+1 on trying out a 442 before buying. I carry one in an ankle holster for a bug and while it carries nice, I can't count one hitting much with it at anymore that point blank range. Could be the gun, could be me, but I have shot lots of other small guns, including 2 or 3 Taurus revolvers and shot them quite a bit better. I can even shoot my Kel-Tec P3-AT much better at 21 feet and it basically has no sights. For its intended use, i.e. last ditch, everything else is empty, trouble right on top of me, it is okay, but I am looking at other guns.
Best .38 special Snub nose?
- Thread starter mellow_c
- Start date
Mastrogiacomo
New member
Well, I have two SP101 DAOs, but they're 357's, so if I'm going for strictly for a 38, then my vote goes to the Colt Detective Special.
Greek said:
Finally, somebody got around to mentioning what I consider to be the best J-frame snub.
MellowC, I heartily recommend the 640 .357. If you can find one to shoot sometime in the coming year, by all means do so. I think you will be impressed with its wonderful balance of concealability, good handling and potential power.
I say potential power because I am not recommending that you fire .357s out of it. If you want to, fine, but you have stated that you're looking for a .38 and I think that's a great choice. I haven't the slightest inclination to convince you to use .357; personally, .38 +P is all I ever fire in either of my two 640-3s.
The reason that I'm at such pains to explain my position about using only .38 in a .357 is that there are some curiously single-minded individuals who unfailingly come along and rain on the parade whenever .357 snubbies are recommended to those seeking .38s.
Their mantra always goes something like this: "There's no reason to buy a .357 if you're only going to shoot .38 in it. Why spend the extra money?"
Or, "The .357 model xxx kicks like HELL, so it's useless for self-defense." (because of controllability and follow-up shots issues).
Reading such advice, you'd think these people sign an oath in blood every time they buy a .357 that they're only going to fire .357 out of the gun, or have some major ideological opposition to not using the gun to its full potential. As though every time they pull the trigger on a .38 round in a .357 chamber they're just tormented by the thought that, if only there had been a .357 in the charge hole, so much more fire and brimstone could be coming out the barrel.
Why buy a .357 only to shoot .38 in it? There are good reasons for doing so:
The problem that overlies the whole argument against buying a .357 for shooting .38 is this one, big, flawed assumption: the assumption that, whenever a .357 is considered for purchase, there is an equivalent gun - identical with respect to all features other than the caliber - chambered in .38 Special, just waiting to be bought.
This is definitely not the case, as a moment's thought will show.
Take, as a case in point, the 640-3 (or 640-1) .357. Imagine I'm in the market for a carry revolver and I only plan to fire .38s out of it. I see the 640 in the case and it looks great in every aspect - strong, all-steel construction, good balance of size and weight, snag-free Centennial frame and, what is of great importance to me, the ability to accept high-visibility, aftermarket white dot/tritium front sights - except it has that darn .357 Magnum designation on the barrel. Can't have that, according to the nay-sayers.
So, I go looking for the equivalent, newly-made gun chambered in .38 +P. Except such a gun doesn't exist, because it's senseless for S&W to manufacture a dedicated .38 +P version of the same gun when it can kill two birds with one stone and make a gun that covers all the bases. Of course, for most people, this is not only not a bad thing, but maybe even a nice thing: if their shooting preferences dictate that only .38s be used, there's a lot of strength left over to serve as an increased safety factor. What's not to like about that? Not that such an extra margin of strength is needed, of course - the gun's perfectly safe already. But as I said, it's by no means a bad thing.
Continuing my quest for my carry snubnose, I go looking at used guns.
There's the older, no-dash 640s available, chambered in .38. Are they equivalent to the 640 .357s except for the caliber? In most aspects, yes, they are. But in the critical feature of being able to accept a replacement front sight, they are nowhere near the same as the 640 .357.
Now, I do understand that some people, for reasons utterly incomprehensible to me, dismiss the issue of high-visibility sights (at least the front sight - not much can be done about rear, at least that I'm aware of) on small, short-barreled revolvers. It seems such people have relegated the snubbies to a role as practically contact-distance weapons, as though they are good for nothing except point-blank shooting at power-burn distances. "At the ranges you'll be using that gun at, you won't even be using the sights", the sage admontions frequently go. Yup.
