J frames..why do you like a particular over another.

G

Gonzo_308

New member
I was just reading another thread and there is alot of positive vibes for the Model 38 bodyguard. I'm just curious why that gun is so popular.

It would seem to me(and is to me) that the enclosed hammer designs are more efficient for pocket carry.

Am I missing something that wouldn't show up on paper? Is there a better feel or more controlability? I know the hammer can be cocked on those models but in a crisis situation would that really matter?

Need solid answers please. I have no opinion other than what I already stated. Can't and wont defend that opinion if asked to. just wanna know.

THanks in advance.

P.S. my pocket gun is a scandium pocket rocket.
 
I prefer the Bodyguard style.
I like the way it sits in my hand.
I like the option of being able to shoot single or double action.
I've shot both and prefer the feel of the Bodyguard.
I don't understand the "more efficient for pocket carry" statement.
 
It's more efficient in my mind because it's smaller as there's no exposed hammer to shroud, no channel for dust lint to collect in. Those are my reasons.

Note that I'm not complaining about the bodyguard guns.

At the time my interest peaked in snub nose revolvers the evolution had come to enclosed hammers and exposed/shrouded hammers were older designs.

If you go to the store and look in the case you will see tons of enclosed hammer guns and not much else. I only know what I can see, touch, try that's why I'm asking.
 
I understand what you're sayin'.
In reference to being smaller, I THINK they are about the same weight, and I honestly don't believe that there is that much more meat on the model 38 to make it any more pocket filling than a centennial model.
Concerning lint, dirt, spare change getting wedged in the hammer shroud, etc., I take care of my guns. I clean them, I do not put other crap in my pocket that my gun is in. I repect it because it's a firearm, not a set of keys.
And by golly, I just love that little hump. Such character.
:D
 
I have had a 649 for about seven years. I bought it because I wanted to have the option of SA/DA shots. I also wanted a concealed hammer so that it would not hang up.

The gun looks like a one hump camel and is not a "pretty" gun but it is the most accurate snub I've ever owned.

It has been replaced as my "always" gun by "the beast", my 340SC. The weight difference between the two is significant but the 340 is not as accurate and it is NOT a fun gun to shoot,

John
 
Playing devils advocate, I prefer the S&W "Chief's Special" models of
revolvers, ie: 36, 37, and old model 60 all in .38 Special. I like these
models cuz they do have a hammer, for controlled deliberate firing.
Some would argue that hammer's are put on handguns strictly for
target shooting. If that be the case, I'm a target shoot'in kind'a guy.

Best Wishes,
 
the evolution had come to enclosed hammers and exposed/shrouded hammers were older designs.
Click to expand...

Enclosed hammers are not a new design. They were discontinued (in the 60's or early 70's, I think) because they were ahead of their time. Gun writers got readers to write into S&W to show there was an interest, and they were re-introduced.
 
Another Train Of Thought

In a world crowded with lawyers (and wannabe's), one worth his or her
weight in gold would question the use in shooting scenarios where one
had the time to "cock the hammer". Probably a good defense lawyer
would say something like this; " Mr.____ if you had the time to cock
the hammer, then Sir you had time to retreat". Or "aimed shots should
not have been aimed at my clients head; but directed towards center
mass". Case in point, that makes a valid arguement for the carry of
concealed hammer revolvers like the S&W model 40, 42, or 642. Or

Best Wishes,
 
Oh, didn't know that. See what I'm saying. I came into revolvers about 20 years ago. In my mind, until very, very recently small guns were for women. Put a 686 snub(not a dreaded +) on your hip and you'll be fine.

I consider the 3"hb 65 to be the best all 'round carry revolver. why go smaller?

Now I'm seeing things a little bit diferently because I spend more time hunched over chasing a toddler through the mall, park or where ever and a shirt is more likely to run up over a bigger gun.

I've got a 36 no dash, a 642 and a 340pd.

I prefer the 340 because it comes out of a pocket holster in a flash and weighs less then the ammo I put in it.

The wife loves the 642. It's the first gun I ever got that she said she wanted to carry.

That's a big deal for me because getting to the range the first time was tough.
 
Last edited:
I've got a 640, 60 (both J magnums, a couple of 36,s and a 49 J frame. The 49 is my favorite for versatility with the 640 a close second (only becasue the trigger has been worked to allow a flat spot before the trigger breaks. ) I also preffer the older all steel J frames that weigh in @ 20 oz.
 
"until very, very recently small guns were for women"

Oh no, my manhood, my manhood. :eek: You know, my great uncle carried an 1884 S&W .38 and my grandfather's Iver Johnson .32 isn't much bigger than my P-32.

I've carried a 649, but found it too heavy for my pocket at 23 ounces or so. I now use a 442 at 15.8. The 649 is a little easier for me to shoot, but my 442 has a better trigger and isn't a problem at all for the first box or so of +P loads.

John
 
I've owned several of them. Light weight is definitely a plus. The 442 is probably my favorite, but the model 38 would be if they had put better sights on it like the 442 has. I like the shrouded hammer, but having the option to cock it manually is nice. Watch-Six
 
Why the model 38/39 or the 649? Because it does the same thing that the hammerless "Centennial" models do, but you also have the ability to fire single action if it's ever needed. And that "hump" just looks kinda cool! :D

Seriously, I've liked the shrouded hammer guns ever since I first saw one. For 99% of cases you'll never need the SA mode but it's there if you want it. It's distinctive profile is another big point too, for those of us who like it's looks.

Bodyguard vs. Centennial
Compare the two and there's not much difference. A little height/size difference but not much else. It comes down to looks and whether you'll be concerned about "pocket grodies" getting into the hammer slot of the Bodyguard.
 
"until very, very recently small guns were for women"
Click to expand...

My wife is petite and under 5'4" and does occasionally carry a Colt .380 Gov't., but she is equally qualified and carries a full size 1911 or S&W 1917, both in .45ACP. :D
 
ok people get over yourselves. That was my mindset at the time and if you feel you need to defend yourself or your woman start another thread or PM me. :rolleyes:

keep it on topic please I and other reader are garnering info about "J" frames. We're not looking to be enlightened as to you or your mates prowess with a howitzer or .500 magnum ok? I edited the other post for clarity.

In my mind, until very, very recently small guns were for women.
Click to expand...
 
My first carry gun was a 640 magnum and to this day I feel it is a near perfect carry gun. Powerful round, carries very easily IWB or OWB due to shape and size and I shot it better than others who tried. It could always go in a pocket though I never wanted to carry it for any length of time in a pocket due to it's weight. I went to an auto for belt carry having long since sold the J-magnum. When I am looking for something specifically for pocket carry, it is a "bobbed" M37. I try to make sure to practice more DA than SA firing but it's nice to have the option, like many who mentioned the 'bodyguard' styles. (I just never liked the look of the 'hump'.) If I could have back just one of the guns I've sold or traded over the years, it would be that 640.)
 
Ninjato, I can't 'splain it other than when I first read about the new + models coming out I said to myself what the hell is that all about.

Just not a fan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top