Is a J frame enough?
- Thread starter camsdaddy
- Start date
- Status
TestPilot
TestPilot -context is everything - and it seems you've attempted to remove my words from their context in order to confidently make a point that has absolutely no relationhip to the sentiment I attempted to share in this thread.
TestPilot -context is everything - and it seems you've attempted to remove my words from their context in order to confidently make a point that has absolutely no relationhip to the sentiment I attempted to share in this thread.
Last edited:
jimbo555
Member
Compared to other pocketable pistols the centennial style j-frame presents faster, points better and is more reliable under adverse close combat fight to the death conditions. Carrying 2 gives you a capacity of 10 which should be adequate.
jimbo555
Member
Let's play fantasy. Your walking to your car late, your shot in your dominant arm from behind you feel the blood with your weak hand. You manage to draw your 15 shot semi and get off one shot before you have a ftf and you can't manage the drill to clear the jam with one hand....
Gun Master
Member
Context
Context #1: A 35yr. old male who carries a .357 4" or a .45 ACP 1911.
Context #2: A 50yr. old female with a Kel-Tec .32 ACP or .38 Sp. J frame.
Context #3: A 74yr. old male with a Rhom .22 or .22 Derringer.
Personally, I have owned and carried all the handguns in #'s 1 & 2 (and more). I never have owned the two guns named in #3. Yet I find myself in context #3, but usually carry the guns in #2 (mainly J frame, but sometimes both).
Succinctly, I am age 74, usually carry a .32 &/or .38 J frame, sometimes other .38 Sp., etc. The reason I don't carry my .45's, etc., is due to age, health, and inability to support carrying heavier guns. I would like to explore or invent a semi- suspender holster (Sam Brown principle) of HG carry that (don't laugh) keeps my pants from falling down in Kroger. OK, now you may laugh.
Now, that is context !
Context #1: A 35yr. old male who carries a .357 4" or a .45 ACP 1911.
Context #2: A 50yr. old female with a Kel-Tec .32 ACP or .38 Sp. J frame.
Context #3: A 74yr. old male with a Rhom .22 or .22 Derringer.
Personally, I have owned and carried all the handguns in #'s 1 & 2 (and more). I never have owned the two guns named in #3. Yet I find myself in context #3, but usually carry the guns in #2 (mainly J frame, but sometimes both).
Succinctly, I am age 74, usually carry a .32 &/or .38 J frame, sometimes other .38 Sp., etc. The reason I don't carry my .45's, etc., is due to age, health, and inability to support carrying heavier guns. I would like to explore or invent a semi- suspender holster (Sam Brown principle) of HG carry that (don't laugh) keeps my pants from falling down in Kroger. OK, now you may laugh.
Now, that is context !
kilibreaux
member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2014
- Messages
- 115
NO, a J-frame is NOT "enough!"
However, J-frames allow the user to carry SOMETHING capable of delivering a definitive insult to an attacker which is what it was designed to do!
"Enough" would be 2,000 lb-ft of kinetic energy, but weapons that deliver such power are not concealable.
However, J-frames allow the user to carry SOMETHING capable of delivering a definitive insult to an attacker which is what it was designed to do!
"Enough" would be 2,000 lb-ft of kinetic energy, but weapons that deliver such power are not concealable.
Think about how the merits of the pistol affect the method of carry.
The Ruger SR 9c and my Centennial are very, very close to the same size in all three dimensions. But the Centennial will readily fit into a pocket, and it can in fact be fired from one if necessary. The Ruger is not a pocket pistol.
Now, one could likely devise a way to carry a comparably small semi-auto for back-up in a manner that would provide ready access in varying circumstances, but I haven't come up with one that meets my needs.
When one puts the Centennial and the Ruger next to each other, it becomes crystal clear that the latter would almost always, if not always, be the better choice for primary carry in a holster due to sights, trigger, and capacity, but the former can certainly have its uses for back-up in a pocket.
