Where do you rank the 38 snubby as far as a defensive weapon

I read the linked thread in post 153 anticipating enlightenment and it seems to me it makes a flawed assumption - that the choice to carry the 642 dictates that is the house gun. The argument that multiple assailants are more likely in a home invasion may be true, but I have a steel 1911 and AR as house guns. If, as is argued in that thread, single attackers are more likely in a street crime scenario then the 642 choice is bolstered as a pocket carry. Why can't these types of debates be governed by logic rather than hyperbole?!

I also carry a reflex and frankly if there are two or more attackers things are going to get crowded. I'd much rather have a fast deploying 'get off me blade' in a ground attack then a pistol in my pocket. I've deployed a blade while in a full Nelson hold in training scenarios where I doubt I could deploy a pistol. It's actually insanely easy to stab someone in the kidney who is behind or on top of you. I don't think any of us could deploy a pistol and shoot a person from this predicament with high probability. It has to be much less than 30%. The higher probability on the ground is a blade. With two or more attackers in the street plan on going there, because you will.

I served in combat roles overseas, No I wasn't a spec forces but under that same assumption not everyone here has never been in situations where they had to fire under stress. Of course it degrades accuracy but I was a lot less worried about what platform, caliber, or ammo type I had at the time and more focused on ending the threat, for me as I've said in previous posts I carry revolvers mainly so that's what I'm likely to carry, nothing against autoloaders, I even have a few 1911s myself, I just prefer the revolver platform and in my own experience they have not failed me, so I will continue to carry them until I can honestly say I was put into a situation here at home that made me rethink their use in my defensive plans.

pezo said:

I'll go on out on a limb and say a snub nose revolver (lcr, j frame etc) is a great especially beginner cpl handgun. Rx796 explained it well.

Click to expand...

I feel very comfortable carry a J-frame revolver because of my life style. Rather than anticipate shoot outs like the OK Corral, I use my brain to anticipate and mitigate potential troubles. As such, my J-frame is only my last resort back up. The basis of my risk management is to anticipate and avoid confrontations. I am not a LEO and I am not bound to head toward a gun fight. God bless the LEOs because of what they do so I can be free to do what I do.

pezo said:

I'll go on out on a limb and say a snub nose revolver (lcr, j frame etc) is a great especially beginner cpl handgun. Rx796 explained it well.

Click to expand...

I strongly suggest you speak with some handgun instructors in your area to get a different take on this. I can't think of any worse primary gun for a beginning shooter/CCW than a snub-nose j-frame, and I'm far from alone in that sentiment.

azrocks said:

I strongly suggest you speak with some handgun instructors in your area to get a different take on this. I can't think of any worse primary gun for a beginning shooter/CCW than a snub-nose j-frame, and I'm far from alone in that sentiment.

Click to expand...

I agree it's not a great first time handgun for the new carrier but for the ones who have familiarized themselves with it, it is far from the last worst primary handgun.

I can't think of any worse primary gun for a beginning shooter/CCW than a snub-nose j-frame, and I'm far from alone in that sentiment

Click to expand...

Hand any auto loader to a novice and tell them to shoot the bad guy 6 feet in front of them. They will probably have to fumble with a safety, slide, or magazine.

Hand a j frame to a novice and tell them to shoot the bad guy 6 feet in front of them. They will probably be able to do it faster and easier than an auto because there is nothing to fuss with, just point and squeeze the trigger. Its a basic instinct that takes no special knowledge of guns to be able to perform.

If you want to carry an auto, that is fine. I carried one for several years. Now I have switched to a j frame because too many times I discovered magazines inadvertently released, safeties off, and a couple of jams with my autos.

I switched to a J Frame because I want something that me and my family's life to rely on to be as simple and dead nuts reliable as possible. You cant argue that an auto is a better option there.

fireman 9731 said:

Hand any auto loader to a novice and tell them to shoot the bad guy 6 feet in front of them. They will probably have to fumble with a safety, slide, or magazine.

Hand a j frame to a novice and tell them to shoot the bad guy 6 feet in front of them. They will probably be able to do it faster and easier than an auto because there is nothing to fuss with, just point and squeeze the trigger. Its a basic instinct that takes no special knowledge of guns to be able to perform.

Click to expand...

I don't consider anyone who can't properly manipulate their weapon to be ready for carry, so the point is moot. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to learn and apply the manual of arms for either choice.

Striker-fired semi-autos function exactly as a revolver from a user perspective, with the added benefit (or detriment to some) of a lighter trigger, generally higher capacity, and magazine changes. Same could be said for DAOs.

fireman 9731 said:

If you want to carry an auto, that is fine. I carried one for several years. Now I have switched to a j frame because too many times I discovered magazines inadvertently released, safeties off, and a couple of jams with my autos.

Click to expand...

