The "new" J-frame

[David Armstrong]

I like the j-frame. IMO it is one of the finest CCW guns available for most folks. It is small enough that they will carry it regularly and large enough that it will solve most problems we encounter. In spite of all the talk about how inadequate it is when we look back at its use through history we find it seems to have worked rather well when stoked with good ammunition. For SD distances it provides excellent accuracy. It lends itself to a wide number of variations so someone can find pretty much whatever they need to fit their circumstances. Are you going to fight off a dozen BGs intent on doing you evil with it? No, probably not. But truth be told you are probably not going to do that with your compact 1911, or your G26 or whatever else you are carrying concealed. And let's be honest about it, folks....if the gun were really that bad, would so many carry it as a BUG? After all, if you are down to the using the BUG isn't that the time you are wanting the best thing you can get your hands on? If one is willing to say the j-frame is the go-to gun when things are really desperate is it really that bad?

[Rains on Parades]

First let's get the last statement out of the way. Mentioning the number of people that carry a J-frame as a recommendation as to it's appropriateness is known as an appeal to the people. It doesn't take too much mental gymnastics to think of all of the popular(and yet completely wrong) things that people think and do on a regular basis. What "so many" people do should never be the basis upon which you judge right from wrong.

Second it's about risk analysis. The likely hood that you will need 1 firearm to deal with a problem is much higher than the likely hood that you will need 2, which is much higher than the likely hood that you will need 3 and so on.

Sure you would be most safe if you could walk around with your carbine, body armor, tactical vest and 7 mags, two BUGs and hell let's throw in a SWAT squad as back up. Absolutely even carrying a full-sized handgun is a compromise. But you have to at some point make a decision about what's safest vs what's most practical. The factors that go into making a gun a fighting weapon are not mysterious, reliability, controllability, accuracy, capacity. And a J-frame comes up short when compared to a full-sized auto on 3 out of 4 of those. Would it be better to carry 2 fullsized pistols? Tactically maybe. But the risk that you might need a second gun is probably low enough that practicality weighs in at that point and says "you know maybe we can just take the J-frame".

Absolutely at times it may be the best choice. But you should make that choice being truthful to yourself about the limitations that you are signing up for as well as the reasons. Do you pick a J-frame because it is truly the best for the situation, or just because you can't be assed to carry something more substantial.

[LittleLebowski]

First let's get the last statement out of the way. Mentioning the number of people that carry a J-frame as a recommendation as to it's appropriateness is known as an appeal to the people. It doesn't take too much mental gymnastics to think of all of the popular(and yet completely wrong) things that people think and do on a regular basis. What "so many" people do should never be the basis upon which you judge right from wrong.

Second it's about risk analysis. The likely hood that you will need 1 firearm to deal with a problem is much higher than the likely hood that you will need 2, which is much higher than the likely hood that you will need 3 and so on.

Sure you would be most safe if you could walk around with your carbine, body armor, tactical vest and 7 mags, two BUGs and hell let's throw in a SWAT squad as back up. Absolutely even carrying a full-sized handgun is a compromise. But you have to at some point make a decision about what's safest vs what's most practical. The factors that go into making a gun a fighting weapon are not mysterious, reliability, controllability, accuracy, capacity. And a J-frame comes up short when compared to a full-sized auto on 3 out of 4 of those. Would it be better to carry 2 fullsized pistols? Tactically maybe. But the risk that you might need a second gun is probably low enough that practicality weighs in at that point and says "you know maybe we can just take the J-frame".

Absolutely at times it may be the best choice. But you should make that choice being truthful to yourself about the limitations that you are signing up for as well as the reasons. Do you pick a J-frame because it is truly the best for the situation, or just because you can't be assed to carry something more substantial.

Very well said.

[DocGKR]

An experienced former LE officer with extensive experience who is now one of the of the best LE trainers I know made the following comments about this very subject at LF:

"I have been in a dis-proportionate number of off-duty altercations and incidents in my life. I don't know why, but shit just seems to find me. Several of these incidents have ended in extreme levels of violence. I have learned several things.

Have a REAL gun: I cannot think of one single incident in which a 5 shot J frame would be a good choice. In at least two of the cases, I was armed with the "perfect solution to the problem" by shear luck. In one case, a high end custom 1911 in high quality leather was ideal. This incident was going to require a clean draw and a single precision head shot at approximately 5 yards to solve the problem had things progressed. In another case having a Glock 9 mm with 2 spare magazines and a 30 rounder nearby was about ideal (in the having a single concealed handgun kind of scenario) for dealing with five gang members who were vehicle born and responsible for a rash of armed robberies in which a shotgun was their primary weapon.

