View Full Version : revolver.....yes or no?
Here's an article by Robert Kolesar on carrying a revolver for personal protection
Revolvers still a viable option (http://www.tacticalgunfan.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=581&Itemid=1)
Bob is a retired LA PD cop and a Master Sergeant in the US Army. He has a lot of experience gained both on the city streets and in combat
and makes some good points.
I like J-frame Smith's and won't be getting rid of mine any time soon, but prefer autos.
My question is, after reading the article what do YOU think? Comments on his article?
Refreshing to read something written by a revolver aficionado that doesn't put forth the assertion that semiautos will get you killed because they malfunction.
I, too, carry a S&W 442, with Crimson Trace lasergrips, as a backup gun to my 1911.
In the woods I carry a S&W 686 with 180gr Partition Gold.
I agree with nearly everything he said. I just prefer to carry a larger handgun.
woodandsteel
07-25-09, 15:28
I have no problems with people carrying revolvers. For many years, my off duty weapon of choice was a .38 Spl S&W Model 36. My issue gun back then was a Glock 22 and I also had a Beretta 92 SF. I could not only shoot the .38 better, I could also conceal it better. (Back then, our Glocks had aftermarket 8 pound triggers on them)
Now I prefer my Glock 23 (with the standard 5 1/2 pound trigger) to my revolver. It conceals just as easy, and I am very proficient with the Glock.
For most people who ccw for self protection, I think that a revolver would be adequate. I wouldn't try to sway a person one way or another when it comes to what kind of handgun they arm themsleves with. What ever they feel more comfortable with, and whatever they can shoot better, is what they should carry.
I still have a soft spot in my heart for the revolver. But, I think I will always carry a Glock.
You have to love the Smith and Wesson for there simplicity and size if nothing.
That is my opinion on the subject I shot a revolver in three day Vickers carbine class and did not have any trouble i even won some drills with it. I like to carry one in certain situations thy are the only gun that i will carry.Can you think of a pistol that will run well in the size of a J frame Smith and Wesson.
SUPERIOR FIREARMS LLC.
5510 Fern Vally RD. ste 102
Louisville KY, 40228
502-365-2244
Do they still reliably launch projectiles at speeds far in excess of what my fists travel?
If yes, then they're viable. If no, then it's because my fists are that damn awesome. Either option works with me.
-B
geminidglocker
07-25-09, 18:16
A hammerless revolver can be fired reliably whilst still in a pocket. Let's see a pistol do that. Yes, a revolver is a revolver and an auto is a pistol.:D
My wife carries a S&W 340PD in .357 Magnum in either a pocket or on her ankle. You can't find a smaller, lighter, hand cannon than that one.
I've toyed with the idea of using revolvers (S&W 625 JM 4" and 686P 3") as a night stand gun on a couple of occasions.
But the cold hard truth for me is that semi-autos are FAR easier to shoot faster and more accurately than a revolver. Sure the wheel gun invokes a feeling of nostalgia, simplicity, and toughness that you don't typically get from the newest polymer auto. But when it comes to protecting myself or my family, I know I can do it better with an auto.
Littlelebowski
07-25-09, 22:41
A hammerless revolver can be fired reliably whilst still in a pocket. Let's see a pistol do that. Yes, a revolver is a revolver and an auto is a pistol.:D
What-iffing a bit much, aren't you?
ChristisKing
07-25-09, 23:14
Depends on what I'm wearing and where I'm going but I often carry a J frame.
I was worried about carrying a small gun so I decided to shoot it at IDPA one weekend. I realized I could make headshots at a distance of 30 feet. I figured under a clock and moving fast I didn't do too bad and shot placement is half the battle. I'm not saying I would take head shots if I don't have to but I know I will hit center of the center mass with that little gun.
it's got its charms. i'm quite satisfied with my glock 26 at the moment though.
i think if i wanted something even more concealable i'd go with an airweight 38 rather than one of the little pocket autos that are so popular right now.
I agree with his article, particularly regarding his discussion of tactics and aggressor psychology based on his street experience.
I think that while a revolver can be perfectly viable as a defensive weapon, I think that there are some caveats to consider:
First, due to the longer/heavier (generally speaking) DA trigger stroke, I think that a revolver is intrinsically harder to master, particularly regarding fast shooting where repetitive shots are required. Not impossible, but intrinsically more difficult than an automatic, particularly a Glock, with a short trigger stroke.
