Читать книгу The Gun Digest Book of the Revolver - Grant Cunningham - Страница 10

Chapter Two

The Perfect Fit

It’s really pretty simple: your gun must fit your hand if you want to be efficient in shooting. The circumference of the grip, the distance from the back to the trigger, and even the shape of the grip’s cross section make huge contributions to comfort and performance.

We’re lucky to be talking about revolvers in this day and age as opposed to just a few decades ago. Back in the ‘70s, and even well into the ‘80s, very few revolvers came with grips that actually fit a shooter’s hands. Custom grip manufacturers existed, but there was no internet to help shooters find them. If the revolver owner didn’t read a gun magazine, or sometimes the ‘right’ gun magazine, he or she would never learn that they didn’t have to suffer with poor revolver fit!

Today we have a wide range of aftermarket grips available, and many more that can be had on a custom basis through the many gripmakers found on the internet. Technology has improved, giving us materials that simply weren’t available some forty years ago. We also understand more about the role of improved ergonomics in shooter performance.

Many of these changes came about because of the wave of ‘shall issue’ concealed carry that swept across America during the 1980s. The market for concealed carry guns, training, and accessories exploded, bringing new ideas and increased competition into what was a pretty hidebound industry. Were it not for that, we might not have seen the need for proper gun and hand fit achieve the recognition that it has.

The trigger finger rules all

When fitting a gun to a shooter I always start with the trigger/finger interface. I’ll talk more about trigger finger placement in a later chapter, but ideally the first joint of the finger should be placed on the trigger. This is the ideal point of leverage and muscle control, and fits the majority of shooters with the widest range of gun sizes.

The process starts by having the student place that finger joint on the trigger. Once that’s properly placed we work backwards to the proper grip. Once the trigger finger is in the right place it’s easy to see if the the rest of the hand fits the gun (or vice-versa, depending on how you look at things).

Using a verified unloaded gun, place first joint of trigger finger on trigger.

Work backwards, wrapping hand around grip.

Finish by grasping the gun firmly as you would if actually shooting.

With the finger placed properly on the trigger and the rest of the fingers curled around the grip, I check to see if the barrel lines up with the bones of the forearm. If the gun is too big for the person’s hand, the barrel will be pointing away from the centerline of the body. If the gun is too small, it will be pointing toward the centerline.

I’ve found that it’s easier for most people to shoot a too-small gun than to operate a too-large gun. To get enough leverage to operate the trigger, a person with small hands (such as mine) must rotate the hand toward the muzzle, bringing the finger further into the trigger for proper leverage. This puts the backstrap of the revolver, which is the center of the recoil impulse, not into the palm but on the outside edge of the base of the thumb. The first bone of thumb itself, which now sits on the top of the backstrap instead of alongside it, takes the punishment of the muzzle flip. I can tell you from experience that this is a painful situation in which to be!

If the barrel lines up with the forearm, the gun fits the shooter correctly.

Someone with hands that are a bit big for the gun usually suffers nothing more than interference problems. The large trigger finger often contacts the thumb as it strokes the trigger backward, throwing the gun slightly off target and necessitating careful attention to the sights. Some of this is alleviated through proper trigger control (which is coming up in Chapter Five), but very large hands on very small guns are always a problem.

That’s why, if a choice has to be made, I’ll recommend the smaller gun every time. For the best results, though, the fit should be as close to ideal as possible.

This revolver is too big for shooter’s hand, will result in loss of control and painful recoil.

If the goal is to shoot well, sometimes a different gun is the only answer.

How to deal with this mismatch? The usual fix is to find grips, either smaller or larger, that will better fit the shooter. By carefully choosing the grip it’s possible to compensate for a difference between the shooter’s hand and the revolver’s size, but sometimes that’s not practical (perhaps there are concealability issues) or even possible (grips aren’t available for the revolver in question or can’t be made small enough to make a difference.)

In those cases my recommendation is for the shooter to obtain a revolver with a different frame size, one that is more suitable for his/her hand. This isn’t always met with a welcoming attitude. We tend to get attached to our possessions, even more so if the gun was a gift or inheritance. I understand those issues, and sympathize with them more than you might think, but if the goal is to shoot well sometimes a different gun is the only answer.

The mystery of frame sizes

K-frame. J-frame. N-frame. D-frame. L-frame. E/l frame. To someone not intimately familiar with revolvers, talk of frame sizes seems like a foreign language.

Frame sizes are really nothing more than a shorthand to tell us into what general size category (or ‘class’) the gun fits. Unfortunately, unlike the automobile world, they aren’t standardized to compact/subcompact categories. Every maker has their own way of referring to frame sizes, and they aren’t always compatible. This makes it difficult to judge if any given gun fits a particular set of size parameters.

Smith & Wesson frame sizes tend to be the most universally used as reference points, and I won’t buck that trend. Let’s take a look at S&W frame nomenclature, then compare some of their competitors strictly in terms of size.

Their smallest frame size is the J series, which historically was a five-shot revolver chambering a .38 caliber cartridge. Over the years they’ve accommodated other calibers in different capacities and made of different materials, but the frame size remains largely unchanged. When small concealment revolvers are mentioned, particularly those intended for pocket or ankle carry, the gun almost invariably meant is some variation of the J-frame.

There have been several major variations in the J-frame lineup, referred to by the original model that had the feature set. These various model lines themselves are often used as descriptors even if the gun itself was never officially part of that line. There are the Centennials, which have internal hammers; the Bodyguards, which have shrouded, but still accessible, hammers; and the Chief’s Specials, featuring conventional external hammers. While not all J-frames were necessarily part of those lines, they’ve come to be used generically to describe the overall appearance and feature set of any given J-frame.

Virtually all of the K-frame revolvers have been discontinued, but this class produced some of the most fondly-remembered models.

If I say ‘Centennial,’ you know I’m talking about a concealed hammer model like the 42, 640, or 340. If I say ‘Bodyguard,’ you know it’s going to have a shrouded but cockable hammer like the Model 38 or 638. If I’m talking about the ‘Chief’s Special’ you can discern the Model 60, 36 and 637. This list is not all inclusive; there are many more, as the J-frames are among Smith & Wesson’s most popular revolvers.

