Snubbie "tactical" accuracy?

[Old Fuff]

Surely, that fits. But obviously, there are not items/people in the target area you're too concerned about hitting, either, or you wouldn't risk such a shot!

True. The problem comes if you are under fire (or have been) and you have to break cover over ground where a tall tree is maybe 3 feet tall...

I don't personally know anyone who would start shooting unless they were left with no other viable choice.

The point I have been trying to make is that sometimes one may have to make a handgun do what would usually be left to a rifle - if one was available. Those who are willing to master the basic fundementals and learn the bullet's trajectory from their particular gun/ammunition combination may find they can do things way beyond reasonable expectations.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I have never handicapped myself by not learning something because someone else said it wasn’t practical.

I have handicapped myself by learning something that wasn't practical at the expense of something else that was.

What one is not going to hear much in this thread are the opinions of folks on the higher end of the autism spectrum, who carry for self defense so they can go home at the end of the day and spend time with their families and/or people they love. Because they are too busy doing that. They assess their threat environment, choose a means of protection, train adequately to that perceived threat, and go on with their lives.

In the case of the J-frame, that involves a cost/benefit analysis of factors including availability, expense, training time, ammunition cost, accuracy, magazine capacity, concealability, etc… And all those criteria get muddled in with concerns about job, traffic, income, child rearing and all life's myriad issues. Each person has to make their own assessment of their threat environment, and act accordingly. The J-frame is often not going to mesh well with these criteria. And this is not a failing of the shooter. The shooter has other things on her mind, because the shooter leads a rich, full life, and has to balance a number of concerns. The problem is with the J-frame, because it demands more than many shooters wish, or are able, to give it. And this boils down to the design of the firearm.

It's easy to blame the shooter for not being able to 'hit a basketball' at 100 meters with a J-frame (or whatever). And that's probably what's so attractive about it- just sitting there in your mom's basement, rocking back and forth, blaming that shooter.

And that said, the demands of the J-frame, for some, are probably a net positive- one has a surfeit of free time, a healthy disposable income, and could probably use a little time logged out of the internet forum and in the company of real people, so one can learn the finer points of social interaction, such as having a conversation without needlessly picking apart every niggling detail of the statements of one's interlocutor, and realizing that we're all human, and fallible, and that one's skill at shooting the j-frame, or factoring primes, or whatever forms the center of one's emotional universe at the moment, isn't necessarily all that.

And I say all this as someone who carries a Model 36 daily, and frequently surprises himself by ringing the gong at 100m with it. Is that a goal I train toward? It certainly is not. I train toward the threats my experience and reason have taught me to anticipate, but only to a degree that it doesn't detract from the life I intend to protect by going armed.

 

[Certaindeaf]

I have handicapped myself by learning something that wasn't practical at the expense of something else that was.

What one is not going to hear much in this thread are the opinions of folks on the higher end of the autism spectrum, who carry for self defense so they can go home at the end of the day and spend time with their families and/or people they love. Because they are too busy doing that. They assess their threat environment, choose a means of protection, train adequately to that perceived threat, and go on with their lives.

In the case of the J-frame, that involves a cost/benefit analysis of factors including availability, expense, training time, ammunition cost, accuracy, magazine capacity, concealability, etc… And all those criteria get muddled in with concerns about job, traffic, income, child rearing and all life's myriad issues. Each person has to make their own assessment of their threat environment, and act accordingly. The J-frame is often not going to mesh well with these criteria. And this is not a failing of the shooter. The shooter has other things on her mind, because the shooter leads a rich, full life, and has to balance a number of concerns. The problem is with the J-frame, because it demands more than many shooters wish, or are able, to give it. And this boils down to the design of the firearm.

It's easy to blame the shooter for not being able to 'hit a basketball' at 100 meters with a J-frame (or whatever). And that's probably what's so attractive about it- just sitting there in your mom's basement, rocking back and forth, blaming that shooter.

And that said, the demands of the J-frame, for some, are probably a net positive- one has a surfeit of free time, a healthy disposable income, and could probably use a little time logged out of the internet forum and in the company of real people, so one can learn the finer points of social interaction, such as having a conversation without needlessly picking apart every niggling detail of the statements of one's interlocutor, and realizing that we're all human, and fallible, and that one's skill at shooting the j-frame, or factoring primes, or whatever forms the center of one's emotional universe at the moment, isn't necessarily all that.

And I say all this as someone who carries a Model 36 daily, and frequently surprises himself by ringing the gong at 100m with it. Is that a goal I train toward? It certainly is not. I train toward the threats my experience and reason have taught me to anticipate, but only to a degree that it doesn't detract from the life I intend to protect by going armed.

