……I've got too much time on my hands while we're waiting for Spring to start construction on our home so I thought I'd stir the ashes here at the campfire---there's been way too little dispute to keep things interesting!!!

…..Other than the frivolity of having something "different" that's fun to shoot, I for the life of me can't figure out why anyone would want:

1. a 3" barreled J-frame…..hey, it's a "POCKET PISTOL"----unless you work for Barnum and Bailey or are Capt. Kangaroo, you don't have pockets adequate for the job. Shoving a 3" J-frame in the front pocket of your Wranglers is going to be like Andre the Giant and Mary Lou Retton on their wedding night (I apologize for that mental image). Ok, maybe one in .22 for a bird hunter to dispatch a skunk or porcupine that gets too close to his bird dog……J-frames for self defense should have barrels less than 2"--anything else, I just don't get it.

2. a 5 shot .44 magnum in a steel-L-frame with a barrel in excess of 4". Giving up a round in the cylinder to gain a frame size reduction that is irrelevant for concealed carry seems irrational, plus the 4 1/4" barrel seems to negate the CC intent (who uses this gun for CC anyway?). Had they made it with a Scandium frame and shorter barrel, I'd get it. There are lighter and shorter barreled N-frames which would be desirable if packing it for a trail gun, in which case an extra round in the cylinder might be a good thing. There are a number of 'smiths that can easily modify an N-frame to accept K/L frame grips if you want your wife or child to shoot the gun. If you're committed to the cartridge and just want to plink with it, there are heavier .44's that will be much more pleasant to shoot. I just don't get it.

3. The almost religious-zealotry that accompanies the 10mm. It was the darling of Jeff Cooper and since I loved Jeff and couldn't find, nor afford a Bren 10, when Colt came out with the Delta Elite I got one of the very first ones----it was un-pleasant to shoot in IPSC events. It's efficacy over the .45 ACP for defensive stopping power is irrelevant in any practical sense. I get that someone may want to hunt with a handgun and it's ballistically a semi-auto .41 magnum. So why not just go with a .41 magnum or better yet a .454 Casull or .44 Mag. (I understand that Smith is making a crackerjack new L-frame in that caliber.) With cheaper, more effective and more readily available cartridges, when it comes to the 10mm, I don't get it.

4. The excitement over .17 caliber varmint cartridges…….I'm a moderately committed prairie dog shooter; to the point that it was at least a partial criteria in our decision to retire to Wyoming. I understand the thrill of observing rather obtuse terminal ballistics, i.e. seeing how high, far or violently you can flip a p-dog off a mound. Were the cartridges less expensive in proportion to their smaller size, I'd understand, but the opposite seems to be true. While they may perform with spectacular results in ideal circumstances, they don't seem to do anything that other (larger, heavier) cartridges don't seem to do better and cheaper. I don't get it.

If I've gored your ox or beaten your sacred cow, this was all meant in good humor…..feel free to flame me….or at least enlighten me….there's so much that I just don't get.

Hopefully they'll be able to start excavation for our house and shooting berms with the first thaw and I won't have so much free time on my hands in the near future!! :-)

I like 3" J-frames - the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I've never been a pants pocket carry guy so that angle doesn't matter.

The rest of your list I agree with.

The .17 Remington is the finest varmint round ever.



Travis

…well, that beats "GFY" (which I would have understood)----not sure what makes the .17 Rem. the "finest," Travis.

….while I appreciate the zen-nature of your answer, I don't get the "why"?

Lazer like trajectory. Zero recoil. Low on powder consumption. Zero fur damage.

That, and I said so.

GFY.



Travis

Lack on controversey?


It's been to quiet?



You havent read the uber 1911+ accessories CCW holster thread

Your gun sucks. And you're holding it wrong.

…..yea, I get that a lot……..
Doc says that you're a heck of a 3-gun shooter…..consider coming to Hornady's Zombie in Heartland shoot this year (http://www.zombiesintheheartland.com)…..it's a heck of a lot of fun…..I'll buy the first round.

