Retro Carry Guns & The Stigma Surrounding Them

BLACKHAWKNJ said:

i recall George C. Nonte writing that his first revolver was an H&R revolver which he found was not up to sustained double action shooting, but those old store brand/mail order guns were affordable.

Click to expand...

Did he explain what "sustained double action shooting" even means or how that might relate to what the owner might actually do?

Think about what uses the person buying an H&R or Hopkins & Allen or any of the Brazillion other handgun makers in the US might have had?

Self Defense was possibly part of it but varmint control or pot fixin's or plinking were far more likely actual uses. I can remember even into the 1950s and 1960s being able to buy cartridges by the unit rather than a full box. Most of the folk buying handguns guns at any price point might use a box of ammo every year, maybe less.

I have three H&R revolvers, one I bought back in 1955 IIRC and it still functions pretty much just as it did back then as do the other two as well. It's seen far more use in the last three or four decades before then.



and the old holster I found in a barn and thought was really cool.

Mr. Mosin said:

Similar to police switching from the humble .38 Spl to 9x19mm.... they didn't switch because of a lack of capability... they switched because of a lack of capacity.

Click to expand...

Lack of capacity, and the hit probability for most shooters with the autos went up considerably.

Even if the average hit probability of the revolver shooters happened to carry over, at least they had more chances of making a hit with the high cap autos.

There’s a stigma today because they don’t work as well today as what is available today.

I’d rather have any of those than a sharp stick, but there’s a reason why for all but the most niche of uses, a .25 has been relegated to curio status, and why manufacturers gave up on cheap top-breaks. Even an FN 1922 or equivalent .32 or .380, while effective, is sorely lacking compared to a modern 9mm of lighter weight, smaller dimensions, and equivalent or greater capacity. So you’ll never hear anyone advising someone to carry one of the older type because all things considered, it’s bad advice. It’s also why a younger guy on a forum may not be taken too seriously when he starts singing the praises of his PPK or Beretta Jetfire as the ultimate CCW piece, while grudging respect may be given to the old-timer who chimes in that he’s been carrying one for the last 5 decades.

That being said, those guns will probably still do the job fine when it comes down to it, if you do your part, so objectively there’s nothing wrong with carrying one if you really like it or it’s all you have.

the stigma exists becuase the Newhall incident - where two cops went into a situation they were unprepared for and not ready for, and did not make it. the evaluation of the incident was very wrong IMHO, as was Miami Dade. both incidents basically, the police showed up to a gunfight with knives. They knew there was going to be a gunfight and they were up against guys who were armed and very willing to fight. none of these cops IMHO needed high capacity 9mm handguns or fancy ammunition, they needed shotguns, or AR-15s. focusing on the handguns, and not larger tactical mistakes, is a mistake IMHO. Seriously though, if you know you're going to be in a gunfight, are you showing up with a pistol? any pistol? and only a pistol? seems like a wicked bad strategy. basically showing up to a gun fight with a knife, same basic idea no matter what pistol anyone has.

Mosin77 said:

That being said, those guns will probably still do the job fine when it comes down to it, if you do your part, so objectively there’s nothing wrong with carrying one if you really like it or it’s all you have.

Click to expand...

They can and will, "if" you do your part and put in the time and effort to make it happen. That means constantly working on your shooting and other skills. Shooting is just one part of it.

Being able to quickly and effortlessly get the gun into action and shoot from how you carry it is a big part of all this. You can be the best shot in the world with it, but if you cant get it out and going quickly, and make good hits as you do, whats it matter?

Gun handling and reloads are other things that need constant practice. If you choose something that has a lower capacity, you need to reload the gun more often, and need to be able to do it as seamlessly as possible. Stoppages are another issue you need to be up on.

If its all you have, its all you have, and you have to do your best to make it work. And thats up to you. If youre comfortable with and know the capabilities of what it is you choose, its likely not going to be an issue.

If you have the capability of getting something better, then the question becomes, why wouldnt you?

Mosin77 said:

There’s a stigma today because they don’t work as well today as what is available today.

I’d rather have any of those than a sharp stick, but there’s a reason why for all but the most niche of uses, a .25 has been relegated to curio status, and why manufacturers gave up on cheap top-breaks. Even an FN 1922 or equivalent .32 or .380, while effective, is sorely lacking compared to a modern 9mm of lighter weight, smaller dimensions, and equivalent or greater capacity. So you’ll never hear anyone advising someone to carry one of the older type because all things considered, it’s bad advice. It’s also why a younger guy on a forum may not be taken too seriously when he starts singing the praises of his PPK or Beretta Jetfire as the ultimate CCW piece, while grudging respect may be given to the old-timer who chimes in that he’s been carrying one for the last 5 decades.