Second, a revolver is harder to reload under stress, unless the user has diligently and repetitively practiced using speedloaders under stress, and has their use engrained in muscle memory. For many of us, the ergonomics of revolvers, combined with the juggling involved with releasing the cylinder and obtaining a speedloader (or speedstrip {which really isn't so speedy}, and then inserting the cartridges into the cylinder, divesting the speedloader from the cartridges, closing the cylinder, and then resuming tactical activities is a conundrum requiring disproportonate time and skills much more easily mastered with an autopistol.
Third, a revolver is harder to carry concealed-actually, the revolver ITSELF isn't what's so difficult (in a good IWB holster, it actually tucks into one's side and conceals nicely)-it's concealing the speedloaders, which tend to akwardly protrude (and visibly print) from ones' side when carried in most speedloader pouches.
Forth, when you factor in recoil and muzzle flip, revolver shooters (including myself) may shy away from using .357 magnum and concentrate on .38 Special (in my case, Remington 125 gr Golden Saber .38 Special +P), sacrificing the higher stopping power potential of a 125 gr .357 magnum hollowpoint for the increased comfort and decreased shot-to-shot recovery time of the .38 Special, going the +P route as a compromise (and realizing that it's a compromise, and factoring that into my tactical planning/awareness). If I want .357 magnum performance, I'll usually go to my SIG-Sauer P229 in .357 SIG, which has less recoil and is easier (for me) to shoot quickly and accurately-as opposed to switching to .357 magnum cartridges in a revolver.
I have two "combat" revolvers-a Ruger GP100 and a Security Six. I have excellent holsters (and speedloader/speedstrip pouches) for them both. I occassionally use them for carry, and at least once a year compete in an IDPA match with one or the other, and slightly more frequently use them in steel plate competitions. But I freely admit that to truly excel with them in either a competition or tactical environment would require me to spend far more dedicated time and effort with them. Others may, and will see their efforts rewarded. I prefer to primarily rely upon, and hence dedicate my time with my autopistol platforms, concentrating on Glock and 1911.
Otherwise, I think that for general use a revolver can particularly excel as a nightstand gun, or where there's a strong possibility that a gun might have to be shared with a non-dedicated shooter-especially because of the heavier,, longer DA trigger being more preclusive of an accidental discharge, and the lack of complicating levers, safeties, etc (at least until one has to reload...).
Best, Jon
Gutshot John
07-26-09, 09:50
A hammerless revolver can be fired reliably whilst still in a pocket.
Indeed that's a nice advantage.
In terms of disadvantage a revolver can be easily stopped from functioning by the BG grabbing the cylinder.
An auto will fire at least one shot if grabbed.
Revolvers have their place, but nothing has a monopoly on reliability.
Autos bring A LOT of advantages to a gunfight.
"An auto will fire at least one shot if grabbed."
Not so, grabbing an auto that is held in someone else's hand almost always moves the slide out of battery.
I feel a revolver can still be a viable choice for many defensive situations. Autoloaders have a number of advantages in my opinion but I still feel perfectly safe carrying my J frame at times. I have used a revolver for so many years it's use comes as second nature to me. This will vary between users, depending on experiences and backgrounds.
In agreement with something JoninWa referred to, I think revolvers make a good choice for many non-enthusiast shooters. As many of you have, I've had a number of people ask for handguns recommendations over the years. They're usually ones who will not practice or become intimately familiar with their choice, they simply want something for defense. Usually after presenting them with various options I end up recommending a good .38 Special.
I don't see much of a role for full size revolvers these days and will always carry an auto if I can simply because I shoot them much better. The 442/642 will always be in my toolbox though and it gets carried occasionally when the carry method and circumstances dictate a lighter, less "blocky" gun.
I
Otherwise, I think that for general use a revolver can particularly excel as a nightstand gun, or where there's a strong possibility that a gun might have to be shared with a non-dedicated shooter-especially because of the heavier,, longer DA trigger being more preclusive of an accidental discharge, and the lack of complicating levers, safeties, etc (at least until one has to reload...).
I've heard a lot of people recommend revolvers for "non-dedicated users," which to me is a euphemism for people who just like the idea of owning a gun to protect themselves but refuse to engage in any real training or practice. In fact, I've had a few "non-dedicated user" friends ask what they should get. My response has always been "good training and practice."