The reason a S&W J-Frame revolver with a 3" barrel is considered a pocket pistol
is because it's often hard to find holsters for them.
Everyone makes leather for 2 1/8" snubbies but few build them for 3" versions.

A S&W J-Frame revolver with a 3" barrel - makes a perfect Kit Gun.

Everything you just said was wrong, and you suck. How's that for controversy?

Well, I surely have no quarrels with 1,2, & 3 & actually, agree pretty wholeheartedly, but the Hornady 17 is a good 200 yard round if if you need a 200 yard gun.

MM

The 17 HMR is a serviceable 200yd gun. Barely.



Travis

I just bought a 4" barrel that I'm going to cut down to 3" to go on my Colt's Cobra. 3" just seems so right for a .38 Special.

There is self defense other than the 2 legged kid and I've never found a 3" barreled gun that was harder to shoot well then a 1 7/8" barrel.

3" J is a great, super compact field gun with real, adjustable sights. Although I don't get along well with J frame grips, I can see the appeal.

The 10mm is a great auto round for those that want go pack an auto. It does everything the .357 does but does it in an auto platform with twice to three times the ammo. What's not to like about that?

Any revolver with a barrel longer than 4" isn't a CC piece. That being said, if you like it why not get an L with a long barrel? Since when is the 6th shot all that important anyway?

Gmoats is one of most decent and knowledgeable guys around here, so this is what you get when a nice guy tries to create a controversy: A non-controversy.

….boy, do I have you fooled!!……but thanks…...

…I understand the argument about shoot ability, but that's is why God made K,L & N framed guns in calibers suitable for critter-shootin'……why the need for a J frame for defense against 4 legged adversaries?

JMO, but a 2 1/2" model 66/19 would be superior in every way to ANY J frame in ANY barrel length for a "super compact field gun with real, adjustable sights."
recoil, price, availability….for an anti-personnel gun, I see wanting a semi-auto, in which case the .45 ACP does everything at a practical level that the 10 will, only be more controllable, more available and cheaper. For hunting, why not just use a revolver with a superior cartridge?

ok, I got nothing……..I'm arguing for sake of argument, anyway :-)

Because a J frame is light enough to wear in the waistband of a pair of shorts and Desantis makes a grip for doing that for J frames.





What is suitable for critter shooting? My biggest concern here is a wild dog or a rabid raccoon. I'm guessing I could strap on 4 pounds of iron for that or ALWAYS have the Jframe, which will handle any of the critters around the 'farm' that I'm concerned with.

….ok, but at rabid raccoon or dog attack ranges, a 3" barrel isn't going to be significantly better for me than a standard 1.8" barrel---plus if you use those grips (or clip/grips) and you're in town instead of on the farm, you've got to wear a cover garment as with a 3" barrel you can no longer just stick the gun in the front pocket of your shorts.

What if I'm in Spain? You do understand the key to killing shiet that might cause you problems it to not wait till it's in your lap, right?

Further away is always better, a 3" is easier to shoot well than a 2", all other things being equal.

I'm not worried about town for the discussion, since 98% of my concealed carry is on my property. Hell, it's nothing to not step foot off my place for a week or two.

I also don't carry guns in my pocket, other than jacket pocket at times in the winter.

1-
First off I like the 3" J-Frames much better than the 1 7/8" models. They are easier to shoot accurately a no have more velocity a win, win IMHO.

2-
The 10mm does nothing better than the 45 IMHO. A 45 +P or 45 +P+ (Super) is the better way to go IMHO and I have all of them.

3-
Never fell for the 17's either.

Why can't you stick a 3" J-frame in your pocket? I can, how small are your pants?

Some folks ^^^^^ dont want their revolver barrel to be the longest thing in their pants!

……y'all have gone from preachin' to meddlin'…….but I have to admit, I never considered the Freudian repercussions of liking short barreled J-frames!!

One person's preacher is another person's meddler. You started it!

