"Modern Service Revolver" for concealed carry?

Status
Not open for further replies.

labnoti

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2018
Messages
1,892
I want to share this article published yesterday for discussion:

https://www.recoilweb.com/revisiting-the-modern-service-revolver-152658.html

I do not know the author or his background.

I do think people should consider the service (full-size) revolver for carry. I don't want to turn this into another revolver vs. semi-automatic thread, so I'm going to focus on some revolvers vs. other revolvers.

It would seem small revolvers like the J frame and LCR are the most popular today, followed closely by little revolvers like the Kimber and SP101.

The article makes the distinction between what the author calls a "modern service revolver" and a "compact" revolver, but he does not make it so clear how much the compact revolver sucks.

Instead of detailing all the ways the compact revolver falls short, I will present the two traditional uses of it for your consideration:

Backup gun. You're in ass-deep and you just lost the bad-ass primary gun you brought to the fight or it just failed. Now your plan is to make it through this s-storm with a little mouse gun.

Off-duty gun. Your partner is not around. You have no vest. You have no taser. You have no baton. You have no radio link to dispatch. You have no chopper with the searchlight or FLIR. No backup unit. No K9. So obviously, you don't need a duty size gun, just a little pea-shooter, preferably with no more than 5 rounds of Wimp+P.

A few other comments on the article:

Lasers:
The author adamantly advises the use of laser grips. I have plenty of first-hand experience with green and red. There are whole threads on laser vs. no laser. What I will say is that no training schools offer classes based on laser sighting other than a one-time class at Gunsite because Crimson Trace sponsored a class there to be advertised. Save your laser money for a no-laser class.

Cartridge choice:
The author concedes that 327 Magnum is acceptable despite his previously published maxim requiring .38 Special or greater. Whatever. I suppose .30-06 is ok too even though it's even smaller than .327. The real problem with 327 isn't the cartridge, but the little guns its usually chambered in. It would be great in an 8-shot GP-100, but Ruger only makes a 7-shot, which I can have in .357, so what's the point again? Then he goes on to concede that he wears a rimfire gun in his underwear -- maybe he expects squirrels will try to attack him for his nuts? The threat does not weaken based on what you choose to wear.

Moon-clips.
Are awesome for carry. The author claims to have softened on chamberings for rimless cartridges that cannot be used without moon-clips. Whatever. The key thing is to carry full moon-clips. On your first load, they will help positively eject the spent cartridges without that one snagging or getting caught under the ejector. Whatever you think of moon-clips, they are worth it for just this alone. On reloads, they are faster and better than speedloaders. You must carry them so they won't be bent -- not loose in your pocket with the keys. I understand how they don't allow for "tactical" or partial reloads. Instead of wasting your attention lifting and picking spent brass, just carry more reloads. If you cut brass in a chamber, the next moon-clip won't load at all. Use the clip like a speed-strip. Insert two cartridges at a time and tear the clip off. You can always carry a speed-strip too. Moon-clips offer too much of an advantage not to have some.
 
The author lost me at:
"In my opinion, outside of Ruger and Smith and Wesson, the other revolver brands are to be avoided for any reason other than humor value. "

I have a couple of these:
zzzcolts.jpg
and I'm entirely comfortable relying upon them to do their job, despite what the article's author says about the new Colt's (which have been pretty much universally acclaimed and garnered mostly positive reports and reviews). I don't have one of the Kimber K6s, but I've heard nothing bad about them either. Then there's my 1992 Taurus Model 85 SS which has been more accurate for years, and just as reliable as, all of my S&W J-frames; can't speak to the recent production Taurus revolvers, but one suspects they'll do their job adequately. Charter Arms, in its various incarnations over the years, has produced some quite worthy revolvers. Even Rossi as well.

Lasers on revolvers? If, as noted, the gun is carried as one's "Jesus gun," one is probably using it at a distance wherein the laser is wholly unnecessary. Moon-clips? Me personally, I've never understood the rationale for carrying (I didn't say owning or shooting) a revolver that uses auto-pistol cartridge.

I agree with the OP that shooting small revolvers sucks. Especially the polymer-framed versions, which I don't get at all, because in the weight classes available, one can get auto-pistols with slightly larger capacity that manage recoil better and certainly conceal better. I love my S&W Airweights, but after shooting a few cylinders (especially Plus-P) at the range, I call it a day.

Thanks for sharing the article, OP, but again I note that some gun-writers spew forth a lot of words exploring ultimately meaningless issues.
 
