2" VS 3" REVOLVER!

[saemetric]

I like the 3” J frames. This 36-8 DAO is my edc.

 

[bigwheelzip]

I had a 2 1/2" first, but when I got a 3" also, the 3" became my first choice for carry, even though the 2 1/2" is a PC. The 3" just does everything I need it to do better.

 

[Bill In Texas]

I went from a 2", well (1.875") 637 to a 3" model 60-15 Pro Series with a 3" barrel. While I really like my 60, I find a 2"-2.5" gun easier to carry especially in a pocket.

Then, last winter I carried a 2" 64-2 until I ran across my current carry gun which is a 640-1. So, long story short, I think I prefer a shorter that 3" barrel mostly because I like to pocket carry.

 

[Telecaster]

Muzzle blast? I've shot plenty of .357 out of 2" and 3" revolvers (during the daytime of course) and never noticed any ball of fire. The kick, on the other hand, can be tremendous. I would stick with my 3" GP100 for .357, or my 28-2. I haven't even tried .357 in my J-frame and never plan to.

As for 2" vs. 3", a 2" is noticeably easier to carry, the 3" is nicer to shoot (longer site radius, very slightly less recoil).

I like them both. I have a 66-2 2", a 66-8 2.75", a GP100 3", and a 640 2", and a 63 3" (.22LR).

 

[Cal44]

Muzzle blast? I've shot plenty of .357 out of 2" and 3" revolvers (during the daytime of course) and never noticed any ball of fire. The kick, on the other hand, can be tremendous. I would stick with my 3" GP100 for .357, or my 28-2. I haven't even tried .357 in my J-frame and never plan to..

I've practiced shooting 357 Magnum a fair amount with my 3" M60 and with an LCR 357.

It's wakes you up. But it's not that bad.

I wouldn't want to shoot a whole box of 50 at one time, but a couple cylinders is no problem.

 

[white cloud]

There are a lot of good points made in this thread. I have two .357 model 60s and one in .38. One is a 3" with the adjustable sights. It is amazing how much easier it is to hit with the 3" versus the 2". But Continental OPs makes a good point about the retention capabilities of a .38 J frame". I am close to 65 and I don't think I have ninja like reflexes. If I have a "problem", I suspect I will want all the retention capability I can get. I also pocket carry a lot these days so a .38 J frame gets the nod.

 

[Mister X]

Self-defense vs Shooting...

I definately prefer 2" revolvers for carry. I've owned a couple of 3" in the past and found them to be a bad compromise. The only revolvers I really have an interest in anymore are small framed hammerless models for their quickness into action, advantages in close-quarter scenarios as well as the ability to be pocket carried. I view the stated advantages of a 3" or longer revolver being such in a range context rather than applicable in civilian defense situations which are likely to be reactive, close and nearly always resolved with what's in the gun.

 

[Goldstar225]

I shoot my 2" 642 quite well but my 3" 60-15 is much easier to shoot accurately. That being said, my 642 gets the nod for when I carry a revolver (pocket carry) in an urban environment. I use the 60-15 as a field gun in a belt holster when hunting, fishing or just woods bumming.

 

[cowboy85306]

3" for me. I just flat shoot them better. Have a 3" model 10, and a 3" model 13. Also, a 2.75" Model 66 ( purchased wearing Rogers grips, as a small bonus )
I do have a 640 .357; at our local indoor range, shooting Federal 158gr magnum loads, a truly fantastic fireball is plainly seen, though my hands sort of disappear during firing. Even with .38 +P loads, that one is at it's best at 7 yards or less, for me, anyway.

 

[NCBeagle]

I rotate revolvers every few days, or several times a day, depending on circumstances.

Like a 3" fixed sight J frame for IWB carry. Just as concealable as 2". Will carry a 3" K frame sometimes in the winter.