#1 I carry a G20 in my pocket. Sissy boy

#2 Small frame .44mag = dumb idea. Just get a .44 special

#3 Don't get me started. 10mm best auto cartridge ever

#4 What ever floats your boat. 17s suck for coyotes

Sorry gmoats, I meant that for Flave but it auto-replied to you.

It's not that I'm that good, Doc is just generous. I'd love to come up and shoot sometime. They have some big matches in Colorado every year, I'll have to meet ya halfway sometime.

My original comment was stolen from this....Every internet gun argument summed up into one post.

Your gun sucks and you’re holding it wrong.

That caliber is ineffective. You would do better to pick something bigger.

That caliber is too big / expensive. You would do better with a smaller caliber that is cheaper and gives you higher capacity.

I am not a lawyer, I have never argued a case, and in fact I tend to get confused when watching Matlock, but if you do not follow my legal advice to the T you will spend the rest of your life behind bars and that’s after you get the lethal injection while sitting on the chair.

Unless a cop hands you the ammunition from his gun, you will go to prison forever should you be forced to shoot someone in self-defense.

Your gun sucks because it’s not the same gun that every cop in the tri-state area uses and cops only use the best

You have the same gun as the cops? No wonder it sucks. They only have that gun because they got them in a bulk discount, not because it was a good gun.

The difference in grip angles between your gun and mine, which can only be measured using a protractor that uses scientific notation to denote the degrees, shows why you gun sucks and is probably why you’re holding it wrong.

The instructor for that gun class you took wasn’t in Iraq and didn’t operate with the operatingest operators and thus any training you got was worthless.

The instructor for that gun class you took was in Iraq and the techniques he taught you are not valid for civilians and thus you wasted your money.

Your gun sucks and you’re holding it wrong.

You’re holding your head too high.

You’re not holding your head high enough.

You shoot like a girl.

You wish you could shoot like a girl.

My degree is in office management and the closest I have ever come to any sort of formal, physics training was that one time I lost the remote and had to watch an episode of Nova, but let me explain in nauseating detail why a 1:9 twist rate on an 18” barrel is insufficient for the bullet weight you have selected.

Shot placement is everything. Unless you’re shooting what I shoot, which kills instantly even if it’s just a graze across the thigh.

Shooting USPSA / IDPA will get you killed in a real gun fight.

Not shooting competition means you don’t have what it takes to survive a gun fight because you won’t be accustomed to shooting under pressure.
The best way to survive a gun fight is to either not get in a gun fight, or follow the 18 paragraphs of advice I just doled out.

The length of your guide rod is wrong.

Unless you use this exact lubricant, made of purified fat from virgin baby seals, your gun will rust between shots and that’s if it doesn’t seize up on you first.

My father’s next door neighbor’s son knew a guy who thought about going to Police Academy, plus I’ve been pulled over numerous times; thus I know the law inside and out and you can’t do what you’ve already done a hundred times before and here’s the law, 706.2 HB Subsection D paragraph 4 that is about penalties for failing to pick up after your dog.

Let me deduce your every problem by the one blurry picture you posted along with your description which suffered a dangling participle and several typos. Don’t argue with me because I am using the vast physics knowledge I obtained by reviewing MacGyver reruns frame by frame.

The way you carry your gun is wrong.

The way you do your politics about guns is wrong.

I took my AR out to the range, hit the edge of the target at 100 yards TWICE and thus the only accurate configuration is mine. Unless you have the exact hand guard, butt stock, front sight post and each and every aftermarket accoutrement that I do, you will not achieve the same accuracy. Plus, you’re holding the rifle wrong.

Your trigger, in a configuration that would make both Heisenberg and Schrödinger cry, is simultaneously too light for a carry gun and too heavy to be accurate.

Lab tests using Jell-O prove that this particular bullet, with a round flat hollow point low-ogive nose is better than yours, which doesn’t have the low-ogive. Plus, shooting Jell-O is as close to real life as you can get.

And finally

Your gun sucks. An you’re holding it wrong.

…..yeah, not the sharpest knife in the drawer, am I.

