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

[azrocks]

It isn't what drives me to carry or not, it is what makes me so cognizant of the type of gun I carry and how it is best handled. The enormous emphasis put on shooting proficiency causes people to select guns that are very shootable, but less tolerant of mishandling and mechanical failures.

The ideal defense gun could be loaded and unloaded while completely avoiding any action or mechanism that involves firing (like dropping the slide or having to decock), and would be left loaded and holstered at all times - whether it is on the belt or in the safe.

But we don't talk about things like that because of the successful "your finger is the safety" Glock marketing, because it is unmanly to admit fallibility and it is politically repugnant to say that some guns are less safe than others. But we are fooling ourselves on all counts, and accidental shooting deaths are more likely for middle to upper class gun owners than death by random violent crime.

Well, you enjoy being a statistic. Me... I'm going to continue to practice and train, which keeps me well off the peak of that bell curve.

If a mechanical safety makes the difference between you being safe with a handgun or not, it's not the safety that's the problem. That's a fact your statistics fail to take into account... the vast majority of accidental shootings are by the inadequately trained (and by inadequately I mean likely not trained at all). Those are the people external safeties help (as well as those around them). Well, them and 1911 owners.

 

[azrocks]

I would like to see what math you are using to determine the 100 vs. 20 yard likelihood, given your habits and background, and the neighborhoods or places you're likely to go.

Math???? It's common sense. And unless you're posting from Syria, it doesn't really matter where you live.

When's the last time you heard about someone being attacked in <insert your area here> from 100 yards or more?

When's the last time you heard about someone being attacked in <insert your area here> from 20 yards or less?

Do the math.

 

[Kleanbore]

Random violence against a middle to upper class person that doesn't stay out late is novel.

New or unusual in an interesting way?

Because it is novel, it is completely unlikely to take the same form as a common violent attack, since the most common violent attacks simply do not happen to people with money.

Where on earth did you get the idea that your financial condition will play a role in establishing risk at the same ATM or gas station at the same time of day?

Yes, there are places that some can avoid that others cannot.

On its other hand, perpetrators of violent crime are mobile, and we can reasonably expect those who are in it for material gain will go where the money is.

Generally, better off people are only victimized by their friends and family. That is why I think it is absurd to talk about what is likely. I am more likely to be poisoned by my wife than mugged.

Those are not the risks we would try to mitigate by carrying a gun.

I would like to see what math you are using to determine the 100 vs. 20 yard likelihood, given your habits and background, and the neighborhoods or places you're likely to go.

For a lot of reasons, some but not all of them of them legal, the likelihood of any one of us ever using a handgun in a justifiable defensive encounter at 100 yards, or anything close to it, is miniscule compared to that of using it at 20 or less.

That is not going to vary according to habits and background, or to neighborhoods or places.

If you do not understand that already, you really have some learning to do.

I've recommended two books on the subject. Here's another.

And for heaven's sake, avail yourself of some training.

 

[ThomasT]

Whatever happened to that thread titled;

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

 

[Kleanbore]

Whatever happened to that thread titled;

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

It seems that for some, it is necessary to set the stage by discussing how a defensive weapon is properly used, and in what circumstances.

For those who already have a basic understanding of that, the answer is pretty well summed up in Post #153.

 

[Kendal Black]

Years ago, people had the idea that the DA revolver was the gun we had to work with, either because it was the prescribed duty weapon or because we saw it as a good choice among the options available, back in the day.

The long slow heavy trigger made us work on DA trigger control and some became quite good at it. Look at PPC some time, essentially double action bullseye shooting with a pretense of being a real-world course of fire.

Having only five or six shots in the gun led us to look for ways to reload it faster, and also to the chanting of a mantra seldom heard today: "Make the first shot count."

Now the pressure is off of us, to make the revolver work despite its drawbacks. We can pick an automatic with more ammo in it, faster reloads and a better trigger. Yet the old lessons remain. It is possible to shoot a revolver straight. It is possible to reload it with fair alacrity. There are old FLETC and Mas Ayoob videos on Youtube, let we forget.

