Bought a J Frame Airweight - comparisons to NAA's

[redhawk4]

I got a deal on a S&W 638 that had only fired 10 rounds and came with some nice holsters and a speed loader.  

   

   I got to fire it yesterday and I was very impressed with it, so I thought I'd give my impressions and how it compares to my NAA guns.

   

   Weight: Firstly it is light, noticeably lighter than my Guardian 380, obviously heavier than my BT.

   

   Quality:  Quality wise it's nicely finished, but then again it doesn't have that same look and feel of the BT, something about that puts it in another league. Difficult to discern anything between the Guardian and the Smith of note.

   

   Size: "Size Wise" the Smith is significantly longer than the Guardian by about the whole length of the grip. Obviously the BT is tiny in comparison. The Guardian being shorter and narrower carries better in my jeans pocket despite being heavier. It's flatter profile means it prints less than the revolver shape, although a different holster for the Smith could solve this. The BT is the ultimate for concealed carry, it even works great in the inside breast pocket of a suit, as I discovered at the weekend.

   

   "Shootability": I have to say in this department the Smith really impressed me. I fired some 38 Special 125 gr Blazer Brass ammo and a few rounds of Double Tap 125 gr +P. It was informal shooting, there's a place near where I was working where you can just pull of the road and shoot, I only had a few minutes to spare. As a result I ended up firing at some flattened coke cans that were already left there. This meant shooting at a range of 20 - 25 yards. Much to my amazement and at the same time really impressing my business partner who was with me, I started hitting these cans or just missing them by fractions of an inch, right off the bat. I stepped up to the +P double Tap ammo and nailed a can first shot. So for the guns purpose and likely useable range for SD, accuracy was more than adequate. Could I have achieved the same with the NAA pairing? I think I could have got closish with the BT, I will have to try that in the same location next time I go that way. I know I couldn't get close with the Guardian, the DAO trigger ensures that for me. I'm not saying the Guardian isn't accurate, just that it is the hardest handgun I own to shoot accurately and it's taken some familiarization to get to the point where I can shoot it proficiently for it's intended purpose, which isn't firing at relatively small objects 20 yards away.

   

   Recoil: To be honest the J frame had less recoil than I expected, given it's weight. The Blazer Ammo is only at about 800 fps, the Double Tap +P is at 1100 fps from the same short barrel  - a significant difference. The report was louder with the Double Tap but I can't say I noticed the extra recoil particularly. I found the amount of muzzle flip to be small and the time to reacquire the target very quick. Perceived recoil is about on par with the Guardian but this is because the larger grip of the Smith means you have a stronger hold. I can't say I feel recoil on the BT it goes bang and jumps a bit but I don't feel it push back, although it must.

   

   Conclusions: The J frame airweight is a great little revolver, light, accurate, relatively easy to carry and conceal and with the Double Tap ammo it packs quite a punch. Will it repalce my NAA's? the answer is no for the main. The Guardian 380 rides better in my pocket, which often is my only practical form of carry, it also has two extra rounds on board. Trying some rapid fire double action shooting, showed me how quickly you can go through 5 rounds. The Smith cannot repalce the BT, that's like saying my truck can replace my motorcycle, their roles are too different. An NAA Mini really is at the pinnacle of concealability, for me the 22 mag BT is the "King of the Minis". It's not something I want to rely on by itself at all times, but it's ability to slip in just about any pocket and be available at a seconds notice, if needed, can't be ovelooked. Interestingly, and I'd never thought of it until now, being single action, having a half cock postion and safety notches, it could be argued the BT is the most complicated of the 3 to operate.

   

   For me the J frame, in comparison to the NAA's, fulfills more the role of the other handguns I own. I see it being carried more in the nice paddle holster it came with, less for pocket carry. I like the power and accuracy it offers with +P ammo in such a small package and understand it's amazing longevity and sales success - it just fills a different role to the NAA semi auto's and mini revolvers, that are primarily pocket guns as opposed to the J frame, that can be a pocket gun. If I could have only one pocket carry handgun, it would be the Guardian 380 as the best all rounder in this company, but I recommend buying and owning all 3 - that way you can decide for yourself

   

   

   

   

[rjtravel]

My old S/S Bodyguard is a twin of your snub.  It has its purpose, but defenitely cannot conceal as does the .380, moreover most experts will give the nod to the .380 in respect to both power and firepower compared to any +P in a snub .38.  I too like 'em both.

