Where do you rank the 38 snubby as far as a defensive weapon
- Thread starter george burns
- Start date
- Status
What does this mean? Do you go everywhere with a SBR and armor?
Self defense shootings are so rare, everyone gets their pet theory as to how bad it will be. But planning for the worse possible scenario is giving your life over to the lifestyle of a bodyguard.
Anyone carrying a gun is incredibly prepared compared to everyone else. The type of gun at that point is just nuance.
Barry the Bear
Member
And wasn't there another study where private gun owners have a hit rate of 89%? Studies are just that studies. If your so concerned about the disadvantages of a snubby than don't carry one simple as that but don't tell someone who knows how to use one that it won't protect them.
It simply means that an assessment of what it would take to defend oneself should not be based on the likelihood of the need materializing in the first place.
Look at it this way: for most of us, the likelihood of a violent attack on any one day is far less than remote, but over a lifetime, it will be a lot higher.
It will vary among people and circumstances. But the likelihood that one will be attacked at lest once is a simple yst or no proposition. It will either happen or it will not.
If it does not, and for most of us it will not, one will get by with a derringer, a J-Frame, a K-Frame, a Model 1911, a Glock, or an M9, and one will not expend any ammunition at all.
But should an attack occur and shots be fired, that first scenario goes out the window.
How many shots will be required is just something that cannot be predicted in advance.
It should be self-evident that someone who has availed himself or herself of some really good defensive pistol training will be far better equipped to understand the needs than one who has not.
And that brings up the old adage that a gunfight is not the place to learn new skills.
Of course not!
Alrighty then!
But I think it prudent to be prudent to be as prepared as possible for the kind of contingency that one might consider to be within the realm of practical possibly.
For me, that would include a violent, unexpected criminal attack by perhaps two people, at a distance of ten to fifteen feet.
Ed Ames
Member
There is always a range of possible scenarios, with different likelihoods and requirements. On one end you have a single rabbid raccoon, and on the other you have North Koreans raining from the sky with mini nukes strapped to their backs, trying to reenact Red Dawn. A rational person chooses gear based on what will be sufficient to meet the conditions they are likely to encounter.
Now, since I personally have had a family member suffer a brain injury due to feral dogs, I tend to take that end of the risk continuum seriously. I have never been within 25 miles of a multiple shooter jihadist incident.
Most of the risks I am likely to face can be reliably dealt with with a 5 shot .38 special, though I don't personally carry one.
Kleanbore,
Why do you think 2 attackers is a likely number? When I watch news videos of violent attacks, it seems more likely that violent people travel in small gangs of 3-5, not pairs.
Have you seen some statistics that attacks by other than solo attackers tend to be by 2 people?
Why do you think 2 attackers is a likely number? When I watch news videos of violent attacks, it seems more likely that violent people travel in small gangs of 3-5, not pairs.
Have you seen some statistics that attacks by other than solo attackers tend to be by 2 people?
I said "perhaps two".
Not too many of the attacks of the kinds that concern me have been recorded on video.
We have seen stats here indicting that if there is an attack, it is as likely that here will be two or more attackers as one.
That makes sense--how many carjackers, muggers, etc, burglars etc. would rather work alone than with a little help?
What is your basis for that belief?
Let's start with the assumption that at least one shot is fired. Otherwise an empty Colt Paterson will do.
From what distance do you visualize the attacker starting? How quickly do you thing you will draw?
How rapidly do you expect your attacker to be rushing?
Will you be moving?
At what balance of speed and precision do you expect to shoot?
John's analysis linked in Post #153, combined with some good training, makes me very skeptical about any assertion that "most" risks can be "reliably dealt with" with a five shot revolver.
Ed Ames
Member
I have two likely threats.
One is a specific ex coworker who has made threats against other coworkers (not me...he likes me) but it's not like i would be a bystander if he was taking a baseball bat to one of my employees.
