TexasCHLforum.com

lkd wrote:You might want to consider a S&W Ladysmith in .38 SPL. Depending on your preference, you would want a shrouded or "unshrouded" hammer. Unshrouded hammer advantages are that you can manipulate the hammer so that you don't have to engage in double-action pull (which can be rough). Shrouded hammer advantage is that you don't have to worry about the hammer catching on clothing, etc.

I have a nice, nickel Ladysmith Model 36 (Chief's Special) that's sitting in my safe. I have half a mind to sell it, but I think it breaks down in tears every time I think about doing that They're just so hard to come by these days. (I was going to put a link to the S&W website for it, but their website is so mind-bogglingly horrid and slow. Heck, I can't even tell if S&W makes them anymore).

Like this?
http://www.gunshopfinder.com/smithandwe ... on36LS.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What's the difference between that and a Model 60 - the wood grips?

The DA wouldn't bother me, I don't think-my Sig is DAO so it would at least be familiar to have a long trigger pull. Got some shopping and trying out to do ...

Thanks, everyone!

No, the grip is more "svelte" on mine... here's a pic (just noticed I forgot to clean it from my last range trip a month ago...I gave it a 5-round "physical" LOL!)

Oh, the 36 is in either black or nickel, the 60 is in stainless steel. Don't ask me anything more about the details though, that's about all I know. I find S&W as a company a bit too "quaint" for my tastes

Excaliber wrote:

MojoTexas wrote:Just to weigh in with my opinion...there are pros and cons to each type of handgun. I own both types, and love 'em all.

it's less susceptible to something breaking under rough use compared to some semi-automatics, and they're easier to clean.

MoJo, I agree with most of your post, except for the highlighted area.

The vaunted ruggedness of the revolver vs. a military grade semiauto like a Glock or Springfield XD is actually an old myth that was frequently called on to forestall the inevitable move from revolvers to semiautos in police agencies. Revolvers have lots of things that can and do go wrong, as those of us who have seen a lot of LEO training before semiautos took over can attest.

The bottom line, as you pointed out, is that each gun type has its pluses and minuses. Neither is perfect. One needs to make informed choices based on his or her own needs and a solid knowledge of the actual characteristics to determine what fits best for any given situation.

You know, I started to go back and edit my post after I submitted it, but I didn't. You're absolutely right that some semi-automatics are VERY rugged. Glocks are probably the best known, but there are others that meet that criteria (the Springfield XD and XDm pistols come to mind). I've never really been a Glock fan but I do admit that they are designed to keep going bang no matter what you put them through. You're also right about the Glock (and other striker-fired semi-autos) being a simple "point and shoot" interface, just like most double-action revolvers.

I guess what I meant was that if someone just wants a gun for self-defense, without really getting serious about becoming a "gun person", a revolver is a good choice, especially for a woman that might not have the strength to work the slide on some compact semi-autos. They're simple to load, simple to operate, and simple to understand. They're also very reliable unless damaged as you mentioned.

I still think it's easier to clean a revolver. The cylinder chambers on my revolvers don't get that dirty...a couple of passes with a patch gets them cleaned right up. The barrel is quickly cleaned with a Hoppes Bore Snake, and then you just have to scrub the powder residue away from the cylinder and inside the frame. With a semi-auto there are a lot more nooks and crannies. After cleaning my 1911 yesterday, I asked my wife, "What in the heck did people use to clean firearms with before they invented Q-Tips?"

The real answer, as you agreed, is that there are pros and cons to both styles of handgun. The purpose of civilian concealed carry is to defend yourself and loved ones from criminal violence. Most of the time, that's at short-range and against a limited (typically one, maybe a handful) of attackers. Either style of pistol will get the job done in that scenario. It's up to the individual to decide which is best for them.

MojoTexas

MojoTexas wrote:With a semi-auto there are a lot more nooks and crannies.

