S&W's new 2010 Bodyguards, which one for you?

[ChadW]

In May S&W will be releasing two new handguns. They have a new Bodyguard series (not like the Bodyguard models...).

There is a new .38+P revolver (different than the J frame) and a .380!

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/w...content=754501

So in May, which one will you be more interested in?

[sipowicz]

Neither...especially the .38....a laser on the grip doesn't affect holster fit. What kind of marketing people do they have anyway?...they already have a bodyguard model...this will only confuse things more...like calling their new auto an M&P...to me, an M&P will always be a model 10.

[Duke426]

I am with Sip and say, NEITHER!!

I have my S&W 442 on me at all times. I see no added benefit in the new pocket revolver over what I currently own (Especially since the cylinder turns the wrong direction).

Not the least bit interested in a .380 pocket pistol. If I were, there are already plenty of good ones available in the market place.

I just don't see anything new, improved or revolutionary in either offering.

JMHO

[BigRich315]

I'll pass on the revolver, but true pocket .380s have claimed their place in the market and my repetoir. It's about time S&W got in the game. I just bought a CT laser for my P3AT and have been considering getting it a twin.

I'll have roughly $450 in the P3AT, and if the new Smith (I hate the naming choice, they will never be REAL Bodyguards) is around that price I'll bring one home. There are pros and cons to the design, but I like it enough to give it a fair shot.

About the name, I thought these were going to be called M&P380s???

[woodsltc]

Originally Posted by sipowicz

Neither...especially the .38....a laser on the grip doesn't affect holster fit. What kind of marketing people do they have anyway?...they already have a bodyguard model...this will only confuse things more...like calling their new auto an M&P...to me, an M&P will always be a model 10.

Agree..........your comments are right on target!!

Don

[tom turner]

That's the most butt-ugly revolver I've ever seen . . . actually, that revolver even makes the weep-hole lock look "better."

The auto is just as quirky/ugly.

I don't know who is designing these disgraceful things, but I'll bet the founders are spinning in their graves that their names go on this ugly sh__tuf.

[crofoot629]

The revolver is fugly, and frankly I have nice revolvers so their new BG is of no interest to me.

The .380? I care very little about sights and slide stops on a mouse gun.
I care greatly about, size, weight, price, durability, and most of all reliability.

And without the size and weight being acceptable I’m still not interested, even if its extremely reliable. It’s 12 way too heavy ounces. And way to big. It’s roughly the same size as a Kahr PM9 9MM. It’s neither fish nor fowl. A big heavy mouse gun? Yuck!

Emory

[Super Trucker]

Neither for me also.

[snkhalltx]

I agree that auto is just downright ugly. I am not to interested in the new S&W autos. I like the older ones especially the 645, which I own. Will never buy any gun with a lock. Had one seize up on me for no reason. Enough can go wrong without adding a lock into it.

[Evil One]

Lord knows ya dont want to be weighed down with a whole 12 ounces...
I think each of my back up magazines weigh more... and I carry 2 of them.
P3AT length 5.2" Width .77" height 3.5" weight unloaded 8.3 oz
LCP length 5.16" Width .82" height 3.6" weight unloaded 9.4 oz
S&W length 5.25" Width .75" height 4.1" weight unloaded 11.85 oz
PM9 length 5.3" Width .90" height 4.0" weight unloaded 15.9 oz

I personally see that extra .5" as more grip... easier pointing, and better accuracy in an adrenaline charged situation.


Jim

[Vulcan Bob]

Im afraid I will take a pass on both of these exciteing new model's.

[Mickey D]

Zip, zero, zilch, nada, nope, huh-ah. Neither for me.
I'll stay with my 642, 696 or Colt OACP thank you.

[BigRich315]

Originally Posted by Evil One

Lord knows ya dont want to be weighed down with a whole 12 ounces...
I think each of my back up magazines weigh more... and I carry 2 of them.
P3AT length 5.2" Width .77" height 3.5" weight unloaded 8.3 oz
LCP length 5.16" Width .82" height 3.6" weight unloaded 9.4 oz
S&W length 5.25" Width .75" height 4.1" weight unloaded 11.85 oz
PM9 length 5.3" Width .90" height 4.0" weight unloaded 15.9 oz

I personally see that extra .5" as more grip... easier pointing, and better accuracy in an adrenaline charged situation.


Jim

Thanks for the comparison. I pocket carry a P3AT, and to me width is the most important factor. Comparing P3AT and the S&W: length is negligible, width also but thinner is better, height is appreciated for grip (I have the +1 extension on mine, making these about the same. I'd like to see a +1 instead of an empty .6"), and 3.55oz isn't a huge issue.

The PM9 just doesnt meet my requirements.