Most people use the J-frame classification generically to refer to all small five-shot revolvers, such as the Model 85 derivatives from Taurus and some of the small revolvers from Charter Arms. While such guns from other manufacturers don’t share grips or any other parts or accessories with their S&W counterparts, the term J-frame is still used to convey a general sense of size – not an actual interchangeability.

The K-frame is the next size up in the S&W line. As this is written virtually all of the K-frame revolvers have been discontinued, but this class produced some of the most fondly-remembered models: the original Military & Police, the Models 10, 19, and 66, amongst many others. These were the medium sized, six-shot .38 Special (and later .357 Magnum) revolvers, though of course other calibers were chambered. You’ll see many medium-framed revolvers from other manufacturers referred to as K-sized, but of course only S&W produces the exact item.

In 1981 Smith & Wesson introduced another medium frame revolver dubbed the L-frame. Slightly larger than the K-frame, but with a similar grip size, the L was designed for better durability firing hot Magnum cartridges. The K and L-frames are generally considered together as medium frames, though most holsters for the K will not quite fit the L. By far the most commonly encountered L model is the 686, which has been produced in a wide variety of barrel lengths over its lifetime. The most distinguishing feature of the L line is the heavy lugged barrel, though this is not universal over all models.

You’ll often see the term K/L used, which simply means either a) a generic medium-framed revolver, or b) parts which fit both series of guns. There is no actual K/L frame model, and always remember that the guns are of slightly different size.

N-frame .44 Magnum on top is much bigger, with a longer trigger reach, than compact J-frame on bottom.

For many years the largest revolvers in the Smith & Wesson line were the N-frames. First produced in 1908 (some sources claim 1907), they were originally introduced with a new cartridge: the .44 S&W Special. Over the years the N-frame matured and was chambered in a wide variety of cartridges, from the .38 through the .45. Aside from the ever-popular Model 29 in .44 Magnum (the gun made famous in the 1971 movie “Dirty Harry”), the line also boasts the 627 eight-shot .357 Magnum and the 625 in .45ACP, two of the most popular competition revolvers made.

Smith & Wesson call the N revolvers their ‘large frames,’ and they are. They typically have big grips and long reaches to the trigger; given my relatively small hands, N-frame guns are extremely difficult for me to shoot well in double action. Even the smallest grips made aren’t enough to make my hand fit these big guns, and some gunsmiths have actually offered modifications to the frames to take the smaller K/L grips.

While the N-frame has been chambered in a wide variety of calibers, most people think of the .44 Magnum when they hear N. This leads to a confusing situation when guns from other makers which chamber that cartridge are mistakenly called N-frames. While guns in .44 Magnum are often of approximately the same size, the actual S&W product is often slightly smaller than the competition. Holsters won’t necessarily fit all guns chambered in .44 Magnum, and of course there is no grip or parts interchangeability between the Smiths and their competitors.

If the N-frame revolvers were large, the X guns are downright massive.

For decades Smith & Wesson were content with that lineup, but time marches on and so to does ballistic experimentation. In the last decade or so we’ve seen the introduction of ultra-powerful handgun rounds that couldn’t safely be chambered in the existing N-frame envelope. These new rounds were larger and developed much higher pressures than the N-frame was designed to handle. Determined not to be left behind in the heavy magnum competition, in 2003 S&W brought out the new X-frame revolver chambering the massive .500 S&W Magum cartridge. X, according to the company, stands for ‘extra large’ – and if the N-frame revolvers were large, the X guns are downright massive. Their enormous size and mass are necessary to contain the force from the powerful cartridges they chamber. The grip size and trigger reach, however, are very similar to the N-frame revolvers.

J, K, L, N, and X – that’s the S&W line covering small, medium, large, and extra large revolvers. What about the competition?

Other makers

As I mentioned, the standard reference for relative revolver size has always been S&W. Other makers have their own frame sizes, using different nomenclature, and direct comparisons are difficult because of the number of different criteria which could be considered. Do we rank based on cylinder diameter, the length of the frame, the height measured from the bottom of the triggerguard to the topstrap, the thickness of the frame at some point, the backstrap to trigger distance, or something else entirely?

There isn’t one easy number or letter that exactly ranks frame sizes.

That’s why there isn’t one easy number or letter that exactly ranks frame sizes. Automobiles, for instance, have legal definitions of their sizes: a subcompact is listed by the government as having an interior volume between 85 and 99 cubic feet. Nothing similar exists to describe revolver sizes, so we’re left with relative (and somewhat subjective) opinions. We start with the market leader, Smith & Wesson, and then compare and contrast other guns with those known quantities.

Colt is now out of the double action revolver business, but their guns are still very commonly found. Colt made a number of frame sizes over the years, but only a few were widely sold through the latter part of the 20th century; it’s these to which we’ll direct our attention.

The Colt D-frame was a six-shot revolver usually chambered in .38 Special but occasionally found in smaller calibers. It was extremely small for a revolver of that capacity and is frequently compared with J-frame, though it is larger in almost every dimension. The grip size was small and trigger reach was very short, similar to the J-frame, but the cylinder was very close to that of the K-frames and had a frame size to match.

What the D had, in essence, was the frame of a K and the grip of a J. Their overall size and light weight made them distinctly smaller than the K but wouldn’t fit any holsters made for the J. This is why the little Colts were so hard to classify and even harder to replace when they were discontinued. Common models include the Detective Special, Agent, Diamond-back, and Cobra.

There is nothing currently available from the major makers that is comparable in size/caliber efficiency to the D-frames, an oversight with which I am continually amazed.

Although not part of the D-frame series, and having complete different lockwork, the models SF-VI, DS-II, and Magnum Carry are usually considered together with the D models because of their very compact, six-shot construction. These guns were built on the SF frame, which was slightly more robust in certain dimensions than the D which they replaced. The SF-frames share the incredible and as far yet unduplicated size efficiency of the D-frames; the Magnum Carry, chambered in .357 Magnum, was particularly unique for its combination of size and raw power. All of the SF-frames were discontinued when Colt exited the double action revolver market.

The most famous Colt double action revolver is quite likely the Python, which is the penultimate gun in what they referred to as the E/I-frame series. These were medium-sized revolvers, usually chambered in .38 Special (and later .357 Magnum) but also often found in .22LR. Roughly comparable in size to the S&W L-frame revolvers, popular examples are the Official Police, the aforementioned Python, and the Officer’s Model line. Grip size is on the large side, and trigger reach is slightly longer than their S&W counterparts.

