5 shot revolver training... double tap...double tap... single tap ???

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This is always a useless argument. It comes down to this:

1. Mouse guns have no utility - not true.
2. Mouse guns have utility - true
3. If you could carry a bigger gun that you can use, is this better - true
4. Are you better off not carrying the mouse gun - not true.

Sprinkle rants through this and you have the never ending thread.

 

[David Armstrong]

There's something called concealed carry... maybe you heard about it.

Heard about it, practiced it, train others in it, for quite some time. haven't really run across much about any requirement for CCW in your own house.

That is your opinion.

Sorry, but no. The OP asked for info on a specific point, the use of a 5-shot snub in a particular situation. Changing the situation to defend your own personal choice of gun is not particualrly relevant.

Crime is prevented by people with snubs, but "not prevented by folks with hi-cap autos"??
Do they have some magic property, that cna be found in snubs alone?
That has to be the most unrealistic comment I've read, ever.

Perhaps your English is a bit weak? It is not an exclusive comment, that one always works and that one never works. It says that on a regular basis we see crimes attempted that are stopped by snubs, just as on a regular basis we see crimes that are not stopped by hi-cap autos. Nothing magic, just failure to understand some nuances of language on your part.

I stand corrected. Suggesting a 22 LR derringer for self defense. Now that's the most outrageous advice I've read in a gun related forum.

Well, once again we see the that some want to argue over what was not said instead of dealing with what was said. Nobody suggested anything. There is a difference between pointing out that something works and suggesting that it be used, and it is outrageous to claim otherwise.

david has always felt 'scareing' BGs with guns would do for 'most' situations.

That is not so much what David feels as it is what all the data show. I know that reporting facts offends you for some reason, but it doesn't change those facts.

Carry something a bit better than that piece of crap david suggest for 'most' situations.

As always, deaf, you make claims that are not true. David has never suggested one carry a piece of crap. You are making things up again.

As far as I know - and I know the literature and experts quite well - the rate of success of such guns is very, very high and if there is a significant different in DGU success by caliber for civilians - it's not out there and the experts don't know it.

Uncommonly strange how the literature in the field and the experts in the field agree on this, yet so many with absolutely no real kowledge of the subject disagree with them.

 

[Deaf Smith]

david,

Kind of hard to just say "I pointed out it works" and still not say you don't imply you recommend it. If it works, it works, if it don't it don't. You did NOT add any qualifier saying it's still a stupid pick and one that can get you killed.

That is one of your main problems. You give so nuanced a reply you don't see to say it works basicly says you approve, and then don't add any qualifer. And it's not the first time you have done this.

It would be like me saying riding on bald tires works most of the time and the just stop and not point out it's a very bad idea. But then, I guess to you the 2 shot .22 isn't a bad idea cause you still havn't said it IS a bad idea.

Same with pointing out the 'scareing'. You say 'scareing' works most of the time yet you don't mention it's not a good strategy to rely on that.

'm sure the other readers here know one does not keep a gun just to frighten off the bad guys. One must not only have decided if need be they will use it. And they know that if they have to use it then a serious weapon is needed. And thus the 'stats' in this case are not something to rely on.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Talking at cross purposes - again the small gun has utility. If that's all you got or can carry - go for it.

If one argues that you shouldn't carry the small gun at all, which is the implication - you are making a mistake of missing its added value.

Look at it this way. For some reason - you have only have a short barreled Single Action Colt clone in 38SP or 357. If that's all you had - would you carry it? It's not a modern gun and difficult to shoot quickly without practice.

But I'd carry it.

Some predicted utility vs. max predicted utility.

I do agree that one should not be delusional about the smaller gun IF you do get into an intensive fight. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't carry one at all.

 

[David Armstrong]

Kind of hard to just say "I pointed out it works" and still not say you don't imply you recommend it.

No, not at all. In fact, it is very easy to say it. I might point out that travelling by ox cart across the country works, but I certainly don't recommend it. I could point out that one can live quite well on a diet consisting of insects, milk, and blood, but I don't recommend it.

You did NOT add any qualifier saying it's still a stupid pick and one that can get you killed.

Given the right situation any pick can be stupid and get you killed. I try to disregard the odd-ball exceptions and focus more on the normal and regular.

That is one of your main problems.

Yawn. I point out a set of facts that are accurate and acceptable in the overwhelming majority of the incidents. You respond "Ah Hah! Gotcha! Here is this one in a hundred incident where you would be wrong, so you are wrong for all the incidents." Sorry, that is not my problem. I would consider the main problem to be those who fail to recognize the big picture and focus on the rare and exceptional to the extent it colors their ability to understand the more common.

But then, I guess to you the 2 shot .22 isn't a bad idea cause you still havn't said it IS a bad idea.

I don't care if it is a good idea or a bad idea. I care about if it is an effective response to the situation. So what I say is that the .22 has been shown to be effective for most CCW situations. That is a true and accurate statement that one may use however they wish.

You say 'scareing' works most of the time yet you don't mention it's not a good strategy to rely on that.

It is not a good strategy to rely on any single factor. It is a good strategy to understand all the dynamics that go into an incident, how they typically play out, and plan your response around that.

And they know that if they have to use it then a serious weapon is needed.

I know you hate it, but that is just not true. A serious weapon is not needed most of the time, assuming by "serious" you are talking about full-scale fighting guns. Most of the time the small gun will work. Most of the time ANY gun will work. And sometimes even the "serious" gun will not work.

And thus the 'stats' in this case are not something to rely on.

