Who else thinks the new bodyguard .38 is horrid looking!!

[RightWinger]

I just got off the S&W web site and after looking at their new half plastic /aluminum revolver it made me want to gag.......This has got to be one of the ugliest guns they have ever made, and what purpose does it serve? Is it really any lighter than the M&P 340 or the 340PD? I hate the idea of a plastic revolver but the Ruger LCR at least seems to have a better appearance that this Smith does, not that I am a fan of the LCR either. Does this new smith even fit in conventional J frame holsters?? I understand they made this to keep up with Ruger, but Ruger did it originally to make a lighter gun so they could compete with S&W.......I feel like this gun was a knee jerk reaction and not a lot of thought was put behind it. If you own one, don't take this personally.....this is my opinion and I have owned many guns that a lot of people would think are ugly.....and as long as the owner is happy that is all that matters. I was just curious to hear from some others on this topic.

 

[jazzman452]

I looked at one in my local gun store. I glanced at it for less than a minute and handed it back to the clerk, then went over and looked at a model 27 and model 66 he had. Quite a difference. Lets just say I was disappointed in the new Bodyguard, but I am an old guy who grew up with metal, wood and fine craftsmanship. Maybe for a new person who has not experienced the S&W of old might find this new gun just what they are looking for, I don't know. I could say the same type of thing about music of today, autos, or just about anything else you might want to discuss. Just this old guy (50's) rambling on,

Jim

 

[TSQUARED]

I imagine that someone in 1910 would have made the same comments about the change to the hand ejectors vs the top break S&W's. Such is the price of "progress". Revolvers were made for use in defensive purposes and the new line appears to fit that requirement.

 

[Repeat_Defender]

I actually like the looks of my Bodyguard. Sure it's different, not steel, no wood, etc, etc. But I like different things. I have 1911's and tupperware. I'm not a hater, nor am I implying any that don't like the new Bodyguard are. I'm just saying that I accept the revolver for what it is to me...a tool.

So far, my impressions of the Bodyguard is that it will make a fine addition to my defensive firearm battery. Of course, I still need lots of trigger time with it before I carry it.

Personal disclaimer: this is my first revolver, so I'm not coming in with the years of experience in wheelguns or the taste that you guys have in firearms. We're all different, and to each his own.

 

[OKFC05]

Well, it's all been downhill on looks since the days of the inlaid, curly maple stocked KY dueling pistols.
Yeah, a plastic revolver is almost as ugly as a Glock, and look how many of those get bought.
But I don't buy guns to hang on the wall and admire.

 

[RightWinger]

Many valid points have been made, but I guess I look at it like this:


I do think Glocks are ugly, and I own several of them because they work good, but with a S&W I look at it as a piece of artwork and good craftsmanship.....

Does anyone have the weight of this new bodyguard? Just curious if it is lighter than their Sc/Ti ones.....

To me this revolver seems like a solution to a problem that never existed

 

[cjw3]

I imagine that someone in 1910 would have made the same comments about the change to the hand ejectors vs the top break S&W's. Such is the price of "progress". Revolvers were made for use in defensive purposes and the new line appears to fit that requirement.

Well said.

I would also suspect the original Bodyguard did not appear too appealing to some when it was introduced; the "hump" does give it a different look.

 

[Repeat_Defender]

Does anyone have the weight of this new bodyguard? Just curious if it is lighter than their Sc/Ti ones.....

14.4 oz empty

 

[augy]

38 Bodyguard

I agree, it does look ugly when you first see one. But.... after a while it kinda grows on you, and after you take one out and shoot it, you start liking the looks.

Those little guns are very accurate, especially when you shoot one single action. Just the ability to cock the hammer is a definite plus.

I have one, and now, I think it looks good.

augy

 

[dt3201]

I have both the new bodyguard and an old 36 no dash, Like them all. As to an answer to a problem that didn't exist, I have to say what was wrong with the pre war Smiths? what was wrong with the pre 70s 1911s? nothing. I think the manufacturers make new products to decrease manufacturing costs and sell more product for more profit. If this wasn't the case we'd still be buying those beautiful pre war Smiths, 1911s and pre 64 Winchesters. Wouldn't that be nice?

