Lightweights

[Petrol & Powder]

No, I’m not referring to low tolerance of alcohol.

In today’s world of polymer framed pistols, an older segment of the handgun field is often overshadowed. That segment is the lightweight DA revolver.

Back when DA revolvers were far more commonly seen tools of self-defense, there was a popular subset of revolvers collectively known as the “lightweights”, or in S&W parlance “Airweights”. These were aluminum alloy framed versions of popular steel framed DA revolvers. The Airweight models of the J-frames remain popular to this day, but the lightweight field was once much larger.

Post WWII, both Colt and Smith & Wesson produced lightweight, medium frame DA revolvers chambered in 38 Special. Colt was first in 1950 with S&W right behind them in 1951. To meet U.S. Air Force requests for a very lightweight 38 Special handgun, both manufactures also attempted to incorporate aluminum cylinders to those models; but that proved to be “A bridge too far” in the quest to reduce weight. The early Aircrewman models (a designation used by both Colt and S&W for their super lightweight U.S. Airforce revolvers) were recalled due to the problems from the aluminum cylinders. Most were destroyed but a few aluminum cylinder examples survived. I have held a S&W Aircrewman revolver with the aluminum cylinder and it is shockingly light.

With conventional steel cylinders and aluminum alloy frames, the concept proved to be useful and reliable. The lightweight Colt models went on to be the Cobra, Agent, and Courier models. The Smith & Wesson models went on to be the M&P Airweight (Pre-model 12) and later the Model 12. When S&W expanded the “Airweight” concept to the J-frames, we got a multitude of models such as the 37, 38, 42, 437, 438, 442, 637, 638, 642, and probably some other lightweight J-frames that I missed.

Smith & Wesson seemed to be very enthusiastic about the lightweight concept and expanded their Airweight line into the L-frames, N-frames and even back into the K-frames with their “Niteguard” series. With new materials such as Scandium Aluminum alloys and Titanium, S&W was even able to re-introduce the super lightweight alloy cylinder to some DA revolver models.

It is commonly known that if you want to draw out strong opinions and lively debate in the handgun community, simply use the word “Glock” and sit back and watch the fireworks. But another method to start a vigorous discussion is to bring up the topic of lightweight DA revolvers. When it comes to the topic of lightweight DA revolvers, the camps of love and hate are well defined and eager to speak.

I’ve owned a bunch of lightweight DA revolvers made by S&W and Colt. I am well aware of the limitations of those models. However, I can also attest that they are often unfairly maligned. Like any tool, they have their strengths, weaknesses, and application.

S&W Model 12 with cracked framed. (barrel removed)

A well used and sound Model 12 Square butt.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

And By The Way, I wasn't ignoring other lightweight DA revolvers such as the Ruger LCR.
Ruger was late to that party but made a fine appearance when they arrived.

 

[Winelover]

And By The Way, I wasn't ignoring other lightweight DA revolvers such as the Ruger LCR.
Ruger was late to that party but made a fine appearance when they arrived.

Omitted Charter Arms, also.

Ruger might have been late with their LCR but hit a home run with it's much better fixed sights and out of the box trigger. Now, if they only offered it in a big bore, like CA does.

 

[Rick H]

My neighbor purchased a Scandium/titanium S&W 357 snubbie some years ago. He was singing the praises of it but had only fired it with 38 special ammo and asked if I had any 357 Mag. for him to try. I warned him that what I had might be a bit uncomfortable but gave him a box of my old duty ammo....1970's era Remington 158JHP, pre SAAMI detuned stuff. He came to me the next day and returned 48 rounds of the 50 round box. Two rounds convinced him that 38 special +P would do what he needed.

I always found full house 357 magnum rounds to be unpleasant to shoot in a 4" Model 66/19. They can't be fun out of a 14 oz. S&W 340. I would be tempted to stick with the 38 special.

 

[Winelover]

That's where handloading the 357 comes into play...........mild to wild. Wild/factory for carry purposes. Better to have it and not need it, than not have it and need it. Mild for trigger time.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

My neighbor purchased a Scandium/titanium S&W 357 snubbie some years ago. He was singing the praises of it but had only fired it with 38 special ammo and asked if I had any 357 Mag. for him to try. I warned him that what I had might be a bit uncomfortable but gave him a box of my old duty ammo....1970's era Remington 158JHP, pre SAAMI detuned stuff. He came to me the next day and returned 48 rounds of the 50 round box. Two rounds convinced him that 38 special +P would do what he needed.

