For the record, when I carry a J-frame, I carry it either way…both pocket and belt carry, but predominantly pocket carry.
A Model 638 meets both requirements. It's kind of ugly, but who cares? If I ever buy another J-frame, that might be the one.
Search found 2 matches
- Tue Aug 27, 2024 11:52 am
- Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
- Topic: 642 J-frame
- Replies: 10
- Views: 2803
Re: 642 J-frame
A Model 638 meets both requirements. It's kind of ugly, but who cares? If I ever buy another J-frame, that might be the one.
- Sat Aug 17, 2024 8:43 am
- Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
- Topic: 642 J-frame
- Replies: 10
- Views: 2803
Re: 642 J-frame
I’m not that good with either of the 3 j-frame revolvers I own. I’d probably be better too if I actually practiced with them, but they’re not a pleasant experience to shoot, so I don’t. I can hit a steel plate from 5-7 yards away, but it requires a slow and concerted focus to do so. I probably wouldn't have that luxury in a self defense situation.
One is a 642CT. Although the grip is slightly larger than the OEM "boot grip" the 642 comes with, but the laser is useless to me. But even with the larger grip, it’s not fun to shoot because of the long heavy trigger pull. Of course, that trigger is the only "safety" on the gun, so…
The other two I have are both .357 Magnums. One is a SS model 640, the other a scandium M&P340. Of the two, the 340 is the only one I ever carry, and rarely at that. Again, trigger is a problem for both, although both are slightly smoother than the 642. Weight is a problem for the 640 since it weighs the same as the G19 I carry daily, but it only has 1/3 the capacity of the G19. The 340 is much easier to carry since it weighs only 13 oz., but the recoil can only be described as "fierce," even with lighter loads (see "I Believe I've Met My Match").
The result is that—on the rare occasions where I need to carry a smaller, lower capacity pistol—I prefer a Glock 43 or some other similar pistol.
If I ever again buy a J-frame sized pistol, it will not have an enclosed hammer. Since I’m not ever likely to carry it, I’d at least like to add to the shootability by being able to manually cock the hammer and shoot it single action.
One is a 642CT. Although the grip is slightly larger than the OEM "boot grip" the 642 comes with, but the laser is useless to me. But even with the larger grip, it’s not fun to shoot because of the long heavy trigger pull. Of course, that trigger is the only "safety" on the gun, so…
The other two I have are both .357 Magnums. One is a SS model 640, the other a scandium M&P340. Of the two, the 340 is the only one I ever carry, and rarely at that. Again, trigger is a problem for both, although both are slightly smoother than the 642. Weight is a problem for the 640 since it weighs the same as the G19 I carry daily, but it only has 1/3 the capacity of the G19. The 340 is much easier to carry since it weighs only 13 oz., but the recoil can only be described as "fierce," even with lighter loads (see "I Believe I've Met My Match").
The result is that—on the rare occasions where I need to carry a smaller, lower capacity pistol—I prefer a Glock 43 or some other similar pistol.
If I ever again buy a J-frame sized pistol, it will not have an enclosed hammer. Since I’m not ever likely to carry it, I’d at least like to add to the shootability by being able to manually cock the hammer and shoot it single action.