.38 Snub or .380 Auto
- Thread starter Ian11
- Start date
- Status
I'd take a .380 auto over a .38 wheel gun any day. Similar power, but the gun is much thinner and you get more rounds and faster reloads. Seems like a no-brainer to me...
The hard part is finding a 100% reliable automatic. I wouldn't want to trust my life to a gun unless I'm confident it will "go bang" every time. I don't trust most auto-loaders that much, but there are some good ones out there. My carry gun is a Makarov (mine is a 9mm Makarov, but they are also made in .380). It it 100% dependable, and has several advantages over a .38 sub revolver...
The hard part is finding a 100% reliable automatic. I wouldn't want to trust my life to a gun unless I'm confident it will "go bang" every time. I don't trust most auto-loaders that much, but there are some good ones out there. My carry gun is a Makarov (mine is a 9mm Makarov, but they are also made in .380). It it 100% dependable, and has several advantages over a .38 sub revolver...
chaim
Member
I own both and when I get to a carry state I intend to use both (relatively interchangably with the snub probably getting the nod more often).
I don't get all these thinner claims for an auto. A J-frame or equivelent 5 shot revolver doesn't have a very thick cylinder. It is barely thicker than the slide, the thinnest part, on an auto. I find that funny the thickest part of a revolver is thicker than the thinnest part on an auto, ergo the auto is better and more concealable. The thickest part of the revolver v. the thickest part of an auto is the real contest. My Taurus 85's cylinder is thinner than the grips on my Bersa Thunder in .380. Making this more important, if you carry IWB the cylinder is inside your pants and won't effect concealment while the grips are outside and certainly will.
I don't get all these thinner claims for an auto. A J-frame or equivelent 5 shot revolver doesn't have a very thick cylinder. It is barely thicker than the slide, the thinnest part, on an auto. I find that funny the thickest part of a revolver is thicker than the thinnest part on an auto, ergo the auto is better and more concealable. The thickest part of the revolver v. the thickest part of an auto is the real contest. My Taurus 85's cylinder is thinner than the grips on my Bersa Thunder in .380. Making this more important, if you carry IWB the cylinder is inside your pants and won't effect concealment while the grips are outside and certainly will.
Although I do not own a 380, my primary snubbies are a Smith and Weasel Model 60 and a customized 1991A1 Compact in 45 ACP. The slide on my Colt is 4/10ths of an inch narrower than the revolvers cylinder and is obvious. What wasn't immediately apparent is the Pach grips on the Colt are as wide as the cylinder on the Smith. True, I could get thinner grips for the Colt, but I'm comfortable with what I have on there, and I like the auto's advantage of 7+1 rounds vs the 5 on the Smith. The original grips for the Smith were too small for my mitts so I put a Hogue on it which is bigger front to back but not so wide as the Pachmyer grip.
Would like to see a Colt 380 government next to a typical 5 shot for comparison.
Would like to see a Colt 380 government next to a typical 5 shot for comparison.
22luvr
Member
Tough call.................
I've always been a real snubby fan but I'm going to buy Kel-Tec's newly-released P-3AT to give me a choice. The snubby goes most places but when I absolutely HAVE to be totally concealed, the P-3AT is the flatness champ.
I've always been a real snubby fan but I'm going to buy Kel-Tec's newly-released P-3AT to give me a choice. The snubby goes most places but when I absolutely HAVE to be totally concealed, the P-3AT is the flatness champ.
Kentucky Rifle
Member In Memoriam
I like my flat little Colt Mustang. I've gone to my gun shop to purchase a Sig P232 twice, but I didn't because they seemed large in my hand. I studied the photo Tamara posted and thought I must be crazy, but P232's just seem large by the time I get to the shop.
Oh, I voted .38 Special because I carry either a Taurus Multi Alloy 85 or a S&W 638. (Sometimes a Taurus 731 or S&W 331, both in .32 H&R Magnum.)
KR
Oh, I voted .38 Special because I carry either a Taurus Multi Alloy 85 or a S&W 638. (Sometimes a Taurus 731 or S&W 331, both in .32 H&R Magnum.)
KR
Betty
Member
It depends what I can conceal with what I'm wearing.
If I carry my USPc as a main gun and can hide my S&W 640 as backup, then I do that. If I can't I carry the Mustang. The NAA Mini goes everywhere. If I carry the 640 as my main gun, then the Mustang is a BUG.
If I carry my USPc as a main gun and can hide my S&W 640 as backup, then I do that. If I can't I carry the Mustang. The NAA Mini goes everywhere. If I carry the 640 as my main gun, then the Mustang is a BUG.
Tamara
Senior Member
I own both the 442 and the P232.
Right now, I'm using the P232 as a BUG, but it's really six-of-one, half-dozen-of-the-other. I'm considering going back to the 442. (The factory grips on the P232, BTW, are as fat as the cylinder on the J-frame.
)
Right now, I'm using the P232 as a BUG, but it's really six-of-one, half-dozen-of-the-other. I'm considering going back to the 442. (The factory grips on the P232, BTW, are as fat as the cylinder on the J-frame.
)Mike Irwin
Member
.38 snub.
That's what I carry now.
Why?
I'm a revolver guy. Always have been, always will be.
That's what I carry now.
Why?
I'm a revolver guy. Always have been, always will be.
Orion
Member
Wouldn't you get better information and have a better chance atmaking a good decision if you didn't offer only two choices?