I always found full house 357 magnum rounds to be unpleasant to shoot in a 4" Model 66/19. They can't be fun out of a 14 oz. S&W 340. I would be tempted to stick with the 38 special.

Yeah, that's some of those limitations I referred to.

 

[Jeff H]

That's where handloading the 357 comes into play...........mild to wild. Wild/factory for carry purposes. Better to have it and not need it, than not have it and need it. Mild for trigger time.

Agreed.

I prefer to have my smallish/lightish revolvers chambered in 357, so I can shoot either, but my handloads exceed typical 38 Specials, but come short of the "old days" loads of which @Rick H speaks. I despised the 357 in a handgun for many years because of the obnoxious blast. Not sure hy it did not occur to me to load it differently until a bit over ten years ago.

Closest I have to a "lightweight" of the class mentioned in the OP is a 3" LCRX in 38 Special. Cleaned, it weighs just under 16 ounces empty. It's not difficult to handle though, because the large grip provides a lot of surface area to spread the force over. I find it too bulky though, in spite of the weight savings.

 

[david s]

When Ruger first came out with their LCR a fair bit was made of the trigger pulls in the advertisements. I don't own a LCR just a S&W 642 but of the little Ruger's that I have fired the triggers actually are not bad. Ruger did this one right. In the small light weight pocket sized revolvers 38 +P is about all I want to use. I have one of the N frame S&W 329 revolvers. In theory its pretty neat reality is a bit different. It makes a really great 44 Special, but I've never been able to keep it from rotating (torquing) in my hand when shooting magnum loads. It may well be time to go back to the S&W 4-inch stainless Mountain Gun. Sometimes a bit of extra weight isn't a bad thing.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

There are some incredible materials that allow for some very lightweight DA revolvers but there's also a limit to what can be accomplished and,,,, at what price?

When looking for that balance between weight and acceptable durability/control, there’s always a fuzzy line.
There’s NO doubt that a little more weight can result in a tremendous gain of strength. If the gun will be shot a lot and with heavy loads- a small weight penalty is insignificant. However, that equation works both ways. If weight savings are the goal and you don’t need the elephant stopping super magnum round; there are gains to be made with the correct materials.

Clarence “Kelly” Johnson was chief engineer of Lockheed’s ‘Skunk Works” division and responsible for many projects, including the U2 spy plane. The weight of the U2 was critical and the most important design element. Every pound they could remove from the design was more altitude and range. One of my favorite Kelly Johnson quotes is, “Anyone can build a plane that is strong enough. The trick is to build one that is JUST strong enough”.

Reducing weight comes with penalties. Sometimes the goal requires we accept those penalties and sometimes those penalties are unacceptable. It all depends on your goal.

 

[Jeff H]

There are some incredible materials that allow for some very lightweight DA revolvers but there's also a limit to what can be accomplished and,,,, at what price?

Compromises come in all forms, don't they? Pushing the limits in any one direction creates a highly specialized tool, which has to be appreciated for what it is and what it does. Just means having just ONE revolver is a silly notion.

...One of my favorite Kelly Johnson quotes is, “Anyone can build a plane that is strong enough. The trick is to build one that is JUST strong enough”.

Skunkworks was an amazing story of pushing limits and should be required reading today. "We" tend to get a little arrogant about where we are, what we have and what we can do, but this was a "long time ago," before an awful lot of today's living,breathing beings were even being. Chuck Yeager's story too. I love that quote.

...Reducing weight comes with penalties. Sometimes the goal requires we accept those penalties and sometimes those penalties are unacceptable. It all depends on your goal.

Going below twenty ounces is my personal limit for the 38, today's 357s and the 44 Special. I don't do deep-cover, covert ops, and I like to be able to practice often with what I carry. Back to the LCRX for a moment - it's easy to carry, because it's so light, but it takes up some space, so it is less concealable, but then also quite shootable.

I just remembered having owned a Taurus 85 lightweight 38, which weighed 16.4 ounces empty. That's not quite half an ounce heavier than the LCRX, but was VERY compact. Yep, shooting it wasn't something I did for fun, as you palm takes a pounding. It was all about five rounds at ten feet as fast as possible, and I don't remember ever even looking at the sights. It was easier (and more accurate) to point it and hammer with it.

BUT, it served a useful purpose.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

Aviation history is amazing and should be required reading in our schools. Staying germane to this forum, there is an incredible amount of crossover technology between aviation and firearms. Materials and manufacturing techniques developed in aviation advances frequently make their way into firearms design and manufacture.

