Considering a j frame

Well, I didn't shoot either gun but went by my LGS and handled a 642 and LCR and found both two large and/or heavy to pocket carry confortably and discreetly. Unfortunately, this means I'm probably going to have to go down to 380 ACP in a semi for the concealment I'm looking for. I may eventually end up with a 642 or a LCR though.
 
You could try to find an air weight smith with the light barrel only 2 models I know of are the 360pd and 340pd. I have a 360pd and loaded my phone weighs more that being said it does kick pretty good and can be a pain to shoot but that's part of the fun for me.

It did take me a few rounds to get dialed in on but once I got the trigger down I was good to go.

Sorry light barrel sounds stupid but I can't remember the actual material.
 
Unfortunately, this means I'm probably going to have to go down to 380 ACP in a semi for the concealment I'm looking for.
Click to expand...

Why? There are 9mms just as small. The Sig P938 with rubber grips is not uncomfortable to shoot at all and its power is a class above .380.
 
Why? There are 9mms just as small. The Sig P938 with rubber grips is not uncomfortable to shoot at all and its power is a class above .380.
Click to expand...

From what I've looked at all the "pocket 9mms" are no where near as pocketable as some of the 380s. I looked at a 938 yesterday but it was much heavier than comparable 380s and the trigger was hard and gritty for a $600 SAO gun. I will look at one again and probably check out a Kahr cm9/pm9.

Whatever I get will only be carried when I can't carry my shield discreetly enough, or in addition to my shield.
 
You said the 442 and LCR were too heavy for pocket carry. I spend the winter in S. Florida and carry a 442 or LCR357 in my off hand pocket daily. I ware shorts most of the time. I also carry another Snub AIWB. I have a good belt. It holds all the gear ( at least 5LBS.) I carry daily. All covered by a T-Shirt. I'll be the old guy hanging out on Pompano's Pier all of February.
 
The pocket 9's have come a long way in concealability but none of them match the pocket .380's for that role.
 
I was also surprised by the LCR comment, especially if it was a LCR38. Note that there is a smaller "boot grip" available that makes it even more concealable but I'm with Chuppa that even the LCR357 works pretty well in the pocket. I even put a Pachmayr Diamond Pro grip on mine which is *fatter* than stock and still pocket carry. Now I have to admit that it does not "disappear" in a jeans pocket with that configuration as the grip peeks out the top a bit but it's fine with an untucked Polo or t-shirt. Also fine in a larger pocket like "Dockers" pants.

If you still want a .380, hey, go for it, but might not want to give up on the LCR just yet.
 
After looking into the performance of the better 380 defense rounds I'm rather unimpressed when compared to the 9mm and 45acp rounds I currently carry. I will likely be purchasing a 642 (I prefered the 642 over the LCR when I handled them) when the funds become available, and looking into better grips possibly Crimson traces 405s. I'm open to suggestions for grips (I'm going to look I to the ergo delta and SD ammo suggestions- I use hornady in my other guns).
 
Nothing wrong with Hornady. I carry the 110gr+p load in my LCR357. You might want to try the standard pressure 90gr and 110gr loads as well in the 642.
 
Model12Win said:
J-frame .38 snub noses are one of the greatest CCW handguns ever made. Powerful for their size, unmatched reliability, accurate once you learn how to shoot them. With a proper set of grips, recoil even with +P loads is manageable. Anyone who complains about the recoil is probably using poor form, or is physically weak in the hands.
Click to expand...


Agreed...

I shot my father's .357 LCR (pretty stout load), and the only thing that bothered me was the difference in the trigger. Guess shooting a .44 Magnum since I was 12 did something for me. [emoji6]

I have a 642-1, which I love. Been shooting it for years and had it redone in NP3 Plus. My main fault with the gun was the length of .38s in an HKS speedloader (shortly behind that, .38 is more of a pain to stock when my duty gun and another backup gun, a SIG P938, are 9mm). I had a good solution...

Convert it over to 9mm!

0C16F4B7-D8DB-458A-ABC5-356095D13323_zpsw9x1669z.jpg


F1F1A079-1667-4044-90F3-E53A3D610E0D_zpsq3enji7e.jpg


Recoil with Remington bulk is like standard pressure .38. No issues with accuracy out of a .38 barrel. Many people worry about the frame handling 9mm... but people have been doing those conversions for some time, and even S&W made a 942 for testing (good old Wiley Clapp said it would never sell, and the idea was shelved).

2damnold4this said:
J frames take practice to shoot well, so don't get discouraged when you first shoot yours. The bonus to shooting j frames is that when you get better at shooting yours, you'll shoot your Shield better.
Click to expand...