You sure are a practiced keyboard sniper though!

 

[Loosedhorse]

And that's probably what's so attractive about it- just sitting there in your mom's basement, rocking back and forth, blaming that shooter...

...could probably use a little time logged out of the internet forum and in the company of real people, so one can learn the finer points of social interaction...

Issues. Issues.

Form can obscure content, and it does in your post. But I agree with most of what you say...

...about shooting.

 

[Teachu2]

Had an interesting time at a GSSF indoor shoot last Sunday. Nine shooters, 10 rounds in 15 seconds, at five distances: 5,7,10,15, and 25 yards. All Glocks, both box-stock and modded. The second-best score in my flight of nine was the only guy shooting a sub-compact, and it was a G30, .45acp, completely stock, which he'd picked up Friday afternoon. Had 80 rounds through it prior to the competition. Shortest barrel, largest caliber of the bunch.....second place of nine.

Not J frame snubs, but similar in practice.

 

[StrawHat]

Loosedhorse ...I think that comment is worth a lot. PPC produced some odd, specialized revolvers; but a division for snubs (I'd be most interested in 1-7/8" barrels) is interesting and relevant here.

I wonder: were these "stock" off-duty snubs, or did they have the large sights, target stocks and (shorter) bull barrels that PPC guns were famous for?...

Wow, this thread has grown some legs since I was here yesterday!

To answer the thoughts posted above by Loosedhorse, yes, PPC did cause some specialized revolvers to be built. I had a Davis built revolver I used in open competition. It started life as a S&W M64 but had a 6" slabsided barrel installed, an uderlug, and an action job. It also sported a sight rib with an quickly adjustable fore sight (for distances) and an adjustable rear sight (W&E). For the duty revolver, I used a 4" S&W M686, no external changes except grips allowed. I did do some action work on mine. For Distinguished, I used a 6" S&W M686, no external mods except grips, my own action job. Now for the"Off Duty" category, going from memory, since the targets were scored based on the 5 shot cylinder, most shooters used a S&W J frame. No external modifications were allowed except grips, so if you had a fixed sighted revolver, that is what you used. I used a 3" M36, my own action job and like the other revolvers I used in competition, my own grips. Most others on the line used either a M36 or M60 in either the 2" or 3" configuration. Loads on the line were the equivalant of 2.7 grains of Bullseye under a 148 grain lead wadcutter bullet. As I said in my previous post, for many of the shooters, practical accuracy did not change as indicated by the scores recorded. Maximum range in competition was 50 yards but informal shoots proved to me the WC bullet was accurate enough much farther away. (Those who think the WC drops to the ground at 150' 1" are sadly mistaken.) Are ther better bullet shapes for long range, sure, but, don't discount the WC. And for impact, there is no better shape.

I hope this gives you an idea of the guns used in PPC, or at least what was used in the last century, when I competed. Things may have changed with the loss of the revolver as a duty firearm.

 

[Loosedhorse]

for many of the shooters, practical accuracy did not change as indicated by the scores recorded.

That to me is unexpected. The whole point of the modifications made on the larger PPC revolvers (more defined sights with longer sight radius, bull barrel to increase moment of inertia, etc.) was to increase the practical accuracy of the guns. But they clearly did not work if the shooters did not produce any higher scores than he did he used a gun without them.

One wonders, if they added nothing to practical accuracy, why such modifications became standard for PPC. I mean, obviously, a terrible shooter is not going to be helped by a longer sight radius and bull barrel, but I'm surprised that some top shooters saw no benefit, either.

 

[NelsErik]

Hickok45 seems to do pretty good with the Ruger LCR in .38!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BmpQqtBAVc

 

[contender]

take your snub and shoot a modified version (if necessary for 5 shot revolvers) of the NRA Distinguished Revolver match on a B27 target under time. Score it.

see how well or how poorly you do. if you do well enough to pass with say 70% then congratulations. if you do poorly, then either practice, accept your/its limitations, or abandon it for a more suitable weapon for your perceived needs/abilities. That is not a criticism....its just life.

Don't worry about what everyone else can or can not do with a snub. You only have to please yourself.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Don't worry about what everyone else can or can not do with a snub. You only have to please yourself.

This is contrary to the point of the thread...

But nevertheless inescapably good advice.

 

[StrawHat]

Loosedhorse Quote:
for many of the shooters, practical accuracy did not change as indicated by the scores recorded.

That to me is unexpected. The whole point of the modifications made on the larger PPC revolvers (more defined sights with longer sight radius, bull barrel to increase moment of inertia, etc.) was to increase the practical accuracy of the guns. But they clearly did not work if the shooters did not produce any higher scores than he did he used a gun without them.

