Is a J frame enough?

[boricua9mm]

Seriously? You think the best answer of capacity, weight, and concealability that is the answer to the snubby's perceived inadequacies is a Glock 26? I'm sure you like yours, and I guess they're sort of okay to shoot, but that gun is only a partial answer, and a rather unsatisfactory one to me.

Yes! Heck YES! Let's not fool ourselves. A 12 lb trigger pull, the heavy slamming recoil of a .38+P Hollow Point in a 12 oz. revolver, crummy sights you can't see and a tiny sight radius are very REAL inadequacies for a primary carry weapon.

The capacity is nice. The weight isn't terrible, and certainly better than an all-steel pistol that size would be. But the feel and concealability issues are not even close.

Lots of people fall into the mistake of choosing weapons based on the sole fact that they feel they have more "soul" than another offering which may actually make more sense, one that may even be a better tool for the job. After all, a daily CCW gun is just a tool, right? I don't need to smile when I look at it, or show it off to friends. It's a tool; a common and soul-less one, which is ideal considering the job it has to do.

I already have bigger, heavier guns than my 642. I don't have another that conceals as well.

If you can't conceal a baby Glock, you're not trying very hard. Hell, I've been pocket carrying one since 2004. I use a gun belt to support the weight, I buy pants & shorts with large pockets, and I use a DeSantis pocket holster.

This choice was made after my having to deal with an aggressor in a violent confrontation with an Airweight J-frame. It is, without a doubt, a better tool for the preservation of life, if one is willing to accommodate it. It offers a more effective cartridge than the .38 J-frames, a much more user-friendly trigger, much better sight options, a longer sight radius, and the ability to accept a wide range of magazines.

In sum, yes, I'd say the Glock 26 and its younger brothers have greatly hurt the J-frame market since their inception in 1994. Law Enforcement seems to agree.

 

[TestPilot]

I do not see why this is such a complicated issue.

J-frame MAY be best for SOME people in SOME situations for primary reason of concealability or accessibility in specific circumstances. So, in that specific case, it would be best for those specific people, and it is certainly not because it is the easiest pistol to fight effectively with once the gun is drawn, which is more relevant to the question of "enough?"

No one knows whether if it is going to be enough.

And, it is certainly not the most concealable or accessible firearm in all situations as some people would like to have others belive. I have a 642. I don't carry it. I have a non-J-frame that is more concealable and easier to hit with that I do not find more or less difficult to operate from a pocket holster.

 

[fastbolt]

I do not see why this is such a complicated issue.

It's not. However, choice-of-tool issues often become complicated when folks like to inject personal bias, preference, individual worldview/perspectives and otherwise try to make it complicated.

... and it is certainly not because it is the easiest pistol to fight effectively with once the gun is drawn, which is more relevant to the question of "enough?"

No one knows whether if it is going to be enough.

Well, "easiest pistol to fight effectively" is bordering on being somewhat of an oxymoron, as it's still just a handgun. Kind of like asking which Chevy Corvair was the "best to race with" because of the differences in horsepower. It's still just a Corvair. (Even so, it's usually unwise to discount the training, skill & experience of different drivers in racing. )

I think I may have said this before in this thread (not sure without going back to look), but whenever I hear serious, intense and enthusiastic supporters of one make/model of handgun, caliber, ammunition, holster style or whatever being elevated (or denigrated) when folks get together for qual ranges & training, it's usually a fairly easy matter to wander downrange and have someone demonstrate whether or not their choice of equipment necessarily makes them able to use it easier, better, effectively, quickly, accurately and controllably ... and able to do so consistently.

I've carried a lot of different handguns on & off-duty over more than 30 years of being able to do so with a badge.

I've never felt "well armed" with a handgun, regardless of caliber, capacity or make/model ... just armed. ("Better armed" started to be achieved at the level of the 12 ga shotgun in the rack or trunk when I was on-duty.)

Equipment selection is such a small part of the equation and range of criteria to be considered ... if someone even has the option of choosing for themselves ... and it's not something that requires agreement. Now, being able to use it well? That is easy enough to demonstrate.

I've seen my fair share of barely marginal shooters who were very enthusiastic owners of the big name high dollar and/or currently popular "fighting pistols" or "fighting handguns" ... and it often imbued them with a false & unjustified sense of confidence.

Handguns - as dedicated defensive weapons - are the very definition of COMPROMISE. Pretty much everything that makes for an effective "fighting firearm", except the ability to conveniently carry it on our person, is traded away to achieve that portability & convenience. Add concealment to the priorities, and it becomes mostly a matter of how poor of a comprise remains to be chosen.

