Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/

S&W J Frames
http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3369		 Page 2 of 2
Author:  goalie [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:39 am ]
Post subject: 
Greg wrote:
Smith 642 is natures most perfect carry gun.

It's rated for +P loads but you can practice with cheap 38 Wadcutters.

Plus it's very simple to operate, the original point and click interface!


I disagree. My 638 has all the benefits of a 642, but allows me to shoot single-action if I so choose.
Author:  Selurcspi [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:11 am ]
Post subject: 
If the J frame is the choice, I would try and make friends with someone with a heavier revolver and try to practice with that until the recoil jitters subside.

The only cure to recoil aversion is to experience lots of it. But it is best done in small amounts. If you begin with heavier guns and lightest loads, working up to and beyond the level of the carry gun to produce a comfort level conducive to much practice.
Author:  Pat Cannon [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:13 am ]
Post subject: 
goalie wrote:
Greg wrote:
Smith 642 is natures most perfect carry gun.

It's rated for +P loads but you can practice with cheap 38 Wadcutters.

Plus it's very simple to operate, the original point and click interface!


I disagree. My 638 has all the benefits of a 642, but allows me to shoot single-action if I so choose.
Some people might say that the thumb-cocking option is an undesirable complication on a defensive snubby, providing 1) a hammer spur to snag on clothing, and 2) the temptation to do much of one's practice shooting in the more satisfyingly accurate but less defensively relevant single-action mode, thus leading to A) poor double-action accuracy due to lack of practice, and B) in an emergency, obeying the bad habit of thumb-cocking the revolver, resulting in the dangerous situation of an adrenaline-charged finger on or near a light single-action trigger.

(When I'm writing, I don't have to complete a sentence in one breath. Though maybe I should anyway.)
Author:  hypertech [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:22 am ]
Post subject: 
Selurcspi wrote:
If the J frame is the choice, I would try and make friends with someone with a heavier revolver and try to practice with that until the recoil jitters subside.

The only cure to recoil aversion is to experience lots of it. But it is best done in small amounts. If you begin with heavier guns and lightest loads, working up to and beyond the level of the carry gun to produce a comfort level conducive to much practice.


That is a good suggestion ... now I just need to find a friend with a heavier revolver!

It is a strange thing - she does not have a problem handling the gun. She shoots better than I do despite my efforts to practice. I'm pretty sure it isn't a problem handling the recoil in as much as it is that she doesn't like the recoil.

But, I think your idea would work equally well helping someone to deal with it or get used to it.
Author:  joelr [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:31 am ]
Post subject: 
goalie wrote:
Greg wrote:
Smith 642 is natures most perfect carry gun.

It's rated for +P loads but you can practice with cheap 38 Wadcutters.

Plus it's very simple to operate, the original point and click interface!


I disagree. My 638 has all the benefits of a 642, but allows me to shoot single-action if I so choose.
For you, that's probably a better choice, slightly. But a lot of folks -- even putatively well-trained ones -- have, under stress, cocked the hammer and then found themselves having some trouble decocking when it turns out that they don't need to shoot. (That's why the NYPD, before they went to semiautos, went to DAO revolvers.)

Me, I'd rather carry a lemon squeezer -- but, then again, I don't have one, unlike some people I know, (he said, enviously).
Author:  DeanC [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:46 am ]
Post subject: 
joelr wrote:
But a lot of folks -- even putatively well-trained ones -- have, under stress, cocked the hammer and then found themselves having some trouble decocking when it turns out that they don't need to shoot.

I have a buddy who came home to find his 44mag Ruger lying cocked on his bed. Somebody had tried kicking in his door and his wife had cocked the pistol while pointing it at the door. Image

Lucky for the perp, he gave up and went away before kicking the door all the way in (and before the cops arrived).
Author:  J. R. [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:06 am ]
Post subject: 
I vote P3 AT. My girlfriend shot my 642 airweight and would occasionally carry it when visitng friends in neighborhoods of different socio economic composition, but didn't like the "bulk" of the revolver in her pocket. She later bought her own P3 AT, she was at first apprehensive about being able to rack the slide, but determined she was capable and made the purchase. After a few hundred rounds the spring is a little easier, she likes shooting it, and will actually carry it (sometimes) What ever you do, don't push the issue, purchase, carry, etc. We all have our own time frames and comfort levels, and like most joint decisions with the fairer sex, things go smoother when it is her idea. Somewhere there is a post or a link on this site on "How to make your wife hate guns" (recomended reading)
http://www.corneredcat.com/ForMen/BuyForWife.htm
Author:  Jeff C. [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
hypertech wrote:
Selurcspi wrote:
If the J frame is the choice, I would try and make friends with someone with a heavier revolver and try to practice with that until the recoil jitters subside.