I also don't agree with the author's exclusive focus on S&W and Ruger. I certainly have nothing against a gun just because it's a Colt or Taurus. I would disparage a gun for carry purposes because of its small size or short-barrel combined with weak chambering regardless of the brand.

I'm not into revolvers chambered in rimless auto cartridges, but don't see a huge problem with them. .45 ACP, 10mm, fine. I'd rather have the standard rimmed versions. For me, the key point is how well moon-clips work for carry despite their frequent characterization as only being suitable for competition.

I drew attention to this article and commented on it to make the point that carrying full-size revolvers is a good idea in spite of being very unpopular. In contrast, compact revolvers are popular for carry, in spite of the many reasons why a full-size revolver is much better.
 

It has some positive points to it, but I would say the short barrel and short sight radius leave a lot to be desired. I didn't intend this topic to be arguing for or against particular models of guns, but to expose some advocacy for full-size revolvers versus the more popular compacts. The snub-nosed 327 is probably somewhere in-between. I would also point out what I think is a popular opinion that barrel length is easier to conceal than large or long grips (typically associated with long-magazine double-stack autos). The sight radius and improved ballistics of a long barrel are worth much more than they cost.
 
"9mm clips and .38 Special clips for compact revolvers tend to be very thin and very fragile, making them prone to bending, which renders the gun inoperable." and "the large, robust clips such as the ones for the S&W 625 or the Ruger GP100 10mm are far more durable"

The author is seemingly unaware either that a 9mm is a rimless cartridge, or that all rimless carts (including the 9mm) uses a thicker (which he refers to as larger) 0.035" clip which is far more robust than the 0.025" moonclip utilized on rimmed carts like .38 and 357.
 
Moon-clips? Me personally, I've never understood the rationale for carrying (I didn't say owning or shooting) a revolver that uses auto-pistol cartridge.

The advantages to carrying a revolver chambered in rimless cart is that rimless cart utilize a thick (0.035") moonclip which hold the bullets more firmly. This, and the fact that rimless cart are normally shorter than their rimmed counterparts, makes reloading the revolver much faster than using the same setup with calibers such as 38 special and 357 mag. The downside to this is that given the extra girth of these short rimless carts, the cylinder needs have a larger diameter to contain them.
 
Last edited:
Read all the comments above and did not bother watching the video as it sounded like someone who had never been in a gunfight, has not studied actual gunfights nor even talked to anyone who had been in one....

Do the research and you'll find that 95% of all civilian defensive gunfights take place within "conversation" distance...contact to 7 yards...(FIGHTING SMARTER by Tom Givens) And you need a laser for what? Also there are no reloads....what is in your gun to start with is what you will fight with. There are hundreds of gunfight videos on YouTube and LiveLeak that one can learn from. Active Selfdefense has a lot of good ones on YouTube from around the world with some good annalists of what went right and what went wrong...

As to the "modern" full size self-defense revolver, the most impressive one to me is the Ruger GP-100 in the 3" and 4" barrel lengths in 10mm. With the stock easy to load and unload clips it will run 10mm 100% as the rounds really headspace on the case mouth so the headspace is perfect. With .40 S&W one needs to get the "thick clips" from TK Custom or Ranch products run the .40s 100%. These would have made the perfect LE revolvers "back in the day"....

...but like was said above...just carry a gun...

Bob
 
My random thoughts:

I am OK carrying an SP101 as my “primary” weapon. J-Snubs hurt the base joint of my right thumb, relegating them to lefty training, and secondary/tertiary carry status. (Putting bigger, cushion-y grips on a J-Snub results in a larger weapon, in the SP101/K-Snub size envelope.)

The SP101 is large enough for me to get all of my skinny fingers firmly onto the weapon, so I can shoot an SP101 almost as well as a duty/service weapon, within the limitations of the short sight radius, and small-sized sights, but there is not much “work space” for quick speed-loading, so if an SP101 is “primary,” I probably have another weapon, too.

I have joked that my favorite speed-loader, for the SP101, is made by Ruger, of stainless steel, and perfectly fits a holster made for an SP101. Actually, it is not a joke.

In a gunfight, if an SP101 is good, a Speed Six or K-Frame is better, and a GP100 is best, largely because no handgun grip I have tried is better for my hands than the original-pattern GP100 grip. Plenty of felons looked up the barrel of my first GP100, and some smaller number of felons looked up the barrels of my other GP100 or Speed Six revolvers. One of those felons was armed with two weapons, and did not comply. Let’s just say that I do not need to read anecdotes or statistics, or look at gelatin tests, to know what one full-pressure Federal 125-grain JHC will do to a human body. (JHC was not a typo.)