The other is feral dogs. Well... vast majority of what I call feral dogs are in fact the pets of irresponsible owners. They free roam in unstable groups more than cohesive packs, and they are familiar with humans but aren't convinced that humans are completely off the menu so to speak. The last time i had to deal with that situation a picked up rock was plenty, but I prefer to have something more effective available.
Would i rather have a hotter round and A 30rd magazine? Sure. But a five shot .38 revolver would stop either threat.
There are times when i face an elevated likelihood of other threats, e.g. when traveling around the country staying in hotels, but that is the exception.
Last edited:
Pretty sure that nothing in the post you responded to could be remotely construed as telling anyone what their snubby would or wouldn't do since it didn't mention snubbies and didn't give any advice at all.
I haven't seen that study. Do you have a link to it? I would like to look at the results.
Studies are generally based on at least some data, which is a good starting place. I mean that data is a good place to start. The alternative to starting with data is having to rely primarily on opinion and speculation.
Very true. The point is that if one has already made the decision to carry a firearm for self-defense, one should look at likely scenarios and try to prepare for those scenarios rather than looking at the overall likelihood of needing a firearm for self-defense.
The overall likelihood of needing a firearm should be considered when deciding to carry or not to carry. But once that decision is past, the focus should change from the overall likelihood of needing a firearm to deciding what that need is likely to be.
Here's an example. Let's imagine a person who lives in an area with excellent public transportation and who doesn't need a car for daily activities but who very rarely might need to travel to a different state, some 1,100 miles away to visit a relative. This person might look at the decision of whether or not to buy a car and decide that the rare chances of needing to travel aren't worth the expense of buying/maintaining a car. The person could reasonably make the decision that buying a car isn't worthwhile.
HOWEVER, once they decide that they are going to buy a car, it wouldn't make sense for them to buy a very cheap car that is not reliable, or an electric car with a very short range on the basis that they will only very rarely need it. When they do need it, they're going to need it for a long trip, not a short one and because they're going on a long trip if it breaks down in the middle of a very long trip that won't be acceptable. Now that they're past the decision of whether or not to buy a car, they need to look at what they will likely use it for, not keep focusing on the overall likelihood of needing it in the first place.
Last edited:
But it isn't a question of "reliability". A more reliable car doesn't take more space than a less reliable one.
Handguns are a compromise. When you carry a handgun you are already signing up for that compromise, so then the question is just how compromised makes sense given the fact that you aren't going into battle - you're picking up dry cleaning.
A five shot .38 revolver is a terrible primary weapon for a SWAT team. But it isn't necessarily insufficient to -stop- a violent altercation before you are harmed, and that's all it needs to do. You aren't going to be hunting down your attackers.
If a group of armed people decide to kill you, there is no sidearm in the world that is going to stop them. Handguns only provide defense because the people we worry about aren't specifically trying to attack or kill us in particular. They are attacking other people (who are already dead by the time we know what's going on), or they are threatening to kill. And because they are not fully committed to our death, we can fight them and make it so they die, retreat or we can get away.
Given that, just about anything that looks, sounds and hurts like gun is going to work. And since we have real lives, the size, capacity and caliber of that gun has to serve us. I don't live to carry a gun - that's backwards.
All of the mass shootings we've had were as bad as they were because there wasn't even a single .22 fired back at these people. It only takes one well aimed shot to completely change a violent encounter.
Handguns are a compromise. When you carry a handgun you are already signing up for that compromise, so then the question is just how compromised makes sense given the fact that you aren't going into battle - you're picking up dry cleaning.
A five shot .38 revolver is a terrible primary weapon for a SWAT team. But it isn't necessarily insufficient to -stop- a violent altercation before you are harmed, and that's all it needs to do. You aren't going to be hunting down your attackers.
If a group of armed people decide to kill you, there is no sidearm in the world that is going to stop them. Handguns only provide defense because the people we worry about aren't specifically trying to attack or kill us in particular. They are attacking other people (who are already dead by the time we know what's going on), or they are threatening to kill. And because they are not fully committed to our death, we can fight them and make it so they die, retreat or we can get away.
