Triggernosis
Member
I'm considering getting a 637 w/ 2.5" barrel. How well do the AirWeights handle regular .38 Spec. loads? I mean controllability-wise due to their light weight.
Last edited:
Airlights - how well do they handle .38 Spec?
- Thread starter Triggernosis
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
There is a nice review of the 637 here if you are interested:
Model 637, Chiefs Special Airweight .38 Special
They handle non +P loads just fine and should give years of service under normal conditions. Regardless of the load they are more difficult to control than steel framed guns, but selecting the right grips does a lot to make them easier to shoot. The thing I like most about the Airweight guns is that I am never tempted to leave them at home.
Model 637, Chiefs Special Airweight .38 Special
They handle non +P loads just fine and should give years of service under normal conditions. Regardless of the load they are more difficult to control than steel framed guns, but selecting the right grips does a lot to make them easier to shoot. The thing I like most about the Airweight guns is that I am never tempted to leave them at home.
While a pleasure to carry, my 340PD is a relative beast to shoot. Though it is about 3+ ozs lighter than the 637.
photoman
Member
With standard pressure loads and the right grips, they are very easy to shoot and will handle a lifetime of shooting.
Cruiser RN
Member
The Airweight is designed for 38+P loads.They handle it easy but are hard on the shooter due to decreased gun weight.You might try different grips to fit your hand so practice is more kind to you.......God Bless.....Mike BTW This is why I have a 640 in 357 magnum.The hammer is enclosed so not to snag on the draw in pocket carry.You will also practice ALOT MORE with it because you can shoot everything from std 38,38+P,and 357 Magnum very comfortably.The more you practice with a carry gun the more confident you will be if God Forbid you need to use it....God Bless...MIke
Last edited:
Dale53
Member
My daily carry is a 642 Airweight. I do NOT like "Airlight" revolvers. You have heard the term "Too much of a good thing" well, in the case of the Airlights it is "too little of a good thing". They are just too light FOR ME to enjoy shooting even for the minimal practice necessary for self defense. That is why I carry a 642.
I have larger than medium hands and use a pair of #305 Crimson Trace grips (extend below the frame and cover the back strap) and they give me the control I require. I practice with .38's and just a few .38 Plus P's to keep my hand in.
YMMV
Dale53
I have larger than medium hands and use a pair of #305 Crimson Trace grips (extend below the frame and cover the back strap) and they give me the control I require. I practice with .38's and just a few .38 Plus P's to keep my hand in.
YMMV
Dale53
7shooter
Member
I was helping run the range yesterday for a retired LEO national carry permit qual and shot my titanium j frame for the snub gun course. If you use grips that are rubber and wrap around the backstrap ( banana grip ) these guns are easily controlable and accurate at self defense distances. It helps to grip the gun tighter than usual which reduces the felt recoil. Stay away from open backstraps and wood grips . They look nice but can be pretty hard on the hand. On a side note I have seen some otherwise experienced shooters have problems with j frames with a laser grip. They miss more than I expect them to do. It appears they are trying to get the dot perfectly on the target before firing which causes them to jerk the trigger . This is a training/experience issue which can be over come with practice.
You used the term 'Airlite' in your title, but you then discussed the 637 Airweight, which seems to have misled some respondents. I have a 637 Airweight with the 1 7/8" barrel. You are looking at the one with the one recently made available with the 2 1/2 barrel. Good choice for power and expansion, but perhaps not for pocket carry. Your choice on that question.
I bought my 637 eight years ago, and have fired, oh, five thousand rounds from it. The first cartridges I fired, I bought along with the revolver: Cor Bon 115 +p with Sierra HPs. I fired off one load of those, and swore I would never do that again. It is now loaded with Remington +p 158gr LSWCHP, the FBI load. They are not quite as brutal as those Cor Bons, but my limit is ten. My limit with range loads is twenty. Beyond that, if I have not put a bandaid on the web between my thumb and hand, I will develop, and pop, a blister.
Another point: why a 637 instead of a 642? These are self-defense weapons, almost certainly fired within ten yards. The few times I have fired my 637 single action at targets within ten yards, I have found no benefit from it. So I don't bother practicing single action with it anymore. The 637 has a very prominent hammer; the 642's hammer is completely enclosed and out of the way. I put my thumb on my 637's hammer when practicing drawing it from an Uncle Mike's pocket holster, but this is just play-acting because I can't get a CCL in this California county. Maybe the next sheriff will be more cooperative with a retired Naval Aviator with six battle stars on his Vietnam Service Ribbon, but this one won't. But back to my point. If I had known eight years ago what I know now, I would have bought a 642.
