concealed carry revolver
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Joined
·
63 Posts
I carry a 2" loaded with .44sp, fits in my rear pocket of my jeans, shirt not tucked in.
Jim
Jim
I find semi-autos to be easier to conceal in all conditions than a revolver. Not only is the grip equally difficult to hide between the two styles, but the revolver has the cylinder which is at least as wide as a full sized semi-auto with a 5 shot cylinder. I will grant the revolver carries well in a pocket but I am not a fan of such carry, I have too much else in there and it always seems the gun is turned around to the most difficult angle to grab it. A pocket holster helps tremendously but it only adds to the space taken up in the pocket.
I carry a Service sized Springfield XD 40 (4" barrel, 12 round magazine) all year long. With a slightly over sized, untucked T-shirt or something like a Columbia Fishing Shirt that is tucked in but "bloused" over the gun (less "blousing is needed if one is using a "tuckable" style holster), I have no problem concealing it at my waist line. At 6', 215 pounds I am not a small person but I am not really big either. It really does not take a lot to hide a gun from the overwhelming majority of people, with all the cell phones, multi-tools, pagers, i-Pods, and other things one can put on a belt, imprinting is much less of a problem today.
I carry a Service sized Springfield XD 40 (4" barrel, 12 round magazine) all year long. With a slightly over sized, untucked T-shirt or something like a Columbia Fishing Shirt that is tucked in but "bloused" over the gun (less "blousing is needed if one is using a "tuckable" style holster), I have no problem concealing it at my waist line. At 6', 215 pounds I am not a small person but I am not really big either. It really does not take a lot to hide a gun from the overwhelming majority of people, with all the cell phones, multi-tools, pagers, i-Pods, and other things one can put on a belt, imprinting is much less of a problem today.
Joined
·
159 Posts
I am a big fan of the S&W J frame revolvers. I have a 640 which is an all stainless 2 1/8" barrel .357 Magnum. I also have a M&P 340 which is an alloy framed, steel cylindered .357 Magnum with a 1 7/8 " barrel. I carry the 340 only in my pocket in a Safariland Model 25 holster. The 640 used to get pocket carry duty until I got the 340, now it is mainly a belt gun. The 640 is just a little too heavy for the pocket, it makes the pants sag noticeably. It is much more pleasant to shoot the heavier, steel 640, but the alloy framed 340 is by no means un-manageable. I do not carry full power .357 loads, I use the 135 grain Speer Gold Dot .357 for short barrel load in both. Its hotter than +P .38 Special, but not as hot as a full power .357 load. My two revolvers are of the Centennial design, internal hammer, double action only. I believe this is the best design for concealed carry. You won't be cocking the hammer and shooting single action in a defensive situation. All hammers do is chew holes in your clothes and snag up on the draw. There are also the Bodyguard models that have a shrouded hammer. They aren't bad, since the hammer is completely enclosed by the frame with only the very tip exposed to get your thumb on. The Chief's Special models are the traditional DA/SA revolver with a fully exposed hammer. I would stay away from them. The Ruger SP-101 is a very strong little revolver, but it is heavier and bulkier than the Smiths. I would steer clear of Taurus and Rossi revolvers also. A J frame in the pocket saved my life once.
Joined
·
33 Posts
Any reason for the revolver over a semi-auto?sig239 said:
Ruger just came out with the first polymer frame revolver that you might want to take a look at.
http://www.ruger.com/LCR/specs.html
My only concern with Ruger is that they have had here lately a couple of recall issues on their recent releases (LCP & SR9). Though these are both semi-autos, I still have concerns as this is a new firearm with cutting edge technology that has yet to be proven, at least in a revolver.
Other then that, Ruger is a excellent firearm.
Joined
·
169 Posts
+1 for J frame
Joined
·
44 Posts
Re: re: concealed carry revolver
First Sgt said:
Joined
·
297 Posts
The S&W 638 and 642 are great pocket pistols. Light weight and the grip is shaped to point quite naturally, something a lot of people take for granted in a belly gun. Easy to shoot with +P loads.
I haven't held a Ruger LCR yet, but they're about a $100 more than the S&Ws.
The SP101 is just one of the finest guns ever made. It is comfortable to shoot .357 magnum loads (esp. with the 3" barrel) quite unlike the S&W J-frames. It is heavier than the J-frame, but smaller and lighter than the K-frame Smiths. Not a pocket pistol, but easy to hide under a T-shirt.
I haven't held a Ruger LCR yet, but they're about a $100 more than the S&Ws.
The SP101 is just one of the finest guns ever made. It is comfortable to shoot .357 magnum loads (esp. with the 3" barrel) quite unlike the S&W J-frames. It is heavier than the J-frame, but smaller and lighter than the K-frame Smiths. Not a pocket pistol, but easy to hide under a T-shirt.
Joined
·
33 Posts
I just pickup a Chiappa Rhino the other day. Was very impress with the lack of muzzle flip using .357 mag in a 2" barrel.
Here is a comparison chart and a link to a video to show what I mean by lack of muzzle flip!
![]()
http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/vi ... nr=21&b=43
Here is a comparison chart and a link to a video to show what I mean by lack of muzzle flip!
http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/vi ... nr=21&b=43
***ONCE AGAIN, There is a very popular misconception regarding the Ruger LCR.357/38 Revolver that I wanted to address here in this Forum. The Frame of the LCR is *NOT made of Poly, nor any other type of plastic material! The LCR has an Aluminum frame that is only *coated with Poly for *cosmetic protection, a great feature that will prevent pitting and/or corrosion for many years to come.
Ruger as a Company really should explain this clearer than they do now, only explaining it after you purchase it and read the Handbook.
I am sure they are losing a ton of sales because of all those who think it's "made of plastic!" As a Dealer it also costs more than a comparible S&W, and I know of many other Dealers that will go with the plastic Ruger story only to shy people away from it, and into the S&W or some other cheap weapon where they can profit more.
This reminds me of when Glock first hit the market and everyone had the impression they were a fully plastic weapon as well, (Thinking it would even clear Airport Security!) only to realize later that only the Handle is made of poly which is an extremely strong type of a plastic material, but the Handle bears no stress from firing, as I would hope anyone into guns would know by now.
Personally I carry 2 weapons, a Glock Auto and the Ruger Revolver as a Back Up, and in my opinion the Ruger is more comfortable to wear than the Glock, another weapon I really love otherwise.
Ruger as a Company really should explain this clearer than they do now, only explaining it after you purchase it and read the Handbook.
I am sure they are losing a ton of sales because of all those who think it's "made of plastic!" As a Dealer it also costs more than a comparible S&W, and I know of many other Dealers that will go with the plastic Ruger story only to shy people away from it, and into the S&W or some other cheap weapon where they can profit more.
This reminds me of when Glock first hit the market and everyone had the impression they were a fully plastic weapon as well, (Thinking it would even clear Airport Security!) only to realize later that only the Handle is made of poly which is an extremely strong type of a plastic material, but the Handle bears no stress from firing, as I would hope anyone into guns would know by now.
Personally I carry 2 weapons, a Glock Auto and the Ruger Revolver as a Back Up, and in my opinion the Ruger is more comfortable to wear than the Glock, another weapon I really love otherwise.
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Join the discussion