   Richard

[lohman446]

I love my S+W airweight.  That being said it is probably the nicest carry gun I never carry.  It just got "niched" out.  Its too big for me to carry in a pocket (though some people insist its easily doable), and if I am going to go to the belt I prefer my P232 IWB or .357 SP101 (3" barrel)outside.

   

   The most fun I have with it is at the range because it is, as you noted, stupidly accurate for that short of a barrel.

[redhawk4]

"most experts will give the nod to the .380 in respect to both power and firepower compared to any +P in a snub .38"

   

   I'll take Double Tap 125gr 38 special +P at 1100 fps from a 1 7/8" barrel any day over a 95 gr 380 at 950 fps - that is the reality of modern day ammo, if "experts" are still saying that, they have not updated their reference points.

   

   Having said that, dead is still dead.

   

   7 shots vs 5 is another debate.

   

   Lohman, I think your point about the "gun I never carry", is what I was thinking, however, I bought this one in part for my wife, with her concealed carry purse the extra size is not an issue, just the weight of the carry gun.

[rjtravel]

Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2010 - 12:31 pm:        

   ll take Double Tap 125gr 38 special +P at 1100 fps from a 1 7/8" barrel any day over a 95 gr 380 at 950 fps...

   

   125gr/1,100fps from a snub?  Dunno, but when I loaded that hot I blew the crane sideways and ruined the S&W mod 10.  Lucky to retain my hand.  One could easily load the .380 hot with the same risks.  In sane loadings they are virtually in a dead heat.  If more potency wanted then go to the 9mm/45acp class.  There are many studies available, but a basic primir at http://www.recguns.com/Sources/VG1.html">http://www.recguns.com/Sources/VG1.html

[heyjoe]

Redhawk dont use anything abrasive to clean the outside surface of the 638. The finish on that gun starts to peel very easily and it gets that leprotic look to it. You can use brass bore brushes for the barrel bore and cylinder bores but dont use a brush on the finish. use something like eezox on the finish and wipe it dry after. dont forget to take off the grips and make sure it dries under the grips before you put them back on.  

   

   the 638 carries very nicely in a soft holster in dress pants. you will forget its there in those type pants and holster.

[hotwheels57]

Nice write up on the S&W.  It is an attractive little piece.  

   

   I haven't had any revolvers for 16 years since I retired (Model 60/.38/no dash).  Now, I simply prefer semi auto pistols for their thin profile and more capacity.  

   

   Personally, I like the .32naa Guardian (over the same in .32acp and .380acp) because of the impressive ballistics: 1,200fps @ almost 200# of energy from a 2.5" barrel w/ a measured .55" mushroom and retaining 100% of its weight.  And 1453fps @ 287# from a 4" test barrel!  

   

   That's as good if not better than most snub nose revolvers if I remember correctly, although I'm sure ammo has improved.  And it disappears into a pocket w/o the cylinder bulge.

   

   I'm considering having a SIG P232 converted to .32naa this winter.

[lohman446]

My thoughts on the caliber debate and balistics in general:

   

   If I told you I was going to deer hunt with a 22 hornet most "gun people" and hunters would raise an eyebrow.  That eyebrow would go higher if I mentioned I was not even attempting head shots.  If I told you I was only going to take shots at under 20 yards, broadside, on an unadrenalized whitetail a few people might give me the nod.  

   

   I would place most whitetail at less weight than the average B/G.  

   

   A 22 hornet produces about 700-800 ft/lbs of energy.  

   

   The hottest self defense loads do not break 600ft lbs.  We are discussing firing these front on (in the sternum area) of an adrenalized and often chemically enhanced B/G (at least in our discussions this is often the case).  

