Which revolver should I purchase for CCW? I’m stuck. Advice/Experience/Opinions?

Freedom1st · Jul 30, 2015

Hey everyone,

I am shopping for my first CCW handgun. I won’t go into unnecessary detail here, but, after lots of time spent reading forums, watching YouTube video reviews and opinions, and taking five or six trips to my local gun stores, I’ve narrowed it down to these models:

-Smith & Wesson Model 442 - No Internal Lock (SKU: 150544)
-Smith & Wesson Model M&P 340 - No Internal Lock (SKU: 103072)
-Ruger Model SP101 DAO (Model 5720)

...or maybe...

-Smith & Wesson Model 642 – No Internal Lock (SKU: 103810)

These are the primary factors I am considering:

-Concealability
-Comfort
-Convenience
-Power
-Capacity
-Shootability

I believe it is important to carry every single day, so I want something that is very concealable, comfortable, and convenient. Within those parameters, I want as much power and capacity as I can get.

Proficiency is also very important to me. I want to be able to shoot out to 25 yards with reasonable accuracy, and I am willing to do the necessary training and practice to get there. (The underlying idea here is that I want my piece to be shootable.)

I had a chance to hold all four of these models, and I was fortunate enough to be able to compare the M&P 340, 442, and the SP101 side-by-side. Those three models all seem like viable options. To me, the M&P 340 and 442 felt almost identical. I couldn’t feel a huge difference between the triggers, and the 2 oz. weight difference between the two seems nearly inconsequential to me. The most notable difference was the nicer front sight on the M&P 340.

If I was to go with the M&P 340, I would get the following features that the 442 does not have:

-13.3 oz. (2 oz. lighter than the 442)
-Great front sight
-Chambered in .357 Magnum

So, is the M&P 340 worth the money? I could get two 442’s for the price of one M&P 340. What’s so great about a scandium alloy frame? Does it provide that much real advantage? What advantages do scandium alloy frames have over the aluminum alloy frames (besides being 2 oz. lighter)? Do either alloy frames hold up to lots of shooting? I’ve seen a couple posts and articles about defective/poor quality/cracked alloy frames, and that concerns me because I want to do quite a lot of shooting with the piece I get.

Quite a few people state that shooting the M&P 340 in full load .357 Magnum is very uncomfortable, and I’ve heard that many (maybe most?) people end up carrying .38 Special +P instead of .357 Magnum. As stated above, I want as much power as I can get, but if it’s silly to buy a .357 Magnum M&P 340 that only weighs 13.3 oz. at twice the cost of the more shootable .38 Special 442, then I want to avoid that... The main differences between the M&P 340 and the 442 are, the weight, the sights, the caliber, and the frame material. Is the 442 a better option than the M&P 340?

And, then there’s the Ruger SP101. I hadn’t taken a very close look at this one because online, it looked “clunky,” heavy, overbuilt, and much harder to conceal carry comfortably. But, after closer personal inspection, I was surprised to find that the SP101 was, dare I say, elegant..? The main problem for me was the weight. At 25 oz., it’s much heavier than the S&W options I’ve mentioned. That weight would probably make it much better in the “shootability” category, though. The all stainless steel construction is attractive to me because of its proven reliability, superior strength (compared to alloy frames), and corrosion resistance.

These are the prices I’m working with:

M&P 340 - $700
442 - $370
SP101 - $550

If you were me, what would you do?

M&P 340 vs. 442?
M&P 340 vs. SP101?
442 vs. SP101?

Any experience, advice, and/or opinion you can provide is greatly appreciated! Thanks!

DocB · Jul 30, 2015

I hate to say it but go with a Glock (after you add it to your list). There's got to be a reason why about every LE agency uses them. They have been tried, tested, and proven. Why reinvent the wheel?

cmort666 · Jul 30, 2015

Any one of those should be fine, especially since they're non-lock guns.

Until I get the holster situation for my 3.5" Citadel M1911 straightened out, I'll continue to carry my 2" Smith 36 in a pocket holster.

I recommend some version of the 158gr. LSWC-HP .38 Special "FBI" load. I use the Federal version.

