The "new" J-frame

[LittleLebowski]

Personally, I think the answer to "should I carry a J-frame" is "buy a good holster and belt for what you have."

[ToddG]

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.
<snip>
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.

Bravo.

[WobblyPossum]

TC, that was easily one of the best explanations I have every read regarding anything. A lot of food for thought in your post.

[Shellback]

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.

Great post as usual TC. I think this is a very valid point and it should be emphasized that many "non-gun" people typically assert that gun owners aren't cops so they don't "need" to carry a gun. The threat is out there, in your community, and it's real. How you choose to do deal with those threats or not is ultimately up to each individual to decide.

[Plan]

As much as I am a fan of the S&W J-frame, my 642 has largely been relegated to around-the-house/lawn mowing duty, or use as a backup weapon. Maybe several years ago I would have felt comfortable with it as a primary, but not so much now. I think it also does extremely well in the niche of contact-distance situations, such as while fighting a violent subject or inside a vehicle.

People can debate for hours about the theoretical benefits of carrying a snubnosed revolver over a larger handgun ("it's better than my .45 in the safe!") but I think the best reality check you can have is to go to an actual, real life shooting scene and see the realities of combat... The blood, broken glass, and shell casings littering the ground. And given that in most situations all of the rounds fired in the conflict were fired in a few seconds means that the j-frame will not keep your end of the fight going for very long before it's time to execute what would probably feel like the world's longest reload.

And yes, I realize that there are many "low risk" situations in which a snubnosed revolver could be considered acceptable. But as DocGKR pointed out, it really isn't THAT much more difficult to conceal a compact or subcompact handgun, and you gain a pretty significant increase in performance.

[David Armstrong]

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.

While I can agree with the basic concept, I question it in this context. The J-frame is not just something that many people have chosen, it is also something that many people across many walks of life with many different needs and with many different skill levels have chosen, and for many the reason behind the choice is in-depth study and analysis of the issue. So we go far beyond the simple "appeal to the people", IMO.

Second it's about risk analysis.

Yes, and when we get down to it the person who is prepared for 99.99% of the problems isn't that different from the guy that is prepared for 99.999%/

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.

I disagree. Staying within the context of CCW in particular, the J-frame provides top-notch reliability, adequate accuracy for the job, and is quite controllable in many of it's forms. The issue of capacity is in large part an issue of tactics.

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.

Carrying something more substantial is not the best for the situation either. It is a different compromise point on a line, and I really question the idea that anything beyond the basic "enough for the situation" is a substantially better compromise than any other point.

[David Armstrong]

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.

You may be right, but problem or not that is the reality of what we have to deal with. I agree, life might be much different if everyone was a dedicated gun carrier and went to lots of training and so on. Although I will point out that I am a dedicated gun carrier who went to lots of training and has had plenty of experiences, and a J-frame has been one of my most common primary carry guns (an Airweight, in my case) for most of 20 years.

[LittleLebowski]

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?

[fuse]

But the Flinch is the only thing I see myself fighting with a snubby, anymore.

Nice quote.

[Rains on Parades]

While I can agree with the basic concept, I question it in this context. The J-frame is not just something that many people have chosen, it is also something that many people across many walks of life with many different needs and with many different skill levels have chosen, and for many the reason behind the choice is in-depth study and analysis of the issue. So we go far beyond the simple "appeal to the people", IMO.

Just to be clear "appeal to the people" is not why the people formally mentioned were chosing a j-frame; but rather the name of the logical fallacy that you were using. Argumentum Ad Populum: The incorrect assumption that because many people believe a thing, that that thing is true. Of course people have reasons for choosing whatever firearm they do. People have reasons for doing everything they do. The stupidest most ridiculous actions and choices in the world were made because of reasons.

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.

Yes, and when we get down to it the person who is prepared for 99.99% of the problems isn't that different from the guy that is prepared for 99.999%/

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

I disagree. Staying within the context of CCW in particular, the J-frame provides top-notch reliability, adequate accuracy for the job, and is quite controllable in many of it's forms. The issue of capacity is in large part an issue of tactics.

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. 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.

Carrying something more substantial is not the best for the situation either. It is a different compromise point on a line, and I really question the idea that anything beyond the basic "enough for the situation" is a substantially better compromise than any other point.

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.

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.

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.