That's fair.

fireman 9731 said:

I switched to a J Frame because I want something that me and my family's life to rely on to be as simple and dead nuts reliable as possible. You cant argue that an auto is a better option there.

Click to expand...

The vast majority of semi-autos I've have gone through 1000s of rounds between failures. I have, in fact, personally had more failures with revolvers than with semi-autos. And when I did, they were failures that stopped you right then and there; no clearance drill could fix those problems.

My current EDC (PPS) has 2000+ rounds through without a single hiccup (mixed ammo). My last one (CZ) had only one FTF in 5000 rounds before the guide rod disassembled itself (my fault for not inspecting it). Even when it did... the gun still fired

Reliability is all well & good, but you can take a good thing too far when your focus on it obscures other important performance metrics. What good does it do me to have a handgun that absolutely, positively, will fire when, due to its inherent handicaps, it won't hit the target? My goal is not to make a big bang and pretty flash. It's to actually stop someone trying to kill me. There are many modern semi-autos that when well cared for will deliver outstanding reliability. J-frames really don't have a significant advantage in this respect despite myths that continue to linger.

I can't help but feel many people in this thread are deluding themselves with a false sense of security. Police officers - with service-sized handguns in open-carry rigs right on their hip - hit their targets an average of 10% of the time. But you guys - you're going to draw a j-frame (which you likely rarely practice with) from a pocket holster (which you likely never practice drawing from) and get the job done with 5 rounds of mighty .38 special from a snub-nose revolver? You're in one of the most disadvantageous situations you could face, and you choose one of the most handicapped handguns to face it with.

What is it about autos that cause people to practice, and what is it about revolvers that cause them not to practice?

It seems like you have a fairly low opinion of revolver people.



And police officers are doing something entirely different than SD shooters. They also have an entirely different and largely offensive shooting philosophy. Their hit rate isn't predictive of civilian hit rate because the tactics are very different and they are carrying full size, large capacity pistols.

Civilian hit rates will be whatever they will be, not whatever military or police rates are.

Among my pile of stuff I rate ithem as "OK"

Really to many factors to rate it as 1 to 27 as it all "depends" on what other conditions are.

As a single gun for a single person I rate it Okey-Dokey.

50 percent one shot stopper with about anything though some ammo gives a bit better. Five (or six) dependable, reliable, accurate shots.

More concealable than a service pistol, lighter than most service pistols.

Suitable for five very fast "A Zone" hits or head shots at seven yards and capable of keeping all shots on a knelling man target a football field away if you do your part and shoot single action and powerful enough at that range to be about as effective as at seven yards as far as penetration goes. (Don't believe it? You aren't trying hard enough. Practice, practice correctly. Think "Roll over prone" and give it a bit of front sight, but not much)

For the one handgun person I think they are GREAT! (Said in my best Tony the Tiger voice)

I have experience with Charter Arms, Taurus, Rossi, S&W and a teeny bit of Colt when it comes to two inch snubbies and all I have used worked and were accurate enough.

When the weather gets cold enough to wear a coat, one goes in a pocket. 'Nuff said?

-kBob

RX-79G said:

What is it about autos that cause people to practice, and what is it about revolvers that cause them not to practice?

It seems like you have a fairly low opinion of revolver people.

Click to expand...

Please don't try to make this personal. I don't view 'revolver people', whatever that means, any different than anyone else. I'm attacking the platform, not the people.

Allow me to rephrase your question, and then I'll answer it:

"What is it about snub-nose j-frames that cause them not to practice"

1) Steel j-frames sacrifice one of the platforms only real strengths - concealability. So most people gravitate towards lightweight versions. Light weight + high bore axis + small grips = recoil that's unpleasant even with non-plus-p loads. Most people shoot guns that cause them pain a lot less than those that don't.

2) j-frames have heavy DA trigger pulls, and in a defensive situation the DA trigger is what you'll be using. Heavy DA triggers cause fatigue. Fatigue induces sloppy form and generally cuts training sessions short.

3) Lightweight j-frames are simply not designed for the high volume of practice necessary to be effective, so people spare their handguns the abuse by firing them less often. +P loads on a regular basis are no bueno for airlight guns (and the recoil is even more unpleasant - see point 1).

4) Most people enjoy success. When they go out and realize that shooting their j-frame accurately is hard (talking DA here - not you SA cheaters), they generally swap for something else more satisfying.

In summary: J-frames - by nature of their handicaps (short sight radius, high bore axis, small grips, lousy sights, heavy DA trigger) require much MORE practice to be effective with than other alternatives, and yet for reasons 1-4, they usually see much less.

RX-79G said:

And police officers are doing something entirely different than SD shooters. They also have an entirely different and largely offensive shooting philosophy. Their hit rate isn't predictive of civilian hit rate because the tactics are very different and they are carrying full size, large capacity pistols.