….don't know if you got my email…..tomorrow has been cancelled……well……there will sill be a tomorrow, just not an IDPA shoot at NOCO due to the impending storm…..see you next month at Otto Rd or perhaps next week in Cheyenne when my buddy comes for a visit.
G

Well, damn, you just put up and ridiculed all my best arguments that I was about to post in refutation of gmoats' OP...

But anyways:

1. I like 1-7/8" J-frames AND 3" J-frames. I put laser grips on 'em and they shoot damn fine groups out to 30+ yards if I keep the little red dot thingie bouncin' on the part of the target I wanna hit...

2. I LIKE my 5-shot 44 Magnum Model 69. It kicks pretty hard with full-house 240's, though. So I load it with sorta middle-of-the-spectrum bullets. It's a comfortabler woodswalkin' gun than my N-frame 44 Mags, and it's got enough power I'd take a poke at a deer or hog with it if I had the opportunity.

3. I think the 10mm sucks. It's the answer to a question that was never really asked. If I can't get what I want out of a 45 ACP (Glock 30 or 1911 or SIG P220, they all work fine) then I'll get a 460 Rowland. And since a 460 Rowland is next on my handgun bucket list, that pretty much solves that issue for me.

4. Don't care one way or 'nuther about the 17's. I got a couple 204 Rugers, a couple .223's, a .22-250, a couple .22 WMR's, a bunch of .22 LR's, but I've never felt the need to drop down below the .204.

Oh, and Greg... your gun sucks and you're holding it wrong.

Not to worry, Travis/Clarke makes up for his gmoats' shortcomings............

MM

All of you suck cause you don't get to hunt with me except one of ya...the rest...GFY My 4" 651 just plain kills stuff deader than your 17, 45 or 10 mm.
















How is that for controversy.

On the other hand, does the 45 do anything better than a 10mm does?

I might be prejudiced toward the 10mm, based on the idea that most of my hand gun shooting is at targets from 25 yds to 50 yds, with a large minority of target work done at 100 yds to 130 yds.

And then Bob comes along and we start shooting out to 500 yds and beyond.

Admittedly this is revolver work. But when I consider a pistol cartridge, I will use this criteria, as this is the ONLY actual use I have for a handgun.

Most of this is for not as handguns come in a distant third to rifles and shotguns.

Maybe in your neighborhood

Zen is where it's at - Colt Single Action Army, Browning High Power, S&W Model 19, S&W Mountain Gun, Colt 1911A1, Chief's Special Target:

Allways knew someday I would find something we could agree on. I too have a M60 DAO and don't really see the need for a J in 38 Special without a bobbed hammer. Great little shooters, sure looks like I need a set of those grips also.

No 17's for me.
M57 takes care of sporting needs in 10mm and 40 SW for a larger ccw gun. MagnumMan

Lots of .17 on the shelves when .22 ammo was nowhere to be seen. Other than that, the various .17s just haven't grabbed me. But I'm probably missing something.

"……I've got too much time on my hands while we're waiting for Spring to start construction on our home so I thought I'd stir the ashes here at the campfire---there's been way too little dispute to keep things interesting!!!

…..Other than the frivolity of having something "different" that's fun to shoot, I for the life of me can't figure out why anyone would want:

1. a 3" barreled J-frame…..hey, it's a "POCKET PISTOL"----unless you work for Barnum and Bailey or are Capt. Kangaroo, you don't have pockets adequate for the job. Shoving a 3" J-frame in the front pocket of your Wranglers is going to be like Andre the Giant and Mary Lou Retton on their wedding night (I apologize for that mental image). Ok, maybe one in .22 for a bird hunter to dispatch a skunk or porcupine that gets too close to his bird dog……J-frames for self defense should have barrels less than 2"--anything else, I just don't get it. I've never owned a three-inch J frame but my thoughts are...the classic 44 Mag. for many years was a 6-6 1/2" model 29. It's a hunting handgun. Once you lop the barrel off to 4", it becomes a passable duty handgun. Different configurations of the same gun for different missions. It's that simple.

