can anyone give me a little s&W lesson on their light weight guns (not politics)

L

law_school

Inactive
I am considering buying a used S&W revolver for carry. I have been burned by two Taurus revolvers and they are no longer an option. Having only been involved in firearms a few months I dont understand the smith model designations. I want a very light 5 shot gun capable of taking +p 38's. I dont want a gun so light my arm snaps back and knocks me unconscious during practice firing. I dont think I need anything fancy, just a work gun. Oh, concealed hammer also because I have heard they can snag pretty good on clothes.

Thanks in advance,

Ben:)
 
A used 442 (blued hammerless alloy frame) or 642 (stainless hammerless alloy frame) would do quite well. The later generations were rated for +P ammunition.
 
>>I want a very light 5 shot gun capable of taking +p 38's

I have a 642, which is an aluminum frame and steel cylinder. I think it weighs about 14.5 ounces, if my memory does not deceive me. I would not go any lighter than that. This is not a "fun range" gun.

justinr1
 
The 442/642 are good recommendations. I would avoid the titanium revolvers like the plague unless you are seriously into masochism.

I think the best of the lot is the Ruger SP-101. You pay a penalty weight, but you gain a lot more in shootability, maintenance and durability. (I am really uncomfortable with the thought of aluminum-frames and a steady diet of 158 +P loads--and with these little guns, you really need to practice with what you carry). It can be had in a "hammerless" (bobbed hammer) version if you desire, but if you practice drawing with thumb of the hammer (like a hammer shroud), the hammer is not a major drawback (besides, I like to keep my thumb on the hammer when I am holstering--if the hammer starts moving back when I'm sticking in my pants I want to know it. I think when it's all said and done, you would be better served and happier with the Ruger than with a S&W)
 
What he said, regarding the SP101

It's the only snubbie that's really usable in .357 if you need that. It's extremely easy to control in .38.

Ya, it's little heavier. The TI/aluminum/scandium guns have gone insane on the light weight. Some aren't even controllable in .38, never mind .38+P.

With an SP101, consider loading the first four rounds with a good .38+P, and then a .357Mag as the fifth. It'll be your gun's way of telling you you just ran dry, better come up with a "Plan B" or a reload or run like hell :).

You don't need "follow-up shot control" after round five goes down the tube :D. Might as well make that last fling a sledgehammer.

Jim
 
Smith and Wesson 642. I think that a 342's recoil might be too much from the sound of your post (I find that my 342PD's recoil is quite stouter than my old 642LS's). The 642 will be 10 ounces lighter than a Ruger.

The Smith and Wessons mentioned above have concealed hammers. Ruger does not.
 
SP101s can be ordered with a bobbed, snagproof hammer that's functionally equivelent to the S&W "Centenial type" concealed hammer.

Jim
 
It isn't totally equivalent though . It's bobbed. The the 640/642 hammer is totally enclosed. There is less chance for lint, body hair, dirt to get into the works. Less chance for snagging while firing from inside a garment like a coat pocket. It is a wash for snagproof drawing.
 
I dont want a gun so light my arm snaps back and knocks me unconscious during practice firing.
Click to expand...
If you get one of S&W's new lightweight snubbies, you will have just about the lightest snubbie on the market. It may be a bit to practice with until you get some practice in, but I think it would be worth it for the lightweight carry you'll be able to pull off.
 
Hank, the Charter *design* is excellent, which is why the company keeps coming back to life under new owners every time the last one dies :).

When they say three-point lockup, they're not kidding. They lockup at the crane, rear and bolt. They save weight by having a separate aluminum grip frame/triggerguard that "forks up" into the rear of the grip frame, which is "split". There aren't any sideplates, that's quite true...the grip frame/trigger/hammer assembly slides up into the primary frame, which surrounds the cylinder in unbroken fashion.

Neat concept. They also take S&W J-Frame 5-shot speedloaders which are widely available.

My late-70s specimen is superb, tight, accurate and isn't shaking loose under a mixed diet of 158+P and standard pressure 130grain FMJ.