Carrying the Centennial that way takes it away from another allocation, and I have to consider getting another one. I am strongly considering a Ruger LCR due to the better trigger design.
sixgunner455
Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,052
I think the J frame's greatest virtue is that it fits into the profile of what some call an "always gun" - a gun you can always find a way to carry.
By virtue of size, weight, shape, etc, it will fit in pockets without weighing down the pants, doesn't make dress slacks look funny, won't make a purse feel like a lady is hauling around gym equipment, and so forth.
I have other guns. I enjoy shooting them, and sometimes, I carry them. But I can almost always carry my 642. In fact, if I didn't work where I do, I would carry it 24/7. Something else is added to what I am carrying when I carry a bigger gun, but I don't usually put my 642 away when I do that.
It allows people who can't or won't carry something bigger and heavier to carry something effective and reliable. So, is it enough to enable those people to follow the first rule of a gunfight? Yes, because they are armed. It doesn't guarantee they will win, but it does get them in the game.
By virtue of size, weight, shape, etc, it will fit in pockets without weighing down the pants, doesn't make dress slacks look funny, won't make a purse feel like a lady is hauling around gym equipment, and so forth.
I have other guns. I enjoy shooting them, and sometimes, I carry them. But I can almost always carry my 642. In fact, if I didn't work where I do, I would carry it 24/7. Something else is added to what I am carrying when I carry a bigger gun, but I don't usually put my 642 away when I do that.
It allows people who can't or won't carry something bigger and heavier to carry something effective and reliable. So, is it enough to enable those people to follow the first rule of a gunfight? Yes, because they are armed. It doesn't guarantee they will win, but it does get them in the game.
TestPilot, I'm not sure why you ask questions, and then put qualifiers on peoples answers. Many here have provided good rationale for the snub. If you needed one more all encompassing answer to overcome the qualifiers you've inserted into the discussion, well then I think sixgunner455 has summed it up well most recently by saying,
You seem to be trying to argue semantics. No one is saying the snub is the ultimate best CCW firearm ever created. We're just saying that it has a viable place in CCW, and has and will in the future continue, to provide people with a viable means of preserving life, and in many cases (probably moreso than not), "the J-Frame is (not only) enough", but in some cases even excels above other types of defensive firearms) for this purpose.
You asked me for an example. Well, for me personally, I see the snubs greatest role as a "belly gun". When all else has failed, and a person finds themselves in an up close and personal, physical struggle for life and death (and there is an endless variety of variations to this type of scenario). In this kind of scenario, I can honestly think of no better (or more superb) firearm than a S&W Centennial in a persons pocket as a potential tool for attempting to preserve one's own life. Truth be told, I long ago selected a Glock 26 as my ideal CCW firearm, but I will admit that there are times and situations when I'd rather be armed with my Centennial (and many times am). I have no fantasy plan of drawing my gun and shooting it out with the bad guys. If and when I ever have to draw my firearm, it will be for one of these up close and personal, LAST DITCH, absolutely no other choice, point and shoot, the situation has gone south bad and quickly kind of scenarios. I can most certainly think of many tools less ideal for this type of thing than a J-frame.
Last edited:
In case of Cirillo, it means he was limited by department policy to carry a 6 shot, and at the time of his stakeout squad days, the choices of higher capacity self-loaders were not as good as now.
In his later days, his choice for carry gun was a Glock.
He never stated he chose a gun specifically for being a revolver, and specially not anything to the effect that 5~6 shots are enough.
Also, if you did research on him, you'd know that he is definitely not a fan of 38 Special.
Last edited:
To test the soundness of the reasoning behind the argument.
Okay, so it is great when guns with higher capacity or guns that are easier to shoot with is not feasible to carry or access. I agree with that.
But, I kept asking the question, because that was not the reason you said it was superb before, even though you state that reason best answers my question.
This is the part I disagree with.
You just state that the J-Frame would be the most supurb in the situation you stated, which you acknowledge that there is an endless variety of variations to that type of scenarios, which qualifies it as a blanket statement. However, you do not specify a reason why it would be the most superb in that scenario.
