sgt127
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2003
- Messages
- 2,312
Kinda funny. The five and six shot revolver. The Colt 1903 and others, were considered primary carry guns in America for over 100 years.
The Walther PP and PPK in Europe filled the same role.
Why Own a Snubby?
- Thread starter jski
- Start date
Kinda funny. The five and six shot revolver. The Colt 1903 and others, were considered primary carry guns in America for over 100 years.
The Walther PP and PPK in Europe filled the same role.
A few years ago, I was in an accident that badly broke my dominant wrist and it ended up in a cast for quite a bit of time. That's why you should be able to shoot with the nondominant hand. BTW, with the one hand out of it, I serendipitously has signed up for a KRtraining class that emphasized injured shooters and one handed usage. I was also signed up for Mas' LFI-1 and Stressfire. All of this with my nondominant hand. So I can shoot pretty well with it.
Does it happen? Well, in a night time FOF (oh, no - not just a day at the square range), I got hit square on the dominant hand with a Code Eagle. Folks get hit on the gun hand all the time in such exercises.
I carried for a few months, nondominant till the cast came off. Even then the muscles in that forearm were weak and needed rehab. I learned to load, reload, clear with one hand. BTW, that's much easier with a semi than a revolver. Since reloading is a horror with one hand and a revolver, that might suggest a higher capacity semi is a good choice.
Again, my summary is - J or similar for limited NPE, dress circumstances - pocket. Train with gun beyond showing your super duper abilities with a square range group. Belt Revolvers - nice guns - got some but an unnecessary limitation (hunting maybe) for a gun for an intense interaction. Of course, they never happen, the guy runs away, you hit and disable with one shot and you didn't need to train anyway.
PS - yeah, there were limited guns in the past. I might consider going Yancy Derringer - if a new 4 barrel Sharps comes out. One up each sleeve, one under my hat, one in each side of vest pocket. Of course, a loyal companion with a shotgun under blanket. Wonder if Pahoo-Ka-Ta-Wah was shown a modern Shockwave, he would argue that his old side by side is better?
Does it happen? Well, in a night time FOF (oh, no - not just a day at the square range), I got hit square on the dominant hand with a Code Eagle. Folks get hit on the gun hand all the time in such exercises.
I carried for a few months, nondominant till the cast came off. Even then the muscles in that forearm were weak and needed rehab. I learned to load, reload, clear with one hand. BTW, that's much easier with a semi than a revolver. Since reloading is a horror with one hand and a revolver, that might suggest a higher capacity semi is a good choice.
Again, my summary is - J or similar for limited NPE, dress circumstances - pocket. Train with gun beyond showing your super duper abilities with a square range group. Belt Revolvers - nice guns - got some but an unnecessary limitation (hunting maybe) for a gun for an intense interaction. Of course, they never happen, the guy runs away, you hit and disable with one shot and you didn't need to train anyway.
PS - yeah, there were limited guns in the past. I might consider going Yancy Derringer - if a new 4 barrel Sharps comes out. One up each sleeve, one under my hat, one in each side of vest pocket. Of course, a loyal companion with a shotgun under blanket. Wonder if Pahoo-Ka-Ta-Wah was shown a modern Shockwave, he would argue that his old side by side is better?
jar
Contributing Member
Until 1968 the 32acp .25 and even 38S&W were consider desirable handguns. J. Edgar carried a 2½" barreled nickle plated Colt Pocket Positive.
"John Lott claims that better than 90% of defensive gun uses are ended merely by the presence of a gun. He also has argued that in the <10% which do require actual trigger pulling, the average number of shots fired is two".
Lott makes a lot of sense.
After the War, my dad had seventeen encounters in which the aggressor was unsuccessful. Only one required that he fire his J-frame after drawing it. He fired two shots.
The last event was successful - my Dad wasn't armed that day.
Lott makes a lot of sense.
After the War, my dad had seventeen encounters in which the aggressor was unsuccessful. Only one required that he fire his J-frame after drawing it. He fired two shots.
The last event was successful - my Dad wasn't armed that day.
Last edited:
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
That's really a matter of preference and intent. It really depends on the primary purpose for your handgun shooting. If all you care about is self defense, maybe so. However, if you're primarily an outdoorsman, or maybe you're just a revolver enthusiast, you might view things differently. I've been shooting Glocks and similar guns for about 32yrs. However, they are not my primary focus. I don't train every day for the happenstance that will likely never come (that is the reality of it). I train/practice for the reality that is every time I walk into the woods. Every time hunting season rolls around. I also practice/train with revolvers for the simple purpose of being "good" with them. If I shoot 10 or 20,000rds a year and 90% of my shooting is with revolvers and 90% of that is with single actions, am I really at that much of a disadvantage with one? At all? Just because you guys that shoot nothing but Glocks all the time are better armed with them, does that mean everybody is? Or is familiarity and skill with a chosen platform more important, regardless of what that platform is? As I said, I carry light, flat autos strictly because they're easier to conceal. Not because I think I'm better armed with one.
