Old_Grouch
Member
True
Last edited:
Snub Relevance?
- Thread starter JCooperfan1911
- Start date
- Status
My response made 2 points.
1. You don't always get an improved hit rate from shooting slower.
2. Even in the situations where one does get an improved hit rate from shooting slower, shooting slower can still get you killed.
That's clearly not what I said. What I said was:
"So another question, is, assuming that taking longer improves your hit rate, do you live long enough to make your improved hit rate count?"
Note that the context is NOT extra rounds, but improved hit rate.
The comment was made that by shooting slower the hit rate could be improved. The point I was making is that even if you can improve your hit rate by shooting slower (which is not a given), that doesn't mean it's automatically a winning strategy. If your splits are giving the other guy significantly more opportunities to kill you with a faster shot rate, the odds may catch up with you regardless of your improved hit rate.
While there is some value in putting rounds downrange in the general direction of an attacker--it makes it harder for them to concentrate on shooting and likely keeps survival (vs. attack) higher on their priorities list, that's not really the goal. Self-defense really isn't about the deterrent value of volume of fire.
The point is that if you can field a system (gun+ammo+shooter) that allows you to make hits at a faster rate, that's a good thing as compared to fielding a system (gun+shooter+ammo) that requires the shooter drop their rate of fire significantly in order to get hits.
This is true. In fact, as already mentioned by GEM, the majority of defensive gun uses don't even require firing the gun.
This discussion is specifically about the times that getting hits is necessary--there's a situation where someone hasn't immediately cut and run when the defender's gun appeared. Outside of that context, hit rate, capacity and incapacitation are meaningless. If one wants to talk about the times the criminals run as soon as a gun is produced or fired, then a pistol loaded with a blank is all that's required. One loud noise, no shooting skill required, the type of gun doesn't matter.
I've actually heard some people argue for that as a valid self-defense strategy, but I am not in favor of it.
Right!
Old_Grouch
Member
You're absolutely right. I took the wording of the statement to mean a reliance on chance. "The number of effective hits (hits on critical internal body elements) will be strongly influenced by the number of hits." as opposed to "The number of effective hits (hits on critical internal body elements) will be strongly influenced by the skill of the shooter".
Perhaps a misinterpretation on my part.
Bcwitt
Member
I'm kinda curious what guys that say a j-frame isnt enough gun do for a living. I have to WORK. That means a j-frame is about all I can carry. I frequently enter "high crime areas" & haven't had any problems. I like the idea of more firepower, but it's just not nessesary or practical for me. I keep more firepower In the vehicle (where permitted) of course, but on my person a j frame is the maximum practicable. A smaller carry gun is always there.
I had long labored under the impression that the J-trame revovler was a very small handgun, and I was surprised when I put my 642 on the table next to a Ruger SR-9c.
chicharrones
needs more ammo
I'm a traveling service tech and I literally wear blue collar clothes for a living.
It seems most facilities I go to are located in bad parts of town no matter the town they are located within.
I started with a 5-shot Taurus 85UL, but changed over to 7+1 and 6+1 pocket autos not long after, as I mentioned much earlier in this thread. I carry every where it's legal to do so.
I'm not saying a 5-shot J-frame is a bad choice. It's just that after buying several different pocket guns over a span of several years, I naturally gravitated towards carrying the smaller guns with more capacity.
The RM380 in the pic below isn't the smallest pocket .380, in fact it's fat and heavy compared to anything in the Ruger LCP class of gun. But it's smaller than a J-frame, is easy to shoot for a .380 pocket gun, has a true DAO trigger that mimics a DA revolver trigger, and it conveniently holds 2 more cartridges for 3.5 double taps versus 2.5.
View attachment 998787
Last edited:
Jack Flash
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2021
- Messages
- 45
Their perfect for pocket carry, but their not tiny. My 642 next to my P365. The Sig would be a lot shorter with the factory barrel on it, but I like it quiet sometimes.
If you compare a J frame to some of the smaller semiautos like the Smith and Wesson Shield or Sig P365 there really isn't a big size difference but the increase in ammo is fairly significant.
Whether or not more firepower is necessary is impossible to say until the fight starts. Simply presenting the gun might be enough, a single round that misses might be enough, 5 hits may not be enough, and so on and so forth. If one is never the subject of an attack with deadly force then not having any gun at all would be just fine.
Personally, I want the most rounds I can get, in an acceptable caliber, in a firearm that is practical given my concealment needs. For me a Smith and Wesson Shield with 8+1 beats out the snubby as much as I like them. If I can get away with it I'll go up to a Glock 19.
trackskippy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2010
- Messages
- 3,509
I have and have carried both 642's and Glock 26's. Carried them in the same places on my body, using the same type of holster for both. Once I figured out I could just as easily carry the 26 as I could the 642, it was a no-brainer as to what I was going to carry.
