357 carry options

[Artema]

I'm moving in the May-June timeframe and plan to buy a 357 Magnum carry revolver and apply for a license as soon as realistically possible. I'm heavily considering the S&W models 60 or 340PD. Can anyone help me pick, or suggest a comparable option? Thank you!

[gnihcraes]

I like the Ruger SP101- I think there is one on the trading post. (i'm not related to that sale in any way, just giving an opinion) :)

[sroz]

Personally I would go with the model 60 over the 340 if loading it with .357. The 60 weighs about twice the 340 and that 340 will kick like a mule. Just another thing to consider.
The Ruger SP 101 weighs in just a tad more than the model 60, so also does a better job of absorbing the recoil.

[Fromk]

I also like the Ruger SP 101 for a small .357.

[Great-Kazoo]

I'd go with the 640 for weight over the 101. I carried a 101, for about 2 weeks. By then it was mor ethan i wanted to have hanging off my side. The 101 is a very nice stout revolver, just not as a carry piece. Another suggestion would be the ruger LCR in 357 or LCRx (hammer version). Yes there is some recoil, however outside of range time, the amount of actual PD use vs recoil would negate the issue.
Having shot the lcr in 357 you'd be surprised how nice it actually is to shoot.

http://ruger.com/products/lcr/index.html?r=y

[ChadAmberg]

I'm a big fan of try before you buy, so when you get out here, find a rental range, or go out shooting with a bunch of us, and try various things to see what fits best. My wife carries an SP101, ended up liking it much better than the dozen or so 2" revolver choices she tried.
The model 60 is nice, though the J Frame handle can be a little small for some folks to shoot comfortably.

[Zombie Steve]

I had a 360PD several years ago. Dream to carry, nightmare to shoot. I can only describe the recoil impulse as savage with .357 mags. Model 60 also sucks to shoot .357's, just sucks less. I got rid of the 360, because I never practiced with it. These days (since I got a chronograph), I go with a 4" barrel minimum (not a daily carry, but often in the hills). Below that, what you're really getting is 9mm performance with a lot of extra boom and flash.

This illustrates my point pretty well:

http://ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html


BUT - if you're going to carry a short barrel .357 mag, I like the SP101 for the weight... you're much more likely to go shoot it for fun, and because of that, you'll be better with it should the need arise.

[Artema]

I've heard that the 357 out of a short barrel is a bit slow, so I may reconsider. Carry has to be fairly small, and I still want a revolver, but always considering a Glock 29 in the back of my mind. Not
making decisions yet!

[dogbreath650]

Take a look at the Ruger LCR, it fits nicely in the front pocket, good trigger and fairly accurate for its size......

[osok-308]

I like the model 60 and the sp101. Both are fine revolvers that are still going to kick, but heavy enough to absorb SOME of the felt recoil. It will not be half as comfortable to shoot as my S&W 686 though.... never selling that gun!

[Artema]

I was thinking about getting one before I move, but the model with the wooden handle and glass blasted isn't California legal. Obviously it turns it into some sort of assault weapon if it isn't a rubber handle with brushed finish.

[osok-308]

I was thinking about getting one before I move, but the model with the wooden handle and glass blasted isn't California legal. Obviously it turns it into some sort of assault weapon if it isn't a rubber handle with brushed finish.

It's a well known fact that if you buy a good looking gun, you only are interested in one thing murdering puppies! I cant believe that you have the audacity to want such a gun! [Coffee]

[Great-Kazoo]

I was thinking about getting one before I move, but the model with the wooden handle and glass blasted isn't California legal. Obviously it turns it into some sort of assault weapon if it isn't a rubber handle with brushed finish.

Or the mfg decided not to "CA Compliant" that model. Each model has to be CA certified / tested prior to CADOJ Approval.

[osok-308]

Or the mfg decided not to "CA Compliant" that model. Each model has to be CA certified / tested prior to CADOJ Approval.

And if it's not on that list, it is about 50x more dangerous than the on list ones.

[Artema]

Or the mfg decided not to "CA Compliant" that model. Each model has to be CA certified / tested prior to CADOJ Approval.

Yeah, but eventually it will be ruled unconstitutional like the concealed carry was. Ruger and S&W getting their semi-auto removed from the list will help that.

[SideShow Bob]

Push posh on a revolver, this is what you want for a .357 carry gun.........

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=coonan%20357&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDMQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.coonaninc.com%2Fproducts.php% 2Fpistol%2FcPath%2C5&ei=fUQAU7TPL4iIyAHW44HQAQ&usg=AFQjCNGqoMHRf2PWO2OuPJ3dAK_PofHI0g&bvm=bv.61535280,d.aWc

[Artema]

Push posh on a revolver, this is what you want for a .357 carry gun.........

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=coonan%20357&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDMQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.coonaninc.com%2Fproducts.php% 2Fpistol%2FcPath%2C5&ei=fUQAU7TPL4iIyAHW44HQAQ&usg=AFQjCNGqoMHRf2PWO2OuPJ3dAK_PofHI0g&bvm=bv.61535280,d.aWc

Hahah, nice. I know that gun, but if I want something in the range of 700+ ft lbs muzzle energy I'll just carry the 10mm I already own.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3693/12550146334_803f0170ce_c_d.jpg

[Great-Kazoo]

And if it's not on that list, it is about 50x more dangerous than the on list ones.

In CA a plastic stock made all the difference back in2000 .

[osok-308]

In CA a plastic stock made all the difference back in2000 .

Not sure I follow you. Forgive my ignorance. My wife's family lives in California and I did some (not a ton) of research. I find it maddening that there even is a list, but almost as maddening is the face that a gun's color can result in it not being on the list.

[Great-Kazoo]

Not sure I follow you. Forgive my ignorance. My wife's family lives in California and I did some (not a ton) of research. I find it maddening that there even is a list, but almost as maddening is the face that a gun's color can result in it not being on the list.

dec 1999 was the last anyone could purchase "assault" style guns. jan 1 2000. was the new law taking hold. wooden stocked mini-14 or 10/22 ok install a plastic folding, looking stock BANNED. Look up the CADOJ list of "approved" firearms for the current (this months) approved ones.

[osok-308]

dec 1999 was the last anyone could purchase "assault" style guns. jan 1 2000. was the new law taking hold. wooden stocked mini-14 or 10/22 ok install a plastic folding, looking stock BANNED. Look up the CADOJ list of "approved" firearms for the current (this months) approved ones.


I see, and I've seen the list. It's diabolical. Especially the AR-15 list. Lower receivers are not allowed because nothing more than the NAME stamped on them. Other guns are banned because their newest version hasn't yet been put up for testing (Glock gen 4, SA XDM, any other guns made since the introduction of the list, etc.). It's ridiculous.

[Husker95]

Personally, I would scratch around for an older (pre-stupid lock hole) S&W J-frame. With a little digging you can find one in great condition for a little less than new price. It will be a great carry gun forever and in 20 years you (or eventually your heirs) will have something really special. Also, 38 +P is enough.