OK, cool. You have a firm opinion.
I have a different opinion.
I'm not looking for the most power in a small defensive handgun.
I'm looking for a combination of bullet penetration and expansion, and these days there are many .38 Special rounds that do that admirably, even out of a snub nose revolver.
I've carried a .38 snub for over 30 years. I've also carried 9mms, .357s, and when I need a really small and concealable pistol, a .22.
I'm confident in my abilities with all of them, and I choose the best ammunition that is available at the time.
I do have to ask, how come it is stressed that he just has an opinion, but 44 AMP has gone against everyone else that either has a similar opinion or brings up legitimate benefits, and nothing is said? Not trying to start anything, but it is like one’s view is being considered higher/more correct than another’s. I personally don’t really care, even though I’m in the same viewpoint as the OP, but it is an odd stance to have (calling out his opinion). We all have different views, and it’s a great ability to be able to discuss them.
I’ve said it at least once in here, I like discussions with this spirit/potential… as you get different viewpoints where others can base their future decisions. But it really has got a bit spotty with this thread. Be it cherry picking loads/barrel lengths to argue one is superior, yet I’ve posted real world comparison out of the same gun… showing you can get more bullet mass, going the same velocity, with standard pressure 9mm over .38 +P. Or that because something was designed a certain way for years prior, it must be the only way.
Some have posted in a way that there is just their choice as the right way… and again, that isn’t the case. I’ve converted my 642-1 to 9mm in mid-2015… and been carrying it ever since. I also purchased the gun new in 2009, and carried it on/off with .38 +P in that time (had it redone in NP3 Plus… maybe 2011 or 2012). I’m comfortable with it, and rarely without a gun off duty because of its extremely light weight. I put my money (cost of the gun/conversion/ammo), time (been shooting it in 9mm for almost all of that 6.5 years, 12 years with the gun total), and effort (amount of training/practice, which is important for a carry gun, and more so for a short barreled revolver) into it… and even if some posters in this thread make it out that 9mm revolvers are terrible… in all honesty, my view isn’t being changed.
Same consideration… I’m not looking to change your view to “rah-rah, 9mm revolver!” We are all adults, and have the ability to make decisions on our own. I just rather take the emotion that some posters put out there, and give those that may consider the caliber of their snub revolver some objective points to look at.
Sorry for the soapbox, but I really put a lot of effort in my carry system (after my switch of calibers, I even did a lot of testing in different carry methods for 9mm moon clips that I posted on a couple forums), and would like to share that to people who like to see different avenues than what is the norm.
This was demonstrated by the very first batch of 1917 .45acp revolvers. The Colt guns did not have the chamber ledge, and could not be used without the half moon clips. The S&W guns did have the headspace ledge in the chambers and could be used without the clips.
Because of numerous complaints, after the first batch, Colt put the headspace ledge in its guns, too.
Yes and no…
Early Colts did have bored thru cylinders… but so did S&W 1917s. Good example, check out the YouTube channel C&Rsenal. They did an episode for both 1917s, as well as the models for both S&W and Colt that lead up to it. They have an example of an early S&W 1917, where the round falls thru just like an early Colt.
The US didn’t like that, for those exact reasons, and made that feature standard on both models. S&W probably did it first, and Colt followed. After that, headspaced cylinders became a standard for .45 ACP pistols (and then other calibers as it progressed forward). There were a handful of changes like that with the 1917 revolvers, including removing the ridges on the side of the S&W hammers… which were designed to hold oil, but also held dirt.
I want to say C&Rsenal did like 4 or 5 episodes for these guns, all in the 40 minute to 1 hour plus length. If you are interested in those, I really recommend watching.
