296 vs. 242

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Revolver Ocelot

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2006
Messages
1,470
I have been wanting to pick up one or both of these very neat revolvers but have found myself continuing to put it off due to funding issues. So I have decided to continue looking up info on these in the hopes I can make a better decision on it as I'll probably be only able to get one so it'd be better that I get it right the first time.

So far I've been leaning towards the 242 for 2 reasons in particular, one being more manageable recoil and the other being more readily available ammo, but I can't help but wonder is the 44 special really worth the extra kick and trouble in finding ammo? Tell me what you think, I appreciate any input as always.
 
I love my 296. Its one of my favorite carry guns. But I do love a 38spl j frame.
 
Last edited:
7 rounds of .38 in the 242 compared to 5 rounds of .44 in the 296
Click to expand...

I had considered that but at the same time most people who fire their ccw weapon in self defense don't fire more then just a few rounds. even if I did fire every round in each revolver the 296 would still be faster to reload.

being that they still both have their benefits.

I'm still torn on the power vs. availability aspect.
 
of the 2 you close id say the 296
and not because i used to own one
because you could get a j frame for the 38 and have more concealment options
the 296 was the perfect size for the back pocket of blue jeans
 
to expond(?) on what memhisjim is saying. If you use either one, 242 or 296, as a primary gun and carry a backup gun (BUG) it is likely to be a .38 J frame. With a 242 and J frame BUG, all you need to carry is one caliber for both primary and backup gun.
 
I have a 296, and I don't really see carrying this titanium airweight snub as a primary and then carrying a backup gun. Recoil isn't particularly punishing as airweight snubs go, and I find it easier to hang on to than my Airweight Bodyguard, but more of an IWB gun than a pants pocket gun. I'd guess that probably any defensive load you'd carry in a J frame .38 snub would be some snappy +P or +P+ number, and frankly I hit the controllability wall with hot loads in a lightweight J frame (or .357s in a 640, for that matter) and don't with .44 specials in the 296. Nothing eight or ten thousand hours of practice wouldn't get me past, but hey, call me lazy.
 
I generally only carry one gun at a time, so if I do carry it it'll probablly be my primary being carried either in my back pocket or jacket pocket
 
I'd cheerfully go for .44 carry piece if I had more to choose from (effectively - unless I scour the gunshows) than Charco and the .44 spl round wasn't priced through the roof.
 
I had considered that but at the same time most people who fire their ccw weapon in self defense don't fire more then just a few rounds. even if I did fire every round in each revolver the 296 would still be faster to reload.
Click to expand...


Might as well get the 5 shot J frame then or the 5 shot 296 then. It would make a more logical comparison by your logic at least. More power nearly always means less capacity and more recoil and less ability to conceal and vise versa. Welcome to the endless compromise of concealed carry. I am sure you already know this of course but just understand that the 296 is a 44 special with five rounds in an L frame. The 242 is a 38 special with 7 rounds in an L frame. In this case the only differences are cartridge power and capacity. More power less capacity vs. less power and greater capacity. It is the age old problem. Make your compromise well.
 
Both are kewl IMHO, hear is the old cell phone shot of mine with Clip Draw s on them. They are too bulky in any holster I've found. The 242 is very accurate , twice what my 296 is. The .38 costs half as much to shoot. 7 158 LSWCHP +P Remingtons give you alot of options. Course the .44 has a bigger hole. The recoil on some of the hotter .44 loads, like the old Corbon or Triton165 gets pretty fierce. I have shot well crimped 250 grain Keith reloads in the 296 that are in the high 800 FPS range. They are standard Colt SAA .44spl loads that make 900 FPS in a 5" barrel and have low pressure. They kick like hell but if crimped in the crimping groove heavily with a small expander neck die they aren't gonna pull. A 250 grain .429 Keith hard cast at 800 FPS is nothing to sneeze at and can down a deer to say 40 yards well placed. But then so can one of those 158 LSWSHP +ps and you got 7.
Buy both! Offer a two for deal. The guns are just pre lock and RARE.
P1010501.gif
 
More power less capacity vs. less power and greater capacity. It is the age old problem. Make your compromise well.
Click to expand...

it is indeed the age old problem and its what I always find myself stuck on.
 
I bought a new 296 over 6.5 yr ago. It was an infrequent OWB holster carry piece for four years - until Robert Mika made me a pocket holster for it. Off went my spare Uncle Mike's Combat grips and back came the OEM boots. 75% pocket carry. I had a 642 holster made then, too - and filled it soon. Now, I have a 5-shot 'protector' with me 24/7. Where possible, the 296, else - the 642. I'd love a 242 - but I don't need it - I feel 'tingly' with a .44 Special. I feel 'ho-hum' with the .38 - but protected.

I carry/shoot only the 200 gr Gold Dots in my 296 - they make 800-805 fps from the 296's 2.5" barrel, whether in the Speer, GA Arms, or Blazer guise, although I quit shooting the Blazers after an Al case split in my 696. The GA Arms, $27/50 in new Starline brass, are the least expensive. They are more brisk in recoil than the +P 158gr LHPSWCc in the 642.

I'd love to have the 242 - but not at the expense of the 296. I'd give up the 7-shot capacity to gain the easier concealed 642, too. The 296, with a mix of GD's and 240gr LSWC's, is my pocketable, ie, sheeple-friendly, hiking companion.

IMG_0207.jpg

Of course, if you find an inexpensive 242... let me know...

Stainz
 
I really like the .44 Special, so that would be my choice. If you are a handloader, get the .44. If you are not, get the .38.

What I really want is a Ruger SP101 with a 2 1/2" or 3" barrel chambered for .44 Special with a 5 round cylinder. Kind of a tough version of the Charter Arms Bulldog.
 
What I really want is a Ruger SP101 with a 2 1/2" or 3" barrel chambered for .44 Special with a 5 round cylinder. Kind of a tough version of the Charter Arms Bulldog.
Click to expand...

I suppose it would be more practical to put that 5 shot 44 special into a GP-100 frame maybe 2 1/2" barrel.
 
someone did offer 5 shot 44 conversions on the gp100 for a while, I tried looking them up a while back to try and have it done but they said they discontinued the service for lack of interest.
 
I suppose it would be more practical to put that 5 shot 44 special into a GP-100 frame maybe 2 1/2" barrel.
Click to expand...

For a conversion perhaps. I want Ruger to offer a SP101 from the factory in .44 Special with a 5 round cylinder. If Charter Arms can fit a 5 shot cylinder in the Bulldog there is no reason Ruger can't fit it in the SP101 since it is about the same size.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top