[JcMack]

I don't see either of the new Smith's as a viable replacement for my current carry options. Colt Cobra, Smith 66, 38, 432, snubs and couple Glocks all ready for action. With my available gun money now at an all time low I look at guns that are proven, and I can use. All this new junk from mfgs. across the board seems to be aimed at new to the market buyers. I'd like to hear of a real civilian self defense story where a laser aided in shot placement and stopped a BG. I don't mean training a laser on somebodies chest to warn him off. I can see a laser helping me find the keyhole in the back door at night.

[gunsmith11]

I will stay with the M60

[Texas Star]

Add me to the "neither" voters. If they can't design something better than these, they should just leave this niche of the market to Ruger.

Who designed these, the genius who thought that Conan could replace Leno? A committee?

T-Star

[Sebago Son]

Where's the "None of the Above" button?

Copies of **** are still ****.

[Stonecove]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the ambidextrous cylinder lock on the revolver. If for no other reason that monstrosity is reason enough to stay away from the revolver! The .380 may be ugly, but I might consider it.
Stonecove

[crofoot629]

Originally Posted by Evil One

Lord knows ya dont want to be weighed down with a whole 12 ounces...
I think each of my back up magazines weigh more... and I carry 2 of them.
P3AT length 5.2" Width .77" height 3.5" weight unloaded 8.3 oz
LCP length 5.16" Width .82" height 3.6" weight unloaded 9.4 oz
S&W length 5.25" Width .75" height 4.1" weight unloaded 11.85 oz
PM9 length 5.3" Width .90" height 4.0" weight unloaded 15.9 oz

I personally see that extra .5" as more grip... easier pointing, and better accuracy in an adrenaline charged situation.


Jim

Oh yea! My carry gun is bigger than yours!

What's your point?

There are smaller lighter 380's than S&W's new entry. Seems to me that if you were willing to carry a 380 in the first place that size and weight would be prime considerations.

Emory

[USAF385]

I'm interested in trying both. I'm not in the market for another snub revolver .38. I AM in the market for a carry .380, so I'd be willing to give the .380 a shot, but I won't get it in May, I'd give it some time first.

[Evil One]

Originally Posted by crofoot629

Oh yea! My carry gun is bigger than yours!

What's your point?

There are smaller lighter 380's than S&W's new entry. Seems to me that if you were willing to carry a 380 in the first place that size and weight would be prime considerations.

Emory

Meh... at least people carrying the .380s are carrying.
Lookin at the size and weight... it is comparable to the others.
Add the weight to a laser sight and the weight on the other guns increases.
If you dont like it... you dont like it... thats very simple.
However... there are quite a few people who put grip extensions on their smaller pistols for controlability. There are also quite a few people who put lasers on theirs.
This one has those features... these features add a slight amount of size and weight.
If its not for you... then its not for you.
However it is right in the game on size and weight for the class.
As to me carrying a bigger gun... yep, 2 of them.
My "pocket gun" is twice the size of the new S&W .380.
More than twice the weight, possibly twice the width.
Why would I carry a monster like that? Because it works for me.
This is the wonderful thing about the selection we have today.
We can carry what we like... without slamming things that may not suit us.
I think the main thing is that you are offering your opinion as fact.
Its like looking at a loaded chevy 4x4 and comparing it to a stripped down ford or dodge, and saying that the chevy is way over priced.
Option the others the same and the prices even up REAL fast.
If a person doesnt want the better gripability and a laser... then this pistol isnt in their search demographic.
If they ARE interested in these features... then this .380 is right in the middle of the fight.


Jim

[Texas1941]

They look very funny, true. But that's only one aspect and not the most important, at least to me.

Do they work as they are designed?

What is the price point?

Are the features just strange looking marketing tools or do they actually do something better than other designs?

At what market are they directed? (I'll give a partial answer to that one right now: they are not directed at the average member of this forum. If the average here isn't at least 40, I would be shocked. We may spend money on guns, perhaps more per person than other age groups, but the marketing people have the 18 to 35 demographic fused to their DNA.)

If these guns are aimed at the first time buyer, the expanding ccw market, or just the people that grew up with the M-16 and the Glock, they may be very successful.

So put me down in the wait and see catagory.

[CAJUNLAWYER]

If you're forcing me to make a choice and buy one-I'd hold my nose and pick the .38. Other than that-neithe of these do anything that a gun I already own can't do.

[18DAI]

Neither. I'll stick with my Colt Cobra and 66 snubby. Regards 18DAI.

[Rule3]

If I had to pick it would be the .380 only cause I think it is cool looking. Do not know how much it costs. I carry a Kahr PM9 which is a "lot" different than carrying the Ruger LCP or Kel Tec 380. The revolver looks a lot like the Ruger LCR and has nothing to offer me that a 642 will not do.

I like pocket .380's and think the best is the NAA 380 other than it's a bit heavy but it is all stainless steel and true DA.

At least S&W is getting on the band wagon with something.

[The Highlander]

If I HAD to pick one, the .380 is more interesting to me, although it looks like a Taurus. I actually like the laser, the huge wart on the .38 is just fugly. At least the .380 is a little smoother presenting.