That's one of the really nice things about my P250 - it comes apart so easily, for cleaning or swapping pieces around. The barrel assembly is one module, the grip another, and the firing mechanism pops out of the grip in one single piece. Yes, still a lot of places where residue can accumulate, but you can get to them all with a soft cloth or a cleaning patch. It takes me less than half the time to clean my Sig than it does my husband's Beretta.

Oh, just in case you were wondering ... Hoppes #9 is NOT good for nail polish or acrylic nails.

MojoTexas wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

MojoTexas wrote:Just to weigh in with my opinion...there are pros and cons to each type of handgun. I own both types, and love 'em all.

it's less susceptible to something breaking under rough use compared to some semi-automatics, and they're easier to clean.

MoJo, I agree with most of your post, except for the highlighted area.

The vaunted ruggedness of the revolver vs. a military grade semiauto like a Glock or Springfield XD is actually an old myth that was frequently called on to forestall the inevitable move from revolvers to semiautos in police agencies. Revolvers have lots of things that can and do go wrong, as those of us who have seen a lot of LEO training before semiautos took over can attest.

The bottom line, as you pointed out, is that each gun type has its pluses and minuses. Neither is perfect. One needs to make informed choices based on his or her own needs and a solid knowledge of the actual characteristics to determine what fits best for any given situation.

You know, I started to go back and edit my post after I submitted it, but I didn't. You're absolutely right that some semi-automatics are VERY rugged. Glocks are probably the best known, but there are others that meet that criteria (the Springfield XD and XDm pistols come to mind). I've never really been a Glock fan but I do admit that they are designed to keep going bang no matter what you put them through. You're also right about the Glock (and other striker-fired semi-autos) being a simple "point and shoot" interface, just like most double-action revolvers.

I guess what I meant was that if someone just wants a gun for self-defense, without really getting serious about becoming a "gun person", a revolver is a good choice, especially for a woman that might not have the strength to work the slide on some compact semi-autos. They're simple to load, simple to operate, and simple to understand. They're also very reliable unless damaged as you mentioned.

I still think it's easier to clean a revolver. The cylinder chambers on my revolvers don't get that dirty...a couple of passes with a patch gets them cleaned right up. The barrel is quickly cleaned with a Hoppes Bore Snake, and then you just have to scrub the powder residue away from the cylinder and inside the frame. With a semi-auto there are a lot more nooks and crannies. After cleaning my 1911 yesterday, I asked my wife, "What in the heck did people use to clean firearms with before they invented Q-Tips?"

The real answer, as you agreed, is that there are pros and cons to both styles of handgun. The purpose of civilian concealed carry is to defend yourself and loved ones from criminal violence. Most of the time, that's at short-range and against a limited (typically one, maybe a handful) of attackers. Either style of pistol will get the job done in that scenario. It's up to the individual to decide which is best for them.

MojoTexas

I fully agree that the revolver is a great choice for someone who needs a gun with a very simple manual of arms, and for someone who has trouble with manipulating the slide on a semiauto as long as they're able to successfully manage the generally heavier DA trigger pull.

I would also agree that it's easier to clean the surface fouling from a revolver than from a semiauto due to the fact there are fewer surfaces involved. However, getting a revolver really clean (I told you I was picky) is a different matter.

To see what I mean, take the revolver you cleaned with a few passes of a wet patch and wet each chamber and the barrel thoroughly with cleaning solvent. Wait about 3 minutes and scrub vigorously with a new bronze brush (to make sure that you're not complicating things with dirt transferred from an old brush.) Then run a clean solvent soaked patch through and see what comes out.

This is the burned on stuff that takes serious work to get out, and why it takes me much longer to clean the revolver's six (or more) chambers and barrel than the semiauto, even with all its nooks and crannies that I've developed pretty quick ways of dealing with over the years. I'm also fussy enough to clean all the burn marks off the front of the cylinder and the forcing cone with lead removal cloth, and that takes some time as well.

