Why Own a Snubby?
- Thread starter jski
- Start date
trackskippy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2010
- Messages
- 4,241
Yea, they do OK, they just go "click" too quick, especially once you start adding more targets into the mix. 
Tallball
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2014
- Messages
- 8,009
Let's assume the figures that other members are using are correct. I think it was a 70% hit rate and a 40% incapacitation rate.
So we're figuring three attackers. If they're armed similarly to the lone civilian...
They will each fire ten rounds. 30 rounds times 70% hit rate and 40% incapacitation rate means they will incapacitate you 840% of the time.
Please let me know if I used incorrect figures. 70% and 40% are just what I remembered from a post.
So we're figuring three attackers. If they're armed similarly to the lone civilian...
They will each fire ten rounds. 30 rounds times 70% hit rate and 40% incapacitation rate means they will incapacitate you 840% of the time.
Please let me know if I used incorrect figures. 70% and 40% are just what I remembered from a post.
trackskippy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2010
- Messages
- 4,241
You need to get it into your head, that every instance is its own critter, and it doesn't matter what anyones numbers say or tell you to expect. Youll know where you stand at the end, assuming you pull it off.
And you shoot until the threats are down and out. Might have to give them a dose of boardinghouse rules if there are more than one, but regardless, you shoot until they are down and out or you are empty, and hope if its the latter, they are done.
And you know exactly how many rounds its going to take, right?
And you shoot until the threats are down and out. Might have to give them a dose of boardinghouse rules if there are more than one, but regardless, you shoot until they are down and out or you are empty, and hope if its the latter, they are done.
And you know exactly how many rounds its going to take, right?
I'm not sure about that. I sure didn't when I bought a 642 as my first carry piece. I knew too little to make any kind of sound decision.
That was true for everyone I knew personally who chose a J-frame revolver.
I think that few people imagine facing the need so shoot an attacker several time very, very quickly. TV does not show us that.
Well, that represents the extreme. The second spare magazine would be needed by law enforcement and by competitors. It is very unlikely that the civilian defender who does not have the duty to pursue will never need fifteen rounds, but they may need more then two, six, or eight, should shooting be necessary
Yes, it does put one ahead of the unarmed victim. If the gun never comes out, it may provide comfort to those who are satisfied with a talisman. When the mere presentation of a firearm suffices, it will be fine--that has been my experience. It is when the balloon goes uo that the limitations of the tool, the skills, and the mindset become important. And the tool is just part of that.
The J-frame is very difficult for most people to use effectively. In order to make an informed decision, one must first understand how defensive shooting will most likely differ from slow fire at a stationary target; how they can really perform with the gun; something about handgun effectiveness; and how to handle a sudden violent attack.
Tru fact.
fastbolt
Member
Indeed. That's a lot to unpack for the average person who decides to buy a handgun as a dedicated defensive weapon, though. Especially if someone is just 'practicing on their own', and hasn't ever had some type of formal defensive shooting training. Lots of folks seem more inclined to go with what they like, appearance or brand-wise, or what they think will be most convenient for them if they decide to actually carry it.
Dunno how it may have changed (if it has) in the last handful of years, but polls of cops I learned about used to indicate that only upwards of 20% of cops even carried an off-duty weapon. (It was higher when polls were taken among cops attending Officer Safety/Survival classes, of course, likely because most of the people in the audience were there by choice, and had an interest in such things.)
Private citizens and CCW? I didn't hear of as many polls, but when I was still teaching CCW classes, and sometimes asked licensees how often they planned to carry their weapons, or had carried them if renewing a license (typically in discussions regarding carry methods), it wasn't uncommon to hear that most of them seldom wished to carry or had carried their weapons. The reasons and opinions varied, and in the final result it was their business, anyway.
fastbolt
Member
This is another one of those types of discussions where, back when I was serving as an instructor, if someone asked me for a recommendation in carrying an off-duty weapon, especially involving make/model, size/weight, caliber and capacity, I came to refrain from making specific recommendations.