It just remains to be seen where any particular person feels justified in drawing their personal line among the many ways that handguns are a compromise.

 

[TestPilot]

Well, "easiest pistol to fight effectively" is bordering on being somewhat of an oxymoron, as it's still just a handgun. Kind of like asking which Chevy Corvair was the "best to race with" because of the differences in horsepower. It's still just a Corvair.

Some pistols are more easier to fight with than others.

The fact of the matter is that since none of us gets a calling card from criminals before getting attacked, we are limited to pistols in regards to CCW.

 

[heyjoe]

Kleanbore wrote:

Yeah, but except in screen dramatizations, it (the J-Frame) was generally for back-up.

Here's a post from another board from a NYPD detective:

Quote:
We have a choice of carrying either a Glock 23 or a Glock 27 (both department issued). I carry a Glock 23. For years, we were allowed to carry our own pistols or revolvers, and I carried a Smith & Wesson Model 65 (.357 revolver) with a three inch barrel. I often carry my little Smith & Wesson 637 (.38 cal) 5 shot revolver as a back up.

In over 30 years as a detective, I have seen a wide variety of firearms carried by detectives in different departments. Almost everyone today carries semi-automatic pistols, with Glocks and Sigs as big favorites.
(emphasis added)

There was an article about another NYCPD detective who retired in 2012 who had been "grandfathered" and allowed to continue carrying revolvers. He said he carried a six shot Smith plus a J-Frame in an ankle holster.

But what may have served for many years in the past is not really very relevant, is it. After all, when Theodore Roosevelt was Police Commissioner in New York, the standard police revolver was a .32 Long.

I worked in law enforcement in new york city from the early nineties until 2003. I conducted investigations on a city wide basis with rotating hours, so had expereince in all of the worst neighborhoods in the city at all hours. I worked with one other person. For the first three years i carried a model 10, then a few more with an sp101, then a 640-1 and finally a 638 airweight. I came into frequent contact with NYPD detectives, used their facilities for arrests, worked cooperatively on some investigations, and during that time period the overwhelming majority carried nothing more than a model 36 andno backup.
this began changing in the late nineties as the newer detectives continues to carry the 9mm they had been carrying on patrol.

 

[fastbolt]

Some pistols are more easier to fight with than others.

Situational & user context still required.

I've seen not-so-skilled folks who were the proud owners of one or another of the gee-whiz, hi-tech wonder pistols not be able to use them any better than the bone-stock, everyday common pistols they claim are inferior. The felt they were doing better when using them, but their confidence was a bit misplaced when it came down to results. This can be addressed with training & recurrent practice, of course, as long as the owner/user recognizes that perceived comfort & confidence don't replace actual ease of manipulation, handling & proper usage under less-than-ideal conditions.

Then again, I've seen above average skilled shooters run anything they picked up and perform as well as anyone could hope for in whatever demanding set of circumstances they were given.

Any of us could point out any range of handguns and identify them as unsuitable for serious dedicated defensive application, justifying our choices due to our own likes, dislikes & experiences. Those are personal choices which require no outside justification or validation, but ought not to be used to judge the choices of others.

Obviously, most of us who have carried, used and trained with various firearms professionally (as both students and teachers) would probably agree upon a general area of common ground.

For example, probably not a lot of trainers are routinely recommending the use of .22's, .25's or even .32's for serious application as secondary/back-up weapons, although even the still-popular "minimum" calibers of .380 ACP & .38 S&W Spl can create some interesting discussions and potential for disagreement, as this thread topic has demonstrated.

The use of even the best quality .380's & .38's as lawful concealed weapons routinely carried as primary weapons is often a bit contentious. Many folks find a more acceptable level of comfort in justifying their use only as secondary & back-up weapons, and that's fine.

It arguably doesn't lessen the real world importance of being able to quickly, properly & effectively use that little "not a real fighting handgun" .38 or .380 when the situation may suddenly make that gun your now-primary fighting handgun.

The little 5-shot snubs have long filled this secondary role, but then, as much as some folks may dislike it, they've also continued to serve many folks ... even skilled, experienced and knowledgeable folks ... as off-duty, retirement & CCW-type weapons when anticipated situations and circumstances may not allow (or compel) someone to carry a "full-sized fighting handgun".

In other words, they still have a valuable place within the grater scheme of things, for whatever reason(s) someone may feel it prudent to include them in their equipment selection.

Lives have been saved by their presence and effective usage when full-size duty weapons have been rendered inoperative, inaccessible or simply not available for continued use. Lives have also been saved by their usage as "primary" off-duty weapons.

Sure, lives have also been lost when they were being used as "primary" weapons, but the same can be said when full-size handguns have been involved.