VMaxer wrote:Another, and often understated IMO, advantage to a DAO revolver is the reduced chance to be accused in court of 'accidentally' discharging your weapon due to its 'hair trigger'. It's my understanding that prosecutors are eager to use this approach, when they can, for two simple reasons:

1. It's easier to make the jury believe you had your gun cocked and accidentally discharged it when startled than it is to convince them than an otherwise-normal citizen momentarily turned themselves into Jeffrey Dahmer and intentionally took the life of a fine, upstanding person harmed in a shooting.
2. If the accidental label can be attached to a shooting, in many cases this brings the shooter's homeowners insurance company into the equation, as accidental shootings by a homeowner may well be covered by their policy. Intentional acts are not covered. It certainly could add a pair of deep pockets to pick in civil litigation.

For the prosecutor, a conviction is a conviction, and a DAO firearm sort of takes one of their arrows out of the quiver for them.

This is also the reason that I will never lighten the trigger on any carry weapon I own. For example, putting the 3.5 (or now 4.5-lb) connector in any of my Glocks.

[/inal][/opinion]

You're right that it's not a good idea to significantly lighten the factory trigger pull settings because this action can be made to look bad in court. However, the accidental shooting issue is pretty easily disposed of by a defender's statement that he fired intentionally to protect his life.

The myth that a heavy trigger pull will prevent accidental startle response shootings is just that. Lots of unintended shootings due to this phenomenon happened in police work long before semiautos went into duty holsters. A heavier trigger pull is also more difficult to manipulate while keeping the sights on target, leading to more missed and poorly placed shots which carry their own liability and risks. Police firearms qualification scores went up dramatically when departments converted to semiautos.

If your finger is on the trigger when you are startled or when you grip something tightly with your other hand (as in a struggle or to keep yourself from falling) involuntary nervous system responses will cause an adult male's gun hand to suddenly clench with up to 50 pounds of force - way more than the threshold for discharging a gun with a 12 - 14 pound trigger pull. The only way to keep this from happening is to keep the finger outside the trigger guard and alongside the frame until a decision has been made to fire.

Excaliber wrote:

VMaxer wrote:Another, and often understated IMO, advantage to a DAO revolver is the reduced chance to be accused in court of 'accidentally' discharging your weapon due to its 'hair trigger'.

You're right that it's not a good idea to significantly lighten the factory trigger pull settings because this action can be made to look bad in court. However, the accidental shooting issue is pretty easily disposed of by a defender's statement that he fired intentionally to protect his life.

The myth that a heavy trigger pull will prevent accidental startle response shootings is just that. Lots of unintended shootings due to this phenomenon happened in police work long before semiautos went into duty holsters. A heavier trigger pull is also more difficult to manipulate while keeping the sights on target, leading to more missed and poorly placed shots which carry their own liability and risks. Police firearms qualification scores went up dramatically when departments converted to semiautos.

If your finger is on the trigger when you are startled or when you grip something tightly with your other hand (as in a struggle or to keep yourself from falling) involuntary nervous system responses will cause an adult male's gun hand to suddenly clench with up to 50 pounds of force - way more than the threshold for discharging a gun with a 12 - 14 pound trigger pull. The only way to keep this from happening is to keep the finger outside the trigger guard and alongside the frame until a decision has been made to fire.

I believe Massad Ayoob recommends DAO pistols for self-defense so that prosecutors don't go after you with the "hair trigger" angle. I will have to dig up the references tonight. I agree however that training to keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire is the best policy, regardless of what you're shooting.

Without derailing the thread any more than it has been. I would not be so concerned about a semi auto getting out of battery or a revolver getting out of time if you purchase a halfway decent gun.

What I would suggest is that you get with someone or a range that has a decent selection of guns in different sizes and styles to shoot and see what you like and can manage. Then you will need to determine if what you like to shoot and are good with is something that you will actually carry, and have a means to carry it. One of the biggest hurdles of concealed carry is doing the trial and error and finding what works.