Click to expand...

So you're telling me that civilians should have a hit rate better than the 10% average of police, because they're more often than not alone, in a completely defensive (aka reactive) state, and because their handguns are not full-size?

I'm telling you that you aren't comparing apples and apples. I have no idea what the hit rate for civilians is or should be, but it isn't going to be the same as police hit rates. It may be far better, it may be far worse. And if it is far worse, there isn't going to be a magazine capacity large enough to make up for it. It's a false paradigm.



I have yet to encounter anyone on a gun forum that plans to own one gun. The fact that shooting a ton of +P ammo through a 15 oz J frame is not going to happen doesn't mean that a snubbie owner can't get effective practice through other means. Target loads, dry fire, full size revolvers, etc will all allow mastery of the DA trigger. I certainly don't feel like my time firing a Model 10 is wasted if I purchased a J-frame.

Ideally, everyone would practice with the one handgun they carry with their carry ammo only. In reality, almost no one - including police - does this.

Recoil in a alloy J-frame with +P is going to be considerable, but heavy recoil doesn't mean that the fundamentals of trigger control and aim go out the window. As long as you are familiar with the recoil of +P, the main problem becomes how rapidly you can fire, not whether you can hit the target. It is unclear whether ultimate split speed is that important, and many experts discount it, despite all the discussion about reset and split times.


High proficiency with a revolver DA trigger lends itself to every kind of firearm trigger. Everyone would benefit from some quality time with a real DA trigger.

RX-79G said:

I'm telling you that you aren't comparing apples and apples. I have no idea what the hit rate for civilians is or should be, but it isn't going to be the same as police hit rates. It may be far better, it may be far worse. And if it is far worse, there isn't going to be a magazine capacity large enough to make up for it. It's a false paradigm.

Click to expand...

You're going to hate me for it, but this is another example of the common sense I was speaking of earlier:

If police officers drawing primarily from strong-side open carry with full-sized service weapons are hitting at a rate of 10%, you can pretty much bet that civilians drawing j-frames from pocket holsters under what are more often completely reactionary (surprise) circumstances are going to have less of a chance.

RX-79G said:

I have yet to encounter anyone on a gun forum that plans to own one gun. The fact that shooting a ton of +P ammo through a 15 oz J frame is not going to happen doesn't mean that a snubbie owner can't get effective practice through other means. Target loads, dry fire, full size revolvers, etc will all allow mastery of the DA trigger. I certainly don't feel like my time firing a Model 10 is wasted if I purchased a J-frame.

Click to expand...

I have no argument with any of that, and those are all very good points. Unfortunately, the trigger alone is but one of many significant handicaps facing the j-frame. Also - for many - a heavy pull isn't something that can be 'learned'. Many people simply don't have the physical strength to pull that trigger without greatly impacting their POI.

RX-79G said:

Recoil in a alloy J-frame with +P is going to be considerable, but heavy recoil doesn't mean that the fundamentals of trigger control and aim go out the window. As long as you are familiar with the recoil of +P, the main problem becomes how rapidly you can fire, not whether you can hit the target. It is unclear whether ultimate split speed is that important, and many experts discount it, despite all the discussion about reset and split times.

Click to expand...

Recoil with standard loads is considerable, especially for the small-frame specimens who all-too-often fall into the trap of believing this is a womans/beginners gun. And that part about it not being important to hit the target... I have to believe you meant something different from how I'm reading it. Regardless, heavy recoil isn't something you just accept and move on from. Even for the minority of shooters it doesn't turn off from practice, its an effect you can't just think your way around. Heavy recoil will cause you to dump shots (flinch) if you don't put a lot of time and effort into dealing with it during live fire. It's not only an impediment to practice, it is - in and of itself - yet another handicap to accuracy.

High proficiency with a revolver DA trigger lends itself to every kind of firearm trigger. Everyone would benefit from some quality time with a real DA trigger.

Click to expand...

Again, no argument here.

Here's a good article from an ammunition expert about small .38s. The information about lasers and officer quals is interesting:

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4336-BUG-s-380-ACP-vs-38-Sp



The problem with comparisons to cops is that cops can and do fire at long distances without concern for conserving ammo. When a suspect pulls a gun and five officers fire 5-15 rounds each from a variety of ranges from the other side of a barrier, you can be sure that many of those rounds are not going to hit. From a police tactics standpoint it is effective, even if it's wasteful. It is similar to the suppressive fire doctrine practiced by parts of the military.

RX-79G said:

The problem with comparisons to cops is that cops can and do fire at long distances without concern for conserving ammo. When a suspect pulls a gun and five officers fire 5-15 rounds each from a variety of ranges from the other side of a barrier, you can be sure that many of those rounds are not going to hit. From a police tactics standpoint it is effective, even if it's wasteful. It is similar to the suppressive fire doctrine practiced by parts of the military.

