642 vs. LCP

[JBHorne]

I know I'm going to take a punch in the face here, but I don't understand revolvers at all, especially so-called "pocket" revolvers.

I would really like the logic explained to me, because obviously I don't understand it.

I have shot both, walked with both in my pockets (at the same time), and tried to draw both. In every case I preferred the LCP.

So, instead of just saying "to each his/her own", I would appreciate a good argument for pocket revolvers.

I picked up my LCP on friday and absolutely love the thing. I am so glad I did not go with the 642. Why?

1) Size -- the LCP is simply smaller and lighter. Thickness is a huge issue when carrying in a pocket. It would only serve use in a front pocket too as I wouldn't want to sit on a revolver's cylinder. With the LCP, I can either reach for my wallet in one back pocket or my LCP in the other.

2) Rounds -- 7 vs. 5. Shot placement is yada-yada when you are talking about very close encounters. Yes, obviously it matters...a lot. But I would rather know that in a multiple attacker situation, I can at least put 3 rounds at each and still have an extra.

3) Extra ammo -- I would rather carry a thin magazine in my other pocket (in a holster of course) than have to deal with a thick, round speedloader.

3) Reloading -- sure you can post a video on youtube of ridiculously fast competition shooters who can reload in under a second, but the majority of us can't do that, especially with a revolver. A magazine is easier to slap in than have to use a speedloader. This is especially true for #4.

4) Southpaws -- Using a revolver is difficult. Yes, it can be done with lots of practice, but I would rather not have to switch hands and such.

People say that semi-autos are less reliable than revolvers in that they can jam and gunk up with lint. Do you take showers? So should your gun. Clean it, don't over oil it, and it will work flawlessly.

EDIT: THE DEVIL IS UPON ME! THIS WAS POST 666 FOR ME!!! LOL!

[longtalltechsan]

Originally Posted by JBHorne

I know I'm going to take a punch in the face here, but I don't understand revolvers at all, especially so-called "pocket" revolvers.

I would really like the logic explained to me, because obviously I don't understand it.

I have shot both, walked with both in my pockets (at the same time), and tried to draw both. In every case I preferred the LCP.

So, instead of just saying "to each his/her own", I would appreciate a good argument for pocket revolvers.

I picked up my LCP on friday and absolutely love the thing. I am so glad I did not go with the 642. Why?

1) Size -- the LCP is simply smaller and lighter. Thickness is a huge issue when carrying in a pocket. It would only serve use in a front pocket too as I wouldn't want to sit on a revolver's cylinder. With the LCP, I can either reach for my wallet in one back pocket or my LCP in the other.

2) Rounds -- 7 vs. 5. Shot placement is yada-yada when you are talking about very close encounters. Yes, obviously it matters...a lot. But I would rather know that in a multiple attacker situation, I can at least put 3 rounds at each and still have an extra.

3) Extra ammo -- I would rather carry a thin magazine in my other pocket (in a holster of course) than have to deal with a thick, round speedloader.

3) Reloading -- sure you can post a video on youtube of ridiculously fast competition shooters who can reload in under a second, but the majority of us can't do that, especially with a revolver. A magazine is easier to slap in than have to use a speedloader. This is especially true for #4.

4) Southpaws -- Using a revolver is difficult. Yes, it can be done with lots of practice, but I would rather not have to switch hands and such.

People say that semi-autos are less reliable than revolvers in that they can jam and gunk up with lint. Do you take showers? So should your gun. Clean it, don't over oil it, and it will work flawlessly.

EDIT: THE DEVIL IS UPON ME! THIS WAS POST 666 FOR ME!!! LOL!

JB, I once had a KT P3AT, and I know I know, the LCP is much better, but I have been hearing about increasing problems with it. That being said, the KT had multitudes of problems and was unreliable. I used to hate revolvers. But then I saw the 642 and read so many reviews and realized it is much more reliable. I also read reviews of .380 vs. .38spl and in most all of the reviews the .38spl is favored. Like you, I live in Tucson and wear shorts when I am not at work and the 642 rides very nicely and unnoticeably in my Uncle Mike's pocket holster. In my other pocket I carry 10 extra rounds in Bianchi speed strips, not speedloaders as they are too bulky. I decided I would rather give up 2 rounds for 100% reliability than have 7 that could very possibly jam.

Remember, my basis is on the P3AT, while not the LCP, they are very much alike and are more susceptible to problems than a revolver b/c they are autoloaders. For some reason, the jeans that I wear shed pocket lint like a long-haired dog in the middle of the desert in summertime. I was constantly having to clean them out every day. I still do with the revolver, but I am not as worried about the lint causing a malfunction with the 642 than with the P3AT or LCP. Just to add, I have not found anything I wear that I cannot carry the 642 in my pocket.

This is just my take on it, YMMV. We need to get together sometime and shoot.

[Broadside]

I agree with everything you posted, however here are my thoughts.

.380 is too small of a round and does not get the job done. I set my limit to .38 Special or 9MM as the smallest round I would carry. Yes its about shot placement but velocity has a lot to do with balistic performance and penetration. IMO .380 just doesn't cut it. Even shooting in bare gel it doesn't make the mark and that's with out clothes, jacket and hitting bone, tissue ect...