Arik · Jul 30, 2015

If you are going with the SP101 you may as well go with the 357. While the lighter S&Ws are made for 38spl the Ruger in 38spl or 357 is the same weight. You can still carry and shoot 38spl but you get the added advantage of another round if you wish to later use it.

I have the old S&W 36 which weighs a little less than the SP101 @ 20oz and it's really not heavy to carry

SC_Mike · Jul 30, 2015

IMO the SP 101 is kinda large/heavy for pocket carry, and that would eliminate one carry position option right off the bat. It's a fine weapon tho.

As far as the 340 in .357, great stopping power but a real handful when firing. The others are .38+p, which IMO should be just about right so then why not go with the 442/642? They are all five shot IIRC.

Some days I carry the older S&W 640 in .38 pocket or holster.

Let us know what you decide. Good luck.

growr · Jul 30, 2015

Can't go wrong with any of the ones you have listed....my M36 does my pocket carry work. Fit in the hand, availability, and cost will help you narrow your choice.

Randy

Jaysq · Jul 30, 2015

Welcome from North Carolina.

You did not say if you had looked at anything other than revolvers or not. If you have and are set on a revolver, how do you plan to carry it? The lightweights are nice to pocket carry (in a pocket holster) but can be a handful to shoot. If you are going to carry on your belt a S&W 640 is hard to beat and easy to conceal. The extra weight will help you stay on target. I have the 640-1 which is the .357. I carry .38 +P defence loads and feel very comfortable that is enough fire power. I would worry more about over penetration or a miss with a .357.

[/url]Guns 039ed2cf by Jerry Jaynes, on Flickr[/IMG]

[/url]S&W 640-1 005crf by Jerry Jaynes, on Flickr[/IMG]

Freedom1st · Jul 30, 2015

DocB said:
I hate to say it but go with a Glock (after you add it to your list).

Thanks for your response, DocB.

I didn't include pistols in my post, because I already decided I'd rather go with a revolver. Initially, I didn't even consider revolvers because I was sold on the higher capacity (etc., etc.) pistols.

I handled the following guns and gave each one serious consideration, but, at the end of the day, I eliminated these for a lot of reasons (mostly personal preference) I won't go into.

Glock 43
Glock 26
Ruger LC9S Pro
Ruger LCP
Ruger LCR
Kimber Solo Carry
Kimber Micro Carry

The Glock 43, especially, is still on my radar, but I dislike the way it feels in my hand. So far, the most comfortable handguns I've tried have been the ones I mentioned in my original post. There's no doubt Glocks are great weapons, and I will probably end up getting one at some point, but I'm not sure they fit the bill for me. Pure personal preference here.

Pef · Jul 30, 2015

SP 101 is rather heavy for pocket carry if you have that option.

The 340 with .357's is a hand stinger and difficult to get back on target, so you'll likely just carry .38's.

The 442/642 is carried easily IWB, OWB or pocket. Given all of the above - price, weight, and likely load - the 442/642 seems to win hands down.

Rhetorician · Jul 30, 2015

Rhetorician Response

Freedom1st said:
Hey everyone,

I am shopping for my first CCW handgun. I won’t go into unnecessary detail here, but, after lots of time spent reading forums, watching YouTube video reviews and opinions, and taking five or six trips to my local gun stores, I’ve narrowed it down to these models:

-Smith & Wesson Model 442 - No Internal Lock (SKU: 150544)
-Smith & Wesson Model M&P 340 - No Internal Lock (SKU: 103072)
-Ruger Model SP101 DAO (Model 5720)

...or maybe...

-Smith & Wesson Model 642 – No Internal Lock (SKU: 103810)

These are the primary factors I am considering:

-Concealability
-Comfort
-Convenience
-Power
-Capacity
-Shootability

I believe it is important to carry every single day, so I want something that is very concealable, comfortable, and convenient. Within those parameters, I want as much power and capacity as I can get.

Proficiency is also very important to me. I want to be able to shoot out to 25 yards with reasonable accuracy, and I am willing to do the necessary training and practice to get there. (The underlying idea here is that I want my piece to be shootable.)