That being said, those guns will probably still do the job fine when it comes down to it, if you do your part, so objectively there’s nothing wrong with carrying one if you really like it or it’s all you have.

Click to expand...

I'm still not sure how more rounds or a higher caliber will make me any safer.

I'm nearly 80 years old. Sure, I have some pistols that have magazines that hold more than ten rounds; I have some pistols that are chambered in 9mm Parabellum or 45acp; I have some revolvers chambered in 357 Magnum, 45 Colt, 45acp and even 44 Magnum.

But I don't feel any safer when carrying one of those instead of the 7.65 Walther PP that I am carrying today or the Colt Detective Special that I was carrying last week.

I'm not police, not military, will not be making traffic stops, arrests, serving warrants, interfering in domestic disputes or ever taking 40 yard shots with a handgun. I will not be taking shots I think I can make except at the range. If I was attacked by a herd of zombies it really wouldn't matter what caliber handgun I was carrying or how many rounds I had available.

I don't choose +P ammunition. I mostly stick to plain old FMJ ball. I seldom carry spare magazines although I do often drop a couple speed strips of 38 Special or 32 S&W long or 38S&W in my pocket when I carry a wheel gun.

But back when I was a younger guy I still tended to prefer to carry 32acp pistols over the 380 and 9mm parabellum ones. And even into the Wonder Nine era there wasn't much weight difference between my 9mm parabellum ones and the modern polymer ones.

Mr. Mosin said:

Similar to police switching from the humble .38 Spl to 9x19mm.... they didn't switch because of a lack of capability... they switched because of a lack of capacity.

Click to expand...

They switched because department policy told them to switch.

trackskippy said:

It doesnt matter what the "gear" is, its what you can do with it. Some things just give you the capability to do more, should you need to.

Of course, you actually have to put in the constant time and effort to be able to be capable and proficent. Its not a free ride, or "The Matrix".

Click to expand...

Which has Zero to do with WHEN a firearm/cartridge was made and EVERTHING to do with the design/execution of that firearm.

Example... Your "New" Glock 17 is now over 40 YEARS OLD. Your prefered cartridge 9mm is over 120 YEARS OLD. There is nothing "NEW" about a Glock 17 or 9mm. Glock even makes a Retro version. You may have just recently discovered Glocks and 9mm but its been around for a loooong time. If something New was released tomorrow and didnt perform you probably wouldnt like it any more than something released 50 years ago and couldnt perform. Glocks are popular because its a simple design that works. There is nothing New about that concept in a firearm.

As far as doing more goes.... thats all relevent to the design of the pistol and cartridge as well. A Smith model 36 can be carried and fired from a pocket. A browning Baby can literally be concealed under a hat. A smith and wesson 29 can take down Large game fairly easily. All of them "old" Guns.

In the end you determine what the task at hand is and you choose a well designed/well made particle accelerator for that task the best you can... what you can afford... and yet ALSO the best you can comfortably carry, use, and like to shoot. If for you thats an old Glock... thats what you should carry. Someone else it may be an old S&W model 19... thats what they should carry. 1911.. hi-power...Combat master.... whatever your pleasure. Lots of good designs and cartridges out there to choose from. Has nothing to do with WHEN they (pistol/cartridge) were designed or released to the public. It has EVERYTHING to do with the design itself.

I wouldnt advise people to carry rimfires or blackpowder pistols for self DEFENSE though. Primers are our friends in terms of a daily CCW. Carrying a "race gun" is kind silly IMO. Makes about as much sense as carrying a scoped 454 casull hunting revolver for self defense.

Hot shot rapid fire bullet spraying mentality is also best left for the range. Somebody tries to pull that off in a defensive situation all the other law abiding civilians with CCWs can easily become the next threat/target when they are defending themselves against a reckless CCW holder who is suffering from tactical overload mindset.. Then all hell breaks lose and who needs that? There is a point where Defensive VS Offense can escalate into a Defense VS Defense scenario..... Just as there is a point when Defensive vs Offensive can escalate into Offensive vs Offensive scenario.

No matter what I carry, or what anyone else carries, there will be someone, somewhere, who will scoff at it, for some reason. Thus far, today, I have carried an S&W Model 64-2, 2” barrel .38 Special, loaded with Buffalo Bore 150-grain full wadcutters. I will probably up-gun, by adding a second weapon, when I drive through the Alief area, a notoriously “bad part of town,” and then later drive in the other direction, to my mother’s house, and some other rural destinations. Maybe I will carry an other-than-Colt “Peacemaker.”