The E/I designation actually refers to two separate frame models which happen to share a large number of parts. Grips, many internal parts, speedloaders, and holsters are generally compatible, which is why they’re usually referred to together. A Python is technically an I-frame, while an Official Police is technically an E-frame.

Like the smaller Colts, there was also a modernized medium frame revolver series. These guns started, confusingly, with the J-frame models like the Trooper Mark III and the Lawman Mark III. The guns had some initial problems, and were quickly redesigned into the V-frame series and designated with a ‘Mark V’ model name: Trooper Mark V, Lawman Mark V. There was also an AA-frame, which was their designation for the stainless steel versions like the King Cobra. The V and AA-frames generally have parts commonality, but the J-frame stands on its own despite being of similar size.

The Colt medium frame revolvers – E/I, J, V, and AA – are very similar in size to the S&W L-frames and can sometimes use the same holsters (as long as the barrel profiles are the same.) I find their grip-to-trigger reach a little larger than their S&W equivalents, however, and of course grips are not at all interchangeable between them.

The largest modern Colt frame was the MM-frame of the Anaconda. These were large revolvers often compared to the S&W N-frame and chambering the same .44 Magnum (and later .45 Colt) ammunition. Available only in stainless steel, their grip size and reach are similar to the S&W. I’ve found that many holsters will fit, though the Anaconda frame seems a little wider than the equivalent Smith. Closely fitted holsters for the S&W may not allow entry of the Anaconda, though the reverse is generally workable.

Ruger’s double action revolvers come in three size ranges. Their earliest double actions, the ‘Six’ series (Speed-Six, Service-Six, and Security-Six) were introduced 1971. They are six-shot revolvers almost always encountered in .38 Special or .357 Magnum, though 9mm examples were made in very limited quantities. Other chamberings were made for export to police and security agencies around the world. They’re medium-sized guns roughly equivalent to the S&W K-frames, with very similar grip size and trigger reach. While roughly the same size, some of the dimensions and profiles are just enough different that holsters for the Smiths may not fit the Rugers. The Sixes were discontinued in 1988 and replaced by the GP100, but not until Ruger had sold over a million and a half of them.

The replacement for the Six series was (and is) the GP100. With a frame slightly larger than the Six guns, the GP is usually compared to the S&W L series of revolvers. The two are very close in size and weight: a four-inch GP100 weighs 40 ounces, while the same barrel on a S&W 686 weighs only slightly less: 38.7 oz. Though of the same size and nearly the same weight as the L-frame, the GP has an advantage over the S&W in grip size and trigger reach. The Ruger has a smaller grip circumference and a shorter backstrap-to-trigger distance, making it ideal for the person with smaller hands who desires a medium-frame revolver. As I’ve noted, my hands are smaller than average for an adult male, and my medium frame revolver of choice is the GP100.

The Ruger SP101 is a compact all steel revolver, generally five-shot and most often chambered in .38 Special/.357 Magnum. Introduced in 1993, it is for all intents and purposes a baby GP100. It looks and acts very much like its big brother. In capacity and chambering it is most like a S&W J-frame, but there the similarities end. It is larger and heavier than any J, and in fact is almost exactly the same size as a Colt D-frame. Many holsters that fit one will also fit the other. The SP101 is the most comfortable small revolver to shoot with Magnum ammunition, owing to its recoil damping weight and its soft rubber grips. It is the only revolver, save perhaps the Colt Detective Special, where the trigger reach is actually too short even for hands in the medium-small range.

Ruger’s most recent entry is the LCR, which is best described as a polymer (plastic) equivalent of a J-frame. The LCR, which stands for “Light, Compact Revolver,” is made of polymer and an aluminum alloy with a steel cylinder. The LCR is currently chambered in .38 Special and .357 Magnum, and boasts dimensions and weight very similar to the lightweight S&W five shooters. The stock grips are of a recoil absorbing rubber material.

The GP, SP, and LCR revolvers utilize a stub grip frame with one-piece grips. This means that the grip is attached to a narrow protrusion from the frame, not unlike the way a Popsicle is stuck on its stick. This gives a tremendous amount of flexibility for replacement grips, as the trigger reach dimension can be varied over a much wider range than a revolver using a conventional grip frame.

The Six series had a conventional frame, but today the only Ruger double action still boasting that kind of construction is the Redhawk. This is a large frame revolver, the rough equivalent of a S&W N-frame, which uses a traditional frame and grip panels. The Redhawk’s trigger reach is very similar to its S&W counterpart. The Redhawk has been made in .45 Colt, but it is best known (and most common) in the original .44 Magnum.

It’s easy to get confused between the Ruger Redhawk and the Super Redhawk. Other than the name, though, there is no similarity between these two Ruger guns. The Redhawk came into being when the Six series was in production, and it’s not entirely unfair to think of it as an enlarged Six. The Super Redhawk was introduced in 1987 and is very correctly thought of as an enlarged GP100, both inside and out. It uses the distinctive Ruger stub grip frame design and in fact takes GP100 grips. The Super Redhawk has been chambered for some of the world’s most powerful handgun cartridges, including the mighty .454 Casull. Its GP-sized grip frame gives it the distinction of possessing the shortest trigger reach of any large bore revolver currently on the market. Even my stubby little fingers have no problem manipulating the Super Redhawk’s trigger!

Difference in butt shapes: round butt on left, square butt on right. Superior concealment characteristics of round butt are obvious.

Butt shapes

You’ll often see references to square and round butts in relation to grips. Some makers, most notably Smith & Wesson, produced revolvers whose grip frames had different shapes. These shapes refer to the contour of the backstrap of the grip frame, and more specifically the shape of approximately the lower half of that frame.

Square-butt guns have backstraps that are relatively straight in the lower half. After an initial curve outward, the grip frame takes pretty much a straight line toward the bottom corner. Relative to the front strap of the frame, the square butt has a slight flare. The bottom corner is sharp, protruding to a point.

Round butts have backstraps that curve in, toward the muzzle, in their bottom half. They present a very rounded profile to the hand, and there is no bottom corner point. The shape often produces a slightly shorter trigger reach than does the square butt.

The round butt has the advantage of being smaller and easier to conceal.