What all that means is that we can continue to use and appreciate the revolver for its good points--good points mentioned several times in this thread and of course in others. You are likely not fatally endangering yourself by continuing to use something proven to work. The .38 snub has served very well for a long time in the last ditch concealed weapon role and there is not any reason to think it will not continue to do so for many years to come.

 

[RX-79G]

Well, you enjoy being a statistic. Me... I'm going to continue to practice and train, which keeps me well off the peak of that bell curve.

If a mechanical safety makes the difference between you being safe with a handgun or not, it's not the safety that's the problem. That's a fact your statistics fail to take into account... the vast majority of accidental shootings are by the inadequately trained (and by inadequately I mean likely not trained at all). Those are the people external safeties help (as well as those around them). Well, them and 1911 owners.

So you are taking the "unmanly" tack, along with a dose of "people who train are infallible".

If this was an aviation or woodworking forum, the notion that well trained people don't benefit from safety devices would simply be laughed at. I was one of the most well trained pilots in the world, and we all understood the necessity of safety interlocks and guarded switches to save us from our own human errors. Your attitude is really just unique to the firearm's world, and primarily dates to the common adoption of Glocks.

 

[ThomasT]

Kleanbore I read post #153. Good post. I just want to get back to talking about the snubby revolvers. I like them to the point of almost having a fixation on them. And I know they are a limited use gun. But for the intended purpose there just isn't much that is better. A man with a 5 shot snub in his pocket and a fixed blade knife on his hip is fixed up pretty good for a face to face encounter.

And over on the TFL site a poster Dpris has hinted at a 5 shot 44 special in the works. I am up for giving that one a good looking at too. If I ever see a Charter Arms Classic at the gunshow for sale there is a real good chance will pick it up too.

 

[RX-79G]

Math???? It's common sense. And unless you're posting from Syria, it doesn't really matter where you live.

When's the last time you heard about someone being attacked in <insert your area here> from 100 yards or more?

When's the last time you heard about someone being attacked in <insert your area here> from 20 yards or less?

Do the math.

"Common sense" as in "common sense gun control" and other things where people insist reality is a certain way, but can't actually tell you where their ideas come from.


I think the exceptionally low probability attack I could have may come from very wide variety of circumstances, so I train accordingly and select weapons that suit this philosophy.


And you can denigrate the safety aspect all you want, but this is a public conversation about general principles, not two people having a private conversation. The average CCW holder is not well trained, does not have good habits and is far from infallible. Tools that take those people into account should be the norm, not Glocks.

And I personally know a very well trained and conscientious competitor that still managed to shoot his leg at IDPA, so it seems like the number of people that can really be fully trusted is constantly shrinking.

 

[azrocks]

So you are taking the "unmanly" tack, along with a dose of "people who train are infallible".

Negative. My views are not based on machismo, and I certainly don't consider people who train infallible. But you're trying to use statistics to make the case that safeties save (significant numbers of) lives, and it's just not true. If a manual safety makes the difference between someone getting shot or not, that means multiple rules regarding fundamental firearm safety were broken.

If this was an aviation or woodworking forum, the notion that well trained people don't benefit from safety devices would simply be laughed at. I was one of the most well trained pilots in the world, and we all understood the necessity of safety interlocks and guarded switches to save us from our own human errors. Your attitude is really just unique to the firearm's world, and primarily dates to the common adoption of Glocks.

I'm glad you brought this up, because this is the perfect analogy.

When, exactly, do you flip that switch guard? When you're ready to flip the switch, right? Well, I consider my holster the switch guard, and I don't flip the guard (draw my weapon) unless I'm ready to use it. Same difference. My holster is my switch guard. I need another guard on top if it just as much as you need two covers over one switch.

 

[Dr. K]

I remember the original topic. It's what drew me to this thread. Well, that and my belief that in capable hands and with the right training, a .38 snub nose revolver is as excellent and dependable a personal defense weapon as there is. I wouldn't land on Normandy armed only with a snub, nor storm a compound in Abottabad, nor resolve an active shooter situation with one; but those scenarios are addressed by men and women whose job it is to address them. My job is far more humble, to keep me and mine safe. A snub can do that job beautifully if I do my part with training and practice. For what I'm more likely (however unlikely) to run into, run, hide, and as a last resort, fight, are achieved with training, situational awareness, and the right tools. Yup... a snub nose .38 can be the right tool, too, if we're realistic in assessing our personal needs and priorities.

