I posted a thread over in the revolver forum detailing some questions I have regarding airweights vs all steel snubbies. Basically, I’m looking to pick up a dedicated training gun that may get double duty as an IWB or A-IWB primary carry gun in a tuck-able holster (when attire won’t let me carry my G26). My current 642-1 will remain a dedicated ankle or pocket 2nd gun.
I can see advantages to getting another airweight both for training and carry (train with what I carry and greater carry options). I also see advantages to getting an all steel 640-1 or SP101 (greater durability and easier training).
If I select an all steel snubby, I could go with a 3" model 60 or the 3 1/8" SP101. Both would be converted to snag free and DAO. Per Doc’s recommendations, I will not be using 357’s in either gun. My carry load will be what I carry in my 642-1: GD 135gr +p short barrel load.
My question here - do I gain enough of a ballistic advantage in going with a 3" barrel to justify the extra weight, extra cost (converting to snag free and DAO) and loss of ankle / pocket carry options?
Ill respectfuly disagree and say YES, there is SOME gain in ballistics…but “enough to justify” added weight/bulk is your call.
What you DO gain, imo…in a 3" is more “shootability”. The SP101
is rock solid, period. And, your gonna feel it on your hip, I promise.
BUT, as Clint Smith says, “carrying a gun isn’t meant to be comfortable, its meant to be comforting”. Faster follow up, less recoil,
are but a few of the advantages of a 3" piece. Its all gonna depend on how much and how you practice, really.
But as Clint Smith didn’t say “Uncomfortable guns get left home more than comfortable guns” Unless you want to make packing heat as expensive and complicated as you can just shoot the 642, it really was made for that.
The performance of my chosen GD 135gr +p round out of a 642 will be the same out of the 2 1/8" 640-1 or the 2 1/4" SP101. The weight of these two all steel guns is about what my G26 weighs, so no real difference in “comfort” here. The all steel guns should hide better under a covering garment or in a tuckable holster, but are not really suited to pocket carry (although they would likely be better in a pocket than my G26).
Ankle carry is a big unknown, but I have my 642-1 for my ankle. These all steel guns would be for a) training and b) possible IWB carry.
It’s the 3" versions I do not know much about. Should be fine in an IWB, not so much in a pocket. I still have my 642 for my ankle. I was just wondering if whatever performance boost the extra 1" of barrel gave the GD 135gr +p was significant enough to justify the gun.
If I stick with a second 642, I get easier carry but harder practice and reduced durability. If I get the “small” all steel guns, I get belt carry, possible pocket carry and easier training. If I get the “bigger” all steel guns, I am limited pretty much to IWB only, but superior handling in a training environment.
If the performance boost is not that great, I will probably stick with either another 642 or the short barrel 640 / SP101. They offer more carry options and less cost. If the performance boost of a 3" barrel is significant, then I’ll have to give it more thought.
I have a chrono, a 3" M13 but no 2" revo. If I did I would chrono to find out just what difference there is. I imagine with the right powder, bullet weight combo there could be a measurable difference.
I haven’t chronographed a large number of 2" to 3" .38 Spls. That has never stopped me from expressing my opinion before, though.
I believe that you will find almost as much variation in muzzle velocity between different 2" guns as you will between 2" and 3" guns. That is, some 2" guns will shoot faster than some 3" guns, even if a 1000 3" guns shoot slightly faster on average than 1000 2" guns.
It is not much use today, but the Colt .38 Spl wheelguns I have chronoed usually produced higher velocities than same barrel length models from S&W or Ruger.
These small differences may be interesting statistically, but as a practical matter, it is a difference which does not make much of a difference.
I need to make a snubby revolver decision pretty soon. Do I get enough of a performance boost with a 3" barrel vs a 2" barrel to justify the added cost and reduced carry options?
If you like a substantially heavier handgun, with a different manual of arms, chambered for a caliber that you’re not even going to shoot, by all means get the SP101 (BTDT, sold the SP101). Except for ankle carry I don’t see that the extra bbl length of the 3" revolver is going to make that much of a difference in concealability. I’ve not personally chronographed a 2" and 3" wheelgun on the same day with the same ammo so I can’t speak to the performance difference. Speer may have some data out there for your consumption. Good luck on the search.
That size and weight of a pistol you’re well much into G26/M&P Compact territory. Slightly larger/heavier in fact. 12x 124gr +P 9mm hollow points vs. 5x 135gr +P 38 spl. hollow points seems like an easy decision to me.
To me the whole point of a j-frame is a 11.4 oz., very compact revolver that is easy to carry/conceal. Not like I would feel “unarmed” with a 3 in. steel revolver, but still I think there are much better options.
ETA: I will echo the SP101 suggestion. Great .357.
I also don’t know how much of an advantage the three inch gives you bakkistically, if any. I have one older three inch 60 in 38, and the longer sight radius does make some difference. It may not necessarily be that much more accurate, but it feels good. Either way, consider using one of the more modern loads designed for the shorter barrels. Also it is very true that the linger ejector rod works about 100% better.