Snubs - Expert's Gun?

[Cecil Burch]

Mom does understand the basic concept of retention shooting, but in terms of H2H skills, some sort of default cover while accessing her gun is about the most I would expect of her and you’re not likely going to see her in an ECQ course anyone soon. I think it was Karl Rehn who admonished me many years ago for my attitude and “over-reliance” on athleticism and physical skills, asserting that age, injury and illness will eventually get the better of even the mightiest among us and that will require an ever increasing need to rely on our tools.

100% not true. Yes, if your H2H skills are dependent on your attributes, or specific techniques only, then sure, it can be an issue. But I don't judge efficacy based on poor tactics and methods.

I have had a large number of 65+ folks come through my classes. Craig has had even more. I also have mulitple 65+ students at my jiujitsu academy training multiple times a week and they do fine against younger partners. I myself turn 59 in a few weeks, and after 45 years of beating my body up and building injuries, I am a far better and more effective fighter than at any time in the past.

Don't rely on attributes or cool guy techniques, but understanding concepts, principles, leverage, proper body mechanics, and overall strategy, removes you from having to be a perfect athletic specimen to fight.

But I don't want to open up that can or worms, so I will focus on this:

It seems to me the choice of hardware can make a significant difference, especially as our physical skills deteriorate over time. Now having surpassed the half-century mark, I can appreciate that sentiment. YMMV

Absolutely not. The tool has almost zero to do with the ability to get the gun deployed in time to meet the threat.

There are two places where you can access, deploy, and use the gun in the manner that will give you some functionality - 1) when there is plenty of distance between you and the bad guy (a MINIMUM of 5 yards), or 2) when you can physically control the bad guy in a way that you can use your gun and he can't interfere. That's it. This is what Craig so eloquently calls a timing decision. If you try to get the gun out at any other time is a poor choice. And we don't see this just in training FoF scenarios, but in real life. I have posted videos of real world violent situations on my blog over the years illustrating this very point.

There is almost no tool that can aid in this process. It does not matter the size of the gun, the carry method, how cool your sub second draw is, the ammo, etc. You either have and maintain distance or you need to control the other guy long enough for your gun to do it's job. Both of those are pure software. I have been actively working on the problem for 20 years, and at this point I have been either a student, instrudtor, or assistant instructor for multiple thousands of FoF scenarios, and have seen thousands of students come through them. Craig has been working the problem even longer and has seen many more than I have. If either of us had ever seen a "best practices" situation where a tool would give you a leg up, we would have not only been teaching it, but doing it ourselves. That has not happened.

There are no easy buttons to push for this issue, regardless of what we would like.

[JJN]

No, because there is no path that leads to hardware being a reliable and consistent answer. In the case where someone has such a physical handicap that they cannot utilize any H2H ability (something that is such a black swan, but for the sake of the argument I will not go into that), then their pre-fight threat containment skills must be running permanently at a perfect level so they don't get into contact.

The problem is that regardless of how great your pre-fight skills are, there will come a moment when your guard is down. Hopefully that does not occur when you can't afford it. But no matter what, you need software of some kind to keep from losing either before or during the fight. Hardware has little impact there.

Help me conceptualize where the Clinch Pick fits, because it seems to be sort of a hardware hack. Can we envision any context where the snub functions as a "ballistic Clinch Pick" for a "Noncombative Population Context" (backronym intentional).

[Cecil Burch]

Help me conceptualize where the Clinch Pick fits, because it seems to be sort of a hardware hack. Can we envision any context where the snub functions as a "ballistic Clinch Pick" for a "Noncombative Population Context" (backronym intentional).

That's different. Getting a gun out and indexed on the target in a way that bullets will go where we need and do so without interference long enough for it to work is a separate issue than getting a small knife out that all it needs to go to work is to be braced on your own body. Plus, if a bad guy gets a hand on the gun, he can stop it's use. If he is stupid enough to try to grab a blade to stop it, that just plays into our needs.

IOW, a gun has to have enough space both without hands or body parts on it interfering with the shooting cycle AND getting the gun indexed where rounds will go to where they will do something positive rather than bullets hittign whatever VS getting a small 3' blade out enough to brace it on your hip nad get the point between you and the bad guy in whatever way possible are two different things, and one is much easier. The gun needs more things to go right for it to be able to be used.

