I have read numerous books and interviews that mention, in general, many police in the 1950's to 1980's who "had to wear some sort of gun" such as around the office or labs would choose the easy to carry model 36... but there is very little mention given to police choosing the J-airweights until the late 80's or early nineties as a service pistol backup. Does anyone know the history why the airweight was not the default easy-carry choice for the police office staff and lab technicians from the 1950's onwards? Thanks for any insight!
Why did office staff choose M36 over Airweights?
- Thread starter Jackal11
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
I think anyone who's actually shot an airweight would choose a 36
Beat me to it ...
As a backup gun, I would not want to add any more weight than necessary to my duty rig.
As a primary gun, definitely needs to have more mass than an Airweight
For a belt gun the M-36 is very light and soaks up the recoil better than the airweights. In the old days there were no rubber after-market grips and not many people added custom wood grips so the tiny service grips were a bit hard to hang on to when firing fast with the alloy framed guns.
mckenney99
Member
My guess, in addition to the above, there was also probably a perception that the Aluminum frame guns just wouldn't hold up to much shooting or have an acceptable life for the money spent.
Probably this, to a large extent. Remember, if you're "licensed to carry" on a department you have to qualify at least once a year, if not more often. I don't know what the round count of a typical qualification course is, or how rapid the firing is, but I do remember the one time I tried to shoot an IDPA match with a heavy barrel Model 10 with magna grips (to show off my BK grip adapter to the assembled crowd) I had to stop after the second stage and switch to a cushioned rubber grip. That would have been after two, 12-18 round stages of fairly rapid fire with moderate level 38 Special loads, using a steel, heavy barrel, K frame - and I just didn't want to put up with the pain any more.
I have shot J frames in BUG gun matches, but back when I did it they were limited to 5-shot stages. But even then, I shot steel frames if I had the choice.
As others have noted, the difference on the belt between a holstered airweight or steel J frame, both loaded with five 158 grain rounds, really isn't that much. And if word got around about the (dis)comfort of shooting the lightweights in qualification, I can easily see that being a significant factor in what an officer chose.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 9,277
- Reaction score
- 11,530
Many of these guys were not gun people to begin with and may not have even known about frames that were lighter in weight. They did know that they wanted a small, snubnosed .38 Special "Chief" or Detective Special, like their co-workers carried. These guns were immensely popular some years ago for on duty use by plainclothes personnel and off duty carry by just about everyone. They still work well for such purposes if the carrier is skilled in their use.
We qualified twice a year w/service & back up guns. I always carried a steel frame J b/c it was easier to handle than any of the alloy models available at the time. It was a 50 round course, pretty fast combat shooting and my hand was pretty sore afterward. My retirement EDC is a 340PD which is brutal, even w/+P ammo.
Very common for the departments to have vendors meet them at a range for some testing which probably quickly eliminated the air weights. The administration guys are not usually gun guys and will quickly go for what kicks and costs less.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2006
- Messages
- 7,796
- Reaction score
- 7,222
In addition to what's been mentioned above, the 36 makes a better paper weight than the air weight.
Airweight 14.4oz vs M39 at 19.5oz. Recoil is MUCH easier to handle with the heavier gun and more pleasant to shoot. JMO
Be SAFE and Shoot Often !
Be SAFE and Shoot Often !
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 9,277
- Reaction score
- 11,530
I shoot both regularly and don't know if there is really that much difference in felt recoil. I've always though they both had substantial recoil, even with standard pressure loads.
I'm not a holster guy. The difference in weight is quite noticeable if you're carrying without a holster; advantage certainly goes to the alloy-framed guns. If using a holster, the weight difference is probably insignificant at best.
It's important to remember we're talking about a different era here. The guys that carried snubnosed .38s were likely required to be armed at all times, on and off-duty and they had one gun for that. They weren't gadgeteers, daily rotators, or concealed carry hobbyists/guntoters. Stocks were almost always the ones that came on the guns. Seldom did you see T-grip adapters, trigger alterations, sight changes, etc. and nothing needed batteries. The officers were required to qualify with these revolvers which often included firing at 25 yard targets. No one complained. Again, a different time.
I'm not a holster guy. The difference in weight is quite noticeable if you're carrying without a holster; advantage certainly goes to the alloy-framed guns. If using a holster, the weight difference is probably insignificant at best.
It's important to remember we're talking about a different era here. The guys that carried snubnosed .38s were likely required to be armed at all times, on and off-duty and they had one gun for that. They weren't gadgeteers, daily rotators, or concealed carry hobbyists/guntoters. Stocks were almost always the ones that came on the guns. Seldom did you see T-grip adapters, trigger alterations, sight changes, etc. and nothing needed batteries. The officers were required to qualify with these revolvers which often included firing at 25 yard targets. No one complained. Again, a different time.
pistolpete10
Member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2020
- Messages
- 319
- Reaction score
- 256
To me there is a lot more recoil with a 642 vs a 36, the 36 is pleasant compared to the 642. I carry a 642(works in a pocket).
rainyknight
US Veteran
This pretty much sums it up.
No snubbie is "fun" to shoot, at least for me. I have a Model 38 air weight and a Model 36, both with stock grips, the 36 is easier to shoot and not that much heavier to carry. I think this holds true for any small, lite-weight gun.
Don't hold it against me but I also own a couple of Detective Specials a Taurus 85 and a Ruger SP 101. Strangely the Ruger with oversized Hogue grips and almost twice the weight of the Model 38 is easier and more pleasant to shoot.
The Model 38 with the original wood grips is much easier to carry and works great for pocket carry in pants or a jacket and even sweats for a quick errand. Add on a couple of speed strips and I feel prepared for what my small town might offer.
Some 'jobs' specified steel-frame revolvers...
Kaaskop49
Shield #5103
Kaaskop49
Shield #5103
I've got both...
And a truer statement was never made. Even with aftermarket grips. If you can tolerate recoil and some pain, you won't mind using it, but PRACTICING with it is no fun at all.
And a truer statement was never made. Even with aftermarket grips. If you can tolerate recoil and some pain, you won't mind using it, but PRACTICING with it is no fun at all.
lawandorder
Member
And it is extremely rare to see an all steel J frame that has a cracked frame.
Pretty common to see airweights with that condition.
Pretty common to see airweights with that condition.
OLDSTER
Member
YA THINK???!!!
Airweights are no fun to shoot. I've tried several of them over the years; too punishing to enjoy.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