 

[AZretired]

I carried a 3" M65 as a plainclothes duty weapon for years and a 2" M60 as backup and off-duty. I also carried a 4" M19 as a duty weapon and occasionally in plainclothes for court. Neither the 3" or 4" K frames were comfortable IWB but a 2" J frame seems made for pocket or IWB carry. I did have a 3" square butt M36 for awhile and it did not ride well IWB and OWB, I might as well carry the 65.

 

[sdb321]

Two inch for me. A 640 Pro Series fits me to a "T".

 

[white cloud]

So let's stir up the pot a bit. I am honestly curious. Seems that everyone here carries a revolver most of the time including me. That said, how many here are carrying the revolver because of it's ECQB advantages over an auto or simply because it is more convenient and comfortable?

I remain concerned about the J Frame's lack of ammo capacity but have never found anything as fast on the draw as a J Frame with Magna grips. As pointed out above, my 2" 649 has great retention qualities. It's small size allows me to always have it with me.

Please throw some darts at my logic or lack there of. Are we crazy to give up the ammo capacity of an auto for a J Frame?

Please t

 

[haywood]

I carry Two every day. Sometimes a J-Frame and a 7-Shot Taurus 357. Here is what I pick from every day.

 

[dubshooter]

I carry my 640 as a BUG at work because if I need it, it’s because my duty weapon isn’t functioning or I can’t get it to. If that happens, it is probably going to be up close and personal.

I carry it off duty because I like revolvers more. If I like a gun more, I’m more likely to dry fire it, fondle it, research it, and anything else more than a gun I don’t like as much. Therefore, I shoot it better than a semi auto, especially a small one.

That said, I am taking a road trip next month, the day after Antifa is supposed to start their drama. And I am going to California. I will be taking a semi and a revolver and plenty of spare Mags. Revolver will be the bug

 

[ContinentalOp]

That said, how many here are carrying the revolver because of it's ECQB advantages over an auto or simply because it is more convenient and comfortable?

A little bit of both for me. A snub revolver has some definite advantages over a semi-auto.

As to the ammo capacity issue, you ultimately have to go with what you're comfortable with. But I consider capacity/speed of reload down on the list of priorities. Claude Werner has done a a couple of studies of civilian self defense shootings and, IIRC, none of the 400+ he examined involved a reload, with the vast majority being resolved in 2-3 rounds. Gregg Ellifritz's study similarly showed that, regardless of caliber, most incidents required 2-3 rounds. Even Massad Ayoob has said that of all the shootings he's studied, when reloads were done they had little, if any, impact on the outcome. Have their been situations where more rounds were fired? Sure. I can think of a couple off the top of my head that went 20+ rounds fired, one of which involved a .45ACP Glock. But those are extreme outliers and the people involved had tactics and/or luck on their side.

In the event of multiple attackers, nearly all of the videos I've seen of actual self defense encounters showed the assailants fleeing as soon as their intended victim started shooting. In the unlikely event that multiple attackers continue their attack, it then becomes a matter of running out of time before running out of ammo.

Add that to a snub's other attributes, including ECQC advantages (you can check out Michael deBethencourt's blog and Ed Lovette's The Snubby Revolver for more info there) and the higher likelihood of carrying it over a bigger, heavier gun for some people, and the snub revolver becomes a good solution for many people.

Are snubs for everyone? No. I certainly have no issue with someone choosing something like a Glock 19 over a snub if that suits their situation better, whether it's the result of a well thought-out risk assessment or just the comfort of having more ammo. Someone may be willing to carry a bigger gun because they shoot it better, which is a valid reason. Snubs and semi-autos each have their own strengths and weaknesses, and you have to decide which would work better for you.

Given my current situation, I'm comfortable with a 642. I know how to run a revolver, I can shoot it well, it's easy to carry (IWB or, rarely for me, pocket carry), it's reliable, it's reasonably powerful (my carry load, Speer 135gr SB-GDHP +P, has a proven track record in actual shootings), and I have contingency responses planned if it proves to be insufficient because I'm aware of its limitations.

At the same time, I haven't ruled out getting a compact single- or double-stack 9mm as a carry option.

