Snubby Curiosity
- Thread starter KodeFore
- Start date
-
- Tags
- some people s
- Status
BSA1
member
I train not to miss 5 times.
Cute.
However I am talking about real world shooting not the Internet type.
Real world shootings here in the United States such as at the Gay Night Club prove the need a suppressive firepower by civilians.
bannockburn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,297
My EDC consists of a Kahr CM9 or a S&W Model 638. Both are equally well suited for pocket carry and both have very decent double action triggers on them.
This is highly subjective, but for me, the advantages of a snubby over a Glock 43 are a longer heavier trigger for safety, easier to check the weapon's status, lack of ammo sensitivity or limp-wrist failures in an emergency, and the ability to load snake shot. Mainly, though, I just like them.
My .357 SP101 wasn't any heavier than a .38 LCR, but it soaks up recoil MUCH better due to the extra weight, making it a better gun for frequent training.
Despite the heavier kick, there's not much ballistic advantage to a .357 Magnum if you only have two inches of barrel. I think the main advantages of a .357-rated snubby are lower recoil, extra durability, and the ability to occasionally take .357 if that's all you've got at the moment...not actually regularly loading it with .357.
In an extended gun battle, a double-stack service pistol is a lot more useful than a five-shot snubby.
But the percentage of people who will carry a five-shot snubby at all times it's a lot higher than the percentage of people who will carry a double-stack service pistol at all times. And the worst defensive firearm on the planet is the one an owner left at home when he/she needs it.
And statistically, an extended gun battle with an active shooter is possibly the most rare flavor of defensive gun usage on the planet. If you want to prepare for that scenario specifically, I'm the last person in the world to criticize you for it. But for your statistically-far-more-common DGUs where either no shots are fired, or 2-3 are fired, a snubby gets the job done too.
Hardtarget
Member
I have one snub. A S&W mod 19. Pocket carry does not work for me because of my clothing choice...and its size. It is a rare thing for me to use it for carry. Winter time and a coat...I'll consider it. Norm for me is a S&W mod 4553, dao, in .45 acp.
Mark
Mark
Klint Beastwood
member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2017
- Messages
- 622
BSA1
member
However did we all survive all these years using a snubby?
A lot different world a few decades ago.
Sadly our world has changed for the worse since WWII.
BSA1
member
What is your source for the 2-3 shots fired claim?
BSA1
member
You're right. You weren't there.
BSA1
member
Looks like Youtube is internet to me.
Touche' ole man. Very nicely done.
I will edit to Internet Discussion Forums.
SteadyD
Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2017
- Messages
- 1,747
There are several studies that have found 3 rounds or less is the most common number. Here is a link to just one, but you can find others as well.
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/analysis-of-five-years-of-armed-encounters-with-data-tables/
That video you linked was at a police station, correct? I'm pretty sure folks are saying that for a civilian, 5 shots is almost always enough. Obviously Law Enforcement Officers will find far more occasions to need more rounds.
"For the period 1997 - 2001, reports from "The Armed Citizen" column of the NRA Journals were collected. There were 482 incidents available for inclusion in the analysis. All involved the use of firearms by private citizens in self defense or defense of others. No law enforcement related incidents were included."
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=328876
Statistically, we're far safer than we were in the 70s and 80s. America's violent crime rate is at a fifty year low. The common perception to the contrary is just the 24-hour news cycle at work.
BSA1
member
This is not even close to a valid research report. The author's sole source of data was from magazine columns. The Armed Citizen is a single page article consisting of describing armed confrontations in one paragraph each. Sometimes the total number of shots fired is not included.
" For the period 1997 – 2001, reports from “The Armed Citizen” column of the NRA Journals were collected."
And obviously you are missing the entire point of the video which is a violent attack can occurred unexpectedly and by a well armed determined attacker. If someone is determined enough to take on a group of LEO's then you are small potatoes to him.
"almost always enough." So does that mean when it isn't enough you get to call time out and go home to get more ammunition or a different gun?
You pay your money and take your chances.
Last edited:
BSA1
member
So if things are so safe why even carry a firearm?
Consider your safety in the workplace;
"Government statistics show that fatal workplace shootings are increasing, and experts say revenge is often the motive.