   

   The 22 is much closer to the 45 in the grand scheme of things than people would like to admit.  The fact of the matter is in a SD situation we are depending on shot placement and a little bit of luck to stop an attacker, even with the "great" 45.   If your attacker is DETERMINED it is likely, even after hitting center of mass, that you will be forced into close quarter combat situation if you cannot retreat.  

   

   I think too many people think of a concealed pistol as magical.  Are they useful in S/D?  Without I doubt.  However, they are, by nature of being concealable, anemic.  Rule 1)  Have it with you.  Rule 2)  Hit what you are aiming at.  3)  Be prepared if your attacker does not stop when you are out of ammo.  

   

   I should mention when hiking I carry the SP101 with hardcast 357.  Anything I meet on the trail I am going to value penetration over expansion.  Of course, I should also note in anything below a 380 I carry FMJ ammo with the theory that I need penetration more than expansion.

   

   Edit:  It was mentioned this was "for the wife".  You do away with any slide retract issues with a revolver, and for some people this is a major issue.

[backporch22]

I bought a 638 instead of the BT, cheaper too. S & W haas a 50 dollar rebate on their lightweights untik end of year.  great deal having less than 400 in gun after rebate.  I use a desanti pocket holster, works great.  Also the single action makes it shoot very nice.

[redhawk4]

Lohman, my wife is very small and has very small hands, she is not going to be able to pull the slide on a small semi auto, so a revolver his her only option. I may have to buy the version with the normal hammer for her, she can't cock the hammer on the 638 with the thumb of the shooting hand or surprisingly with the other hand. If you try it it's funny, using your shooting hand it's easy, if you use the other hand it takes quite alot of force.

   

   For anyone in disbelief or wanting info on the Double Tap Ammo I mentioned, here's the link they quote the fps specifically for the 1 and 7/8 barrel length.  

   

   http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_57&products_id=445">http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_57&products_id=445

   

   I use the 357 mag ammo in my Smith 686 and that will give you 1300 fps with a 158 grain from that 2 1/2" barrel. It also flies from a J framed sized Taurus I have with a 2' barrel, but the recoils pretty stout.  

   

   Heyjoe, thanks for the cleaning tips, it would be just my luck to screw up the finish, I'll take care. Where are you finding your Eeezox?, mine just ran out and I really liked it.

   

   Backporch, I went through a similar thought process with the BT vs a 638. I bought both, not to be flash, but because I didn't have a Mini and my thinking was swayed to "if I'm going to get one, I may as well get the one I want" which was the BT. If I'd already bought a Pug last year it would have been a lot harder for me to justify. I also wanted a 638.

   

   That was why I did my little write up, I was just thinking the whole thing through with the benefit of hindsight and ownership.

[redhawk4]

That should read 2" barrel on the Taurus, not 2'

[cedarview kid]

I think a two-foot barrel would be cool! Talk about a "Buntline!" LOL.

[ksblazer]

Nice review on the S&W 638. I have a special fondness for Snub nose revolvers. My next snub  nose will be a lightweight for sure. Sounds like your 638 is one to seriously consider.

[heyjoe]

i order it right from the distributor

   

   http://www.warrencustomoutdoor.com/products.html">http://www.warrencustomoutdoor.com/products.html

[lewiss]

My wife's J-frame is a model 340 PD in Scandium. At 11.4 oz. compared to the 15.1 of the 638, it is just enough lighter that it bites pretty bad on regular 38 Special. Plus I think there is something about the Scandium alloy that "enhances" recoil (stiffer, maybe?). That said, the trigger is a dream (especially for a DAO), if you can handle the recoil the accuracy is great for the size, and I like that it shoots .357 Mag (although 38's are enough for me on range day, thank you very much!). My wife always wanted a PPK, but fell in love with this instead. Eaiser to carry and use.

[franco22]

My snubbie is a 642 with Crimson Trace grips. I have carried it in a front pocket but prefer my Pug or Kel-tec p32 for pocket carry. The 642 wasn't bad though.