2. a 5 shot .44 magnum in a steel-L-frame with a barrel in excess of 4". Giving up a round in the cylinder to gain a frame size reduction that is irrelevant for concealed carry seems irrational, plus the 4 1/4" barrel seems to negate the CC intent (who uses this gun for CC anyway?). Had they made it with a Scandium frame and shorter barrel, I'd get it. There are lighter and shorter barreled N-frames which would be desirable if packing it for a trail gun, in which case an extra round in the cylinder might be a good thing. There are a number of 'smiths that can easily modify an N-frame to accept K/L frame grips if you want your wife or child to shoot the gun. If you're committed to the cartridge and just want to plink with it, there are heavier .44's that will be much more pleasant to shoot. I just don't get it.Get it and then maybe you'll get it. They're pretty sweet.





3. The almost religious-zealotry that accompanies the 10mm. It was the darling of Jeff Cooper and since I loved Jeff and couldn't find, nor afford a Bren 10, when Colt came out with the Delta Elite I got one of the very first ones----it was un-pleasant to shoot in IPSC events. It's efficacy over the .45 ACP for defensive stopping power is irrelevant in any practical sense. I get that someone may want to hunt with a handgun and it's ballistically a semi-auto .41 magnum. So why not just go with a .41 magnum or better yet a .454 Casull or .44 Mag. (I understand that Smith is making a crackerjack new L-frame in that caliber.) With cheaper, more effective and more readily available cartridges, when it comes to the 10mm, I don't get it.A lot of people are just like you. That's why the 10 has never been very popular. I don't agree that it's anywhere near the 41 Mag. in power. More of the same argument can be made against the 40 S&W. The 45 ACP and 9mm are perfectly adequate for the same mission as the 40, yet LE had to have another caliber, lead by the Feebs. So there it is and it is a great one. About the only argument I really have for owning one is that it's so popular that it gives you one more option when ammo gets tight if you have one. That and I'd never owned one until recently.

4. The excitement over .17 caliber varmint cartridges…….I'm a moderately committed prairie dog shooter; to the point that it was at least a partial criteria in our decision to retire to Wyoming. I understand the thrill of observing rather obtuse terminal ballistics, i.e. seeing how high, far or violently you can flip a p-dog off a mound. Were the cartridges less expensive in proportion to their smaller size, I'd understand, but the opposite seems to be true. While they may perform with spectacular results in ideal circumstances, they don't seem to do anything that other (larger, heavier) cartridges don't seem to do better and cheaper. I don't get it.I got no opinion on this one. The only argument I can think of against he 17 is wind-drift.

If I've gored your ox or beaten your sacred cow, this was all meant in good humor…..feel free to flame me….or at least enlighten me….there's so much that I just don't get.

Hopefully they'll be able to start excavation for our house and shooting berms with the first thaw and I won't have so much free time on my hands in the near future!! :-) "

Nah. I had a 2 1/2" 19. I could/can shoot the 3" 60 better than it - even with the same loads. If I'm gonna pack the larger frame, it might as well have the larger barrel. The 60as makes a great hills gun.

The L-frame .44 mag looks great for the same reasons. Should be a great vertical stroll gun for those who want a big bore. Only if you can actually shoot it with something warmer than hot .44 special loads though. Otherwise, the fact that it's only less than 2 oz lighter than a steel 1911 makes it kind of pointless in my book.

I agree on 3, and have no opinion on 4.

I just saw this thread. Seems like everything has been covered already. But hell, why not.

1. A 3" Model 60 does make a good belly gun for those times nothing else is concealable. A little less flash than a 2" version. Just enough more velocity to expand a hollow point that a 2" would not provide. Sometimes, maybe. I like adjustable sights on my guns also.

But I like 2" Detective Specials also.


2. A 5 shot .44 Magnum? I agree with ya' here. Just doesn't make any sense to me over anything else in the category. A mountain gun fits the bill better.

3.Don't take my Delta Elite away from me. A compact carry gun for the woods that shoots flat but with more power than a 38 Super. It is hard to beat. There isn't no .357 mag auto out there that I like. My .460 Rowland beats it in all respects though.

