The "new" J-frame

[David]

If I could find a reasonable way to dress around my G17 w/33rd mags, I would.

Let me throw your question back at you in reverse: If someone could magically make 10 rounds of .38 +p fit in the same size and weight J with no loss of reliability, durability, accuracy, or safety, would you turn them down because "five is enough?"

I carry a 21sf so I don't know. If they made a 33 round mag for the 21 I'd shove a few in in my car. My question had to do with using comfort as an issue being tossed aside. Everyone decides at which point comfort begins to trump firepower.

I know some say they choose firepower over comfort because when the chips are down "thank (insert deity) I brought my (insert kool-aid) and not my (insert bland water)" when in reality at some point in the game comfort ultimately wins out. The only excuse for not carrying a 33 round mag if you carry a G17 or G19 is comfort. You could shove one or two inside the pants or a man-purse if you REALLY wanted maximum firepower.

[peterb]

Does anybody happen to have a side-by-side picture of the G19 and the J-frame they could post? As somebody who has never looked at the two next to each other, I would find it informative.

Not exactly, but here's a G23 and an SP101:
http://www.corneredcat.com/FirstGun/anotherview.aspx

[David Armstrong]

There is an argument that a lot of evangelists use in regards to faith that I believe applies here.

And sadly we see another part of that argument which is "I have been given mystical knowledge of what is right and wrong and anybody who disagrees with me cannot be saved."

If you're right and carrying a j-frame is completely adequate, and I carry my G19 all my life, well I've just been over prepared and maybe, maybe a little uncomfortable sometimes.

However, if all of these people are correct in saying a j-frame is inadequate, and you end up in a situation where a compact/full size semi auto is necessary, well then you're life or the life of someone you care about could be forfeit.

Basic problem with that, IMO, is that nothing is adequate for all situations, and history seems to indicate the J-frame is adequate for most situations. I guess I've been around too long and seen too much to think that something that has worked OK for decades is suddenly inadequate just because something different has come along. I can sort of equate it to the old "tactical reload" battles Todd and I used to fight. There are all sorts of "what if" arguments that can be made, but when it gets right down to it those "what if" arguments just don't seem to exist in reality.

I know that if I was ever in a situation where my life or my wife's life depended on my skill with a handgun, I would never want to think, "if only I had my G19, but I couldn't be bothered to put it on," or "it's just too uncomfortable."

I suppose the corollary could be "if only I had my G17 instead of putting on this G19", or "if only I had slipped a 6" .44 Magnum into a shoulder rig today" or "if only I had my .45 today instead of my 9mm" or any other "if."

It just seems like a simple choice to me.

It certainly should be. Each of us has fairly unique needs and situations, thus all of us select a fairly unique compromise point for personal safety. Why anyone should argue one-size-fits-all has never struck me as reasonable.

Edit: wow this has gotten heated.

Hey now, you know the internet CCW rules...If you carry anything less than I do obviously you are an under-prepared incompetent and have no understanding of the actual dangers of the street, and if you carry anything more than I do obviously you are paranoid Rambo-wannabe and have no understanding of the actual dangers of the street!

[David Armstrong]

Do those who carry the G19 over the j frame carry the 33 round mags or the inferior under prepared 15 round mags?
*ducks for cover*

Or heaven forbid, one of those (shudder) Glock 27s, with only 10 rounds of .40 S&W!

[MDS]

Does anybody happen to have a side-by-side picture of the G19 and the J-frame they could post? As somebody who has never looked at the two next to each other, I would find it informative.

Genitron has a nice comparison function.

[TCinVA]

I carry a 21sf so I don't know. If they made a 33 round mag for the 21 I'd shove a few in in my car. My question had to do with using comfort as an issue being tossed aside. Everyone decides at which point comfort begins to trump firepower.

I know some say they choose firepower over comfort because when the chips are down "thank (insert deity) I brought my (insert kool-aid) and not my (insert bland water)" when in reality at some point in the game comfort ultimately wins out. The only excuse for not carrying a 33 round mag if you carry a G17 or G19 is comfort. You could shove one or two inside the pants or a man-purse if you REALLY wanted maximum firepower.

I don't know about you guys, but I cannot practically conceal a G17 with a 33 round mag stuck in it or practically conceal one of the happy sticks as a reload.

