Would You Ever Swap Out your "J" for One of the Small Autos?

[Mike SC Hunter]

No way hosa.

 

[frankcr]

The safety factor is the biggest factor in my mind. I am also a much better shot with a revolver.

It is for self defense and those worrying about only five shots should spend more time at the range. If you have enough bad guys on you, reloading will be the least of your problems.

 

[wx7b]

J frame just fits better than the CW9 or XDs. Had a 640 but was too heavy for pocket or ankle for me, so swapped for a 642. 640 is a better gun by a long shot though. Wife loves her bodyguard. Will always have a J, just bought a 60-15 and am looking at an IWB.

 

[jack the toad]

very much carry my 642 (IWB) or Glock 27 (OWB).
the BG380 gets some pocket time with certain attire.
acquired a Glock 43 last week and have yet to find time to try it to see if it gets a spot in the carry rotation. will have to find a holster though if it checks out.
the PM9 has always intrigued me and would like to try one someday.

 

[Realgunner]

My simple answer to the question posed by this thread is "No, never".

 

[unclebob]

I will keep my 36 until I can truly find a compact that I can 100% sure it will work when needed, with all of the issues with plastic being finicky with what you feed it and quality control issues, I have never had the hammer on my 36 fall and fail to fire with any type of ammo, again JMO...

 

[jtcarm]

Waiting delivery on my first J, a 60 no-dash.

If I decide I need a small auto, I'll buy one.

Now if I were offered Pattons completely-autjenicated Colt 1908 I'd say adios, and go boy another

 

[BE Mike]

The safety factor is the biggest factor in my mind. I am also a much better shot with a revolver.

It is for self defense and those worrying about only five shots should spend more time at the range. If you have enough bad guys on you, reloading will be the least of your problems.

Yes extra range time is always good, but I love me some Kahr CM-9.

 

[CoMF]

Would I trade my J frame for a small auto? No. Speaking only for myself, I don't really feel a need for the latter.

As for the reasons why, again speaking only for myself, I'm confident that a J-frame is "enough" to handle 99% of the threats that may find me in my day-to-day activities. It's a platform I'm extremely familiar with. There are plenty of competent loads to choose from. There's no having to remember to "tap-rack-bang" if it chokes during an encounter, which is an extremely rare occurence to begin with; just pull the trigger again. Simple.

The J-frame seems like a time-tested winner to me.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

No

Negatory, Red Rider!

 

[BC38]

I looked at the Colt Mustang but went with the P938 due to it being a 9mm. Really liked both and you can feel the quality when you handle them.

My bad, I was thinking of the P238 - the 380 version of your P938. The P238 is the one that's almost an exact copy of my Government Model 380 Colt.
But of course the P938 is pretty much the 9mm version of the P238...

 

[S&W Rover]

No! I see no role for small autos -- not accurate, not much ammo capacity, not powerful in less than 9mm, and inherently unreliable based on the physics/geometry of the recoil spring and the action. They cannot match the small .38 made by S&W as an individual self-defense weapon.

 

[RussC]

Not me.

I wouldn't trade the power, reliability and accuracy of my very concealable 649 in .357 for a small semi-auto. I like them, but when it comes to putting a gun in my pocket or jacket, I want my 649. It's been my partner now for about 20 years. But that's just me.

+P 9mm shot from a 3 inch barrel like a Shield is comparable to a 357 fired from a snub nose revolver.

No thank you. I will take a 9mm Shield any day over a mule kicking 357 snub nose revolver.

Russ

 

[sunnyd]

I recently took a young ( late twenties) couple out to the farm to shoot some handguns. They are both interested in getting their concealed carry permits. They wanted to sample a variety of handguns. I let them try a glock 19, and 42, s&w 36 and 642. They both have had limited handgun experience but could hit the target at self defense distances. The had a few malfunctions with the semi-autos, mostly operator error, limp wrist, etc. , but they really enjoyed shooting the glocks. However,they had zero malfunctions with the j frames!!!!!
This was very interesting for me to watch, as they made no mistakes with the j frames and were able to keep their shots on target. It just proved to me again that for self defense, simpler is better, I'll stick with J frame for EDC.

