The "new" J-frame

[David Armstrong]

DavidA, since you believe capacity is directly related to tactics, what would you have done differently in DocGKR's situation should you had to defend yourself?

I don't see any need to do anything differently. It sounds like Doc defended himself just fine. The entire affair was handled without any need to resort to gunfire, thus capacity really didn't play much of a part.

[LittleLebowski]

I don't see any need to do anything differently. It sounds like Doc defended himself just fine. The entire affair was handled without any need to resort to gunfire, thus capacity really didn't play much of a part.

You misunderstood what I said. I believe you are missing out on a rational understanding of "preparing for the worst, hoping for the best."

So precisely how much more comfort whilst carrying is worth forgoing the better ballistics, capacity, accuracy, and reliability offered by say, a Glock 19 over a J frame? At what point did you decide that comfort trumps all?

[David Armstrong]

Just to be clear "appeal to the people" is not why the people formally mentioned were choosing a j-frame; but rather the name of the logical fallacy that you were using.

Just to be clear, I reject the notion that the statement was being used as an appeal to the people. Factual statements usually are just that, factual statements offered as part of a discussion.

It's not enough to say "Lot's of people do this for really good reasons after in-depth study". What study? What reasons? That is what we need for the discussion.

Really? Strange, I don't see any reference to studies on the opposing viewpoint, just opinions and some things that I think you would point out as "logical fallacies" if I were making them. I believe I gave some pretty good reasons.

These are of course numbers that you just made up based upon standards that you haven't specified.

Since it seems you want to nitpick, no, those are not numbers that I made up based on unspecified standards. I made no claim about what those numbers applied to. I simply point out that often we get to the point where minuscule improvements really don't change things very much.

Again it's a question of unspecified standards. If you set your standards of success at the level that a j-frame excels at then yah the j-frame does great. That's not to say that it comes anywhere near the same levels of a full-sized auto though.

But that is your fallacy. I'm not saying anything about it being at the same level as a full-size auto (which you have failed to define, BTW). I am saying that the j-frame has been used for a long time for SD purposes and it seems to have worked quite well. To me, BTW, that is the only standard that matters...does it adequately perform the job. What is better or worse is rather irrelevant as that is strictly an opinon issue. Is .45 better than 9mm? Is Glock better than Colt? Is DAO better than DA/SA? Really doesn't matter much to me. They are all different, and as long as they will do the job I will work with the differences.

It's kind of like saying "I can get this screw out with a butter knife, so that means that a butter knife is the correct tool for the job" You just better hope no one used locktite on that screw. Reliablility of course is the gimme for the j-frame. And it's accuracy will indeed be adequate for the job...Of the jobs that the accuracy of a j-frame is adequate for. Which is not the same amount of jobs that a full-sized pistol is adequate for(which includes all of those that the j-frame rates at). The same is said of controllability.

But that is true of any firearm. No matter what your personal compromise point is someone else can make a pretty good argument that it is wrong and you need to find another compromise point (which usually just happens to be right where they have decided for their needs!).

When I was an infantryman the general rule for engaging an enemy was as long as we outnumbered them 3 to 1. If you can help it you don't go into a fight(for your life) with "enough for the situation". You go in with as much overkill as you can possibly bring.

I'd first point out that suggested tactics for an infantry squad in a combat zone might not be that applicable to an individual carrying a CCW handgun for self defense. But with that, no, you go in with as much overkill as you think appropriate or that you are willing to carry around with you. You balance your load according to the mission. If you have 15 grenades you don't throw all 15 into one room at the same time just so you can go in with as much overkill as you can possibly bring.

And an important factor here that mariodsantana brought up earlier is that for most applications the trade off for carrying a full-sized pistol is extremely small. I'm wearing my HK USP .45c right now. In my pajamas, in a bellyband holster. I am not the least uncomfortable, I fell asleep on the couch like this just a week ago.

And that is fine. I carried a full-size 1911 for years, then a Glock 17 or a G19 (Whoops! Someone can make a good point that the G19 is not a full size gun, therefore I shouldn't carry it since I have a G17!) for several more years. I can carry any of them now if I wish, and frequently do. But given my situation and my environment I find a J-frame more than adequate to handle pretty much any reasonably expected problem that might come up.

I would like to reiterate that I'm not saying that there isn't times when the j-frame is the correct choice. I just don't think it's all that often.

I would suggest that one can never know if what they are carrying is the correct choice until after the fact. All carry is a compromise, and trying to argue "my compromise is better than your compromise" seems rather questionable

[David Armstrong]

You misunderstood what I said.

No, I answered exactly what you asked. Perhaps you misunderstood what you wrote?

I believe you are missing out on a rational understanding of "preparing for the worst, hoping for the best."

I'm quite aware of that, I simply reject the entire notion. We do not prepare for the worst. We compromise with what we think might realistically happen and how much we are willing to inconvenience ourselves.

So precisely how much more comfort whilst carrying is worth forgoing the better ballistics, capacity, accuracy, and reliability offered by say, a Glock 19 over a J frame? At what point did you decide that comfort trumps all?

Please don't make up positions and then attribute them to me. I have said nothing about comfort trumps all. In fact I reject the idea and think it is rather silly. As for the alleged advantages of a Glock 19 over a J-frame I will again suggest that different does not mean better. One could as well compare a G19 to a G22 to a LW Commander to a Mdl 65 to a PPK to a Sig 229 to an HK USP and so on.

[JConn]

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

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 necissary, well then you're life or the life of someone you care about could be forfeit.

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."

It just seems like a simple choice to me.

Edit: wow this has gotten heated.

[David]

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*

[JConn]

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*

Don't make me throw my (unloaded) j-frame at you.

[ToddG]

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

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?"

[JConn]

Repeat post

[JDM]

To me, a full-size pistol like a G19 or M&P is usually more comfortable than a Snub. It's Thinner, less round and lumpy, and the holster options are FAR better. Everything being equal, I'd rather carry a full size auto strictly from a comfort standpoint.

And as far as capacity, why not carry more if you can? It makes no sense to limit your options without being forced to.