Well, I don't know about you, but I like high-visibility/night sights on my guns. All of them. No matter how small, or how weak a caliber they're chambered for. For me, the presence of sights that can be quickly and easily picked up in all light levels is a huge consideration when purchasing any gun that might be called to serve in a defensive role. If I wind up point shooting, then no harm done. I just ignore the sights. It's a much better deal than needing the sights and not having them.
If some people don't place as much emphasis on the sight issue as I do, that's perfectly fine, of course. No problem. The only time I get a bee in my bonnet is when people become flippantly dismissive about it and act as though they can't possibly understand why anybody would ever buy a .357 if they weren't going to use it to its full potential, as though people who do so are acting irrationally instead of carefully weighing which features they want and choosing the gun that works best for them.
Again, I urge you to consider the 640.
Finally, somebody got around to mentioning what I consider to be the best J-frame snub.
MellowC, I heartily recommend the 640 .357. If you can find one to shoot sometime in the coming year, by all means do so. I think you will be impressed with its wonderful balance of concealability, good handling and potential power.
I say potential power because I am not recommending that you fire .357s out of it. If you want to, fine, but you have stated that you're looking for a .38 and I think that's a great choice. I haven't the slightest inclination to convince you to use .357; personally, .38 +P is all I ever fire in either of my two 640-3s.
The reason that I'm at such pains to explain my position about using only .38 in a .357 is that there are some curiously single-minded individuals who unfailingly come along and rain on the parade whenever .357 snubbies are recommended to those seeking .38s.
Their mantra always goes something like this: "There's no reason to buy a .357 if you're only going to shoot .38 in it. Why spend the extra money?"
Or, "The .357 model xxx kicks like HELL, so it's useless for self-defense." (because of controllability and follow-up shots issues).
Reading such advice, you'd think these people sign an oath in blood every time they buy a .357 that they're only going to fire .357 out of the gun, or have some major ideological opposition to not using the gun to its full potential. As though every time they pull the trigger on a .38 round in a .357 chamber they're just tormented by the thought that, if only there had been a .357 in the charge hole, so much more fire and brimstone could be coming out the barrel.
Why buy a .357 only to shoot .38 in it? There are good reasons for doing so:
The problem that overlies the whole argument against buying a .357 for shooting .38 is this one, big, flawed assumption: the assumption that, whenever a .357 is considered for purchase, there is an equivalent gun - identical with respect to all features other than the caliber - chambered in .38 Special, just waiting to be bought.
This is definitely not the case, as a moment's thought will show.
Take, as a case in point, the 640-3 (or 640-1) .357. Imagine I'm in the market for a carry revolver and I only plan to fire .38s out of it. I see the 640 in the case and it looks great in every aspect - strong, all-steel construction, good balance of size and weight, snag-free Centennial frame and, what is of great importance to me, the ability to accept high-visibility, aftermarket white dot/tritium front sights - except it has that darn .357 Magnum designation on the barrel. Can't have that, according to the nay-sayers.
So, I go looking for the equivalent, newly-made gun chambered in .38 +P. Except such a gun doesn't exist, because it's senseless for S&W to manufacture a dedicated .38 +P version of the same gun when it can kill two birds with one stone and make a gun that covers all the bases. Of course, for most people, this is not only not a bad thing, but maybe even a nice thing: if their shooting preferences dictate that only .38s be used, there's a lot of strength left over to serve as an increased safety factor. What's not to like about that? Not that such an extra margin of strength is needed, of course - the gun's perfectly safe already. But as I said, it's by no means a bad thing.
Continuing my quest for my carry snubnose, I go looking at used guns.
There's the older, no-dash 640s available, chambered in .38. Are they equivalent to the 640 .357s except for the caliber? In most aspects, yes, they are. But in the critical feature of being able to accept a replacement front sight, they are nowhere near the same as the 640 .357.
