S&W J Frame vs Glock 42?
- Thread starter fxstchewy
- Start date
- Status
WVGunman
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2014
- Messages
- 382
I wasn't making an argument, I was pointing out a FACT: The people whose lives depend on guns don't carry revolvers, and there are good reasons why. That's not logic, it's an accomplished, provable fact. The OP asked for "thoughts and opinions." I don't know about you, but if anyone SERIOUSLY thinks they need a gun, why would they not get the most effective one they could get? This has nothing to do with the "Mall Ninja" phenomenon you mention, because most of those people don't need guns much at all. Like you said, the odds of a cop even needing his weapon are slim. (I knew a guy once who retired after 25+ years in a county sheriff's department having never even drawn his weapon.)
Yeah, most of us will use a gun in anger even less. So what? My final statement addressed exactly that point, which you ignored in your rush to rant: I said carry a revolver if you don't ever expect to be in a gunfight. An actual gunfight. If you think you might really get shot at, carry the Glock, just like most everyone else in the world does who thinks he might get shot at.
Now, put down your ego and go practice your reading comprehension and debating skills.
ljnowell
Member
If you can't figure out the difference in the needs if a police officer or soldier and a conceal carrier then no amount of explaining will help you. One runs from danger and one runs to it. It's pretty simple.
We may as well all be carrying AR or AK pistols following your logic
It never fails to amaze me that people cannot understand that what they feel they need and what another feels they need are different. You aren't right and they aren't wrong. Carry whatever you want but don't tell people they are foolish for not carrying a mall ninja load out everyday complete with a BUG and multiple magazines for both.
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
Youre missing the point. Ill repeat it for you...once the fight starts, whats the difference? If youre planning on surviving, you have to fight the fight. There are no alibi's, because you didnt plan ahead.
Carry what you want, you have to live with whatever may come, and with what you brought along. I could care less what you carry, but like you said..."You aren't right and they aren't wrong.".
Posted by ljnowell:
The civilian may not be able to run. Or running may not suffice.
He or she should try to avoid trouble, but the question was,
The operative phrase is "once the action starts".
The answer is, the difference lies in what happens after the action "stops".
When the civilian is no longer immediately threatened with death or serious bodily harm, the "action" is over. Not so for the sworn officer, who has the duty to pursue.
But that most certainly does not support the opinion that the thought that a jframe is insufficient for a conceal carrier is ridiculous. The analysis must center on what it will likely take to stop "the action", once it starts.
That's almost true, but not quite.
The civilian may not be able to run. Or running may not suffice.
He or she should try to avoid trouble, but the question was,
The operative phrase is "once the action starts".
The answer is, the difference lies in what happens after the action "stops".
When the civilian is no longer immediately threatened with death or serious bodily harm, the "action" is over. Not so for the sworn officer, who has the duty to pursue.
But that most certainly does not support the opinion that the thought that a jframe is insufficient for a conceal carrier is ridiculous. The analysis must center on what it will likely take to stop "the action", once it starts.
ljnowell
Member
Carry what you want, you have to live with whatever may come, and with what you brought along. I could care less what you carry, but like you said..."You aren't right and they aren't wrong.".
That was my whole point, it applies to me as well as you. Some people prepare to defend themselves others prepare for an extended gun battle. Do what makes you feel safe.
Spending page after page if posts arguing that your way is the right way is silly.
Posted by ljnowell:
And lest anyone happen to believe otherwise, carrying a gun will not make anyone "safe". Rather, it will offer a last ditch means of protection to one who is properly prepared to use it effectively timely, after all else has failed.
What one "feels" may not coincide with informed opinion.
And lest anyone happen to believe otherwise, carrying a gun will not make anyone "safe". Rather, it will offer a last ditch means of protection to one who is properly prepared to use it effectively timely, after all else has failed.
ljnowell
Member
Went ahead and bolded the important part.
I also fail to see where I, or anyone else, said that carrying a gun would "make us safe." This thread has gotten beyond entertaining.
I did order my belt fed machine gun with a pocket holster to carry, that way I'm prepared for "when the action starts."
Saleen322
Member
Of the two, I also would prefer the revolver. If one believes that 75% of rounds in a gun fight miss then you have two options; get a gun that holds more or shoot better. I am more of a fan of the latter. I think it was Wyatt Earp who said, Fast is fine but accuracy is final. You have to learn to be slow in a hurry.
Posted by ljnowell:
I intended to say that people should always try to make informed decisions--decisions based on knowledge, facts, and realistic assumptions.