Cordially, Jack
I bought my 637 eight years ago, and have fired, oh, five thousand rounds from it. The first cartridges I fired, I bought along with the revolver: Cor Bon 115 +p with Sierra HPs. I fired off one load of those, and swore I would never do that again. It is now loaded with Remington +p 158gr LSWCHP, the FBI load. They are not quite as brutal as those Cor Bons, but my limit is ten. My limit with range loads is twenty. Beyond that, if I have not put a bandaid on the web between my thumb and hand, I will develop, and pop, a blister.
Another point: why a 637 instead of a 642? These are self-defense weapons, almost certainly fired within ten yards. The few times I have fired my 637 single action at targets within ten yards, I have found no benefit from it. So I don't bother practicing single action with it anymore. The 637 has a very prominent hammer; the 642's hammer is completely enclosed and out of the way. I put my thumb on my 637's hammer when practicing drawing it from an Uncle Mike's pocket holster, but this is just play-acting because I can't get a CCL in this California county. Maybe the next sheriff will be more cooperative with a retired Naval Aviator with six battle stars on his Vietnam Service Ribbon, but this one won't. But back to my point. If I had known eight years ago what I know now, I would have bought a 642.
Cordially, Jack
Last edited:
OP
Triggernosis
Member
Thanks, JW. Yes, I'm referring to the modern day 637 AirWeight.
The reason why I'm looking at the 637 with a hammer is that I'm envisioning carrying the gun as much as a field/woods gun as I am a self-defense gun. Ever try to pop a rabbit at 20 yards without cocking a hammer back? I just can't do it.
I'd love to have a lightweight .38 with a 3" barrel, but they just aren't to be found. I know a 4" K-frame would be better for woods/field carry, but it'll be so heavy and cumbersome that it won't get carried. Heck, at that weight I may as well carry my Beretta 92FS.
The reason why I'm looking at the 637 with a hammer is that I'm envisioning carrying the gun as much as a field/woods gun as I am a self-defense gun. Ever try to pop a rabbit at 20 yards without cocking a hammer back? I just can't do it.
I'd love to have a lightweight .38 with a 3" barrel, but they just aren't to be found. I know a 4" K-frame would be better for woods/field carry, but it'll be so heavy and cumbersome that it won't get carried. Heck, at that weight I may as well carry my Beretta 92FS.
Krull
Member
Let me ask this:ever shoot a .44 mag? if so then an airweight .38 isn't bad at all with reg shells,now +P stuff has some life to it but it isn't all that bad ether.
I just bought a 642 and I'm going off of the 200+ rounds I've fired off since I bought it,hell plain vanilla .38 is actually fun to shoot!
BTW I'd advise if you're gonna use it in the woods and as a CCW to try the 638 2 1/2 since the hammer shroud keeps it from hanging up when it's under some vest or in a pocket,yet you can still cock it to shoot a bunny.
And a J .38 is fine for most woods use,I'd go for it myself but I like using big guns
I just bought a 642 and I'm going off of the 200+ rounds I've fired off since I bought it,hell plain vanilla .38 is actually fun to shoot!
BTW I'd advise if you're gonna use it in the woods and as a CCW to try the 638 2 1/2 since the hammer shroud keeps it from hanging up when it's under some vest or in a pocket,yet you can still cock it to shoot a bunny.
And a J .38 is fine for most woods use,I'd go for it myself but I like using big guns
cjtraining
US Veteran
FWIW, a model 638 is the best of both worlds. No snag and ability to shoot SA.
Personally, I gave up my last alloy .38 j-frame and opted for an all steel variant. I simply prefer a more substantial firing platform that's a bit more adaptable for customization. I think the only vapor-weight I would consider now, is the Model-317 eight-shot .22 cal. Notwithstanding, the 638 is an excellent configuration.
Last edited:
airweights and 38+P
I have a 642 airweight that weighs 15 oz. The extra three oz does not cause my pocket to sag, and +P rounds do not hurt my hand. They are actually fun to shoot! I recommend the 15 oz guns over the airlites. No titanium problems either.
I have a 642 airweight that weighs 15 oz. The extra three oz does not cause my pocket to sag, and +P rounds do not hurt my hand. They are actually fun to shoot! I recommend the 15 oz guns over the airlites. No titanium problems either.
