Revolvers
- Thread starter kyguy1
- Start date
Well since I am just more of a Smith guy, although I like Rugers, I'm going to get a new 642. My lgs has one with a nice rosewood grips. A new production gun with no lock, which is good. And practical, in that I can carry it if I want. I figure I can always add a 357 down the road if I want. And meanwhile will be on the lookout for a nice used Model 60 or similar type.
Driftwood Johnson
New member
Was that a joke?
A Vaquero being good for concealed carry?
I don't think so.
A good allround revolver.
Ok A ruger will last for ever, S&W's have lasted for ever...
My own opinion but the smiths are somewhat smaller, and lighter. In your situation I'd look for a used Smith. The model 10/military and police revolver will last for ever. I'd suggest the 4" heavy barrel model. Being on a farm you might want to go with a model 13 or 65, the same gun but in .357 magnum.
Ok A ruger will last for ever, S&W's have lasted for ever...
My own opinion but the smiths are somewhat smaller, and lighter. In your situation I'd look for a used Smith. The model 10/military and police revolver will last for ever. I'd suggest the 4" heavy barrel model. Being on a farm you might want to go with a model 13 or 65, the same gun but in .357 magnum.
Yea I'd never owned a SA before and would certainly never carry it. Impractical. Those are for shooting not for carry. I'm a shooter and not a hunter. But I still love SA's although I prefer DA. I'd get a 642 or 442 for pocket carry. But for a good fun shooter that could double duty as a home defense gun with 44spl, I have my eye on the Ruger Redhawk that is an absolutely beautiful gun. Everything I like in one package. Sturdy build, new production gun, wood grips, high caliber, and double action. Full back grip panel too, not the hideous tang grips that I hate. Only drawback is the cost. But it sure looks like a worthwhile purchase. Some would use it to hunt, I'd use it to shoot tons of 44 spl out of and occasional 44 mag and keep as a nice bedside gun. One could do the same with one of Ruger's nice SA's, but in the middle of the night, a SA would not be the best defensive weapon.
Driftwood Johnson
New member
Size and single action. Barrel length would depend on the length the carrier chose.
I simply think a revolver the size of a Vaquero, even the New Vaquero, would be difficult to conceal, and I cannot imagine using a single action revolver for self defense today. It was one thing in 1880, but things are different today.
I think it depends whether one chooses a gun for a mode of dress or one dresses to conceal. My minimal gun is a lightweight J-frame. Many other choices in my carry rotation. With a vest I sometimes carry *TWO* Model P Jr clones in 38 Special. I don't have a barrel short enough in a full size SAA type gun. I carry those cross draw without much pretense of concealment.
As far as shooting goes, as long as I have two hands, one to run the hammer, I believe I can shoot fast enough to create considerable havoc and with better trigger control. The majority of my shooting is single action, so that is where my skill is.
As far as shooting goes, as long as I have two hands, one to run the hammer, I believe I can shoot fast enough to create considerable havoc and with better trigger control. The majority of my shooting is single action, so that is where my skill is.
Mike_Fontenot
New member
My exclusive primary EDC is a S&W69 5-shot 4-1/4" L-Frame .44mag. It's a DA/SA revolver, but I only shoot it SA ... I HATE DA. The recoil of the .44mag is so high that the cocking (with my weak thumb) between shots adds negligible followup-shot time. I would use DA only in the event that the bad guy was right on top of me, and accuracy was unimportant. A pure SA gun's biggest disadvantage is slower reloading time.
Driftwood Johnson
New member
Howdy Again
I shoot single action revolvers all the time. If I may say so I am very good with one. However, if my life depended on it, I would never carry a single action revolver. I would want that fast first shot if I really needed it.
Regarding concealment, where I live, if a firearm was not well concealed, although not strictly against the law, it would probably attract the attention of a law enforcement officer if he happened to notice. There would probably be a conversation about it. So concealed carry that is not noticeable is the best option where I live.
All up to your local requirements and your particular situation.
I shoot single action revolvers all the time. If I may say so I am very good with one. However, if my life depended on it, I would never carry a single action revolver. I would want that fast first shot if I really needed it.
Regarding concealment, where I live, if a firearm was not well concealed, although not strictly against the law, it would probably attract the attention of a law enforcement officer if he happened to notice. There would probably be a conversation about it. So concealed carry that is not noticeable is the best option where I live.
All up to your local requirements and your particular situation.
Someday we'll see concealed carry as a choice rather than a requirement, removing the failure to conceal argument. I like the middle ground where outright open carry is not okay in many situations, but covering the weapon is sufficient, no requirement that it be a secret that you are carrying and no problem for unintentional reveal.
As far as I know, authorities in SC are not antagonistic to concealed carry and not confrontational about suspecting someone is carrying.
As far as I know, authorities in SC are not antagonistic to concealed carry and not confrontational about suspecting someone is carrying.
Driftwood Johnson
New member
Of course the other thing to consider is if you happen to find yourself in a situation such as a robbery where there are several citizens present, and the perp happens to be nervous, the citizen who is obviously armed may be the first target.