Question: Revolver (e.g. LCR) vs. Semi-Auto (e.g. LC9)
All,
I've read a lot about pocket carry, and it seems that *most* consider single-stack 9mm semi-automatic pistols (e.g. Glock 43, Ruger LC9, Smith & Wesson Shield, etc) to be slightly too large for pocket carry. The only exception seems to be the Kahr PM9/CM9.
However, *most* also consider a lightweight revolver (e.g. Ruger LCR, Smith & Wesson J-frame) to be ideal for pocket carry. (One even called the Smith & Wesson 442 the "king of pocket carry".)
I don't understand:
http://armspost.com/wp-content/uploa...rLCPLC9LCR.jpg
What's going on?
1. Sure, the LCR is bigger, but it's less "boxy" and looks less like a gun in someone's front pocket?
2. Sure, the LCR is bigger, but it weighs a lot less than an LC9?
3. Revolver guys tend to be "old school" -- so even though revolvers are empirically bigger, they just like their perceived advantages (e.g. simplicity, ability to fire within the pocket, etc)?
Not trying to start a flame war or get into a revolver vs. semi-auto debate. Genuinely trying to understand what's going on here -- why is it "conventional wisdom" that the LC9 is too big for pocket carry, but the LCR is ideal?
Very Respectfully,
butlers