[InDefenseofLiberty]

I know it looks weird but, if you are concerned about recoil you owe it to yourself to check out the Chiappa pronounced (key-AHH-puh) rhino revolver. Yes it looks strange but watch the live fire demonstration. Approximately the same recoil as a .22 with a .357 magnum round. Its expensive but, very cool.

http://www.chiappafirearms.com/product/725

YouTube

YouTube

[Old_Crow]

I like the SP101. In double action the trigger pull is enough that there will be no nervous or jittery discharge of the firearm. When I cock the gun my mind is made up I am going to shoot something. If you practice cocking a gun it's second nature to handle the gun in just that matter.

It's the same way with a long gun. I don't take the gun off safety until I am raising it up to fire it. I don't disengage the safety because the dogs are eating the deer's tail off 100 yards in front of me or I know a covey of quail will flush at any moment.

[SatoriNoir]

The low muzzle flip of the Chiappa Rhino is inherent to the low bore axis design. Instead of recoiling up and down, the Rhino recoils backwards into your arms and shoulders, allowing for very quick follow-up shots and ease in re-acquiring target sight.

The shootability of the low bore design is easily compared in the picture below.

[phildenton]

Originally Posted by GrizzlyGurl

I've been doing some research today and I've come to the conclusion that a revolver will work out best for what I want and need it for.
Goal: to have/own/carry a concealed gun on self or purse
History: have concealed weapons permit, shot husband's makarov, unknown other pistol, shotgun a couple of times, own multiple knives
Preferences: hammerless revolver, concern on kick (found difficulty to manage in husband's guns) and concern over pain in knuckles if I have to repetitively shoot.
Pro: hammerless has less chance to snag in a purse Con: trigger needs more lbs of pressure to pull. repetitive use and practice downrange will be limited
Pro: hammer could help with joint problem
I have researched and found some hammerless I want to test out myself, but I want some opinions on this.
1. In your opinion, what do you see in this small battle in choosing between hammerless and hammer?
2. I keep seeing statement of people saying certain calibers(.357) and certain gun models(SW 642) are not good for a beginner. Why? Why must I go with a .22? what's the big difference? And I honestly have caught myself drooling a few times over variations of the S & Wes m 642 and look forward to testing it out. What's the big deal?
3. I look at the revolver and I picture more concealment challenges than say a pistol. What's your opinion? Are there ways that are more difficult to conceal a revolver than a pistol?

A s&w in 357 is a great choice.
You can still fire standard pressure .38 special, 110 to 125 grain bullet. Or if you plan on never firing 357 you can get it in 38+p

[canebrake]

Originally Posted by InDefenseofLiberty

I know it looks weird but, if you are concerned about recoil you owe it to yourself to check out the Chiappa pronounced (key-AHH-puh) rhino revolver. Yes it looks strange but watch the live fire demonstration. Approximately the same recoil as a .22 with a .357 magnum round. Its expensive but, very cool.

http://www.chiappafirearms.com/product/725

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxuy8QPdbTg

Where's your eye protection son?

[InDefenseofLiberty]

Originally Posted by canebrake

Where's your eye protection son?

Not my video. If it were, you would see eye protection and ears.

Oh yeah, i also wouldn't nit pick the first fundamental modification to revolvers in over 100 years. I would imagine the change to be significant and take some getting used to. You can remove that problem with a new shooter/first gun scenario.

[Old_Crow]

Most of us have more than one gun. The notion that you can get by with one gun is like asking a mechanic to build a car with a crescent wrench. If you intend to become proficient with a gun beyond hitting a target at 7 yards you need 2 guns. A 22 to practice with and a gun that you defend yourself with, if you don't hunt.

[Old_Crow]

Originally Posted by canebrake

Where's your eye protection son?

That is why I despise gun ranges. Gun owners complain about the government telling us what to do. Yet a gun range is the most NAZI kill the fun from a sport place that ever existed. If eye protection was a necessary to fire a gun all the founding fathers would have been wearing eye patches. Guns were much more dangerous when we didn't have the technology to build eye protection. The first time I ever went to civilian pistol range I had a range officer yelling about rapid fire. I was shooting a single action revolver.

Yes, I wear polycarbonate lenses. :-P

[Blueguns]

I'd reccomend a Ruger LCR in .380. The .380 is not an overwhelming caliber to start out with. I do think a .22 is the caliber to start with, but if you just want a good carry revolver that's hammer less the LCR in .380 is the way to go.

[SatoriNoir]

Originally Posted by Old_Crow

Yet a gun range is the most NAZI kill the fun from a sport place that ever existed.

...Yes, I wear polycarbonate lenses. :-P

I can certainly relate.

I remember one time I decided to try shooting at a new range not too far away with my revolvers. I also use the same prescription glasses I wear daily as my eye protection at the range (polycarbonate huge "John Lennon" style circle lens).

The nazi range officer there approached me and proceeded to inform me that I didn't have proper eye protection, and kept insisting I either rent or buy their eye wear in order to safely shoot at their range.

Even though I told him my lens were specifically made polycarbonate and impact resistant, he said they were still not adequate!