And even then, you still need some solid softwre installed to be able to get a small balde out properly. There is still no hack where the tool - whatever tool imaginable - does all the work in and of itself.

[Mister X]

The objective doctrinally that I teach, is to use wrestling and BJJ to control position so one can attain the proper grip. It's really not an ECQ shooting problem so much as it is a grappling problem with a gun.

This is probably a really stupid question since I’ve never seen anyone ask it of you, but I’m hoping you might clarify that statement for me a bit, since I’m apparently struggling to understand the context.

Basically how are you legally shooting someone whom you’ve gained control over or at least a momentary superior position on?

I’ve watched these videos and wondered the same thing…

https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_con...ture=emb_title

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x6tUG0...JlZmlyZQ%3D%3D

[BillSWPA]

Anything bigger and heavier and she simply won’t carry it. An exposed hammer/single action is not really an overall great idea either IMO. Even for home defense, the airweight snub makes pretty good sense for her. She can slip it in the pocket of her house robe if need be, and the basic plan in the event of a home invasion is for her to take refuge in her walk-in bedroom closet behind a locked door, so maximum shot range is about 3 feet. Much of the same applies for my wife.

There’s an old article by Mas Ayoob entitled “The real ladies handgun”, which is likely pooh-poohed by most of the tacticool cats, but I think it’s still very much relevant for the majority of women today looking for practical and realistic solutions to personal defense…

https://forums.usacarry.com/threads/...s.11626/?amp=1

In the case of your mom and some other ladies I know, I can see a small frame revolver as an ideal choice. In general, the idea of a small frame .38 as an ideal lady's gun is one with which I must strongly disagree.

I can see it for someone who wants or needs the simplicity, for someone who has found that with their clothing and body type it conceals better (not my experience), or for someone with hand/wrist issues that finds the recoil of a revolver more comfortable (I know 2 such ladies).

A typical woman will have 2/3 of the strength of a typical man. That breaks down into 80% of the lover body strength of a man, and 40% of the upper body strength of a man. That long, heavy trigger is going to be more difficult to operate. About 40% of the ladies I have taken shooting have had difficulty with triggers over 9 lb. That recoil, which is unpleasant for us, will be even worse for a lady. When a man straightens his elbows, they are actually straight, but a lady's elbows are not actually straight when the elbow is "straight," which will cause even more discomfort with recoil if not accounted for in the techniques taught.

The single biggest mistake I ever made teaching my wife how to shoot was letting her try an airweight .38, which caused a flinch that required years of work to correct.

The characteristics that make a good lady's gun are a comfortable grip, an easy to use trigger, good sights, and manageable, comfortable recoil. None of this is very different from what makes a good gun for a man, with the exception of the priorities placed on the characteristics. That good trigger and comfortable recoil might be even more important.

Some of the early "Ladysmith" guns were simply J-frames on which the well-designed Uncle Mike's boot grips had been replaced by the stupid, difficult to grasp wood splinter grips, I assume because it was presumed that ladies would find wood more attractive. Other guns marketed to ladies were simply guns with pink grips.

In the Sig Rose thread, I was impressed with the idea behind the series because whether one agrees with the end result or not, it was an actual attempt to understand and address the actual issues faced by actual ladies.

If someone prefers a small frame revolver, then I prefer to see that person armed with the gun they prefer. It is not something I would be quick to recommend.

[SouthNarc]

This is probably a really stupid question since I’ve never seen anyone ask it of you, but I’m hoping you might clarify that statement for me a bit, since I’m apparently struggling to understand the context.

Basically how are you legally shooting someone whom you’ve gained control over or at least a momentary superior position on?

I’ve watched these videos and wondered the same thing…

https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_con...ture=emb_title

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x6tUG0...JlZmlyZQ%3D%3D

No that's a great question.

"Contro"l is fleeting and basically the reason one would shoot someone from a position of control is because there's no safe way to get out of it without doing so.

[Mister X]

100% not true. Yes, if your H2H skills are dependent on your attributes, or specific techniques only, then sure, it can be an issue. But I don't judge efficacy based on poor tactics and methods.