Given that, just about anything that looks, sounds and hurts like gun is going to work. And since we have real lives, the size, capacity and caliber of that gun has to serve us. I don't live to carry a gun - that's backwards.
All of the mass shootings we've had were as bad as they were because there wasn't even a single .22 fired back at these people. It only takes one well aimed shot to completely change a violent encounter.
That is true. It may suffice.
True.
Well, if I am their intended victim, at the gas pump or at the ATM odor getting into my car or coming out of a store, that wouldn't hold.
What????
See how well you do at a defensive training course with something that does not balance, has a poor grip and a poor trigger, has poor sights, and has capacity insufficient for the drills.
The point was that if you're making a long trip, reliability is very important, even if the car is only going to be used very rarely. In other words, after having made the decision to buy a car, the use it will be put to becomes the most important factor in making the decision of what car to buy.
True and I'm not arguing that point. The issue is that once you've decided to carry a handgun, it doesn't make sense to justify the type of handgun based on the chances of needing one in the first place. That decision is already past. When making the decision of whether or not to buy a handgun, the chances of needing it should be factored into the decision.
When making the decision of which handgun to buy the main focus should be WHAT it will be needed for.
I agree and I've made the same point in the past. I carry a pistol which is a significant compromise over what I would carry if concealment was no object--most of us do. And I can even see how a person might end up choosing a very concealable handgun that is hard to shoot and only holds a few rounds--sometimes that's all a person can manage for one reason or another. The critical thing is for the decision to be made based on facts and logical decision-making processes, not based on misconceptions or logically flawed thinking, or purely based on opinion.
This focuses on only the two extremes of the spectrum--making it sound like there are only two kinds of attacks.
1. The kind where it's impossible to prevail with a handgun due to the number and determination of the attackers.
2. The kind where any handgun will work because the attackers just want to get away.
It's simply not true. There are also cases in between the two extremes. What about the case of one very determined attacker? Two determined attackers? What about the case of two attackers where one is determined and the other isn't? What about the case of two attackers, both of who are somewhat determined but are predisposed to stop attacking after any injury is sustained, however minor?
Obviously there is a pretty wide spectrum of possible attacks. One should consider the spectrum of reasonable possibilities, make a rational assessment of what they feel they can reasonable prepare for and then prepare for that.
That assessment might end up driving them towards carrying a snubby depending on what they feel they can/can't or will/won't do. What I see being done far more commonly is making a decision up front based on factors having nothing to do with likely scenarios and then trying to justify it after the fact.
Incorrect. In the worst mass shooting in the U.S. to date, the shooter was engaged early in the scenario by an off-duty cop working security. They traded shots, the cop was killed and the mass shooting continued.
John,
What I was trying to get at is that there are three kinds of attacks:
1. Assassination. Barring complete incompetence, this will succeed even if you are carrying a machinegun and wearing a vest. When your death is the main goal, there's nothing that can stop it.
2. Robbery/rape/kidnapping. The motivation for the assault is not your death, but some worldly reward you can provide. If the likelihood of living to see that reward or obtaining it gets too hard the attack will stop.
3. Spree killing. When the goal is to indiscriminately kill a bunch of people, there is a reward that doesn't necessarily involve any one person. So if your attacker makes it personal, your chances really aren't very good if they are using a rifle. But if you are an unappealing target or get in a lucky shot, the attacker may choose softer targets.
The police officer was not trying to save himself - he was being a police officer, which is not what we're talking about. Police go on the offence to defend the public. A CCW holder can do that, but that isn't the point.
I'm not making an argument for or against any particular weapon. But talking about what they teach at "defensive training courses" is just validating a popular stereotype of defensive shooting based on police and military experience, not a paradigm created specifically on civilian attacks.