Instead, I leaned toward asking them how they perceived their skills and abilities, and what considerations were most important to them. Size, weight, caliber, make/model, capacity, etc. When it was possible, we'd break out something that interested them from our training inventory, or something they were considering that might already be owned by someone on the training staff.
Then, we'd go downrange and let them familiarize themselves with the gun(s), and let them run some drills. That was often enough for some guys & gals to realize they didn't really want what they'd thought they wanted, and for others to confirm their tentative choice was something they liked after some live-fire time.
It was sometimes also the case that somebody discovered what they thought they wanted wasn't something they could use well ... and sometimes what they didn't particularly 'like' was a gun that they could nonetheless use very well.
Well, sometimes a timer and examining the holes on threat targets may tell a different story than what we might wish to be the case.
Instead, I leaned toward asking them how they perceived their skills and abilities, and what considerations were most important to them. Size, weight, caliber, make/model, capacity, etc. When it was possible, we'd break out something that interested them from our training inventory, or something they were considering that might already be owned by someone on the training staff.
Then, we'd go downrange and let them familiarize themselves with the gun(s), and let them run some drills. That was often enough for some guys & gals to realize they didn't really want what they'd thought they wanted, and for others to confirm their tentative choice was something they liked after some live-fire time.
It was sometimes also the case that somebody discovered what they thought they wanted wasn't something they could use well ... and sometimes what they didn't particularly 'like' was a gun that they could nonetheless use very well.
Well, sometimes a timer and examining the holes on threat targets may tell a different story than what we might wish to be the case.
"The J-frame is very difficult for most people to use effectively".
Why is that?
In my younger days, when I still hunted, I used a J-frame for small game hunting. I did better on rabbits than squirrels, but OK enough on both to suit me.
In my later years I lost the urge to shoot cute furry little animals for food, so I stopped. But the J-frame didn't have any problems with it.
Why is that?
In my younger days, when I still hunted, I used a J-frame for small game hunting. I did better on rabbits than squirrels, but OK enough on both to suit me.
In my later years I lost the urge to shoot cute furry little animals for food, so I stopped. But the J-frame didn't have any problems with it.
Eutycus
Member
What's to analyze? They both work just fine.
I first chose a J-frame in the early 1960s. I've never regretted it.
I've often wished recoil was less painful in a 12 ounce gun, but life ain't perfect.
However, they are just useful tools. The only one of my handguns that has any sentimental value is my Browning T-series Hi Power that I got for $57 back about 1967. I don't carry it because I don't want to lose it in the event that I use it.
I've often wished recoil was less painful in a 12 ounce gun, but life ain't perfect.
However, they are just useful tools. The only one of my handguns that has any sentimental value is my Browning T-series Hi Power that I got for $57 back about 1967. I don't carry it because I don't want to lose it in the event that I use it.
Eutycus
Member
Much to the "bad guys" dislike.
trackskippy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2010
- Messages
- 4,241
These days, I regret it every time I put just 50-100 rounds through my 642. Well, my hand does anyway.
Now this one, you can shoot all week.
Now this one, you can shoot all week.
I sometimes wonder how many of those who are heavily into defensive training have ever been in an actual real life situation that involved a gun.
My Dad at 86 had it happen over a dozen times, not counting WWII. He never had any defensive training, but relied instead on exceptionally fast reflexes and absolute confidence in his ability to hit what he wanted to hit with either hand. He told me after he came home from WWII that he was never going to kill anybody again. And he didn't.
Me at 82 have had an event happen only twice and never expect to see it happen again (I carry anyway). I'm not as quick to respond as my Dad. My reaction time is 165 milliseconds, much slower than him. But I still don't see any reason to be nervous or uneasy when out and about.
My Dad at 86 had it happen over a dozen times, not counting WWII. He never had any defensive training, but relied instead on exceptionally fast reflexes and absolute confidence in his ability to hit what he wanted to hit with either hand. He told me after he came home from WWII that he was never going to kill anybody again. And he didn't.