I have had a large number of 65+ folks come through my classes. Craig has had even more. I also have mulitple 65+ students at my jiujitsu academy training multiple times a week and they do fine against younger partners. I myself turn 59 in a few weeks, and after 45 years of beating my body up and building injuries, I am a far better and more effective fighter than at any time in the past.

Don't rely on attributes or cool guy techniques, but understanding concepts, principles, leverage, proper body mechanics, and overall strategy, removes you from having to be a perfect athletic specimen to fight.

But I don't want to open up that can or worms, so I will focus on this:




Absolutely not. The tool has almost zero to do with the ability to get the gun deployed in time to meet the threat.

There are two places where you can access, deploy, and use the gun in the manner that will give you some functionality - 1) when there is plenty of distance between you and the bad guy (a MINIMUM of 5 yards), or 2) when you can physically control the bad guy in a way that you can use your gun and he can't interfere. That's it. This is what Craig so eloquently calls a timing decision. If you try to get the gun out at any other time is a poor choice. And we don't see this just in training FoF scenarios, but in real life. I have posted videos of real world violent situations on my blog over the years illustrating this very point.

There is almost no tool that can aid in this process. It does not matter the size of the gun, the carry method, how cool your sub second draw is, the ammo, etc. You either have and maintain distance or you need to control the other guy long enough for your gun to do it's job. Both of those are pure software. I have been actively working on the problem for 20 years, and at this point I have been either a student, instrudtor, or assistant instructor for multiple thousands of FoF scenarios, and have seen thousands of students come through them. Craig has been working the problem even longer and has seen many more than I have. If either of us had ever seen a "best practices" situation where a tool would give you a leg up, we would have not only been teaching it, but doing it ourselves. That has not happened.

There are no easy buttons to push for this issue, regardless of what we would like.

It was more a matter of too much focus utilizing methods that required a higher degree of physical ability than most people possess and not distinguishing between them and what’s more suitable for most people.

That in no way means inferior or suboptimal for a specific individual in a given situation. The most direct and quickest resolution to dealing with a problem may very well be best accomplished with methods requiring a certain level of strength, speed or athleticism.

It just isn’t a practical way to teach to the average student, but there’s absolutely no reason to limit oneself to that which is only suitable for the lowest common denominator.

However, sometimes you have to utilize non-preferred methods. The Zimmerman/Trayvon incident seems to be one very well known example from an armed perspective. If Royce Gracie vs Matt Hughes took place outside of a sporting context, Royce would have very few options except to resort to some extremely suboptimal methods.

I still just don’t see close-quarter shooting as an either/or, software vs hardware debate, since both can factor in heavily as far as I’m concerned, but maybe I’m missing something. I don’t think anyone would argue that a 10” Ruger super Blackhawk and a hammerless snub can be equally utilized with equal effectiveness using the same methodologies in a contact fight, but I’m no expert extreme close-quarter shooting instructor, so I’m open to being educated.

[KeithH]

Good points. I got rid of the Airweight and .38 LCR and replaced them with a 640 Pro and a Taurus 605. 22oz. of steel takes the bite out of recoil so I can finally practice. Galloway Precision spring kit did wonders for the 605’s trigger pull. It’s now my favorite revolver trigger of all time. The 640 has been back and forth to the factory since I bought it. They finally destroyed it and issued me a new one this month. As I age I’m seeing there are situations where striker fired guns don’t serve me well. Not shooting my self has become a greater priority than firepower.

[M2CattleCo]

Not a snub, but a 3” SP101. Standing two banded shooting with the stock fixed sights I easily put 5/5 in 5” at 25 yards on a B8.

Can’t do it as easily with my VP9L/RMR.

I’m not too far behind that with a 442.

I can do it even easier with my Ruger New Vaqueros.

I’ve spent the past 20 years drilling with Glocks, Sigs, 1911s, HKs and have since day 1 shot wheel guns almost effortlessly.

[KeithH]

I shot my 3” Taurus 605 unusually well from the first day. With the lighter hammer spring it now stomps the 640 double action. Love the fluorescent orange night sight on the front. Very very easy to shoot well. Light .357 loads are no problem. I even take the revolvers to bed with me. The striker fired guns scare me in the dark. The HK LEM V1 trigger scares me too. I keep both weapon systems out of arms reach when sleeping.