I do Like an ACP Revolver.

[fiver]

your hand is designed to work in 2 ways.
the index finger is pretty much all finesse and the middle finger is it's wing/support man.

your other 2 fingers are where the strength in gripping is.
to prove it, press your fingers against your palm and look at the forearm muscles that flex.
the index finger will barely make a flinch.
the little and ring finger will flex muscles from your elbow up to your wrist.

 

[L Ross]

My two cents on revolver design and practicality. A. Meant to be carried a lot and shot a little. B. If it is handy it might actually be there when you need it. C. If you need more power than a standard level .45 Colt for what you are doing, grab a rifle. D. If you need to hit something more than 25 yards away, you need a rifle. D. If you know in advance someone is out to do you harm, grab a long gun, 25 yards and closer 12 gauge with buckshot, 25 yards and out, grab a rifle. E. A light handy little .22 like a 22/32 Kit gun or the little 4" Colt Woodsman are wonderful little outdoorsman's guns.
Toys are great, shooting games are fun, but really, a lot of what people want big bore magnum handguns for are for stunts. Hunting big game with a handgun when you are legally allowed to use a rifle is a stunt. I do not mean that in a pejorative sense. Handgun hunting takes great skill and discipline. Me, I'll just grab a rifle.

 

[Rick]

Hhmmm . . . I see much of that differently. I competed in long range handgun for 34 years, shot more targets at 200 meters than I could count. Didn't need a rifle for any of them. A stunt? Nope . . . A practiced skill.

 

[StrawHat]

...A stunt? Nope . . . A practiced skill...

I could not agree more. I shot handgun competition for about 12 years. Longest registered distance was 50 yards. The more I practiced at 50 yards, the better my scores were at the shorter ranges. Once that sunk in, my practice targets were set at 25, 50, 75, and 100 yards. It made a huge difference for my PPC scores.

Kevin

 

[Bret4207]

I can tell Al is feeling better because he's getting philosophical! Love it!

I always looked at a hand gun a weapon of opportunity. I know for a fact I can hit, or could anyway, out well past 100 yards. No, not "one raged hole" groups, but I can certainly make life very uncomfortable for any varmint out there. So if I have one, it's there, it's handy. I do not like large, long barreled hand guns. I held a Redhawk with, I think, a 7.5" barrel. Ridiculous. I held and shot a Smith 29 8 3/8". Again, ridiculous. Give me my little Smith 4" Kit Gun or a Smith 19 or my Charter Bull Dog. Handy, accurate, powerful enough to work for stuff they are suitable for. The L and N frame sized 38/44/45 are certainly handy if the barrel is a reasonable length and you aren't trying to stuff a 500 Magnum in there. Although I'd probably never carry it in the woods and swamps, my M24-3 3" 44 Spec is a dream to shoot and nicely accurate. The 17 Smith with it's 5" (I think) barrel is about as large as I'm willing to go. Of course others may feel differently. I had a Super Blackhawk about 40 years ago. I tried carrying it quite a bit. It was like having a small anvil or very heavy prybar hanging off my hip. I guess my thought is that after a certain size/wt, and it's going t vary by person, they can just get "unhandy". IMO that just defeats the purpose of them in the first place.

End of soliloquy.

 

[Walks]

I seem to remember the idea back in 1958, behind the K-Frame in .357Mag was to practice with .38Spl's and carry .357Mag for Duty Use.
Around 1970 Folks started to practice with the .357Mag Duty use ammo, that beat the K-Frames to pieces.
I tried some of the Family std load of 3358156GC over MAX 2400 in a used M19 that I bought in 1975. A bit unpleasant, regardless of grips. it rattled so bad I sold it off. If I want to shoot HEAVY .357Mag Loads, I use a NM Blackhawk 6 1/2" or a Contender 10".

I did have the opportunity to try out the S&W J-Frame in .357Mag when they first came out about 25yrs ago. M60 - 2" FED - 125gr JHP .357Mag ammo.
One shot wasn't enough, I had to try two. If I ever buy another J-frame it Won't be in .357Mag.

But as far as the as the S&W M1917/1937 goes I have one of each, my load is the N.O.E clone of the #452423 over a medium charge of Bullseye.
Beautiful bullets that fairly leap from the mold, loaded in AR cases.