If I can do the 5x5 drill in 1.5secs two handed, or 2.5secs one handed, does anybody really want to volunteer to get me into a gunfight, just because I'm armed with a lowly sixgun?
One more thought about DA/SA speed..
David E posted an interesting thread regarding speed comparing SA vs DA revolvers. One thing I noticed is that the start was "gun at low ready, thumb on uncocked hammer." I have practiced the SA draw so that my hammer is cocked by the time the gun reaches "low ready" position, that is...
www.thehighroad.org
And is all that snarky sarcasm really productive?
To Jim, so Bond has a great number of fine derringers that should suffice. In fact, let's increase our weapons bans to allow only two shot derringers. Sounds like a plan to me.
Lott then is an argument for carrying NO ammo, it's expensive or a realistic replica gun for most social interactions. I don't think Lott would say that. Of the 20,000 air flights a day, what's the odds you need your seat belt. What's the odds you hit clear air turbulence and smashed into the overhead compartment. One in a million.
CraigC - you hit the point for me. EDC is about SD, nothing else. Not sport, not hunting. I do have and shoot wheel guns. Like them. However, again I will argue that the horror show incident is rare but has some possibility that is not trivial. The Tops market is not far from me. My personal beliefs have me in places that have been targeted and threatened repeatedly. I have been personally threatened by those types but avoidance saved the day - it might not have - who knows. It's not a guarantee.
If I could only carry my SW revolver due to a law, I would. I wouldn't be helpless. But as Tom Givens said - if my emphasis is SD - why limit myself?
Lott then is an argument for carrying NO ammo, it's expensive or a realistic replica gun for most social interactions. I don't think Lott would say that. Of the 20,000 air flights a day, what's the odds you need your seat belt. What's the odds you hit clear air turbulence and smashed into the overhead compartment. One in a million.
CraigC - you hit the point for me. EDC is about SD, nothing else. Not sport, not hunting. I do have and shoot wheel guns. Like them. However, again I will argue that the horror show incident is rare but has some possibility that is not trivial. The Tops market is not far from me. My personal beliefs have me in places that have been targeted and threatened repeatedly. I have been personally threatened by those types but avoidance saved the day - it might not have - who knows. It's not a guarantee.
If I could only carry my SW revolver due to a law, I would. I wouldn't be helpless. But as Tom Givens said - if my emphasis is SD - why limit myself?
Last edited:
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
.38 Special
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 7,888
Frankly, actual statistics make a very good argument for not bothering with a gun at all. Very, very few people will ever need one. Those of us who actually carry any sort of weapon are, realistically, vastly overprepared.
In that light, arguments about ammunition capacity really do start to sound kind of silly. I mean, the last time I flew, the seatbelt light was off for almost the entire flight...
On the matter of being competent with each hand, I am reminded of the incident in Metro Dade, FL, in about 1986, often known as the FBI Miami Shout-Out,” or similar. Several agents were struck in the hands or arms. I also remember two of my Houston PD colleagues, personally known to me, who took hits in their arms. Yes, either or both of our upper limbs may become instantly disabled or compromised.
I was born with somewhat of an advantage, being left-handed, but right-armed. I write lefty, but throw righty. My left hand was/is better with most finely-detailed work, but my right arm and hand had more brute strength. (Had. Not “have.” Aging* changes things!) In 1983, I decided that I would carry “primary” on my right side, because drawing the then-mandated S&W L-Frame, from the then-mandated low-slung duty rig, was not unlike throwing. Long-stroke double-action trigger-pulling seemed to be one of those things that either hand could do equally well. As I occasionally added/transitioned weapon systems, I made it a point to be competent with each hand as the “primary” hand. Notably, my left hand seemed to have an edge, with pulling Glock triggers, a trend which continues.
