Smith & Wesson Model 642

File: HPIM0745.jpg (2MB, 2304x1728px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2304x1728px

>>33314402
Good for carry yes. Range toy, not so much. Of course you need range time to make sure you are familiar with your CCW gun and can shoot it well but to just take a 642 out to blow through a couple boxes of ammo? Nah. The sight radius is too short for shooting at any meaningful distance and accuracy. the gun is light so felt recoil with decent loads is fairly heavy. A longer barreled steel pistol like a S&W model 10 or an old Colt Official Police would be more fun if you ask me.

File: HPIM0674.jpg (836KB, 2214x1654px) Image search: [Google]

836KB, 2214x1654px

>>33314617
Something like this you can shoot all day at the range.

>>33314402
>having shoestring budget for range toy
>not buying used

http://www.jgsales.com/handguns-c-16_211_431.html

File: rugersp101.jpg (6KB, 300x190px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 300x190px

>>33314402
Was looking at a 442 or 642 for similar reasons, but I think I'm actually going to get a Ruger SP101 3". Lil bigger for a more fun range gun that I'll shoot more, still usable as a belt gun. Only sacrifice is not being pocketable like the 642.

Oh and they sell for around 500 so very affordable.

>>33314617
>>33314634
Thanks for the advice. I def like the looks of the Model 10, but it's twice the price of the 642. I'd be breaking bank a little as a poorfag.
Model 67 is doable for me, though. Does it get a recommend?

>>33314671
Thanks.

>>33314679
Model 67 is a stainless Model 15 (model 10 with adjustable sights)

>>33314678
Local shop (the FFL being a family friend and a reference on my LTC app) has these for cheap, thanks for the tip.

>>33314689
Sounds perfect.

>>33314402
OP, many people don't think snubnoses--especially Airweight aluminum ones--are very fun to shoot, but I actually really like spending time at the range with my own 642.

There are a few reasons for this. The first is that it is important to practice with what you will be carrying and using, and I happen to carry and use a 642. The second is that the 642 is a superb training tool for pistol shooting in general. DAO snubnoses are the hardest of all handguns to shoot well; conversely, this means that someone who is able to shoot a DAO snubnose well has a high degree of proficiency with all of the necessary skills of good handgun shooting. Regular practice with my 642 has helped me to clean up mistakes with my grip, breath control, and trigger pull, and I am a much better shooter overall for it.

>>33314821
Bit of this is exactly what I went through. Used a heavy 357 for years and then that lightweight dao revolver made my shot patterns look retarded until I unfucked my shitty shooting habits. Would not recommend for a starter handgun but a damned good idea to polish skills once you get good with something fullsized

I carry and shoot light snubs all the time. They are fine for the range and fine for carry. They are a fun and challenging gun to master.

442 Pro is cut for moonclips. I think this makes it a better choice than the 642. All your empties come out at once.

>>33315586
>reloading a J-frame at speed under stress
Just carry another one if you're concerned about not being able to solve the problem in 5 shots or fewer.
They weigh less than a pound each, so a pair of Js will still set you back less encumbrance than an empty 1911, and you'll have more shots to work with.

>>33314402
Somewhat related, apparently this is a thing: https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearms/model-sw500-hi-viz-fiber-optic

IT'S A FUCKING SNUBBED S&W 500.

>>33314402
I love shooting mine. But I also can't think of a single gun I own that I don't enjoy shooting.. I obviously won't pop off as many rounds as my AK or P320 in a trip, but it's definitely fun to see how far you can take that midget out.

>>33316582
you know, for bears

File: 0303171546.jpg (3MB, 4190x2358px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4190x2358px

Probably only good for cc. Has anyone ever tried ccing a desert eagle? Not that I want to, but damn are these things heavy.

>>33314402

For a range gun, you'd be better served with a full size double action with an exposed hammer.

File: G34 vs Mk23 vs deagle.jpg (146KB, 696x960px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 696x960px

>>33316969
They're roughly the same size as a Glock 34, 1911, or other "plus-size" handgun.
It should be doable with a good belt, holster, and cover garment.

>>33314402
Get a 4" 617 for marksmanship practice and a 4" 686P for recoil management practice and carry.
Yes, I know that's outside your budget. Welcome to the world of wheelguns.

>>33317041
>g34 25.77 oz
>mk23 38.88 oz
>de .50 71.4

Even with a suppressor and laser/light the 34 or 23 don't come close to the eagle.

File: Magnum-research-Desert-Eagle-L5a.jpg (63KB, 930x620px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 930x620px

>>33317212
Deal with it.
The 44 mag deagle L5 is a svelte 46.6 oz. if you insist on being a pussy.

>>33317041
rounded trigger guards make me puke and want to support gun control

File: Cz75fm.jpg (30KB, 600x398px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 600x398px

>>33317909

>>33317212
Depending on how heavy the LAM is, a Mk23 OHWS would come pretty close. The gun and can add up to 54.3 oz., so that only leaves about a pound for the LAM before they're even.