4. I'll take a .22 Mag over a .17 any day of the week. For field proven reasons.
I like the "thump" of a heavier bullet.


Thanks for the mental exercise this morning. I can't sleep.

Yes, Thanks for the fertilizer infused banter, "this thread" made me lose my headache from yesterday.

Not for me! I have way more handguns than I have fingers and toes - even counting the ones I've already shot off.

One of the problems with anecdotal evidence is that everyone's experiential "proof" is contrary to everyone else's……i.e. the very first revolver that I personally purchased was a 2 1/2" Model 19. It was the most incredibly accurate revolver that I've ever owned (up to this point). I realized the folly of those words as I have no idea how consistently precise it was chamber to chamber; it was 1972 and I was a college kid with no range equipment and little knowledge (now at least I have range equipment). Unfortunately I needed $ and sold it a year later, but In the ensuing 43 years, I've owned 4 longer barreled Model 19's (that I can remember off the top of my head), but I could shoot none of them as well as that 2 1/2" gun. The land where we're building our place/range is on the edge of the Snowy Range Mountains and there have been occasional bear, frequent Mt. Lion and even two bonified wolf sightings. My "hills gun" is a 2 1/2" Model 66. It's not heavy compared to anything that I normally carry except a 642. It rides high on the belt and protrudes very little below the belt with an OWB holster, making a great concealed carry gun with a light cover garment. In short, it seems to do everything that I want done……..perfectly. Unfortunately, my "proof" is irrelevant for anyone else, i.e. you shoot a 3" J-frame better than you shot your 2 1/2" K.
…..I'm not sure what "vertical stroll" means, but at my current state of gravity enhancement, I'm pretty sure that my days of strolling that way are gone. I still don't get the Model 69……for a "carrying around" gun the 3" 629 Talo gun seems to beat the 69 in every measurable way. It's only two frickin' onces heavier and is a full inch shorter which would make it more pleasant to both carry and shoot in my opinion ( or "comfortabler" as Doc put it). Why give up a round for 2 oz. of weight and one inch of barrel?? Quite honestly I'm thinking that the "Mountain Gun" is close to the perfect compromise.

^^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^

….heck, if a little feces flinging is all it takes, this web site should make you bullet proof!!

controversy? Hmmm...

MIM sucks...

So does polymer.

Damn, you can't even start a good argument! Plus you probably hold your gun wrong.....

I have short fingers so it's easy for me to see the appeal of 44 mag power in a medium frame.

Gawd I envy you! I can't wait until I can say the same...

Except for the 17s I agree completely. The old 17 AH was in my opinion the finest sage rat killer ever born. I never had one but have abruptly ended the life of a bunch of sage rats with a friends 17 AH.

All the more reason to buy one.



Travis

….ok, I understand that when you've had success with something, you tend to think that it's the best……I just can't figure out (on paper) what any .17 does, that something else doesn't do better or cheaper. Where I live, one of those little .17's may wind up in Utah or Nebraska depending upon which way the wind is blowing.

Hard to find an area more windy than the Hi-Line and I already told you all the virtues of the .17 Remington.

From 50-300 there is NO finer varmint round. None.




Travis

3" J frame-great little trail gun. My full lug adjustable sight 60-4 serves perfectly as a house gun for my wife. Less recoil than a snub nose and the medium frame six shooters are too heavy for her. Outclassed though as a concealed carry gun I would agree.

10mm IMO not the perfect choice for any application.

17 cal varmint cartridges, I would agree with the OP on the centerfire versions but the rimfire 17 HMR is perfect and cheap for small varmints out to 150 yards.

5 shot .44 mag (smith 69). Has no advantage and gives up 1 round. My 629 mountain weighs about the same and is just as easy to pack as my 4" 686.

IMO the 69 is also one of the ugliest revolvers Smith has ever produced.

Simply Rugged makes a fine holster for the 3" J Frame .38 Spec. Here is mine. That's a 3" Heavy Barrel, shoots very well and is mighty handy to carry.




