It means the spot where you're trying to dance is very small. It's why you have to constantly move the goal posts.
Snub Relevance?
- Thread starter JCooperfan1911
- Start date
- Status
And wrongly. It says either they don't know, or they have chosen to ignore what they do know.
They probably know less about the modern training world than they should, and their problems therefore reside a lot less in what they carry than in their training.
GEM has more experience i training and in competition than I do, and it includes using a snub revolver--a six shot snub revolver.
In the defensive training classes I have taken, semi-autos and extra magazines were required.
I once carried a five shot snubby. as my primary defensive firearm. No more.
Actually, I try to prepare for anything within a rather broad range of possibilities, all involving encounters at close handgun distances.
There are no "goal posts" in this.
My choice reflects things learned in some good, realistic defensive pistol shooting training; knowing what I can shoot and how; discussions with LEO and trainer people here and in person, some of whom have engaged in FoF training; watching as many real camera captures of use if force incidents as I can; some study of handgun wounding effectiveness; my own personal risk tolerance; and comfort factors.
Were it not for the last, I would carry a a duty-sized double column 9 and a backup.
No, I was responding to that silly picture that over-exaggerated a sensible EDC carry. I've explained my view of what to carry ad nauseam but ridiculous pictures don't contribute. Now as far as not knowing what you are talking about, it is clear. The J frame is a compromise, a single opponent gun and you carry that acknowledging that you understand this. Claiming you don't go into bad area - yep, you don't know what you are talking about. Implying that the average - no shots, or one opponent ALWAYS happens - you don't know what you are talking about.
The EDC I suggested is a reasonable level for more than one opponent and/or a more intensive, not just an economically motivated incident. The J is a compromise decided by dress constraints or it's easy and you acknowledge and accept that lower level of performance.
Again, studies show that folks don't shoot them well and usually don't train. Those folks don't know that they are talking about when it comes to more complex situations. If you never get into one and down play them - that's good for you.
The EDC I suggested is a reasonable level for more than one opponent and/or a more intensive, not just an economically motivated incident. The J is a compromise decided by dress constraints or it's easy and you acknowledge and accept that lower level of performance.
Again, studies show that folks don't shoot them well and usually don't train. Those folks don't know that they are talking about when it comes to more complex situations. If you never get into one and down play them - that's good for you.
Bcwitt
Member
It seems we all have a different definition of self defense. I consider self defense (in a public place)
Sounds like you've never really carried a Glock, especially one in a proper holster.
Maybe you can post up a video of you getting a Glock to "easily discharge" in a wrestling match. Id really like to see that.
I used to work in heavy construction and carried a 26 in a "soft" holster while doing so, and every day was basically a wrestling match of some sort. People, material, and equipment, etc. Never once had the gun discharge or feel uncomfortable carrying it.
I vet any holster I use, and soft or hard, have never been able to come close to "poking" a finger into the trigger guard and dropping the trigger with one I use. Not sure what holsters youre using, but if you can do that, then you need to buy better holsters. Even without one, unless youre really careless, it takes a bit of work to get that trigger to drop unintentionally.
You get what you get in any situation, and you probably wont get to make the choice. A revolver has its own issues with up close fighting, so its not the perfect tool either. Just getting a hand on it and controlling the weapon at that distance basically takes it out of action.
Knowing what to do to deal with things with either is the important thing, not so much the gun.
And self defense is self defense, no matter the distance.
Bcwitt
Member
I do carry a glock in a proper holster. There is no safe glock holster that is truly conceilable, to my awareness. I can absolutely discharge a glock in a belly band, pocket , etc.
Bcwitt
Member
The point is having a gun & not being able to throw & block punches & literally get the monkey off your back, any gun is useless. The way most guys practice makes it useless anyway. If you think construction in fighting, you are kidding yourself.
Bcwitt
Member
Everybody gets bent out of shape if you tell the truth on here! There is nothing wrong w using a snub nose for self defense. It is ideal for such use.
trackskippy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2010
- Messages
- 3,509
Self defense is self defense, and anywhere it happens and anyway you have to defend yourself. Be it at contact distances, or at a longer distance.
And there is nothing "defensive" about self defense. Self defense is simply the reason for the aggressive response.
trackskippy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2010
- Messages
- 3,509
I never said construction is fighting, but in a lot of cases, its not far from it.
I was referring to what the gun and holster went through during a typical day, which was often, very much like wrassling around on the ground with "something".
And of course, having skills other than just the gun are very important as well, but, this is a gun forum, so the gun seems to always be the answer to any and all problems. Thats not the case. You need to be well rounded here if you're the least bit serious.
Seems a lot of people who pocket carry don't have a clue that they may need to actually fight their way away from the problem, just to begin to be able to get to their gun. Same goes for anyone else too really, but pocket, and some of the smaller gun carriers just have that much more trouble ahead.