My wife was a forensic investigator for the Medical Examiner, in Texas’ most-populous county, which is also the third-most populous county in the USA, for 21 years. She was, notably, a death scene investigator, seeing bodies at the scenes, not in the autopsy suites. Blood spatter evidence is a science. One of the best one-shot, drop-right-there stops, that she ever investigated, was a cross-torso wound caused my a Speer 135-grain Gold Dot .357, which probably means the Short Barrel ammo. (I do not recall seeing a Speer full-pressure 135-grain load.) The weapon was a 4” revolver.

These two anecdotes are not data. I know that. I do trust the sources. ;)

My best and most-consistent accuracy potential, with any handgun, is realized with a GP100, with good sights, or a K/L-Frame, with good sights and better grips/stocks. On a good day, I can shoot a 5”, all-steel 1911 as well as these revolvers. Not all days are good days.
 
I carry an LCR .357 as my EDC... I rotate it with my SP101 Spurless .357. I shoot both firearms equally well. I have a LCRx 3" .357 that I'm going to work into the mix. I carry my Security Six when in the field and hunting...because of its weight and girth I don't carry it concealed.
 
70D35676-DACC-4F58-BF28-F46D49F0BC36.jpeg I carry one of these every day. They share these characteristics, 4” tapered barrel, N frame, 45 ACP, grip adapter with square butt stocks. (Two revolvers are rb, I have conversion stocks for them.)

I use Ranch Products full moons. Ranch Products is local to me and I believe the originator of the modern full moon clip.

I carry them OWB, concealed under a vest, shirt or sweater depending on season of the year.

Kevin
 
"9mm clips and .38 Special clips for compact revolvers tend to be very thin and very fragile, making them prone to bending, which renders the gun inoperable." and "the large, robust clips such as the ones for the S&W 625 or the Ruger GP100 10mm are far more durable"

The author is seemingly unaware either that a 9mm is a rimless cartridge, or that all rimless carts (including the 9mm) uses a thicker (which he refers to as larger) 0.035" clip which is far more robust than the 0.025" moonclip utilized on rimmed carts like .38 and 357.

Good point. I will add that the S&W-supplied moon clips I received with one gun are marked "TK." They are 0.022" thick and the circle openings for the cartridges are larger and fit some brass more loosely than others. They are carbon steel. I bought other moon-clips directly from TK. They are 0.025" thick, specified to fit Starline brass snugly, and are stainless steel. They are not as thick as 0.035" clips for rimless, but they are much stiffer and more robust than the thin clips from S&W. I would not describe them as very thin and very fragile. The S&W-supplied clips, maybe. When the clips don't fit the brand of brass being used, they seem even more flimsy.
 
View attachment 860799 I carry one of these every day. They share these characteristics, 4” tapered barrel, N frame, 45 ACP, grip adapter with square butt stocks. (Two revolvers are rb, I have conversion stocks for them.)

I use Ranch Products full moons. Ranch Products is local to me and I believe the originator of the modern full moon clip.

I carry them OWB, concealed under a vest, shirt or sweater depending on season of the year.

Kevin
Awesome selection.

I'd be interested in the holsters you use for those.

I occasionally carry a pre-model 10.

Going to start carrying a 586 4" when I figure out a good holster.
 
Last edited:
IIRC, he did a stint in the Air Force in some MOS similar to military police or security.

I don't really have a particular view on this subject, nor do I think the author is someone of such undeniable brilliance that whatever he says ought to be taken as gospel... but the ad hominem attacks seem a bit much to me. What got y'all so riled?
 
IIRC, he did a stint in the Air Force in some MOS similar to military police or security.

I don't really have a particular view on this subject, nor do I think the author is someone of such undeniable brilliance that whatever he says ought to be taken as gospel... but the ad hominem attacks seem a bit much to me. What got y'all so riled?
Boredom is what I'd wager.
 
Read the article twice, hoping to garner something educational of interest. The author baits with promise of changes through time, leading first with the title, and then in his narrative of evolved opinion... yet change didn’t come, because it hasn’t. There is no “modern service revolver,” any different than any service revolver before. He belabors a demarcation between a compact defensive revolver and a “modern service revolver,” a line well understood by anyone anywhere remotely close to the topic of defensive or combative firearms - but yet he remains to blur the focus of his article betwixt the two.

And of course, the article ultimately ends when he has to admit - nothing is new, and nothing has changed. Such the content of the article was content for content’s sake, an opinion piece without significance.

But he put his name on it, and some content editor elected to run it. Good for him for convincing someone to pay him for a work of prose of such low caliber.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top