay away from those areas where it's prevalent.

JMHO, Rodfac
 

GM2

New member
The S&W model's 36 and 60 are good choices, I have one of each and both have been good dependable weapons.
 
Top