[ricart]

I have the Scandium frame .357, which in my hands will never fire a .357.  I have shot +P's in it, not real comfortable, but OK for carry.  My son's lightweight "J" is OK'D for +p's, frankly, I can't tell any difference in recoil between the two.. We both have Eagle Secret Service grips,  Most of my retired LEO buddies carry the J-Frames over the .380's, guess we are more use to concealing bigger guns.  Years ago, my department took all 380's off the list as underpowered, left the +p snubbers on the list.  They picked the brains of a lot of "experts" on the subject, guess RjTrave's experts and a lot of big city PD's experts don't agree.

[45flint]

My other carry is an old 1970's square butt smith and wesson 36 snubby blued steel frame.  Only really rated for standard power 38 and that is fine. To me these are beautifully finished guns and I can live with the extra weight.  

   Steve

[rjtravel]

Posted on Friday, November 05, 2010 - 05:37 pm:        

   ...my department took all 380's off the list as underpowered, left the +p snubbers...a lot of "experts" on the subject, guess RjTrave's experts and a lot of big city PD's experts don't agree...

   

   Hardly.  Not my "experts" - merely read that which gives credit to Sanow, Ayoob, Marshall, etc.  Everyone thinks he is an 'expert', but I would pay more attention to these guys than some departmental choices.  In respect to 'big city' - I have had more than passing contact with two of the largest in the USA (Los Angeles and Denver metro).  At that time many, if not most, off-duty or BUG use was the .380.  I have loaded .38s so hot you couldn't handle it in an ultra-lite.  I suspect the same could be achieved with an 8 ounce .380.  Either would exceed my expectations, but for me if given a choice the .380 wins hands down.  Field use is another issue...the .38 versatility is hard to beat and it has accompanied me on eight major backpacking trips this year alone.  I like 'em both.

   Richard

[gonzoman1]

My department did the same with the .380 about ten years ago. The "weakest" round approved on our carry list is a +p .38. For this we issue 125gr +p Nyclads, which chrono about 875-900fps from my J frame. I have seen these pulled from clothing covered gelatin (from our firearms instructor)when fired from a J frame that sized over .7". I'm sorry, but I have never seen an 8 oz 3" barreled .380 come close to that with any load...If you step up the bullet weight to 158gr the difference becomes even more apparent. My wife loves her .380, but I keep it loaded with FMJ so that I know if she has to use it, its gonna go deep enough to do some damage.

[ricart]

RjT,

   Glad you named the "experts".  As I use to tell customers when I was selling guns, these guys have to have new and wonderful opinions on a monthly basis so as to sell gun magazines.  While their opinions sell books,  police departments opinions have a cop's life hanging on the accuracy of the opinion.  I remember when the LAPD carried 6" .38 S&W's,  I can't think of a worse choice for a officer sitting in  a patrol car even with a swivel  holster.  No doubt, some cops carry a .380 because of the ease of carry. The year I retired, my department lost over a 1,000 combined years of experience, and we were still alive.  Most of us still pack .38 snubs.  If one of your experts was Bill Jordan,  a man I both knew and admired, I would take notice.  Monthly magazine writers fail to impress me.

[rjtravel]

Richart,

   Couldn't agree more regarding gunwriters, however if one can ferret out fact from fiction there is some value.  I remember an account Jordan related in which he had loaned his S&W mod 19 (my favorite btw) and then borrowed another mod 19.  A firefight ensued and he had an easy head shot, but missed and took off the guy's hat.  He had not sighted the borrowed 19, and was lucky to survive.  Moral?: don't trust anyone, even is his name is Jordan or Mas.  Gotta do your own diligence.

   Richard

[ricart]

When you quote Bill Jordan, we are on the same wave link.   I met him thru another great shooter, Billy McElroy with the Tex. DPS.  They were great folks.  Both deceased. In fact,  McElroy taught me to shoot PPC.  I was just breaking into police work.  Jordan was  retired when I knew him.  I think we can both agree that "whatever works for you" is the best approach. I'm old and set in my ways.

[lohman446]

Question:  Have any of you ever witnessed expansion cause a "near miss" to be a hit?  Then, discussing a determined attacker, have you ever seen, or heard, of expansion causing a hit that would not have been incapacitating to be?  