Risk assessment. Informed decision-making when selecting a handgun to employ as a dedicated defensive weapon.

FWIW, if the diminutive J-frame weren't still considered an effective option for some users, so many LE agencies wouldn't still be both approving personal purchase of them and even issuing them. Consider why Speer developed their first short-barrel load, the 135gr GDHP +P, at the request of NYPD for approved .38 Spl snubs.

While this thread topic has been more enjoyable (and polite) than others that have been created to discuss it, it's not like we're going to arrive at a definitive one-size-fits-all answer that pleases everyone, or is even "right" for everyone, for all circumstances.

That's why I try to shy away from shilling specific guns/caliber/ammunition choices for the folks with whom I still work in classroom & range settings. I may help guide them in understanding and prioritizing what they might ought to consider when making choices for their needs ... but I'm much more interested in how well they can learn to safely & effectively employ their choices.

 

[benzy2]

Is the J-frame enough? For my concerns, yes its enough. Its not my first choice most of the time as others seem to equal or better the design in most settings. I still find comfort in what it provides. Comfort is all the bulk of us will take from a SD weapon. Draw your comfort line where you will.

As with all handguns, if you can handle more gun, use more gun. If not, be as proficient as possible with what you can handle.

 

[Doug S]

Fastbolt,

I just wanted to say that I've enjoyed reading your thoughtful, and reasonable comments in this thread.

Doug

 

[harrygunner]

Capacity is lower, but performance can be consistent with service pistols.

If I carry my S&W 640-1 in .357 Mag, it's usually in an ankle holster or in my jacket pocket. But on rare occasions, when concealment is paramount, I carry it in a Comp-TAC CTAC IWB holster as my primary.

I chronographed Buffalo Bore 158gr JHC from that gun.

Altitude: 3221 ft, Temperature: 48 degrees, Barometric pressure: 26.9 inHg
1242, 1231, 1226, 1260, 1255 : avg 1243 ft/s and 540 ft-lb energy

That's comparable to a warm .40 S&W 155gr round from a service pistol.

For me, given the weight of the steel 640 Centennial, recoil is not an issue.

 

[fastbolt]

Fastbolt,

I just wanted to say that I've enjoyed reading your thoughtful, and reasonable comments in this thread.

Doug

Thanks.

De nada.

 

[Gun Master]

J Frame Enough.....?

I wanted to say "ditto" to what DougS said, and to thank fastbolt for his insightful contributions to this thread.

Although I have previously stated my J frame model 38 is usually my main CCW, I have other options that I also use.

The .380 ACP has always been considered borderline, as far as minimal defensive weapons. I believe the 9x18mm Makarov exceeds this debatable borderline, since it is more powerful. Two opposite ends of the Makarov spectrum are some of my optional choices (P-64 & CZ-82). The 64 is smaller (with a 6 rd. mag) and more concealable, but has more recoil bite and reduced power, due to a shorter barrel. The larger 82 has a 12 rd. mag with more power and less felt recoil, due to the longer barrel (and a more user friendly grip).

One of my other potential choices is a Colt Police Positive 4" .38Spl. It has a small frame somewhat similar to the J frame of the S&W. I carry this in a larger pocket, etc. The 6 rd. cylinder and longer barrel appeal to me more, when feasible . This is essentially the same gun as the Colt Cobra, except for the shorter 2" barrel.

Please feel free to share your options to the J frame (which I still believe is a great option, in many cases).

 

[Deaf Smith]

If you can shoot, and shoot well, sure a J .38 can save the day.

And if you can't shoot, then even a 20 shot 12 gauge might not cut it.

Skill is number one as for using a weapon.

But street skills trump even that.

Deaf

 

[sixgunner455]

The Police Positive is a great gun. It is basically a Detective Special with a 4" barrel.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Gun Master: Please feel free to share your options to the J frame (which I still believe is a great option, in many cases).

I have several:

• Two J-frames (the only viably rapid reload, not much more to carry than one revolver pus a reload, provides redundancy in case of a squib)
• Two Ruger LCR revolvers (notably better trigger than the J-Frame)
• Two shrouded D-Frames (six shots each, better triggers, better grips, better sights)
• One of any of the above and one M&P 9c or Ruger SR 9c (same size as a J-frame, much better trigger, much better grip, much better sights, more capacity)

For one firearm? I had been carrying a well-broken-in semi auto. Less chance of missing, much less chance of running dry at a most inopportune moment.

Two disadvantages have been nagging at me: Accessibility in the driver's seat, and the possibility of a malfunction. Hence, the addition.