The square butt has a major contact area in the heel of the hand. This tends to push the muzzle up a bit compared to a round butt, changing the angle of the grip. This increases the trigger reach just a bit, and as a result the square butt tends to be preferred by people with larger hands. It’s also a favorite of those who espouse ‘hip shooting,’ as the square butt grip angle changes the muzzle position in relation to the bones of the forearm. This results in the barrel being parallel with the ground when the gun is below the line of sight.

Square butt grip can be modified to round butt. Using hardened template, gunsmith removes dark areas at top and bottom of picture and files surfaces smooth.

The round butt profile puts the grip’s main contact point into the center of the palm. The grip angle is a little steeper than the square butt. The round butt has the advantage of being smaller and easier to conceal, as the profile is less likely to poke through a covering garment. Its slightly shorter trigger reach is generally preferred by smaller handed shooters.

In the past S&W offered both square and round butt versions in many (if not most) of their models. Today their revolvers are made with a round butt profile, for which grips are available to mimic the shape of the square butt for those who prefer that style. These grips also fit older round butt guns to convert them to square butt. Older square butt Smith & Wesson revolvers can be converted by a gunsmith to the round profile by removing metal from the grip frame, or in some cases by cutting and re-forming the backstrap. Both modifications require skill and a trip to the refinisher, but once done, with grips on, they look like factory round butt guns.

Grip makers, both production and custom, produce a wide variety of grips to fit either round or square butts.

Other manufacturers have produced varying grip shapes, but not to the extent of S&W. Only a few relatively rare Colt revolvers were made with round butts. Unlike their S&W counterparts, the Colt rounding was not dramatic. It usually took the form of a large radius on the bottom corners rather than a reshaped backstrap. Like the S&W conversions a skilled gunsmith can achieve the same effect, but the downside is that grips will need to be custom made. The factory Colt round butts were very uncommon even when they were available, and today there are no stock grips made for those guns. In a way, the result is a gun which doesn’t really exist.

Ruger Six-series guns were available in both round and square configurations. The Service and Security models were generally square butt, while the Speed was round butt. Ruger round butts were somewhere between the S&W and Colt approaches, having the last third of the grip frame rounded off. Square butt Six models can be converted by a gunsmith to the round butt variety, but because the way their square butts curve the work results in a slight depression approximately one-quarter of the way up the grip. That is, if the goal is to fit factory round butt grips; if the gun is to have custom grips made, this depression can be removed and the grips profiled to match exactly.

The later GP100, SP101, and Super Redhawk get their shapes from the grips themselves. The stud grip frame used on these guns doesn’t impact on the shape of the grips, giving the grip makers complete control over the shape the grip will take. This gives the shooter a wide range of different profiles from which to choose.

Grip options

In the last chapter, we talked about the interface between the hand and the revolver, and how grips can affect it. It’s relatively easy to change grips on a revolver to dramatically change how the gun fits the hand and how it feels in the shooter’s grasp. Many times there are grips available from grip companies that will get the feel the shooter wants. If nothing suitable is available from these commercial sources, there is an ever-changing community of custom grip makers who can produce grips to fit even the most exacting specifications.

If you’re not satisfied with the grips on your gun you’ll have many choices in replacements, but you’ll need to make some decisions along the way.

Your first decision will be the material that the grips are made of. The two most commonly available materials are wood and rubber, and you’ll find passionate advocates of each.

Rubber

Rubber tends to produce a more secure grip, as the material’s tacky surface has more friction against the skin of your palm. It tends to ‘stick’ to the hand better, making the gun less prone to shifting – particularly when your hands are sweating or dirty. They’re also more comfortable because rubber absorbs some of the recoil impulse. Some grip companies, most notably Pachmayr and Hogue, offer rubber grips in both standard and soft rubber. You can pick the softness you prefer to maximize your shooting comfort, very important when using Magnum ammunition in the smaller and lighter guns!

You’d think all rubber grips would be made from the softest material for the greatest comfort. That makes sense, but there is a downside. That same rubber that enhances shooting comfort makes it more difficult to carry concealed (where legal, of course) because the soft material grabs on to a cover garment as well as it does your palm. This causes the gun’s outline to be revealed as the covering material drapes itself over the gun’s butt. The softer material also has less abrasion resistance, and wears more rapidly than the firmer variety.

Rubber grips are only available from the large commercial grip makers, so if the rubber grips available for your gun don’t fit your hand you’re out of luck.

Wood

Wood is the traditional grip material for revolvers. For many years the standard grip material for Colt and S&W was walnut, usually embellished with small medallions featuring the maker’s logo. They were typically checkered for better grip and were invariably not ergonomically shaped.

Things have improved dramatically since the early days, and today wood grips are available in a wide variety of woods from a large number of grip makers. There are large commercial producers of wood grips as well as small custom grip makers.

Wood is available in a huge variety of beautiful patterns and colors, such as these walnut burl examples from custom maker Don Collins.

Wood has an undeniable aesthetic appeal, and is available in a bewildering variety of colors and patterns. There are exotic woods imported from sustainable farms in the southern hemisphere, traditional woods like walnut from domestic sources, as well as familiar woods that you might not be used to seeing in revolver grips. These may include maple, various fruit woods, as well as gnarled burls. More modern choices involve plastic-impregnated woods, with the plastic filling the voids in the wood grain to provide a very hard, extremely durable grip. The plastic can even be tinted, resulting in multi-tone woods ranging from elegant to downright wild. No matter what color or visual texture you like, you can probably find something in a fine wood grip.

A plain wood surface doesn’t have the same surface traction on the hand as rubber. A smooth wood grip can become slippery when damp or dirty, though this can be varied a bit by wood selection and the type of finish added. The traditional method of increasing traction is to checker the surface. A more modern surface treatment common in European gripmaking is to texture the surface so that it resembles a coarse sponge, giving even more traction than checkering.

Another downside of wood is that it has none of the recoil-absorbing properties of rubber. Many people feel that a gun with wood grips recoils more severely than with rubber grips. The soft rubber varieties make the difference even more striking.

There are some modern grip materials available, though far fewer makers work with them. They include Corian (better known as a countertop material), micarta (a layered material made of resin-impregnated linen, used to make gears in industrial applications), and hard rubber (what bowling balls used to be made from). One old material that’s still available is ivory, these days grown on farms where it’s humanely harvested. These materials tend to be much like wood in their characteristics.