As far as I know, none of my kin, from whom I am descended, in recent generations, carried handguns. The Texas legislature banned handgun carry about 1877, and did not enact legal handgun carry, again, until the 1990s. I started carrying in 1984, when I was sworn as an LEO.

starling said:

Which has Zero to do with WHEN a firearm/cartridge was made and EVERTHING to do with the design/execution of that firearm.

Example... Your "New" Glock 17 is now over 40 YEARS OLD. Your prefered cartridge 9mm is over 120 YEARS OLD. There is nothing "NEW" about a Glock 17 or 9mm. Glock even makes a Retro version. You may have just recently discovered Glocks and 9mm but its been around for a loooong time. If something New was released tomorrow and didnt perform you probably wouldnt like it any more than something released 50 years ago and couldnt perform. Glocks are popular because its a simple design that works. There is nothing New about that concept in a firearm.

As far as doing more goes.... thats all relevent to the design of the pistol and cartridge as well. A Smith model 36 can be carried and fired from a pocket. A browning Baby can literally be concealed under a hat. A smith and wesson 29 can take down Large game fairly easily. All of them "old" Guns.

In the end you determine what the task at hand is and you choose a well designed/well made particle accelerator for that task the best you can... what you can afford... and yet ALSO the best you can comfortably carry, use, and like to shoot. If for you thats an old Glock... thats what you should carry. Someone else it may be an old S&W model 19... thats what they should carry. 1911.. hi-power...Combat master.... whatever your pleasure. Lots of good designs and cartridges out there to choose from. Has nothing to do with WHEN they (pistol/cartridge) were designed or released to the public. It has EVERYTHING to do with the design itself.

I wouldnt advise people to carry rimfires or blackpowder pistols for self DEFENSE though. Primers are our friends in terms of a daily CCW. Carrying a "race gun" is kind silly IMO. Makes about as much sense as carrying a scoped 454 casull hunting revolver for self defense.

Hot shot rapid fire bullet spraying mentality is also best left for the range. Somebody tries to pull that off in a defensive situation all the other law abiding civilians with CCWs can easily become the next threat/target when they are defending themselves against a reckless CCW holder who is suffering from tactical overload mindset.. Then all hell breaks lose and who needs that? There is a point where Defensive VS Offense can escalate into a Defense VS Defense scenario..... Just as there is a point when Defensive vs Offensive can escalate into Offensive vs Offensive scenario.

Click to expand...

You kind of lost me. All Im saying is, you need to be competent and proficient with whatever it is you carry, and understand its limitations, should it have any.

The only way to know and understand what is actually what, is to actually put a reasonable amount of time in with as many different things as you can, so you can at least make a reasonable decision on what will likely work best. The world continues to move forward, and guns and training move right with it. If you dont continue to move along with things, and continue to learn as you go, you tend to get left behind.

And where did the last part come from? Who said anything about spraying rounds around?

“beware of the old man with just one gun…he probably knows how to use it.”

know yourself, your capabilities, your gear, your locale, your likely threats. carry that handgun that you will actually and regularly carry, and have practiced with and cleaned regularly. a soldier or a policeman must actively engage and ultimately defeat the threat. i’m just looking to disengage intact. if “retro” means 22lr, 25acp, 32acp or 38sp, it’s ok for me, as my life is mostly “retro” now too.

In 1909 there was a strong argument for revolvers. Semi-auto tech was in its infancy and although it was inarguably the latest and greatest, with a theoretical advantage in terms of capacity (slight) and reload speed (dramatic) there was a lot of justifiable concern about real, in the field reliability, given the generally less than perfected cartridge manufacture of the time. If a revolver fails to fire you just go on to the next round. If a semi-auto fails it jams up the whole weapon.

This factor continued to be a realistic consideration into the 1980s when cartridge uniformity (probably fixed sometime between the wars) and consistency in manufacture were finally solved to allow semi-autos to be just about as reliable as revolvers. At that point, an equivalent semi auto is now higher capacity (dramatically so in the case of service-size weapons) and quicker to reload, as well as potentially thinner and lighter. Not that a J-frame can’t do the job, but the technological gulf between a K-frame and a Glock 17 is significant.

Mosin77 said:

Not that a J-frame can’t do the job, but the technological gulf between a K-frame and a Glock 17 is significant.

Click to expand...

But is that relevant for the average American?

Mosin77 said:

... the technological gulf between a K-frame and a Glock 17 is significant.

Click to expand...

Yup- The regression in safety and ergonomics demonstrated by the Glock 17 is pronounced.

