I've carried a J-Frame, and now carry a Shield. I find the Shield more comfortable, due to the thinness. The cylinder of the revolver always felt too large to me. I've pocket carried both, and both do print a bit, it's true - but I find it's easier to break up the outline of the Shield than the cylinder of the revolver.

 

That's what I'm thinking. It just seems a more streamlined pistol will be easier to carry but everyone says that the j-frame cannot be beat. Ugh, it's so hard to make a decision like this! I want to try different carry methods, concealment chest holster, like the kangaroo carry or this-http://www.deepconceal.com/ is something I am seriously considering. A slower draw, but it seems like a well thought out way to carry a pistol, and it would be better hidden than a front pocket.

 

I've tried a bunch of small pistols, but I always return to the J frame; I just find it easier to carry, whether pocket or clipped on, IWB etc. It's easier for me to grab too, with a more organic shape and grip to hold onto.
I've never tried the Shield though, it could be the cat's ass.....but I much prefer revolvers in small guns.

 

My go to is an LCR with XS front sight and Crimson Trace Lasergrips.

 

I've tried a bunch of small pistols, but I always return to the J frame; I just find it easier to carry, whether pocket or clipped on, IWB etc. It's easier for me to grab too, with a more organic shape and grip to hold onto.
I've never tried the Shield though, it could be the cat's ass.....but I much prefer revolvers in small guns.

+1
I have an MK40 Elite and two Centennial J-Frames.
I find the revolvers faster to draw and more comfortable to carry.
Plus the DAO trigger is great when I'm at my worst after an adrenalin dump.

My S&W 342 ti weights 11.1 oz empty.
13.5 oz loaded with 5 135 gr Speer GDHP Short Barrel 38 +P.
That my friend is hard to beat.

 

I would look very hard at the Kel-Tec PF9.....

12 ounces, super-thin, and, although I expected stout recoil due to the pistol's light weight, it was actually quite mild, perhaps the equivalent of an all-steel 1911 in .40 S&W...

Here's the shocker...$250-$280?

Mine works flawlessly!

 

Good replies, thanks folks. I am set on a shield if I'm going the pocket 9 route. I have confidence in the m&p lineup. The j-frame is an all time classic. I have decided against the LCR, as it really is too bulky. After much thought, I'm still undecided! I like the idea of a J-frame, and I'm comfortable with 5 shots, although I'm wondering if it will be uncomfortable for IWB due to cylinder width. I know my G26 is very uncomfortable IWB after any given amount of time, strictly due to the 1.2" width of the pistol. A cylinder on a j-frame is usually 1.3" wide, a tenth of an inch wider. The .38 weighs less than the shield, but the shield is not even an inch thick at the widest point. This is a tough one!

 

The cylinder width is not an issue for me, when carrying a j-frame IWB.

I use a Remora holster, and that little j-frame stays PUT!

compared to a Glock subcompact, the j-frame is FAR easier to carry!
I wear the J-frame when working out or when attending social events where I CANNOT be "outed" for carrying....(I'm a teacher in a small liberal community...:whistling
Because of the more rounded shape of a snubbie, it is easier to conceal, easier to draw from a holster, and far more comfortable.....don't worry about the width of the cylinder, it is a round shape, and so does not feel as thick as the slide of a Glock...

Here is a pic of my 340 M&P, next to my G26....

The j-frame is slowly becoming my go-to for carry....
I live in a low-risk environment, and will try to make do with 5 shots of .357 magnum (at arm's length) for self-defense.

 

I would look very hard at the Kel-Tec PF9.....

12 ounces, super-thin, and, although I expected stout recoil due to the pistol's light weight, it was actually quite mild, perhaps the equivalent of an all-steel 1911 in .40 S&W...

Here's the shocker...$250-$280?

Mine works flawlessly!

Worked pretty well for George Zimmerman.too.

 

Watch Hickock45's review of the Shield. His opinion is that it's just a little too large for pocket carry, and that the Beretta Nano or the Kahr would be a better choice for that.

I've been pocket carrying a revolver a lot lately. Depending on how tight my pocket is, either a Colt Detective Special or a Smith 438 Bodyguard. You can't beat a Mika pocket holster for carrying a snubby. The Colt holds 6 rounds and I just put my thumb over the hammer when drawing it.

I considered the LCR when I got the 438, because of the nice trigger it has. But the fat rubber grip made it even more difficult to get out of a tight pocket than my Colt. I had a 442 in the past, and like the 438 a lot better.

 

I bought this LCR version last year, and carry it in an Uncle Mikes Size 4 pocket holster. The holster is designed for an auto pistol, but fits the ruger's large trigger guard. I learned about it from another GT post.

http://www.downrange.tv/blog/sturm-ruger-introduces-the-lcr™-with-boot-grip-and-xs®-sight/3263/

The smaller boot grip does not snag at all.

 

Personally I prefer semiautos because they are easier to shoot well and I'd rather have 9mm than .38+P. Not to mention more rounds and faster reloading.

The only gun I would pocket carry though (in jean pockets) is the PM9. The others are just too large. Coat pockets or cargo pants pockets would be ok though.

 

I'm still having trouble deciding. There are so many factors to consider. I think I could undoubtedly shoot the shield better. I'm used to striker fired semi automatics. The j frame is a very different gun. Although, with practice I'm sure I could learn to be fast and accurate with the little thing.

 

I have a jframe and a Walther PPS. Both carry just fine except the jframe straight on the hip bone. The jframe has revolver reliability, the PPS has reloadability. I shoot the PPS a lot better.

 

Have you considered the Kahr PM9/CM9?

Smaller than the shield, more firepower than the revolver.

 

Check the used gun market for a Colt Detective Special.

Every one I have fired was very accurate. You get six shots with a Dick Special where the S&W J-frame gives you five.

 

My S&W 640 can't be beat,.....love the j-frame!

 

I have a jframe and a Walther PPS. Both carry just fine except the jframe straight on the hip bone. The jframe has revolver reliability, the PPS has reloadability. I shoot the PPS a lot better.

By hip bone do you mean the 3:00 position? I am now leaning more towards the j frame, specifically the 642. I don't know if the shield has enough difference than the G26 I carry now. It's .25" thinner width is desirable, but there is no other savings beside girth. I think a lighter gun would be that much better for something that needs to be discreet.

 

In my opinion...

The j frame airweight (such as a 642) is smaller and lighter than even a Kahr PM9. For me, my 642 conceals better than my PM9.

Heck, just the other day, my wife was collecting up a bunch of our guns so she could teach a class with them. She asked me what I was going to carry, so she could take the others. I don't know, I said, tomorrow feels like a t-shirt day.

So, with her helping and giving comments, I tried on my PM9, LCP, and 642. All three carried IWB at 2:00. Would you believe the 642 printed the least of all of them? As in 0 print. I knew that before I started that little fashion show for her, but was surprised that she thought the LCP printed just a hint.

Why? It is a square versus round. Round prints less. Other than the cylinder, everthing is smaller and less edgy. And the cylinder just doesn't seem to print.

Your mileage, and how you carry a gun, may vary. I just know that with me, when IWB, the j frame conceals as well as an LCP, and definitely better than the PM9. For pocket carry the LCP wins, and I think the j and PM9 are about equal.

Here are some pics to show comparisons:

 

With regard to how the j shoots compared to other guns...

I can shoot my Glock 26 and Kahr PM9 almost as accurate as full-size guns. Meaning, I can stand there and put in about 5" group at 25 yards. The LCP and 642 open up to a 12" group. That's how I shoot them, not a reflection of their mechanical accuracy. I've benched my 642 before and have every reason to believe it is capable of 2" groups.

So both the LCP and 642 lose the target accuracy competition, in my hands.

But up close, like 7 yards, they seem to be plenty accurate enough. I'll give the LCP the accuracy nod, that puts the 642 in last place. Again, from my hands. But still accurate enough. I can quick fire 5 on a pie plate at 7 yards with the j.

Recoil? The 26 and PM9 have less recoil. The LCP and 642 are about tied. Maybe the 642 has the most recoil in the bunch, with +P ammo (either 135gr short barrel Gold Dots or 158gr semi-wadcutter hollow points). If you ever want soft recoiling ammo, use 148gr wadcutters (they are loaded to lower velocity for target shooting).

Reliability? The 642 wins. Of course the 26 is tied with it. But if I had to shoot through a pocket, I think the 642 would work better than the 26.

Fully loaded, the 26 is the heaviest, then the PM9, then the 642, then the LCP.

For reloading, the 642 is the slowest. In my hands. Unless you carry speedloaders. But I don't, I carry a flat pouch of 5 extra rounds.

Power? The 9mm is probably more powerful than the .38 out of a 1 5/8" barrel. They are different beasts, so hard to directly compare. I prefer the 158gr +P in the .38, so I have the heavier bullet (since all the .38 are going relatively slow anyway). Most will consider the .38 and 9mm to be close enough in power. They are both definitely more powerful than a .380.

So, it boils down to the j frame .38 snubby is lightweight, conceals great, is extremely reliable, and is accurate enough and powerful enough to get the job done. Many people keep coming to that same conclusion.

Some people, however, will get the j and struggle with accuracy. Some of them sell it and go with a semi-auto. So, just be prepared to work a bit on getting the hang of shooting it

 

Ithaca, I really need to thank you. You've taken the time to write two comprehensive posts just to help me on my decision regarding my next carry gun. :wavey: Your a good guy, and I appreciate all of your comments on this website.

I have settled upon the venerable 642. For so many of the reasons you have mentioned, and a little advice Massad Ayoob passed on to me in the GATE SD forum . Your first hand experience has led me to my final decision and helped me to finally make up my mind. Of course I wanted to carry the shield but a j frame would be much more practical. It's actually lighter than my 26, unlike the shield, and it's an extremely reliable, discreet carry gun. I know I'm gonna have to practice a whole lot to get used to it, but I am more than willing to put in the effort it will take to become proficient. This gun will essentially become my primary because it will always be with me.

Thank you again Glock talkers, and a special thanks to The main man, Ithaca Deerslayer.erfect10:

 

I've tried a bunch of small pistols, but I always return to the J frame; I just find it easier to carry, whether pocket or clipped on, IWB etc. It's easier for me to grab too, with a more organic shape and grip to hold onto.
I've never tried the Shield though, it could be the cat's ass.....but I much prefer revolvers in small guns.

I too prefer the jframes to the small autos. IMO the advantage to the semi-autos is they reload with a magazine. For some reason the shape of the jframes conceals better than its size.

 

OP, do what you want to but I am going J-frame.After forty years I'm very happy with them. YMMV. tom.:wavey:

 

Well guys, I am torn between choosing two very capable guns for deep concealment purposes. I have a G26 and I've tried different deep conceal methods of carrying but I can't seem to find a place that I can comfortably hide the 26 all day. I prefer a tuckable appendix carry rig for deep concealment and a good draw, but pocket carry would be an added benefit for the J-frame. I wear slacks usually a size big. Is the extra width of a j-frame revolver going to be something that I find uncomfortable IWB? I would like to go with the shield for the added firepower, and staying with the 9mm, but in the end I want a reasonable amount of comfort in a gun that can be carried easily in a variety of ways.

I'm leaning towards an LCR over the venerable J-frame if I go the revolver route strictly because I've heard it's less of a pain while shooting and has a better trigger, although it is a tad bit bulkier. Any advice would be much appreciated, thanks.

I have the LCR in 38+p and a Smith and Wesson no-lock 642. In fact, I shot my 642 this morning.......it wasn't pleasant. First, let me say that I'm not recoil shy......I own and shoot 357 mag revolvers (Ruger SP101 and GP-100) and have several single action 45 Colt revolvers. My edc is a 45acp subcompact pistol. Old diehard J frame fans will disagree I'm sure, but in my opinion the Ruger LCR is a much better revolver than the J frame. The Ruger is softer shooting due to the part-polymer frame and Hogue "Tamer" grips that come standard. The Ruger also has better sights and a better trigger right out of the box. I would highly recommend that you rent and shoot them both at your local range to see for yourself. I own both, but when I need a pocket carry handgun, I carry the Ruger LCR. I gave up trying to find a reliable, easily concealable pocket 9mm. Go with the revolver.....it's a better choice imo.

 

I have the LCR in 38+p and a Smith and Wesson no-lock 642. In fact, I shot my 642 this morning.......it wasn't pleasant. First, let me say that I'm not recoil shy......I own and shoot 357 mag revolvers (Ruger SP101 and GP-100) and have several single action 45 Colt revolvers. My edc is a 45acp subcompact pistol. Old diehard J frame fans will disagree I'm sure, but in my opinion the Ruger LCR is a much better revolver than the J frame. The Ruger is softer shooting due to the part-polymer frame and Hogue "Tamer" grips that come standard. The Ruger also has better sights and a better trigger right out of the box. I would highly recommend that you rent and shoot them both at your local range to see for yourself. I own both, but when I need a pocket carry handgun, I carry the Ruger LCR. I gave up trying to find a reliable, easily concealable pocket 9mm. Go with the revolver.....it's a better choice imo.

I've shot an LCR and my 642 side by side. I did not notice any recoil difference. Nor did I think the LCR trigger was any better. I liked the feel of the 642 better.

Having said that, it is a great idea for the newbie to snubby revolvers to be open minded and look at both and simply pick the one he or she likes better.

That also goes for the different styles of 642 internal hammer that I prefer, and 637 external hammer that my wife prefers for the single action option, and the 638 partially shrouded hammer that tries to combine features of both worlds. Look at all 3 styles and pick the one you like best

My strong preference for a concealed carry revolver is mainly that it be .38 special, 15 ounces or less, and a 2" barrel or less. Whether S&W or Ruger doesn't matter as much.