Small-frame snubby recommendations

[nvbirdman]

J-frame Smith with a Crimson Trace laser sight. Don't worry about how visible your front sight is.

[Jtarm]

Jtram, your criteria almost paints you into a corner.

* a true small-frame 2” snub that can be carried in a pocket holster (or AIWB, as I currently carry my medium frame guns.)
* 38 special (.357 is fine, but it would see few, if any magnums)
* Highly-visible front sight, or one that I can replace myself (this disqualifies most Smith J-frames with their integral FS.)
* A smooth DA pull can be achieved without any reduced-power springs.

I have dedicated myself to the subnose platform. I will NOT carry a snubnose that has a hammer spur. So that means DAO internal hammer OR bobbed hammer.
Pocket carry with a steel frame revolver is possible but a lightweight alloy frame makes it a lot more pleasant.
The 38 Special requirement is no problem; plenty of options there.
I recommend you re-think your front sight criteria. A ramped, integral front sight is far less likely to snag on something when drawn from a pocket or concealment.
A smooth DA pull is far more important than a light DA pull. A smooth pull is readily obtainable without sacrificing reliability or reducing spring weights.

Outpost75 has suggested a 2" S&W Model 12. I have a couple of those and they are excellent guns. However, as much as I respect Outpost75, I have to say that a 2" K-frame with a bobbed hammer is right on the ragged edge of what I consider to be suitable as a "pocket" gun. It can be done but it may require some modification of your wardrobe selection. A lot depends on what clothing you normally wear.

In the world of snubnose DA revolvers chambered in 38 Special, there is a very clear progression of size and weight.
Starting with the smallest/lightest: - we have the lightweight DAO S&W J-frames.

The next step up are the old Colt Agent and Colt Cobra. followed by their steel framed Detective Special models.

Almost in the same category we have the steel framed Ruger SP101

And at the top of the size/weight ladder we have the alloy framed S&W Model 12 followed by the steel frame models 10 and 64 (blued and stainless, respectively)

There are some additional choices mixed in, such as the new Kimber's and Colts but just about everything will fall somewhere between the J-frame Smiths and the 2" K-frame Smiths. And we have the newer Ruger LCR somewhere in that line up. (probably close the the DAO J-frame)

The old 2" Colt D-frames are slightly smaller than their 2" S&W K-frame counterparts but those guns are almost completely in collectors status these days.

The Ruger SP101 is smaller overall than a 2" S&W K-frame but the Ruger is really heavy for its size. (carried in an OWB holster it is an excellent fighting tool. Strong, durable, reliable)

Once you step up to holster carry (as opposed to pocket carry) you might as well step up to a K-frame. I would also shun an IWB holster with a snubnose revolver. There's no concealment advantage with those short barreled revolvers and an IWB holster is very uncomfortable with a 2" revolver. If you can conceal a 2" IWB rig, you can conceal a 2" OWB rig and with the OWB holster gain more comfort and a faster draw.

For me - The difference in capacity between a 5 shot and a 6 shot revolver is a total non-issue.

I think your FIRST decision needs to be: Pocket carry or OWB carry.

I already carry a 3” M-64, AIWB. I own 2, plus a 3” M-65.

For belt-carry, one of them will get the nod.

These guns all have brightly-painted ramps and while that works, I’d like something a bit more narrow that doesn’t completely fill the notch and faster to pick up with my 61-yo eyes, and that can be installed without milling a new dovetail.

Even with a 2” barrel, IWB has a distinct advantage: it hides easily under the tail of a T-shirt. In my part of Texas, there’s not a lot of days where a cover-garment is desirable. As long as the entire grip is positioned above the waistband, I fail to see how OWB would be any faster, and seriously doubt it would conceal as well.

I’m interested in a smaller framed 2” gun primarily for pocket-carry, maybe even as a “New York reload” when traveling.

[Scrounge]

I have a Charter Arms Under Cover .38 that works for me.

Alloy or steel frame? Got one of the alloy frames for SWMBO, and it's a fistful even with light .38 special loads. Well, maybe not light, but not very heavy, either. Perfectly mild and controllable in a Security Six & Smith Model 66-1. Not so mild or controllable in the CA.