The environment you are normally in and the local laws will often play a big part in your selection of appropriate firearms and carry systems. If I am limited by local laws to ten rounds, I like them to be of the .45 ACP variety. If there is a good possibility of dealing with multiple suspects, then a modern polymer 9mm is a solid choice. Its kind of funny-I was just talking to Pat Rogers the other day and made the comment that I am hoping that I can move to a place where carrying a 1911 and a single spare magazine will be sufficient. For now, it is a Glock 9mm and lots of spare magazines."

[MDS]

Do you pick a J-frame because it is truly the best for the situation, or just because you can't be assed to carry something more substantial.

I'm very, very far from being an experienced CCW'er. But it only took me about 6 months to realize that my USP45c was almost as easy to carry as my J frame. The difference in comfort is minimal, while the difference in effectiveness is much more substantial. Now that I carry a G19, the comfort difference is even less, and the difference in effectiveness is arguably even more. If you "can't be assed" to carry a G19 vs. a J frame, you've got a pretty low threshold of what you're willing to be assed to do...

I inherited my J frame from my father, so I've definitely got a soft spot for it. It's been very useful to me for trigger practice, and for high-recoil ball-and-dummy drills to Fight the Flinch. But the Flinch is the only thing I see myself fighting with a snubby, anymore.

[jslaker]

It is small enough that they will carry it regularly

To be honest, I think this is the biggest "problem" with the average concealed carrier. Much in the same way that I think most haven't fully considered the gravity of using a firearm on another human being.

[Joe in PNG]

But as the old saying goes, isn't the perfect the enemy of the good enough?
As was mentioned earlier, even a pistol is a compromise compared to an assault rifle or shotgun.
...but...
-What about when you're changing your brakes on a hot day? Or got a car up on a rack and whatever is in your waistband will be exposed to all the world?
-Working a job where you wear a toolbelt?
-What about when you're at the beach? At the pool?

So no, my .25cal Baby Browning isn't going to magically make the baddies run away. It probably won't stop them either. In fact, I see it more as the starter pistol for my "Running Running RUNNING!!!" 100. But, it's a hell lot more effective than the .00zilch Nothing-Diddlysquat I have with me right now.

[TCinVA]

To be honest, I think this is the biggest "problem" with the average concealed carrier. Much in the same way that I think most haven't fully considered the gravity of using a firearm on another human being.

It's interesting to note the correlation between one's assessment of "good enough" and whether or not an individual has actually had to reach for a handgun to solve a problem. I've not kept scientific statistics but I have noted a rather curious pattern: Those individuals who have actually had to solve a problem with a handgun before (either by drawing it as a show of force or actually pulling the trigger) tend to have a much higher estimation of what "good enough" actually is than those who have not. While I know of folks who have successfully used something like a J frame to solve a problem, in the moment they were keenly aware of the limitations of their hardware. There's only so much problem you can solve with a J frame because of the capacity and how difficult they are to use.

I've never had to shoot someone with a J frame but there has been a time or two when I thought I was going to, and I wasn't exactly brimming with confidence. In contrast to that, last Christmas Eve I encountered a vagrant who attempted a strong-arm robbery while I was carrying my P30. I had absolutely zero doubt in my mind about how things would end for him.

When you believe you could be seconds away from actually having to fire a handgun to stop the hostile actions of another human being, your understanding of "good enough" tends to change considerably.

Something is always better than nothing...but something may not be what you want in your hand should things get real on you. Handguns are not magic talismans that ward off evil spirits. They are tools. You need to use one that is adequate to the job at hand.

In these discussions I frequently see the mention of avoidance, deescalation, and escape. I'll go ahead and lay this out there and anyone who wishes to take me to task on it can feel free to do so:

Concepts like avoiding threats, deescalation, and escape are fine and dandy in the moments that precede the one where you reach for a firearm. Once it reaches the point where you're pulling a handgun, however, I hold that it's probably past the point where any of that stuff is a realistic option. When you reach for the handgun you are not reaching for it because you have half a dozen good options on the table to resolve the problem and you just feel like killing someone that day. You're reaching for the handgun because you are down to one extremely unpleasant option. You're pulling that handgun because you're convinced that you need to put bullets into another human being to preserve your existence or to preserve the existence of people you care about.

I'll also point out that you can't exactly call quitsies in the middle of a gunfight. Bad guys can throw up their hands and surrender...you can't. If you've run out of offense before the bad guy is either incapacitated or has decided to rethink his choices in life, he will probably kill you.

