Musings on the 2" M15...

There are several mentions of 2" Model 15 Round Butts on this thread, but I have never seen a factory version. Did I miss something, or are those mentioned all "custom conversions".

Good shooting.
 
I've never seen an RB 15.

Apparently concealability is subjective. I always found a smaller gun to be easier to hide. Others, it seems, do not. I am surprised at this. Seems like simple physics, to me. I don't get their reasoning, but there it is just the same.
 
I've never seen an RB 15...

Neither have I. In general, I am no fan of round-butt guns bigger than J-frames, but a long time ago when I had experiment-itis, I probably would have bought a RB Model 15 2-inch to toy around with. Never saw one.

I agree with NE450No2 - for that kind of gun, I prefer a 2.5" Model 19 (or 66) over the 2" 15 or the 3" 13s/19s/66s. If it is longer than 2.5", I would just as soon go to 4".
 
Is a round butt K frame revolver smaller in the grip area than a suare butt K? Clearly, yes, in absolute terms.

I would say that the degree of size difference is so minor, however, in practical terms, that if one can effectively conceal the round butt gun, the square butt gun would be pretty much equally concealed, given the same type of stocks. If an observer would spot one, he would spot the other. The cylinder of a revolver has always been the hardest handgun bulge to hide effectively.

So, is there a difference? Yes. Does that difference translate to much? No, not really.
 
I've never seen an RB 15.

Apparently concealability is subjective. I always found a smaller gun to be easier to hide. Others, it seems, do not. I am surprised at this. Seems like simple physics, to me. I don't get their reasoning, but there it is just the same.
If you cover the grip frame with a decent set of grips, like Rogers, the grip frame itself may not matter. The SB "stocks" on the 15 are kind of stocky, and certainly larger than the RB. Furthermore, I make no claim as to the relative concealability of the two, since I am not stupid enough to compare them (the factory SB "stocks" don't work very well for me, and it would be stupid for me to use them when the excellent Rogers grips are available). I have actually carried a 15 SB with Rogers grips and a RB 12 with S&W "stocks," and I can tell you that the Rogers-15 combo is just as concealable as the 12, maybe more so. I think that the Rogers may be thinner; I'm not sure. I have no complaint against either, with what I wear. It may have to do with the relationship among shoulder width, waist size and round butt; I do not know exactly.

Regardless, if you really believe that a gun that is smaller in one dimension is always easier to hide, you clearly do not understand cover garments. For a given body shape, holster, cover garment, resulting drape and allowed body contortion, there are certain firearm dimensions that cannot be exceeded without at least some "printing" or alteration of drape. Anything less will result in successful concealment, whether it is 1/4" less or 2" less. It should be starting to get obvious that smaller does NOT necessarily mean more concealable. This could be discussed more in general theoretical terms, but actual experience at carrying a 2" Model has revealed their true worth to some folks.

BTW, with all the female dogging about adjustable sights, I find it interesting that no one has complained about the hammer spur, which even the Model 10 has. I consider them MUCH worse than adjustable sights for snagging and wearing clothing, although I have not had much trouble from them lately, seeing as I have removed most of them.
 
I won't argue the point about the conceal ability of the Sq. butt vs. the Rb., but I will note there is nothing wrong with the accuracy of the 2" Mod. 15. I took a 2" and a 4" to the range one day and had pretty similar results.
IMG_0016.jpg


IMG_0015.jpg
 
Is a round butt K frame revolver smaller in the grip area than a suare butt K? Clearly, yes, in absolute terms.

I would say that the degree of size difference is so minor, however, in practical terms, that if one can effectively conceal the round butt gun, the square butt gun would be pretty much equally concealed, given the same type of stocks. If an observer would spot one, he would spot the other. The cylinder of a revolver has always been the hardest handgun bulge to hide effectively.

So, is there a difference? Yes. Does that difference translate to much? No, not really.

Exactly...
 
You are probably right SP, but I really like mine. It is amazing how accurate they are.
 
The size of the gun is only one factor when it comes to concealment. You can't leave out clothing (as mentioned by 520), holster, and most importantly IMHO, the skill of the user in concealing the gun. After all, how do some guys hide a Model 29 under a T-shirt while others can't seem to conceal a .380 under a parka?
In my shooting "career" going back to 1971, I've hidden SB K-frames when I had to, like when my constant trading left me without a smaller gun. I like to think I managed it without being spotted, although having a badge to go with it eliminated any consequences. :) Wasn't always easy, but it was possible.
 
Like I said in the first post, the square butt and adjustable sights work against easy concealment and carry. A round butt M10 with its fixed sights is much easier to carry and draw from concealment IMO.

Agreed. The only K Frame that's better in those departments, IMHO, is a round butt, 2" M12 with a bobbed hammer :cool: By far my favorite carry K Frame.

However, I still think the 2" M15 is a great looking and fun revolver. I'd happily carry one if I didn't other choices that fit me better.
 
How the gun feels when you hold it is something that should definetly be factor when selecting a gun for CCW. The grip shape can have an impact on your confidence as well as accuracy.
If a SB just feels better, and the gun is still very concealable, I say thank goodness there are options.

(sorry for digging this one back up)
 
Back
Top