What's the point of buying a .38 revolver?

[vit]

Skip the Rossi. It's pretty much the Taurus' economy line.

[Dafapa]

I'm looking at their .357 revolvers, like the lifetime warranty and inexpensive for new.

If you're interested in a carry piece you might want to consider the ruger LCR revolvers. I got one in .357 mag and so far I like it. It does have partially polymer frame, but it seems to work. The good points are: light weight without a large price due to titanium or special alloy frame, generally good price, and total enclosed hammer. I think I paid about 430.00 + tax for mine, and the .38 spcl version is substantially less.

If you want a shooter I'd look for a used taurus of some type as they can be had on the cheap. They're good for the price. I hear rossi is alright as well. I would take either if the price was right if all I was looking for was a cheap, serviceable .38 spcl.

[HDR]

There's a reason all the LEO's have auto's now.

Apparently the auto loader didn't fix the root cause of the problem.

Okay besides most of em can't hit anything

It shows almost every time there is a shooting. Ayoob has often commented how other than qualifying too many cops lack the interest.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

Apparently the auto loader didn't fix the root cause of the problem.



It shows almost every time there is a shooting. Ayoob has often commented how other than qualifying too many cops lack the interest.

Which is surprising. You'd think their lives would be worth a few more trips to the range.

[gunslinger]

I don't know.
The question has its merits.
Today you can get lots of used 357 for a light price as well.
Moreover, I really don't see why to use a revolver when in the same size and weight you can carry a Glock with more than twice the shots , and the same (if not more) reliability and readyness / ease of use.

Sure, you may not need more than 2-3 shots, but since there is no trade off (you may have more within the same size and weight limits) why not?

[Flinter]

Sure, you may not need more than 2-3 shots, but since there is no trade off (you may have more within the same size and weight limits) why not?

I prefer a revolver to carry for 2 reasons really;

1) Reliablity. Glocks are reliable but I have never, ever had a revolver jam. Revolver jams are catastrophic when they happen, but they very rarely happen.
2) I can toss a revolver in my coat pocket and place my hand on it if I feel threatened without anyone around me being aware of it. If push comes to shove, I can fire that revolver without removing it from my coat mulitiple times.

Number 2 is probably my main reason for carrying a revolver.

[Richard Simmons]

I prefer a revolver to carry for 2 reasons really;

1) Reliablity. Glocks are reliable but I have never, ever had a revolver jam. Revolver jams are catastrophic when they happen, but they very rarely happen.
2) I can toss a revolver in my coat pocket and place my hand on it if I feel threatened without anyone around me being aware of it. If push comes to shove, I can fire that revolver without removing it from my coat mulitiple times.

Number 2 is probably my main reason for carrying a revolver.

I'm a huge revolver fan and would have agreed with you on both points however, a few years ago I was firing my S&W 25-14 in 45 ACP. On the fifth shot the cylinder would not cycle, nor could I open the cylinder. Checked the front and the last round of Blazer brass cased 230gr ball had lost it's crimp and allowed the bullet to walk far enough under recoil that when the fifth round went off the bullet came out of the chamber far enough to stop the cylinder from rotating or opening. I was able to tap the bullet back in and open the cylinder.

That was the only round I've ever had do that and I continue to shoot Blazer brass cased ball but had it been a defense load I probably would have changed brands. I still carry revolvers 90% of the time for CCW but I no longer think it can't happen.

[mriddick]

Owning a gunshop I've seen quite a few "disabled" revolvers due to dirt and grime, I'm not sure I'd consider a revolver really that much more reliable then an semiautomatic although I bet most feel they are. I've stopped using revolvers with a hammer ever since my model 38 refused to fired due to a seed getting stuck in the rear of the shrouded hammer that stopped the revolver cold. Now I only carry hammerless revolvers such as my 642. I like the idea of being able to fire my revolver from the pocket of my coat if need be. Although in the 2 times I've done that, both times my coat caught fire so be careful

[Flinter]

I agree that revolvers CAN jam. The jam that Richard brought up is probably the worst. It may be a good reason for buying a 357 and loading it with 38's.

I have to clean out my hammer shroud with canned air about every couple of months. It collects lint.

lol @ mriddick...my coat is wool. It won't catch fire.