 

[RBHarter]

Align , hold , squeeze , let your pulse break the sear .........or something like that vs swing , grip , slap .
Nothing ruins your mastery of a discipline faster than mastering another . I found bow shooting an asset to my shotguns but they crossed over to nothing else .
Focus and hold in pistol shooting helped my focus in rifle shooting . But neither complimented the other .
Trying to shoot a bow right handed with both eyes open being left eyed while perfecting your single action revolver (you shoot right hand left eye) trying to teach yourself to shoot a shotgun right handed (which works fine except for the flushing snap shot where you don't really think past find the target and I end up on the left side both open) . I even managed to get to both open with a scope and become more or less a switch hitter .....
Not one is anywhere near competition grade , good enough for the field and I mostly gave up bows .

 

[CZ93X62]

Philosophical.......right. Shooting is supposed to be ENJOYED, not endured. That is why most of my handgunning now involves standard-weight cast bullets in any given caliber getting run between 800-1000 FPS, even the magnum revolvers. Paper-on-cardboard or steel doesn't care how hard it gets hit, but I care how much my hand is getting hammered.

And YES--I am feeling better.

 

[L Ross]

Hhmmm . . . I see much of that differently. I competed in long range handgun for 34 years, shot more targets at 200 meters than I could count. Didn't need a rifle for any of them. A stunt? Nope . . . A practiced skill.

But was it with a practical handgun? I shot silhouette with a Contender. I've shot bowling pins off hand at 150 yards with a Super Blackhawk in front of 7 witnesses. I shot my buffalo silhouettes at 200 yards with my Super BH. But I don't find a Contender or a SBH to be a practical holster gun capable of being worn comfortably as you go about your daily business.
Again, I don't mean stunt in the negative sense. Evel Knievel jumping a scoot over. bus is a stunt. A well done stunt but a trick or a game or a sport. But if knocking down a target at 200 yards was a serious business, you'd use a rifle. When I shoot off hand far more often than I do from a rest, it is a stunt. If I am trying to kill something I always take a rest. The sturdier the better.
I find a handgun that is not handy to be a gimmick, most of its time spent in the gun safe, and taken out to play with or compete with. Personally, if it is any bigger than a Colt SAA, a K frame Smith, or a 1911, I find it to be just too big, heavy, and cumbersome to carry around. The barrel is constantly digging into the truck, tractor, UTV or ATV seat. The grip is banging into everything you are working around. You hip and sciatica are burning after an hour. Even the three examples I listed are best supported on a full gun belt for all day carry.

 

[Rick]

But was it with a practical handgun?

Absolutely yes and perfect for what I bought them for and practical in the extreme for what was 95% plus of ALL my shooting. Did I carry them around on my hip? Why would I? Not what they are for. Carrying a gun around all day is just about a full light year from the only practical legitimate use of a handgun. To say they aren't practical and acquiring skill with them is a stunt is as ridiculous as me saying the same about your pocket pistols would be.

 

[L Ross]

Absolutely yes and perfect for what I bought them for and practical in the extreme for what was 95% plus of ALL my shooting. Did I carry them around on my hip? Why would I? Not what they are for. Carrying a gun around all day is just about a full light year from the only practical legitimate use of a handgun. To say they aren't practical and acquiring skill with them is a stunt is as ridiculous as me saying the same about your pocket pistols.

I know I'm not doing a good job of explaining my point, and stunt was a poor choice of words. I certainly respect the skills you are describing with a "handgun". They require hours and thousands of rounds of dedicated practice. These skills translate directly to he ability to use arms effectively. Perhaps the years I spent wearing a sidearm color my perception of what I think of as a hand gun.
It probably relates much the same as I would never use my schuetzen rife to hunt with. I am in the process of building a heavy 10-22 for long range work, it will never see the squirrel woods. The lessons I learn from using and competing with it will make me a better shooter when I grab a practical rifle to make a shot.

 

[Bret4207]

I used to coach some of the girls and girly boys on the job that had a hard time qualifying. I kept saying, "Front sight, front sight, front sight!". With some it clicked, others I would have to stand there while they dry fired and talk them through it over and over again. The ones that got it, to use the front sight and not to try to see the rear, front and target all at once, usually could then move on to trigger control. And with a Glock with a 10lbs NY trigger ( a runner up for "Worlds Dumbest Solution In Search of a Problem") trigger control was more of teaching patience, that it really would eventually go off, than anything else.