Me at 82 have had an event happen only twice and never expect to see it happen again (I carry anyway). I'm not as quick to respond as my Dad. My reaction time is 165 milliseconds, much slower than him. But I still don't see any reason to be nervous or uneasy when out and about.
Do not think in terms of small game hunting when considering defensive shooting.
Think of shooting something about the size of a small pie plate at six to twelve feet, very rapidly--say, five shots in a second and a half, necessitated by the speed of the attacker.
That requires double action shooting, and the internal geometry of the J-frame does not lend itself to fast controlled DA shooting.
.455_Hunter
Member
Specific hand geometry, personal impairments and skill deficiencies are way more controlling factors on J-frame firing rate than the design of the platform.
Last edited:
lee n. field
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 4,397
Darryl Bolke -- OK, I'll get this listened to. He' s usually worth listening to.
--edit to add--
Listened to it. Note his comments about minute 29:45 and following, about inadvertent "brain fart" discharges.
Last edited:
Eutycus
Member
Besides hold more bullets what can't a snubby do that an auto can in the hands of a skilled shooter.
For most people, including experienced shooters, a semi auto facilitates a better balance of speed and precision.
.455_Hunter
Member
From what I have seen, the correct statement is "For some people, including a portion of experienced shooters, a semi auto may facilitate better balance of speed and precision."
Eutycus
Member
That was very well put but it makes one wonder, who are these "most people"?
A 70% hit rate would be pretty impressive in a gunfight. Typical LE average gunfight hit rates are about 30%.
I haven't run any numbers for 3 attackers. However, one of the assumptions in the calculation is that the defender has the chance to expend all of the rounds available before being incapacitated. If you have 3 determined attackers firing at one defender, the odds of that assumption being reasonable are not very good. In other words, the calculation gives sort of a best case scenario by assuming that any rounds available to the defender are expended and that the defender doesn't waste any rounds shooting at an attacker after that attacker has been incapacitated.
The odds of success against just two determined attackers is bad enough, I don't think we need to look at what happens with 3.
The real takeaway is that it's important to understand the limitations of the defensive system that is you and your carry gun. If you are braced by two or three guys armed with guns and they look like they mean business, it's likely, based on the statistics, that compliance is the far superior tactic if survival is your goal. Not a happy thought, but it's better to make a decision based on reality than on emotion.
dickydalton
Member
I know one thing. The Kimber K6XS that I bought has a wonderful double action. It's just like the old S&W Lemon Squeezers. You can squeeze the trigger partially and the cylinder rotates into position but you don't have to complete the firing unless you want to. No staging or other crap, just all smooth.
If you can consistently hit running targets the size of rabbits at 15 to 25 yards with a snubby and have good reason to believe you could still do so while being shot at and moving to avoid being killed, then you should ignore everything in this thread and immediately get a sponsorship to shoot professionally for the firearm/ammunition company of your choice. You are wasting your time here. The topics discussed in this thread are really only applicable to mere mortals. 
"If you can consistently hitting running targets the size of rabbits at 15 to 25 yards with a snubby and have good reason to believe you could still do so"
When I was younger and had decent vision (20/12), I could hit them often enough to go home with something to eat. I've never thought of J-frames as short range weapons. Still don't.
Now after cataract operations and posterior capsulotomies and with crappy vision (20/25) I don't have a clue whether I could still do it. Probably not. I can still hit coke cans at that distance a reasonable fraction of the time, but they aren't running. Most of the guys on here are a lot younger than me. I would expect them to do a lot better. Shooting pie plates at spitting distance might challenge the shooter, but not the gun.
When I was younger and had decent vision (20/12), I could hit them often enough to go home with something to eat. I've never thought of J-frames as short range weapons. Still don't.
Now after cataract operations and posterior capsulotomies and with crappy vision (20/25) I don't have a clue whether I could still do it. Probably not. I can still hit coke cans at that distance a reasonable fraction of the time, but they aren't running. Most of the guys on here are a lot younger than me. I would expect them to do a lot better. Shooting pie plates at spitting distance might challenge the shooter, but not the gun.
Last edited:
Similar threads