 

[DCWilson]

I handled one the other day while I was completing the paperwork on another, much older gun. I felt neither revulsion nor appreciation. I think the engineering is interesting, and I always approve of the effort that lies behind clever design even when the final product doesn't sing to me.

I won't be standing in line to buy one, but then I have ended up owning other revolvers that I once thought would never reside in my safe. So who knows? After a year or two of real-world seasoning and hands-on reviews, maybe it will have a reputation that makes me want to take another look.

 

[Larry from Bend]

Good thread!

What I still don't get is: What improvements in the new Bodyguard make it better than this one?

Mine weighs about the same as the new one. +Ps usage is not a problem. Mine has been pocket carried a lot in the last 14 years and shows little wear.

 

[RightWinger]

Larry,

You make the exact same point I was making. At 14.4 oz this doesn't seem any lighter than your model....maybe I am wrong but I am curious how much the metal bodyguards weight in at. I was never overly fond of Glocks when they first were intoroduced, but they had a unique design that was new and a great improvement over current designs, that I can appreciate (the striker design). Just not sure what S&W is trying to accomplish with this new gun.

 

[5Wire]

I'm with Repeat_Defender. The BG38 indeed looks different but it is an very well thought out design.

• It is more ambidextrous than the trad J-Frames.
• The BG38 polymer frame is reinforced by steel, not alloy.
• The BG38 PVD Coating finish is very easy to clean and seems less susceptible to minor scratches than the clear coat over alloy of the 642CT, for example.
• The BG38 is significantly less expensive than the 642CT
• It does not have the internal lock.

BG 38...............642CT
6.6"/16.8 cm........6.31"/16.0 cm
14.3 oz/405.4 g.....15.3 oz/433.8 g
$625 MRP...........$901 MRP

I like mine and shooting it compares favorably with my 642-1; the laser helps my older eyes keep rounds on target far better than I can with my laserless 642-1.

 

[Wayne M]

I can live with the "looks" but this is a new design mechanically(at least in some respects). After we see reports of some of them going at least 5K rounds without breakage it might be worth a look.

Not really interested in how good the computor or a designer says it is: put the ammo through it and publish the results.

 

[el jefe]

Revolvers are a convenient way to hold the bullet so you can shoot it.

I don't like the looks of the bodyguard but I don't complain about the

looks of my Glock 19 which proves that you show pay no heed to my

opinion in this matter.

 

[Maximumbob54]

New bodygauard vs old bodyguard

In the old bodyguard the hammer was almost but not quite covered by the frame. I thought the new one was more like a centennial with the cylinder release on top instead of the left side??? And is the grip replaceable with a standard J frame grip? That looks like yet another knuckle knocker without enough handle to hold on to in my hands. I hope I am wrong on all counts as I have yet to hold one. I can say that I want the new LCR in .357 but I am waiting to see if they offer with the Hogue tamer and Big Dot sight as a combo. I don't like the skinny no finger groove boot offering with the Big Dot in .38...

Crossing my fingers hoping now...

 

[Skeeziks]

.......I feel like this gun was a knee jerk reaction and not a lot of thought was put behind it.

Youuuu Got it!

Ya' hit the nail right on the head!

 

[5Wire]

Skeeziks and RightWinger:

.......I feel like this gun was a knee jerk reaction and not a lot of thought was put behind it.

Right. S&W risks bux & time in a whim. Remind me to avoid any business advice you may come up with.

I'd go along with a hurry-up to compete with the Ruger's $792 version at a lower price to keep market share. But there was definitely more than a little thought involved even if the cylinder turns the wrong way.

I didn't care for the LCR's trigger by comparison but price also helped me decide between the two.

 

[stevieboy]

Welcome to the 21st Century. Smith designed this gun to be as efficient and cost saving as possible and also to do a job. I don't own one but that doesn't mean I'd be put off by its appearance if I were in the market for yet another pocket revolver. For me, function always trumps appearance.

It has occurred to me, however, that with the Bodyguard we may be looking at the future. This is the first truly significant change in revolver design/technology introduced by Smith in nearly a century. I doubt very much that they would have invested so much into a totally new firing system if they intended to produce just one model with it. My guess is that we're going to be seeing K, L, and eventually, N frame models using this design technology. And, perhaps, someday, that will be all that we're seeing. When Smith introduced the Hand Ejector it spelled the death of the top break revolver. This design may have the same destiny, like it or not.