 

[azrocks]

"Common sense" as in "common sense gun control" and other things where people insist reality is a certain way, but can't actually tell you where their ideas come from.

No, common sense as in "If you think you're just as likely to get in a gunfight at 100 yards as under 20, you may not have any".

That kind.

Sorry to be so blunt, but as someone who sounds well-educated, you're really kind of jumping the shark on this one. I have a hard time believing you can be so obtuse, so I have to assume you're just defending your position now to save face. The idea that anyone outside a warzone would be as likely to be attacked from a football field away as they would be up close and personal is simply asinine. Even more asinine is the idea that your best course of action in such an event would be to engage your 100 yard target with a snub-nose revolver.

BTW - Sorry for my part in derailing this thread all. I'll stop now.

 

[RX-79G]

Negative. My views are not based on machismo, and I certainly don't consider people who train infallible. But you're trying to use statistics to make the case that safeties save (significant numbers of) lives, and it's just not true. If a manual safety makes the difference between someone getting shot or not, that means multiple rules regarding fundamental firearm safety were broken.



I'm glad you brought this up, because this is the perfect analogy.

When, exactly, do you flip that switch guard? When you're ready to flip the switch, right? Well, I consider my holster the switch guard, and I don't flip the guard (draw my weapon) unless I'm ready to use it. Same difference. My holster is my switch guard. I need another guard on top if it just as much as you need two covers over one switch.

I "flip that switch guard" as little as possible, because loading and holstering a standard lighter triggered auto are some of the times when you have an increased risk of ND. And that's one of the great things about revolvers, is that you can load and unload, holster and unholster with less risk.

And I don't have to use statistics to bolster this claim. You and everyone else knows that the reason covered trigger guards and greatly increased awareness of where the trigger finger goes is a byproduct of the adoption of Glocks and similar pistols. It isn't a deficiency on the part of a revolver that it doesn't fire when handled incorrectly, since you already admitted that anyone can mishandle a firearm.

No, common sense as in "If you think you're just as likely to get in a gunfight at 100 yards as under 20, you may not have any".

This isn't just blunt, it is an outright insult, and you should be ashamed.

I stated my case as to why the exceptionally low likelihood of an armed encounter could take an unexpected form, to which you replied that you know better because of 'common sense', and then you insulted me for having different common sense then yours.

So if your position is so much more sensible than mine, you could at least have the courtesy of backing it up with some sort of applicable stats, or at least not using insults to bolster your equally weak claim to "knowing" what's going to happen.


Snubby revolvers are light, ambidextrous, harder to ND, more resistant to being jammed from the outside, reasonably controllable in DA, extremely accurate in SA and increase the likelihood of the most important aspect - having a gun with you. I don't think any of that is radical or foolish.

 

[Kendal Black]

My experience with horribly inaccurate j-frame revolvers goes about like this: decades ago, some family and friends gathered at a public shooting range. One of the shooters brought a s&w model 37 but didn't actually take it out of their range bag. I asked to try it and was told, "that thing is awful...it can barely hit a barn from inside, and is miserable to shoot...but go ahead if you want."

I proceeded to punch one ragged hole at 7 yards, then ring some gongs set out on the 100 yard line. The owner had a very strange look on their face after that.

I don't know how accurate they typically are, but that particular one was more accurate than the ruger p89, norinco 1911, and similar we had to compare it to. It had an OK DA trigger and excellent SA trigger.

Ever since then I have always assumed criticism of the j-frame's accuracy said more about the critic than the gun.

Messing around one day at a range, I started pinging steel at 50 yards with a J-frame and people turned to watch. Afterward they gathered 'round asking me gun and shooting questions as if they had met up with some kind of expert! But there is really nothing to it, just fundamentals applied. Besides, this J-frame had a hammer and I was cocking it. That almost amounts to cheating.

The myth of the inaccurate snubnose refuses to go away. Operated without good fundamentals of trigger control and front sight squint, of course you won't get much out of it.