I agree there are practical limits when it comes to lightweight firearms. And I also agree that practice with a carry firearm comes into play. I see lightweight revolvers as job specific tools and not a solution for every situation. But they are still tools in the toolbox.

I’m not going to deceive myself, as much as I love DA revolvers; today’s compact, lightweight semi-auto pistols probably have the upper hand when it comes to small, light weapons.

Back when Smith & Wesson introduced the Night Guard series, I was very tempted to purchase a S&W 315. I could never justify the expense and they didn’t stay around long enough to become common on the used market. To me, the 315 was the modern incarnation of the old Model 12. Oh well, I might have missed that boat.

 

[RicinYakima]

When I retired from the FD and had broken a firing pin on my Colt Agent, I bought a S&W Model 331. That is a 32 H&R that weights 11+ ounces. I practice with 32 Longs and six round of the magnum ammo every month. The Agent now lives in the night stand and doesn't get shot more than 50 times a year.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

When I retired from the FD and had broken a firing pin on my Colt Agent, I bought a S&W Model 331. That is a 32 H&R that weights 11+ ounces. I practice with 32 Longs and six round of the magnum ammo every month. The Agent now lives in the night stand and doesn't get shot more than 50 times a year.

I had a Colt Agent, great little revolver.

 

[Missionary]

Taurus Trackers with the Titanium cylinders and frames make for nice light weight 41, 44 and 45 revolvers to carry all day.

 

[Winelover]

Own three S&W J-frames. Two 642's and a SS Model 60. None of these triggers are by any means light in weight. In fact, they are horribly heavy. Even the Talo (Performance Center) edition of a 642........... has a heavier DA trigger pull than the 357 LCR.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

When S&W introduced the 342PD it piqued my interest but at 10.8 oz, it may be too light.

S&W achieved that incredible low weight by using a scandium aluminum alloy frame, titanium cylinder and a stainless-steel barrel liner inside an aluminum alloy barrel shroud. The materials engineering is impressive but so is the cost. For a few years they were produced without the internal lock.

And speaking of innovative materials and design, I think Ruger hit a home run with the LCR. They use aluminum alloy, polymer and a deeply fluted stainless steel cylinder to get the weight down. And they accomplished that at an acceptable price.

 

[Winelover]

Those super lightweights are too much of a good thing. IMO

There have been reports of premature topstrap failings, also.

 

[Jeff H]

When I retired from the FD and had broken a firing pin on my Colt Agent, I bought a S&W Model 331. That is a 32 H&R that weights 11+ ounces. I practice with 32 Longs and six round of the magnum ammo every month. The Agent now lives in the night stand and doesn't get shot more than 50 times a year.

Now there's a part of a solution to part of the "problem" - the 32 Mag.

In really light revolvers, it's very manageable and can be a six (or seven now, with the Charter "Professional") shots. I've shot a few "Lightweight" 32 Mags and they were all very compact, light and very easy to shoot - WELL. LIGHT guns aren't necessarily easy to shoot well to begin with, and adding the abuse one might take from a larger or more powerful load can exacerbate that, especially over time.

The 32 Longs are a great understudy as well (or load light 32 Mags), which even standard 38s won't serve as well in a really light revolver.

 

[Jeff H]

......

And speaking of innovative materials and design, I think Ruger hit a home run with the LCR. They use aluminum alloy, polymer and a deeply fluted stainless steel cylinder to get the weight down. And they accomplished that at an acceptable price.

I got the LCRX for quite a bit under $400 when they were still fairly new. They really seem to have jumped since, but what hasn't? I can't argue on the innovation angle though. Ruger hit a home-run right there. It's refreshing to see true innovation today, in deference to continuing to try to tweak very old design more and more. Nothing wrong with very old design - but if we were still tweaking Ford Y-Blocks, we'd be hauling around half the weight of the car under the hood.

BTW - NOT knocking Y-Blocks. Quite the old beast still.

 

[CZ93X62]

Lots of plastic and aluminum alloy receivers in my war toy chest. Specific to 38 revolvers, I've had a S&W Model 642 for about 4 years now, and it kinda got relegated to 2nd-line status with the arrival of the Glock 43 a few months ago. Both of those mini-lightweights are at their best when "Carried a lot & shot a little" is adhered to. They are good summer guns, but don't offer the comfort level the Glock 23 or CZ-75 x 40 S&W provide.