These concerns are best addressed by having said people attend at least a NRA basic pistol class where they learn how both revolvers and autos operate, then by allowing them to practice with whatever gun is in the nightstand. That is much more important than what kind if gun is in the nightstand.
I usually have a 642 in my pocket. When I'm working or when I can comfortably conceal it I carry my issued 229 in .357 SIG but as long as I have pockets I can easily carry the 642. After going through firearms instructor school about a year and a half ago I was impressed with how well I shot my nickel Model 19 and was going to start carrying it every once in a while at work (depending on where I was working, I go all over the state). I wouldn't have carried it going into the nasty parts of Dallas or Houston but probably would have out in West Texas from time to time. Then they changed our policy and we can only carry our issued gun on duty. Even so, I would not have been uncomfortable carrying my revolver and when I'm hunting or playing in the woods I often carry it loaded with 180 grain Grizzly Flat Points.
I also recently acquired an older Model 10 (1964) that is a really nice shooting gun with a wonderful trigger. The idea is that it will be my son's first centerfire handgun when he's old enough (that's what I told my wife anyway). I have recommended a Model 10 as a good starting out gun for some folks who have asked.
What do I think after reading this article? I agree! Like Mr. Kolesar, I started my career carrying a .357 revolver with 18 rounds (6 in the gun and two Safariland speed loaders) and NEVER felt under gunned. I still carry a 340PD with me daily on duty or off.
Perhaps I just have a soft spot in my heart for revolvers or perhaps the 357 cartridge, but I still wouldn't have a problem carrying around one of those new Smith and Wesson 327 R8 for a duty gun!
I've heard a lot of people recommend revolvers for "non-dedicated users," which to me is a euphemism for people who just like the idea of owning a gun to protect themselves but refuse to engage in any real training or practice. In fact, I've had a few "non-dedicated user" friends ask what they should get. My response has always been "good training and practice."
That's certainly fine in an ideal world, but the reality is that many, many people are going to buy a gun, load it, put it in a drawer, and never touch it again. For those people, a revolver is a much better choice because:
It's easier to load properly.
It's easier to unload & safe properly.
It's easier to identify loaded/unloaded status.
It's harder to discharge accidentally.
It's less prone to user-induced stoppages.
Even a cheap revolver is likely to work adequately in an emergency.
For someone likely to get reasonable training and engage in regular practice, the semiauto wins hands down. For an equal expenditure of resources (time & ammo) a shooter is going to be more capable in practical "defensive" terms with a semiauto than a revolver.
Having said that, a .22 DA revolver is one of the best tools on Earth for building proper marksmanship fundamentals.
That's certainly fine in an ideal world, but the reality is that many, many people are going to buy a gun, load it, put it in a drawer, and never touch it again.
I guess my point wasn't clear - I want nothing to do with those people and I hope they don't live near me. They are a liability to their neighbors and loved ones if they're willing to spend hundreds of dollars on a handgun and ammo but won't invest an afternoon and $50 for a basic class. It reminds me of people who buy a boat and don't even take a basic USCG or Power Squadron class to learn the rules and basic safety.
For those people, a revolver is a much better choice because:[
It's easier to load properly.
It's easier to unload & safe properly.
It's easier to identify loaded/unloaded status.
It's harder to discharge accidentally.
It's less prone to user-induced stoppages.
Even a cheap revolver is likely to work adequately in an emergency.
For someone likely to get reasonable training and engage in regular practice, the semiauto wins hands down. For an equal expenditure of resources (time & ammo) a shooter is going to be more capable in practical "defensive" terms with a semiauto than a revolver.
I don't disagree at all that a revolver is administratively more idiot-proof than an auto, which is of course why people recommend it to the "buy it and forget it" crowd. I still think I'm doing a great disservice if I get into discussions of hardware before addressing training because in the end they are still buying a gun and even for a "stay at home" gun there are still things those people need to learn.
Littlelebowski
07-26-09, 15:30
Todd, what's your take on a revolver vs semi auto for carry/classes/all around use?
John_Wayne777
07-26-09, 16:08
Todd, what's your take on a revolver vs semi auto for carry/classes/all around use?
Well, I can't answer for Todd....but I did pull out my 442 in the bunk room at BW (it will always be Blackwater to me) and Todd ran from the room screaming "UNCLEAN!!! UNCLEAN!!!"
Well, I can't answer for Todd....but I did pull out my 442 in the bunk room at BW (it will always be Blackwater to me) and Todd ran from the room screaming "UNCLEAN!!! UNCLEAN!!!"