Finger grooves?

Many grips, in both rubber and other materials, sport finger grooves. The concept is that the ridges between the fingers keep the gun from ‘diving’ – that is, slipping downward in the hand under recoil. By increasing the surface area of the grip in contact with your hand, fans of grooved grips believe they enhance the shooter’s control.

I’ll come right out and say it: I’m not a fan of finger grooves and strongly believe that their benefit with regard to recoil control is highly overstated. I’ve found that a solid, strong grasp with grips that fit the hand is sufficient to control just about any revolver. The key is that the grip fits the hand, and it’s not necessarily about the surface area.

The finger grooves must fit your hand correctly, otherwise they’re counterproductive.

If your revolver is too large, your grasp must be offset to allow you to reach the centerline of the trigger. This puts the backstrap over onto your thumb’s proximal phalanx bone. Instead of the recoil force being absorbed by the fleshy adductor pollicis muscles, the bones of the thumb take the beating. The bottom of the grip is pushed to the edge of the heel of your palm, lessening the clamping action of the middle, ring, and pinky fingers. The entire strength of your grasp is compromised.

If finger grooves don’t fit shooter’s hand, grasp strength and control can be compromised.

In this case finger grooves may in fact restore a bit of control, giving a mechanical barrier to grip movement. Even if your grasp is compromised, interposing the ridges as barriers between the fingers can help keep the gun from moving about too erratically in your hand.

So why don’t I like them? Because they must fit the hand precisely in order to be of any benefit. If your fingers are smaller than the grooves, you end up with a lot of extra space between them that actually reduces the mechanical lock, which is how finger grooves work. If the mismatch is sufficiently large, the ridges force the fingers apart to an unnatural degree and reduce grip strength even more.

If your fingers are larger than the grooves, you end up with some of those fingers on top of the ridge rather than in the groove. This dramatically reduces the surface area of the grip, and having a ridge recoiling into your finger does nothing to encourage comfort!

The upshot of this is that the finger grooves must fit your hand correctly, otherwise they’re counterproductive. If you’re going to the trouble to match the grips to your hand, you’ll get the benefit of proper fit anyhow, and the grooves become superfluous.

That would be fine if the grooves were performance neutral. Even if your hands fit the grooves perfectly, they require you to get a perfect grasp as the gun is drawn every single time. As Jerry Miculek once said in a television interview, “no one gets a perfect grip on the gun every time!” If your grasp isn’t perfect, the finger grooves will reduce your control. At the very least, they make it impossible to shift your grasp on the fly, as the gun is being indexed on target. Now they’re a liability!

I will concede that finger grooves may have some benefit if one is accustomed to using a weak, target-shooting-style grasp. A weak grasp works great with a light single action trigger, but makes double action manipulation difficult (if not downright impossible.) If you’re shooting targets in single action with such a grasp, finger grooves might make sense. Since this book is about double action revolvers, and a weak grasp isn’t conducive to good double action shooting, I don’t consider this much of an argument for the grooves.

Make sure the grip fits your hand and your hand fits the gun, develop a properly strong grasp, and you won’t need finger grooves and their disadvantages.

Covered back straps

For virtually all revolvers that aren’t made by Ruger, you’ll have the choice between grips with open or closed backs. The choice will affect both how the gun fits your hand and how comfortable it is when actually shooting.

Closed backs fit over and encapsulate the grip frame; the backstrap of the revolver is covered by the grip. This means that there is grip material between the heel of your hand and the back strap of the gun. If this material is made of rubber (particularly the very soft type) it means greater comfort, especially with the very light guns and/or heavy recoiling ammunition. If the grip material is wood or another hard material, naturally you won’t get that advantage.

What you will get, regardless of the material choice, is a change in trigger reach. That extra material increases trigger reach, sometimes very noticeably, so that the gun better fits larger hands. If you have large hands or long fingers, a grip with a closed back can make the gun more comfortable and efficient to shoot.

Difference between open and closed backstraps. Notice difference in width (thickness) of grips, which also affects trigger reach.

Open backs are the opposite: the grip panels end flush with the frame, exposing the back-strap. This allows the hand to sit further forward in relation to the trigger, decreasing trigger reach. Shooters with smaller hands and/or shorter fingers will find grips with open backs much easier to manage, particularly if the grip panels are relatively thin.

The downside is that there is no recoil absorption regardless of the grip material, because there is nothing between the hand and the hard metal of the revolver’s frame. As someone famously said, there is no such thing as a free lunch; to get that shorter trigger reach, you’ll have to live with a little more pain.

This can make for a ‘catch-22’ with some shooters. I was recently contacted by a fellow who is the possessor of both small hands and a large gun – in this case, a S&W N-frame in ultra-lightweight Scandium. The recoil of his chosen gun was a serious issue, but the large frame size meant that grips with covered backstraps made the gun too big to shoot in double action. He was hoping that there was a grip which would both tame the recoil and allow him to achieve a proper hold. Sadly, I had to inform him to the contrary. In his case, the best choice of action might have been to get grips that fit his hand properly and have the gun ported to reduce the recoil. (I’ll talk more about porting in another chapter.)

Grip shape

Grip shape can play a big part in how well the gun fits the hands. By judiciously choosing a grip shape, it’s possible to get some improvement in hand fit. By shape, I mean two things. First, the profile of the grip – the shape it takes when looking at it from the side or back – determines how well it fits the natural shape of the hand and has a large bearing on how well the shooter can control and recover from the gun’s recoil. Second, the grip’s cross-section has a big effect on trigger reach and on the perceived comfort of the gun when the recoil impulse hits the hand.

Difference in cross-section: squared versus oval.

In years past the normal profile for revolver grips resembled bell bottom jeans, that is, the grips increased their diameter toward the bottom of the grip. These were said to have ‘flared butts’ or ‘Coke bottle’ shapes. These grips were wider at the bottom than the top, both from the side and the back, which is exactly the opposite of how our hands are shaped! If you take a lump of firm clay and squeeze it in your hand, you’ll probably find that the shape tapers smaller toward the bottom.

An ideal grip, then, should be larger in circumference at the top and smaller at the bottom. The difference doesn’t need to be huge, but it should at the very least not get bigger where the pinky finger contacts.

The cross section of the grip is something that very few people ever consider. In fact, I’ve seen scant mention of this over the years, but it’s one area where the revolver has a huge advantage in hand fit and comfort.