L.W.

I have used a 22 hornet, 22 K-hornet, and a 22 BR on sage rats. All kill them dead and none killed then deader that any other but the most fun I have had was with 17 AH. It lower sound does not spook the rats and I have taken four off a single mound shooting left to right with the little 17. The 22 BR would put then back in their holes with the first shot. The other thing even the 22 hornet has enough muzzel flip so you cannot see the bullet strike. The 17 AH I have ennd the rat explode.

So, I am in no way saying any one is better that the other, just I have more fun with the 17 and since I reload every centerfire I shoot finding ammunition is a non issue.

Yeah - the "no one makes leather for..." argument rarely flies with me anymore. If the gun works for you, there is a competent holster maker or several who will make you a good holster for it. Or if you are even a little crafty, it's easy to make your own in kydex. Either a guy likes a gun or he doesn't, but no one should blame holster availability these days.

Vertical stroll = mountain hiking. I was pretty sure I learned that from a Wyoming native.

It's probably folly for me to comment on any .44mag, since I've never owned one (have shot a few though). But it seems to me that if a guy can't get the job done with five rounds of .44 mag, one more probably ain't gonna help. I am not one to argue over the "carryability " of an N-frame versus an L frame, since I see no need for either in my life - but it seems to me that there may be guys who like the fit of the smaller frame with it's narrower cylinder better. For those guys, the 69 probably makes some sense.

Personally - as I implied - I have no use for either for general carry. Were I going to hunt with a handgun again, I might consider the 69 - but I'd probably be looking for another inch of barrel. But just packin' in the woods for protection against other-than-grizzly? I hear all this talk about lightweight .44 mags being carried with light loads (.44spl) because they're a pain to shoot with mag loads. Might as well be packin' a 1911, says I.

+1 on the 1911
Re: "other than grizzly" comment------Having never been attacked by a bear, I can't argue empirically, however logic would seem to dictate that there are a couple of absolute truths concerning being attacked by a bear:
1. You would want more, not less ammunition (ie. you're not on fire or under water).
2. Recoil would be WAY down the list of undesirable gun-related issues concerning you at the moment.
3. Having a gun would trump the precision-accuracy of the gun.
All of those seem to lean toward a 6 shot, Scandium framed, short barreled N-frame versus a 5 shot, steel-framed, longer barreled L-frame.

Of course, my reasoning could be wrong.

Pretty sure I agree with that - coming from the same qualification.

The whole grizzly issue could raise a lot of other argument, if you like. I prefer to watch form the sidelines - but I note that there is a wide range of experience between the grizzly that was killed with a 9mm pistol (that guy had some nerve!) and those who won't rely on anything short of a big-bore carbine.

The L-frame cylinder is 0.108" less in diameter than the N-frame. I'd get an N-frame with a thinner holster and call it even.

….there you go, using reason and logic again JOG……the heart wants what the heart wants……some people want a 5 shot, comparatively long barreled .44 mag….hey, Cindy Crawford wanted to marry Lyle Lovett…who are we to rain on their parade with a little objectivity!! :-)

The 69 is cool but it's still too heavy for a backpacking rig.



Travis

+1

Pretty sure that the guy who buys a 69 isn't making that decision based purely on practicality. But I'd never say he has to.

It makes more sense to me than a Judge though.

Putting your dick in a wood clamp makes more sense than a Judge.




Travis

'flave always speaks from firsthand experience. One would be wise to heed this one.

Wasn't that Julia Roberts? Anyhow, neither woman is too thick nor too heavy to take backpacking.

….by golly, you're right……now leave me alone while I look for danged wood clamp…..

Irwin Quick-Grip.

Hint.




Travis

…..what's the widest size available in non-metric calibration??

Flave is spot on!

Most of the time I'd agree with you, but on rare occasions there cute Judges. Oh wait different judge

I knew I wasn't the only guy to put his dick in a wood clamp.



Travis

If you're gonna do it - do it right....

http://www.woodpeck.com/bessey10whc.html