 

[BE Mike]

No! I see no role for small autos -- not accurate, not much ammo capacity, not powerful in less than 9mm, and inherently unreliable based on the physics/geometry of the recoil spring and the action. They cannot match the small .38 made by S&W as an individual self-defense weapon.

Are these conclusions based upon your experiences with small semi-autos?

 

[BE Mike]

I recently took a young ( late twenties) couple out to the farm to shoot some handguns. They are both interested in getting their concealed carry permits. They wanted to sample a variety of handguns. I let them try a glock 19, and 42, s&w 36 and 642. They both have had limited handgun experience but could hit the target at self defense distances. The had a few malfunctions with the semi-autos, mostly operator error, limp wrist, etc. , but they really enjoyed shooting the glocks. However,they had zero malfunctions with the j frames!!!!!
This was very interesting for me to watch, as they made no mistakes with the j frames and were able to keep their shots on target. It just proved to me again that for self defense, simpler is better, I'll stick with J frame for EDC.

Interesting. I took out my SIL a while back. He had no experience with handguns and wanted training. After a few rounds of break in with his Kahr CM9 there were no malfunctions for over 200 rounds. He shot it well out to 15 yards. I also let him shoot large autos and revolvers. He really liked my S&W model 10, but for his purposes the CM-9 serves him well. I carried a 642 for over a decade, but the Kahr CM-9 I now carry is accurate out to reasonable distances and very reliable. I wasn't a believer in small autos, but my personal experiences have swayed me to believe that the good ones are dependable and accurate. Actually, for the very elderly, some of the .380's have trigger pulls that weigh much less than revolvers and are easier to manipulate. All that being said, the 642 is a great little revolver and a good choice for many.

 

[kozmic]

I've been thinking about this for a couple of days. I have a 442, M60 no dash.38s and an old flat latch M36. The 442 and M60 get plenty of carry time. The M36 not so much, but it is in great condition and will never loose value.

I can't see a scenario at this point where one of them would be trade fodder for a small semi auto. But I'm not willing to say "never". If at some point someone puts out a reliable bug 9mm or something that I "have to have" I might think about it.

 

[CoMF]

I really don't get why the pocket auto is touted as being "superior" when it's really an apples to apples comparison...

Yes, you get 2-4 more rounds and even more if you carry a spare magazine, but you get it at the cost of greatly diminished terminal ballistics. Remember: That "3 inch" barrel is actually closer to 2" because the chamber accounts for some of that length.

Effective 9mm loads in a pocket auto (ones that actually expand AND penetrate at reduced velocities) are few and far between. This is not much unlike the situation with snubs.

The .357 snub has its counterpart in the .40 caliber pocket auto: Lots of flash, noise and fury for little gain in terminal ballistics.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Take your pick.

 

[Macinaw]

Flat guns are usually easier to carry, and nowadays are often about as reliable as a revolver. However, J frames are not exactly a burden, either, particularly in a good holster. With a good belt and a Don Hume JIT or better, they are effortless. With some pants pockets and the right holster, they can be very comfortable and particularly available. Since Richard Rosenthal (RichCapeCod) of Rodman's Neck got S&W to put 1/8th inch front sights on the J frames, they have been just as good as the autos, which weren't so great in the old days, either.

The big advantage of the J frame over most or all autos is the handling safety. I seldom load or unload guns in the house, but when I do, I would certainly rather do it with a revolver than with an auto. Same goes for holstering. Striker-fired autos and enclosed-hammer revolvers (new Centennials) are particularly dangerous. Most of us will spend a lifetime and never need a gun to repel boarders, but there is a tremendous amount of "adminstrative" gunhandling in a lifetime, and no matter how low the probability of an error, it needs to be lowered more. One of the more significant ways to do this is to handle a revolver rather than an auto.

P.S. For my hand, a SB Airweight or steel J with a Tyler, or a RB steel J with a Tyler, is MUCH more shootable than any small auto. Get as large as a Kahr K9, and the advantage disappears, but that Kahr is heavier and still striker-fired. For everyday carry, I prefer the simpler safety of the revolver.

Please explain why an enclosed hammer revolver is dangerous.

 

[CoMF]

Please explain why an enclosed hammer revolver is dangerous.

Maybe he's alluding to the lack of a visible hammer?

Regardless, I'm not seeing the logic of it either. It takes a very deliberate pull of the trigger to ND a J-frame.