   

   I agree with the concept of loading the 380 with FMJs and do the same because of penetration issues.  However, penetration being sufficient with either I don't think that bit of expansion is going to gain you anything.  Energy alone dumped into a target is not useful, at least not in the handgun energy (and speed) numbers.  

   

   To put it another way when hiking with my SP101 in 357 I carry hardcast 180 grain Buffalo Bore ammo.  Penetration over expansion in this case as well.

[rjtravel]

On game - absolutely.  I've killed much big game, and can tell you that hydro-shock from energy dump will instantly kill even with errant placement.  I once dumped several rounds from my .357 into a downed bear at approx 20 feet.  Won't do that again - lucky that an '06 kept me from becoming bear scat on a N Montana forest.  With a rifle I've killed a number of elk and bear - all one-shot kills.  You are correct in that any normal handgun does not produce a lot of shock as does an '06 or 300 H&H.  As an example I once misplaced a shot too far forward on a crossing deer at approx 50 yds.  I'm guessing a 125 lb deer is equivalent to a 200+ man.  I caught the shoulder with my '06 with a lightly-constructed 150 gr at 3,000 fps.  Took the shoulder off and instant kill.  Not a shread of edible meat on the entire quarter.  I've read stories of men hit with similar high-powered rifles in which they continued to fight.  I simply don't believe it.  You're not going to continue with part of your body completely blown off and blood pressure drop no matter how 'determined' you may be.  A handgun must reach a vital-to-life area rather than general destruction, but it seems reasonable to me to believe a larger wound channel from an expanding bullet (assuming penetration) would be much more damaging.

   Richard

[lohman446]

Fair enough, I erred in not specifying concealable handguns.  No 460 .  A solid hit with a rifle is not illustrative of what one can expect from a handgun.  I think we can all agree that hydrostatic shock is not a factor at any normal handgun velocity as your 357 experience illustrates.   Assuming adequate penetration to reach vital organs I think that we overstate expansions benefit.  Take a .36 diameter bullet that expands to half an inch to .86.  I think that is probably more expansion than we are likely to actually see.  Thats only a .25" difference in each direction of the wound channel.   Considering the elasticity of the human body I would not bet on that quarter inch doing significantly more damage to critical organs than the original wound channel.

   

   Remember, there is a difference between killing and stopping a determined attacker.  Larger wound channels bleed more.  Depending on loss of blood to stop your attacker means the situation was probably questionable for the use of deadly force.  I don't debate that the larger wound channel creates more long term issues.

   

   Do I think expansion is useless?  No.  I think you need the energy dump expansion gives in order to prevent wild over penetration in some instances with the higher energy handguns.  I don't think that energy dump gains you true stopping power over a determined attacker though.  I'm not volunteering for this but in cases where a bullet hits a bullet proof vest and does not penetrate there is 100% energy dump of that round onto the targets body.  I would guess that energy alone of a concealable handgun is not a major concern.  Illustration that, at handgun energy / velocity levels energy dump is not a concern.  

   

   Rob

[redhawk4]

I think it's the size of the whole second only to placement that gets the job done.

[lohman446]

I think the size of the hole is so relatively close regardless of caliber or expansion that it is almost meaningless.  So I guess I just ask how far second to placement?

[rjtravel]

Then it was not a question but merely a statement.  It seems unlikely that either poster has done much discovery in respect to collateral damage in the path of the bullet.  It doesn't simply drill a small hole - It is not 'relatively close' but rather the tremendous damage from huge 'mushing' effect surrounding bullet path will be clear the first time you see it.  The expanding bullet wins hands down - period.

   Richard

[redhawk4]

You will see a huge difference in the size of the hole if you are thinking in terms of damage in and around the wound canal.  

   

   A rifle at 3,000 fps can do a lot of damage still with an FMJ, lower handgun velocities can allow an FMJ bullet to punch a very clean hole through the body, which if nothing vital is hit will not incapacitate the attacker for a long time, if at all.