Definitely the truth, as well. I think the two quotes I have in this post should be put in ever J-frame manual. [emoji6]

When I first shot the 9mm conversion, I had not shot my J-frame for a few months. Did horrible with the first cylinder, but got it together as it came back to me. The R/O was interested in the gun, but made a mistake in telling me that he could show me a thing or two about shooting it (I've been shooting the gun since 2009). New target, pushed it back to 15 yards, and let him show me...

E036D198-35B0-45B3-9B28-FBBE574658B8_zpsqekugxzh.jpg


Both of us shot semi-rapid... but not five shots in a second. The three on the right side and one on the lower 9 were his, making about a 6" group (there was one miss, probably off the right side). You can see my five shot group in the center... coming out to 2". That is one way to shut up a R/O that thinks he knows all.
 
lee n. field said:
New cylinder. Hmmm. How difficult would it be to have a "convertible".
Click to expand...


That is how I set mine up...

Picked up a .38 cylinder that was converted to 9mm, and had it fitted to my revolver. To swap, take the screw out, pull the crane, swap cylinders, then put it back together.
 
J-frames and Ruger LCRs are fantastic guns, and great for pocket carry. Carrying and shooting them takes practice, but still great guns.
I also have a Sig P290RS (9mm) that I pocket carry a lot.
Between my Sig P290RS and Ruger LCR 357 my pocket carry needs are covered. No need for a 380acp.
 
confusing post

There are aftermarket trigger springs for the little Sigs that make it feel like a 1911 should. I've used Galloway Precision with outstanding results. The only downside is you lose reliability with steel cased ammo.
Click to expand...

I am confused by this post and I suspect others may also be confused. What has "...steel cased ammo...", got to do with aftermarket springs? Please explain your statement about steel cased ammo. Using correct paragraph structure would be helpful.
 
Picked up a .38 cylinder that was converted to 9mm, and had it fitted to my revolver.
Click to expand...
Hows that work with the differences in pressures between the two rounds? The 9mm is twice the pressure of the .38's (9mm-35,000psi, .38-17,000psi) in their normal loadings.

Interesting read here on the subject. Specifically post #8...

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=198517

My 940's were steel guns and didnt hold up well, not sure Id want to do it in an Airweight.
 
I own a Shield 9 and a 642 with the factory Smith rubber boots. Hands down the Shield is easier to shoot, and while it disappears in a pocket, it's not as easily done as the j-frame.

The 642, IMO, is a blast to shoot. I guess I like the recoil, lol. And it's not uncontrollable, but the smaller grip does make it an adventure with hotter loads.

I like both guns very much, my wife loves them. The Shield is her off duty carry, the 642 her nightstand. I grab the 642 for pocket every chance I get, and if she isn't looking.:D
 
AK103K said:
Hows that work with the differences in pressures between the two rounds? The 9mm is twice the pressure of the .38's (9mm-35,000psi, .38-17,000psi) in their normal loadings.



Interesting read here on the subject. Specifically post #8...



http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=198517



My 940's were steel guns and didnt hold up well, not sure Id want to do it in an Airweight.
Click to expand...


Considering people have been doing it for years, I think it is a viable solution for those that want a 9mm J-frame. With S&W taking the time to make a prototype 942, I doubt they would have if it wasn't possible (it wasn't continued since Wiley Clapp tested it and said that people would not buy it; don't know if it was the idea behind a 9mm J-frame or the recoil... but neither are a negative in my situation). In regards to my revolver, it works very well.

Now, I'm not saying to run +P+ out of it... also, remember those pressures are maximum (also, .38 +P is 20,000 PSI). S&W revolvers are built pretty well, so I wouldn't worry about the gun blowing up at 20,001 PSI. People rechambering a round over and over, causing bullet setback, would be a bigger worry to me than the higher pressure out of a revolver. With the short barrel and cylinder gap, pressure shouldn't build up the same as round in a semi-auto pistol barrel.
 
Considering people have been doing it for years
Click to expand...
Over the years, I havent seen any in person myself, and yours is one of the first Ive seen online, not that I was looking real hard.

With S&W taking the time to make a prototype 942, I doubt they would have if it wasn't possible (it wasn't continued since Wiley Clapp tested it and said that people would not buy it; don't know if it was the idea behind a 9mm J-frame or the recoil... but neither are a negative in my situation).
Click to expand...
As best as I can find, that "one" prototype was back in '99, and I havent seen anything since or recently. Are they talking it again?