The most recent records by the Bureau of Labor Statistics show workplace homicides rose by 2 percent to 417 cases in 2015. Shootings increased by 15 percent during that period. The 354 shootings in 2015 represent the first increase since 2012."
https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...ts-show-increase-in-fatal-workplace-shootings
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Mark Twain's Own Autobiography: The Chapters from the North American Review
Kodefore, save yourself DO NOT start shooting any snubbie. Snubbie is bad, I have heard that people who shoot snobbies are not good people. I feel I must warn you, the road to snubbie is a bad place. I was lead astray by people who I thought were good people and they led me astray. Leave snubbies alone or you will find the darkside. It is too late for me as I might have several snubbies but I lost them in a boating accident or was it a forest fire, or well what ever just stay away from snubbies. I will try to buy up the ones that temp you. I am here for you.......... Avoid snubbie addiction at all costs........ Just my thoughts from the Big Sky Country, Montana.
You're moving the goalposts. People said that revolvers were perfectly adequate thirty years ago. You said the world was a safer place thirty years ago, and so what was adequate then isn't adequate now. I pointed out that the world was actually more dangerous thirty years ago than it is now. That's not an argument against carrying a gun. It's an argument that what was good enough in the 70s is still good enough, if that's what you prefer to carry.
You're acting like you should either own a HUMVEE or not own a car at all. That ignores the fact that there's a ton of people who need a car but are perfectly well served by a Chevy Malibu or Toyota Camry.
A slight uptick in one very specific variety of violent crime does not change the fact that violent crime as a whole is decreasing dramatically. If dog attacks as a whole drop 50%, but dog attacks involving Irish Setters increase 10%, are you more at risk of a dog bite, or less at risk, than you were before?
Also, if your typical defensive gun usage in a back alley involves zero to three shots, why do you assume that you'd need a Glock 17 to successfully have a defensive gun usage in the workplace? Your average malicious coworkers isn't any tougher than your average malicious mugger.
BSA1
member
“People said that revolvers were perfectly adequate thirty years ago. You said the world was a safer place thirty years ago, and so what was adequate then isn't adequate now.”
Adequate is weak when compared to superior features like higher ammunition capacity, better easier to see sights, night sights, better ergonomics and materials they are made of along with being able to comfortably use better, more powerful ammunition.
Does what was adequate thirty years ago include ammunition that was used then such as the 158 gr. round nose lead 38 Special and FMJ in the 9mm and 45 Auto?
“I pointed out that the world was actually more dangerous thirty years ago than it is now.”
Your opinion based on your experiences. Organizations such as ISIS, Al Qaeda, Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and countries such as Iran, Syria and Sudan that sponsor terrorist organizations did not exist 30 years ago. These organizations have trained and provided the necessary support for lone-wolf attacks in the U.S. How common were workplace shootings, school shootings and attacks where large groups of meet 30 years ago?
“That's not an argument against carrying a gun. It's an argument that what was good enough in the 70s is still good enough, if that's what you prefer to carry.”
You pay your money and take your chances. 30 years ago semi-automatics were not consider to be reliable enough for self-defense. Today they are mainstream and use by both sexes and different age groups. Why not take advantage of improve designs and features modern firearms have to offer?
“You're acting like you should either own a HUMVEE or not own a car at all. That ignores the fact that there's a ton of people who need a car but are perfectly well served by a Chevy Malibu or Toyota Camry.”
Since you are using a comparison of big vehicle to small vehicle I will reply with the same.
One of my vehicles is a full-size Chevy HD2500 extended cab 4x4 6.0 liter engine with a large heavy cow catcher front bumper. It has a wide turning radius which make it a pain to park. I usually park farther out in the lot where there are a lot of empty spaces.
In exchange for this inconvenience I have a vehicle with more horsepower, quicker acceleration and greatly improve odds of surviving an accident with no or less serious injury.
My other truck is a 20 year old Ford Ranger. It is more easier to park and handle in tight spaces. The trade-off is less horsepower, slower acceleration and less protection in a accident. I accept this risk by driving more defensively and avoiding certain situations altogether. The only reason I am still driving this truck is it has not worn out yet. When it does I will not buy another 20 year Ford Ranger but a improved vehicle with more horsepower, better acceleration and safety features.