If we tweak the question somewhat and ask whether or not I'd carry a firearm that offered 33 rounds that were just as effective in a package that is as reliable (more reliable than Todd's G17, anyway) and easy to use as a G17, would I carry it?

You bet your sweet bippy I'd carry it.

...because I really believe that I need 33 rounds on tap or I'll die screaming in a gunfight?

No. While it is possible to think up a scenario where I'd wind up dead if I couldn't fire 33 shots without a reload, it's much more likely that such an ammo capacity would last longer than any problem I'm capable of solving with a handgun. At the same time, I don't imagine myself standing in the aftermath of an event where I've just fired 20 rounds and thinking to myself that I really wish I hadn't put those extra 13 in the mag, you know?

In economics there's the law of diminishing marginal utility stating that the utility gained from each additional unit of something consumed decreases, and I think it pairs up nicely with this discussion. Beyond a certain point "more" isn't useful...it's just more. An AR-15 is much "more" for any problem that involves shooting bad guys, but for me the weapon really isn't useful in many situations as I can't go about my life with a rifle strapped across my chest. Though the weapon is objectively "more" the utility for that much "more" is minimal for my purposes. When considering a J frame versus a Glock 19 or a P30, on the other hand, we're talking about "more" that I can actually put to practical use on a day to day basis. That I'll go for. Change the situation from daily carry to dealing with an active shooter 2 minutes from now and I'll give a testicle for the AR15.

I can't carry my typical loadout every day in every situation. There are times when circumstances dictate the J frame in the pocket as my primary means of kinetically pacifying a problem. In those situations it's either carry that or nothing, so I happily carry the J frame. When I'm not bound by those circumstances I eagerly upgrade to my usual loadout and use the J frame as a capable BUG.

When I carry the J frame I'm doing so with an informed judgment. I know the weapon's limitations well and I'm making a bet that I'm probably not going to face a shooting problem in that situation...but if the worst happens and all I have is my J, I'm still infinitely better off having it than not. When I judge that I'm not under the kind of restrictions that make carrying the J my only practical option, I upgrade without hesitation.

It's easy to go with the small gun out of complacency....but if someone is using the small gun based on a rational decision making process and a judgment of their circumstances, you won't hear me argue against it. In the end we all have to make a judgment call one way or another. If someone knows what they are doing, so be it. Often on discussion boards the conversation is ruled by those who don't have a clue what they are doing. That I find irksome...but we generally don't have to worry much about that here.

[David]

I don't know about you guys, but I cannot practically conceal a G17 with a 33 round mag stuck in it or practically conceal one of the happy sticks as a reload.

If we tweak the question somewhat and ask whether or not I'd carry a firearm that offered 33 rounds that were just as effective in a package that is as reliable (more reliable than Todd's G17, anyway) and easy to use as a G17, would I carry it?

You bet your sweet bippy I'd carry it.

...because I really believe that I need 33 rounds on tap or I'll die screaming in a gunfight?

No. While it is possible to think up a scenario where I'd wind up dead if I couldn't fire 33 shots without a reload, it's much more likely that such an ammo capacity would last longer than any problem I'm capable of solving with a handgun. At the same time, I don't imagine myself standing in the aftermath of an event where I've just fired 20 rounds and thinking to myself that I really wish I hadn't put those extra 13 in the mag, you know?

In economics there's the law of diminishing marginal utility stating that the utility gained from each additional unit of something consumed decreases, and I think it pairs up nicely with this discussion. Beyond a certain point "more" isn't useful...it's just more. An AR-15 is much "more" for any problem that involves shooting bad guys, but for me the weapon really isn't useful in many situations as I can't go about my life with a rifle strapped across my chest. Though the weapon is objectively "more" the utility for that much "more" is minimal for my purposes. When considering a J frame versus a Glock 19 or a P30, on the other hand, we're talking about "more" that I can actually put to practical use on a day to day basis. That I'll go for. Change the situation from daily carry to dealing with an active shooter 2 minutes from now and I'll give a testicle for the AR15.

I can't carry my typical loadout every day in every situation. There are times when circumstances dictate the J frame in the pocket as my primary means of kinetically pacifying a problem. In those situations it's either carry that or nothing, so I happily carry the J frame. When I'm not bound by those circumstances I eagerly upgrade to my usual loadout and use the J frame as a capable BUG.