BUT: as the original Charter Arms came under financial pressure, quality got spotty. After they died and Charco took over, quality went totally into the dumps.

The first Charter 2000-production guns I saw appeared cosmetically rough. Lockup seemed OK, trigger was so-so. Due to the basic "weirdness" of the design, some gunsmiths shy away from surgery on 'em such as trigger jobs.

On the other hand, C2000 seems to be thriving, they're coming out with interesting new models like a .357 based on the old .44Spl Bulldog frame, etc. Next gun show, I'll make a point of seeking out recent production pieces and see if quality seems improved.

I hope they thrive. The *design* is killer. I don't recommend people seek out a vintage specimen like mine unless they know how to check out wheelguns in detail. The old ones that are good have fully exposed ejector rods. On mine, even if the cylinder latch button were to fail or even fall off, you could swing the cylinder out by pulling the ejector rod forward...kind of a neat redundancy.

Avoid Charco-marked guns at all cost unless you're real gutsy and do a THOROUGH checkout.

Cuervo: some of us like to be able to peer into the lockwork's innards by cocking the hammer. During cleaning, we can make sure the guts are oiled and can check for rust, malke sure the safety works, etc. I do all of that on every cleaning. You can't do that with a Centenial.

Sure, it's a place gunk can go. But you can check for that, and with the hammer down it's not much of an entrance. The Ruger SP101 is so stone-axe reliable it would take a LOT of gunkage to slow one down, so it's a non-issue if you're inspecting the gun at every cleaning.

Which you'd be crazy NOT to do on a CCW gun you might bet your life on one day.

Personally, I like an actual cockable hammer. Failing that, a bobbed hammer works just fine.

Jim
 
It depends on how you weigh (no pun intended) which features are more important to you. You'll have to decide on how you want the gun balanced in the relationship between weight and recoil. You'll probably carry the gun more than you'll shoot it and a lighter gun might offset the increased recoil. From memory :)

SP101 25 ounces
442 15
342 11 or so

I carry and shoot the 1st two and I've shot the 3rd in the PD model w/the Hogue bantam grips and red ramp front sight. The SP101 w/Hogues and +P's was by far the most comfortable and had the least recoil. It's heavy. The trigger is better now, but don't be put off by the feel of a new one. They get better w/time.
I prefer the lighter weight and trigger of the 442. Love this gun.
The lighter weight of the 342 was noticeable, as was the increased recoil. I didn't mind the recoil though, but other's I know do. I think it'll come down to how you carry the gun and for how long. The lighter guns are definitely more comfortable. Recoil didn't bother me on any of them.

I kinda like the idea of 4 and 1 in the SP101 :)
 
A steel frame J frame weighs 20 oz.. The same gun in alloy weighs 15 oz. For concealablity I have a steel 36 with a bobbed hammer, using 158 gr lead bullets. If its cool enough to justify a coat I carry a SP101 bobbed. I agree for the best overall one gun solution the Ruger is it. If you go with the J, go steel. Take the keys off your keyring you don't use anymore and clean the junk outta your wallet, that should make up 5 oz..
 
And back to the "totally enclosed" hammer of x42 series:

1. There are at least three other openings where lint, dirt, etc. can get into frame besides the hammer opening (particularly in a pocket carry).

2. If you are carrying seriously, I hope you your cleaning/performing routine maintenance seriously--the little revolvers get dirty fast. It takes about 30 seconds to field strip (and about 15 seconds to put it back together again) a SP-101 (remove the mainspring, hammer, trigger group and cylinder) and them a thorough cleaning lubricating. With the x42 series, you are pretty well stuck with hoping the "innards" stay clean because short of popping off the sideplate there isn't much you can do about it.

3. And again, when I am sticking a loaded handgun in my pants, I really like the idea of being able to feel that hammer if it start moving back instead of waiting for a loud bang and a burning sensation in my nether regions.

In terms of carry, I've just about given up on pocket carry altogether. Once you go to a get belt and holster, you lose any rationale for saving 5 ounces. I've found the Alessi Talon is for me more convenient and just as comfortable as pocket carry.