I always assumed that they were having troubles with getting the steel 940's to work, and gave up on the idea. The two I had, both had the same serial number, but it was obvious that the second gun they sent me, was a different gun (by its markings), and not the one Id sent back for repair. The second time I sent it back, I told them didnt want it back in 9mm, and to replace it with a .38, which they did.

I never found the 940's (while they lasted) to be inaccurate, but they were specific built for 9mm. Something pointed out by the boy over on THR about using 940 cylinders in place of reamed out .38 cylinders. His experience anyway.

Recoil of my 940's, while brisk, and similar to my Model 60's in 357Mag, I really dont think it was much, if any worse than an Airweight with +P .38's. Not sure what I would think of the 9mm in an Airweight. Probably not much, as Im not a masochist. :)


also, remember those pressures are maximum
Click to expand...
Those are the SAAMI "standard" pressures for those two calibers. Now maybe if you went with a 357 as a host, it might be a better option, as 357MAG and 9mm are both 35,000 psi calibers.

It would be interesting to see how long an Airweight would hold up to "constant" 9mm use. I have two 642's, one of which has a good amount of "warm" reloads and factory +P through it now, and its not near as tight as it was when I started to use it, about 15 years ago now.

While I was still carrying it, it got shot pretty much weekly, a hundred rounds or so. These days, its usually only fifty to a hundred rounds a month, just to stay on top of them, and my hand isnt real happy with me for a day or two after a box of 50 either.
 
AK103K said:
Over the years, I havent seen any in person myself, and yours is one of the first Ive seen online, not that I was looking real hard.
Click to expand...


Take a look on S&W Forum... wealth of information on various points over there. People feel that the .38/.357 barrel can cause accuracy issues with 9mm bullets. Plenty of real world examples of accurate converted revolvers... mine included.


AK103K said:
I always assumed that they were having troubles with getting the steel 940's to work, and gave up on the idea. The two I had, both had the same serial number, but it was obvious that the second gun they sent me, was a different gun (by its markings), and not the one Id sent back for repair. The second time I sent it back, I told them didnt want it back in 9mm, and to replace it with a .38, which they did.
Click to expand...


Most problems I've heard of with the 940s was sticky extraction. I've heard some people shooting +P or +P+ to stop it, but others had success with honing the cylinder. When it comes down to it, definitely S&W dropping the ball... which pushed people away and ended a market that is starting to come back.

With the conversion (mine was done by Pinnacle High Performance), the cylinder was rechambered to 9x23mm. Yes, the rounds can only be headspaced with moon clips, but no chance of sticky extraction.

AK103K said:
I never found the 940's (while they lasted) to be inaccurate, but they were specific built for 9mm. Something pointed out by the boy over on THR about using 940 cylinders in place of reamed out .38 cylinders. His experience anyway.
Click to expand...


Accuracy is really hard to gauge, as hitting the broadside of a barn may be accurate enough for one person, and another wants to castrate a fly. 2" at 15 yards from a J-frame is good enough for qualification... and I feel is better than some people that carry, but never practice (just to be clear, general statement... not directed towards anyone).

AK103K said:
Recoil of my 940's, while brisk, and similar to my Model 60's in 357Mag, I really dont think it was much, if any worse than an Airweight with +P .38's. Not sure what I would think of the 9mm in an Airweight. Probably not much, as Im not a masochist. :)
Click to expand...

115 grain UMC Bulk was fine for me... and I'd put it towards standard pressure .38s.

Growing up on a .44 Magnum, it would take a lot before I'm going to say I don't like the recoil. [emoji41]

AK103K said:
Those are the SAAMI "standard" pressures for those two calibers. Now maybe if you went with a 357 as a host, it might be a better option, as 357MAG and 9mm are both 35,000 psi calibers.
Click to expand...

http://www.saami.org/specifications_and_information/specifications/Velocity_Pressure_CfPR.pdf

MAP... which is maximum average pressure.

Different rounds in the same caliber can run at different pressure. Look at 10mm. Loads mimicking .40 are not running at the same pressure as true 10mm loads. When you start going into +P or +P+, you are topping those pressure limits.

I do want to add this, as it does talk about a similar topic...

http://le.atk.com/downloads/technical_bulletins/357_SIG_Setback_Length-vs-Pressure.pdf

It is a .357 SIG, but notice where the line starts... under the maximum average pressure. Setting a bullet back 0.01" caused the pressure to climb over the maximum limit. You can also see how quickly the pressure rose with the little compression of the powder from bullet setback. A gun likely won't go boom when it climbs over that pressure, but at some point, it will fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top