Dude... this needs to be on YouTube. :D
-B
Littlelebowski
07-26-09, 16:31
Well, I can't answer for Todd....but I did pull out my 442 in the bunk room at BW (it will always be Blackwater to me) and Todd ran from the room screaming "UNCLEAN!!! UNCLEAN!!!"
Did he make the sign of the cross?
Todd, what's your take on a revolver vs semi auto for carry/classes/all around use?
Semiauto's manual of arms is harder to learn and requires more devotion. If you can get past that, it's superior in essentially every way as an anti-personnel weapon. It's no accident that every military and just about every LE agency uses semiautos.
And contrary to JW777's spin on the story, it wasn't his revolver that made me run from the room screaming "Unclean!" Someone really needs to devote some laundry room time to skid marks, is all I'm sayin' ...
Littlelebowski
07-27-09, 11:52
So what would hold up to abuse better; a stock revolver or a G17/G19?
Edit: Let me clarify that. Not abuse per se but hard use.
Take it for what it is worth. We recently transferred Smith & Wesson model 10 manufactured at the turn of the last century. This unmodified revolver was obviously well used over the past 100 plus years and functions today just as well as it did the day it left the factory. This is not a dig toward a Glock it is just that I have more than a century of evidence to base my opinion on with the wheel gun.
Depends on what I'm wearing and where I'm going but I often carry a J frame.
I was worried about carrying a small gun so I decided to shoot it at IDPA one weekend. I realized I could make headshots at a distance of 30 feet. I figured under a clock and moving fast I didn't do too bad and shot placement is half the battle. I'm not saying I would take head shots if I don't have to but I know I will hit center of the center mass with that little gun.
I'm assuming the J-frame you mentioned is a 5-shot. How did you shoot IDPA with it, since IDPA is done in multiples of 6 rounds?
Hi I am retired military and spent 15 years in law enforcement before my medical condition forced me into other employment. A double action is an excellent weapon for the novice or someone unwillingly to devote the require time to become profiecient. When asked by some about home defense I recommend a short barrel shotgun. My normal carry weapon now as a "civilian" with a CCW is a Glock 19 or a Tripp 1911.
A revolver will always have it place in our society. A weapon is a tool and when I need to attach nails I use a hammer. If I was going back packing in most states I would carry a 44 magnum the S&W 329 are great woods guns. If I was defending my house my carbine will do or as previously mentioned a shotgun.
Great forum with tons of useful information and opinions.
My mom carried a S&W Model 13-3 in her purse for as long as I could remember, even before TX had a concealed carry law. It sure came in handy when she killed the crackhead that was trying to kick in the backdoor of our house when my dad was working night shift. One .357 hydrashock through the throat took care of the situation nicely. So yeah, I'm kinda partial to revolvers and carry one frequently today.
They are a liability to their neighbors and loved ones if they're willing to spend hundreds of dollars on a handgun and ammo but won't invest an afternoon and $50 for a basic class.
I still think I'm doing a great disservice if I get into discussions of hardware before addressing training because in the end they are still buying a gun and even for a "stay at home" gun there are still things those people need to learn.
I don't think anyone would disagree with you there, but I don't think that an afternoon is nearly enough time to spend with an auto, while it may be enough with a revolver.
With a revolver, learning how to load and shoot (safely) is the minimum IMO. With and auto-pistol, it takes a lot of time to be able to diagnose and clear a malfunction in a split second if you intend on using that pistol for defense. I would almost compare it to learning a side-by-side shotgun vs. learning a carbine.
Nomatter what, when recommending a firearm you do have to consider how much time that person is willing to spend learning how to use it.
I carry my S&W 640 J-frame plus reload when not carrying a Sig/Glock 9mm or 40. The J frame is tucked away in a pocket holster and is quick and easy to get to as if reaching for my wallet I use +P loads. It's also my BUG at work. I like the handiness of the pocket pistol and understand it's advantages and weakness. I'm not looking for a fight or being a victim but it sure feels good to know I'm not a sheep.
I carry a S&W 638 about 50% of the time based on wardrobe limitations. I wouldn't mind a snub nose that accepted 9x19mm rounds directly into the chamber (although I don't know how the ejector mechanism would be designed) so then I could carry a Glock 19 mag as a bullet reservoir allowing me to strip rounds directly into the chamber during a reload. Such a chambered snub would also make great sense as a BUG for a 9mm main gun. Or is this idea crystallized ridiculousness ?
