TexasCHLforum.com

TLynnHughes wrote:

LarryH wrote:
The CZ RAMI was mentioned in another thread somewhere -- 3" barrel. Might check that out, since you like WK's (and my) CZ.

I did go check it out and I really like this one. It's got a short barrel but still looks like I could hold on to it ok. I'll have to find that other thread and check it out. Thanks for the suggestion, LarryH. I guess I'll have to get my own Czechnology Tshirt.

T.

Here it is -- viewtopic.php?f=53&t=36557&p=433200&hilit=RAMI#p433200" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TLynnHughes wrote:

glbedd53 wrote:Is a Sig P-239 too big? 3 chioces of calibers too.

That one's not too bad. Hard to tell exactly how big it is from the pictures but looks to be about the right size. I'll add that to my list of guns that I want to fondle before I make a decision. Thanks...I wouldn't have thought about looking at Sigs!

The P239 9mm is my current carry piece. I recently bought a Kimber Ultra CDP II .45ACP and it is just a bit smaller & lighter.

If you're in the DFW area, I'd be happy to let you compare the two.

My dad had several .38 Charter Arms Undercovers scattered around the house when I was a kid. They are tiny! What S&W frame size do they emulate?

One of my favorite pistols is the Charter Arms Bulldog, a five shot snub nosed .44 special. Does anybody have an opinion about the quality of the present day Charter Arms products?

mctowalot wrote:My dad had several .38 Charter Arms Undercovers scattered around the house when I was a kid. They are tiny! What S&W frame size do they emulate?

One of my favorite pistols is the Charter Arms Bulldog, a five shot snub nosed .44 special. Does anybody have an opinion about the quality of the present day Charter Arms products?

I have a Charter Arms Pink Lady 38 spl. The craftsmanship seems to be still good. I haven't had any problems with mine. So I reckon they are still making "good" guns.

mctowalot wrote:My dad had several .38 Charter Arms Undercovers scattered around the house when I was a kid. They are tiny! What S&W frame size do they emulate?

Charter UC is almost identical size to a S&W J-frame. Not nearly as nice of a trigger pull as a S&W, but the one I had (no idea on age - but at least 20-plus years old) never failed to go bang. It was older, all steel, had a few rust spots and scratches. But it was a dependable weapon. Used to carry it with a Barami "hip grip" occassionaly, and later ended up carrying it in my roper-style boots - inside a Don Hume IWB clip holster clipped to top of boot with metal clip.

TLynnHughes wrote:

glbedd53 wrote:Is a Sig P-239 too big? 3 chioces of calibers too.

That one's not too bad. Hard to tell exactly how big it is from the pictures but looks to be about the right size. I'll add that to my list of guns that I want to fondle before I make a decision. Thanks...I wouldn't have thought about looking at Sigs!

T.

I've fired a P239 as a range rental once. Very nice weapon, probably my favorite Sig that I've shot. But it's not much smaller than a Glock 19/23 or H&K USPc AND only a single-stack mag.

Sig P239 9mm = L 6.60 in ; H 5.10 in; W 1.20 in; barrel 3.60 in; weight empty 29.5 oz
H&K USPc 9mm = L 6.81 in; H 5.00 in; W 1.14 in; barrel 3.58 in; weight empty 25.60 oz
Glock 19/23/32 = L 6.85 in; H 5.00 in; W 1.18 in; barrel 4.02 in; weight empty 21.16 oz
Glock 26/27/33 = L 6.29 in; H 4.17 in; W 1.18 in; barrel 3.46 in; weight empty 19.75 oz

Thanks to both of you!

Thinking about that Bulldog reminded me of when I got my first Glock 19. I had both guns on a table and was amazed that the Glocks over all measurements were no greater than that 5 shot .44spl. However, the thickness of the grips on the Glock prevented pocket carry. Well, you could put the Glock in your pocket but once your hand was around the grip it was nearly impossible to draw the gun. Since the grips on the revolver were more slender, it was easy to grab and draw.

I realize this is old news for most but figured I would mention it for the new folks.

Have you handled a SA XD 9mm Sub Compact or a Sig P-232 or a S&W 638? All three will get the job done and they all carry well.

Granted, I've heard the arguments about 9mm/.38 cal being inadequate, yada, yada & yada. I've yet to see the list of names of the volunteers who want to stand in front of any of these calibers and the outcome of their tests.

Best wishes,

Greg

TLynn recently bought 2 Kimbers. Pro-Eclipse II (4"bbl) and Ultra-Carry II SS (3"bbl) in 45acp. Took wife out to shoot the 3" and then the 4" for comparison as she has been wanting a Kimber. All said and done she has chosen the 3" Ultra-Carry II as her next weapon for me to buy her. She stated that the shorter grip seemed to fit her hands better and thought that she had better control with it. Kimber makes this in a 9mm also.

mag cap for .45/7----9mm/8
height 4.75"
length 6.8"
width 1.28"
weight 25oz

And the final call, its a 1911.

mctowalot wrote:Thanks to both of you!

