Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Being a confirmed J frame fan, I continue my exploration of the
genre.
Previously on the Glenn Goes Snubby tour:
1. SW 640 - a tad to heavy for my pocket - YMMV
The extra weight is nice for shooting
2. The 442 and 642 - quite fine guns. Weight is just fine
for my pocket. The 642 is easier to clean and my favorite
of the moment. Down side 5 shots, 38 SPL (but that really
doesn't bother me). A lot of shooting is an owie but 100 rounds
at a time is OK. Accuracy just dandy on the Smurf test - high 240s.
3. The 342, lighter with recoil that is manageable tactically but would
be painful with a long firing session. Accuracy similar to the 642.
Didn't think the added lightness and extra price made it worth trading
in the 642.
4. The 317 LS - wonderfully light and not even noticeable in my pocket.
Great for taking out in the country with some snake shot. The trigger
pull is heavy. It has a full trigger spur so that can be problematic with
fast access from your pocket. I wonder why if SW pushes this gun
for self-defense, they didn't make a Centennial model?
Just a 22 LR - so you have stopping light. Still I like it.
Today's trial was a SW 331 - one of the new Airlites. It is a 6 shot
32 HR Mag with a hammer. They didn't have a 332 - no hammer.
My impressions:
1. Trigger is typical J frame (except for the heavy 317).
2. Light - same as 342 to my feel. Recoil - interesting, I tried it
as I thought that the 342 was sharp as compared to my 642.
The 32 was fairly sharp also (Fed 95 gr semiwad). I was surprised.
It was not that much better than the 642.
3. Accuracy - for some reason I consistuently shot this gun about 2 inches
higher at 4 yards than the 642. I only shot 50 rounds - see below
4. Ammo price - %%#((@%@*@ - $20 a box. Two ranges wanted this for
practice ammo. All they had was the Federal. With 38 spl and 9mm in the
$5 to 6 range - You ain't practicing much with this guy.
Conclusion:
You gain a round of a weaker round
Recoil is still sharp - at least to me.
Ammo is expensive
Ergonomics/sights/triggers = to other Centennials.
Thus - not for me. The 642 is still ahead.
I would say that if SW wants a lightweight conceable gun they
should do a "312" with lighter springs. Granted the 22 LR is
marginal but for some folks who are recoil shy, it would be
a nice pocket gun without the hammer. Who wants it anyway
on a snubby? Right, you are going to make a single action
long distance gunfight shot with this.
Lighten up the springs. I know the argument is the unreliability of
22 LRs. So recommend a brand. It worked for Seecamp. Probably
SW doesn't want to offend industry friends.
I would also like to see a super 942. Alloy frame, SS cylinder and
9mm. Work on extraction technology to dump the clips. There
have been three solutions - Ruger's, SWs and Phillips and Rodgers.
Surely one can work.
I onced asked SW if they would do one and they said the alloy
frame wouldn't take it. Ti frame?
So, the 331 isn't for me. Mabye they should try the 632 again.
bye
Glenn
http://www.enconnect.net/cyberguns
genre.
Previously on the Glenn Goes Snubby tour:
1. SW 640 - a tad to heavy for my pocket - YMMV
The extra weight is nice for shooting
2. The 442 and 642 - quite fine guns. Weight is just fine
for my pocket. The 642 is easier to clean and my favorite
of the moment. Down side 5 shots, 38 SPL (but that really
doesn't bother me). A lot of shooting is an owie but 100 rounds
at a time is OK. Accuracy just dandy on the Smurf test - high 240s.
3. The 342, lighter with recoil that is manageable tactically but would
be painful with a long firing session. Accuracy similar to the 642.
Didn't think the added lightness and extra price made it worth trading
in the 642.
4. The 317 LS - wonderfully light and not even noticeable in my pocket.
Great for taking out in the country with some snake shot. The trigger
pull is heavy. It has a full trigger spur so that can be problematic with
fast access from your pocket. I wonder why if SW pushes this gun
for self-defense, they didn't make a Centennial model?
Just a 22 LR - so you have stopping light. Still I like it.
Today's trial was a SW 331 - one of the new Airlites. It is a 6 shot
32 HR Mag with a hammer. They didn't have a 332 - no hammer.
My impressions:
1. Trigger is typical J frame (except for the heavy 317).
2. Light - same as 342 to my feel. Recoil - interesting, I tried it
as I thought that the 342 was sharp as compared to my 642.
The 32 was fairly sharp also (Fed 95 gr semiwad). I was surprised.
It was not that much better than the 642.
3. Accuracy - for some reason I consistuently shot this gun about 2 inches
higher at 4 yards than the 642. I only shot 50 rounds - see below
4. Ammo price - %%#((@%@*@ - $20 a box. Two ranges wanted this for
practice ammo. All they had was the Federal. With 38 spl and 9mm in the
$5 to 6 range - You ain't practicing much with this guy.
Conclusion:
You gain a round of a weaker round
Recoil is still sharp - at least to me.
Ammo is expensive
Ergonomics/sights/triggers = to other Centennials.
Thus - not for me. The 642 is still ahead.
I would say that if SW wants a lightweight conceable gun they
should do a "312" with lighter springs. Granted the 22 LR is
marginal but for some folks who are recoil shy, it would be
a nice pocket gun without the hammer. Who wants it anyway
on a snubby? Right, you are going to make a single action
long distance gunfight shot with this.
Lighten up the springs. I know the argument is the unreliability of
22 LRs. So recommend a brand. It worked for Seecamp. Probably
SW doesn't want to offend industry friends.
I would also like to see a super 942. Alloy frame, SS cylinder and
9mm. Work on extraction technology to dump the clips. There
have been three solutions - Ruger's, SWs and Phillips and Rodgers.
Surely one can work.
I onced asked SW if they would do one and they said the alloy
frame wouldn't take it. Ti frame?
So, the 331 isn't for me. Mabye they should try the 632 again.
bye
Glenn
http://www.enconnect.net/cyberguns