Goal posts is a colloquialism meaning you keep changing scenarios.
Or maybe they understand the training just fine, but tactics focused on a 15+1 duty size gun with extra mags on the belt are best served if they were actually willing to carry a 15+1 duty gun and spare mags.
No. I have changed nothing.
I have described several reasonable possibilities. We could add more. There is no "scenario" for which one should strive to be prepared.
Training involves developing the skills necessary to recognize an emerging threat timely, whatever it may be, and to react to it effectively in whatever manner may be needed.
I do not think that, as a civilian defender who will not pursue anyone, my tactics will vary with what I carry. The outcome may change, but not how I go about defending myself.
So do your tactics vary or not change.
Bar here or bar over there where is your bar now?
Jack Flash
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2021
- Messages
- 45
I'd bet it was made for that very reason.
Kinda makes a person wonder why they called the little Colt revolver The Detective Special, and the S&W 36 The Chief's Special.
If a couple people posting in this thread could have gone back in time and told people...imagine the hundreds of lives they could have saved!
I'm surprised my grand parents lived into their 90's and my folks are now in their mid 80's. Neither my grand dad or dad ever carried a semi auto...ever.
My dad's favorite gun is the S&W 60, and my grand dad carried this "even smaller than a J frame I frame pre model 30 that's now in my possession.
It's only a 5 shot 32 S&W Long too. He also carried the rings.
They will vary with the situation that presents itself, and not with whether I happen to be carrying a "15+1 duty size gun with extra mags on the belt "
What?
Thye were intended for plainclothes officers.
Many uniformed cops them for backup.
A 'New York Reload" was carrying two. I have considered that.
(Moderator hat on)--Let's knock off the useless hyperbole.
(Hat off)--My grandfather's .32 i-Frame, which I now own, holds six rounds.
He obtained it in trade from an officer who, after using it in one violent use of force encounter, wanted something more effective.
When I started in LE in 1985 I was issued a S&W Model 65 and 18 rounds of .357 ammo, 6 in the cylinder and two speed loaders in a pouch on my duty belt. I added a Colt Agent that gave me 6 extra rounds in the gun and I added a Bianchi Speed Strip with an addition 6 .38 special rounds in my shirt pocket. I volunteered to test one of the semi-autos the department was considering buying a couple years later. I carried a Beretta 92F in that test. Ammo capacity had nothing to do with my decision to participate in the test, the fact that I learned to shoot a handgun with a semi-auto and I shot them better then a revolver was the reason I wanted a semi-auto.
I've carried everything from a Beretta 21A in .22LR when that was all I could conceal to an M16A1 with 12 loaded magazines. You have to know what you can do with the weapon you carry and it's limitations.
These threads always bring out people looking for someone else to validate their personal choice. Instead of "are 5 rounds enough?" we should be talking about how to stay out of trouble when you only have 5 rounds and what kind of tactics you can use if you can't avoid trouble. During the times when all I had was the Beretta 21 my plan was to run and the .22 was a last ditch, empty it in the face of the bad guy. If the fight was close enough that I couldn't run the plan was simply react to a near ambush and attack, charging until I was close enough to empty it into the face of the assailant. If you're going to carry a pocket .22 or a 5 shot snubby as your primary weapon then you need to have a plan on how you will use them to get around the shortcomings. Once you have a plan you need to practice it. Train to fight with what you've got.
The only criteria for a defensive handgun that matters is that it's a reliable handgun in a caliber of .38 Special or larger that you can shoot well.
I've carried everything from a Beretta 21A in .22LR when that was all I could conceal to an M16A1 with 12 loaded magazines. You have to know what you can do with the weapon you carry and it's limitations.
These threads always bring out people looking for someone else to validate their personal choice. Instead of "are 5 rounds enough?" we should be talking about how to stay out of trouble when you only have 5 rounds and what kind of tactics you can use if you can't avoid trouble. During the times when all I had was the Beretta 21 my plan was to run and the .22 was a last ditch, empty it in the face of the bad guy. If the fight was close enough that I couldn't run the plan was simply react to a near ambush and attack, charging until I was close enough to empty it into the face of the assailant. If you're going to carry a pocket .22 or a 5 shot snubby as your primary weapon then you need to have a plan on how you will use them to get around the shortcomings. Once you have a plan you need to practice it. Train to fight with what you've got.
The only criteria for a defensive handgun that matters is that it's a reliable handgun in a caliber of .38 Special or larger that you can shoot well.
No Quarter
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2003
- Messages
- 310
100% of everyone in this thread is alive and kicking regardless of platform or caliber.
I would be more worried about my will to kill and the physical and mental ability to react under duress than the gun I am grabbing. Thanks to the USMC, I have that figured out just fine.
Everything else is just arguing over how many angels will fit on the end of a pin.
I would be more worried about my will to kill and the physical and mental ability to react under duress than the gun I am grabbing. Thanks to the USMC, I have that figured out just fine.