[gunslinger]

I prefer a revolver to carry for 2 reasons really;

1) Reliablity. Glocks are reliable but I have never, ever had a revolver jam. Revolver jams are catastrophic when they happen, but they very rarely happen.

One little known fact is that the first semiautos, which fired usually weaker rounds than revolvers, and that held not so many more ammo, were chosen by the military because they were more reliable than revolvers. And if that was true of those old semiautos, imagine the modern ones.
A revolver has a very open mechanism that can get jammed big time by a lot of things.
Especially in a pocket.

2) I can toss a revolver in my coat pocket and place my hand on it if I feel threatened without anyone around me being aware of it. If push comes to shove, I can fire that revolver without removing it from my coat mulitiple times.

Number 2 is probably my main reason for carrying a revolver.

Ever tried that for real, with an old coat?
I suppose not.
Now: figure your hand in an enclosed space, suddenly saturated with 1400+ degrees high pressure gases.
You don't want to do that...

[gunslinger]

I'm a huge revolver fan and would have agreed with you on both points however, a few years ago I was firing my S&W 25-14 in 45 ACP. On the fifth shot the cylinder would not cycle, nor could I open the cylinder. Checked the front and the last round of Blazer brass cased 230gr ball had lost it's crimp and allowed the bullet to walk far enough under recoil that when the fifth round went off the bullet came out of the chamber far enough to stop the cylinder from rotating or opening. I was able to tap the bullet back in and open the cylinder.

That was the only round I've ever had do that and I continue to shoot Blazer brass cased ball but had it been a defense load I probably would have changed brands. I still carry revolvers 90% of the time for CCW but I no longer think it can't happen.

And that is just ONE of the "bad things" that can stop a revolver. A simple matchstick that jams into the gap between the cylinder and recoil shield, or some lint that enters one of the many openings in the revolver frame. And lots more.
Armies and weapon boards are famous for being uber-resistant to change, the main answer to any suggestion of change being "it worked until now, so it's fine". If they almost universally switched from revolver to semiauto, they had their damn good reasons.

[mriddick]

Ever tried that for real, with an old coat?
I suppose not.
Now: figure your hand in an enclosed space, suddenly saturated with 1400+ degrees high pressure gases.
You don't want to do that...

As I posted I've done it twice and never noticed the heat till I felt the resulting fire from my jacket being on fire LOL. I'm guessing that was because the barrel was placed against the inside liner of my jacket resulting in little of the muzzle blast being released inside the pocket.

[Flinter]

Ever tried that for real, with an old coat?
I suppose not.
Now: figure your hand in an enclosed space, suddenly saturated with 1400+ degrees high pressure gases.
You don't want to do that...

No, I've honestly never tried it.

However, a knife through my liver...a burnt hand...I'll take the burnt hand.

I do recall reading a magazine article when I was younger where Jerry Ahern bought a few old jackets from the thrift shop and tried it. He never commented on burning his hand. I'd assume it wasn't bad because he did it three or 4 times. He did, however, comment on the jackets catching fire.

Out of curiosity....Have you tried it?

[Mark Ducati]

I bought a S&W .357 a few years ago... when we go to the range, before I bought my wife a .38SPC, I let her shoot .38 through my .357 for fun, then I shot .357 for my practice.

I've been told that YES, you can shoot .38SPC through .357 as we all know... BUT, if you shoot too much .38SPC for practice all the time then load it with .357 for carry/self defense, repeated firing of .38SPC can wear the inside of the cylinders to where when you need to shoot .357 and then reload... the cases might get stuck in the cylinders.

I've never experienced this as I don't shoot that much... but just what I've read.

Any truth to this?

[mriddick]

I bought a S&W .357 a few years ago... when we go to the range, before I bought my wife a .38SPC, I let her shoot .38 through my .357 for fun, then I shot .357 for my practice.

I've been told that YES, you can shoot .38SPC through .357 as we all know... BUT, if you shoot too much .38SPC for practice all the time then load it with .357 for carry/self defense, repeated firing of .38SPC can wear the inside of the cylinders to where when you need to shoot .357 and then reload... the cases might get stuck in the cylinders.

