Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

BadCrosshairDay wrote:I realized that I wouldn't really replace the 442 with a 43: the 43 would only be carried iwb, and not in pocket.

The reason I am considering it is I think I'd shoot the glock 43 better than I shoot a 442. And there's a chance at reloading if needed. Speedloaders don't work well with my 442,the fit is too tight.

I have found that.to.be true, I'm.more accurate with a 43 than a J-frame. I find tbe 43 to be easier to shoot than many tiny 9s too. YMMV of.course.

BadCrosshairDay wrote:

AzRanger wrote:I've carried a Glock 43, I think it had 7 round cap., A Ruger LC9s, also 7 rounds, I had a S&W Shield that I liked but it was 6 rounds, I tried a Kel-Tec and also a Ruger in .380 both had 6 round cap. I keep going back to my trusty S&W 442 hammerless in .38 Special. It's only 1 or 2 rounds short of the other carry guns I've had and it's reliable and a .38 special has some knock down power. To each his own but I do not feel underarmed with my revolver!

What did you like better about the 442 than the glock 43? I was thinking of making the opposite switch eventually, so I'm curious.

The 43 I had jammed a few times and it seemed like it liked only certain kinds of ammo. Maybe it was just that gun but once a gun jams a few times I done with it! The 442 is as reliable as you can get. Just MHO..........

Small autos are going to be more ammo sensitive, just based on the reduced dimensions while doing the same work. Ive found the 43 to have no issues in 600 or so rounds, except when I tried to feed it 147 HST rounds (nose-dived into the feed ramp). No issues with a wide variety of 115 to 135 grain regular pressure up to +P+ rounds. I'll accept that.

Small autos are more sensitive to hand position/limp wristing too.

I was just reading an article on revolvers and the author made yet another good point in favor of revolvers...in fact, it was a point I had never considered - they're the most broadly legal firearm - meaning you can carry them most anywhere in the US without worrying about running afoul of the law in some cities and small towns. Doesn't sound like much, but if you travel a lot, or even a little it becomes significant.

AzRanger wrote:I've carried a Glock 43, I think it had 7 round cap., A Ruger LC9s, also 7 rounds, I had a S&W Shield that I liked but it was 6 rounds, I tried a Kel-Tec and also a Ruger in .380 both had 6 round cap. I keep going back to my trusty S&W 442 hammerless in .38 Special. It's only 1 or 2 rounds short of the other carry guns I've had and it's reliable and a .38 special has some knock down power. To each his own but I do not feel underarmed with my revolver!

I just bought an LC9s for my wife (they had a purple one and that's her favorite color). I have avoided stryker type guns in the past as I am just not comfortable carrying something that has a trigger pull close to that of a 1911 with no safety, but the LC9s has a safety which is easy to manipulate. The gun has a nice trigger pull and is comfortable for small hands which makes it a good firearm for her. I did get the extended mags though.

glocksmith wrote:I was just reading an article on revolvers and the author made yet another good point in favor of revolvers...in fact, it was a point I had never considered - they're the most broadly legal firearm - meaning you can carry them most anywhere in the US without worrying about running afoul of the law in some cities and small towns. Doesn't sound like much, but if you travel a lot, or even a little it becomes significant.

Link ? I'd like to know what locales I'm forbidden by law to carry a pistol but can carry a revolver instead.

Tru-Heathen wrote:

glocksmith wrote:I was just reading an article on revolvers and the author made yet another good point in favor of revolvers...in fact, it was a point I had never considered - they're the most broadly legal firearm - meaning you can carry them most anywhere in the US without worrying about running afoul of the law in some cities and small towns. Doesn't sound like much, but if you travel a lot, or even a little it becomes significant.

Link ? I'd like to know what locales I'm forbidden by law to carry a pistol but can carry a revolver instead.

Some places, like California, restrict pistols for all kinds of reasons, including color. Others, like New York, restrict the number of rounds that a firearm can hold. Now, none of those places come to mind, without some research, which I'm not inclined to do at this point, grant reciprocity or issue non-resident licenses, but there may be a couple. In most places, the typical carry revolver is not so restricted. However, again off the top of my head, I don't think it is anything the prudent licensee has to worry about because it's likely he couldn't carry anything in those restrictive states anyway.

schmieg wrote:
Some places, like California, restrict pistols for all kinds of reasons, including color. Others, like New York, restrict the number of rounds that a firearm can hold. Now, none of those places come to mind, without some research, which I'm not inclined to do at this point, grant reciprocity or issue non-resident licenses, but there may be a couple. In most places, the typical carry revolver is not so restricted. However, again off the top of my head, I don't think it is anything the prudent licensee has to worry about because it's likely he couldn't carry anything in those restrictive states anyway.

California is on the list of states I have no desire to visit as are most of the Northeastern states. The several states "magazine capacity limits" can be met with the single stack pistols I own.

I agree that a prudent licensee doesn't have to worry about it because it's likely they couldn't carry anything in those restrictive states anyway.

However, the assertion that you aren't allowed to carry a semi-auto pistol smacks of "Wheel-gunner propaganda" to me. And yes, as I posted earlier,I have owned revolvers. I just don't feel the nostalgia for them now .

Here's the link: http://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/the-f ... fficiency/ And as us revolver guys are always trying to...or better yet having to justify our choice of weapon...we're all ears when anybody can come up with any new argument in favor of the wheelgun. And for you TruHeathen - there is no such list of municipalities, counties or whatever where high capacity magazines are against the law. And that is precisely the author's point...it is easier and safer to tote a wheelgun when traveling through multiple states without having to worry you may be passing through an area with a magazine ban. My own city Cincinnati had a ban on magazines over 10 rounds...and since I-71 and I-75 passes right through downtown Cincinnati, think of how many people were in theory breaking the local law. Anyway, I just thought the author had a good point. It's not one I'd ever thought about.

Thanks for the link.

I still stand by my opinion.And having read the article comments I'm not the only one pointing out the "single stack" option.

Well, then I'm happy too - because my 8-shot moon clip offers me just as much firepower as a single stack - it just does so in a more reliable package

glocksmith wrote:Well, then I'm happy too - because my 8-shot moon clip offers me just as much firepower as a single stack - it just does so in a more reliable package

Took a look at http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/NoHiCapChemSpray.pdf and found the states that have capacity restrictions.

Connecticut,Hawaii, DC,Maryland ,Massachusetts, New York, and California all have 10 rd limits.
My Sig P220 standard mag holds 8..and the "extended magazine " holds 10. My XDs9 magazine holds 9.

Illinois,Colorado and New Jersey 15 rounds. I'm good with my double stack Sig P320 there.

I've no issue with Sig's reliability.

We can go back & forth on this endlessly; I'll agree to this, a revolver can be a thing of beauty.
And as the saying goes "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I'm just not that guy.

This issue has been ground into microscopic granules so small they'll be blown away on the first light spring breeze.lol

Tru-Heathen wrote:We can go back & forth on this endlessly; I'll agree to this, a revolver can be a thing of beauty.
And as the saying goes "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I'm just not that guy.

I wasn't aware this was a debate. If you are looking for an argument, I'd start a new thread - that'd make a great topic for debate....wheelgun versus magfed. The OP asked how many carrying revolvers...and we wheelgunners responded. Dunno how it got to be about revolver vs. SIG P320...but I applaud you for your choice of carry gun and for not following the herd or current fads

My carry options include revolvers, snubby revolvers and single stack autoloaders.

For a good read about the advantages of the revolver I recommend The Snubby Revolver By Ed Lovette