[deadin]

The .380 is kind of interesting. The OEM laser looks a lot better than the "add-ons" for the other .380's.

I will be interested to see who they think they are competing with, Kel-Tec/Ruger or Kahr. Only the price will tell.

[Mod10]

Completely redundant; both of them. The 442 is already tried and true and the market is already saturated with .380s.

[Cyrano]

My 638 satisfies my need for a snubby. I'm in the market for a 380, but will probably go with the SIG. It's smaller than the Smith and has controls like a 45, which I shoot a lot.

[Springfield Bob]

[QU
Sip, my name is Bob and a few months ago we stayed at the Best Western on W-Sunset Blvd in W-Hollywood and in looking for a gun store I found one listed right down the street. Well when we got there it was on the second floor of a bulding and locked up with bars. Any idea what gives?

We didn't find any gun stores in our L.A. travels.

Thanks Sip,

Bob






OTE=sipowicz;1272445]Neither...especially the .38....a laser on the grip doesn't affect holster fit. What kind of marketing people do they have anyway?...they already have a bodyguard model...this will only confuse things more...like calling their new auto an M&P...to me, an M&P will always be a model 10.[/QUOTE]

[Smokin' Iron]

The .380 does have my interest. I'm looking forward to some field reports on this pistol, before I think about retiring my P3AT. Also the price will have to be competitive.

[Andy Griffith]

Originally Posted by MOONDAWG

Cast my vote in the belatedly created "Neither" column.

I'm with Moondawg.

The .380 is too high priced, and a built in laser is a terrible idea. If I want a laser, let me be the one to buy it if I so choose. The .38 is just too darn ugly, and still doesn't resolve the problem that the Ruger LCR has- it's no smaller than anything else in the lineup- it's too darn bulky!

You'd think if they were going to all this trouble to engineer this junk, they'd design it smaller, lighter, cheaper or more reliable than the competition in the company's own product line up.

I'd rather have an IL in a gun than a non-removable piece of electronic junk. Unfortunately, the revolver comes with both an IL and a laser!

If I want a laser, let me be the one to buy it. I will not be buying either of these things in current configuration.

*blech!*

[Evil One]

Wait... I thought it was posted that the .38 didnt have an IL and the laser was detachable...


Jim

[BigRich315]

Originally Posted by Evil One

Wait... I thought it was posted that the .38 didnt have an IL and the laser was detachable...


Jim

The laser is detachable but it still has the Infernal Lock. Remember you'll still be paying for the laser though.

And where was the price stated or the .380? I still haven't seen a definite one.

[Evil One]

Originally Posted by BigRich315

The laser is detachable but it still has the Infernal Lock. Remember you'll still be paying for the laser though.

Well, according to someone at the shot show and that has handled the new .38...

While at the SHOT show I spent some time at the S&W display with the L.E. reps. The new Bodyguard series revolvers do not have any provision for the IL. The rep told me there are no plans to include an IL in the new body guard design. Also the cylinder release has been relocated to the top of the frame and is ambidextrous. This new gun also includes a laser module attached to the right side plate.

So mainly it comes down to if a person will consider polymer, would buy the laser anyway, and doesnt mind the ambi cyl release... at least in my mind.


Jim

[BigRich315]

Originally Posted by Evil One

Well, according to someone at the shot show and that has handled the new .38...

So mainly it comes down to if a person will consider polymer, would buy the laser anyway, and doesnt mind the ambi cyl release... at least in my mind.


Jim

Hmmm, all of the pics I've seen clearly show an IL

If it didn't have one I would think that would be a selling point for those familar with it, as in they'd definitely say so.

[Evil One]

IL or a pin/allen head screw thru the frame?
If you look where what could be mistaken for an IL is, it corresponds to a similar looking thing where the laser is.
Also it looks the same as the sideplate screw on the right side.


Jim

[Sebago Son]

So Smith comes up with a new revolver design, omits the Lawyer Ignition Key but then makes the gun out of plastic?.... Brilliant.



I think I'll go vomit now....

Douglas Wesson is rolling over in his grave....

[Evil One]

Wait till you see the polymer model 29, called the Tech Magnum... 1 piece poly frame/grips with slab sides enclosed hammer, and the now popular Glock grip angle.


Jim

[4864]

I may get the 380 Bodyguard. I like the look and features. How ever with the built in Insight Laser and the prices that new S&W command I may just stick to my good little Kel-Tec P3AT.

[BigRich315]

Originally Posted by Evil One

IL or a pin/allen head screw thru the frame?
If you look where what could be mistaken for an IL is, it corresponds to a similar looking thing where the laser is.
Also it looks the same as the sideplate screw on the right side.


Jim

Complete with the arrow and "L" showing you how to turn it into a glorified brick.

[Evil One]

Dude... please show me a picture of this...


Jim