The wife loves to shoot her G19, but doesn't like to carry on her person with it, and it is too heavy to put in her concealment purse. She went with at S&W 642 with CT laser. Initially she was only carrying in her purse. After my constant hounding she decided to look for a different method to carry so it would be on person. She finally came up with Undertech compression clothing or belly band. http://magills.com/index/40_Concealment+Clothing/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://magills.com/pgroup_descrip/40_Co ... ode=custom" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BTW, that is not her in the video.

She doesn't like wearing belts and refuses to dress around her gun. Men have it easy. We figure out what gun we like to carry, find a holster and belt combo that holds it close to our body, then find a shirt that covers it and conceals it reasaonably well. Sometimes that even means wearing Hawaiian shirts. I have found that women aren't that easy to dress around the gun.

Depending on your manner of dress, what you do daily, you simply have to make some choices. Use the trial and error method until you find a carry method that will work with your daily dress/lifestyle, or dress like a man. Just kidding.

Here is a website that you might want to look over. She has some really good information all about women's carry.
http://corneredcat.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good luck.

RE: hair triggers and prosecutors

As it specifically relates to the OP's question of semi-auto vs. revolver, I tend not to worry about such things if I ever find myself staring down the gavel from a judge's bench. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 and all that.

But more importantly, I think most of these "prosecutor's tricks" can be easily countered with sound arguments (of course IANAL so what do I know about such things?)

A trigger that FEELS RIGHT to the shooter and helps the shooter shoot their weapon more accurately is always a good thing in my book. Obviously, as with anything, you can go "too far" with this thinking. A 1911 competition gun with a true "hair trigger" is not a good idea for carrying purposes.

Prosecutor: "Why did you intall that hair trigger on your gun. Isn't that dangerous? You were hoping to kill someone weren't you?"
Me: "No sir/ma'am, I was hoping to hit what I was aiming at - and only what I was aiming at - so that I would not injure or kill innocent bystanders. I customized my Glock with a 3.5-pound trigger connector because with constant range practice I realized that gave me the best chance possible to hit my target if, God forbid, I ever had to use my weapon in self-defense, which is what happened on the day in question."

Now apply the same scenario to hollow point bullets, which as we all "know" serve only one purpose - "to kill human beings"

Prosecutor: "You loaded your weapon with Acme Jacketed Razor Talon Hollow Point Man Killer bullets because you wanted to KILL someone, didn't you?"
Me: "No sir/ma'am, I loaded my weapon with hollow point bullets because numerous studies I've read and amateur testing I've conducted myself show they are less likely to overpenetrate a body and cause risk to innocent bystanders, they are more effective at more quickly incapacitating an attacking person or animal - thus stopping or neutralizing the threat to my physical safety, and because most law enforcement officers carry the same or similar ammunition in their weapons for the same or similar reasons"

Of course, the way lawyers work, there's a good chance I'd never be allowed on the stand in the first place. But my point is, a prosecutor's "tricks" would seem to be easily countered in court with sound reasoning, scientific evidence, expert testimony, etc.

Long story short (too late) ... I don't worry that a prosecutor may use a particular aspect of my carry gun against me. If my gun and ammo are legal and I only shot the person who was threatening me with reasonable fear of immediate serious physical injury or death and did not miss and hit an innocent bystander or someone else's property, then I'll take my chances with idiot prosecutors underhanded tricks.

I agree with you, Austinrealtor, that prosecutor tricks wouldn't work as well in this day and age, especially if you had a good attorney and followed all the "rules" of carrying and your use of lethal force was justified as legal self-defense. (A gun is always loaded, be sure of your target, finger off the trigger, etc.) Also I think the general attitude in the state of Texas is more friendly to lawful self-defense.