I do know a retired detective who did carry a J-frame for primary carry. He never, ever worked alone, and when he was actually going out to apprehend someone, he usually switched to a K-frame.

 

[Agsalaska]

It is all I carry. Its actually a Taurus 85 that is freakeshly accurate for what it is. It is the only gun/holster combination that fits IWB comfortably for me. I like the long trigger pull. The holster is so tight it keeps the cylinder in place even if I try to get my hand in there and pull the trigger. I do occasionaly carry a speed holster in a pocket but it usually stays in the console.

I get that there are situations where it may not be enough. If three guys are attacking me and not retreating after I shoot one, then I would probably rather have a high cap pistol. But there is a better chance I have a heart attack than get in that situation and I do not carry a difibrillator around either. So I guess I am willing to take a few chances.

 

[TestPilot]

Some people mention Clint Smith's words to the effect of using s pistol to fight one's way to a rifle which is a moot point if there is no rifle available in the situation. I also think the argument is not sound because people who got in gun fights came to a grim realization that what they had to end the fight with was whatever they had on them when the fight broke out.

However, I do carry a 6 shot 380ACP pistol, and plan to use it to buy time to draw my M&P40, in situations where that 380 pistol is more accessible.

Nearly every type of pistol has a nishe. It is not a question of whether if you should or should not carry it. It is a question of whether if you are aware of its limitations.

 

[Sergei Mosin]

The 5-shot revolver is less gun than I'd like to carry, but much of the time it's all I can carry. On those occasions, it's better than nothing - but I'm very much aware of its limitations, and I'd still rather have something more.

 

[Gun Master]

Depends on All The Circumstances

The 5-shot revolver is less gun than I'd like to carry, but much of the time it's all I can carry. On those occasions, it's better than nothing - but I'm very much aware of its limitations, and I'd still rather have something more.

Agreed ! That sums it up for me .

Better armed than not. Especially if it is in a gun and caliber that you trust.

Carry bigger and heavier when you can.

 

[SC Shooter]

My very first carry weapon was a S&W chiefs special J frame. I would just drop in a jacket pocket or in loose fitting pants. I don't carry often, and like you I consider my life a low risk life. Over the years I have gone to other types for carry, such as small autos, but if I feel the need to carry, I often go back to my j frame. I find IWB holsters uncomfortable, and I refuse to think it is because of this roll over my belt. That's just additional concealment.

 

[CoalTrain49]

S&W still sells truck loads of those things. I have one and carry it. Bottom line is I don't trust an auto loader and I've had plenty. I'm not sure how many times the aggressor is going to be shot but I know it's going to be at least once.

 

[Sergei Mosin]

I want to address one of Kleanbore's concerns - accessibility in the driver's seat.

This is something that's bothered me for a long time too. The jacket pocket solution is a good one, but for me it only works in the winter. Summers around these parts are hot. That means the only places I can carry a gun on my person are going to be essentially inaccessible while seated in the car.

Now, there are car-mounted holsters available. They have the advantage of easy access in the car; they also mean you can carry any gun you can conceal. The disadvantage is that you have to transfer the gun between holsters when you get in or out of the car, which can negate the concealment you're trying to maintain. The other disadvantage is that they don't suit every car. Good luck getting my wife to let me mount one in her minivan, or finding a place to mount one in my convertible. The console or glove compartment is a poor second, although it can be made to work.

So I don't know if there's a good answer to the problem when you can't wear a jacket.

 

[Gun Master]

1+1+=2 ; 1+0=1 ; 0+0=0

Kleanbore, two is always better than one, but one J frame is better than zero ! No es verdad ?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Gun Master: ...one J frame is better than zero ! No es verdad ?

Sure, but in most cases, one good pistol of the same size with a better trigger and better sights and more capacity would be even better.

In 2014 there are Glock, Ruger, and Smith Semi-autos that meet that description.

Three score years ago there were new Colt revolvers. One can still buy older ones today..

 

[Gun Master]

Backup Gun, When You Can !

Sure, but in most cases, one good pistol of the same size with a better trigger and better sights and more capacity would be even better.

In 2014 there are Glock, Ruger, and Smith Semi-autos that meet that description.

Three score years ago there were new Colt revolvers. One can still buy older ones today..

I own one of those Colts, which I sometimes use for CCW. Please see post #211, next to the last paragraph. It's in "like new" (99.51%) condition.

I support your "backup" gun advocacy, whenever possible. But,......one is better than none.

Thanks for your input and being moderator.

 

[Kleanbore]

On that nice note, and after nine pages and 224 posts, I think we can close this one.

Should anyone have a worthwhile idea that has not yet been touched upon, send a PM.