Size is a comfort factor and personal preference. A full size 1911 may fit one guy and a LCP fits another. I've got several guns I carry which provide options. You should too.

Round count & reloading, CCW isn't about a sustained fire fight. It makes me feel better having more rounds but the reality is unless you are engaging multiple targets or no way to retreat you will be looking for a way out. I always carry extra rounds you should too but I doubt I will need them. You shoot to stop so that may be 1 round and it maybe 7. You never know until after the fact which is part of the reason why I wanted a 38/357 or 9mm.

Revolvers are reliable just pull the trigger if a round didn't go off. No failure drills to deal with. I'm not a southpaw so can't speak to that.

I carry a Kahr PM9 almost every day 6+1 with the standard mag and carry a spare 7 rnds. On the off days I carry one of the XD's. I've been looking at a small revolver for my wife. She has a hard time racking the slide on the XD. It's about practice and comfort when you carry. Just make sure when you do pull your Ace of Spades it goes bang and rounds down range are on target.

[ScottyT]

I prefer the Kel Tec P3AT over the 642 for a pocket gun. I picked up my (read: my wife's) P3AT lightly used at a great price and I have since put 250 rounds through it (all remington JHP) without a single malfunction of any kind. I use it as a deep concealment gun when I can't conceal my XD and my wife will let me take it...

I have never owned or fired the 642, but I checked it out and tried on different concealment options at the shop and I didn't like it as a pocket gun.

[ScottyT]

Check out the .380's performance vs. the 38 special:

The Box O' Truth #26 - Little Guns vs. The Box O' Truth - Page 1

[1lowlife]

Just wanted to give comparison size examples.
I like my 642 and my LCP.
They have different purposes for different conditions.
Just buy both.................

[JBHorne]

Your post on the "357 pocket revolver" thread is what started my rant

I greatly appreciated the pictures! Thanks!

Originally Posted by 1lowlife

Just wanted to give comparison size examples.
I like my 642 and my LCP.
They have different purposes for different conditions.
Just buy both.................

[RobFMJ]

I think it a lot of it is personal preference, as you say. I, for example, would never pick a Kel-Tec over a 642, but the only logical reason I have for that is that the .38+P is a far superior round, if only in terms of terminal ballistics. The rest is my preference. Size? I don't have a problem with either. Capacity? Its a pocket gun, and I don't feel hindered at all having two fewer rounds than a pocket auto (or one fewer than that ridiculous .327 magnum). Reloading? I'd say your comparison using a speedloader is a bit off, as most who carry pocket revolvers don't use them. But I digress... The primary reason to carry a reload for an autoloader is not for more ammunition, its to make the clearing of a stoppage or magazine failure easier (issues a revolver does not have to contend with). Beyond that, carrying a significant amount of extra magazines/speedstrips/speedloaders is not really in keeping with the idea of a small pocket (or backup) gun (disregard that if its your primary carry gun, which is a bad idea too, but I'll keep off the soapbox on that one).

Anyways, I grew up with revolvers, I learned to shoot them well, and still do (which a lot of people don't take into consideration when they buy a revolver... it takes a lot more practice to become proficient with one than with a semi-auto). I feel that the revolver's design, which allows for a relatively higher-powered round to be chambered in a comparably sized firearm, makes up for any of its shortcomings (the real ones). As for the perceived ones, thats all up to the person carrying the weapon. If you think that one is better than the other for you, then go for it. Confidence in your firearm and your abilities is very important. I don't expect that just because I think a 642 is a better firearm for pocket carry everybody is going to eschew the Kel-Tec design.

Oh, and your reliability argument isnt really an argument... Your Ruger is just as (and probably moreso from a design standpoint, but I'm not gonna argue that one) susceptible to fouling and jams from pocket lint and debris as a revolver is.

The point made about revolvers being inherently more reliable than semi-autos is that the ammunition does not have to change position in relation to the gun to operate. The act of a round going from the magazine to the chamber of a semi-auto is (as you probably know) not the most smooth or elegant process in the world, and relies solely on a compressed spring. If at any point the combined friction of the slide against the barrel and frame, and the round encountering the extractor and entering the chamber exceeds the spring's force, the process fails, and requires manipulation of the slide to correct. While a revolver is not free from interference from friction, it is not operationally dependent on a lack of it.

ETA- Wow, I started typing this before there were any replies to this thread... wish my hands worked as fast as my head

[Broadside]

Originally Posted by ScottyT

Check out the .380's performance vs. the 38 special:

The Box O' Truth #26 - Little Guns vs. The Box O' Truth - Page 1

I love box o truth. The ammo he used for the .38 test was the WWB JHPs. Short of anything that I would call modern, WWB JHP's are good for target shooting and limited hunting not self defense. If it was Federal, Speer, Hornady or Rem I might buy into the test comparison.

[AZXD40]

Originally Posted by Broadside

I love box o truth. The ammo he used for the .38 test was the WWB JHPs. Short of anything that I would call modern, WWB JHP's are good for target shooting and limited hunting not self defense. If it was Federal, Speer, Hornady or Rem I might buy into the test comparison.

Same thing could be said about the .380 ammo he was using.. thing is, no matter what caliber you are using SHOT PLACEMENT! will always win the battle...