Now, I do understand that some people, for reasons utterly incomprehensible to me, dismiss the issue of high-visibility sights (at least the front sight - not much can be done about rear, at least that I'm aware of) on small, short-barreled revolvers. It seems such people have relegated the snubbies to a role as practically contact-distance weapons, as though they are good for nothing except point-blank shooting at power-burn distances. "At the ranges you'll be using that gun at, you won't even be using the sights", the sage admontions frequently go. Yup.
Well, I don't know about you, but I like high-visibility/night sights on my guns. All of them. No matter how small, or how weak a caliber they're chambered for. For me, the presence of sights that can be quickly and easily picked up in all light levels is a huge consideration when purchasing any gun that might be called to serve in a defensive role. If I wind up point shooting, then no harm done. I just ignore the sights. It's a much better deal than needing the sights and not having them.
If some people don't place as much emphasis on the sight issue as I do, that's perfectly fine, of course. No problem. The only time I get a bee in my bonnet is when people become flippantly dismissive about it and act as though they can't possibly understand why anybody would ever buy a .357 if they weren't going to use it to its full potential, as though people who do so are acting irrationally instead of carefully weighing which features they want and choosing the gun that works best for them.
Again, I urge you to consider the 640.
Thanx to J-framer, I've now changed my mind again.. this time to the S&W 640. And these are my reasons.
*Heavier frame will reduce felt recoil, allow for more practice with .38 +P which I would be using for carry. Also should last a lifetime of +P shooting.
*Internal hammer
*Reportedly Smoother trigger than the 442/642's
*Stainless Steel Frame wont show wear from constant pocket carry like the 442/642's And will be great against moisture.
*The ability to shoot .357 magnum if I really wana have some "fun" at the range. Or if I'm hiking in the mountains and feel like I want that extra power in case of a bear or mountain lion, but still dont want to carry my 6" GP100.
*very reasonable price
*And last but NOT least, the ability to change to a high visibility front sight! Very important to me for a carry gun!
Now I just need to find one, and hold it, and see what I think. It seams a little big for pocket carry, Not as bad as a Ruger SP101, but it might be because of the longer grip. (One finger longer than the 442) But if I intend to use it for a pocket carry, and only fire +P's out of it, I might be fine getting a smaller grip for it.
So thanks to every one of you who posted. I think I've found my gun. I'll get my CCW first before I decide to buy one, and in the mean time I'll keep researching the 640, double checking everything about it. But all the same, feel free to keep posting
*Heavier frame will reduce felt recoil, allow for more practice with .38 +P which I would be using for carry. Also should last a lifetime of +P shooting.
*Internal hammer
*Reportedly Smoother trigger than the 442/642's
*Stainless Steel Frame wont show wear from constant pocket carry like the 442/642's And will be great against moisture.
*The ability to shoot .357 magnum if I really wana have some "fun" at the range. Or if I'm hiking in the mountains and feel like I want that extra power in case of a bear or mountain lion, but still dont want to carry my 6" GP100.
*very reasonable price
*And last but NOT least, the ability to change to a high visibility front sight! Very important to me for a carry gun!
Now I just need to find one, and hold it, and see what I think. It seams a little big for pocket carry, Not as bad as a Ruger SP101, but it might be because of the longer grip. (One finger longer than the 442) But if I intend to use it for a pocket carry, and only fire +P's out of it, I might be fine getting a smaller grip for it.
So thanks to every one of you who posted. I think I've found my gun. I'll get my CCW first before I decide to buy one, and in the mean time I'll keep researching the 640, double checking everything about it. But all the same, feel free to keep posting
I would never buy a revolver you can't cock it as a SA option. You could give me one, if I could sell it!
I do mainly (95%) practice using double action only at 7-15 yards though, and do pretty well, but it's just so much fun to bring the target out 25+ yards and enjoy having that SA hair trigger option if I want to for a more steady shot, with my 638, or a 649/.357 (shrouded hammers). I know the gun's not meant for that, but the gun can be very accurate at 25 yards, more than me.
Good luck, I hope you buy the right gun for you.
I do mainly (95%) practice using double action only at 7-15 yards though, and do pretty well, but it's just so much fun to bring the target out 25+ yards and enjoy having that SA hair trigger option if I want to for a more steady shot, with my 638, or a 649/.357 (shrouded hammers). I know the gun's not meant for that, but the gun can be very accurate at 25 yards, more than me.