The size difference between them is basically nil. The 642 might be a bit thinner here and there, but the overall size is basically the same and they take up the same real estate on your body.
The big difference between them is how they shoot, how long you can shoot with them, and how fast you can reload them, should you need to.
The Glock has better sights and is just more shootable (and much more pleasant to shoot too, so you're more apt to practice with it) than the 642. It shoots like one of my 17's, and at about the same distances, so Im not limited to just "close range". Good hits at 25, or even 50 yards, is really not a big deal for the Glock.
It can also actually basically be a 17, with a simple mag change, and can go from 10 to 33 rounds as fast as you can swap mags. Even with its 10 round mag in the gun, its starting out with twice the capacity of the 642. Im really just not understanding why there is even a question as to which is the better choice here.
Better to have 8 or 9 left out of 10, than to need 6 and only have 5.
The size difference between them is basically nil. The 642 might be a bit thinner here and there, but the overall size is basically the same and they take up the same real estate on your body.
The big difference between them is how they shoot, how long you can shoot with them, and how fast you can reload them, should you need to.
The Glock has better sights and is just more shootable (and much more pleasant to shoot too, so you're more apt to practice with it) than the 642. It shoots like one of my 17's, and at about the same distances, so Im not limited to just "close range". Good hits at 25, or even 50 yards, is really not a big deal for the Glock.
It can also actually basically be a 17, with a simple mag change, and can go from 10 to 33 rounds as fast as you can swap mags. Even with its 10 round mag in the gun, its starting out with twice the capacity of the 642. Im really just not understanding why there is even a question as to which is the better choice here.
Better to have 8 or 9 left out of 10, than to need 6 and only have 5.
Old_Grouch
Member
I think for the same reason that not everyone wears a size 9 shoe. Some people find a size 10 to be a better fit, still others are more comfortable with a size 12.
Trackskippy, Exactly my experience with both guns. The 642, which I shot a lot, was just for circumstance that confined me to pocket carry. The G26 is my EDC with an extra mag. I'm toying with a G42 for pocket carry. I still need to wring it out but stymied by the ammo shortage and lack of open ranges here (Covid crap).
That being said, I like shooting the 632 and 432 in matches for fun. I also like shooting my 1911. If I carried them, I wouldn't be 'unarmed'. It's just that there are better EDC choices out there. I recall taking a class from a very well known personage who decried the Glocks for his 1911. Years later, guess what he carries. The Glock or Similar guns in 9mm are really the best civilian EDC choices out there except for constrained circumstances.
That being said, I like shooting the 632 and 432 in matches for fun. I also like shooting my 1911. If I carried them, I wouldn't be 'unarmed'. It's just that there are better EDC choices out there. I recall taking a class from a very well known personage who decried the Glocks for his 1911. Years later, guess what he carries. The Glock or Similar guns in 9mm are really the best civilian EDC choices out there except for constrained circumstances.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
That bears repeating--more than once.
bc38
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2016
- Messages
- 97
and then no handgun will save you.
Old_Grouch
Member
The OP's original question was
Several people seem to have misinterpreted that as "If you don't carry a snub nose 5 shot as a primary weapon, please tell those who do why they're wrong".
trackskippy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2010
- Messages
- 3,509
I don't think they are "wrong", but are they actually all that "well informed", and basing things on things learned in proving them, or just on "having a gun"?
It seems everyone has a predetermined scenario of some sort in their heads that proves their choices right. Obviously, we all have different scenarios. I think the question you need to ask is, can the gun I choose, give me the best chance at solving as many of the other different scenarios I might hear, and probably never considered, or is it only good for the few I might have in my head?
Just like I choose to wear practical shoes that fit, and allow me to do pretty much anything I might encounter during the day, I try my best to apply that same philosophy to my choices in guns, and pretty much everything else. I pretty much always carry a Glock 17 as my daily carry choice. The 26 would be a BUG, should I decide to bring it along. The 642 was the same thing when I carried it.
I suppose I could just wear a pair of Crocs and carry only the 642 or something similar, but for me, Id be severely handicapped for what I normally do or where I might go during any given day.
The realm of probabilities predicts a distribution of events along an axis of event intensity (it's really multidimensional but ...).
It goes from a DGU with no shots fired to a rampage that might have more than one opponent. Yes, it could extend the zombie apocalypse. However, we have had rampages with more than one shooter.
So, you on the realm of possibilities decide the probability cut off level, like in stat class, that you are comfortable with. Where I worked, go to shop, go to a religious institution - it is not out of the realm of possibility that IF an event happens, it is more intense than the single economically motivated mugger or burglar.