I had a chance to hold all four of these models, and I was fortunate enough to be able to compare the M&P 340, 442, and the SP101 side-by-side. Those three models all seem like viable options. To me, the M&P 340 and 442 felt almost identical. I couldn’t feel a huge difference between the triggers, and the 2 oz. weight difference between the two seems nearly inconsequential to me. The most notable difference was the nicer front sight on the M&P 340.

If I was to go with the M&P 340, I would get the following features that the 442 does not have:

-13.3 oz. (2 oz. lighter than the 442)
-Great front sight
-Chambered in .357 Magnum

So, is the M&P 340 worth the money? I could get two 442’s for the price of one M&P 340. What’s so great about a scandium alloy frame? Does it provide that much real advantage? What advantages do scandium alloy frames have over the aluminum alloy frames (besides being 2 oz. lighter)? Do either alloy frames hold up to lots of shooting? I’ve seen a couple posts and articles about defective/poor quality/cracked alloy frames, and that concerns me because I want to do quite a lot of shooting with the piece I get.

Quite a few people state that shooting the M&P 340 in full load .357 Magnum is very uncomfortable, and I’ve heard that many (maybe most?) people end up carrying .38 Special +P instead of .357 Magnum. As stated above, I want as much power as I can get, but if it’s silly to buy a .357 Magnum M&P 340 that only weighs 13.3 oz. at twice the cost of the more shootable .38 Special 442, then I want to avoid that... The main differences between the M&P 340 and the 442 are, the weight, the sights, the caliber, and the frame material. Is the 442 a better option than the M&P 340?

And, then there’s the Ruger SP101. I hadn’t taken a very close look at this one because online, it looked “clunky,” heavy, overbuilt, and much harder to conceal carry comfortably. But, after closer personal inspection, I was surprised to find that the SP101 was, dare I say, elegant..? The main problem for me was the weight. At 25 oz., it’s much heavier than the S&W options I’ve mentioned. That weight would probably make it much better in the “shootability” category, though. The all stainless steel construction is attractive to me because of its proven reliability, superior strength (compared to alloy frames), and corrosion resistance.

These are the prices I’m working with:

M&P 340 - $700
442 - $370
SP101 - $550

If you were me, what would you do?

M&P 340 vs. 442?
M&P 340 vs. SP101?
442 vs. SP101?

Any experience, advice, and/or opinion you can provide is greatly appreciated! Thanks!

Just my opinion:

I carry:

A Smith 360pd, J Frame, Sci/Ti, 357, that weighs only 12 oz. I load it with 38+p and feel really well covered.

A Ruger LCR 357 snub. It weighs a bit more, 17 oz. unloaded but still light enought to carry under most circumstances.

I also carry a Taurus 738 380 acp that is super light and a joy to carry.

All three have given me good service and are carried in a DeSantis Nemesis pocket holster.

Fits who I am and what I want to do. So far!!

rd

Mister X · Jul 30, 2015

I have owned all the guns your looking at. I had some slight rust issues with 442 due to the carbon steel barrel and cylinder when I carried it in Florida . The 340 M&P is nice, but I see no need for .357 magnum in a 13 oz snub nor do I see high visibility night sights an advantage in a civilian close quarter pocket gun and the price is absolutely ridiculous IMO. The SP101 makes sense if you insist on shooting a lot of magnum rounds, but it's a fairly bulky heavy gun for a 5 shot snub and pocket carry is not real practical with it. The 642 has a stainless steel cylinder and barrel and is affordable. I see complaints about the frame finish, but being aluminum, so it won't rust.

Everything considered, I'd recommend the no-lock 642.

Shorty 45 MK2 · Jul 30, 2015

First off, welcome to the forum!

All three are good carry guns but are all kind of for different purposes. (to me at least.)

If you are going to belt carry, the SP101 makes the most sense.

442 vs 340 comes down to if you really need .357 and or the better sights. Some think .357 in less than a 4" barrel is not worth it over .38 or that you wont use the sights in a SD situation so why pay for them.