One wonders, if they added nothing to practical accuracy, why such modifications became standard for PPC. I mean, obviously, a terrible shooter is not going to be helped by a longer sight radius and bull barrel, but I'm surprised that some top shooters saw no benefit, either.

Unfortunately, much of shooting scores is in the mind of the competitior. " ...If so-an-so wins using a heavily modified revolver, than I must use the same equipment to have a chance to win..." In reality, the top shooters, in any discipline, would post top scores with nearly any equipment. At least that is my experience.

Sorry to sideline the thread.

 

[Skribs]

Don't worry about what everyone else can or can not do with a snub. You only have to please yourself.

I've never understood this line of thinking. I mean, I understand that some people are better than me, through natural talent and/or practice, but I disagree with the philosophy that because you can't be the best, you should just be happy with where you are. Personally, I always try to do better. Just because I think I know everything doesn't mean I can't learn, just because I'm getting the best groups I've gotten doesn't mean I can't get better. Yes, you have to set your own goals and set them realistic based on your talent and what you intend to focus your training on, but I don't think you should become complacent with your abilities.

 

[Live2offroad]

My Rossi .357 in 2.5in barrel form is surprisingly accurate. As noted, lethal accuracy out to 30ft is a safe bet, but then I practice quite a bit.

-Peter

 

[Guillermo]

As mentioned, Bob Mundon pops targets with a j frame at 200 yards.

Our very own Old Fuff uses his 1st generation Detective Special to kill paper at 100. (claim u as property Old Fuff...deal with it )

With David E's expertise I would not be surprised that he has tried to match Mundon's feat (have you David? Seems like you like to do beyond what many call "reasonable limitations")

The bottom line is that the GUN is accurate.

As far as any of the scenarios, the shooter has a responsibility to know what he is shooting at. A target alone in a field does not have a large potential to harm an innocent bystander near as much as missing in WalMart.

This thread has been fun to read but it really seems that everyone agrees 99.325%. Sometimes loudly.

Kind of funny.

 

[MCgunner]

1) At what distance would you be comfortable taking that shot with a J-frame?

Up to 100 yards if necessary. I have practiced and know I could do it if forced into that situation and I had only my snubby.

2) At what maximum distance "should we" be able to take that shot, and how do we get our abilities and comfort from the distance in question 1 to the distance in question 2?

I think, for self defense, being confident in one's ability to hit at 100 yards with ANY handgun is more'n adequate. I don't think I'll ever be forced to have to do it, more like 7 yards in a cloud of gunsmoke. In fact, the only confrontation with a human I've ever had was at about 3 yards and all I had do was draw on him, he ran. I don't sit around worrying about such things, just practice. The only reason I know I can hit at 100 yards with the snubby is I used to plink on the 100 yard range with it all the time. It was for fun, not serious combat training. We are allowed to fire a few rounds now and then for FUN, right? But, heck, you never know when it might pay off to have had all that fun. It ain't likely at all, just sayin' it MIGHT save your bacon someday, maybe, especially if you live near the Rio Grande.

3) For those concerned with this "long-shot" (pardon the pun) scenario, would it be worthwhile considering the carry of a different firearm?

I guess if you were really concerned about it, sure! I was in Big Bend doing some hiking near the river last year and I carried my 4" medium frame .357 magnum for its reach out and touch superiority to any of my other concealable handguns. I really wanted to take my 6.5" Blackhawk which groups 4" at 100 yards, but it wouldn't quite fit the fanny pack I had. It MUST be concealed in the national park. Rifle carry is verboten. I was only thinkin' about the coyotes and mules out there, the remote possibility of an encounter I couldn't avoid. Boy scouts say "be prepared", ya know. Down along the border, the chance of a long range exchange of fire is less remote than typical scenarios for self defense in the big city or some such. And, sometimes, you can't carry a rifle, like in a national park.

 

[gym]

I don't know what the word tactical means anymore, seems like anything black is tactical. Us older guys started out with Detective specials and model 60's, so of course we can shoot them well.After 45 years we better. even though I don't still carry mine. I still can shoot them. A 3 or 4 inch 38 special is a very accurate gun.Capable of hitting anything a 3or 4 inch auto is.

 

[Prosser]

"I thought about a more realistic scenario: an active shooter, with innocents near-by, so that if you miss, you're hurting innocents, not helping them. For the purposes of this thread, please put aside the legal, ethical, and tactical questions (other than accuracy) regarding engaging an active shooter with a J-frame.