   

   I don't think you can argue that FMJ's can even compare to good expanding bullets in terms of stopping power, unless the expanding bullet cannot expand due to insufficient velocity. Unless the bullet is badly designed it will not expand and cause inadequate penetration, since it should require the energy for good penetration before the bullet will expand.

   

   I haven't fired 380 so much into various materials and targets as 9mm. 9mm in FMJ will go straight through all sorts of things punching a small neat hole, this is why IMO it developed such a poor reputation for stopping power, particularly as the Military are stuck with FMJ. Switch up to a hollow point and shoot at some things and you'll see a huge difference. 380 pushes a lighter bullet at slower speeds, but I believe the current quality SD rounds produced for 380 will work well. At least 380 rounds are designed with short barrels in mind and perform accordingly i.e. at the advertised velocity unlike some other calibers where quoted ballistics are for 5 or 6 inch barrels. Even the mighty 45 acp can get rather slow and tired from a 3" barrel bringing into question whether a hollow point will expand.

[lohman446]

Yeh, there is some agreement there.  I do agree that using a tremendous amount more energy than needed to do the job (yes, I hunt whitetail with a 30/06 too) can result in catastrophic damage, and I see the advantage in damage to the target, and a great case for expansion and hydrostatic shock.  

   

   I guess my argument centers around a feeling that handguns do not have that tremendous amount of energy even in the 45 / 357 ranges at least in carryable guns.  I don't think they have enough to cause hydrostic shock.

   

   I think expansion can create larger wound channels, but counting on a handgun bullet to go through heavy bones and expand I think is expecting more than it will.  I also think those large wound channels, while deadly over time, do not add to the ability to incapacitate a determined attacker any more quickly.  

   

   I guess I'm lost in wording here.  I think, in order to stop a determined attacker, with a COM hit there is a limited amount of important internal organs (or the spine) that you would have to hit.  I don't think that you have enough energy to disrupt those organs without a direct hit.  While I understand, when you have enough energy to simply punch through, you want expansion to prevent that my wonder is if it helps cause incapacitation.  

   

   Granted I do not have experience with handgun injuries and am limited to rifle injuries to dissimiliar game from humans.  Though I have talked extensively with a swat certified EMT who has seen various wounds its really all conjecture on my part.

[chopprs]

Lohman, have you ever fired a .454 Casull or a .500 S&W?  

   Either one will stop a bear in it's tracks or cut a man in half!

[lohman446]

Yeh, I keep forgetting .  The 460 IIRC is balistically pretty similiar to a 30/30.  That being said I don't carry one .

[bud]

The Colt .45 ACP was designed by John Moses Browning. John Browning first experimented with self-loaders in 1889 when he modified a Winchester 1873 lever-action to work as an autoloader by using the action of the gases at the muzzle.

   

   During the same time frame that John Browning was working on many of his 128 patents, a tribe of warriors, the Moro, were giving the U.S. Army a very hard time in the Philippines. To prepare for battle, the Moro would bind their limbs with leather, take narcotics, and use religious ritual to gain an altered state of consciousness, this turned them into virtual Supermen. The .38 Long Colt pistol round the U.S. soldiers had simply would not stop the Moro. Of note is the fact that the Krag rifles the U.S. issued were also barely more than useless.

   

   Remembering the experience with the Moros and after extensive testing on animals and human cadavers, Col. John T. Thompson (inventor of the Thompson sub-machine-gun) and Col. Louis A. La Garde, of the Army Ordnance Board, determined that the Army needed a .45 caliber cartridge to provide adequate stopping power. At this time  Browning was working for Colt and had already designed an autoloader pistol, around a cartridge similar in dimension to the .38 Super. Hearing of the Armys request for designs for a new handgun, Browning re-engineered this .38 autoloader to accommodate a .45" diameter cartridge that he designed and submitted the pistol to the Army for evaluation.

[grayelky]

Food for thought:

   

   Those who feel handguns have stopping power, and think determination can be over come with a handgun, go back a number of years and research the FBI shootout with a pair of bank robbers in Miami, FL. It was this shootout that eventually lead to the development of the .40 S&W caliber. Both of the robbers received hits that, in theory, should have stopped them, however, both were determined to kill the agents and escape.