In all honesty I don't care what anyone else carries. At the same time I will share a thought. I would not, will not carry a rimfire for self defense. I enjoy plinking with .22's. They are a lot of fun. I have also experienced a lot of duds with .22's. I would hate to really need to use a gun & get a click instead of a bang. Outside of that I would say everyone has different strengths & weaknesses. Different abilities & resources. We all get to make our own choices.

trackskippy said:

You kind of lost me. All Im saying is, you need to be competent and proficient with whatever it is you carry, and understand its limitations, should it have any.

The only way to know and understand what is actually what, is to actually put a reasonable amount of time in with as many different things as you can, so you can at least make a reasonable decision on what will likely work best. The world continues to move forward, and guns and training move right with it. If you dont continue to move along with things, and continue to learn as you go, you tend to get left behind.

And where did the last part come from? Who said anything about spraying rounds around?

Click to expand...

Do not take offense. Not my intention.... at all. If it came off that way its just my writing style. I dont have an independent editor to proof read my posts.

The spraying rounds stuff was more along the lines of these new "tactical" trainers (and CCW holders) that seem hell bent on turning CCW holders into SWAT members. Thats a pretty dangerous mindset IMO for the average CCW holder carrying for DEFENSE. Excitement/Action is an easier sell though. And there is more profit to be had in selling the latest and greatest gear. So people tend to push this notion that the age of a piece of gear somehow makes it inferior. Last time I looked the AR 15 was introduced in 1959. My Dad was just a young kid around that time. Any Stigma on retro firearms is born out of ignorance IMO.

jstert said:

“beware of the old man with just one gun…he probably knows how to use it.”

know yourself, your capabilities, your gear, your locale, your likely threats. carry that handgun that you will actually and regularly carry, and have practiced with and cleaned regularly. a soldier or a policeman must actively engage and ultimately defeat the threat. i’m just looking to disengage intact. if “retro” means 22lr, 25acp, 32acp or 38sp, it’s ok for me, as my life is mostly “retro” now too.

Click to expand...

To a lot of people just owning a firearm let alone carrying one would be considered Retro. Its all nonsense. Just more devisive BS aimed at breaking us apart. Firearms enthusiests can be a gullible bunch just like every other targeted group.

.455_Hunter said:

Yup- The regression in safety and ergonomics demonstrated by the Glock 17 is pronounced.

Click to expand...

OK.. you got a laugh out of me there .445.

Its just your unwillingness to accept bad ergos .455. You are somehow the problem. HaHa. Some of the excuses peple make crack me up.

My S&W Sigmas are more technologically advanced than Glocks. More safety built in and proper ergonomics.

Glock fanatics heads will explode over that statement.... Hint: Its meant for humor

I would generally position the H&R/IJ/F&W/H&A products of yesteryear in a similar realm to the current lines by Kel-Tec, Sccy, Taurus and Carter Arms. Those older lines were definitely above the Lorcin/Jimenez/Raven category.

I think I need to make some popcorn so I can better enjoy the comedy inherent in this thread........... In the meantime I'll clean my single shot CCW pellet gun.......... Or was that my open carry mini gun, I forget.

.455_Hunter said:

I would generally position the H&R/IJ/F&W/H&A products of yesteryear in a similar realm to the current lines by Kel-Tec, Sccy, Taurus and Carter Arms. Those older lines were definitely above the Lorcin/Jimenez/Raven category.

Click to expand...

Hey now... those Ravens are kind of high tech in terms of pulling off a reliable, durable, accurate pistol for a low price useing Zamak. They also have saved a lot of lives through the years. So everything has its place. Lorcins are kind of like a smooth bore in terms of barrel rifling so those are sort of a step back.

Nothing wrong with a propper functioning H&R. H&R 732 is a good little 32 pocket revolver. One could do a lot worse.

starling said:

Hey now... those Ravens are kind of high tech in terms of pulling off a reliable, durable, accurate pistol for a low price useing Zamak. They also have saved a lot of lives through the years. So everything has its place. Lorcins are kind of like a smooth bore in terms of barrel rifling so those are sort of a step back.

Nothing wrong with a propper functioning H&R. H&R 732 is a good little 32 pocket revolver. One could do a lot worse.

Click to expand...

kje54 said:

I think I need to make some popcorn so I can better enjoy the comedy inherent in this thread........... In the meantime I'll clean my single shot CCW pellet gun.......... Or was that my open carry mini gun, I forget.

Click to expand...

Im sure there are some places in the world where that is about the only legal option. You Sure would have to be a lot better "tactically" to pull that off then someone carrying a wondernine. That would be Jedi level stuff.

jar said:

Click to expand...

Ya see there... thats no good. Cant even mount a red dot on it. Might as well just throw rocks

Nice looking 732 BTW. MADE IN THE USA!!