Few of us start out doing that very well. We try to become informed--to learn, through the experiences of others, through coaching and training, and through trial and error.
In the case of the OP's question, the decision encompasses several factors: "shootability", terminal ballistics, and capacity. The first will be a personal thing; the second is objectively measurable, but there are varying opinions about it; it is the third that is difficult.
Unless we want to rely solely upon effecting a psychological stop, we would need to hit at least one vital part of an attacker's body, and more would be preferable. There are few of those; they are all rather small; they are concealed within a three dimensional, moving, twisting space; and the defender will have very little time to do it. How many fast shots might be required to bring that about is difficult to predict, and then there are the questions about multiple attackers and about whether one would want a safety margin.
Five shots might suffice; more would give a greater chance. In any event, I cannot see how anyone could reasonably conclude that "the thought that a jframe is insufficient for a conceal carrier is ridiculous".
Member JohnKSa, who is on the staff at The Firing Line, ran some numbers, primarily out of curiosity as I recall, when the subject arose some years ago. I was surprised, and so was he. I consider the analysis illustrative and not determinative. If you do not like his assumptions, choose your own, and perform your own calculations.
John's calculations, in combination with the realization that the likelihood of an attack does not enter into the analysis of what it would take to mitigate the risk should the risk present itself, caused me to put my 642 in a backup role.
My response was not intended to criticize you in any way, but far too many people do seem to believe that having a gun can make them safe--put another way, they "feel safe" with a gun.
It is important to point out that that is just not the case.
You bolded "opinion"; opinion is what it is, but the emphasis should be on "informed".
I intended to say that people should always try to make informed decisions--decisions based on knowledge, facts, and realistic assumptions.
Few of us start out doing that very well. We try to become informed--to learn, through the experiences of others, through coaching and training, and through trial and error.
In the case of the OP's question, the decision encompasses several factors: "shootability", terminal ballistics, and capacity. The first will be a personal thing; the second is objectively measurable, but there are varying opinions about it; it is the third that is difficult.
Unless we want to rely solely upon effecting a psychological stop, we would need to hit at least one vital part of an attacker's body, and more would be preferable. There are few of those; they are all rather small; they are concealed within a three dimensional, moving, twisting space; and the defender will have very little time to do it. How many fast shots might be required to bring that about is difficult to predict, and then there are the questions about multiple attackers and about whether one would want a safety margin.
Five shots might suffice; more would give a greater chance. In any event, I cannot see how anyone could reasonably conclude that "the thought that a jframe is insufficient for a conceal carrier is ridiculous".
Member JohnKSa, who is on the staff at The Firing Line, ran some numbers, primarily out of curiosity as I recall, when the subject arose some years ago. I was surprised, and so was he. I consider the analysis illustrative and not determinative. If you do not like his assumptions, choose your own, and perform your own calculations.
John's calculations, in combination with the realization that the likelihood of an attack does not enter into the analysis of what it would take to mitigate the risk should the risk present itself, caused me to put my 642 in a backup role.
You did not. The phrase was "feel safe".
My response was not intended to criticize you in any way, but far too many people do seem to believe that having a gun can make them safe--put another way, they "feel safe" with a gun.
It is important to point out that that is just not the case.
Entertainment is not the purpose of THR.
jimbo555
Member
Both should probably play a backup role. G42 and j-frame.
Nom de Forum
Member
The G42 is less bulky and just as lightweight as a J-frame. In my experience a G42 is easier to conceal and more comfortable than a J-frame in pocket carry and in an ankle holster.
The only thing a J-frame brings to the table the G42 can't match is slightly superior terminal ballistic performance, slightly superior cycling reliability, and less chance of jamming if fired from inside a coat pocket.
Are the bullets fired from any caliber of J-frame that strike the 5 zone so much more effective than bullets from a G42 that having only five chances of a hit makes it more advantageous than having 7 to 9 chances of a hit from a G42?
Sure, but when either one or the other is the needed for primary carry the G42 provides more capability.
Last edited:
Make mine a snub nose .38spl +P
More reliability, more power.
Although I rarely carry such a pistol as a primary, on the rare occasion I need something very small and discreet, it's a 642. Either Speer Gold Dot 135gr +P or Buffalo Bore 158gr LSWCHP +P (those are HOT!)
And they don't carry small pocket .380's either
More reliability, more power.