 

[azrocks]

I "flip that switch guard" as little as possible, because loading and holstering a standard lighter triggered auto are some of the times when you have an increased risk of ND. And that's one of the great things about revolvers, is that you can load and unload, holster and unholster with less risk.

Until you put your finger in the trigger-guard your risk of an ND is real darn close to zero. So don't put your finger in the trigger guard. And if you can't load or unload your handgun without putting your finger in the trigger-guard, don't carry a loaded gun until you can. Properly indexing your finger along the frame when handling a firearm is a fundamental skill, and one that once learned sticks with you.

And I don't have to use statistics to bolster this claim.

Let's remember you said that...

You and everyone else knows that the reason covered trigger guards and greatly increased awareness of where the trigger finger goes is a byproduct of the adoption of Glocks and similar pistols. It isn't a deficiency on the part of a revolver that it doesn't fire when handled incorrectly, since you already admitted that anyone can mishandle a firearm.

No, I don't know that proper trigger discipline is the byproduct of Glock handguns. In fact, as someone who's been shooting all his life - long before Glocks made the scene - I know for a fact this is far from true. Keeping your meat-hooks off the trigger until you're ready to fire has always been a staple of firearm safety.

This isn't just blunt, it is an outright insult, and you should be ashamed.

I agree I was kind of insulting and I apologize for that.

So if your position is so much more sensible than mine, you could at least have the courtesy of backing it up with some sort of applicable stats, or at least not using insults to bolster your equally weak claim to "knowing" what's going to happen.

So now you want me to back my statement with stats? Do I need to use them to bolster my claim? Seriously, though, this is the source of my frustration. This isn't a subject that requires research. I'm sorry you get offended when I say this, but it REALLY IS COMMON SENSE.

There's no other way I can phrase it. There's no way to make it any nicer. If you think your chances of getting in a gunfight - a legally justifiable gunfight - at 100 yards are on par with those at under 20 yards... you're in desperate need of training/education. Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but that's just the way it is. Any defensive handgun instructor would laugh at the thought. You don't need stats. Just turn on the morning news. How many stories do you hear about people being sniped from 100 yards out? Compare that to the number of assaults at short range. Unless you live in Beirut I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that your results will be very similar to mine.

Even if you were attacked from a long range, your best move - from both a legal and tactical standpoint - is NOT going to be engaging your enemy with a snub-nose revolver. I can't even imagine a scenario where that would be a reasonable option.

Snubby revolvers are light, ambidextrous, harder to ND, more resistant to being jammed from the outside, reasonably controllable in DA, extremely accurate in SA and increase the likelihood of the most important aspect - having a gun with you. I don't think any of that is radical or foolish.

Snubby revolvers can be light, are somewhat ambidextrous (not counting reloading), are no more immune to NDs than any other gun, suffer from their own unique set of failures (most of which cannot be addressed in the field), and are more accurate in SA than DA (not extremely accurate in either). I never said any of that was foolish, just far from optimum at anything past very close range and/or dealing with multiple assailants.

 

[RX-79G]

Azrocks,

Your comments would be spot on, if you just used the words "if people don't screw up" more often.

Like, "Glocks are just as unlikely to ND, if you don't screw up, as a revolver". But people do screw up, and some guns don't magnify those screw ups into NDs nearly as easily or as often as others.

There is no "revolver leg". Holstering NDs with DAO guns are just about unheard of.

And maybe I should have said "AD", but there are no instances of slam fires or other mechanical failures causing revolvers to fire while being loaded or unloaded. I have personal knowledge of multiple loading related ADs and NDs with autos.


I don't know how gun people got to a point where they talk about "should" so much more than "is". As in; while guns "should" all have the same accident and injury rate, revolvers are safer, in part because of the DA trigger. Everytime LE switches to a lighter trigger system, their ND rate goes up. Happened with the LA Sheriff last year. Everytime LE switches to a gun that requires pulling the trigger for take down, the ND rate goes up.

The increased ND rate with certain types of firearms aren't from some other group of people. It's from us, responsible firearms owners.

 

[Ed Ames]

The increased ND rate with certain types of firearms aren't from some other group of people. It's from us, responsible firearms owners.

Is that correct?