My point was that Massad Ayoob recommends DAO pistols. Ayoob documented a couple of cases where someone legally had a handgun for self-defense, and the gun went of accidentally, killing someone in a case where it was not justified. I think one case was a US military veteran who heard suspicious noises, fetched his 1911, and when he went to the door he was surprised by a young man on his door step. He flinched and the gun went off, killing the guy, who was unarmed and apparently meant no harm. If I recall correctly, the other case was a police officer "covering" a suspect on a call, and also had an accidental discharge. In both cases the shooters had their fingers on the trigger when they probably should not have. Ayoob's point was that with a longer trigger pull of a DAO pistol, you're less likely to have an accidental discharge when your adrenaline is flowing. I keep meaning to dig out my Ayoob books and dig up the exact references and details, but I haven't had time to do so yet.

Personally, I don't carry DAO handguns all the time, although I own a couple. I just try and train myself to always keep my finger off the trigger until I'm sure I'm ready to shoot.

MojoTexas

MoJo, I agree with most of your post, except for the highlighted area.

The vaunted ruggedness of the revolver vs. a military grade semiauto like a Glock or Springfield XD is actually an old myth that was frequently called on to forestall the inevitable move from revolvers to semiautos in police agencies. Revolvers have lots of things that can and do go wrong, as those of us who have seen a lot of LEO training before semiautos took over can attest.

Dropping a revolver one time on a hard surface has an excellent chance of rearranging the very delicate relationships between the crane, the cylinder, and the barrel. Disruptions in these areas can cause the gun to shave and spit lead sideways when fired because the chambers don't line up exactly with the barrel, or, in severe cases, can cause the cylinder not to turn at all. These are gunsmith fix items.

If you don't watch the screw that secures the crane to the frame, you may open the cylinder for a reload only to watch your cylinder and crane assembly fall out of the gun and onto the ground. Heavy bullets in ultralight revolvers can work the projectiles of loaded rounds out of the cartridge cases as the first couple of rounds are fired, preventing the cylinder from rotating and totally tying up the gun. Revolvers are also very susceptible to sand or mud which gets into the fairly delicate internal moving parts pretty easily and brings all those precisely mated moving parts to a grinding halt. That's why you don't see revolvers in the holsters of the world's premier military forces.

They're also not quick or easy to clean. Six chambers and one barrel take lots longer to clean properly than a single chamber / barrel unit, even when the semiauto's slide and frame cleaning is taken into account. I clean a semiauto in about 20 minutes. To get my revolvers to meet my standards takes 45 minutes to an hour. I may be pickier than most, but I'm that way with the semiautos too.

Semiautos do have a more complicated manual of arms, and require more hand strength, manual dexterity, shooter knowledge and training to operate successfully and reliably. Many officers who were not "gun guys" struggled mightily during the transition to semiautos. However, the better examples are far more rugged than revolvers. I don't know of any revolver that could be dropped from a helicopter a few hundred feet up, or buried it in mud, sand, or ice, dug out, and would then fire a full cartridge load successfully like you can do with a Glock. I'd have to do some detailed counts to determine if a Glock or an S&W Model 642 has more parts that move during the firing cycle, but I see that as a neither here nor there item.

The bottom line, as you pointed out, is that each gun type has its pluses and minuses. Neither is perfect. One needs to make informed choices based on his or her own needs and a solid knowledge of the actual characteristics to determine what fits best for any given situation.[/quote]

Excellent post, some info I had never heard of before with revolvers, thanks.

A compact SIG P250 is a really small gun, so if you need something more concealable then you'd have to go with a subcompact handgun. If you like semi-autos, then try a Kel-Tec P380. It is inexpensive and shoots a respectable 380. Be aware that the light weight and powerful ammo will combine to give you some serious recoil, though. Having an inexpensive and easy to find carry gun is important because if you do shoot someone, they will confiscate your gun as evidence in the investigation, possibly. Meanwhile, the person's friends may pay you a visit. Therefore, you'd have to buy a replacement, pronto. If you replace it with an unfamiliar gun, then your shooting proficiency is decreased.