......carry a Glock 19 mag as a bullet reservoir allowing me to strip rounds directly into the chamber during a reload. Such a chambered snub would also make great sense as a BUG for a 9mm main gun. Or is this idea crystallized ridiculousness ?
I think thats actually a pretty good idea. Moon clips are known to bend easily.
Here is a 38 Spl S&W that really wanted to be a 9mm and was rechambered... You do not have to use the 9mm moon clips, but then you need to use your pencil to push out the empties when you reload...
B
2890
P.S. Just a FYI... This is not my revolver, but I thought it was well done...
John_Wayne777
07-29-09, 08:02
I always thought the S&W 9mm revolvers were a good idea. I was sorely disappointed to see S&W discontinue them...
Cruncher Block
07-29-09, 21:39
I have a lot of respect for those who can effectively transition between pistol, revolver, single-action w/safety, double-action, or safe-action. I can't do it. I first started shooting with a 4" 686 and later started using a Glock.
When I took a force-on-force/simunitions class, they handed us S&W revolvers for the exercise. Being "an old revolver guy" (*snicker* at age 33), I thought I'd do just fine.
Uh-uh.... when the adrenaline dumped, I fired one shot then used a diligently practiced Glock short reset for the follow-up.
From a "lessons learned" perspective, the events that immediately followed were kind of interesting:
1. No bang. I thought perhaps the chamber was empty (trainer trying to trip me up), the revolver was broken, or the round was a dud.
2. I was aware of the fact that the cylinder had rotated but the hammer didn't fall. I wasn't sure what the relationship was between this and point #1.
3. "Bad guy" still has his gun pointed at me!
(That muzzle is huge. How did he get a .50 caliber revolver? I thought we were using .38s. ;) )
4. Pull the trigger again! This time I used a full, deliberate stroke and shot #3 worked.
For me, that was the end of the revolver as a carry choice because I knew I wasn't going to practice with it enough to be proficient with it. For the person who does practice regularly with it, though, this probably doesn't apply.
On the other hand, it's worth noting that the instinctive reaction to the revolver "malfunction" was actually the correct one.
"An auto will fire at least one shot if grabbed."
Not so, grabbing an auto that is held in someone else's hand almost always moves the slide out of battery.
yank the gun back just before pulling the trigger...
Wallah! back in battery..
But that is a good point you bring up. If you aren't prepared for that, you won't get your shot off.
In addition to the 2 or 3 S&W 9mms I believe Ruger also offered the SP101 in 9mm.
A hammerless revolver can be fired reliably whilst still in a pocket. Let's see a pistol do that. Yes, a revolver is a revolver and an auto is a pistol.:D
What-iffing a bit much, aren't you?
No, in certain situations, a hammerless J-frame's ability to be held in a coat pocket and fired through the pocket, if necessary, could be very useful.
The hammerless J-frames were also recommended for females, years back, because there was a mindset that females would carry a handgun in their purse, and a hammerless revolver would be less likely to snag keys, tissues, etc., than a revolver with an exposed hammer.
I used to carry a hammerless J-frame as a BUG, but I changed to a Kahr PM9.
I had a S&W 940 for awhile, it was a terribly unreliable gun.
About 10-15 years ago I tried the reload from a loaded mag idea with the 940 carried as a BUG, would have worked fine except that even with moon clips the 940 had serious issues with cases sticking.
Heavy little beast as well.
The 9mm K frame design made to work without moon clips by using a spring loaded extractor star never took off for whatever reason.
A lot of the 940s had problems with extraction due to rough cylinder walls. Once polished they would extract fine. I've seen where some folks have taken them out to 9x23 also.
If they made a 942 I'd have gotten one instead of my 642. I like my 642 but I would rather have 9mm than .38spl.
Mine went back to S&W twice before they agreed to replace it with a 642, I assumed if the factory couldn't fix it then it couldn't be fixed.
They quit making those for a reason.
Conversion to 9X21 or 9X23 would disallow use of 9X19 ammo without clips in an emergency.
Theoretically it's a good idea, but for some reason after several folks have tried we still don't have a decent working 9mm revolver.
Just sayin.
What about the current Taurus 9mm snubs? What kind of rep to they have?