Personally if you can swing it, I'd get the SP101 (in .357) and the 442. They can use the same .38 ammo and speed strip/loaders and you can carry both or just one. As some days it will be nice to have the lightweight 442 do to ease of carry in a pocket but other days it wont be hard to carry the SP101 that will be easier to shoot well. Also as a bonus you could carry both at the same time if you feel so inclined.

ContinentalOp · Jul 30, 2015

First off, I'm probably at least a little biased since I rely on a 642 every day for my self defense gun.

Of the models you listed, I would choose the 642-1 (no internal lock).

It's more versatile than the SP101 in terms of carrying. The SP101 is basically a belt or possibly a shoulder holster gun whereas the 642 can be carried IWB/OWB in a belt holster, pocket holster, ankle holster, shoulder holster, belly band, fanny pack, etc.

It has a good power-to-weight ratio.

The 642-1 also requires less maintenance to prevent rust than the 442-1, which is a big consideration with me. While the 642-1 has some finish issues on the aluminum frame it seems that it can at least be mitigated with periodic applications of wax. The finish on my 642-1 looks horrible but it doesn't affect the reliability of the gun or my ability to shoot it.

The 340 is slightly lighter and some people who pocket carry say they can tell the difference between a 340 and a 442/642. The difference might also be noticeable in an ankle holster. I've never compared the two so I couldn't say for sure.

While the 340 offers a better front sight and the option for .357 Magnum for me the extra cost isn't worth it. I wouldn't shoot .357 Magnum in it if I had one. If the sight was really that important to me (my 642-1 has the stock front sight, so it isn't) I would see how much it would cost to install a tritium sight on my 642 and see how much of a difference it would be. Also, the sight on the 340 is pretty tall based on what I've seen and that could be a potential issue with some holsters and/or modes of carry. On the flip side it could also be a benefit in a weapon retention situation as it looks like the sight could do some damage if one were to yank back on the gun if an attacker tried to grab the barrel.

I do like the durability of the Ruger SP101. I do a lot of dry fire practice and the Ruger can handle that, no problem. I belt carry probably 99.9% of the time and, with a good belt/holster combo, I doubt the extra weight would be an issue. If 25 yard accuracy is important to you (in real world self defense it isn't that important) it would be easier with the SP101 than the lightweight J-frames you've listed. The J-frames can definitely be shot accurately to 25 yards and beyond if the shooter is capable, but it would probably be easier with the Ruger.

You didn't say if this would be your first gun or just your first CCW gun. If it was going to be your first gun I'd probably suggest the Ruger SP101 as it would probably be easier to learn the fundamentals and develop proficiency on the Ruger than an airweight J-frame.

I like wood grips on a self defense gun and it seems like there are more options for that with a J-frame than the Ruger, at least for someone like me who is not a fan of finger grooves (my 642-1 has Spegel boot grips and the only complaint I have is the finger grooves).

Knowing what I know now, especially that I do a lot of dry fire practice and belt carry, if I were to start from scratch I would probably choose the DAO Ruger SP101 if I couldn't find a 640 or 649 that met my needs. But I still think the 642-1 is the most versatile choice.

I would also suggest looking at a 640 with no lock. It'd be a little lighter and more compact than the Ruger, but still offer more weight than the lightweight J-frames you're considering.

Old cop · Jul 30, 2015

It sounds like you're willing to put in the range time to get reasonably proficient w/these little guns. That said I'd go for the 442/642 and spend the extra money on ammo & range time. I'll surrender my "man-card" by admitting that a J frame .357 is too difficult for me to get accurate follow up shots with.

elpac3 · Jul 30, 2015

Model 36 with over-size grips, +P hollow points. Carried one as my back-up gun for years, easy to shoot.

Defensive shooting is going to be real close and personal. You don't need a 50 yard target gun.

Freedom1st · Jul 30, 2015

Jaysq said:
Welcome from North Carolina.

You did not say if you had looked at anything other than revolvers or not. If you have and are set on a revolver, how do you plan to carry it? The lightweights are nice to pocket carry (in a pocket holster) but can be a handful to shoot. If you are going to carry on your belt a S&W 640 is hard to beat and easy to conceal. The extra weight will help you stay on target. I have the 640-1 which is the .357. I carry .38 +P defence loads and feel very comfortable that is enough fire power. I would worry more about over penetration or a miss with a .357.