If I haven't persuaded you to buy a cheap, easy to find gun, then get a Rorhbaugh 9mm. It is the same size as the tiny Kel-Tec P380, but it shoots a 9mm bullet. However, it is an expensive gun with a capital E. However, the Rorhbaugh is the ONLY subcompact gun that had a PERFECT reliability right from the box, as tested by the NRA.


If you like subcompact revolvers, then try a NAA revolver. You can pull a T-shirt over a fake belt buckle that's really a NAA mini-revolver:

Or you could wear a NAA mini-revolver on a necklace like a piece of jewelry. A female friend of mine who is a nude artists' model carries one in plain sight as "jewelry". Only I know that it's a real gun:

There is no more danger of a semi-auto jamming out of battery than a revolver jamming because the timing mechanism is off. As a matter of fact, military semi-autos such as SIGs and Glocks are more reliable than revolvers. That's why armies use them. The original Glock 17 was torture tested by throwing them out the window of a tall building. They still worked afterwards. I don't know of any revolver that can be thrown out a 3rd story window and still works. Just test shoot both guns by renting them at the local range or borrow one from a friend and then decide based on personal experience.

Have you considered carrying that SIG of yours in a purse holster? Or Smartcarry?

Welcome to the forum,

texasjeep44 wrote:... or dress like a man. Just kidding.

Oh, you mean like when I wear fire-retardant clothing, a hard hat, and steel-toed boots?
Yeah, but I can't carry inside our manufacturing plants - company policy. They're paying me, so I'm doing what they say.

drjoker wrote:A compact SIG P250 is a really small gun, so if you need something more concealable then you'd have to go with a subcompact handgun. If you like semi-autos, then try a Kel-Tec P380. It is inexpensive and shoots a respectable 380. Be aware that the light weight and powerful ammo will combine to give you some serious recoil, though.

Have you considered carrying that SIG of yours in a purse holster? Or Smartcarry?

Welcome to the forum,

I've never shot a subcompact revolver, so that is something I need to check out. I've got both the compact and subcompact grip assemblies for my Sig, and I'm okay with either (somewhat less accurate with the subcompact, I think because my pinky finger doesn't fit on the grip and I'm fiddling with it). At the suggestion of a friend, I wore it around the house last weekend in my OWB holster, and it was awkward at best. I'm sure that's partly because it was a new sensation, but it did seem to get in the way of bending over, picking up laundry, raking ... normal activities.

I'm checking on the SmartCarry, frankly I'm not sure about how comfortable that would be when my flabby belly already fills some of that area when I'm sitting. Maybe one of those belly belts ... the compression shorts are a good idea but man, those photos and video at Magill's are NOT the way to sell the things to women - or, at least, not to women who aren't perfectly stacked and don't wear skin blue jeans with platform high heels.

Purse carry is okay, I think, at least as a part-time option - but I tend to have a problem with keeping my purse with me, it could easily be a room or two away. Bad habit, I know. I'm pretty good about keeping it close when I'm in stores and such, it's other places like parties and soccer games that I'm concerned about. I'm not terribly worried about it getting stolen with the gun in it so much as the gun not being close if I needed it, and who else (like kids) is closer to it than I am.

So yeah, at this point I'm thinking I need to get a smaller gun and carry it on me, with the purse-carry for backup or where I can't carry on my body. I've shot a couple, didn't think the fit/finish of the P3AT I shot was all that good, but I liked the size and slimness of it. Recoil wasn't wonderful, obviously - all that energy and so little mass to soak it up - but it didn't knock me on my kiester or anything like that.

I had to laugh at your description of the P250 as "a really small gun", though - as just yesterday, when I was browsing on-line for a CC purse, I sent an inquiry to see if one particular model of purse could accommodate mine. The lady replied back with "wow, that's a really big gun!" Guess it's a matter of perspective.

Thanks for all the info and advice!