 

[Mister X]

So let's stir up the pot a bit. I am honestly curious. Seems that everyone here carries a revolver most of the time including me. That said, how many here are carrying the revolver because of it's ECQB advantages over an auto or simply because it is more convenient and comfortable?

I remain concerned about the J Frame's lack of ammo capacity but have never found anything as fast on the draw as a J Frame with Magna grips. As pointed out above, my 2" 649 has great retention qualities. It's small size allows me to always have it with me.

Please throw some darts at my logic or lack there of. Are we crazy to give up the ammo capacity of an auto for a J Frame?

Please t

ECQ advantages is definitely a primary reason why I choose a snub and specifically a 2" snub. Hammerless 3" models are extremely rare and an enclosed hammer is as important of a factor in ECQ if not more so than the barrel length of the weapon. In terms of weapon retention, an extra inch can actually have a fairly sizable impact. I've seen a few high profile defensive shooting instructors claim that if you're well versed in retention skills, barrel length won't matter much. That simply isn't true IMO. The problem with their retention training is that it is usually limited to very robotic controlled drills much like a lot of traditional martial art training is conducted. Even most of the defensive tactics instructors from police departments I've worked with over the years don't have a clue unfortunately.

H2H and ECQ skills are able to be pressure-tested much more effectively and realistically than defensive shooting skills which rely much more on the theoretical. Force-on-Force is the about the best you can do in the context of defensive shooting training, but it has it's limitations. ECQ scenarios by contrast can be simulated very realistically since they primarily focus on accessing and retaining the weapon in a contact environment, defending strikes, positional control and movement rather than on shooting. A real gun isn't even required for such training. The problem is very few people have ever engaged in such training, don't understand it nor the actual defense scenarios where it would be applicable yet think they do and high quality training that focuses on it is very difficult to find.

Many people think high profile equals quality, but I would point to the state of the martial arts prior to the rise of MMA and reality-based training as being analogous where much of the general public thought the flamboyant techniques demonstrated by their favorite martial arts movie star represented the pinnacle of H2H effectiveness.

The autoloaders primary advantage is capacity. I don't view that extra capacity likely being an asset in a public civilian defense scenario whereas I think the ECQ advantages of the hammerless snub will more likely factor in. I do own several Glocks, but they are usually reserved for home defense scenarios where I have ample lead time. If investigating a noise that is most likely nothing, answering the door to a stranger etc., where a contact scenario is more probable, I'll still choose a snub.

 

[dubshooter]

Another aspect when thinking of the close quarters.

I had a partner helping me apprehend a suspect one night. We got him up and saw a magazine on the ground. Thought the suspect had a gun before we realized that when my partner fell, his holster pinched and his mag release was pressed. Sure, he has quick reloads. After the initial “tap rack” and then assessing why THAT didn’t work.

He didn’t seem too concerned about the situation. So I talked to his boss to have him get a new holster. He still has the same one.

If my bullets fall out of my revolver, I’m pretty sure I’ll be aware. And it won’t happen while it’s holstered.

 

[357-RevolverGuy]

I own a few 2" and 3" revolvers. My favorite 2" is a mod.15 and my favorite 3" is a mod.686+. I carry the mod.15 more these days. What feels even better to me is the 2 7/8" barrel. Ruger made their Security/Speed Six in this configuration back in the 80s. Smith & Wesson finally caught on and currently have their most recent mod.66 in this length. For me the 2 7/8 (2.75") is perfect.

 

[31FordA]

Over the years I've carried 2", 3", and 4" revolvers concealed, and have pretty much settled on 2" guns. My current revolvers for work are a 2.25" SP-101, a 2" 64-2 and a 2" 340. The advantages of a snub revolver in a close quarters engagement are a big reason I still carry them for work. There is no need to worry about the revolver being pushed out of battery, etc. Many of the times I've had to draw my revolver the threat was no more than five feet away, sometimes not much more than arms length away. Comfort is another reason I carry snubs. I spend most of my day in a car or at a desk, the shorter barrel is more convenient.