So while a full-size handgun (your HUMVEE) is larger and heavier to carry than a 5 shot snubbie (your car) with proper holster and attire it can be easily and comfortably carried with the advantages that come with a full-size modern semi-automatic handgun and state of the art ammunition.
“A slight uptick in one very specific variety of violent crime does not change the fact that violent crime as a whole is decreasing dramatically.”
So you actually making an argument that citizens do not need to be armed since the chance of being a victim of violent crime is low.
A statistic is when it happens to your neighbor. A victim is when it happens to you. Think about it.
"Also, if your typical defensive gun usage in a back alley involves zero to three shots, why do you assume that you'd need a Glock 17 to successfully have a defensive gun usage in the workplace? "
What source are you basing your comment of “zero to three shots”? I have had heard this number thrown out for over 30 years.
“Your average malicious coworkers isn't any tougher than your average malicious mugger.”
Tougher or more determined?
“Your average malicious mugger” goal is to get whatever items he wants as quickly and easily as possible. He chooses victims that he perceives to be weaker than him or unable to defend themselves well. He prefers his victims to be alone or with one companion. His goal is not to cause injury but to achieve financial gain and survival by escaping as quickly as possible. The victim resisting is not expected and injuring the victim is a result of them resisting the attack. He often can be easily discouraged from making his attack by the potential victim recognizing his intentions and taking action like yelling to draw attention, running away, taking a fighting stance or drawing a weapon.
“Your average malicious coworker” only goal is to kill other people. His motive is revenge on those that he believes have harmed him. He is well prepared with a plan of action, is knowledgeable of the layout of location he is attacking, is well armed and has clear list of targets. He may even wear body armor so he can increase the odds of surviving longer so he can kill more people. His plan includes how to defeat any security measures and personnel. Unlike the mugger this type of individual may not any intention of survival. He either intends to commit suicide or die in a shoot-out with police when cornered.
At this point you may be thinking I am opposed to 5 shot snubbies which I am not. I have two short barrel revolvers. They are not my primary edc and have a specific niche in my firearms battery.
#1 is a stainless steel 38 Special. It’s niche is for carry when fishing. I load it with three shotshells for protection against snakes and two semi-wadcutters for bigger threats.
#2 is a 8 shot Taurus 22 Magnum. It is very useful on the farm for use on small pests and varmints.
Although this thread is about use of snubbies one of the last (maybe the last) handgun I will part with is my old S&W Model 10-6 38 with 4” barrel. Sometimes emotional attachments are hard to break. But the Model 10 is hanging on pegboard hook in the gun vault and a Beretta 92FS is close at hand.
Adequate is weak when compared to superior features like higher ammunition capacity, better easier to see sights, night sights, better ergonomics and materials they are made of along with being able to comfortably use better, more powerful ammunition.
Does what was adequate thirty years ago include ammunition that was used then such as the 158 gr. round nose lead 38 Special and FMJ in the 9mm and 45 Auto?
“I pointed out that the world was actually more dangerous thirty years ago than it is now.”
Your opinion based on your experiences. Organizations such as ISIS, Al Qaeda, Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and countries such as Iran, Syria and Sudan that sponsor terrorist organizations did not exist 30 years ago. These organizations have trained and provided the necessary support for lone-wolf attacks in the U.S. How common were workplace shootings, school shootings and attacks where large groups of meet 30 years ago?
“That's not an argument against carrying a gun. It's an argument that what was good enough in the 70s is still good enough, if that's what you prefer to carry.”
You pay your money and take your chances. 30 years ago semi-automatics were not consider to be reliable enough for self-defense. Today they are mainstream and use by both sexes and different age groups. Why not take advantage of improve designs and features modern firearms have to offer?
“You're acting like you should either own a HUMVEE or not own a car at all. That ignores the fact that there's a ton of people who need a car but are perfectly well served by a Chevy Malibu or Toyota Camry.”
Since you are using a comparison of big vehicle to small vehicle I will reply with the same.
One of my vehicles is a full-size Chevy HD2500 extended cab 4x4 6.0 liter engine with a large heavy cow catcher front bumper. It has a wide turning radius which make it a pain to park. I usually park farther out in the lot where there are a lot of empty spaces.