[/url]Guns 039ed2cf by Jerry Jaynes, on Flickr[/IMG]

[/url]S&W 640-1 005crf by Jerry Jaynes, on Flickr[/IMG]

Thanks, Jaysq. That's a beautiful gun!

Please see my reply to DocB for a list of some of the other pistols I've considered.

I noticed the 640, and it looks like a really great gun...but aren't the standard models discontinued now? I read that they are really hard to find, and my cursory search for one seems to support that. The only 640 I know of that's available is the Pro Series. But, doesn't that have the internal lock? If I could find an all stainless steel 640 standard without the internal lock, I'd be very interested in one.

I would look for a used 640, but I'm afraid I have no experience buying used guns, so I'm not very confident in my lemon-avoiding abilities yet...

Let me know if you have any tips!

Freedom1st · Jul 30, 2015

Daniel W. said:
I have owned all the guns your looking at. I had some slight rust issues with 442 due to the carbon steel barrel and cylinder when I carried it in Florida . The 340 M&P is nice, but I see no need for .357 magnum in a 13 oz snub nor do I see high visibility night sights an advantage in a civilian close quarter pocket gun and the price is absolutely ridiculous IMO. The SP101 makes sense if you insist on shooting a lot of magnum rounds, but it's a fairly bulky heavy gun for a 5 shot snub and pocket carry is not real practical with it. The 642 has a stainless steel cylinder and barrel and is affordable. I see complaints about the frame finish, but being aluminum, so it won't rust.

Everything considered, I'd recommend the no-lock 642.

Thanks for the input, Daniel W. I especially value your opinion since you say you've owned these guns I'm considering.

At first, I was leaning toward the 642, but the finish issue kind of turned me off. Is it so hard to put a good finish on these? I know the issue is primarily cosmetic, but still... Personally, the increased need to maintain the 442 doesn't bother me very much. I also like the black finish of the 442. It seems to me that it would conceal a little better because of that. I usually wear darker clothing, so anything grey/silver could show up a lot more if I were to reach for something on a high shelf, etc.

Taking into account the fact that I have no experience carrying yet, I am inclined toward IWB carry as opposed to belt or pocket carry... But, I could certainly change my perspective with a little experience under my belt. (Pun intended.)

Freedom1st · Jul 30, 2015

Shorty 45 MK2 said:
First off, welcome to the forum!

All three are good carry guns but are all kind of for different purposes. (to me at least.)

If you are going to belt carry, the SP101 makes the most sense.

442 vs 340 comes down to if you really need .357 and or the better sights. Some think .357 in less than a 4" barrel is not worth it over .38 or that you wont use the sights in a SD situation so why pay for them.

Personally if you can swing it, I'd get the SP101 (in .357) and the 442. They can use the same .38 ammo and speed strip/loaders and you can carry both or just one. As some days it will be nice to have the lightweight 442 do to ease of carry in a pocket but other days it wont be hard to carry the SP101 that will be easier to shoot well. Also as a bonus you could carry both at the same time if you feel so inclined.

Thanks, Shorty 45 MK2! You make some good points here.

Don't tempt me... My budget is already bitter at me.

Seriously, though, I may end up getting the SP101, and then spoil myself with the lighter 442 later on...or vice versa.

DocB · Jul 30, 2015

Yeah, I have to admit that the main reason I carry a Glock in my truck with me at all times is with the hope that somebody will come along and want to trade me a Smith revolver for it. I don't like the plastic crud either and much prefer Smith revolvers to anything else that has ever been manufactured. I still have to admit that the Glock is easy to carry and never fails.

RSanch111 · Jul 30, 2015

Any Smith and Wesson J-Frame with no hammer or a shrouded hammer. Lightweight or all steel is up to you. I prefer the heavier ones.

Which revolver should I purchase for CCW? I’m stuck. Advice/Experience/Opinions?

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

US Veteran

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

US Veteran

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads