Ever notice how no one expects to have to defend themselves?
There’s that old saying: Shit happens.
Well, during the latter part of my night hunt experience, there was potential for shit to happen. If you care about self-defense, read on.
Snub Nose
Hornady Critical Defense ammo
I posted about my search for the right carry ammo for my snub. Caleb, of Gun Nuts Media, responded to my post and created a post of his own where he responds to me touting the virtues of Hornady Critical Defense ammo.
I must admit I’ve been very curious about this ammo, especially since I like 9mm and now have .38 Special to deal with too, and Critical Defense is made for those calibers (it only comes in .380 ACP, 9mm, .38 Spc, and .38 Spc +P). Plus I do like Hornady products; I use their TAP for the home-defense AR. They make good stuff, and I’ve got a warm spot in my heart for Nebraska. So… I said I wanted to do more research into this ammo, might as well post what I can find.
My index finger hurts
Yesterday was a day filled with snubby goodness. 🙂
While sitting at my desk working, if my fingers weren’t typing they were dry firing the new snub to work the trigger in. I will say it’s smoothed out some since I brought her home.
After work I gave the gun a basic cleaning to clean off any preservative from the factory and ensure she was lubricated. I wanted to put some oil in the action. Trouble is, being a “Centennial” frame the action is fully enclosed, so what to do? After much Googling around on the matter, the conclusion I came to is that generally it is not necessary. If however you want to, just take off the grips. When you do that, it will expose the mainspring/hammerspring (see this nice parts diagram) and of course the “hole” in the frame that the spring passes through up into the hammer/action area. One can place a drop of oil down there, work the action, and that should be all you need (in terms of lubricating the trigger/hammer/action). Of course, if you feel a need for deeper cleaning or lubricating there is the side plate that can be removed BUT unless you know what you’re doing you shouldn’t remove it. The warnings I’ve read is that unless you know what you’re doing you risk all sorts of pain and suffering. Either take it to a gunsmith and let them do it, or just be willing to sacrifice the gun and learn. I’m not yet willing to go there, so I just put some oil down the mainspring “hole”.
Actually for this initial run, I have some Break-Free CLP in an aerosol can, so I put the little spray tube on the end, stuck it in the mainspring hole, and gave a couple short blasts of CLP into that entire area. My reasoning was to ensure everything was lubed, plus if I could soak/wear/blow out anything in there (e.g. any powder carbon from the factory test fires, any small metal bits from the trigger/action break-in that I’d been doing), that’d be good. Of course, that meant a lot of lube so I was constantly wiping the gun down… spray, work action, wipe wipe wipe, work action, wipe, work action, wipe. Did that for a while, and given the CLP I was wiping up wasn’t “clear” on the rag (it’d be black) I figure I was getting something out of there OK. In the future I will likely lube it with just a drop of good oil, but I felt I wanted to do something a little different for this initial time.
Note the above isn’t necessarily some recommended practice. It’s just what I personally did to my personal firearm. Based on what I read online coupled with some logical extrapolation, it seemed to be an OK thing to do. I cannot atest if it actually is or not, so if you opt to try the same well.. your mileage may vary.
Furthermore, I do think I’ll take her to a gunsmith in the near future to have her checked out and cleaned up.
Otherwise, cleaning the revolver is like any other.
So, she’s cleaned, I have continued to work the trigger to try to break things in a bit more.
And man… both index fingers are getting sore, a little tender. 🙂
More on snub ammo
Now that I’ve got my snub, I’m researching good carry ammo.
The trick is that a snub only has about a 2″ barrel, and that’s not a lot of time for velocity to build up. So you need a load that can get up to speed quickly. The consequence of that however tends to be making a stronger load which then can be harder to control in the already hard to control snub nose revolver.
The standard load is nicknamed the “FBI Load”, which is a .38 Special +P 158 grain LSWCHP (I believe that’s lead semi-wadcutter hollow point). An informal test. Another. More data. Even more.
I’ve heard that the semi-wadcutters are a good way to go. They will expand, at least somewhat, but more importantly they get good penetration. Again, with these short barrels you may risk not being fast enough to get enough oomph for reliable expansion. So if you wind up with a bullet that barely expands and doesn’t penetrate deep enough, what good is it? And even if it reliably expands but barely scratches the surface, is that any good? But if something maybe doesn’t get really big but at least gets to the heart of the matter, that’s arguable a better way to go.
Another load that keeps coming up is the Gold Dot 135 grain +P’s. Speer has been making a flavor of their Gold Dots for “short barrel” guns, optimizing characteristics for that situation. The Gold Dot seems to get a lot of positive support, from what Google turns up for me. Here’s some informal tests comparing the LSWCHP vs. the Gold Dot vs. some Corbon.
Now, all this Federal Nyclad stuff. The round seems interesting, and being standard pressure has a small appeal of being more managable out of an Airweight snub. But from what I can read, the original Nyclad’s were 158 grain +P loads and pretty respected in performance. But the new ones are 125 grain standard pressure loads and just aren’t going to perform out of a snub. Seeing this performance data bugs me.
I do read that Buffalo Bore makes a 158 grain SWCHP standard pressure and some regard it as the new gold standard. Something to consider.
I’ve been very curious about Hornady’s new Critical Defense ammo. But I just haven’t seen any sort of data. The theory seems sound, the marketing is good, but it’s such a new product and there just doesn’t seem to be a lot of data on the round yet.
Anyway, hit up Google. There’s much to be found on the topic. I’m only starting to scratch the surface.
I will admit I’ve got some of the new Nyclad (bought it with the gun) and we’ll see how it goes. But given what I’ve read so far, I suspect I’ll either go for a 158 grain wadcutter (Remington, if I have the choice, or maybe the Buffalo Bore), or maybe the short-barrel Gold Dot 135 grain.
Researching is fun. 🙂
Updated: Went looking for more information on Hornady Critical Defense.
Got my snub
I finally got my snub.
It’s a Smith & Wesson 442, with no internal lock.
Simple specs: J-frame revolver, Airweight series (aluminum alloy frame, carbon steel cylinder), “Centennial” frame (fully enclosed hammer), 5 rounds of .38 Special +P, double-action-only, 1 7/8″ barrel, integral front sight and fixed rear, 6 5/16″ overall length, 15 oz. empty weight, matte black finish. The finish is the only difference between this and the 642. And hey, black is cool. 🙂
Updated correction: There are actually two differences between the 642 and the 442. The most obvious is the finish, with the 642 being a matte stainless finish and the 442’s a blue/black. I’m not 100% on the details, but some Googling turns up that at least some older 642’s had a clearcoat finish that could come off over time and cleanings. I believe the 442’s frame finish is anodized. If you use either gun, both will eventually show wear; just care for them. The difference other is on the 642 the cylinder (and supposedly barrel) are stainless steel, whereas on the 442 the cylinder (and supposedly barrel) are carbon steel. I haven’t been able to find any information on if the materials difference makes any difference, and I’m not a metallurgist so while I know carbon steel is “softer” than stainless steel (given use in knife blades) I’m not sure if it equates to any real difference in a revolver cylinder. Tho I am curious as to why S&W chose to use carbon steel in the 442; maybe it accepts the finish/cosmetics better? Anyway, it seems the choice between 442 and 642 really comes down to cosmetics as the guns are, for all intents and purposes, the same. In my case, I really didn’t care. When I phoned the gun store to see what they had in stock, I asked for a lockless 642 (as I know those are most common in the stores) and the guy replied they had a lockless 442; thus why I got the 442. But hey, black is cool.
Updated correction 2: Direct info from S&W themselves.
As you can see, it pretty much fit the bill for what I wanted in a snub. The key factor was wanting the snub now. As I’ve had snub on the brain, I’ve found more and more times when carrying a snub would be more appropriate or more convenient. So, I felt that I had enough justification to get one now instead of waiting who knows how long before the perfect all-steel model would come along (if ever). While I’m not 100% thrilled with the lightweight, I’ll live for now. I will keep my eyes open for a steel model.
I do need to get some better grips for it. The research starts for that (tho I think Hogue makes a good set).
Damn that trigger is long and heavy.
And of course, I think about ammo.
There’s the famous Chuck Hawks article. I keep reading about this Federal Nyclad. I mean, out of a snub, all ammo isn’t created equal and you really need to get something that’s appropriate for it: not just any .38 ammo will do. So on the Nyclad I find this article. It tells of the “one shot stop” statistics, and links to some actual ballistics data of this load. Here’s some more ballistics data for other loads out of a snub. Handguns Magazine did some investigation into different loads.
Much researching to do. Meantime…. well, I’ve been sitting here doing a bunch of dry fire just to work the trigger. The gun locked up on me a couple times. Hrm. Well, I knew I’d be taking it to a gunsmith to polish her out. Gotta deal with that plus break it in (shoot maybe 200 rounds flawlessly) before I trust it to carry.
Anyway, here we go. We’ll see where this winds up. 🙂
Snub stories
Given my recent snub nose revolver endeavors, while I’m not seeking out snub stuff, when I come across something snub related I do give it a read.
Matthew, from Straight Forward in a Crooked World, talks about .38 Special revolvers, how he came around to the .38 snub nose revolver, how the snub has its faults but how he still loves it so.
Snub Training
In my digging around about snubs, I found this website: SnubTraining.
It’s a website authored by Michael de Bethencourt, and contains exerpts from an upcoming book on using snub nose revolvers. I haven’t had a chance yet to read all of the back articles, but working on it.
Lock failure
Michael Bane notes that he not only experience but got a failure of a revolver’s internal lock mechanism on film. I’d love to see the footage.
Internal locks are the creation of good intentions that don’t truly serve a good end. It’s integrating a locking system into the internal mechanics of a gun so that, if locked, the gun cannot fire. No one in their right might would use such a thing. If you need the gun for defensive purposes, you will not want it to be locked because there’s no way you’ll unlock it in time to use the gun. If you would use the lock, say for storage, there are other means one can use to render a gun inoperable, such as using cable locks or storing the gun in a proper locked safe.
What does an internal lock do? It adds complexity to the mechanics of the gun. More parts, more things going on, thus more points of failure and things going wrong. And Lord, if your life was on the line and the gun decides to fail — because obviously they can and do — you’re going to be most unhappy.
A gun is designed to be a simple thing. Really, the simpler a tool is, generally the better it is. The more you screw with it, the more you can risk things breaking or going wrong. If this post is correct, I look forward to S&W removing the locks. Helps in my search for a snub. I will admit, I was a bit indifferent about the lock situation in my snub search, but no longer. There will not be no lock on my snub; even if the chances of failure are slim, if this piece is something I’m trusting my life to I want to ensure it’s as reliable and failsafe as I can get it. I don’t need that 1 in a million chance of being attacked to coincide with the 1 in a million chance of the gun failing when I need it most.
Updated: I did some Googling on S&W removing the internal locks and it seems to not be true. There are some limited edition runs without locks, but on the whole no it’s not happening. At least, that’s what I can find right now.
I’ve decided on a snub nose
Another thing I got to do today was some snub nose revolver comparison.
I got to shoot a steel-frame snub and an “airweight” aluminum frame snub side-by-side. I would load them both up (5 rounds each), then I would shoot 5 rounds out of the steel-frame, then 5 rounds out of the aluminum-frame. Reload. This time I’d shoot 5 out of the aluminum then 5 out of the steel. Reload. 5 steel, 5 alumium. Reload, 5 aluminum, 5 steel. Lather, rinse, repeat until I was out of ammo. My intent was to see what I thought of the airweights, if I really wanted one.
No, I don’t. I want steel.
The 2 revolvers were almost identical. The main differences were the frame material (of course), and the airweight also had a different set of grips on it, with a Crimson Trace laser. I shot the same ammo out of both (Magtech 158 grain .38 Special, lead round nose). Thus, I was able to just compare how the 2 handled based upon their frame characteristics.
The recoil difference between the two? Really, there’s not that much difference, but there is a difference and it is noticeable. I don’t know how to describe it in a way that can really convey it in words — you have to feel it for yourself, which is why I wanted to do this. While I knew a lighter gun would produce more “felt recoil” I wanted to feel it for myself. So that said, again it’s not that much difference, but it’s there. The airweight “bites” or “snaps” or “stings” your hand just a bit more. I bet I could shoot the steel-frame all day and not care; my trigger finger would probably peed out first from dealing with the long heavy pull. But that airweight I’m sure would come to a point where my right hand will say “no mas.” I’m sure if I was using +P ammo, I’d feel it even more and like it even less. The fact I would switch back and forth between the two guns, shooting one first then next cycle shooting the other first, I did get to feel that really they both do bite/snap/sting, but you just feel it less with the steel.
I also noticed that I did not shoot the airweight as well. The recoil was a bit harder to manage, so it was harder to get all shots on target. I’m sure with practice and getting used to the airweight I could improve. But to improve, that means you have to shoot it a lot, which then leads to your hand getting beat up, and the vicious circle. What good is a gun that you don’t want to shoot because it hurts and/or is no fun to shoot? If you’re not going to practice with it, why have it unless you’re a collector?
I don’t know the exact weight of these particular guns, but I can say that a S&W 640 is 23 oz. and a 642 is 15 oz: 8 oz difference. Half a pound, and yes that’s significant. You do feel that difference in the carry weight. I slipped the airweight into my front pant pocket and I couldn’t tell it was there. I put the steel into the pocket and I could feel the weight. Was it that much to concern myself with? No, because if you carry it often enough, you’ll get used it it and it won’t be that big a deal.
The thing is, these lightweight snubs are made for carry, and I mean that: for carry. The main design concern is carrying it, not shooting it. If you’re going to have the gun, if you’re going to carry the gun, then you need to be proficient with the gun and that means shooting it a lot. If the gun isn’t going to be any fun to shoot, or beats your hands up so much that you have to stop shooting before you get in enough practice… is that worthwhile? Maybe for some, but not for me.
So, I want steel.
Trouble is, it’s going to be hard to find steel.
I’ve decided what I want is:
- all steel construction
- J-frame snub-nose size, 2″ barrel max
- no snag designs, in terms of how the sights are, and anything else on the frame or gun overall
- Having a higher visibility front sight would be welcome, tho that can always be handled afterwards by a gunsmith
- a “hammerless” design, such as the “centennial” frame with fully enclosed hammer or the “bodyguard” frame with the shrouded hammer. I think I’d prefer Centennial, but at this point either is fine.
- Chambered for .38 Special +P
- No frills, including integrated/internal locks. I want this as simple as possible.
- Updated: Certainly no wavering on the topic of an internal lock. That means no chance of ever owning a Ruger LCR.
Trouble is? Finding this will be quite difficult.
What does the market bear? Airweights. Any time I go out to stores, if there’s a snub geared towards carry it ends up being an airweight (e.g. S&W 642). If there’s one in steel, it’ll have an exposed hammer. Yes there are some new models, like the 640, but I can’t find them for sale. So, this is a bit frustrating. What’s my plan?
- If I want something now, I’ll probably have to get an airweight (like the 642). Or I’ll have to get something like a 640, chambered in .357 Magnum. And then, I’ll probably have to order it… which would be OK since I’d like to have a model without a lock.
- If I want what I truly want, I’m going to have to wait. Just keep looking at the stores, looking at the shows, searching online (e.g. Gunbroker), and then as soon as I see what I want, buying it.
Not a big deal. Just how it goes. At this point, I’m content to wait and get what I want (or as close as I can get to it).
On a quick side note, the Crimson Trace. Meh. Not for me. It’s nifty for sure, but then I feel you’re looking at the wrong things. It puts your eyes on the target and searching for the little red dot. It breaks proper sight picture, no looking at the front sight, and so on. It’s just another gadget that you have to maintain, that can fail when you need it most. Interesting for sure, but not a gadget I feel is a necessity. I guess if you never or rarely practice it might be useful, but I think it’s better to practice.
Bobbing a belly gun
Cowtown Cop has a 3-part piece on bobbing the hammer off a snub nose revolver.
Excellent pictures and step-by-step instructions. Nice job!
As you readers know, I’ve been searching for a snubby to call my very own. As I’ve looked at everything that’s available in the world of snubs (that I’d be willing to shoot, vs. collector pieces), I want a few simple things:
- All steel frame, because shooting these things isn’t fun to begin with. I want to practice with it, and having a gun that’s no fun to shoot isn’t conducive to practicing with it.
- “Hammerless” design, preferring the “Centennial” style.
There are other things I’d like, but I’m finding the market doesn’t want to put those two things together. Every store I go into (even pawn shops), if it’s hammerless it’s a lightweight model (think S&W 642, 340, 442) or if it’s steel it’s got an exposed hammer with a spur. Yes some things exist like a S&W 640, but being chambered in .357 Magnum it’s likely to be a little bit wider and harder to conceal than say a steel-framed chambered for .38 Spc +P. I say “likely” because I don’t know for sure since I can’t find a single store that has one in stock! But everyone has 642’s.
*sigh*
So, it may wind up that I go the route Cowtown Cop shows here: getting the gun that’s what I want in most every way, then doing a mod job so it’s suitable for pocket carry. IMHO that’s still not ideal. For instance, if fired from within a pocket I could envision cloth moving in front of the pulled-back hammer and blocking a successful strike (thus the “Bodyguard” frame style that shrouds the hammer).
The quest continues.
Stuff From Hsoi 