Imagine that you have a grip with the cross section of a brick. Even with radiused edges it still wouldn’t be very comfortable, and it would lead to large areas of lessened contact as the flesh of your hand tried to conform itself to the corners. To make it more comfortable you’d likely start carving it into a much more rounded contour to better mimic the shape of your hands when they’re grasping something. That’s why we consider cross section.

Shooters with larger hands might prefer a grip with a fatter cross section; that is, a grip where the sides had a definite convex contour, making the shape distinctly elliptical. This tends to fill the palm more completely, giving a solid contact with the grip all around its surface.

Those with smaller hands have trouble with that type of shape, because it increases the overall circumference of the grip. Flattening the sides to make the cross section more like a Cassinian oval makes for a smaller circumference, which better fits shorter fingers. The smaller circumference makes it easier to reach the trigger because the trigger finger has a straighter path to its destination.

Note difference in shape, thickness, and depth. Grips are both Pachmayr, both for S&W K-frame, but have radically different fit characteristics.

Grips causing speedloader binding can be fixed through careful grinding using rotary tool. (Take grips off gun before trying this!)

The cross section doesn’t have to be symmetrical, and for smaller hands benefits from some asymmetry. If the front edge of the grip is tapered so that the cross section looks more like an egg (an oval with only one axis of symmetry), the grip circumference is reduced still more. Why not go all the way and taper the back edge too? This is where we have to take in the recoil effects of grip shape.

If the back of the grip were tapered as well, to a smaller radius, it would force the recoil impulse into a smaller area. Since the recoil force is a constant, reducing the area into which it’s channeled results in higher force per square inch. Plainly said, a grip with a narrow back-strap hurts more than one that is wider.

It’s possible for skilled gripmaker to taper the back for wider palm contact, thus spreading out the recoil force, while tapering the front to accommodate the particular hand size. I’ve had such grips made for myself over the years, and they work marvelously.

When suitable grips can’t be found commercially, custom makers can usually produce something suitable. Besides my own particular needs I’ve had grips made for clients with fit issues; most custom grip makers can probably accommodate such requests.

One very important point: whether you’ve got factory or custom grips, if you’re using speed-loaders it’s important that you check for grip clearance. Many grips have left-hand panels that are insufficiently relieved near the top, which causes speedloaders to bind when inserting rounds into the cylinder. You can rectify this situation with careful use of a Dremel-type sanding drum, carefully grinding away grip material and checking for clearance as you go.

(Just one thing: remove the grips before using the Dremel. Aside from the very real possibility of accidentally grinding into your gun’s finish, dust from the process will sneak into the action. Taking the grips off eliminates both problems.)

Trigger width plays a part

Another oft-ignored aspect of gun/hand fit is the trigger itself. I’ve found that the width of the trigger is a big determinant of proper fit. It’s useful to remember that trigger reach is properly measured to the centerline of the trigger, for that is where force must be applied to avoid pushing the gun sideways. The closer to centerline the force can be applied, the easier it will be to shoot with precision. If the point at which the finger is applying force is off center, the gun will naturally want to move in the opposite direction.

It’s more difficult for the slightly short finger to reach the center of the trigger face. This results in force being applied to one side of the trigger, which tends to steer the gun. We’ll talk more about this in the chapter on trigger control, but understand that a trigger which forces your finger off of centerline is going to be more difficult to shoot well, and a wide trigger with short fingers does just that.

Wide ‘target’ triggers were once very popular on revolvers. Smith & Wesson made a wide target trigger standard on many of their guns, and the narrower Colt triggers could have a trigger ‘shoe’ attached to make them as wide as the shooter wished. When shooting was primarily single action, using the pad of the trigger finger, these triggers and shoes had some merit – particularly if they were finely serrated, as most were.

Over the years, as more people took an interest in ‘combat’ shooting for both defense and sport, single action target shooting became less dominant. Apparently the manufacturers took the serious double action shooters to heart, because in the last couple of decades the wide serrated triggers have virtually disappeared from manufacturer’s catalogs. They’ve been replaced by narrower, smooth triggers more suited to good double action shooting.

These narrower triggers on today’s revolvers are significantly more friendly to smaller hands.

These narrower triggers on today’s revolvers are not only more suited to proper double action manipulation in general, they’re significantly more friendly to smaller hands.

At the same time trigger shoe attachments have faded from view as well. They haven’t completely disappeared, however. I haven’t seen a trigger shoe in the longest time, but I know they’re still being made and someone must be buying the things. (If your revolver has one, and you’re serious about double action shooting, I suggest you remove it regardless of your hand size. I think you’ll find proper double action manipulation much easier.)

Those with small hands who happen to possess a revolver with a wide trigger are not out of luck. A gunsmith can narrow the existing trigger or, in some cases, simply install a narrower factory trigger.

There is also a comfort component of trigger width that should be considered. The wider trigger spreads the pressure against the face of the trigger over a greater area, which has the effect of lessening the pressure at any given point. The thinner the trigger, the smaller the area and the higher the pressure at any given point.

Many people dislike the traditional Colt D and E/I-frame revolvers because of their very narrow triggers, which often engendered an “it hurts to pull!” complaint. Those with thin or bony fingers are particularly sensitive to this issue.

Measuring revolvers for trigger reach

By now you should be aware that trigger reach is a combination of trigger to backstrap distance, grip width, grip shape, and trigger width. This can be measured and it’s possible to compare different guns, frame sizes, and grips by doing so.

Take a length of non-stretching string and wrap it from the highest point on the back of the grip to the trigger and back again. You should have a complete wrap around the whole grip and trigger. Mark the string and straighten it out, measure the distance between the marks, and divide by two. The resulting number is the true trigger reach measurement, from the center of the backstrap to the centerline of the trigger. It can be directly compared to other models that are similarly measured.

For instance, my personal Ruger GP100 with the factory grips measures 3.25 inches, while a S&W Model 66 with custom thin grips by Don Collins measures 3.40 inches. The S&W feels larger in my hands, and it’s harder to get my finger in proper position on the trigger – both of which are explained by the difference in measurements. Those tenths of an inch make a big difference in how the gun fits!