Years and years ago Ross Seyfried (there's a name you don't see anymore) did an article on long range handgunning. He stated the gun that taught him more about sight alignment and trigger control than any other was a 2" 38 snubbie. That clicked for me. Go grab yours and sit yourself down at a bench. Then spend a few days trying to throw bullets from it into groups that look like the ones you shoot with your 4 or 6" 38. I'm telling you, it's an eye opener. If your eyes are good enough and if you get it down, given a decent quality gun, you will have a completely new respect for those little 2" or 1 7/8" jobs. You'll also find out the misses you make probably have nothing to do with the gun or ammo!

 

[Petrol & Powder]

..............
Years and years ago Ross Seyfried (there's a name you don't see anymore) did an article on long range handgunning. He stated the gun that taught him more about sight alignment and trigger control than any other was a 2" 38 snubbie. That clicked for me. Go grab yours and sit yourself down at a bench. Then spend a few days trying to throw bullets from it into groups that look like the ones you shoot with your 4 or 6" 38. I'm telling you, it's an eye opener. If your eyes are good enough and if you get it down, given a decent quality gun, you will have a completely new respect for those little 2" or 1 7/8" jobs. You'll also find out the misses you make probably have nothing to do with the gun or ammo!

As a long term devotee of the snubnose DA revolver, I feel compelled to say , YES !! to this /\

I have won more than a couple of informal challenges with a snubnose revolver. The guns themselves are capable of excellent accuracy, more accuracy than most users can extract from the platform. A snubnose revolver is more difficult to shoot accurately but that doesn't mean it cannot be accurate. If you master a short barreled revolver, all of your handgun shooting will improve.

 

[Rick]

From an accuracy point the real challenge with the snubbies is the sight radius. A longer sight radius is considerably easier to accurately align consistently shot after shot and the longer the range the more so..

 

[Petrol & Powder]

And even the short sight radius doesn't make the gun inaccurate, it just makes sight alignment errors more critical.
A short sight radius makes achieving accuracy more difficult but it doesn't make the gun itself less accurate.

The small grips don't help either but small grips are required to meet concealment needs. The whole reason to select a small frame snubnose is to make carry and concealment easier.
I'm always amused by people that put huge grips on a 2" (1 7/8") J-frame. Yeah - it makes the gun a lot easier to shoot but it also makes the gun the same size as a 2" K-frame. The only thing you've accomplished there is to make a gun that is as bulky as a 2" K-frame that holds one less round ! If I'm going to make the gun the same size as a K-frame, I might as well step up to a K-frame.

 

[CZ93X62]

I am now about "800 rounds in" with this little S&W Model 642 I got back in the Fall, and the addition of Pachmayr Compac grips was a yuge upgrade. NOW I can actually hold and direct the noisy little monster, with the small finger along to assist. The DAO trigger isn't bad, either.

When it comes to targeting with these little bellyguns, Bret absolutely CALLED IT--front sight focus as the hammer falls/striker hits is EVERYTHING. It has been a LONG time since I have done much shooting with a snubbie 38, and most of that was done with K-frames.......2" Model 10 or 3" Model 13. The 642 is "+P certified", for how long not specified. Coin Of The Realm in 38 Special is now the Rem HTP 125 grain JHP, which claims 945 FPS from 4" barrels. These clock about 850-875 FPS from my 642. I can keep all hits inside the B-27 "8-bottle" at 25 yards, and at 7 yards almost all hits stay inside the 10-ring and head when I shoot it in "Mozambique/failure-drill" fashion. At the 25 yard line, hits center about 2"-3" low with sights held center-mass. I suspect my preferred load (FBI 158 grain LSWC/HP +P) would hit a bit higher. Those seem to be unobtainium in my part of Kalifornistan currently.

ETA--I wish like H--L S&W still made the Model 10/13 and Model 64/65 in the 2"/3" variants. I am making the best of a not-real-good situation with the J-frame/Pachmayr combo. It is lighter and a bit more compact than my Makarov, and even more so than my Glock 23. I have chosen to enhance accurate deliver over absolute concealability, if that makes sense.

 

[Rick]

And even the short sight radius doesn't make the gun inaccurate, it just makes sight alignment errors more critical.
A short sight radius makes achieving accuracy more difficult but it doesn't make the gun itself less accurate.

