Thoughts On New CCH: Revolver vs Auto?

W

Wool Jacket

Inactive
All of my handguns in the past have been full size, but now I'm wanting something more concealable. I'm not sold on these tiny pocket pistols, so I've been looking at guns that might be considered a bit large for say in day out carry (which this gun won't be used for. It will be more of a glove box gun that I'll be able to conceal when I want to). The two guns I have in mind are the S&W 686+ 3" and the Kimber Pro Carry II.
The specs are as follows:

S&W 686+
Barrel Length-3"
Cartridge- .357/.38
Overall Length-8.18"
Weight-36.8 oz
Width-1.563".
Capacity-7 RND

Kimberly Pro Carry II
Barrel Length-4"
Cartridge-.45 ACP
Overall Length-7.7"
Weight-28 oz
Width-1.28"
Capacity-7 RND

Let me hear what you think. Anything you want to say or add or anything else you'd like to suggest I'll listen.
Thanks.
 
I'm by no means an expert and any opinion on this is purely down to my own preferences which may or may not align with yours but here goes.

Ordinarily, I'm a fond supporter of the revolver. Partly because where I live they make more sense give weird carry regs and partly because I just like revolvers, but in this case, I'd have to say go semi-auto. The weight, width and barrel length are all in the Kimber's favour.

The 686+ is about the same width as a GP100 and most seem to say that, whilst it can be carried concealed, it (the GP) is not the easiest choice.

Reloads, although not a deal breaker for me, would also be easier with the semi.

I have zero experience shooting .357 but have shot plenty of .38s. That, at least, would be easy to shoot out of the S&W. The magnum's recoil will be greater as will it's blast and the .45 seems to sit between the two: less recoil and noise than the .357 but more punch than the .38.

All that said, I like revolvers and I like their ease of use, trigger pull and the simple pulling of the trigger on a dud round: no clearing drills needed. Reloads too can be fast, but need way more practice to do quickly.

My initial, instinctive thoughts.
 
Id say first and foremost, carry what you shoot the best with, especially when shot "realistically". By that I mean, base that on more realistic shooting instead of your basic bullseye type "target" shooting.

Personally, if your choices are between the two you list, Id go with the S&W. My experiences with Kimbers, especially the smaller guns, was not good. If youre very comfortable with yours, and trust it, then Id probably roll the other way. But that really all depends on you, your experiences, and which one you shoot the best with.

From what Ive seen at the ranges Ive shot at over the years, running a revolver "realistically", seems to be becoming sort of a lost art. I see people shooting them, but I have very rarely seen anyone practicing shooting, and especially reloading from how they carry the gun/reloads. You need to be realistic with yourself here when you consider them, especially if you normally dont use them.
 
From what Ive seen at the ranges Ive shot at over the years, running a revolver "realistically", seems to be becoming sort of a lost art. I see people shooting them, but I have very rarely seen anyone practicing shooting, and especially reloading from how they carry the gun/reloads. You need to be realistic with yourself here when you consider them, especially if you normally dont use them.
Click to expand...

I'd say that's true for either platform honestly. When I shoot revolvers, I almost always reload using speedloaders from my pocket. It doesn't take time to become proficient, but you don't want to do it for the first time when your life depends on it. Same goes for reloading an auto, easy to bungle reloads on them too (flinging the magazine away, putting it in backwards, etc).

I like both platforms. The 1911 will be a little more comfortable to carry, but with a good holster (ie, my Milt Sparks VM II), the 3" 686 is definitely doable. My 3" 686+ is my favorite all around carry gun. 100% dependable, easy to shoot (though the DA trigger could use some smoothing, its a little grittier than all my other Smiths, which are all quite slick). Ammo flexibility is a big plus (158 grain LSWCHP .38s for carry, and Buffalo Bore .357s for hiking in black bear / hog country).

Guess what I'm carrying right now :p?

I put some Ahrends round but boot grips on mine to enhance concealability. Really comfortable to shoot too.


 
Do you currently own either or both of the mentioned guns?