A S&W model 442, with the standard ‘boot’ grips, measures a diminutive 2.85 inches. A Ruger SP101, equipped with hand-filling Pachmayr Compac grips which are much larger than those that came on the gun, comes in at 3.12 inches. The S&W is a bit small to make for easy shooting, and from the factory the Ruger isn’t a lot bigger. I had to add the Pachmayr grips so that I could shoot it more efficiently, and they make a world of difference in how the gun handles.

Measuring trigger reach with loop of string.

Barrel lengths

The best barrel length is determined by the intended use of the revolver. That’s probably self evident, but there is also a personal preference factor to consider.

For instance, many people believe that a good concealed carry (defensive) revolver must have a short barrel – say, two inches or so. A four-inch gun is often said to be too big to carry concealed, though many do. What about something in between, like the three-inch barrel? I like them, and some folks declare that it’s the shortest barrel they’re willing to carry, but a lot of people think they’re still to big to pack around.

I don’t know anyone who would think about carrying a six-inch revolver for self defense, but at one time it was the most common barrel length for uniformed police officers. Today the six-inch is considered a target or hunting piece. And so it goes. We can make some generalizations, but ultimately you’ll have to decide what’s best for you without regard to what someone else says or writes.

In general the shorter the barrel the easier it is to carry and conceal. That convenience comes at a cost, however. Shorter barrels have a shorter sight radius, which makes accurate shooting more difficult. It’s not a mechanical issue, because short barrels are not intrinsically any less accurate than long ones.

It’s the shooter interface again: the shorter sight radius that comes with the shorter barrel makes precision alignment more difficult. This affects bullet deviation at the target, making the guns shoot less precisely.

Short barrels will develop less bullet velocity than longer barrels, which may affect ammunition performance. Gunpowder, contrary to popular belief, doesn’t explode – it burns very quickly, but at a controlled rate. It takes time to burn the complete charge in a cartridge, but other things are happening while the powder is burning.

The initial flash of the primer when struck by the firing pin not only ignites the gunpowder, it also raises the pressure inside the cartridge sufficiently to start the bullet moving. When the powder ignites the bullet has already started to work itself forward; the very high gas pressure from the powder’s ignition is what rapidly accelerates the bullet to its design velocity.

The power continues to burn as the bullet travels down the barrel, the gas pressure in the barrel continuing to accelerate the slug. With a long enough barrel, all of the gas from the powder is trapped and used to push the bullet. If the barrel ends before the powder has stopped burning, the increasing gas pressure simply gets vented to the outside air; it does no more work pushing the bullet. The longer barrel will develop higher velocity than the short barrel simply because it’s able to use the expanding gases to their greatest potential.

The shorter barrel will develop less velocity because some of the gas pressure is wasted, as the powder burns with nothing in the barrel. How much less velocity depends on just how long the barrel happens to be, as well as what kind of powder is used and how heavy the bullet is. In very short barrels some of the powder is ejected out the muzzle while it’s still burning, leading to a large muzzle flash and blast wave. This is also why short barrels are generally less pleasant to shoot.

A twelve-inch Dan Wesson revolver? With my short stature, I’m concerned the muzzle might drag on the ground!

Long barrels, though more efficient in terms of ballistic performance and easier to shoot well, are heavier and less pleasant to carry around. If the gun is to be carried concealed, a longer barrel may not even be able to be hidden effectively. They’re also harder to get into action, the long barrel needing more effort to clear a holster and align on target.

I personally relegate the two-and three-inch barrels to concealed carry, while using the four-inch and six-inch models for competition and field use. That’s not to say that I’ve never carried a four-inch gun as a concealed defensive piece; I have, many times. It’s just not my first choice for that task. A six-incher? No, not for me.

How about something even longer? I have a rare twelve-inch tube to fit one of my Dan Wesson revolvers, for which I’ve not found a use. Occasionally I muse about getting a ‘Dirty Harry’ style shoulder holster and carrying it around, but with my short stature, I’m concerned the muzzle might drag on the ground!

Underlugs

At the turn of the 20th century revolver barrels were pretty much cylindrical, or at least a tapered cylinder. Smith & Wesson revolvers had a small protuberance which housed their forward locking mechanism, but Colts were smooth.

Over the years revolver manufacturers added material to enclose the ejector rod, protecting it from damage. That extra material on the underside of the barrel was called a ‘lug’ or ‘under-lug.’ On a short barrel the lug would run flush with the muzzle, as such barrels were usually sized to the length of ejector rod (plus its locking lug). On a longer barrel the lugs would end where the ejector rod did, leaving the rest of the barrel with a round cross-section.

In 1955, Colt introduced a gun that would change the way revolvers looked: the Python. They took their 357 model and added a distinctive barrel. Their new creation sported a vented rib on the top and a full-length lug on the bottom – regardless of the barrel length. It was a hit, and fashion shifted toward fully lugged barrels in all lengths.

That’s not to say that partially lugged barrels were suddenly extinct, however. Today you find both full and partially lugged barrels in a variety of lengths.

Colt heavy underlug barrel puts more weight at muzzle, helps dampen recoil compared to Ruger’s partially-lugged barrel.

A full underlug, especially on a longer barrel, adds a lot of weight at the front of the gun. That’s because the underlugs are part of the barrel itself – made of the same material, usually steel. Having a solid piece of steel at the end of the barrel changes the balance dramatically, and most people find that the extra weight reduces recoil and muzzle flip.

There is such a thing as ‘too much’, however – my aforementioned Dan Wesson barrel is a fully lugged example, and is quite heavy. I can’t actually keep the gun on target one handed, and even with two hands it’s not easy holding all that weight at the end of my arms!

My Dan Wesson notwithstanding, I’m partial to full underlugs for their help in keeping the gun on target between shots. Some people don’t like the muzzle-heavy feeling than an underlug provides, which is why partials are still offered on some guns.

One of the reasons many people like a three-inch revolver is because they usually have fully lugged barrels. That extra bit of weight at the muzzle helps control the shorter barrel. The three-inch combines some of the easy carrying of a true snubnose along with a little of the recoil control of a four-inch. They make a good compromise between carryability and shootability.

While I don’t wish to sound unduly fashionable, the full underlug also adds a certain look to a revolver that I find appealing. The Colt Python was as admired for its appearance as much as its performance, as its heavy lugged barrel gave it a purposeful air. When the S&W Model 686 was introduced it copied that profile, and I think the aesthetics had much to do with the model’s popularity.

