S&W J frame vs. Glock 42

I have always liked J-Frame snub revolvers the best. most often I carry two J-Frames. If I felt I needed more I added a Glock 26 or a Springfield XDM. Today I ordered a Taurus 817 38 Special 7 shot Revolver. I'll probably be carrying the 7 Shooter in my waist and a lightweight 5 shot J in my pocket. Here is a website picture of the 817IMG_0491.jpeg
 
For me, the 42 seemed like a good alternative. It was light, flat, and the recoil was manageable. The 42 is on the cusp of reliability compared to a 9mm, especially if you have hand strength issues, plus it's more difficult to rack due to the small size.

I'm just not as confident carrying a 42 as I am carrying a J frame.
And justly so. J frame much easier to handle and if you check the ballistics between the 380 and 38 special that will add even more justification.
 
As far as effectiveness of .38 special and .380acp I personally think it's a toss up with appropriate loads.

What do you guys think of this?
Just from cop perspective and in Los Angeles a lot of people get shot. So the 380 ACP wounds people usually unless it was an execution. It is not a stopper but criminals will flee from an armed person.

Even if you use the classic 38 Special load of 158 grain LRN you are better off.

158 > 95 basic math. 158 grains is greater than 95 grains. JMHO
 
Just from cop perspective and in Los Angeles a lot of people get shot. So the 380 ACP wounds people usually unless it was an execution. It is not a stopper but criminals will flee from an armed person.

Even if you use the classic 38 Special load of 158 grain LRN you are better off.

158 > 95 basic math. 158 grains is greater than 95 grains. JMHO

From the streets of NE New Jersey .38's are way better than .380 and especially. 32 auto. Sadly I started in the days of 158gr. LRN. pretty poor load trying to get through a '60's era auto. Wadcutters seemed to work pretty well and now five plus decades later I'm running 148 or 150gr. Hardcast wads. The only thing thing they're poor at is reloading. That's why SWC were invented for the reload on a speed strip. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Plus no hollow points in Jersey when you retire. I'll skip the commentary on that one.
 
I realize I could find myself in a situation involving multiple assailants, and be wishing I had a Glock 17 and a spare 33rd mag, but given my habits and AO, it's pretty unlikely.
I'll bet you won't be wishing anything. I'm betting you will be too "in the moment" to think about anything else.;)
Everybody remember you can talk about your sigs, glocks, 442s etc. but humpbacks are way cooler than anything else;)
C33BA03C-8196-44AB-A58B-7161302D7C0D.webp
 
The last couple of pages of this thread would make one think that it is a binary choice between a J-frame and a Glock. Both are great guns and suitable for most purposes that we carry guns for. I still carry a 1911. It is thin, so it conceals well, it has 8 rather than six rounds, hits make a big hole, overpenetration danger is reduced, it is quick to reload, it is a reliable as the sunrise, and if you find yourself needing to pistol-whip someone it works well for that too. People whine that the guns are heavy, I don't see that as a negative; the heft comes in handy with quick follow-up shots. I have a pile of more "modern" pistols and revolvers to choose from, but I always come back to the the 1911 for self protection.
 
Full Disclosure I own neither handgun and never will unless someone gives one to me.

Of the two it would be a hard decision because I'd prefer the .38 with the possibility of .357 but I'd also prefer a magazine fed weapon for the ease of reloading.

I do own a 43 but I rarely carry it because if I can conceal a 43 I can conceal a 26.

I think I'd pass on both.

I think I would have to be in a position where I had no gun whatsoever and had to choose between one of the two before I would know which I picked
 
I can't believe people and their excuses not to carry a striker fire gun. It's a load of BS as usual.

Millions of people around the world carry them.

And if there is an accident, it means someone didn't follow basic safety rules. It's not the guns fault.

You folks need to remember that anti gunners frequent gun forum's. Stop feeding them lies and misinformation to be used against us.
 
I can't believe people and their excuses not to carry a striker fire gun. It's a load of BS as usual.

Millions of people around the world carry them.

And if there is an accident, it means someone didn't follow basic safety rules. It's not the guns fault.

You folks need to remember that anti gunners frequent gun forum's. Stop feeding them lies and misinformation to be used against us.
Carry what you like, striker fired or hammer fired. What are the lies and misinformation?
 
the small increase from 5 rounds of .38 to 8 rounds of 380 aren't enough to make me switch from the revolver. Even though it's shooting from a reliable Glock, I have had a lot of trouble with 380 reliably cycling pistols (others may have other experience).