I've never experienced this as I don't shoot that much... but just what I've read.

Any truth to this?

I've seen 357 mag revolvers where lead had built up in the cylinder from firing 38 spl loads to the point that it was tough to seat a 357 mag cartridge. The lead was tough to remove but once it was the revolver was pretty much as new. I've never seen damaged to the point of not seating a 357 mag.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

I've seen 357 mag revolvers where lead had built up in the cylinder from firing 38 spl loads to the point that it was tough to seat a 357 mag cartridge. The lead was tough to remove but once it was the revolver was pretty much as new. I've never seen damaged to the point of not seating a 357 mag.

WOW... They must of never cleaned em or shot 1000's of rounds at a time! We shot a few hundred rounds last time and there was just a little ring in the cylinders when I cleaned it later.

[HDR]

Armies and weapon boards are famous for being uber-resistant to change,

Of course the military is slow to change because of the cost of upgrading to the latest greatest caliber of the moment. OTOH, as the Muj used the 303 so effectively against the Russians; DoD should have known eventually they would need a counter.

the main answer to any suggestion of change being "it worked until now, so it's fine". If they almost universally switched from revolver to semiauto, they had their damn good reasons.

The switch was driven by the ammunition more than the platform. Everyone knows the reason the 38 Special was replaced was it's poor performance during the Philippine Insurrection in 1899–1902.

"The .38 Special was introduced in 1899 as an improvement over the .38 Long Colt which, as a military service cartridge, was found to have inadequate stopping power against the wooden shields of charging Moros during the Philippine-American War. Most hand-loading manuals and other references date the cartridge to 1902 and the Smith & Wesson Military and Police revolver variation of that year.

Although it was introduced thirteen years into the smokeless powder era, the .38 Special was originally loaded with black powder, but was offered with smokeless loads within a year of its introduction."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.38_Special

The Philippine Insurrection began in 1899. Today's 38 Special ammunition is often greatly enhanced as compared to what was available back then.

[HDR]

I bought a S&W .357 a few years ago... when we go to the range, before I bought my wife a .38SPC, I let her shoot .38 through my .357 for fun, then I shot .357 for my practice.

I've been told that YES, you can shoot .38SPC through .357 as we all know... BUT, if you shoot too much .38SPC for practice all the time then load it with .357 for carry/self defense, repeated firing of .38SPC can wear the inside of the cylinders to where when you need to shoot .357 and then reload... the cases might get stuck in the cylinders.

I've never experienced this as I don't shoot that much... but just what I've read.

Any truth to this?

As it is .135" shorter than a 357 if you shoot a lot of 38 it will leave a residue in the cylinder where the extra .135" of a 357 needs to be.

[HDR]

Which is surprising. You'd think their lives would be worth a few more trips to the range.

True and it is a poorly thought out decision on their part.

Owning a gunshop I've seen quite a few "disabled" revolvers due to dirt and grime, I'm not sure I'd consider a revolver really that much more reliable then an semiautomatic although I bet most feel they are. I've stopped using revolvers with a hammer ever since my model 38 refused to fired due to a seed getting stuck in the rear of the shrouded hammer that stopped the revolver cold. Now I only carry hammerless revolvers such as my 642. I like the idea of being able to fire my revolver from the pocket of my coat if need be. Although in the 2 times I've done that, both times my coat caught fire so be careful

I used to live near Ft. Bragg and quite a few of my neighbors were active duty SF which means their families were left on their own often. The most common selections for home protection for the wife was a revolver. The reason was a revolver is reliable and extremely simple to operate under stress. A FTF is cured by squeezing the trigger again which is something semis cannot do.

AFA, disabled due to dirt and grime, I put that in the same category as a car that fails because no one checked the oil or overheats due to a lack of coolant. These reliability tests where they throw a firearm in mud then shoot it; sooner or later they'll notice what happens when the barrel has mud in it.

Personally I don't fault the device when the root cause of the failure was operator stupidity.

[mriddick]

If you think about it you don't have to fill in the entire .135 difference between the 38spl and 357mag case length, you only have to deposit enough gunk in there so the rear of the case binds the cylinder or doesn't allow it to close at all.