Some situations, a J-frame in the pocket may be more accessible. In some situations, a full size pistol in a waist holster may be more accessible. It totally depends on how the physical struggle plays out. Some situations, that up-close-and-personal struggle may only require 5~6 shots. Some situations, it can require more. Like you stated, there are endless varieties of that up-close-and-personal scenarios. So, on what grounds are you making that blanket statement that J-frame is the most superb in what you acknowledge to be an endless variations of a scenario?
You did not specifically say accessibility or concealment is the reason why J-frame is the most superb in the above scenario. But, let's assume that is what you implied. Pocket pistol in a pocket is far from the most accessible method of carry, especially while in a close range physical struggle. If a J-frame is all that can be concealed in certain scenarios, then the concealability which makes J-frame the only pistol available would make it superb in that situation, but that does not prove J-frame would be the most superb tool to do a close range physical fight with.
At one point you are stating that the best reason that sums up the superbness of J-frames is that of when the choice is limited to it because of the situation. Then at the same time, you say it is the most superb for endless variety of up-close-and-personal physical fights. You say you are not claiming that it is the ultimate best CCW firearm created, but you are in fact saying it is for up-close-and-personal situations.
Last edited:
JFrame
Member
I will preface my comments by saying that if I was ever to be injected into a lethal confrontation, I would likely wish that I was armed with a repeating hand-held 105mm recoilless rifle...
Having said that...
It is hard to discount the popularity of the J-frame revolver. It has been in production in some flavor or another for the past 64 years. And, if anything, its popularity seems to have increased in recent years.
Now, popularity does not have to equate to "practical" or even "good." But given its steady sales success, and the fact that it seems to be staying in peoples' hands versus universally winding up on the consignment shelves -- one sort of has to infer that it is meeting some level of satisfaction for the owners. If the J-frame was found to be completely inadequate for its purpose, evolution would seem to have to take effect, and its sales momentum dwindle over time (rather than increase).
Of course, it can be argued that so few of these J-frames are used in extremely violent confrontations, that its inadequacies are not being adequately perceived by its owners. But in that regard, one could probably say the same of bigger guns which are receiving the same lack of exposure in most hands.
This is not to argue that the J-frame is the "ideal" choice for defense as a primary weapon. But given the parameters that most people need to meet in balancing out their lives, it is perhaps the most "practical" one for many. The sheer magnitude of J-frame (and comparable) purchases would suggest that such reasoning has played out over the marketplace.
.
Having said that...
It is hard to discount the popularity of the J-frame revolver. It has been in production in some flavor or another for the past 64 years. And, if anything, its popularity seems to have increased in recent years.
Now, popularity does not have to equate to "practical" or even "good." But given its steady sales success, and the fact that it seems to be staying in peoples' hands versus universally winding up on the consignment shelves -- one sort of has to infer that it is meeting some level of satisfaction for the owners. If the J-frame was found to be completely inadequate for its purpose, evolution would seem to have to take effect, and its sales momentum dwindle over time (rather than increase).
Of course, it can be argued that so few of these J-frames are used in extremely violent confrontations, that its inadequacies are not being adequately perceived by its owners. But in that regard, one could probably say the same of bigger guns which are receiving the same lack of exposure in most hands.
This is not to argue that the J-frame is the "ideal" choice for defense as a primary weapon. But given the parameters that most people need to meet in balancing out their lives, it is perhaps the most "practical" one for many. The sheer magnitude of J-frame (and comparable) purchases would suggest that such reasoning has played out over the marketplace.
.
TestPilot,
Even though I'm tempted to, I don’t think I will add anything to what I’ve written above. You continue to do nothing more than argue semantics. I'm sure you don’t really need me to provide you with examples of a subject, the merits (or lack thereof) of which you’ve obviously already concluded, and I'm just not interested in an anonymous gun forum debate, whose ultimate “winner” will be determined by one’s ability to write the most confidently arrogant and/or condescending rebuttals (if you need an example of this, allow me to refer you to your original post in which you quote me at length).