[Gray Fox]

I second the 640-1 Pro Series, mine carries Crimson Trace grips because by the time I could actually see the three dot night sights it would be too late for me. The adjustable sights work just fine in daylight. Even with it being all steel it is still a bugger with .357 loads in it. I usually carry Rem 110 grain banana jacket +P HPs in the moon clips. GF

[winelover]

My first snubby was S&W SS model 60...... disadvantages are heavy trigger, terrible sights, too much weight, exposed hammer. Purchased a 642 and solved the weight and exposed hammer criteria. Then I ran across a Talo version of the 642 and purchased it because it had a much better trigger..............still stuck with those minuscule sights.

Enter the Ruger 357 LCR. An ugly duckling that really is a swan. Better trigger, out of the box, than the Talo 642. Sights that you can actually use. Weighs just under 20 ounces and doesn't have a exposed hammer that is pretty much useless on a carry piece. Versatile in that it can shoot 38's and 357 magnums. Fit's in all my j-frame holsters. The only thing better would be one in 44 Special.



BTW, all my current carry pieces wear CT laser grips or a Laserguard.

Fulfilled the 44 Special when I purchased a Fit for Duty CA Bulldog.



Decent sights, better out of box trigger than a S&W snubby. Weighs around 20 ounces. Only take away is the rough finish.

Winelover

[Petrol & Powder]

To address this, ".....Even with a 2” barrel, IWB has a distinct advantage: it hides easily under the tail of a T-shirt. In my part of Texas, there’s not a lot of days where a cover-garment is desirable. As long as the entire grip is positioned above the waistband, I fail to see how OWB would be any faster, and seriously doubt it would conceal as well....."

With both the Inside the Waist Band [IWB] and Outside the Waist Band [IWB] you need a covering garment. With an IWB holster and a snubnose, there isn't enough barrel to allow for a high ride holster and the cylinder ends up positioned directly under the belt. This is usually uncomfortable. With an OWB holster and a snubnose, a little of the holster will extend below the belt but it's minimal and no more difficult to conceal than a similar IWB holster with the same gun.
As for access, it's a little easier to establish a grip on the gun with an OWB holster, IME.

Everyone is different and holsters are a personal thing.

[white cloud]

This is an interesting thread. I like snubnoses quite a bit and own eight but have never found the perfect revolver. I like to switch between AIWB and pocket carry depending on the temperature and wardrobe. I prefer steel frames but the "no dash" S&Ws have pretty bad sights and the SP101 and "magnum" J frames are too heavy for pocket carry. I have a 640 Pro and think it's a great revolver but it is again too heavy for pocket carry. I have tried laser grips but did not care for them. What I should do is to take one of my 649 "no dash" guns to a smith and have it milled for better sight.

[Petrol & Powder]

white cloud, I've been around the small DA revolvers for a long time. The issues and concerns you describe are pretty much the central theme in that arena.
Size, weight, sights, finish and carry methods.
There is nothing new under the sun and everyone that really trains with a snubnose revolver deals with those issues.

For pocket carry, size and weight are big concerns. At first glance one wouldn't think weight was such an important consideration for pocket carry. But until you actually carry the gun all day, every day; you really cannot judge that.
I think the SP101 is a great gun, but it's just not quite a pocket gun.
The "magnum" J-frames and also good guns but just a little too heavy for my liking.

Interesting note for those new to the game, The original no dash S&W 640 (stainless DAO J-frame in 38 Special) had a 1 7/8" barrel. The later models had the 2 1/8" barrel. You wouldn't suspect that extra 1/4" of steel makes much difference, but it does.

The best snubnose 38 Special I ever shot was an original S&W flat latch model 40. It was a friend's gun and I tried to buy it on the spot - no go. He turned down a large cash offer.

[Jtarm]

The "magnum" J-frames and also good guns but just a little too heavy for me.

There is the 340 PD, but it’s pricey, I’ve seen reports of Sc frames cracking at the barrel threads, and I have no desire to shoot .357s from a 12-oz revolver to begin with.