Good luck, I hope you buy the right gun for you.
So I went shooting with my Rossi .38 special Snub today. I shot 100 rounds, 50 .38's and 50 .38+P's. The solid steel frame definitely handles the +P's pretty well, and the regular .38's are easy to shoot. I practiced only Double action. I started at 10 yards, shooting 1 every second or so. I was able to keep 14 out of 15 on a regular sized piece of paper with a copy of a target on it (+P's and regulard .38's). I didnt always change my targets, so I didnt keep to good of track. Then I shot at 5 yards and was able to keep about 7 or 8 of 10 in the 6 inch target, with a couple hitting the paper outside the target. I can hit a pop can pretty consistently at 10-15 yards if I use single action.
I felt like that was pretty decent shooting. But the trigger on my Rossi is NOT what you would call smooth or consistent. My GP100's double action trigger is much nicer, even though it's long. And I'm sure I could do better with a nicer trigger. Anyone know how good the double action trigger is on An S&W 640?
I felt like that was pretty decent shooting. But the trigger on my Rossi is NOT what you would call smooth or consistent. My GP100's double action trigger is much nicer, even though it's long. And I'm sure I could do better with a nicer trigger. Anyone know how good the double action trigger is on An S&W 640?
jamesgordon
Inactive
Taurus hard to beat
The 85 is hard to beat for the money.
The 85 is hard to beat for the money.
Creature...You're absolutely right...I can't carry in Wisconsin...I wouldn't carry a revolver anyway. If I had to carry a wheelgun, it would be a 2" 64 with a set of Pachmayr Presentation Pros. I'm a 2" 15 Freak so I normally give the same answer to any revolver question, no matter how wrong or irrelevant it is...In fact, I would carry the 2" 64 and keep the 2" 15 in a paper bag so I could just look at it now and then........
FLA2760....Thank you Sir for the compliment....S&W made it, I just get to handle it while I'm here.... Zebulon
FLA2760....Thank you Sir for the compliment....S&W made it, I just get to handle it while I'm here....
ZebulonOP might reconsider the 442, especially if pocket carry is desired. Mine weighs in at 14.3 oz. empty with Hogue Bantam grips, slighly over a lb. loaded.
You REALLY do not want to pocket carry a J-frame heavier than that. Your pocket will sag, it will be cumbersome, it's simply too heavy with a 640, 60, etc.
Chances are extremely likely you will never ever have to draw the weapon at all. And actually having to shoot it lowers your odds to maybe one in a million chance.
Go light man, that is the best advice I can give you. The 442 is an attractive, light, and accurate snubbie. I love mine and restrict carry to pocket only.
You REALLY do not want to pocket carry a J-frame heavier than that. Your pocket will sag, it will be cumbersome, it's simply too heavy with a 640, 60, etc.
Chances are extremely likely you will never ever have to draw the weapon at all. And actually having to shoot it lowers your odds to maybe one in a million chance.
Go light man, that is the best advice I can give you. The 442 is an attractive, light, and accurate snubbie. I love mine and restrict carry to pocket only.
That Rossi you own may not have as bad of a reputation as you may think.. Rossi is made by Taurus and although I own niether I would classify Taurus as being at least just below the top made revolvers..
As long as that Rossi is reliable you are good to go, but since you sound like one who may just want the newest and the best ( trust me we are all that way )
I personally like the Ruger SP101 , but may be slightly bigger than you seek.. ( 2.25 inch barrel is 7 inches long and waying in at around 26 oz. with hammerless or hammerless ) I think two very good revolvers for carry is either the Smith and Wesson 442 ( I belive that is the number ) or the Ruger LCR 38 special. ( do not get the 357 magnum version. It cost more and the 357 loads are way to much for the gun to handle.. You may be able to shoot it but if you want the 357 magnum jump up into a gun that at least weighs 20 oz or so .But then again that is about what you already own ) Taurus does have a new model out that also uses the polymer frame and looks to be very interesting and is based on the 85 ...
Good luck