Importantly, I choose defensive handguns which are handguns, not “handSguns.” For a while, when I was mandated to use one of four authorized duty pistols, I was dismayed to find that each was a handSgun, either being too big in grip volume, or having a too-long reach to the trigger, or both. The Glock G22, in what was then the 3rd generation, had more grip volume than I liked, but, I could reach the trigger, so, was my duty pistol from April 2002 to November 2004. I switched to the SIG P229 when I became aware of the option of an OEM slimmer trigger, which my index finger could reach. The P229 grip was right at the ragged edge of being just too big, in width/volume. I could shoot the SIG better than any auto-pistol I had ever used, except for the 1911. The “cure” arrived, with Gen4 Glocks, having less grip volume than Gen3 Glocks.
*Forty-one years later, long-stroke double-action trigger-pulling, with my much-favored medium-to-large revolvers, has been suspended, due to arthritis moving into the second joints of each of my index fingers. 2024 is going to be a time for significant changes in what I will/can still shoot. I will not carry that with which I cannot train.
I was born with somewhat of an advantage, being left-handed, but right-armed. I write lefty, but throw righty. My left hand was/is better with most finely-detailed work, but my right arm and hand had more brute strength. (Had. Not “have.” Aging* changes things!) In 1983, I decided that I would carry “primary” on my right side, because drawing the then-mandated S&W L-Frame, from the then-mandated low-slung duty rig, was not unlike throwing. Long-stroke double-action trigger-pulling seemed to be one of those things that either hand could do equally well. As I occasionally added/transitioned weapon systems, I made it a point to be competent with each hand as the “primary” hand. Notably, my left hand seemed to have an edge, with pulling Glock triggers, a trend which continues.
Importantly, I choose defensive handguns which are handguns, not “handSguns.” For a while, when I was mandated to use one of four authorized duty pistols, I was dismayed to find that each was a handSgun, either being too big in grip volume, or having a too-long reach to the trigger, or both. The Glock G22, in what was then the 3rd generation, had more grip volume than I liked, but, I could reach the trigger, so, was my duty pistol from April 2002 to November 2004. I switched to the SIG P229 when I became aware of the option of an OEM slimmer trigger, which my index finger could reach. The P229 grip was right at the ragged edge of being just too big, in width/volume. I could shoot the SIG better than any auto-pistol I had ever used, except for the 1911. The “cure” arrived, with Gen4 Glocks, having less grip volume than Gen3 Glocks.
*Forty-one years later, long-stroke double-action trigger-pulling, with my much-favored medium-to-large revolvers, has been suspended, due to arthritis moving into the second joints of each of my index fingers. 2024 is going to be a time for significant changes in what I will/can still shoot. I will not carry that with which I cannot train.
Last edited:
This is the Internet - snark is part of the game. I recall geezer rambos earlier in the endless discussion. Draw speed and first shot times are another interesting nuance for another thread. There is good deal of trainer discussion many incidents, esp. mugging types necessitate a slower concealed draw. That's an argument for the pocket gun.
Anyway - we won't convince anyone. I guess the best agreement is to try to reach the best level competence you can, accept the limitations of capacity as a risk you accept. Want a one shot flintlock - sure. I recall a TV series Sleepy Hollow where Ichabod Crane and the Headless Horseman came our times. Crane was confused by modern guns - he fired a Glock once and when his modern partner said, SHOOT - he said - I fired once. Ouch. He then went to flintlock pistols and a crossbow. Oy! However, the Headless Horseman had a run in with a cop. Being immune to gun fire - he won the day but however, took the AR and pistol grip shotgun from the cop and carried them as he terrorized the community. Liked them as he was a soldier.
About a seat belt, probability on a given day, I don't need them to drive. However, when I was in a near killing accident - glad I had it. How many of such accidents have I been in 55 years of driven and hundreds of thousands of miles - 3. Glad I had the belt.
Anyway - we won't convince anyone. I guess the best agreement is to try to reach the best level competence you can, accept the limitations of capacity as a risk you accept. Want a one shot flintlock - sure. I recall a TV series Sleepy Hollow where Ichabod Crane and the Headless Horseman came our times. Crane was confused by modern guns - he fired a Glock once and when his modern partner said, SHOOT - he said - I fired once. Ouch. He then went to flintlock pistols and a crossbow. Oy! However, the Headless Horseman had a run in with a cop. Being immune to gun fire - he won the day but however, took the AR and pistol grip shotgun from the cop and carried them as he terrorized the community. Liked them as he was a soldier.
About a seat belt, probability on a given day, I don't need them to drive. However, when I was in a near killing accident - glad I had it. How many of such accidents have I been in 55 years of driven and hundreds of thousands of miles - 3. Glad I had the belt.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
One thing I have done to some extent but not nearly enough is training the weak hand. I've just this week given thought to doing so with rifles.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
.38 Special
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 7,888
Not really. The majority of American drivers will be involved in a car accident at least once in their lives. Simple preparations for it - things like seatbelts and airbags - are perfectly reasonable.