Thus, for that 'significance level', so to speak - the semi 9mm with a mag reload is my cut for a reasonable solution. The J frame is not. Might I take out a more intense situation with my J - well, I've trained in class, FOF and matches for that but from the same panoply of gun experiences, my semi EDC is easier. Empirically, Karl Rehn demonstrated the average person (if you like probabilities) do not shoot the smaller guns that well. The trained do better but still the semis are better. Now, training junkie can shoot the Js OK. However, I prefer the semi - unless constrained as said before.
I really don't know what else to say. Can I do a farther head shot with a 642 - yes, in practice. Hope I never have to.
It goes from a DGU with no shots fired to a rampage that might have more than one opponent. Yes, it could extend the zombie apocalypse. However, we have had rampages with more than one shooter.
So, you on the realm of possibilities decide the probability cut off level, like in stat class, that you are comfortable with. Where I worked, go to shop, go to a religious institution - it is not out of the realm of possibility that IF an event happens, it is more intense than the single economically motivated mugger or burglar.
Thus, for that 'significance level', so to speak - the semi 9mm with a mag reload is my cut for a reasonable solution. The J frame is not. Might I take out a more intense situation with my J - well, I've trained in class, FOF and matches for that but from the same panoply of gun experiences, my semi EDC is easier. Empirically, Karl Rehn demonstrated the average person (if you like probabilities) do not shoot the smaller guns that well. The trained do better but still the semis are better. Now, training junkie can shoot the Js OK. However, I prefer the semi - unless constrained as said before.
I really don't know what else to say. Can I do a farther head shot with a 642 - yes, in practice. Hope I never have to.
If a person needs to fit a size 12 foot, no amount of preference for a size 9 shoe is going to make it work. A size 12 shoe is absolutely better than a size 9 shoe for that application, period. And comfort in that case, isn't a matter of preference, it's a matter of picking the proper size shoe for the foot.
There are preferences and there is suitability. One is based on what a person likes. I may LIKE size 9 shoes because I think their proportions look good, but the bottom line is that I NEED size 12 shoes because the problem I have to solve is finding shoes for a size 12 foot. Confusing preference with suitability is only going to cause me a lot of pain--literally.
Right.
Where things start to break down are:
1. The choice made will result in limitations of the system (gun+ammo+shooter) that is fielded and that, in turn, will place limitations on the "problems" that the system can be expected to solve. It's important to be willing to acknowledge that and to have a realistic understanding of what those limitations are.
2. Once the discussion turns from preference (what I LIKE what I PREFER, what is my FAVORITE) to suitability (what is BEST, what is a GOOD CHOICE, what is ADEQUATE, what is BETTER) then the situation changes. No one can tell a person what they like--that's personal. But when someone says that for situation X, A is better than B or makes a statement of fact about a gun (e.g. it is lighter, holds more rounds, is smaller, recoils more, has better sights, is heavier, etc.), then it's no longer about what a person likes, it's more about facts. It's important to be able to separate preference from facts and to keep the two lines of discussion separate. LIKING a gun doesn't make it heavier or lighter, it doesn't change its capacity, it doesn't change its size, etc.
Bcwitt
Member
If you can't get the job done w 5 shots, it's your fault.
Bcwitt
Member
I'm not criticizing anyone else's choice. I think a revolver is better if you end up wrestling.
Bcwitt
Member
Again, if you can't get the job done w 5 shots, you can't shoot. If you need more then that, you are likely screwed anyway.
Tinman357
Member
◇◇ I really hate it when someone says that.
Tell that to Lance Thomas.
Again, tell that to Lance Thomas. In every one of his gunfights except his first he needed more than 5 shots and prevailed every time.
Bcwitt
Member
How many gun fights have you been in?
Remember, by the time you
I respectfully disagree w using a glock as a concealed carry. I have sparred w several persons that went the glock route (I have 2 glocks, they are the perfect belt gun) and can demonstrate a glock is easily discharge by the assailant in a wrestling match before you have an opportunity to draw. Is a great gun in a specific type of holster. Not so much in conceiled carry. A single poke w a fingertip in the right place & a glock goes bang. Not so w a revolver.
Bcwitt
Member
No doubt. Until you get in a fight. An auto pistol assumes standoff distance. You generally dont have that in self defense. When you are in a scuffle (when you need it most) & it goes bang w the slide pushed against his (or your) body, it will surely fail. Hopefully the magazine stays in & he gives you an opportunity to clear the resulting jam. You will be hard pressed to prove self defense @ a distance greater then that, I think.
- Status