Even though I'm tempted to, I don’t think I will add anything to what I’ve written above. You continue to do nothing more than argue semantics. I'm sure you don’t really need me to provide you with examples of a subject, the merits (or lack thereof) of which you’ve obviously already concluded, and I'm just not interested in an anonymous gun forum debate, whose ultimate “winner” will be determined by one’s ability to write the most confidently arrogant and/or condescending rebuttals (if you need an example of this, allow me to refer you to your original post in which you quote me at length).
I would substitute "understood" for "perceived", and clarify that those inadequacies relate to use for primary carry when something else is available and would meet the need at hand.
But one does not need to be engaged in extremely violent confrontations to become aware of the pros and cos of a particular weapon. Realistic FoF simulation will suffice quite nicely, as will other types of training.
I'm not sure what that is intended to mean.
I'm not sure about that.
As Ed Lovette points out, when snubbies were commonly carried in the old days, the six shot Colt revolvers were favored very widely over the J-Frame, and for several reasons. Many other people favored snubby K-Frame revolvers, and for the same reasons. I still know retired law enforcement officers who remember the thinking among their peers in those days.
The D-Frame and K-Frame alternatives are no longer available new. And the market now strongly favors semiautomatic pistols for law enforcement and for primary carry for personal defense.
We are no longer limited to Colt Commanders, 1911s, or vest pocket Brownings. There are excellent semiautomatics that are really no larger than J-Frames that have much better sights, better triggers, and much more capacity. I have one on right now.
The demand for concealable firearms is at an all time high in this country, and virtually all of the new entires are semiautomatics. Witness the recent Glock, Ruger and S&W, and entries and the new Remington R51.
The shortcoming of the new semiautomatics, except for a few very small six shot models that are difficult to fire effectively, is that they do not work for pocket carry and draw anywhere near as well as revolvers, and none of them are good for for firing from a pocket. As Lovette opines, a new Colt Magnum Carry (or two) with a shroud would do very nicely. I seriously doubt that we'll ever see that, however. The demand for new revolvers just isn't there.
That is evidenced by the fact that there is no material demand for defensive training with small revolvers. Almost all major trainers tell you to leave them at home.
I know several people who, upon getting their CCW licenses, have armed themselves with five shot revolvers. Not one of them has ever availed himself of any real defensive pistol training.
Full disclosure: a J-Frame was the first carry piece that I bought five years ago.
I later realized that it was far from ideal for primary carry. But as Doug S. points out, there are times when having a snubby revolver would represent the best choice. In some situations, the low capacity and poor sights, and even the inherently poor trigger of the Centennial, would be outweighed by the advantage of "pocket-ability". Lovette points that out, too.
I have been convinced by this discussion that having a pocket revolver for back-up is a good strategy.
And frankly, I would consider carrying a brace of Colt D-Frames or LCRs with CT grips just about any time.
IBEWBULL
Member
I do love my J frames for EDC close to home.
I live in the country and the crime rate is low. Not that city folks don't travel through.
A while 9/11 happened. I was in Minneapolis at the time. Four hours from home. With my 640 and 10 rounds.
Well, I am nothing happened locally and no weapon was needed.
But I for one felt "under gunned." If things went bad in some unexpected way. Such as riots or anything large scale. I would be lacking in response ability.
So much is determined by our location and what is enough gun.
On a long trip I could choose the Glock 27 plus a back up J frame.
Or possibly a J and my 2 1/2 inch 66. In a double shoulder rig. It is nice to have .357 available and instant choice. Plus a gun for a friend if need be.The shoulder rig is great
while driving too.
My wife's EDC is a 642.
Options are nice.
Well we all have different needs and must think it through.
[/URL][/IMG]
I live in the country and the crime rate is low. Not that city folks don't travel through.
A while 9/11 happened. I was in Minneapolis at the time. Four hours from home. With my 640 and 10 rounds.
Well, I am nothing happened locally and no weapon was needed.
But I for one felt "under gunned." If things went bad in some unexpected way. Such as riots or anything large scale. I would be lacking in response ability.
So much is determined by our location and what is enough gun.
On a long trip I could choose the Glock 27 plus a back up J frame.