1. I were the clip under the belt and "blouse" my shirt over the butt--with my build and the way it dress it works very well for me. The clip is easy on/easy off, and it not "pocket dependent."

2. For me, the IWB (Talon) is more concealable than a pocket (doesn't print as bad). Also, in the "relaxed fit," big pockets of some casual slack (e.g., Dockers), the revolver can lean out (away from the body) and push the pocket open enough that in can be seen from behind--particularly a "white" gun.

3. When carrying in the pocket, I always hated having to fish for my keys and change in my left pocket (besides an astute observer could probably put two and two together and figure I was carrying).
 
I like the S&W Bodyguard Airweight, Model 638, with the "humped back", shrouded hammer.

For me, it offers the best of both worlds....you can still cock the hammer, if required, for a longer range emergency shot.

Also, you can perform a cylinder rotation check....You may think that the cylinder will never bind, but it has happened to me. (The dirt, dust, and lint that will get into your gun in ankle carry makes binding all the more possible.)

The Model 638 has the snag-free qualities of the enclosed-hammer, Centenial series:

1) It will not hang-up on the draw due to your hammer catching on clothing.

2) It can be fired from inside, and through a jacket pocket or a woman's purse.

-Mk.IV
 
Ruger SP-101

Removing the sideplate aint brain surgery. You get to clean, oil, and inspect better regardless of the hammer style of the weapon by removing the sideplate.

I agree that it is "stone-axe reliable." The only problem is that it is as heavy as a "stone-axe". Heavier and stronger than it needs to be for a .38 special gun that the original posted inquired about. If you want to go heavier than Airweight then there steel J frames. You can bob a hammer on a 36/60 or get a 640. There is even a Model 49 FA on auctionarms.com right now.
These guns will be at leas 5 ounces lighter than a Ruger SP-101.

As a carrier of firearms weight has become an extremely important consideration when it came to me settling on a CC gun. Now that it is shorts and t-shirt season, I carry my 342PD w/ Barami Hip-Grip tucked in my underwear to the right side of my genitals. It is the best total concealment arrangement that I've came up with to date. Beats the hell out of wearing a belt and holster.

IIRC the new Charters are not +p rated. This guy doesn't want a Taurus. I don't think that he would want even a worse gun.
 
cuerno -

While it may not be "brain surgery" to pop a slide plate off a Smith, it is a whole lot more difficult than field-stripping a Ruger--that was in response to your red herring about "lint, body hair and dirt" getting in the works (which really was a non-issue).

From the first post, the additional weight has been acknowledged, but what you lose in weight, you more than make up for in shootability, durability and ease of maintenance. It would probably take some work, but I believe I could dig out a ton old posts the SP-101's accuracy and handling (including several of your's)

The SP-101, due to its ergonomics and weight, allows me to shoot a more effective ammunition, faster and more accurately than aluminum/titanium handgun.

Durability to me is important in a small a small handgun you're betting your life on. Despite the conventional wisdom that says these guns are to be carried often and shot little, I've found they require considerably more practice to maintain a minimum level of proficiency than their large brethren. In other words, they need to be shot often. The issue is further complicated in the lightweight handguns because their shooting characteristics change drastically with more powerful ammunition (and despite Smith's assurances, carrying 158 grain +P SWCHP (and practicing with it or a ballistic/recoiling equivalent) is asking for a failure (remember Murphy).

Nobody said the lightweight revolvers (442/642) were a bad choice. I carried one stoked with 125 grain standard velocity Nyclad HPs for a couple a years (and practiced with the 130 grain FMJs). It is a good combination, but it requires compromises I do not want nor have to make in a concealed carry handgun. All that was recommended was the poster look at the SP-101 as a viable (and less expensive) alternative to the aluminum-framed Smiths.
 
I wish that Ruger would innovate a little and produce an alloy/titanium/scandium SP-101. Anyone heard that this may be a possibility?

I have found that my old model 49 S&W at 20 ounces is light enough for all but the flimsiest of clothing. I really can't tell any shootability difference between it and my 640-1 at 25 oz., or my Tarus 85 at 21 oz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top