If I were going to design a handgun course for civilians, no one would be firing with two hands, contact AND long range shooting would be focused on and the use of the handgun as a blunt object. The police type shooting that focuses on isosceles stance, reloads and malfunction clearing is play acting, not realistic to what a civilian needs to focus on to survive. Room clearing is for gun games and Delta Force. Our focus should be the equivalent to Jui Jitsu - down and dirty in the worst of circumstances.
What I was trying to get at is that there are three kinds of attacks:
1. Assassination. Barring complete incompetence, this will succeed even if you are carrying a machinegun and wearing a vest. When your death is the main goal, there's nothing that can stop it.
2. Robbery/rape/kidnapping. The motivation for the assault is not your death, but some worldly reward you can provide. If the likelihood of living to see that reward or obtaining it gets too hard the attack will stop.
3. Spree killing. When the goal is to indiscriminately kill a bunch of people, there is a reward that doesn't necessarily involve any one person. So if your attacker makes it personal, your chances really aren't very good if they are using a rifle. But if you are an unappealing target or get in a lucky shot, the attacker may choose softer targets.
The police officer was not trying to save himself - he was being a police officer, which is not what we're talking about. Police go on the offence to defend the public. A CCW holder can do that, but that isn't the point.
I'm not making an argument for or against any particular weapon. But talking about what they teach at "defensive training courses" is just validating a popular stereotype of defensive shooting based on police and military experience, not a paradigm created specifically on civilian attacks.
If I were going to design a handgun course for civilians, no one would be firing with two hands, contact AND long range shooting would be focused on and the use of the handgun as a blunt object. The police type shooting that focuses on isosceles stance, reloads and malfunction clearing is play acting, not realistic to what a civilian needs to focus on to survive. Room clearing is for gun games and Delta Force. Our focus should be the equivalent to Jui Jitsu - down and dirty in the worst of circumstances.
Sistema1927
Member
I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen. I do not have a fire truck in my driveway.
Life is full of choices, and Most of them involve compromise. There are plenty of folks who are well served by, and will never need more than, a J-frame revolver.
Life is full of choices, and Most of them involve compromise. There are plenty of folks who are well served by, and will never need more than, a J-frame revolver.
I understand what you were getting at with the attacks but your analysis is oversimplified.
For example, there are certainly robbers/rapists/kidnappers who get off on the violence and will continue to pursue violence even after the original benefit has been taken off the table as a rational factor in the equation.
Similarly, there are attempted assassinations which don't go down perfectly and where the target could save himself/herself even if the scenario starts off in the attackers favor.
And in spree killings, it's possible for the attacker(s) to get focused on a single target even if that might not be an ideal strategy.
I'm not trying to prove to people that it's useless to carry a snubby as a self-defense weapon, my point is that it's important to take a rational/logical approach to the decision making process of what to carry. That includes things like:
For example, there are certainly robbers/rapists/kidnappers who get off on the violence and will continue to pursue violence even after the original benefit has been taken off the table as a rational factor in the equation.
Similarly, there are attempted assassinations which don't go down perfectly and where the target could save himself/herself even if the scenario starts off in the attackers favor.
And in spree killings, it's possible for the attacker(s) to get focused on a single target even if that might not be an ideal strategy.
Perhaps, but that's irrelevant to your claim and my response. Your initial claim was that "All of the mass shootings we've had were as bad as they were because there wasn't even a single .22 fired back at these people." Clearly there were shots fired back at the attacker early in the Orlando attack and yet it went on to become the worst mass shooting in U.S. history.
I'm not trying to prove to people that it's useless to carry a snubby as a self-defense weapon, my point is that it's important to take a rational/logical approach to the decision making process of what to carry. That includes things like:
- Understanding/researching the reality of what kinds of threats might need to be processed. Answering questions like: Who might attack me? How determined might they be? How many could there be?