Or possibly a J and my 2 1/2 inch 66. In a double shoulder rig. It is nice to have .357 available and instant choice. Plus a gun for a friend if need be.The shoulder rig is great
while driving too.
My wife's EDC is a 642.
Options are nice.
Well we all have different needs and must think it through.
Last edited:
JFrame
Member
I can live with those edits.
True dat -- but the only situation in which failure is terminally unforgiving is on the street. If the use of J-frames when called upon -- on the street -- was an abject failure (to the extent that proof-of-concept experiences can be tabulated), it would seem that an experiential feedback loop would lead to their demise. Instead, in the numerous "Armed Citizen" reports (I know, anecdotal at best) that are provided to us, it would appear that the presentation of ANY firearm leads to a happy outcome more often than not (again, to the extent that such data can be even remotely tabulated).
The point being that for the VAST majority of citizens, practical application in a real-world situation, with ANY firearm, will likely not be experienced.
I'm not sure I'm up to engaging in the breadth of discussion regarding the preceding quote. But just some thoughts... The fact that the 5-shot revolver has established a niche against the bigger revolvers (and evidently led to the demise of some) suggests there IS a place for them -- people of smaller frame (especially women), people with smaller hands, people whose required or preferred dress doesn't accommodate the packing of something bigger, etc.
Certainly, the perfection of small pocket autos of service caliber is a welcome development. But here again, there are people for whom it will personally not work to their satisfaction, for whatever reason -- difficulty racking the slide, not liking the ejected casings (that's something my wife can't abide -- just the way it is), the concerns about an auto jamming, needing to function-test an auto with the ammo of choice for a few hundred rounds to ensure reliability, etc. We are talking about the practical reality of people who may not be willing to invest the time to do that. I know people SHOULD -- but we should all floss a couple of times a day also.
I think the "safety" element of the revolver is also key to a lot of peoples' thinking. Yes, I know -- there are no safe guns, only safe people. But within that context, there is an inherent margin of "safety" in the minds of some with maintaining and carrying a loaded revolver versus a chambered auto. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but just a mental condition that exists.
I'm also not saying that these are necessarily legitimate reasons for preferring the J-frame -- only suggesting that the reality of such thought processes exist. Ideally, everyone would go to Thunder Ranch and become qualified with a 1911 or SIG 229 for carrying -- but that's not going to happen. For many of those people, the principle of K.I.S.S. might be the "best" option -- five shots of whatever they happen to put in it, likely to all come out without mis-feeding, and with no likelihood of limp-wristing.
It's sort of like buying life and health insurance. Everyone has to factor out their purchases based on the totality of their needs.
.
PistolPete45
Member
Love my snubby I bought a Taurus 331 back when .. 44 special 5 shot revolver 2 in barrel S&W ultra lite is her favorite carry pistol . I love revolvers trust them and the rounds are fine for Self defense.. I reload and can put together a great round in 38 0f 44 special . Whatever you like the best is good practice with whatever you choose to carry get a good holster The best gun in the world is nothing if you can not get it out in time
fastbolt
Member
Whenever "historical usage" of something becomes the subject, both context, availability of something at different times and then perhaps geographical locations need to be taken into consideration. Even the prevailing biases, prejudices and societal influences of the time.
I remember seeing Colt D's and some Charter Arms appearing in the hands of private citizens and cops on the West Coast after I turned 18 at the beginning of the 70's, but the S&W J-frame was the hands-down favorite when I entered LE in the beginning of the 80's. Saw more of them at my agency than I ever saw Colt snubs (and my agency had issued Pythons for some years, so Colts weren't exactly unknown to the folks), and in other agencies, small, medium & large. Saw them at meetings and conferences on the hips of folks from all over. They filled the gun shop displays of all the stores I enjoyed visiting (although there was always a couple Colts of one model or another).
Although my first DA revolver was a Colt Police, when it came time to start buying my own snub revolvers for off-duty, they were S&W J's and Ruger Security/Speed-Sixes.