The only cure to recoil aversion is to experience lots of it. But it is best done in small amounts. If you begin with heavier guns and lightest loads, working up to and beyond the level of the carry gun to produce a comfort level conducive to much practice.


That is a good suggestion ... now I just need to find a friend with a heavier revolver!

It is a strange thing - she does not have a problem handling the gun. She shoots better than I do despite my efforts to practice. I'm pretty sure it isn't a problem handling the recoil in as much as it is that she doesn't like the recoil.

But, I think your idea would work equally well helping someone to deal with it or get used to it.


I have a K frame S&W revolver, 38 special with a 6" barrel. Have two different size rubber grips. I also have a new Kel-Tec P3AT semi auto that she could try out if it would help. I shoot at Burnsville Pistol Range during the winter months. I'm not sure what kind of time line you are looking at, but feel free to let me know.

Jeff
Author:  goalie [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
Pat Cannon wrote:
Some people might say that the thumb-cocking option is an undesirable complication on a defensive snubby, providing 1) a hammer spur to snag on clothing, and


The 638 has a shrouded hammer. It will not snag on cloths any more than a 642

Pat Cannon wrote:
2) the temptation to do much of one's practice shooting in the more satisfyingly accurate but less defensively relevant single-action mode, thus leading to A) poor double-action accuracy due to lack of practice, and


If you don't have enough self-control to practice properly with your chosen self-defense tool, you don't have the self-control to get good with ANY self-defense tool.

Pat Cannon wrote:
B) in an emergency, obeying the bad habit of thumb-cocking the revolver, resulting in the dangerous situation of an adrenaline-charged finger on or near a light single-action trigger.

(When I'm writing, I don't have to complete a sentence in one breath. Though maybe I should anyway.)


You fight like you train, or to put it another way: you don't "rise to the occasion" but rather sink to your level of competence.

My above reply is relevant, with the addition that, at 25 yards, I am very glad that I have the option to thumb cock if that one-in-a-zillion situation arises where I actually needed to make a shot from that distance. With the 642 you do not have that option.

Fact: both the 642 and the 638 weigh the same
Fact: both the 642 and the 638 are the same size
Fact: both the 642 and the 638 can be fired double-action
Fact: both the 642 and the 638 have shrouded hammers that won't snag
Fact: only the 638 can be fired single-action

So, to sum it up, the only real negative anyone comes up with, besides possibly cosmetic appearance, when comparing the two revolvers is usually that PEOPLE WITH POOR TRAINING HABBITS may not have the willpower to learn to shoot the 638 double action.

Nah, I'll stick with my 638.
Author:  goalie [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:01 pm ]
Post subject: 
joelr wrote:
goalie wrote:
Greg wrote:
Smith 642 is natures most perfect carry gun.

It's rated for +P loads but you can practice with cheap 38 Wadcutters.

Plus it's very simple to operate, the original point and click interface!


I disagree. My 638 has all the benefits of a 642, but allows me to shoot single-action if I so choose.
For you, that's probably a better choice, slightly. But a lot of folks -- even putatively well-trained ones -- have, under stress, cocked the hammer and then found themselves having some trouble decocking when it turns out that they don't need to shoot. (That's why the NYPD, before they went to semiautos, went to DAO revolvers.)

Me, I'd rather carry a lemon squeezer -- but, then again, I don't have one, unlike some people I know, (he said, enviously).


Damn.

I guess that is a pretty decent reason, although, again, one dependent upon a person's lack of training and skill.

I very rarely thumb-cock my 638, and have trouble imagining a scenario where I would do so in the heat of the moment, so I don't see it as a huge issue.
Author:  macphisto [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
J. R. wrote:
Somewhere there is a post or a link on this site on "How to make your wife hate guns" (recomended reading)
http://www.corneredcat.com/ForMen/BuyForWife.htm

Found it: http://www.corneredcat.com/ForMen/HateGuns.htm

I don't have a wife, but I've made a lot of those mistakes with my girlfriend. I'm going to leave the issue alone from now on, invite her to the range, be patient, and wait for her come around...if she wants to, of course.
Author:  Pat Cannon [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 7:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
goalie wrote:
The 638 has a shrouded hammer. It will not snag on cloths any more than a 642
Oops, you got me on that one; I didn't look up the 638.
...
goalie wrote:
So, to sum it up, the only real negative anyone comes up with, besides possibly cosmetic appearance, when comparing the two revolvers is usually that PEOPLE WITH POOR TRAINING HABBITS may not have the willpower to learn to shoot the 638 double action.
Yeah, that's all I'm saying, really. Though I think it's only realistic to classify as 'people with poor training habits', lots of people -- including me.
Author:  goalie [ Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
Pat Cannon wrote:
Yeah, that's all I'm saying, really. Though I think it's only realistic to classify as 'people with poor training habits', lots of people -- including me.


:wink:
Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/