Everything else is just arguing over how many angels will fit on the end of a pin.
So you don't take the limitations of your carry into account?
Agree 1000% and going from a 5 to a 6 shot revolver shouldn't affect this discussion.
No. How would I? Why would I?
No matter what unfolds, I will use the minimum force necessary to defend myself.
That's the law.
Bcwitt
Member
Australian410hunter
Member
Interesting point, I suspect partly conditioning, partly because I know it performs at short range, so I choose the .38special +P. Many years ago I remember seeing a number of .38 wadcutter loads from a Smith and Wesson Model 36 (3 1/2 " barrel?) lodged in the windscreen of an armed robbers car, shot at about 30 feet (they were probably target loads). That put my off wadcutters (and I know some of the Keith Rounds are very effective). So I stayed with the +P semi jacketed, or scalloped, hollow point. Also works (better) in a longer barreled revolver.
I gave you a counterexample for your statements--3 of them from one person's experience. It only takes one counterexample to disprove a categorical claim.Bcwitt said:
There are certainly limitations in the design of many autopistols which means that contact shots can be problematic, but that doesn't prevent them from being used in close quarters. It just means that one needs to be aware of the limitations.
Justification for self-defense is not based on distance unless the attacker is unarmed or armed only with a contact weapon. If the attacker has a firearm their actions can certainly provide justification even at a significant distance.
The key is having a realistic understanding of the system (gun+ammo+shooter) that one plans to rely on for self defense. Both in terms of capability and limitations. The problem comes when a person is fielding a system with a completely unrealistic picture of what sort of problems it can be expected to solve.
I definitely agree that a Glock (or any other gun with a similar operating system) needs to be carried in a hard holster than protects the trigger. There are certainly concealable holsters that fit that definition.
True enough. I didn't say anything that contradicts that.mavracer said:
I'm not going to go through the sequence that got us to this point.
We're now two levels deep into you responding to something I didn't say and it gets ridiculous to try to recap that kind of situation.
If you want to interact constructively, you can read back through the thread to see what I really did say and respond to that instead.
What's going on is that you keep making up strawmen (whether intentionally or not) and then claiming that the other party is changing their argument when they correctly point out that your strawman isn't what they said.mavracer said:
It's time to slow down and read more carefully before responding (or to change your debate technique if it's done deliberately) when you start piling up responses like this to your posts:
"I am not trying to argue at all."
"That's not what I meant to imply."
"That's not the idea at all."
"That's clearly not what I said."
"...I have not said that."
"What?"
"I didn't say anything that contradicts that."
"That's not what I meant to imply."
"That's not the idea at all."
"That's clearly not what I said."
"...I have not said that."
"What?"
"I didn't say anything that contradicts that."
Pointing out a strawman is not changing the goalposts.
Australian410hunter
Member
Your points about there being a great difference between LEO actions, and a private person, are valid. One runs towards a problem, the other tries to move away, or avoid the problem!
A normal person is not out walking the backstreets, on a dark night, trying to find the mugger, nor traveling to answer a call about a DV, drugged idiot, or to find criminal activity!!
What I did find interesting is the comments of some that, in the USA, a Police officer is not required to go towards gunfire, to protect the public, only to protect a prisoner!
Umm I had never actually considered that NOT responding to an armed offender, or shots fired, was an option for the Police!?
Admittedly over the years, vests and things became 'compulsory' (noting that a III vest is useless against centre fire long arms> one of the officers I went through the academy with was shot, and killed, by a .303). We started carrying long arms in the vehicles (a step up from BYO shotguns for drug raids, in the early years).
The basics of our training was cordon and negotiate, then I was a holding team nominated shooter at one stage. Of course, in smaller places, there weren't the resource to have a 'cordon', so it was go in after them time, which can be interesting.
The poorest response I ever saw was a Police Inspector stopping other Police, who had the training, going in after an injured dog squad officer, he died (the offender was in scrub, as was officer, their actual locations were unknown, the offender was well armed, and a present threat); the decision may have been right, however the response of other Police, knowing an officer had been shot, who bled out, whilst they were held back, left a sour taste in many mouths.
The vast majority of the population will never be involved with, or witness, such scenes, except on television, and in the news. The probability of a member of the public being shot at has many zero's after the decimal point. The probability of accidentally shooting someone is actually higher (I may have to exclude Chicago from this statistic at the moment!).
As I sit here I can hear 155mm artillery thumping away in the distance; if you can hear something like that you may be in a place where carrying a firearm may be justified, or lead to you being killed as a combatant! In normal life in the US, Australia, and many other countries, the probability of issues requiring a firearm for defence remains low, despite the news beatups. Just choose where you travel with an ear to problems, especially as rumours fly, and scarcities bite, assess the risk where you are, countries can be big places.
Last edited:
- Status
