Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Snubbie Showdown...

I'm having fun with the gunnie comparisons. Previous comparisons of the Colt Jr. and P3AT and the P3AT vs. the S&W 360PD gave me another idea for a match-up, only this time with a twist: compare the major variations of Smith & Wesson J-frame constructions for variations in weight.

Here's the guns used for this comparison:

J-Frame Madness!

L-R: Model 360PD, Model 38, Model 34

These three represent the three major metallurgical constructions of the Smith & Wesson J-frame "snubnose" revolver:

Model 34 - all steel frame and cylinder.
Model 38 - Aluminum frame, steel cylinder.
Model 360PD - Scandium frame, titanium cylinder.



So, what's the weight difference, you ask? Pretty substantial:

Model 360PD


Model 38


Model 34

A quick caveat: The 360 and 38 are loaded with five rounds each whereas the 34 is empty. I figured that the extra weight of the metal cylinder in the .22LR chambered 34 would balance out the empty chamber.

The model 360PD is by far the lightest, a mere 13.9 ounces loaded. The model 38 is the next svelte, weighing in at a respectable 16.2 ounces loaded - a savings of only 2.3 ounces! The model 34, OTOH, checks in at 22.1 ounces, still lighter than most compact semi-automatics but on the heavy side for what is essentially a pocket gun.

So there you have it - a visual comparison of the weight differential in the different metals used for Smith & Wesson J-frame revolvers. Obviously, the most faithful test would be to have three identical frames (rather than the Bodyguard - shrouded hammer - mixed in with the Chief's Special - exposed hammer) and identical chamberings; however for a rough approximation it's pretty telling.

Open question: What would make an interesting comparison/item for weighing?

That is all.

6 comments:

Brad_in_MA said...

Jay,

This past weekend I took My Progeny apple picking -- one of the many apples we picked weighs more than The Snubbie From Hell (tm). And yes, I think in a pinch said monster apple *could* be used as a weapon.

- Brad

Weer'd Beard said...

Maybe we could do a comparison of larger carry pieces!

This would be a good excuse for me to toss my S&W1911Sc on a scale. (Plus I'd like to see what it weighs in at since I dumped the full-length Guide rod and put on some slim carry grips)

Should I weigh it 8+1 cocked-and-locked, fully empty, or with an empty mag?

Ambulance Driver said...

"Open question: What would make an interesting comparison/item for weighing?"

An ounce of prevention and a pound of cure?

Jay G said...

Pound of lead vs. a pound of feathers, too...

Wally said...

Why do folks treat scandium like it is magic? What y'all call "Scandium" is an alumiunm alloy with less than 0.15% scandium.

You would be more correct if you called it Aluminum, or Silicon, or Iron, or Copper, or Magnesium, or Manganese, or Chrome, or Titanium, or even (gasp) Zinc - as they are all more prevalent in the alloy than Scandium.


Geez, reading that back I seem more crotchity than usual :)

Weer'd Beard said...

Wally if it's any consolation when I explain to somebody who might not get the "Scandium" term, I refer to my guns as having a "Scandium-aluminum alloy frame".

As far as why I like it, well it's about as light as aluminum, but it's harder than it by far, and overall it appears to hold up to high round-counts fairly well...and I paid pretty close to Aluminum prices for mine.