Lastly there's the notion of the caliber of threat that the individual faces. There seem to be a lot of people who think that uniformed police officers deal with more severe threats than the average joe or off-duty police officer. I also find this to be an extremely silly assertion. The cop on the street deals with the violent scumbags that walk around in your community breathing free air. The violent scumbags generally end up on the radar of law enforcement because they first victimize someone like you.

The situation where you are actually going to have to pull the trigger is more than likely not one that is under your control. The bad guy you are actually going to have to shoot to stop likely isn't the sort who pisses himself and runs when he meets the slightest resistance. The encounter where you actually have to try and take another human being's life to continue yours or to protect your family is not likely to be one you can rely on to end when it suits you. Once it reaches the point where you are essentially trying to commit homicide, running away is no longer a viable option.

Much of the discussion out there on the internet is based in a fundamentally flawed notion of what a lethal force encounter really is and that trickles into discussions about what is "enough" tool to fix the problem.

[JConn]

It's interesting to note the correlation between one's assessment of "good enough" and whether or not an individual has actually had to reach for a handgun to solve a problem. I've not kept scientific statistics but I have noted a rather curious pattern: Those individuals who have actually had to solve a problem with a handgun before (either by drawing it as a show of force or actually pulling the trigger) tend to have a much higher estimation of what "good enough" actually is than those who have not. While I know of folks who have successfully used something like a J frame to solve a problem, in the moment they were keenly aware of the limitations of their hardware. There's only so much problem you can solve with a J frame because of the capacity and how difficult they are to use.

I've never had to shoot someone with a J frame but there has been a time or two when I thought I was going to, and I wasn't exactly brimming with confidence. In contrast to that, last Christmas Eve I encountered a vagrant who attempted a strong-arm robbery while I was carrying my P30. I had absolutely zero doubt in my mind about how things would end for him.

When you believe you could be seconds away from actually having to fire a handgun to stop the hostile actions of another human being, your understanding of "good enough" tends to change considerably.

Something is always better than nothing...but something may not be what you want in your hand should things get real on you. Handguns are not magic talismans that ward off evil spirits. They are tools. You need to use one that is adequate to the job at hand.

In these discussions I frequently see the mention of avoidance, deescalation, and escape. I'll go ahead and lay this out there and anyone who wishes to take me to task on it can feel free to do so:

Concepts like avoiding threats, deescalation, and escape are fine and dandy in the moments that precede the one where you reach for a firearm. Once it reaches the point where you're pulling a handgun, however, I hold that it's probably past the point where any of that stuff is a realistic option. When you reach for the handgun you are not reaching for it because you have half a dozen good options on the table to resolve the problem and you just feel like killing someone that day. You're reaching for the handgun because you are down to one extremely unpleasant option. You're pulling that handgun because you're convinced that you need to put bullets into another human being to preserve your existence or to preserve the existence of people you care about.

I'll also point out that you can't exactly call quitsies in the middle of a gunfight. Bad guys can throw up their hands and surrender...you can't. If you've run out of offense before the bad guy is either incapacitated or has decided to rethink his choices in life, he will probably kill you.

Lastly there's the notion of the caliber of threat that the individual faces. There seem to be a lot of people who think that uniformed police officers deal with more severe threats than the average joe or off-duty police officer. I also find this to be an extremely silly assertion. The cop on the street deals with the violent scumbags that walk around in your community breathing free air. The violent scumbags generally end up on the radar of law enforcement because they first victimize someone like you.

The situation where you are actually going to have to pull the trigger is more than likely not one that is under your control. The bad guy you are actually going to have to shoot to stop likely isn't the sort who pisses himself and runs when he meets the slightest resistance. The encounter where you actually have to try and take another human being's life to continue yours or to protect your family is not likely to be one you can rely on to end when it suits you. Once it reaches the point where you are essentially trying to commit homicide, running away is no longer a viable option.

Much of the discussion out there on the internet is based in a fundamentally flawed notion of what a lethal force encounter really is and that trickles into discussions about what is "enough" tool to fix the problem.

Yes.

Very, very well said.

[Rains on Parades]

I'm very, very far from being an experienced CCW'er. But it only took me about 6 months to realize that my USP45c was almost as easy to carry as my J frame. The difference in comfort is minimal, while the difference in effectiveness is much more substantial.

It's interesting that I came to similar conclusions from a similar starting point. When I decided that I would start carrying concealed I did a lot of research on carrying guns. And I was pretty set on a j-frame or one of the smaller Kahrs. But the fact was that I just didn't have the cash to buy a new handgun at the time. So I looked to the pistol that I had kept by my bedside for more than 10 years(interestingly enough it is a USP 45c) and started holster shopping instead. I would never turn back. Though I could see moving to a full-sized 9mm in the future.