Finally my three questions:
1) At what distance would you be comfortable taking that shot with a J-frame?
2) At what maximum distance "should we" be able to take that shot, and how do we get our abilities and comfort from the distance in question 1 to the distance in question 2?
3) For those concerned with this "long-shot" (pardon the pun) scenario, would it be worthwhile considering the carry of a different firearm?"

My J frame is chest shots only at 7 yards. If I can carry another gun, PM9, Combatmaster, Full sized kimber, ANY revolver I own, then 15 yards, or what ever distance the bad guy is at comes into play. Head shots are also possible.

The problem I have with the innocents issues is that is going to be defined
by many factors, penetration, load, caliber, etc.

With my old eyes, lacking clear focus on the front site, and not likely to be wearing reading glasses, or anything that would improve that, I think 20 yards would be the limit. My thoughts at this point go to a hostage situation
where the hostage is going to die, likely, if you don't take the shot.

If you hit the hostage, he may die, but, you might also get the bad guy.

Over penetration is a major concern with most of my guns at such ranges.

I believe you should carry the gun you shoot the best, can conceal, and packs the best punch for weight and concealability. YMMV by time of year, area, threats, etc.

To ask another question:

How do you define an ideal firearm for a situation you can't predict?

If I was a bad guy I would be wearing a Level 3 vest, at least.
So do you use a caliber you can do head shots with at distance?
Do you carry a handgun, if you can, that has the potential to penetrate the vest?

Do you carry a caliber that after penetrating one person, is not likely to exit?

Ideally I'd carry ALL my guns, with a variety of loads. Guy with a Vest?
Punch bullets in a .475 Linebaugh or bigger.

No penetration? 275 grain Speer or Hawk thin jacket, .475 or bigger, at over 1560 fps. And here in is the problem. How do you find out what that load is going to do to your potential badguy, and, if it's going to threaten
the people around him?

Too many variables. Pick something you shoot and can carry, and, something you shoot the best. Pray it all works out.

 

[jimmy morocco]

My favorite carry guns have always been .357 snubbies. Great for town or trail. Anyone who is willing to take the time and practice, can amaze themselves and others as to how far away a target can be hit w/ this type of gun. The loss of energy @ say 100yds make it impractical IMHO for taking game. Point in case, milk jug full of water @100yds. I hit it w/ 2.5" Dan Wesson, rocked it a bit. My buddy pulled on same target W/ Winchester Trapper .357 16" barrel. Before all the water leaked out from my shot, His hit blew that jug into pieces. So 14" of barrel length makes a hell of a difference.

 

[MCgunner]

My J frame is chest shots only at 7 yards. If I can carry another gun, PM9, Combatmaster, Full sized kimber, ANY revolver I own, then 15 yards, or what ever distance the bad guy is at comes into play. Head shots are also possible.

I can roll 5 of 5 8" falling plates at 25 yards off hand. Shooting a 14" plate from modified creedmore or rollover prone from 100 yards, shooting 8" plates from weaver at 25 yards, it's all about the rest/stance you're using. Off a rest or shooting creedmore at 25, I can hit a head sized target first shot quite easily. Not likely to get that chance unless you found a hard cover barricade in the fight and you have to figure you might be breathing a bit hard and have an adrenalin dump which might affect your steadiness. Gun fights put a little more stress on you than plinking plates. At 100 yards, I'd always try to rest the gun on something stable and shoot from a more stable position if I can't find a good rest otherwise.

I believe you should carry the gun you shoot the best, can conceal, and packs the best punch for weight and concealability. YMMV by time of year, area, threats, etc.

There are very few guns that can compete for this definition with a 2" alloy .38 special J frame snubby. My subcompact 9 shoots about 1/2" larger groups at 25 off the bench. My snubby shoots 3" consistently off the bench at 25 yards shooting single action and with controlled double action. SA is easier, that's why mine has a hammer spur. It draws from the pocket just fine. I don't feel the gun is either over powered or underpowered for the task, frankly don't want LESS power than a 1508+P JHP .38 special. 9x19+P is a step up and I often carry that weapon.

I think you're sweating too many details. Just PRACTICE and shoot what you shoot best, as you say in the above statement, that you can easily conceal and always have on you. For me, it must work from a pocket and an ultralite .38 works great. Not anything much bigger will, not year around, not 24/7. One just needs to practice and get as skilled as humanly possible with what he's got and hope it works out when the SHTF. I've put myself into stress by shooting competition, know some of my capabilities under moderate stress, but I can't actually go out and get into gun fights. If it happens, it happens. Software is more important than hardware IMHO so long as the hardware can get it done and snubbies have been getting it done for a long, long time.