Thinking about that Bulldog reminded me of when I got my first Glock 19. I had both guns on a table and was amazed that the Glocks over all measurements were no greater than that 5 shot .44spl. However, the thickness of the grips on the Glock prevented pocket carry. Well, you could put the Glock in your pocket but once your hand was around the grip it was nearly impossible to draw the gun. Since the grips on the revolver were more slender, it was easy to grab and draw.

I realize this is old news for most but figured I would mention it for the new folks.

I think this has a lot to do with the shape of revolver grips too, which is why I prefer a snubby for pocket carry - even though I have three semi-autos (LCP, PPS, G27) that can and do occassionally get carried in my pockets. When you grab an SA, you still have the rear of the slide above your hand that has to clear the top of the pocket. With a revolver, when you grip it, what is left at top of gun above your grip is angled such that it just slides right out. Much easier draw.

Most snubbies do have some kick to them, but nothing unmanageable with .38 or even .38+P ... I've not yet been brave enough to fire .357 out of a snubby.

Heck, I can barely fire the .38+P in my 12 oz. J-Frame without cutting the web. I fire the .357 in my all-steel full size Taurus .357, but not more than 8 or 10 rounds. It hurts, too, after awhile.

TX CHL 1997
CO CHP 2005

You should check out the Springfield EMP. I would suggest the 9mm version.

http://www.springfield-armory.com/armory.php?model=24" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Its a 3 inch 1911 that is designed to shoot the 9mm. So if you want reliability, concealability and shootibility this is the gun for you...IMO.

rdcrags wrote:

Most snubbies do have some kick to them, but nothing unmanageable with .38 or even .38+P ... I've not yet been brave enough to fire .357 out of a snubby.

Heck, I can barely fire the .38+P in my 12 oz. J-Frame without cutting the web. I fire the .357 in my all-steel full size Taurus .357, but not more than 8 or 10 rounds. It hurts, too, after awhile.

TX CHL 1997
CO CHP 2005

I don't fire a lot of +P from my Airweight (18 oz - aluminum/stainless - no scandium) but I can handle them when I do. I shoot just enough to consider myself proficient, and then carry them in my gun and speedstrips. My 638 j-frame won't shoot .357s, but I didn't even like shooting them from an L-frame 686 so I don't even want to think how bad the recoil would be from a 12-oz gun. TAM talks about shooting .357s from his 12-oz gun - but he's twice the man I am cause he owns a 1911 and an M1

note: all in good fun TAM. even though you don't own a Glock, I still think you're an alright guy. your Glock owning wife is obviously the better half though

austinrealtor wrote:

TLynnHughes wrote:

glbedd53 wrote:Is a Sig P-239 too big? 3 chioces of calibers too.

That one's not too bad. Hard to tell exactly how big it is from the pictures but looks to be about the right size. I'll add that to my list of guns that I want to fondle before I make a decision. Thanks...I wouldn't have thought about looking at Sigs!

T.

I've fired a P239 as a range rental once. Very nice weapon, probably my favorite Sig that I've shot. But it's not much smaller than a Glock 19/23 or H&K USPc AND only a single-stack mag.

Sig P239 9mm = L 6.60 in ; H 5.10 in; W 1.20 in; barrel 3.60 in; weight empty 29.5 oz
H&K USPc 9mm = L 6.81 in; H 5.00 in; W 1.14 in; barrel 3.58 in; weight empty 25.60 oz
Glock 19/23/32 = L 6.85 in; H 5.00 in; W 1.18 in; barrel 4.02 in; weight empty 21.16 oz
Glock 26/27/33 = L 6.29 in; H 4.17 in; W 1.18 in; barrel 3.46 in; weight empty 19.75 oz

You are so right!! Just about the time you posted this, I started looking at overall length and realizing that I was still focusing on the compact size rather than the subcompact size. It's just so hard to tell from a picture. So I'm paying more attention to the written specs of size and weight. I'll keep narrowing the field until I get a couple that I want to shoot before I make the final decision.

Thanks for the input everyone! Keep it coming if anything's been missed.

T.

Oldgringo wrote: Have you handled a SA XD 9mm Sub Compact or a Sig P-232 or a S&W 638? All three will get the job done and they all carry well.

Granted, I've heard the arguments about 9mm/.38 cal being inadequate, yada, yada & yada. I've yet to see the list of names of the volunteers who want to stand in front of any of these calibers and the outcome of their tests.

Best wishes,

Greg

Greg,

I do like SA as a whole. I'll have to check out that subcompact. I think my problem is that there aren't that many guns I don't like.

I totally agree with you about the perceived inadequacy of the 9mm. The way I see it is I would be putting holes where there aren't supposed to be any so I'm good.

T.