I just looked up the Charter Arms website after I read about a rumor about them coming out with a snub (http://www.charterfirearms.com/products/CARR.html) for rimless rounds that doesn't use the moon clips. I am just not sure about durability/quality/reliability with Charter Arms; comments :confused:
Littlelebowski
08-01-09, 15:38
Wrong review.
Littlelebowski
08-01-09, 15:40
No, in certain situations, a hammerless J-frame's ability to be held in a coat pocket and fired through the pocket, if necessary, could be very useful.
The hammerless J-frames were also recommended for females, years back, because there was a mindset that females would carry a handgun in their purse, and a hammerless revolver would be less likely to snag keys, tissues, etc., than a revolver with an exposed hammer.
I used to carry a hammerless J-frame as a BUG, but I changed to a Kahr PM9.
I don't have that active of an imagination so I'll stick to autos.
Although my experience is with the "old" Charter Arms, the newer guns seem to be exactly the same design, and have varied between the same or a lesser appearance of quality in construction.
I had a 5 shot .38 I had bought, a model that came with a bobbed hammer from the factory. I thought it was going to be a good little carry piece.
I wrecked the gun with exactly 47 rounds of Remington 125gr +P JHP.
Since then I have seen Charter Arms' revolvers with glued on barrel shrouds, etc.
I'll pass.
Although my experience is with the "old" Charter Arms, the newer guns seem to be exactly the same design, and have varied between the same or a lesser appearance of quality in construction.
I had a 5 shot .38 I had bought, a model that came with a bobbed hammer from the factory. I thought it was going to be a good little carry piece.
I wrecked the gun with exactly 47 rounds of Remington 125gr +P JHP.
Since then I have seen Charter Arms' revolvers with glued on barrel shrouds, etc.
I'll pass.
Yeah I would have been surprised to hear anyone give any positive Charter Arms testimonials. It does seem that they are in the Rossi/Taurus, or below, stratum of quality, or lack thereof, and not for serious users (although I realize a few Taurus guns can be OK). Thanks much for relating your experience. I'm just curious: did they have their "lifetime" warranty back then and did they fix the gun?
My experience was in the early 80s, I don't recall the exact time frame, but they had not started making the 442/642 yet so I had been looking for a no-snag 5 shot for carry.
Can't tell you about the warranty then, I took the gun back to Pat's Pawn and Gun in Ogden KS and he let me trade it in on a Speed Six. Pat stood behind what he sold as long as you weren't a moron and blew up the gun or whatever.
In my experience the Charter Arms guns are well below Taurus in quality and materials. I have shot the crap out of a PT99 that I bought about the same time frame, and I have used several of their 5 shot .357s without issue.
My experience was in the early 80s, I don't recall the exact time frame, but they had not started making the 442/642 yet so I had been looking for a no-snag 5 shot for carry.
Can't tell you about the warranty then, I took the gun back to Pat's Pawn and Gun in Ogden KS and he let me trade it in on a Speed Six. Pat stood behind what he sold as long as you weren't a moron and blew up the gun or whatever.
In my experience the Charter Arms guns are well below Taurus in quality and materials. I have shot the crap out of a PT99 that I bought about the same time frame, and I have used several of their 5 shot .357s without issue.
Gotcha. Nice to have a shop that provides that type of customer support.
I also like the PT99 and I also like the M85, and these seem to be consistently solid guns from Taurus.
CryingWolf
08-02-09, 21:22
Here is a 38 Spl S&W that really wanted to be a 9mm and was rechambered... You do not have to use the 9mm moon clips, but then you need to use your pencil to push out the empties when you reload...
B
2890
P.S. Just a FYI... This is not my revolver, but I thought it was well done...
I know Charter arms is working on a 9mm rimless revolver (no need for moon clips and you should be able to empty as normal. Nice thing is the 9mm will shoot .380 as well.
I have been known to carry a Ruger GP100 in .357 mag from time to time. Heavy but I feel secure with it.
"Here is a 38 Spl S&W that really wanted to be a 9mm and was rechambered.."
Just guessing, but I imagine that it will still shoot .38s as well.
CryingWolf
08-03-09, 09:10
You can see the Charter arms rimless revolver at http://www.charterfirearms.com/products/CARR.html
They are going to offer it in .40, 45ACP, and 9mm. The 9mm version will shoot .380 my guess it cannot shoot any rimmed cartridge such as .38
Although I am not totally impressed with Charter Arms the 9mm Rimless Revolver is intriguing.
http://www.charterfirearms.com/images/carr1.gif
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.