Of the revolvers I’ve owned, the overwhelming majority have had fully lugged barrels. I’m not sure if that makes me pragmatic for appreciating their functionality, or shallow for lusting after their appearance.

Frame materials

While it may not seem to be exactly a matter of fit, the material from which the gun is made does make a big difference in how it feels and performs in the hand. Comfort, I think, is certainly part of fitting the shooter.

The traditional material for revolver construction is good old steel. Originally plain high-carbon steel, in 1959 Smith & Wesson made a special run of their Model 15 Combat Masterpiece in highly polished stainless steel. The gun proved to be a hit, and in 1965 the stainless Model 60 Chief’s Special became a regular item in their revolver catalog. Though there is a slight weight difference between carbon (blued) steel and stainless, we generally accept them as having the same effective weight.

Aluminum-framed revolvers actually pre-date stainless steel, the first of them appearing in 1950. The lightweight metal was used wherever possible to reduce the load that the gun owner had to carry. The cylinders and internal parts were made of steel, though the military did experiment with guns whose cylinders were made from aluminum. (They proved to be unsafe in long term use, and the experiment ended in the early 1960s.)

In the late 1990s gun manufacturers started producing revolvers made of titanium, and a few years later S&W incorporated scandium into an aluminum alloy mix for the ultimate in light weight and strength. Now into the 21st century we have lightweight revolvers made of plastic composites – all with one goal: make the guns lighter.

LIghtweight revolvers are great to carry around. On a belt they’re nearly unnoticeable, in a pocket they carry like a wallet, and they make ankle holsters practical. The downside (isn’t there always a downside?) is that they have increased recoil – substantially increased recoil.

These ultra-lightweight revolvers have recoil that varies from unpleasant (with Special-class loads) to downright vicious (for those guns chambered in Magnum cartridges). This increase in recoil impulse makes them difficult to practice with, and drastically alters the shooter’s balance of speed and precision. Though I carry one myself occasionally, I’m not at all fond of shooting the thing.

If you’re tempted by a lightweight revolver, I suggest that you try one before you put down your money. Shoot it with the ammo that you expect to carry, and see if you can handle the gun. Given the level of recoil, will you actually do the necessary practice to maintain your proficiency with this, the hardest of all guns to handle? If not, get yourself a steel revolver.

One thing to remember is that if they’re shot regularly, the lightweight guns will have a shorter service life and require more maintenance than their heavier counterparts. The increased recoil impulse stretches lightweight frames more than the steel varieties, and light alloys are generally not as resistant to friction-related wear. Cylinders become loose in their frames, and timing becomes harder to maintain. Of course this doesn’t apply to those guns that are carried much and shot little, but haven’t I already made the case for regular practice?

My general rule of thumb: unless you have a compelling need for a lightweight gun, pick a steel model.

To the men in the audience: A word about relational harmony

Guys, I know you want to buy your wife or girlfriend a gun. I appreciate that you want to get her something light so that she’ll actually carry it. I know that you think this will get her ‘into guns.’ I also know that this is a path fraught with danger!

As an instructor I’ve counseled a number of women who were given the gift of a lightweight revolver by a well-meaning significant other. The scene is repeated time and again: she shoots a few cylinders (sometimes just a few rounds) and puts the gun down, vowing never to shoot it again. It hurts, and even with proper recoil technique she finds it difficult to control. I commiserate with her, because I’m of the same opinion.

A gun that she won’t shoot, and won’t practice with, does nothing to bring her into the fold. If she doesn’t get good, professional instruction the fierce recoil may even scare her enough that she won’t carry that particular gun. Neither outcome meets the goal of getting her interested in protecting herself.

Take it from a guy who’s managed to stay happily married to one gal for a quarter century: don’t choose her gun. Take her to a range where they rent guns (yes, even if it’s a long drive from home. Make a weekend adventure of it!). Let her shoot what she’s interested in, and let her decide based upon her likes, dislikes, and tolerance. She may still pick a lightweight revolver, and if so more power to her. If she decides on a steel model because of the shooting comfort, realize that she’ll be more apt to get the very necessary training and practice she’ll need to use it effectively.

Though this book is all about revolvers, if she decides she doesn’t like them and picks an autoloader instead, that’s fine too. It’s more important that she get something she likes rather than trying to please either of us.

To the ladies in the audience: Don’t be coerced

I’ve lost count of the number of women who’ve contacted me about the lightweight revolver a gun store employee pushed her to buy. For some reason there is a persistent subculture of men working behind counters who are convinced that the perfect gun for ‘the little lady’ is an ultra-lightweight revolver. A lot of women are given the high pressure treatment to pick one of those, and too many succumb.

If you’re looking for a gun, don’t let the salesman talk you into anything about which you have reservations. Do your research; talk to other women who own guns, or contact a female instructor for guidance. There are a number of online forums dedicated to women who shoot, and they’re a great source of recommendation and encouragement. Go to a store or range that rents guns and shoot a bunch of different models. Find out what you like best, then go shopping.

Recoil of lightweight guns, such as this S&W Model 442 Airweight Centennial, can be punishing for the inexperienced shooter and painful even for experienced hands.

It’s tempting to believe that the guy working in the gun store is knowledgeable and understands what you need. That’s not always the case; though many gun salesmen are well informed and thoughtful, an awful lot of them aren’t. Here’s a litmus test: if you walk into a gun store and ask to see a gun for personal protection, and the first thing the guy does is put a lightweight snubnose revolver in front of you, just leave. Find a store that respects their customers.

Your ideal store is one where the salesman first asks what kind of experience and training you’ve had, how you plan to use and carry the gun, and if you have any preconceived ideas of what would be best for you. Only after such a conversation will a professional dare to suggest a gun for you, and should give you several options from which to pick. There’s no reason you should deign to suffer the high-pressure tactics of an ignoramus.

While I appreciate your perusal of my book, I won’t be offended if the gun you choose isn’t a revolver. While it’s my choice, that fact shouldn’t unduly influence your choice. Read the first chapter about the revolver’s strengths and weaknesses and carefully consider which apply to you. Try out both autos and revolvers before making a buying decision, preferably by renting suitable models at a range.

If the gun you choose happens to be a revolver, I’ll be happy for you. If the gun you pick happens to be an autoloader, I’ll be no less happy for you!