When I carry the J frame I'm doing so with an informed judgment. I know the weapon's limitations well and I'm making a bet that I'm probably not going to face a shooting problem in that situation...but if the worst happens and all I have is my J, I'm still infinitely better off having it than not. When I judge that I'm not under the kind of restrictions that make carrying the J my only practical option, I upgrade without hesitation.

It's easy to go with the small gun out of complacency....but if someone is using the small gun based on a rational decision making process and a judgment of their circumstances, you won't hear me argue against it. In the end we all have to make a judgment call one way or another. If someone knows what they are doing, so be it. Often on discussion boards the conversation is ruled by those who don't have a clue what they are doing. That I find irksome...but we generally don't have to worry much about that here.

It doesn't get much better than that there.

[BigT]

The last two occasions I needed to be armed the bad guys coincidently were in groups of three. Both times they opened proceeding by shooting. Both times I was glad to have a big easy to shoot pistol instead of a small easy to carry one.

Most importantly both were times where I had no reason to expect any greater than normal risk. If I was in the habit of carrying a snubby or pocket pistol when convenient then that's what I would probably have had with me.

I think it was Tom Givens who first described the snubby as a "one bad guy gun" now I know the reality of my world is that one bad guy attacks are about as common as honest politicians and while the risk profile there is probably a fair bit lower I would guess the chances of multiple bad guys are probably still more than one dude robbing you.

[David]

How many shots will you need? How far will you need to shoot? Will there be others near your line of fire? Who knows. Here's the dash-cam from a shooting here in 2009. Would a j frame have done the job?

You may wish to skip ahead to 2:35.

[Ed L]

I can't carry my typical loadout every day in every situation. There are times when circumstances dictate the J frame in the pocket as my primary means of kinetically pacifying a problem. In those situations it's either carry that or nothing, so I happily carry the J frame. When I'm not bound by those circumstances I eagerly upgrade to my usual loadout and use the J frame as a capable BUG.

When I carry the J frame I'm doing so with an informed judgment. I know the weapon's limitations well and I'm making a bet that I'm probably not going to face a shooting problem in that situation...but if the worst happens and all I have is my J, I'm still infinitely better off having it than not. When I judge that I'm not under the kind of restrictions that make carrying the J my only practical option, I upgrade without hesitation.

I think this is the key. Not everyone works where they can dress as they choose in order to conceal whatever they want.

A lot of people have to work in firearms restrictive situations where they must wear dress slacks or even suits. In the workplace they are seen by the same people every day again and again.

Being seen every day in close confines like hallways and copy rooms means that co-workers see them up close regularly and can thus notice things that random people who see them on the street will not get a chance to see. And even if those people in the street did, the gun is legally concealed. Whereas if they work in a gun-prohibited environment, a coworker noticing something suspicious could cost them their job.

For something like this you may need to have a taylor deepen your pants pocket and carry something like a Kahr PM-9 9mm subcompact in a pocket holster since it is smaller and flatter than a J-frame. Most dress pants pockets are too tight and even a Kahr PM-9 will print.

It's one thing to carry a nothing but a suboptimal gun because of work or environmental limitations on the size of what you can conceal. You try to carry the best you can and make the best of it.

It is an entirely different matter to carry it and claim that it is all that you need as though you can control exactly the threats you will face, when you could indeed carry something more capable.

Then there are people who are not willing to carry anything bigger than a J-frame. *Some* defensive situations can indeed be resolved with a J-frame. But hoping that a J-frame can handle most of them or otherwise trying to rationalize it is not a sound strategy.

I see both sides of this issue. A J-frame is a very convenient gun to carry, and it is all some people will carry, or maybe it or something similar in capabilities is the bigges thing that some people can carry given their work or dress requirements. I am glad that they are carrying this as opposed to something less capable or even not carrying anything at all. It is certainly better than the Glock/1911/whatever that they don't have with them, but lets not pretend it is as capable as that gun when it comes to dealing with lethal threats.

If you look at the 60 or 70+ shootings that Tom Givens' students have been in, a lot of them required more than a J-frame both in terms of shots fired and in capability to more accurately place rounds under life or death situations.

If you look at the situation DocGKR described, hopefully 5 rounds from the J-frame might have been enough to do enough damage to some aggressors and/or send the gang scattering.

Or it might not have--not a good position to be in.

What is that saying about hope not being a strategy?