- Understanding/testing/quantifying the capabilities/limitations of the proposed solution. Answering questions like: How shootable is this carry gun? How many attackers could I expect to engage with any reasonable chance of success with this many rounds? What would my chance of success against a single determined attacker be with real-world hit rates? Can I afford to/will I practice with this firearm?
- Understanding/quantifying a reasonable solution space. Answering questions like: What can I afford? What can I carry? What can I conceal?
Last edited:
John,
I think we're on the same page. On your comments:
My point was not that a shot from any gun would have changed Orlando or any other shooting. What we do know is that no one put a bullet large or small in those attackers. I don't care if it was one 10mm out of 16, or a .22 out of NAA Mini. The attackers were never wounded by anyone. No hits, no results.
In the North Hollywood shootout, the attackers weren't stopped by superior weapons - but by flesh wounds to arms and legs.
- Having the gun is the most important thing. Smaller guns carry better, and can be easier to draw in difficult circumstances.
- Hitting with the gun is the second thing. A J frame can be shot very accurately, but not as easily as other guns, so this is a point against. But it will hit in situations where a larger auto might not function.
- Capacity is a good thing because it affords more chances to hit, but missing 15 times is just as valuable as missing once.
- Caliber makes a hit more valuable, but it somewhat decreases hit probability.
So I think there is a lot of value in a simple and small revolver. Especially one with a hammer. It requires less infrastructure, is capable of a great deal of precision and will fire in more circumstances than a recoil operated auto. Whether those advantages are enough to dethrone some other weapon is not a question we have real data to support.
I say all that as an "auto guy" who doesn't currently own a small revolver. But I see the downsides to the modern autopistol, and I think we downplay their deficiencies too often because of our attachment to the police/military paradigm.
I think we're on the same page. On your comments:
My point was not that a shot from any gun would have changed Orlando or any other shooting. What we do know is that no one put a bullet large or small in those attackers. I don't care if it was one 10mm out of 16, or a .22 out of NAA Mini. The attackers were never wounded by anyone. No hits, no results.
In the North Hollywood shootout, the attackers weren't stopped by superior weapons - but by flesh wounds to arms and legs.
- Having the gun is the most important thing. Smaller guns carry better, and can be easier to draw in difficult circumstances.
- Hitting with the gun is the second thing. A J frame can be shot very accurately, but not as easily as other guns, so this is a point against. But it will hit in situations where a larger auto might not function.
- Capacity is a good thing because it affords more chances to hit, but missing 15 times is just as valuable as missing once.
- Caliber makes a hit more valuable, but it somewhat decreases hit probability.
So I think there is a lot of value in a simple and small revolver. Especially one with a hammer. It requires less infrastructure, is capable of a great deal of precision and will fire in more circumstances than a recoil operated auto. Whether those advantages are enough to dethrone some other weapon is not a question we have real data to support.
I say all that as an "auto guy" who doesn't currently own a small revolver. But I see the downsides to the modern autopistol, and I think we downplay their deficiencies too often because of our attachment to the police/military paradigm.
Exactly correct.
That makes shootability and capacity critical factors to consider when ranking defensive weapons. It's important to choose a defensive weapon that facilitates good & fast hits under ideal circumstances, that allows/encourages enough practice to achieve that goal and that holds enough rounds to have a chance of making hits even with the skills degradation that comes from extreme stress and from shooting while trying not to get shot.
I certainly don't want discourage people from carrying. It is true that a very small, easy-to-carry, easy-to-conceal, hard-to-shoot, low capacity pistol is still very much worth having in a defensive scenario. But if one can improve a number of those factors and still have a gun that's small enough to carry and conceal then that makes a lot of sense.
Jim NE
Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2011
- Messages
- 1,888
farm23 said:
This is very true. I was surprised to find that my 13 year old son had trouble racking slides on some of the pistols we were shooting. (He's relatively new to shooting.) I had to reassess; yes, I really do have to put some power into racking the slide on many of my guns, and I'm 6'3" and 240 lb.s. I've gotten so used to the momentary discomfort of racking slides that I just ignore it.
I would say that .38 Special is adequate for defense. The J frame and similar sized guns are a comfortable carry. Since I like older J frames, I have to deal with the smaller wood grips, but they are usable, and much more concealable than big rubber grips. One set of grips that are just great are wood factory TARGET J frame grips from the 60's or whenever. I put some on a model 36 from the early 70's and they look and feel great! These old guns may not be officially rated for +P either, but I've put a few through my guns (S&W and Rossi) with no ill effects. Just don't use them all the time.
I bought a new J frame Smith that is +P rated, but don't really like the feel of the grips, so I haven't shot it yet. Also have a Taurus poly frame snubbie, but it is so light that you can really feel the recoil, despite the big squishy grips. A really good feeling gun is the Rossi 88/or 68, but they are a little bit heavier carry than a J frame Smith. I also have a recent 351 Rossi, and they made the frame a bit lighter than the old 68's, so it may be more carry-able.
This is very true. I was surprised to find that my 13 year old son had trouble racking slides on some of the pistols we were shooting. (He's relatively new to shooting.) I had to reassess; yes, I really do have to put some power into racking the slide on many of my guns, and I'm 6'3" and 240 lb.s. I've gotten so used to the momentary discomfort of racking slides that I just ignore it.
I would say that .38 Special is adequate for defense. The J frame and similar sized guns are a comfortable carry. Since I like older J frames, I have to deal with the smaller wood grips, but they are usable, and much more concealable than big rubber grips. One set of grips that are just great are wood factory TARGET J frame grips from the 60's or whenever. I put some on a model 36 from the early 70's and they look and feel great! These old guns may not be officially rated for +P either, but I've put a few through my guns (S&W and Rossi) with no ill effects. Just don't use them all the time.
I bought a new J frame Smith that is +P rated, but don't really like the feel of the grips, so I haven't shot it yet. Also have a Taurus poly frame snubbie, but it is so light that you can really feel the recoil, despite the big squishy grips. A really good feeling gun is the Rossi 88/or 68, but they are a little bit heavier carry than a J frame Smith. I also have a recent 351 Rossi, and they made the frame a bit lighter than the old 68's, so it may be more carry-able.
Yes, smaller and lather guns do "carry better", but in general they are not as easy to shoot well.
There are quite a number of good defensive pistols that are essentially the same size as a five shot snubby remover that are a lot more shootable and that have a larger capacity. Mine has a better trigger pull, better sights, a better gip, and a sixty percent higher capacity.
Do not confuse "accuracy" with defensive shooting effectiveness. The latter involves a balance of speed and precision. The objective is to hit the attacker as many times as necessary while one has the chance.
?
Yes, capacity is a very good thing.
Again, Post #153 v contains some analysis that explains why.
That's really off topic here.
One really does not want to carry a defensive revolver with a hammer--do some reading on that.
We acquired a Ruger SP 101 for back up last year, and the first thing we did was bob the hammer.
TimSr
Member
I can't help but wonder how and if that has changed from the days when LEOs primarily carried revolvers. I wonder if they used to put more effort into making them count when they only had six.
azrocks
Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2016
- Messages
- 659
When people don't realize how much of an impact stress has on their shooting ability, it's a dead giveaway that they've never actually experienced true stress during fire.
I strongly suggest that anyone & everyone carrying a handgun for self-defense go out and shoot a couple IDPA / USPSA courses if you haven't already. You'll be amazed what the (relatively minor) stress of just being on a clock and in competition will do to your abilities. Then you can sit and reflect on how much worse you would have performed if the targets had been shooting back.
It will prove an eye-opening experience.
There are two potential issue with hammers on defensive revolvers.
One is snagging. The design of the old S&W Bodyguard eliminates that problem.
The other is the extremely light pull of a cocked hammer, which can create serious risks under stress.
That was what led to the modification of police service revolvers to prevent their being cocked.
- Status
Similar threads