Although I rarely carry such a pistol as a primary, on the rare occasion I need something very small and discreet, it's a 642. Either Speer Gold Dot 135gr +P or Buffalo Bore 158gr LSWCHP +P (those are HOT!)
And they don't carry small pocket .380's either
ljnowell
Member
And, once again, it's all opinion. You can post however you want to try and turn it your way, but it's still opinion.
I would rather have five shots of good quality 158 grain 38s than a G42 on me any day of the week.
Posted by Nom de Forum:
That would encompass both penetration and the largely random chances of hitting vital parts concealed within the assailant's body or assailants' bodies.
Who can know the answer?
The Glock is smaller in all dimensions, as shown in Post 29.
The question is, how much more in the way of terminal ballistics?
That is the question, but I would replace "a hit" with "an effective stop".
That would encompass both penetration and the largely random chances of hitting vital parts concealed within the assailant's body or assailants' bodies.
Who can know the answer?
I choose something else.
Posted by ljnowell:
The preponderance of informed opinion (yes, opinion) of persons knowledgeable in the field is that there are far better choices than a J Frame for primary carry, though there are some people who do carry them for primary use from time to time. I may be wrong on this, but I am of the impression that they either factor in the low probability of ever having to use it (risk management was once my provision, and I recommend against that approach), or perhaps that they are considering the advantages of pocket carry and firing from a pocket under certain circumstances. I can't argue with that one.
Two five shot revolvers in .38 Special, on the other hand, would be my choice over either one.
I do not know any top ranked instructors who would put a five shot revolver on the top of a list of recommendations.
I do know one who says that a copy of Gray's Anatomy should be on the bookshelf. If one looks though it long enough, one should start to understand how few shots fired rapidly from varying angles into a fast-moving human body are likely to effect a quick stop, and that would tend to make one appreciate that advantages of somewhat higher capacity.
I do not know very many experts who recommend relying upon a .380, either.
I'm not trying to turn anything "my way". I'm simply trying to explain why I think the statement that ""the thought that a jframe is insufficient for a conceal carrier is ridiculous" is way off base.
The preponderance of informed opinion (yes, opinion) of persons knowledgeable in the field is that there are far better choices than a J Frame for primary carry, though there are some people who do carry them for primary use from time to time. I may be wrong on this, but I am of the impression that they either factor in the low probability of ever having to use it (risk management was once my provision, and I recommend against that approach), or perhaps that they are considering the advantages of pocket carry and firing from a pocket under certain circumstances. I can't argue with that one.
I can't offer an opinion on that. I have heard over and over that the .380 is on the light side, and perhaps too light. And I am convinced, based on training and analysis, that five shots are on the low side--very low. Colt made money with that knowledge years ago, and for good reason.
Two five shot revolvers in .38 Special, on the other hand, would be my choice over either one.
I do not know any top ranked instructors who would put a five shot revolver on the top of a list of recommendations.
I do know one who says that a copy of Gray's Anatomy should be on the bookshelf. If one looks though it long enough, one should start to understand how few shots fired rapidly from varying angles into a fast-moving human body are likely to effect a quick stop, and that would tend to make one appreciate that advantages of somewhat higher capacity.
I do not know very many experts who recommend relying upon a .380, either.
Some Pertinent Information
A link to an article on defensive ammunition was recently posted in another thread. The article is wide ranging, but I will direct attention to two things that are pertinent to the discussion at hand here.
First, the author of the article, a Dr. Gary Roberts, has no .380 ACP loads on his recommended list. Read the discussion for perspective.
Second, there are some illustrations drawn by a South african radiologist what show the difficulty (or more accurately, the rather low likelihood) of striking anything vital within an assailant's body with any one, or perhaps two or more shots. The link to the source does not work. The anatomical schematics are grossly over simplified, but they illustrate the concept.
This tends to lead one to answer the OP with "neither of the above".
http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/
A link to an article on defensive ammunition was recently posted in another thread. The article is wide ranging, but I will direct attention to two things that are pertinent to the discussion at hand here.
First, the author of the article, a Dr. Gary Roberts, has no .380 ACP loads on his recommended list. Read the discussion for perspective.
Second, there are some illustrations drawn by a South african radiologist what show the difficulty (or more accurately, the rather low likelihood) of striking anything vital within an assailant's body with any one, or perhaps two or more shots. The link to the source does not work. The anatomical schematics are grossly over simplified, but they illustrate the concept.
This tends to lead one to answer the OP with "neither of the above".
http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/
- Status