I would consider both of those platforms adequate but niether would be my first choice. caliber or platform.
I would consider both of those platforms adequate but niether would be my first choice. caliber or platform.
williamcrane
Member
.38 Spl or .380
I switch off carrying both. I usually carry my S&W Model 60, but I will alternate with my Colt Mustang Plus II.
BTW, when I bought the Mustang I was originally shopping for a Sig 232. But when I saw the Colt and compared its size to the Sig, I went for the Colt. Besides, it looks like a baby 1911.
I switch off carrying both. I usually carry my S&W Model 60, but I will alternate with my Colt Mustang Plus II.
BTW, when I bought the Mustang I was originally shopping for a Sig 232. But when I saw the Colt and compared its size to the Sig, I went for the Colt. Besides, it looks like a baby 1911.
brownie0486
Member
Voted snubnose
I carry the 640-1 .357 hammerless which is the same size as the 5 shot 38, tad bigger on the barrel length. This is the summer gun.
I also carry the NAA 380 constantly, when I have the 357 it's the backup, when I don't have the 357 it's the primary.
Brownie
I carry the 640-1 .357 hammerless which is the same size as the 5 shot 38, tad bigger on the barrel length. This is the summer gun.
I also carry the NAA 380 constantly, when I have the 357 it's the backup, when I don't have the 357 it's the primary.
Brownie
Poohgyrr
Member
No doubt about it, the already chosen J frame, although a Detective Special (or even better- the Magnum Carry) would be another choice.
Mine is the 640-1, and an Airweight would be difficult to pass up.
For a pic, see here: http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=349127
Mine is the 640-1, and an Airweight would be difficult to pass up.
For a pic, see here: http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=349127
Jim March
Member
At close range, a snubby is hard to take away, and impossible to go out of battery on muzzle contact.
At "bad breath range", nothing beats a snubby.
At "bad breath range", nothing beats a snubby.
10-Ring
Member
38 snub 
Flashpoint
Member
Me too
I have a couple of Pre War Star .380s as well as Taurus Snubbies and the small Kel-Tec p-32. The Thinest is the Star .380 (0.71), followed very closely by the Kel-Tec (0.74). The Taurus 85 comes in at a fat 1.345 inches. I am comparing slides against the Taurus cylinder. The Colt .380 is based on the Spanish Star Design and Size. Colt gave Star some money after the War.
When you really want a thinner BUG, take off the grips and wrap the frame with tape or thin the wood/plastic down to almost zero.
PS: I need more firing Pins for those Spanish Guns - anybody know where??? -
Elliot
When you really want a thinner BUG, take off the grips and wrap the frame with tape or thin the wood/plastic down to almost zero.
PS: I need more firing Pins for those Spanish Guns - anybody know where??? -
Elliot
Tamara
Senior Member
Jim March,
That's kind of unlikely with a small blowback gun like a P232 or Mak, also. They may be harder for a BG to disarm you of, too, as they really don't have much more superstructure, and tend to have three-finger grips...
That's kind of unlikely with a small blowback gun like a P232 or Mak, also.
They may be harder for a BG to disarm you of, too, as they really don't have much more superstructure, and tend to have three-finger grips...I personally would carry the revolver. This is just my personal preference, I can't back it up with any kind of an argument. I like revolvers, but my carry gun is a 1911. If I was going for something smaller, it would be a revolver. I agree that the auto is probably a little thinner, but I don't think it is going to make a big difference as far as concealment goes. At least for me. If I am carrying, I dress in such a way as to conceal a gun rather than try to put the emphasis on the clothes and making the gun conform to my attire. I have carried a J-Frame in my back pocket, but trying to draw quickly was beyond me. I never had any luck with the pocket holsters either; they always come out with the gun. I have carried a J-Frame on a regular belt holster with a long shirt and it didn't look obvious in the mirror.
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
I'd make sure the snub-nosed Smith & Wesson revolver was a pre-agreement model.
DonGlock26
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2003
- Messages
- 259
I own a P232 and a S&W649. I prefer the P232. It is accurate at longer ranges, has better combat sights,holds 2 more rounds,and is thinner for IWB. I feel the 90gr golddots are a good S.D. load for a small hand gun.
Ala Dan
Member in memoriam
Even though I LOVE SIG's, I voted for the .38
Special snubby. Five rounds of the correct type
ammo trumps six rounds of the lowly .380 ACP
anyday!
FootNote: My household has both, a Walther
PPK .380 and a Smith & Wesson model 60, .38
caliber snubby. I have been known to carry
both, on certain occassions.
Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
Special snubby. Five rounds of the correct type
ammo trumps six rounds of the lowly .380 ACP
anyday!
FootNote: My household has both, a Walther
PPK .380 and a Smith & Wesson model 60, .38
caliber snubby. I have been known to carry
both, on certain occassions.
Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
I own two .380's, a Browning BDA and a Sig 230. I also have a S&W 37 Airweight .38 and a 640 .357 Centennial. My favorite carry gun out of these is the 640 loaded with .38+P. I typically carry it in an Uncle Mike's fabric IWB worn between my pants and belt at about 3 o'clock when I am wearing an outer garment. I find that it conceals easier this way than the Sig. I also am very fond of revolvers and very confident with my shooting ability with this gun. I think that when it comes to a choice between a .380 and a .38 snub it really boils down to personal preference without either one having a far superior advantage. Best, Mike
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
