Looking for a first gun/CCW. Was thinking a 442 or LCR .38, but

>>34201843
It's heavy but definitely not TOO heavy and it can be smoothed out and lightened if you take it to a gun smith.

In any case this is a close range defensive pistol, you don't need to be making 25 yard slow fire shots. 3 shots in 3 seconds at 3 feet away. That's how most defensive shootings go.

>>34201946
Would you recommend the 442 or the LCR? Isnt there a trigger kit for the 442?

Many people say that snubnose revolvers are extremely difficult guns to shoot well. Common complaints include short sight radius, heavy trigger pull, long trigger pull, and heavy recoil.

As someone who, like you, was considering picking a snubnose revolver and ended up picking one up, these complaints are either coming from people who are either exaggerating them or are bad at shooting pistols in general. A snubnose revolver is mechanically capable of shooting a 5 shot 2-3'' group at 25 yards, and it can easily do a 1-2'' group at 10 yards in the hands of an average shooter who isn't flinching or jerking the trigger.

>>34201990
I've fired but never owned an lcr. I carry a 642, so my opinions probably biased.

>>34201990
Best answer: Try both and see which you like better

2nd best answer: Both have a very smooth trigger pull--much smoother than the DA on an autoloader. The LCR has a pull weight that's lighter by ~3-4 lbs stock. The 442 has a much better trigger reset; it's both faster and also more positive.

The trigger kit that you mentioned for the 442 is just a reduced power Wolff mainspring. It's a very inexpensive part, but it does require that you take your time and have some basic mechanical aptitude to install it. It drops the pull weight on the 442 by ~2 lbs.

>>34201843
The hammerless design is ideal for CCW. I have been wondering about getting the 9mm for a while

>>34202075
Thanks man!

>>34202151
the 9mm LCR is pretty expensive and I've seen people talk about how the recoil between the .38 and 9mm is drastically different in a snub.

>>34201843
I'm a smithfag, I have a 442 ( same as 642 just black ) and an LCR. I HATE saying this, but I prefer the LCR

>>34202262
Also I misread, thought you said 642

>>34202262
Why do you say that?

I have an LCR in .357 and the trigger doesn't seem excessively heavy to me at all.

>>34201843
>Looking for a first gun/CCW. Was thinking a 442 or LCR .38

A J Frame is a terrible first gun as it is one of the most difficult guns to shoot. Get something bigger to learn on then work your way down.

>>34202703
Difficult how?

>>34202280
I hit better with the LCR, for a carry gun that's all I care about, putting lead where I intend to

>>34202733
Not him, but with tiny guns like that, the recoil is a pain, literally, as well as being difficult to aim. Unless you're pretty weak, it's not -that- bad, but it's something that's a deterrent to long range sessions.

And that's bad because your first gun should be something comfortable to shoot and practice a lot.

>>34202793
I recently went shooting and of the 4 guns I shot I seriously enjoyed the revolver more than anything else.

>>34202012
I agree but you forgot the other reason for people's complaints. They heard someone say it and are just repeating it to sound as though they have experience. Some of them have none.

>>34202814
One that small? I mean, everybody's different, if that's genuinely your thing then I guess you gotta go with what works for you.

But I'll still say that for general learning/habit forming, a full size revolver will do you best.

File: 1465611963167.jpg (104KB, 800x465px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 800x465px

>>34202733
They're not as shootable due to certain factors
>size
>weight
>usually has poor sights
>newer shooters may not be accustomed to the long and heavy trigger
>recoil can be literally painful and further discourage a newer shooter from trying to learn how to shoot

I say this as someone who shoots DA/SA exclusively. While I do have a good amount of shooting experience and can maintain a 12-10lb DA pull easily, it is still a difficult gun to shoot.

That being said, you can shoot it at a decent level if you put in the time and effort but at the end of the day, it's a 5 shot .38 special revolver. They should be reserved exclusively as a backup weapon or a gun to carry if you absolutely cannot afford to get caught carrying a firearm.

Here's some insight by Claude Werner and Tom Givens on revolvers, they 100% know their shit and you should take heed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwJsqp5yQJM

The J-Frame revolver DOES have a distinct advantage which I will go over in my next post.

File: miroku_lt1.jpg (266KB, 1024x656px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 1024x656px

>>34202838
Hmm it was a snub nose jap revolver if its that small I do not know. I honestly loved how it shot the feel I got from it just felt right.

>>34201990
I've tried both, and I liked the LCR better.

File: 1466576028806.jpg (221KB, 2048x1360px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 2048x1360px

>>34202845
cont;

The J-Frame or a revolver for that matter has one distinct advantage over a semi automatic handgun: it cannot be knocked out of battery, resulting in the manual cycling of the action to get the gun back in functional condition.

If you were to get into an entanglement of arms and legs with someone, both of you are in a scuffle on the ground, you would be able to in theory get those five shots off into him provided that you are able to access your gun without having it taken away from you or having your draw blocked by his hands.

Does this mean semi autos suck dick and a 5-6 shot .38 special revolver is the way to go for all occasions? Hell no, it's still a revolver at the end of the day and this extremely specific benefit does not outweigh the disadvantages a revolver brings to the table that a handgun does not have.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4BBr4wUSIg&t=304s

>>34202874
Not being a dick but sure, it might have been 'fun' but that isn't the point. If you were to get a fullsize or compact handgun or a 3 inch K-Frame revolver and shot them side by side a J-Frame revolver in say, something like a Bill Drill
>7 yards
>6 (5 because you have a J-Frame) rounds
>on a 6-8 inch circular target

You would absolutely have a tougher time getting an accurate and faster score with a J-Frame than those other guns.

Just because it's fun, doesn't make it neccesarily a good choice for defending yourself from a violent attacker.

That being said, I'm still going to buy a J-Frame since they make for fantastic backup guns.

>>34202930
I understand but I just really enjoyed firing that gun.

>>34202930
You forgot to mention that a revolver can be fired from a pocket if things get dicey.

File: 1487689250419.jpg (563KB, 1140x484px) Image search: [Google]

563KB, 1140x484px

>>34202986
>I understand but I just really enjoyed firing that gun.

Hey, no problem with that. If it's a gun that you actually enjoy shooting, more power to you. That means you will actually look foward to shooting and practicing with it.

A "shootable" J-Frame would be link. Only downside is it's pretty expensive and it's heavy for a J-Frame revolver.

http://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/best-j-frame-smith-wesson-model-640-pro-series/

>>34203070
Yup, forgot about that.