Fast-forward to modern times, and even in the last couple of Street Tactics and FBI LEOKA classes I attended not quite 2 years ago, the venerable 5-shot S&W .38 was mentioned more than I expected as having saved the lives of cops as back-up weapons. They're still serving in the role of secondary?back-up and even off-duty weapons, although larger duty-size, compact and even subcompact pistols are considered a better choice for many of today's shooters ... and one of the reasons for that is that today's shooters in LE just aren't revolver shooters.
Shooting a DA revolver is usually harder for many folks than shooting a similar size pistol. The flip side of that, however, is that folks who developed and mastered their handgun shooting skills using DA revolvers are often better rounded shooters when it comes to handguns.
Awkward grip frames, bulky not-exactly-anatomically-shaped wooden grip stocks, long/heavy DA trigger strokes, limited capacity, old-style blade sights ... and probably the recoil of a .357 Magnum cartridge. Mastering a Magnum revolver can seem daunting to today's shooters ... although granted, there wasn't a shortage of cops restricted to the "Non-Magnum" .38 Spl and .38 Spl +P loads of earlier years, often due to the political considerations of not being seen to arm the cops with MAGNUM handguns.
Is a J-frame (or other 5-shot snub) something any particular cop or private citizen should consider carrying as a lawful concealed weapon? Depends on the person.
Are there arguably "better" choices for everyone? Sure.
Are there "better" choices which may be left at home in a safe due to size, weight and necessary carry method? Yep.
My generation of cop is rapidly aging into and beyond retirement, and the numbers of the previous generation are dwindling faster. Funny thing I've noticed in recent years, though. Of the many firearms instructors of my acquaintance of my generation, and those remaining of the generation who taught me (in retirement, although some still teaching), the venerable J-frame is still found in the pockets of a significant number of them. Sure, there's lighter weight models, and even lasers to be found, but the little 5-shot .38's are still seeing service.
I've noticed a number of older J's being brought to the range for the first time in many years, too. A few of them have required some service and repair, both from a couple decades of neglect (cop neglect is often abuse
), as well as some problems resulting from the hit or miss assembly & fitting of the 60's & 70's vintage S&W's (BTDT), but more of the older J's are seeing the light of day for the first time in years.
Why? It seems that while some aging shooters may normally prefer a larger (size, weight & caliber) handgun for off-duty or retirement, they've realized that in today's world (with news of today's events) they may not always be ready or willing to lug around larger handguns (after a career of having had to do so) ... and they're once again remembering the advantages of the snubs from back when they were originally chosen as an alternative to carrying around their Python or K-frame on their own time. I'm not going to question their choices to dust off the little snubs ... and dust off their previous revolver skills ... to pick something with which they can routinely arm themselves when the big guns stay at home.
The last older shooter I saw following this trend has been carrying a 6906 for many years, but he apparently realized that he was increasingly leaving it at home when he didn't want to wear a belt holster. He asked one of the other instructors for some advice about choosing a lighter weight aluminum model, and after trying one, he picked up a 642-2. He brought to the range and spent some time using it and refreshing his many years of earlier service revolver years. Now he can pocket-holster an Airweight, which he found to virtually disappear in his pocket, and he was very pleased with how he experienced the return of his revolver shooting skills on a normal course-of-fire.
Will they work for everyone? Of course not. No gun usually will.
A younger (early 40's) instructor who's never carried a service revolver tried an Airweight for a couple years, but being a long time S&W 3rd gen and Glock shooter, as well as a M&P pistol shooter for a few years, he finally returned to carrying one or another little .380, G26, M&P 9c, and now a Shield 9. Likes them all and shoots them well enough (and he's just acquired his first 1911, and is discovering that venue ).
Different strokes.
Denigrating the choices of others, or arguing about "logical" advantages & disadvantages of one type of small handgun or another often doesn't take into consideration the "human" part of the whole equation.
At the end of the day, and when actually being forced to use a handgun, it's what's at hand that's going to be present to be used, and even then ... it's just a handgun.
It's the mindset, skillset, experience & training of the guy/gal using the handgun that's probably going to determine how things turn out. That, and luck.