The small grips don't help either but small grips are required to meet concealment needs. The whole reason to select a small frame snubnose is to make carry and concealment easier.

Precisely . . .

But my whole point is that concealed carry is not the only reason for a handgun and thus rendering all others as illegitimate or "stunts". Both are certainly legitimate and like everything in life it's a choice, pick one or the other or both.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

Rick, I'm reading you loud and clear. We're in agreement.

I see a snubnose revolver as a tool. You pick the right tool for the job. While a snubnose revolver could be pressed into many roles, its primary function is a concealed carry weapon.
I don't mean to imply that a snubnose is ONLY a CCW; I just see it as primarily used as a CCW.

 

[L Ross]

I love our thread drifts! I looked back at what I posted to see if I mentioned concealed carry or pocket guns and I could not find that I did. I mentioned that I found if a handgun was bigger than a K frame Smith, a Colt SAA, or a 1911 I thought they were too big. I find the power level of the above guns to be adequate for what I would want a handgun for. I see where I did mention the 22/32 Kit gun and a 4" barrel Colt Woodsman, but I don't consider either a CCW weapon although my coat or jacket may cover them when I'm out and about.
The .45 acp double action revolver falls into that same power level as those other full caliber guns, and the 1938 Brazilian Smith I have is not onerous to carry, but then there is little or no extra metal involved in that gun other than a lanyard ring. No adjustable sights, no under lug, and a pencil barrel. Pretty practical in a good holster on a stout belt.
The handgun I have my biggest love/hate relationship with is my Glock 36. That is a very small, single stack .45 acp that hold 6 in the mag. Light, unobtrusive, dependable, and accurate enough out to 50 yards. But black plastic, ugly, boxy, and just Glockiferous. But the power level is again right in that useable/controllable/effective ball park.
Now if I were Elmer Keith guiding Elk hunters in the Rockies, or I was a salmon guide in Alaska, well that'd be a whole different story. If you need your hands free right up until the caca hits the fan, there would probably be something heavier in the holster. I have had my original SBH rebuilt by Ruger and a 4 5/8" barrel put on it and if I had to carry it all day I guess I could put up with it if it was needed. I find it accurate and almost pleasant with a Saeco 260 grain rnfp at 1,000 fps and I suppose that could be bumped up for emergency work to 1,200. I tried a friend's FA Premier 7 1/2" .454 and 1 round at full power was all I wanted to try. I wouldn't want to pack that on my hip even if the recoil wasn't ferocious and the muzzle blast deafening.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

............
ETA--I wish like H--L S&W still made the Model 10/13 and Model 64/65 in the 2"/3" variants. I am making the best of a not-real-good situation with the J-frame/Pachmayr combo. It is lighter and a bit more compact than my Makarov, and even more so than my Glock 23. I have chosen to enhance accurate deliver over absolute concealability, if that makes sense.

Well since we are wildly drifting this thread (and I'm one of the guilty parties to that thread drift !)

I am a huge fan of the snubnose platform and that includes 2" K-frames. In my little world the 3" K-frame isn't really a "snubnose" but that's another topic. The 2" K-frames with fixed sights and chambered in 38 Special (Models 10 & 64) where some of the best examples of a fighting gun, albeit a bit larger than their J-frame counterparts. For the most part, I feel the 2" K-frames are getting into belt holster territory and out of the pocket/ankle holster league. Again, personal opinion and not holy writ.
The fixed sight, 357 mag versions (Models 13 & 65) were outstanding combat weapons when fitted with a 3" barrel. These are holster guns in my book but very good ones.
The models 19 and 66 could be had with 2 1/2" tubes and they just barely make my definition of a snubnose. While I don't really care for adjustable sights on those types of weapons, the 2.5" barrel just makes the cut for me to call it a snubnose.

I too wish S&W had continued to make some of those models but I'm also grateful that there are plenty of old ones still available.

In the arena of discontinued S&W snubnose K-frames ......don't forget the Alloy Framed S&W Model 12 or the short lived modern version - The Model 315 Niteguard.

Those of us old enough to remember the original Colt Cobra/Agent revolvers and the S&W Model 12 know that they were relied upon by many as a secondary gun to a full sized Colt D frame or S&W K-frame.