[Petrol & Powder]

The S&W 340 PD is pricey. It also falls into the category of the SUPER lightweight J-frames. The titanium cylinder gets the weight way down but I'm not convinced the weight savings is worth the monetary cost.
The scandium aluminum alloy used in the frame is reported to be stronger than the regular aluminum alloys used for frames (and the amount of scandium added is actually very small, just enough to increase the strength of the material). I don't know if they are prone to cracking any more than the traditional aluminum alloys used for lightweight frames. Sometimes when people want to justify why they purchased a less expensive version of something, they will bash the more expensive version. So I'm a bit skeptical of reports without some background and numbers to compare.
As for shooting .357 magnum loads in a super lightweight revolver, there's no doubt that's unpleasant. Of course there's no requirement that you shoot magnum loads in a magnum revolver. So the user has control over that.
The 340 PD does give you the option of some better sights, but for the price, again; it may not be worth the cost.

There are three weight classes for the DAO J-frames: Steel, airweight and Liteweight (or super light)
The airweight models have aluminum alloy frames with steel cylinders and barrels.
The super lightweight models have scandium/aluminum alloy frames, titanium cylinders and two piece barrels with a stainless barrel shrouded by an aluminum alloy barrel shroud.

Personally, I think the airweight's (the middle choice in weight) are light enough and the super lightweight models may be a bit too much of a good thing.

YMMV

[Jtarm]

I don't know if they are prone to cracking any more than the traditional aluminum alloys used for lightweight frames. Sometimes when people want to justify why they purchased a less expensive version of something, they will bash the more expensive version.
YMMV

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/sho...74#post4816574

[BK7saum]

I have a 340PD. it is a hand full with full power 357s. I shot 2 rounds of 158 grain 357 mags just to see how they were. Now I just carry speer gold dot +p 125 grain. The 340PD sure is light to carry though. I carry in the pocket all summer.

[Daekar]

Take a look at the S&W Model 60. 357 mag chambers, 3" barrel, easily carried AIWB, and has adjustable sights including a replaceable front sight. In fact, I just replaced my front sight with a HiViz red fiber optic yesterday. There is also a 2" version listed on the S&W website.

If you get the Performance Center version (I didn't) it comes with the sights already mounted.

[Jtarm]

Tp address this, ".....Even with a 2” barrel, IWB has a distinct advantage: it hides easily under the tail of a T-shirt. In my part of Texas, there’s not a lot of days where a cover-garment is desirable. As long as the entire grip is positioned above the waistband, I fail to see how OWB would be any faster, and seriously doubt it would conceal as well....."

With both the Inside the Waist Band [IWB] and Outside the Waist Band [IWB] you need a covering garment. With an IWB holster and a snubnose, there isn't enough barrel to allow for a high ride holster and the cylinder ends up positioned directly under the belt. This is usually uncomfortable. With an OWB holster and a snubnose, a little of the holster will extend below the belt but it's minimal and no more difficult to conceal than a similar IWB holster with the same gun.
As for access, it's a little easier to establish a grip on the gun with an OWB holster, IME.

Everyone is different and holsters are a personal thing.

Well I’m not speaking for “everyone”, but when I attended the HiTs Tactical Revolver Roundup in 2018 (a 2-day snub class), roughly 40 students + 4 instructors, the overwhelming majority were packing 2” guns AIWB, with a few pocket holsters. Some people trained with both.

One former Gunsite (or it may have been Thunder Ranch) instructor carried 2 2” J-frames AIWB, one on each side. This was his EDC rig.

Besides myself, I observed 1 3” K-frame. That was being carried openly at 3:00 by an instructor.

Given the same holster, the cylinder is going to be in the same place regardless of barrel length.

While both modes require a cover garment, IWB generally needs less. It holds the butt closer to the body and hides the lines better.

If there’s an OWB holster I could conceal under an everyday T-shirt, I haven’t seen it.

[Petrol & Powder]

Like I said earlier, holsters are a personal thing. What works for me may not work for you and what works for you may not work for me.