In exchange for this inconvenience I have a vehicle with more horsepower, quicker acceleration and greatly improve odds of surviving an accident with no or less serious injury.
My other truck is a 20 year old Ford Ranger. It is more easier to park and handle in tight spaces. The trade-off is less horsepower, slower acceleration and less protection in a accident. I accept this risk by driving more defensively and avoiding certain situations altogether. The only reason I am still driving this truck is it has not worn out yet. When it does I will not buy another 20 year Ford Ranger but a improved vehicle with more horsepower, better acceleration and safety features.
So while a full-size handgun (your HUMVEE) is larger and heavier to carry than a 5 shot snubbie (your car) with proper holster and attire it can be easily and comfortably carried with the advantages that come with a full-size modern semi-automatic handgun and state of the art ammunition.
“A slight uptick in one very specific variety of violent crime does not change the fact that violent crime as a whole is decreasing dramatically.”
So you actually making an argument that citizens do not need to be armed since the chance of being a victim of violent crime is low.
A statistic is when it happens to your neighbor. A victim is when it happens to you. Think about it.
"Also, if your typical defensive gun usage in a back alley involves zero to three shots, why do you assume that you'd need a Glock 17 to successfully have a defensive gun usage in the workplace? "
What source are you basing your comment of “zero to three shots”? I have had heard this number thrown out for over 30 years.
“Your average malicious coworkers isn't any tougher than your average malicious mugger.”
Tougher or more determined?
“Your average malicious mugger” goal is to get whatever items he wants as quickly and easily as possible. He chooses victims that he perceives to be weaker than him or unable to defend themselves well. He prefers his victims to be alone or with one companion. His goal is not to cause injury but to achieve financial gain and survival by escaping as quickly as possible. The victim resisting is not expected and injuring the victim is a result of them resisting the attack. He often can be easily discouraged from making his attack by the potential victim recognizing his intentions and taking action like yelling to draw attention, running away, taking a fighting stance or drawing a weapon.
“Your average malicious coworker” only goal is to kill other people. His motive is revenge on those that he believes have harmed him. He is well prepared with a plan of action, is knowledgeable of the layout of location he is attacking, is well armed and has clear list of targets. He may even wear body armor so he can increase the odds of surviving longer so he can kill more people. His plan includes how to defeat any security measures and personnel. Unlike the mugger this type of individual may not any intention of survival. He either intends to commit suicide or die in a shoot-out with police when cornered.
At this point you may be thinking I am opposed to 5 shot snubbies which I am not. I have two short barrel revolvers. They are not my primary edc and have a specific niche in my firearms battery.
#1 is a stainless steel 38 Special. It’s niche is for carry when fishing. I load it with three shotshells for protection against snakes and two semi-wadcutters for bigger threats.
#2 is a 8 shot Taurus 22 Magnum. It is very useful on the farm for use on small pests and varmints.
Although this thread is about use of snubbies one of the last (maybe the last) handgun I will part with is my old S&W Model 10-6 38 with 4” barrel. Sometimes emotional attachments are hard to break. But the Model 10 is hanging on pegboard hook in the gun vault and a Beretta 92FS is close at hand.
Last edited:
Anyone who thinks that a Beretta 92FS is a comfortable EDC gun for most people is out of touch with most people. If it works for you, great, but it's downright silly to think that most people would be happy with a 92FS or Glock 17 as their EDC gun.
And once you quit comparing a S&W 642 to a Glock 17 and start comparing it to a Glock 43 (more typical of what a lot of people want as an EDC gun), the capacity advantage of the autoloader is just 15% more instead of 200% more.
As for the source of the average of 0-3 shots in a typical defensive gun usage, you've been provided with links to those studies. Repeatedly. Review the posts above.
And once you quit comparing a S&W 642 to a Glock 17 and start comparing it to a Glock 43 (more typical of what a lot of people want as an EDC gun), the capacity advantage of the autoloader is just 15% more instead of 200% more.
As for the source of the average of 0-3 shots in a typical defensive gun usage, you've been provided with links to those studies. Repeatedly. Review the posts above.
edmo01
Member
To the OP's original question...
