If I could only have one handgun to last a lifetime, it would be a .357 revolver with a four inch barrel, adjustable sights, in stainless steel. Lo and behold, that's the gun I shot tonight in the form of Smith & Wesson's 686.

Why would I prefer a revolver as my one and only gun? Simplicity, for one. With even minimal maintenance, such a gun will last a lifetime. Revolvers are easy to clean, and there are relatively few parts. Unlike an automatic, a revolver has only a few springs, and none of the springs are compressed when the gun is stored, so they last a long time.

Revolvers are also much less picky than automatics about the ammo they shoot. A .357 can shoot light-kicking .38 Specials, higher-velocity .38 +P rounds, and full-on .357 Magnums, depending on how you want to balance recoil and velocity. They also shoot a wide variety of projectiles - snakeshot, hollowpoints, Glaser safety slugs, ball ammo, or flat, target-punching wadcutters.

The 686 uses S&W's K frame (medium frame), which is sturdy enough to cycle tens of thousands of rounds of .357 and soak up the recoil, though .38 Special loads will be more comfortable for the shooter. With a four inch barrel it balances and points well. Besides which, it just feels good. "Comfortable heft" isn't a cliche with this gun.

The S&W lockwork is smooth and predictable. Once I got used to the two-staged trigger, I could squeeze through the first stage to rotate the cylinder and cock the hammer, then squeeze gently through the short, final stage to drop the hammer. Shooting one handed with my offhand in my back pocket also produced high-scoring targets. Sight picture is excellent. For best accuracy, you can always cock the hammer and shoot single action.

Minor nitpick: the S&W stock rubber grips felt great, but about half the time the top of the grip blocked one of the empty hulls from ejecting just right. I'd probably replace them with slimmer boot grips.

Smith & Wesson has a wide variety of .357s in different metals, barrel lengths, sights, and capacity (from five rounds to eight). At the lower end of the weight scale is the 340 at 12 ounces and five shots with a shrouded hammer. The weight savings are due to the smaller J frame and the use of Scandium and titanium instead of steel. I'll test one of the S&W titanium Airlites soon.

One of the most radical S&W .357s is the 386PD, a K frame, Scandium/Titanium model with light-gathering sights that fires seven rounds and weighs just 18.5 ounces. There's also the Performance Center 627, which holds eight rounds. It's an all-steel N frame with a five inch barrel. Weight is 44 ounces.

This post has been updated. I erroneously said the model number was 626, but checked today and it was 686. I'll take better notes next time.

WIRELESS FACTOR: Cell phone number portability still on track for November 24th. Have you ever wanted to change cell carriers, but didn't want the hassle of giving your friends a new number and printing new business cards? Help may be right around the corner.

November 24th is the deadline for cell phone carriers to offer cell phone number portability. The rules were first announced in 1996 for implementation in 1999. Court battles have delayed action. Traditional land line numbers are already portable, and many countries already have cell phone number portability.

WIRED: 7.5 million Americans have given up land lines to use cell phones exclusively.

MONEY MAGAZINE: Which carrier has the best cell phone service?

PS: Has anyone else noticed their Sprint PCS phone turning off for no reason? I thought it was my battery, but the same thing has happened to several of my friends using a variety of Sprint phones.

"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."
- George Orwell

NEW YORK POST: Which celebrities pack heat in New York? SayUncle and AlphaPatriot beat me to the press with this one, so I'll have to sex mine up. Whose pistol is hot - Robert De Niro, Harvey Keitel, Howard Stern, Don Imus, Donald Trump, and Tommy Mottola. They all have permits. Whose pistol is not - William F. Buckley, Chazz Palminteri, Paul Sorvino, Joan Rivers and Steven Seagal. Their requests for permits were rejected.

And as is typical when carry permits are issued at the discretion of authorities, there's an element of corruption and favoritism: "As The Post first reported, ex-NYPD license head Bernard Petrofsky was accused by police brass of rubber-stamping permits for Aerosmith's Steven Tyler and Joe Perry in exchange for concert tickets and backstage passes." Corruption and cronyism are why many states are going to shall-issue permits, which mean that authorities have to issue permits to all qualifying citizens. You know, just like they issue driver's licenses to everyone who qualifies.

Clayton Cramer's article in the current issue of Shotgun News covers Alaska's new Vermont-style carry laws, and nuances of carry laws and reciprocity between states. (Yep, it's the Clayton Cramer who blogs.) Shotgun News has a web site, but the article doesn't appear to be online. Packing.org is another good resource.

MAD OGRE: Guns of the Matrix. A rundown of all of the guns used in both movies.

DONALD SENSING: Thoughts on the Second Amendment and the fundamental dividing line of civilization.

Do not count on the police to maintain domestic tranquility in the final analysis. Their role is certainly important in enforcement, but they are reactive. They do not generally stop criminals; they apprehend them. But no criminal actually believes he will be caught, else he would not commit the crime.

Furthermore, there is no moral difference between the homeowner who protects his life or property with a gun and one who does not but summons a police officer. If the police arrive on time (problematic), they use violence or its threat to protect the law-abiding. The unarmed homeowner has merely "contracted out" his wielding of deadly force or the threat of it. (In my view, for an able-bodied man or woman to do that is morally cowardly.)

This is very similar to something that Kim du Toit's wife wrote:

I expected other people to protect me. I expected my husband to do it when he was home and I expected a cop to be there to rescue me if something happened to my husband. Yet I was perfectly happy for a criminal to be shot, by someone else, if he threatened me or my kids. Shame on me.

It was the realization of that hypocrisy that finally pushed me over the edge. I should not expect others to do for me what I am not willing to do for myself. I was the one whose morals were all screwed-up. How dare I think that someone else should risk his or her life for me (be it my husband or a police officer) if I wasn't willing to lift a finger for anyone else or even myself?

It was after this realization that the real meaning of the Second Amendment became crystal clear. Not only did I have the right to defend my country and myself, I had the RESPONSIBILITY to do so.

HERITAGE FUND: Stop lawsuits against the gun industry.