Not worth arguing about or trying to proselytize and "convert" other folks to someone's favorite idea.
Argue less. Train & practice more.
I remember seeing Colt D's and some Charter Arms appearing in the hands of private citizens and cops on the West Coast after I turned 18 at the beginning of the 70's, but the S&W J-frame was the hands-down favorite when I entered LE in the beginning of the 80's. Saw more of them at my agency than I ever saw Colt snubs (and my agency had issued Pythons for some years, so Colts weren't exactly unknown to the folks), and in other agencies, small, medium & large. Saw them at meetings and conferences on the hips of folks from all over. They filled the gun shop displays of all the stores I enjoyed visiting (although there was always a couple Colts of one model or another).
Although my first DA revolver was a Colt Police, when it came time to start buying my own snub revolvers for off-duty, they were S&W J's and Ruger Security/Speed-Sixes.
Fast-forward to modern times, and even in the last couple of Street Tactics and FBI LEOKA classes I attended not quite 2 years ago, the venerable 5-shot S&W .38 was mentioned more than I expected as having saved the lives of cops as back-up weapons. They're still serving in the role of secondary?back-up and even off-duty weapons, although larger duty-size, compact and even subcompact pistols are considered a better choice for many of today's shooters ... and one of the reasons for that is that today's shooters in LE just aren't revolver shooters.
Shooting a DA revolver is usually harder for many folks than shooting a similar size pistol. The flip side of that, however, is that folks who developed and mastered their handgun shooting skills using DA revolvers are often better rounded shooters when it comes to handguns.
Awkward grip frames, bulky not-exactly-anatomically-shaped wooden grip stocks, long/heavy DA trigger strokes, limited capacity, old-style blade sights ... and probably the recoil of a .357 Magnum cartridge. Mastering a Magnum revolver can seem daunting to today's shooters ... although granted, there wasn't a shortage of cops restricted to the "Non-Magnum" .38 Spl and .38 Spl +P loads of earlier years, often due to the political considerations of not being seen to arm the cops with MAGNUM handguns.
Is a J-frame (or other 5-shot snub) something any particular cop or private citizen should consider carrying as a lawful concealed weapon? Depends on the person.
Are there arguably "better" choices for everyone? Sure.
Are there "better" choices which may be left at home in a safe due to size, weight and necessary carry method? Yep.
My generation of cop is rapidly aging into and beyond retirement, and the numbers of the previous generation are dwindling faster. Funny thing I've noticed in recent years, though. Of the many firearms instructors of my acquaintance of my generation, and those remaining of the generation who taught me (in retirement, although some still teaching), the venerable J-frame is still found in the pockets of a significant number of them. Sure, there's lighter weight models, and even lasers to be found, but the little 5-shot .38's are still seeing service.
I've noticed a number of older J's being brought to the range for the first time in many years, too. A few of them have required some service and repair, both from a couple decades of neglect (cop neglect is often abuse
), as well as some problems resulting from the hit or miss assembly & fitting of the 60's & 70's vintage S&W's (BTDT), but more of the older J's are seeing the light of day for the first time in years.Why? It seems that while some aging shooters may normally prefer a larger (size, weight & caliber) handgun for off-duty or retirement, they've realized that in today's world (with news of today's events) they may not always be ready or willing to lug around larger handguns (after a career of having had to do so) ... and they're once again remembering the advantages of the snubs from back when they were originally chosen as an alternative to carrying around their Python or K-frame on their own time. I'm not going to question their choices to dust off the little snubs ... and dust off their previous revolver skills ... to pick something with which they can routinely arm themselves when the big guns stay at home.
The last older shooter I saw following this trend has been carrying a 6906 for many years, but he apparently realized that he was increasingly leaving it at home when he didn't want to wear a belt holster. He asked one of the other instructors for some advice about choosing a lighter weight aluminum model, and after trying one, he picked up a 642-2. He brought to the range and spent some time using it and refreshing his many years of earlier service revolver years. Now he can pocket-holster an Airweight, which he found to virtually disappear in his pocket, and he was very pleased with how he experienced the return of his revolver shooting skills on a normal course-of-fire.