As for, "Given the same holster, the cylinder is going to be in the same place regardless of barrel length." - That's only true IF it's the same type of holster. How the holster rides in relation to the belt is determined by the location of the belt loops in relation to the rest of the holster. Some holsters are high ride, some low ride and some are in the middle. Not all holsters are the same.
For a really short gun (like say a snubnose) there just aren't a lot of options on where the belt loops will end up. With a subnose, the cylinder will generally end up directly over the belt (OWB) or directly under the belt (IWB). There just isn't enough material to move the gun up or down in relation to the belt. With a longer gun the holster maker has more options.

I'll grant you that with an IWB holster the amount of fabric needed to cover the butt of the gun is slightly less than what is needed to cover a OWB holster worn outside the pants but with a snubnose we're only talking a couple of inches of drape. Any shirt that can adequately conceal an IWB holster can probably conceal an OWB, if we're talking about a 2" revolver that doesn't extend far below the beltline anyway.

As for holding the butt in close to the body, yes, that prints less but it's also far less comfortable.
I can tolerate an IWB holster with a pistol, but with a revolver; an IWB holster and a short gun it's just not for me.

YMMV

[megasupermagnum]

If a shirt doesn't cover a sub 2" barrel revolver, you are wearing the wrong size shirt. With my AE Nelson holster, most of my T shirts will fully conceal my 4" barrel S&W model 57, and my shirts are in no way baggy or long. The bulge from such a large revolver is another story, but the full barrel can be covered by a shirt.

[ddixie884]

I was always a S&W J-frame fan. A few years ago I decided to buy a coupla truck console guns and GB was full of LCRs. I low-ball bid about 10 of them hoping to get 1 and won 4 of them. I gave 1 to my local pusher who did all my transfers. I put them in all the trucks and began to plink and practice with them. I have done no mods and over time I have overcome my revulsion to the ugly little things and have come to really like them. The grips are surprisingly compact yet comfortable and I have fired some very heavy handloads without discomfort. I am surprised to say as a former name brand snubby snob, I love the LCR.............

[Outpost75]

Great thread and comments. Absolutely necessary to "dress to the gun."

And while I agree with Petrol and Powder there is no serious tactical issue in choosing between a 5-shot or a 6-shot revolver, I have never shot a J-frame well and do much better with a K-frame or Colt D-frame. Dehorning the hammer spur is an advantage for concealed carry, but it is often difficult to maintain 0.011" minimum striker indent (ON COPPER) with the lighter hammer, particularly if the hammer arc has been reduced in converting the gun to DAO. My pocket holsters have a tab which extends behind the hammer to mitigate against it catching on the pocket, and I learned years ago to find the hammer spur with my thumb when withdrawing the gun. Old school, we weren't allowed "gunfighter" mods.

[Petrol & Powder]

megasupermagnum wrote: "If a shirt doesn't cover a sub 2" barrel revolver, you are wearing the wrong size shirt..."

Agreed

There are a LOT of factors at play when we start talking holsters.
Low ride, mid ride, high ride. IWB, OWB. How much cant negative or positive?

Here's a Blackhawk Combat Askins holster with a J-frame.


Only about 2" of the holster extends below the belt:


Notice the cylinder is positioned directly over the belt. If this was an IWB design, the cylinder would fall directly under the belt.
With a 2" barreled revolver, the holster maker just doesn't have the option of making the holster a high ride design. There just isn't enough leather available to allow the belt loops to be positioned much lower on the holster. But with a longer barrel, a high ride design becomes possible and more of the gun can be positioned above the belt.

When it comes to holsters and people, there is no universal holster. You have to find what works for you.

[Petrol & Powder]

Outpost, I too find the K-frames and Colt D-frames much easier to work with but in the end, I sometimes have to compromise with the smaller J-frame for other reasons.
The reality is the K-frame just gives you more gun to hang onto and therefore it's easier to do good work with the K-frame.

I have 100% reliability with bobbed hammers and I wouldn't tolerate anything less for a gun carried for self-defense.