Never said you should only rely on the stats, but knowing and understanding the stats help you more accurately determine what the best approach is to your problem. It is not the only factor, but it should certainly be one of them. Again, you probably shouldn't rely on any single factor. But the more you know the better you are.
Only in the world of personal defense do we regularly see people suggest one should ignore the best information and instead rely on guesses and unusual experiences. It is like going to the casino and betting "00" on the roulette wheel every spin.

 

[MLeake]

What you could say, statistically, is that...

... any gun works better for SD purposes than no gun.

... most SD applications of a firearm won't require the weapon to actually be fired.

... in most cases where the weapon is fired, no more than 3 rounds are expended.

... a .38 snubby is adequate for the majority of SD cases.

However, it is not unreasonable to argue that the most sensible pistol to carry is the one that, for the given conditions, allows:

1) as close to perfect reliability as can be obtained;
2) the most power the user can effectively control, for initial and follow-up shots;
and
3) the best ammunition capacity available

Conditions will vary. They will include:

1) Physical strength, size and condition. Some weapons may be too heavy to carry all day, or too bulky to conceal.
2) Weather. Some weapons may require impractical (uncomfortable and tactically obvious) clothing.
3) Legality. Sorry, CA members...

The list can go on.

So, statistically, David Armstrong is basically right. Common sensically, so is FerFAL.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Stop being rational - this is the Internet.

Dave speaks to the body of the distribution and others speak to a cut off level for the small percent of intensive interactions in the tail. It's real like a signal detection matrix with various types of errors. Oh, shut up - Glenn!

 

[Deaf Smith]

No, one carries a weapon to defend their life. They presume if they do one day need it, then it should be as effective as practical.

Weapons like .22 two shot pistols are, as they say, 'good guns for your opponent to have'. To on purpose pick an ineffective weapon just shows one is either not serious or is ignorant (or both.)

And to say they are adequate is to show either the same ignorance ir they just like to argue on the internet.

Same goes for using statitics that way.

 

[SAWBONES]

"No, one carries a weapon to defend their life. They presume if they do one day need it, then it should be as effective as practical."

Say rather that it should have an acceptably-optimal balance of potential terminal ballistic effectiveness, ease of use, comfort and concealability for the individual, and that there may be a range of acceptable choices.
People won't agree on what constitutes that acceptably-optimal balance, and each man must find those CCW choices which meet his perceived needs.

Though I prefer a 1911 in .45ACP, I'm often found carrying a S&W 649 snubby loaded with 158gr+P LSWCHPs because its lighter weight and concealability may trump the heavier weight and better ballistics of the 1911 enough to make it the favored choice at some times and places.
My range of acceptable CCW choices, in terms of ballistic effectiveness, weapon size and weight, doesn't go below a .38 Special snubby plus a speedloader, or above a full size 1911 with two spare mags, though I realize some have broader limits than mine.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Saw,

I have two principle carry guns. Glock 27 and 642. Now the 642 is a 5 shooter, but I practice an awful lot with a 640 and 63 (2 inch .22 kit gun.)

Yes we all make choices about what we feel our needs. But things like .22 2 shot pistols are not in that relm.

 

[SAWBONES]

I agree not only that handguns shooting .22 rimfire loads, but also handguns shooting .25ACP, .32ACP and .380ACP are not among my acceptable choices for self defense and CCW, but I can imagine occasions when they might serve my needs, and I can also imagine particular persons whose needs for self protection they might meet better than guns of more powerful calibers (folks whose hands are weak for whatever reason or disabled by arthritis or deformity), since almost any gun is better than no gun when in extremis.

I'm not limited to those weaker-caliber choices, so I won't go "below" a .38 Special snubby for CCW, but I have no illusions about such being "good" or "good enough" or "an effective manstopper", nor do I place undue confidence in any carryable handgun-cartridge combination. CCW is always a compromise.
I think most of us know these things, it seems we just argue or disagree about relatively minor points.

 

[David Armstrong]

They presume if they do one day need it, then it should be as effective as practical.

No. The proper phrasing, IMO, is that it should be practical for their needs. It is always a compromise. Different people will have different concerns, thus the compromise might change.

To on purpose pick an ineffective weapon just shows one is either not serious or is ignorant (or both.)

Of course, given the history, one could argue that claiming the .22 is ineffective for the large majority of CCW incidents is either not serious or ignorant (or both).

Same goes for using statitics that way.

What way is that, deaf? The way that shows what works for the huge majority of the time? Why does identifying what is successful seem to bother you so much?

And to say they are adequate is to show either the same ignorance ir they just like to argue on the internet.

Hmmm. "On the subject of wheel guns, I tend to fancy the feather-weight 22 introduced last year by Smith & Wesson. At risk of sounding loony, I maintain that the 22 long rifle is a considerably more practical cartridge than the 38 Special, or for that matter almost any other handgun cartridge."
--OR--
"What about the 22 for self-defense? We do not recommend it, but we certainly do not disregard it."
The above quotes from the apparently ignorant and argumentative late Col. Jeff Cooper, who I guess knew far less about defensive handgun use than does our own deaf smith. Admitedly he is discussing the .22 in general here, and not the derringer in particular, but I think the point is still worth tossing out there. Cooper recognized that while a full-size fighting gun in major caliber was the first choice, it was not always the only choice, and for some it was not even the best choice.

 

[pax]

Been watching this one for awhile, hoping it would get back on track, but it just keeps getting further afield ... and more acidic, too. Too bad!

This one's closed.

If you want to continue the discussion about .22 calibers for defense, I believe one of the handgun forums has that subject going right now.

If you want to debate semi-autos versus revolvers, the general handgun discussion forum is thataway. ------>

If you'd like to discuss training methods for revolvers, feel free to open a new thread next week or so, after tempers from this one have cooled a little.

pax