Click to expand...

Where in the world do you live where the police use suppressive fire on a regular basis?

The reason police hit their targets 10% of the time isn't because of suppressive fire. It's because they've had the opportunity to learn the hard way that when the targets start shooting back, those tight groups you were putting in paper widen up dramatically.

A .38 snub is no more a "woman's gun" than a 9mm auto is. Anyone who's hands are too weak to work a slide or pull a reasonably heavy trigger shouldn't purchase a gun they can't use.

People with weak hands are going to have to settle for less terminal performance. Whether that's a lightly loaded .38 with a trigger job or a Beretta Tomcat .32, something's gotta give.


For people with hand strength, training is essential. For a revolver the training needs to focus on trigger control. For many autos, the focus needs to be on safe handling to make up for the compromises to safe handling - given the increased risk associated with those designs. Either way, you've got something you have to learn.

My earlier point was that lacking proficiency with a DA trigger has a statistically lower chance of leading to an innocent's injury than lack of proficiency handling a gun that is very easy to fire.

azrocks said:

Where in the world do you live where the police use suppressive fire on a regular basis?

The reason police hit their targets 10% of the time isn't because of suppressive fire. It's because they've had the opportunity to learn the hard way that when the targets start shooting back, those tight groups you were putting in paper widen up dramatically.

Click to expand...

They don't use suppressive fire. I was comparing two doctrines that do not require ammunition conservation.

Police will fire at ranges that civilians would not in the same situation because police are acting offensively. They aren't just acting to protect themselves, but to actively attack and stop a suspect. I have seen plenty of police footage showing officers firing from 20+ yards while moving toward the suspect - that is not a defensive shooting strategy that someone with any sort of single stack gun would engage in.

Same with shooting through a car - if you have a car between you and an attacker, that's not a time to be shooting, but police would and do.

Is there still a place for a 5 round snubby in todays world.

Click to expand...

Back before the current wave of concealed carry, my grandmother carried a Smith & Wesson J frame .38 Special in her purse everywhere she went. She liked the simplicity, reliability and the fact that right out of the box she was able to fire five rounds with it and cover the holes with a Kennedy half-dollar (after she got familiar with it, that became a quarter).

All of these complaints about recoil and physical characteristics of guns is purely subjective.

Speer 135 grain Gold Dot +P ammo in my Airweight J frame with factory boot grips is not painful. Its not so recoiling that I have poor accuracy. I'm not going to blast through 200rds of it at a time but it is certainly not so unpleasant to shoot that I'm not going to practice or cause bad shooting habits. I could comfortably shoot mid-range wadcutters all day long.

The factory double action trigger on a standard J frame is pretty heavy. It is definitely serviceable as-is, but it can also be substantially upgraded with a $12-$25 spring kit and a little polishing.

As far as grip angle and bore axis goes, that is purely personal preference. For me, the grip angle of a Glock is terrible. When I point it naturally, I'm aiming at the sky. With a J-Frame, its almost dead on- for me.

I want to see all of these autos that run like a top. I have had many over the years, and all of them have had some sort of failure at some point. Not so bad that they wouldn't run at all, but enough for me to not have 100% faith in it in a life or death situation.

Ultimately, it all comes down to personal preference. I prefer simplicity and reliability. I am willing to sacrifice a few rounds of capacity for that. If you want to carry an auto, that is fine with me. This is America and luckily we all have the freedom of choice. Going around and telling people that carrying a snub nose 38 is a bad choice is just silly. You have no idea how proficient they are with it.

GO look at the older Uniform Crime Reports from the DOJ.

When it was still a reportable item "civilians" (that is to say civilians other than police who are also civilians) had a HIGHER hit rate in legal self defense than police.

Look it up.

Police fired more shots per hit and police fired more shots per incident.

A lot of vets BTW get a bit peeved that some folks persist in calling Private Citizens "civilians" and Police something else when both are civilians.

-kBob

The question is, how rapidly can you fire aimed shots?

Click to expand...

For me at five yards, draw and 4 rounds in the A zone of an ipsc target is 2 seconds. The gun is capable if you are. But folks will have to quit whining about their poor little hands and recoil because it does require practice. Pushing the target out to 10-15 yards will slow my splits down to about .28. I often make the last target in a practice stage a 12x18 steel plate at 50 yards. Yes, I shoot it double action, takes about a .6 split.

Having said all that, I am a huge fan of the New York reload. 5 rounds are gone in a hurry.

I'll ask this again regarding the New York Reload. In a real gunfight and you've just burned up 3-4 rounds on the first attacker do you drop the gun with 1-2 rounds and go to the other gun with a fresh full cylinder or fire those last 1-2 at the next guy then go for the other if needed?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Add a third for fun.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk