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

[Kendal Black]

I have carried revolvers with hammer and without. If your revolver has a hammer spur, the snagging problem can be avoided by pressing the pad of your thumb (pressing forward not back) onto the hammer spur when you grasp the gun to draw it. Your thumb provides, as it were, a temporary shroud to avoid snagging on things.

As to cocking the gun and thereby producing a too-light trigger pull, that is a question of operator judgment. In general, the idea as I understand it is that you shoot the gun DA. The single action option might be useful in a rare case but wouldn't be used routinely. Training courses presumed DA operation nearly all the time.

De-horning police revolvers was by no means universal practice; it was done by a few departments including, I think, New York City's PD, but it was not necessary and created a problem with some holsters--in that the retention strap went behind the spur.

Blast from the past:

 

[Sistema1927]

While watching that video I wanted to scream "Trigger, Trigger, TRIGGER!"

Also, that unload procedure of rotating the revolver with the barrel pointing to the rear would get you booted from most ranges today.

 

[moonman16]

J-Frame, or K-frame S&W revolvers are great, with a speed loader, or a couple speed strips, you're good to go.

SNUBBIES are expert handguns and you must practice regularly with them.

Some folks carry a NY or Chicago Reload. (a snubby AND a semi-auto together).

 

[Bama Drifter]

I carried a 2" Smith 36 every day... until the "Aloha Snackbar" types started getting active on this side of the Atlantic.

Against a meth head in the Giant Eagle parking lot, it seemed perfectly adequate.

Against Johnny Jihad? Not so much.

It's reasonable to assume that somebody who wants my HEAD as opposed to my wallet and doesn't care if he survives, is going to take stronger medicine, and likely more of it.

Now it's a 3 1/2" M1911 or a Glock 19.

Same sentiment here. Again, I view the snubby as a New York reload for my G19.

Sent from my HUAWEI G620-A2 using Tapatalk

 

[Kleanbore]

I have carried revolvers with hammer and without.

A number of us have.

If your revolver has a hammer spur, the snagging problem can be avoided by pressing the pad of your thumb (pressing forward not back) onto the hammer spur when you grasp the gun to draw it. Your thumb provides, as it were, a temporary shroud to avoid snagging on things.

Yep.

As to cocking the gun and thereby producing a too-light trigger pull, that is a question of operator judgment. In general, the idea as I understand it is that you shoot the gun DA. The single action option might be useful in a rare case but wouldn't be used routinely. Training courses presumed DA operation nearly all the time.

Far too deep for this discussion, but if the revolver can be fired single action, there is a risk of exposure to civil suits.

 

[Kendal Black]

While watching that video I wanted to scream "Trigger, Trigger, TRIGGER!"

I know, right? But it did not seem as urgent a question when triggers were 10-12 pounds with a long stroke, and poking your thumb up against the back of the hammer would stop everything.

Also, that unload procedure of rotating the revolver with the barrel pointing to the rear would get you booted from most ranges today.

Reloading the DA revolver has always been a bit of a production. Simpler reloading is definitely a point for the autoshucker.

 

[RX-79G]

Are we talking about cops and revolvers or CCW? What civil suit?

The only way cocking a revolver is bad for us is if you accidentally shoot and hit the wrong thing. But, I'm told you have to put your finger on the trigger for that to happen.

The upside to a hammer is that even a snubbie can be fired with immense precision when the hammer is cocked. More precision than most autos. So a revolver is a DAO gun that can be pressed into service as something more precise - when appropriate (like a long shot).

Options are good when you are preparing for something unknowable.

 

[Kendal Black]

...

Far too deep for this discussion, but if the revolver can be fired single action, there is a risk of exposure to civil suits.

Honesty is the best policy. "Your honor, I did not have time to cock a hammer. My training informed me not to take the time to do that."

Or, "The active shooter was forty yards from me, but I knew from past training that fully cocking the gun would help me end the massacre."

Those answers are in case the question comes up. How often does that come up?

I too would like case citations, for if I had a 1911 the only defense would be to say, "Damned right, judge! I shot him single action! What was I supposed to do, kiss him?"

 

[Propforce]

That violates one of the basic tenets of risk management.

Consider the situation once the need arises.

Not singling you out. I thought exactly the same way at one time.

Just personal observation on "risk management" aspect of carry.

Risk management analyze various scenarios and assign "probability" and "severity" for each scenario. But the basis of this "probability" should have a sound basis based on your life style, crime rate near your homes and places you frequent, routes of your daily commute, etc. otherwise they are just hypotheticals with no basis to assign a numerical value of "probability" of this happens to you.

For example, say I am 50 years old and, base on my past 50 years of life style history, I have never once in danger of being robbed, raped, or killed, then I would say my "probability" of this happening is at a low % probability.

But regardless of probability, if this scenario ever has a slightest possibility of occurring, what is the "severity" of consequences you are willing to accept? If the "severity" is only limited to the loss of your cash, then you are facing a different threshold of accepting this "risk" vs. the "severity" involves the loss of life either yourself or your loved ones.

Here comes the difficult part, how do I assign a % probability of being mugged by a single person with a gun? Two persons? A group of gang members? If I have a good paying job and faithfully married, mostly stay home after dark, do not go to night clubs and stay beyond midnight, what is the probability that I get into a fight under intoxication and may result in I pulling my gun?

Most of us can only do qualitative assessment of our risk situations. If the probability is low based on history, though the severity is high, some are willing to accept this risk and carry a J-frame is more than enough. One can say this person has a higher "risk tolerance level" than a person who feel anything less than 15 rounds plus 2 magazine reloads is considered "inadequate".

There is no right or wrong answer as the decision is highly individualistic. The crime statistics are just that, statistics. But if you do not fit the "profile" in those statistics, then the probability of you being that part of statistics is low.

 

[RX-79G]

I touched on this earlier, but it seems appropriate to point out that revolvers (and a few autos) are generally safer for administrative handling. Heavyish triggers and being able to load and unload without any firing components being involved.

For most of us, the biggest risk is not being in a fight, it is an ND. Revolvers reduce that more probable risk.

 

[Kleanbore]

Are we talking about cops and revolvers or CCW?

All of the above.

What civil suit?[/QUOTE}A claim by a plaintiff that an injury resulted from an unintentional discharge. That can come up even if the actor claims he fired intentionally, double action. That's where the money is (if you have homeowner's insurance). And the burden of proof is low.

The upside to a hammer is that even a snubbie can be fired with immense precision when the hammer is cocked.

Anyone who has ever fired one at a target knows that.

Anyone who has had any SD training knows to not even think about it.

And anyone with any real knowledge of use of force law knows to strongly consider getting that hammer bobbed.

Now when one is carrying a semi-auto, the issue is simple: is the trigger as stock design, or has someone monkeyed with it?

Again, too deep for this discussion, and one more time, read up on it.

 

[redbullitt]

I like the 38 snub, well more specifically a 357 snub just for versatility. Gun was a snub sp101. Awesome little thing. I have had good success loading low end 357 charges with speer 135 gold dots, well i guess they would be more like hot hot 38s in a 357 case. Those would absolutely do a fine job if I needed them. Recoil is not noticeably different than normal defensive 38 special loadings really, and flash is not bad depending on powder of course. I would never limit myself to just a 38 when the 357 adds a good bit more versatility in pretty much the same platform, even if you never actually fire a full house magnum loading.

One thing people tend to forget when comparing revolver cartridges to autoloaders is bullet profile and shape. You can feed things through a revolver that will absolutely choke an autoloader. Wide flat nose hollow points will pretty much always have better terminal effects when compared to the pointed ones that will feed in autoloaders. Right? I have shot deer with round nose cast bullets and wide flat nosed bullets. The WFN always seems to do a better job there.

 

[RX-79G]

Anyone who has ever fired one at a target knows that.

Anyone who has had any SD training knows to not even think about it.

This is, frankly, a bit insulting.

There are a lot of different SD training schools and philosophies, and some of them do dedicate part of the curriculum to shooting at up to 100 yards. Which I think is plenty smart - since we don't know what our one SD situation will be.

Do you think those trainers tell their students not to cock the hammer on their revolver or auto for shooting prone at long distances?


You appear to be adhering to more of the rank and file, IDPA, police style of training.

 

[Kendal Black]

All of the above.

What civil suit?

A claim by a plaintiff that an injury resulted from an unintentional discharge. ...

Again, too deep for this discussion, and one more time, read up on it.

A new thread, perhaps in general topics, might help people read up on it, with citations and so on. Sticky material?

 

[crazyjennyblack]

Frankly, I think cocking the hammer for a more accurate shot is one of the few advantages the .38 snubbie has. Shot placement is important, and I'd rather get off one good shot than two bad ones. If I can't do that, then I'd rather carry a pocket .380. Which is what I do carry as a backup. It's a lot smaller, lighter, and more accurate (for me, at least.)

I had a snubbie for one of my first guns. I still have it, but it stays in the safe. There are just so many better things out there.

 

[TimSr]

I once shot a rattlesnake out from under my dog when he ignored my commands to get back. This was from 15' or so. I cocked the hammer. the snake didn't sure. Not every defensive use of a firearm is a two way firefight to the death.

 

[Kleanbore]

Do you think those trainers tell their students not to cock the hammer on their revolver or auto for shooting prone at long distances?

Well, no. Many courses do address the possibility of the need to take out an active shooter at some distance---usually for completeness, or as something of an afterthought.

What it will tell the student is that if getting into a defensive situation is a bad thing, trying to use a concealed weapon to handle a long distance threat is a lot worse.

Most of the content of most training pertains to the things that a defender is most likely to encounter--the rapidly unfolding, unexpected, violent attack in close quarters-- the ambush.

Nothing like range shooting, in which the shooter is already facing in the direction of a stationary target that he or she has been planning to shoot.

The drill involves identifying the threat and turning towards him; drawing, while moving off line; and shooting as quickly as possible, an many as times as necessary as fast as possible with sufficient precision.

No one in his right mind would consider cocking a DA revolver in such a situation.

Of a threat is moving at, say, five meters per second, drawing and presenting and firing once is likely quite a challenge. Shooting a sufficient number of times to effect a quick stop is yet another.

My confidence that I can do so is not as high as the average internet theorist would like. I start with high alertness, I avoid anywhere that looks iffy, ant I avoid letting my focus distract me.

I carry eight shots--striker fired. More might be better.

You appear to be adhering to more of the rank and file, IDPA, police style of training.

Not at all. I am describing defensive shooting training.

 

[azrocks]

It's certainly possible to manually cock your j-frame snubby for a more accurate shot. But you think you're going to get that chance in a gunfight that statistically will last just seconds? And if you're in a position to take the time to make an aimed single-action shot at distance, are you also likely to have the time to otherwise extricate yourself from the situation? Those are questions the DA might ask.

The way I see it, a hammer is an option on a revolver carried in an IWB/OWB holster, but if you're pocket-carrying, the odds of the hammer causing you problems on the draw greatly outweigh the odds of being forced to make a long-range SA shot. For this reason I think hammers on pocket-carry guns are an incredibly bad idea.

 

[RX-79G]

"Statistically", I'm not going to end up in a gunfight. If I do, it is not likely to be typical to much of anything, because they are so rare for people like us.

So much of SD training is based on this idea of a "likely scenerio", but unless you live in a ghetto or work in a commonly targeted business, there is no likely scenario.

Violent crime rates for dense cities vs. suburbs vs. rural show that violence does not follow the patterns we expect. You aren't really in more danger because you are downtown than you are hiking in the country. Should you stumble on someone's marijuana grow or meth lab, you could easily find yourself in a fight/flight in a fairly wide open space. Or you could be in a suburban park hiding behind the only cover for 100 yards with your attacker heading for you.

It simply doesn't make sense to view SD for people that are already avoiding trouble as having any typical or likely format - especially one that bears resemblance to a wild west, police or Charles Bronson sort of encounter. The New Life Church shootings in 2007 provide a clear example of how a civilian situation can involve greater than expected ranges. So why do we have expected SD scenarios?

 

[45_auto]

So why do we have expected SD scenarios?

Most people have them so they can make an educated decision as to the degree of self defense they will require.

If your expected self-defense scenario involves defending against multiple trained gunmen equipped with assault rifles, I would suggest at a minimum no less than a typical full combat load out (M4 with 7 each 30 round magazines) with an M1A2 Abrams in reserve.

If you're going for a midnight walk with your significant other all decked out in their diamonds and gold jewelry in downtown Detroit or Chicago, a defensive armament similar to the above may still be in order.

On the other hand, a typical upper middle class American (household income $100,000 to $350,000) living in a low crime area may have an expected SD scenario involving a yipping chihuahua and happily live their entire life require nothing in the way of self defense other than a loud voice.

 

[Kleanbore]

"Statistically", I'm not going to end up in a gunfight.

It is true that on any one day, none of us is likely at all likely to be victimized by violent crime. Over a lifetime, the likelihood is much higher --up to one person out of two is likely to be victimized at least once, and that will vary greatly among demographics and other things.

It really doesn't matter whether the attacker use a firearm or a contact weapon.

If I do, it is not likely to be typical to much of anything, because they are so rare for people like us.

The common elements will sunrise most of us. One to three people, a distance of ten to twelve feet, no really obvious or overt warning, a victim who is preoccupied with something else....

So much of SD training is based on this idea of a "likely scenerio", but unless you live in a ghetto or work in a commonly targeted business, there is no likely scenario.

Matter of definition. One can characterize the more expectable events in which one might be involved when loading the car, leaving a restaurant, using the ATM, arriving home in the driveway, refueling......

One need not be "targeted". It is a simple matter of being victimized.

Violent crime rates for dense cities vs. suburbs vs. rural show that violence does not follow the patterns we expect. You aren't really in more danger because you are downtown than you are hiking in the country. Should you stumble on someone's marijuana grow or meth lab, you could easily find yourself in a fight/flight in a fairly wide open space. Or you could be in a suburban park hiding behind the only cover for 100 yards with your attacker heading for you.

I'm not sure about the statistics or danger levels, but that is a good evaluation about the need for preparedness under different circumstances.

It simply doesn't make sense to view SD for people that are already avoiding trouble as having any typical or likely format - especially one that bears resemblance to a wild west, police or Charles Bronson sort of encounter. The New Life Church shootings in 2007 provide a clear example of how a civilian situation can involve greater than expected ranges. So why do we have expected SD scenarios?

Simple. If you are the victim of a sudden, unexpected, violent attack of a kind that was not readily foreseen and avoided, and that could be effectively and defended against with a handgun, there are certain common elements that can be attributed to most such incidents. These will include such things as distance.

This is a pretty good read on the subject.

I strongly recommend attending the Combat Focus Shooting course.

Note that in one of the FAQs, it is stated that if one normally carries as nubby revolver, it is okay to bring one. Having taken the course, I suggest having a Plan B.

This one is also with reading.

 

[azrocks]

"Statistically", I'm not going to end up in a gunfight. If I do, it is not likely to be typical to much of anything, because they are so rare for people like us.

So much of SD training is based on this idea of a "likely scenerio", but unless you live in a ghetto or work in a commonly targeted business, there is no likely scenario.

Violent crime rates for dense cities vs. suburbs vs. rural show that violence does not follow the patterns we expect. You aren't really in more danger because you are downtown than you are hiking in the country. Should you stumble on someone's marijuana grow or meth lab, you could easily find yourself in a fight/flight in a fairly wide open space. Or you could be in a suburban park hiding behind the only cover for 100 yards with your attacker heading for you.

It simply doesn't make sense to view SD for people that are already avoiding trouble as having any typical or likely format - especially one that bears resemblance to a wild west, police or Charles Bronson sort of encounter. The New Life Church shootings in 2007 provide a clear example of how a civilian situation can involve greater than expected ranges. So why do we have expected SD scenarios?

You're beginning to fall victim to the temptation of defending your argument for argument's sake. If what you insinuate is true - long range contacts are just as likely as short-range - then the snub-nose revolver is at an even greater disadvantage than already discussed. In fact, when you start pushing the distances out to the ranges you've mentioned, I'd propose that your snub-nose will be essentially worthless. Then again, maybe your imaginary bad guys will stand real still while you line up that shot. Me... if I was that far away... I'd be looking to continue increasing that distance. But I'm sure you'll be able to explain to the DA - assuming divine intervention does see your rounds contacting true - why you felt it necessary to 'defend' yourself from 100 yards away.

But the idea that scenarios can't be judged on a likelihood of probability and planned for accordingly is ludicrous. We make decisions based on the likelihood of events happening on a daily basis. If common sense coupled with an introspective look at your environment and your interaction with it don't give you the clues necessary, crime statistics are a good place to start. It really is much more probable that you'll be mugged than it is you'll be involved in a long-range shootout with a handgun, and that's without considering location or other pertinent variables. Preparing for anything in life is all about prioritization.

You said above that you believe our greatest danger to be not getting in a gunfight, but having an ND. But all you have to do to prevent an ND is to keep your finger off the trigger until your muzzle is covering something you're willing to destroy. Winning a fight takes a lot more than that. Personally - if I felt I was in greater danger from an ND than losing a gunfight - I wouldn't carry a gun. I'm curious what drives you to carry when you apparently feel you're more a danger to yourself than the people you're carrying to protect against?

 

[RX-79G]

Crime statistics aren't plug and play for YOUR life. We can talk all day about the crime in Chicagoland, but no one in Kenilworth or Wilmette ever hears a gunshot. What value do those statistics have in shaping a likelihood for us if they are mainly derived from lifestyles we don't have?

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


As far as shooting at longer range goes, that was about whether you should have a hammer and whether it should ever be cocked or not. For a subcompact handgun, a snubbie with a hammer is going to be more accurate at longer ranges than a Shield or Kahr PM9.

You said above that you believe our greatest danger to be not getting in a gunfight, but having an ND. But all you have to do to prevent an ND is to keep your finger off the trigger until your muzzle is covering something you're willing to destroy. Winning a fight takes a lot more than that. Personally - if I felt I was in greater danger from an ND than losing a gunfight - I wouldn't carry a gun. I'm curious what drives you to carry when you apparently feel you're more a danger to yourself than the people you're carrying to protect against?

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.

I am a careful guy, but I've been nearly shot several times by incompetent fellow gun owners - including once at a gun show, where I wasn't hit but another bystander was. I have never even felt close to being in a threatening situation, let alone seen or witnessed a violent crime. And I have lived in lots of interesting places.

 

[azrocks]

Crime statistics aren't plug and play for YOUR life. We can talk all day about the crime in Chicagoland, but no one in Kenilworth or Wilmette ever hears a gunshot. What value does those statistics have in shaping a likelihood for us if they are mainly derived from lifestyles we don't have?

I was kind of figuring crime statistics for your area, not for a random city.

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

So it's absurd to talk about likely scenarios that may inform your choice of a defensive firearm, but it's logical to carry a firearm when you A) don't think you need to, and B) consider your own negligent discharge more of a danger to your safety than the criminals you'd potentially defend yourself from? In the immortal words of Ron Burgundy, "That doesn't make any sense".

You make it sound like ordering potential events from 'least likely' to 'most likely' is some sort of magical feat. It's not really that hard. The fact you can't know for certainty exactly what threat you may face does not mean you shouldn't do everything in your power to predict the threats you're most likely to encounter.

As far as shooting at longer range goes, that was about whether you should have a hammer and whether it should ever be cocked or not. For a subcompact handgun, a snubbie with a hammer is going to be more accurate at longer ranges than a Shield or Kahr PM9.

I understand that. And again - it comes down to priorities. What are the chances I'll need to make a 100 yard shot with a handgun to defend my life against an immediate threat? What are the chances I'll need a handgun to defend my life within 20 feet against an immediate threat? Based on the answers to those two questions, will it be better to have a hammer that can provide me long(er) range accuracy, or will it be better not to so as to avoid snagging on the draw?

 

[RX-79G]

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.

Because I don't think they exist the way you and Kleanbore make it sound. I think they if you could break it down that way you would find little of statistical value.

So it's absurd to talk about likely scenarios that may inform your choice of a defensive firearm, but it's logical to carry a firearm when you A) don't think you need to, and B) consider your own negligent discharge more of a danger to your safety than the criminals you'd potentially defend yourself from? In the immortal words of Ron Burgundy, "That doesn't make any sense".

Who says I "don't think I need to"? Statistically, none of "need to", but if it is convenient to carry I do so to close that tiny gap between likelihood and possibility.

NDs are, statistically and realistically a greater threat to the safety of all gun owners than the likelihood of an attack. It isn't what I think - it is a demonstrable fact. We can mitigate those dangers without disarming ourselves. I don't understand your need to be binary about that.