I own and carry both a GLOCK 43 and various snubbies (J frames & LCR). Here are my thoughts on these two options.
I am a fan of the 5 shot snubbie and carry one when I want a small, light carry option. The revolver has a stupid/simple manual of arms and it will give you 5 rounds 99.9% of the time. For pocket carry my go-to firearm is a S&W 642-1 in 38 +P. The hidden hammer and sloped upper rear frame give me a level of snag-free draw from the pocket which I can't find with either exposed hammer models or my semi-auto guns. Additionally, the aluminum frame make this revolver just under a pound so very light in the pocket.
For a belt carry revolver, I prefer the stainless framed version of the S&W 642 which is designated the 640. The extra weight of the 640 absorbs some of the snappy recoil I get with the aluminum framed 642 and makes for a more durable gun that is also a better range gun. The light weight 642 is not a fun range gun with full power loads. The modern 640s also come in 357 Magnum which give you more ammo options for those who like holding a hand grenade! However, the extra weight of the stainless 640 is just too much for my pocket.
Now to the GLOCK 43... I am extremely impressed with mine. It rides in an AIWB holster and gives me 7+1 with an additional 7 rounds in my spare mag (I installed the Pearce Grip +1 pinkie base plates). I'm a long time GLOCK owner/shooter and find this little gun stays true to the brand. It is an extremely reliable tool that has never malfunctioned, points well, shoots accurately, and reloads quickly. What more do you want?
Really, the decision is yours... You will be well armed with either option. Just remember, these little guns are harder to master than full sized guns. They require dedicated dry fire and range practice for you to be proficient.
Just one man's thoughts...
Edmo
I own and carry both a GLOCK 43 and various snubbies (J frames & LCR). Here are my thoughts on these two options.
I am a fan of the 5 shot snubbie and carry one when I want a small, light carry option. The revolver has a stupid/simple manual of arms and it will give you 5 rounds 99.9% of the time. For pocket carry my go-to firearm is a S&W 642-1 in 38 +P. The hidden hammer and sloped upper rear frame give me a level of snag-free draw from the pocket which I can't find with either exposed hammer models or my semi-auto guns. Additionally, the aluminum frame make this revolver just under a pound so very light in the pocket.
For a belt carry revolver, I prefer the stainless framed version of the S&W 642 which is designated the 640. The extra weight of the 640 absorbs some of the snappy recoil I get with the aluminum framed 642 and makes for a more durable gun that is also a better range gun. The light weight 642 is not a fun range gun with full power loads. The modern 640s also come in 357 Magnum which give you more ammo options for those who like holding a hand grenade! However, the extra weight of the stainless 640 is just too much for my pocket.
Now to the GLOCK 43... I am extremely impressed with mine. It rides in an AIWB holster and gives me 7+1 with an additional 7 rounds in my spare mag (I installed the Pearce Grip +1 pinkie base plates). I'm a long time GLOCK owner/shooter and find this little gun stays true to the brand. It is an extremely reliable tool that has never malfunctioned, points well, shoots accurately, and reloads quickly. What more do you want?
Really, the decision is yours... You will be well armed with either option. Just remember, these little guns are harder to master than full sized guns. They require dedicated dry fire and range practice for you to be proficient.
Just one man's thoughts...
Edmo
Tallball
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,804
This anecdotal/opinion, but I find revolvers to be generally more reliable. Most of my semi-automatics have malfunctioned at one time or another (almost always due to ammo or my own ineptitude). The vast majority of the revolvers I've owned have never malfunctioned at all.
Personally I am more used to revolvers and feel more comfortable with them, so I feel that they're a better choice for me. YMMV.
IRRC: You are more likely to be struck by lightning or a meteor than you are to be killed in a terrorist attack in the USA. Winning the lottery is less likely than any of the other three. Violent crime has been decreasing since 1991. Feel free to look any of those up. I am too lazy to do it again.
Personally I am more used to revolvers and feel more comfortable with them, so I feel that they're a better choice for me. YMMV.
IRRC: You are more likely to be struck by lightning or a meteor than you are to be killed in a terrorist attack in the USA. Winning the lottery is less likely than any of the other three. Violent crime has been decreasing since 1991. Feel free to look any of those up. I am too lazy to do it again.
- Status