The better analogy was seatbelts in airplanes: almost no one will ever be involved in an airplane crash, and no reasonable person suggests that airline passengers flying without helmets, parachutes, and personal oxygen supplies are flirting with death.
sgt127
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2003
- Messages
- 2,312
Since we went off on the weak hand tangent. I often carry a Kimber K6xs. A lowly six shot .38 special. Appendix. (Because I won’t carry a cocked pistol pointed at my femoral artery..another discussion).
I practice drawing. With my left hand. Upside down and pulling the trigger with my pinky. Not much for accuracy, at range, but a handy tool in the toolbox if my right hand is occupied keeping a machete off me.
Of course, the obligatory comnents that we should carry 2 shot derringers.
I have and, I do. This is my beach gun. It’s as rust proof a gun as I’ve found. It weighs almost nothing.
A week after I was hanging out with my kid at V
Malibu beach. A crazed homeless guy attacked a family with a machete. Almost killing the father and, costing him an eye.
m.youtube.com
I would have shot him.
Because I could. Because I had a gun.
If the Chicoms had launched a beach assault at that moment, I would have been woefully under gunned.
I practice drawing. With my left hand. Upside down and pulling the trigger with my pinky. Not much for accuracy, at range, but a handy tool in the toolbox if my right hand is occupied keeping a machete off me.
Of course, the obligatory comnents that we should carry 2 shot derringers.
I have and, I do. This is my beach gun. It’s as rust proof a gun as I’ve found. It weighs almost nothing.
A week after I was hanging out with my kid at V
Malibu beach. A crazed homeless guy attacked a family with a machete. Almost killing the father and, costing him an eye.
Father slashed with machete by homeless man in Malibu
A man is recovering after being violently attacked with a machete while out with his family in Malibu. Two suspects have been arrested.Subscribe to FOX 11 Lo...
m.youtube.com
I would have shot him.
Because I could. Because I had a gun.
If the Chicoms had launched a beach assault at that moment, I would have been woefully under gunned.
Last edited:
About probability - it's as rare as being hit by lightning or being in a jet plane crash. Well, I was hit by lightning. A friend of mine was in a DC-8 that ran out of gas and crashed in a forest. He, wife and child were towards the rear. They lived. Those in the front died.
We were in class. The teacher said: It is as rare as ...
We both raised our hands.
There are reasonable levels of protection. We can have an extinguisher in the house and car. We don't own our own fire truck. Similarly, one can raise the odds a bit with a better gun for the possible more extreme cases.
We were in class. The teacher said: It is as rare as ...
We both raised our hands.
There are reasonable levels of protection. We can have an extinguisher in the house and car. We don't own our own fire truck. Similarly, one can raise the odds a bit with a better gun for the possible more extreme cases.
.38 Special
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 7,888
No, it isn't.
Serious/fatal car accidents occur in this country EVERY minute of every day.
To insinuate that self defense shootings happen anywhere near that frequently is ridiculous.
Eutycus
Member
A few posts back the words "perfectly reasonable" were used in a car comparison. Why isnt a snubby not perfectly reasonable? Better than a pointed stick or throwing rocks at an assailant.
There were half [edited] as many homicides in America last year as there were traffic fatalities—same order of magnitude. Both low likelihood of occurrence.
Of course, auto death rates are heavily mitigated by airbags etc.
Last edited:
1.8 million people were injured in car accidents last year.
Did you read my post, or the one you quoted as a "great analogy" ?
He didn't mention "fatalities"...
I said "SERIOUS/FATAL" (meaning BOTH serious and fatal)
1.8 MILLION!!
AGAIN....to insinuate CAR ACCIDENTS happen as frequently as SELF DEFENSE shootings is ridiculous.
(Capitalization to aid comprehension)
Last edited:
fastbolt
Member
I still regret the day I traded away a blued Speed-Six. I rather like fixed sights for concealment revolvers.
.38 Special
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 7,888
His numbers are wrong anyway - backwards, apparently.
"40,990 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2023" https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/2022-traffic-deaths-2023-early-estimates#:~:text=The agency estimates that 40,990,the second quarter of 2022.
I can't find absolute homicide numbers for 2023, but the 2022 number was 21,593 https://knoema.com/atlas/United-States-of-America/Number-of-homicides and the 2023 number is said to be 13% lower, which would make it 18,786. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-homicide-rates-fell-2023/
Last edited:
Not surprising, the question is did he say that out of deciet? Or ignorance?
Similar threads