Will they work for everyone? Of course not. No gun usually will.
A younger (early 40's) instructor who's never carried a service revolver tried an Airweight for a couple years, but being a long time S&W 3rd gen and Glock shooter, as well as a M&P pistol shooter for a few years, he finally returned to carrying one or another little .380, G26, M&P 9c, and now a Shield 9. Likes them all and shoots them well enough (and he's just acquired his first 1911, and is discovering that venue
).Different strokes.
Denigrating the choices of others, or arguing about "logical" advantages & disadvantages of one type of small handgun or another often doesn't take into consideration the "human" part of the whole equation.
At the end of the day, and when actually being forced to use a handgun, it's what's at hand that's going to be present to be used, and even then ... it's just a handgun.
It's the mindset, skillset, experience & training of the guy/gal using the handgun that's probably going to determine how things turn out. That, and luck.
Not worth arguing about or trying to proselytize and "convert" other folks to someone's favorite idea.
Argue less. Train & practice more.
Last edited:
Stainz
Member
Count me in the J-frame CC 24/7 lately with my <11 oz 351PD 7-shot .22 WMR. Before that, it was my 642 or 632 Pro (.32 - .327 Fed Magnum). All were deemed 'enough' for me - yet are easily CC-ed. I am a retired college instructor and ex USN. I'd rather have a .45 revolver on my hip - but I am a realist!
Stainz
Stainz
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
I used to carry a jframe in the pocket in summer when clothing dictates carrying something small. I personally never felt like I wouldn't be able to defend myself with it in a bad situation. I shot it well, but didn't enjoy it. I think for an every day Joe, walking around gun, it is fine. I still carry my Ruger SP101, but there is more in question here than just the ammo capacity. Shootability is part of it too. IMO a 3" SP101 is easier to shoot well than an airweight jframe with a boot grip, though different variants of the jframe exist.
I then discovered the SA XDs in .45acp. IMO it is a better carry option, but obviously a totally different beast than a jframe.
My personal feeling is that if you feel a jframe isn't "enough" then maybe moving is really the solution you need. I realize that isn't an option for everyone though. Carry what feels like "enough" to you. The reality is that in an extreme situation, or if caught off guard, an AK47 may not be enough.
I then discovered the SA XDs in .45acp. IMO it is a better carry option, but obviously a totally different beast than a jframe.
My personal feeling is that if you feel a jframe isn't "enough" then maybe moving is really the solution you need. I realize that isn't an option for everyone though. Carry what feels like "enough" to you. The reality is that in an extreme situation, or if caught off guard, an AK47 may not be enough.
Last edited:
J-Frame Size
Around four years ago, I bought a Smith &Wesson M&P 9c, a 9MM with a capacity of 12+1. I had been carrying a J-Frame Airweight Centennial, and frankly, I continued to do so most of the time until a couple of good discussions here and a defensive pistol shooting course caused me to change my ways.
The size comparisons in this review were eye-opening. Take a look at the pics.
This shows that the choice is not one of leaving a .45 at home or having a revolver with you.
Of course the M&P compact does not lend itself to pocket use anywhere near as well.
The Ruger SR 9c (10+1) is almost exactly the same size. Which to choose is a matter of personal preference.
And the world continues to turn. After this lengthy discussion, the Centennial is back in my pocket--for back-up.
Around four years ago, I bought a Smith &Wesson M&P 9c, a 9MM with a capacity of 12+1. I had been carrying a J-Frame Airweight Centennial, and frankly, I continued to do so most of the time until a couple of good discussions here and a defensive pistol shooting course caused me to change my ways.
The size comparisons in this review were eye-opening. Take a look at the pics.
This shows that the choice is not one of leaving a .45 at home or having a revolver with you.
Of course the M&P compact does not lend itself to pocket use anywhere near as well.
The Ruger SR 9c (10+1) is almost exactly the same size. Which to choose is a matter of personal preference.
And the world continues to turn. After this lengthy discussion, the Centennial is back in my pocket--for back-up.
- Status