A long long time ago there was a fairly decent custom 1911 smith in Orange County, California. Probably more than one but I knew of one. One day I was in his shop talking to him, discussing triggers and wishing I could afford his guns, and he started talking about how he didn't understand why some people wanted such light triggers. He proceeds to tell the story of how he sold a custom gun to a local police officer who proceeded to send a .45 slug down the length of his own leg with it. Now at about this point I need to say that there are ways to mess up a 1911 trigger, and as the guy who built the gun in question this guy had a vested interest in it not being his fault, but still...he thought it was utterly insane that a police officer would specify a 1.5lb trigger for a gun he intended to carry on duty, and I - having used a 1.5lb trigger on a target pistol - had to agree that it seemed iffy.

I draw three conclusions from this story. 1) "glock leg" is not limited to glocks, 2) individual judgment can have a real impact on outcomes and frankly you can't put all gun owners in the same cohort when it comes to responsible behavior, and 3) it can be difficult to say whether a discharge is accidental or negligent, especially when one man's accident can result from another's negligence and they know it.

 

[tubeshooter]

So... with ALL of that good and said...

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

 

[RX-79G]

Is that correct?


I draw three conclusions from this story. 1) "glock leg" is not limited to glocks, 2) individual judgment can have a real impact on outcomes and frankly you can't put all gun owners in the same cohort when it comes to responsible behavior, and 3) it can be difficult to say whether a discharge is accidental or negligent, especially when one man's accident can result from another's negligence and they know it.

Gun owners almost never self identify as irresponsible. Ask anyone if they've trained enough to put a 3.5 connector in their Glock and they will tell you yes. I have no idea what criteria anyone could use to separate those who's habit and mindset meet a high enough standard and those who don't.

And while 1.5# is too low, trigger pull weights for combat guns have been inching down. I think it is a product of the Glock philosophy. If there's nothing wrong with 5.5 or 3.5, why not 2.5#? Especially now that a gunsmith no longer has to agree to do the job.

 

[Ed Ames]

Honest answer? The "big name" snubbies are too expensive for me so I wouldn't even consider them.

I can get a p11, which is marginally less accurate and generally less pretty but will hold 10+1 or 12+1 of 9mm and deliver combat accuracy, for half the money.

* The RIA colt clones are not five shot and being made of steel are heavy but as a tackle box/mechanic's shop gun they have a role. If i was getting a Charter Arms it would not be .38. I am iffy on Taurus but it may be the exception.

 

[pezo]

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.

 

[RX-79G]

I've been seeing a lot of lightly used 642s for well under $400. Getting into a quality snubby doesn't have to be pricey.

 

[tubeshooter]

Great. An honest answer is all that was asked.


Thank you, sir.

 

[C0untZer0]

I'm surprised no one has said HK P7 before now...

Its not a revolver, but the technology exists to be able to cock a gun very quickly and carry it around uncocked.

 

[springer99]

I remember the original topic. It's what drew me to this thread. Well, that and my belief that in capable hands and with the right training, a .38 snub nose revolver is as excellent and dependable a personal defense weapon as there is. I wouldn't land on Normandy armed only with a snub, nor storm a compound in Abottabad, nor resolve an active shooter situation with one; but those scenarios are addressed by men and women whose job it is to address them. My job is far more humble, to keep me and mine safe. A snub can do that job beautifully if I do my part with training and practice. For what I'm more likely (however unlikely) to run into, run, hide, and as a last resort, fight, are achieved with training, situational awareness, and the right tools. Yup... a snub nose .38 can be the right tool, too, if we're realistic in assessing our personal needs and priorities.

After more than a weeks' conversation here, the fact remains that what is most important is that whatever firearm you choose to carry, it most be one that you are familiar with, train with, and will carry 24/7 without fail. For each of us, that answer may change over time and circumstance.

The fact remains that for many of us, the snubby fills that role perfectly. I've carried a 1911, a SIG 225, a SIG 938 and a S&W 642 for a number of years now. What matters most important is what you will carry 24/7. In my case it's the 642. Your answer might be different. If so, that's OK.

Carry the biggest gun you can carry 24/7 and hope for the best. That's the only answer that really matters.