Going to Glock 26 or SIG P365 would be, to me, reasonable. Those 9mm guns are very reliable and give you even more capacity.
I agree, but I went between the 5 and 8 and carry a 6 shot 32 H&R. I had a Glock 42 and it was a fine gun, but just preferred other guns. I still have a Glock 26 and Sig P365, but mainly pocket carry and find the j frame easier to conceal and draw from most of my pockets.
 
Full Disclosure I own neither handgun and never will unless someone gives one to me.

Of the two it would be a hard decision because I'd prefer the .38 with the possibility of .357 but I'd also prefer a magazine fed weapon for the ease of reloading.

I do own a 43 but I rarely carry it because if I can conceal a 43 I can conceal a 26.

I think I'd pass on both.

I think I would have to be in a position where I had no gun whatsoever and had to choose between one of the two before I would know which I picked
I've been thinkin' more and more about ditching my G42 and carrying the G26.
 
I made the mistake of thinking a Model 60 in 357 wasn't enough because of short sight radius and lack of capacity and jumped on the baby Glock bandwagon (G27) around 1999 or so. The ammo I was required to carry in the Smith also was possibly suboptimal although I never had any personal experience with it first hand. Optional was the Winchester Silvertip .357, which had its own pluses and minuses. I sold the Model 60 to finance a new Glock 27, which was supposed to be the ultimate blend of stopping power, capacity, and conceal-ability. It wasn't, as I've come to learn. J-frames, despite being five shot capacity, have benefits no semi auto can replace. I've since used a mix that included the 27, a 26, an M&P9c, a 43, a 43x, and a P365. The 365 is closest due to its size with the 43 as runner up. The 640 in .38 Special I also run could only be beat by a good airweight. The key to confidence with any handgun is quality training and practicing good training. I submit that someone who practices with and masters a DA action will also shoot semis a bit better. But when it all comes down to it, carry what you're comfortable with. If it's down to a G42 or a five shot Smith, train with both of them. And apply a little orange paint to the J-frame front sight and it will be a little bit easier to work with. I went thru a LEOSA qualification last week with a 365 and the 640. Distances out to 25 yards on a course designed for semis but suitable for a six shot revolver. Shot 100 percent with the 640.
 
I've already posted here that I have both but feel more comfortable with the J frame even with two less shots. The why comes down to Walkin trails post above.

52 years carrying and training with a J frame. I have five, all with the same grips and if nothing else once a week I'll shoot one, at least a little.
Familiarity breeds competence. It's grown to be totally instinctive. For decades.

As the department Rangemaster I know for an absolute fact that ND's made a significant leap when the department when to autoloaders. Can it be blamed as a training issue? Yes of course. Mostly. What is the first thing to be cut when it comes to police defunding? Training.

Fifty years ago you had to qualify at 50 yards and in, with a revolver. Around 1990 with autoloaders taking over the police world the basic training was reduced to 25 yards and ten less rounds. WTF is up with that? Look at round count per police involved shootings. Way up.

I'm personally more comfortable carrying a revolver, and a DAO at that. Just sayin' some of us depend on many rounds of experience.
 
I have always liked J-Frame snub revolvers the best. most often I carry two J-Frames. If I felt I needed more I added a Glock 26 or a Springfield XDM. Today I ordered a Taurus 817 38 Special 7 shot Revolver. I'll probably be carrying the 7 Shooter in my waist and a lightweight 5 shot J in my pocket. Here is a website picture of the 817View attachment 775146
Very nice looking shiny solid bull looking revolver, how heavy is it ?
 
Striker fired gun are more dangerous.

That's provably true. It's a simple mechanics + risk scoring problem. The fixed firing pin on the hammer of a revolver vs. the "floating" sprung firing pin in a semi-automatic is mathematically more safe.

That doesn't match up to real-world applications, though, including the additional safeties often added to striker-fired guns, and the mathematical risk difference is incredibly tiny.

It also doesn't assess the risk encompassing the entire scope of use, e.g. drawing, firing, and people's ability to keep shots on target with the difference in grip, presentation and trigger pull between each. A slightly "less safe" gun is likely also somewhat easier to use, comes with a higher capacity, a lower weight, and a different trigger pull, perhaps making it the less risky choice overall.

People here like to argue minutae... here you go. At the very basic level, considering only the difference in mechanics around the firing pin striking a primer, striker-fired guns are less safe in that and only that context if you really want to argue.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top