If so, have you fired both to test reliability? It probably won't be an issue with the S&W, but a thorough reliability test would be in order for the Kimber. I personally am not a 1911 fan and don't trust them for carry, but if the one you have works well, I would choose that over the revolver. That extra weight and bulk will be noticeable. Effectiveness between the two will be about the same in terms of stopping power, same for accuracy. Also spare ammo is much easier to carry for an auto. Yes I know you can use "speed strips" for revolvers and I've used them before my self, but a pistol magazine takes up no more space and the reload is dramatically faster.

Yes, I used to be a died in the wool revolver guys... but nowadays, with current events, I choose to carry an autoloader which right now is a Makarov PM.
 
Neither. A modern striker polymer gun is better. Retro is romantic but there are better fighting solutions.
Click to expand...

+1

Most tactical operators would not choose such an ineffective weapons system platform to engage tangos when the threat risk assessment matrix calls for offense or defense countermeasures.

But in the real world, both of those choices will work just fine OP, provided they are reliable.
 
My thought is that they are fine guns (Kimber can be debated among the 1911 set) for the single mugger be gone scenario. A more intense horror show, then I might like something less retro.
 
Id say first and foremost, carry what you shoot the best with, especially when shot "realistically". By that I mean, base that on more realistic shooting instead of your basic bullseye type "target" shooting.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed--and to figure out what it is, try out your first choice in a good high-performance defensive pistol training course. You may stick with it or change to another one afterward.
 
Wooljacket, between the 2 I'd go with the Kimber because of the weight difference. I frequently carry a 642 revolver because it's 3 oz lighter than my LC9. I have a 4" 686 that is as easily concealed as a 1911 gun but the weight is awful compared to a Lightweight Commander. I usually carry the 642 or the LC9 in a cargo pocket, the 3 oz makes a difference, either one in a belt holster is fine.
 
I would not recommend the 1911 because under stress the external safety might be a problem unless you have a lot of trigger time on that gun ie. drawing from the holster. DA or striker fired would be my first option with the revolver close behind. The revolver is second because of slower reload times. I carried a Ruger Speed Six for years but now carry a M&P full size or compact. The trigger on your revolver will smooth out over time, my Speed Six is smooth as glass but it has over 12,000 rounds through it.
 
I would go semiautomatic and a Shield or LC9 is about as small as I would go. I think the Glock 19's and 23's make a perfect compromise between concealability and being big and having enough capacity.
 
I love my 2 1/2 inch 686 Plus, I love my Kimber Target Eclipse II, I love a whole bunch of guns I have and shoot well. For daily, comfortably concealed carry, I love my Glock 43 9mm. It's light, thin, powerful, accurate, and has good sights.

And I carry it everyday, all the time, because it's thin and light.
 
S&W 686+
Barrel Length-3"
Cartridge- .357/.38
Overall Length-8.18"
Weight-36.8 oz
Width-1.563".
Capacity-7 RND

Kimberly Pro Carry II
Barrel Length-4"
Cartridge-.45 ACP
Overall Length-7.7"
Weight-28 oz
Width-1.28"
Capacity-7 RND
Click to expand...

In this case, honestly, I would be going with the S&W.
 
Most tactical operators would not choose such an ineffective weapons system platform to engage tangos when the threat risk assessment matrix calls for offense or defense countermeasures.

I don't know you. So. If that was a tiny bit tounge in cheek, well played sir, well played.

If not, still, nicely strung together phrases.

:)
 
I really like revolvers. I carry a 3" 65 or an old 2 3/4" Ruger Speed Six quite often.

Also have an SP101...or two.

That said, an L Frame is kind of a beast to carry concealed all the time.

Perhaps an SP101 would be a better CC piece. I KNOW you CAN conceal a 6" N frame all day...but, for me it's not worth it.
 
I'd dump the Kimber and get a Colt Commander or smaller Defender . To many problems with Kimbers . Just read the gun boards. Mine was one of their trouble guns . I'll never own another .:mad:
 
IMHO either one would be good for a truck gun or glove compartment gun, and both are on the large size to carry (for most people).

To me the most important consideration is which one do you shoot the best. If the answer is "about the same" (and both are known to be reliable), then I would go with the 1911 for being flatter, holding more rounds, and being quicker to reload.

Did the earth just shake? Did "Mr. Revolver Guy" really just type that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top