Bob Wright
New member
Its DEFENSIVE SHOOTING when someone is shooting at you, no matter the distance.
Bob Wright
Bob Wright
Can someone help me understand these?
- Thread starter Exit_Wound
- Start date
dahermit said:
Okay, what's the person who's NOT a cop supposed to do if they're in a gunfight with someone who is firing from cover? Why the distinction between civilians employed in the law enforcement field and civilians employed in other fields?
dahermit said:
Do you believe that 4 hits at 165 yards counts as a "long shot" for a handgun? Does your state allow lethal force in defense of others?
http://www.guns.com/2012/08/01/texas-gun-owner-shoot-out/
""What "long shots" will a citizen need to make with a defensive gun?""
Vic Stacy took several 55 yard shots in stopping a perp who was shooting at a cop (and also at Mr. Stacy). Also recall a documentary 'First 48' wherein a perp was shooting at a fleeing person, who stopped and fired one shot (about 50 yards) striking the perp in the head. Investigating detective called it a 'lucky shot.'
Are you saying that if I were in a like situation I could/should not use my hump-back S&W Bodyguard 38 in SA mode? At 50 yards I am way more accurate shooting SA. Its an accurate handgun, limited only by shooter skill.
Vic Stacy took several 55 yard shots in stopping a perp who was shooting at a cop (and also at Mr. Stacy). Also recall a documentary 'First 48' wherein a perp was shooting at a fleeing person, who stopped and fired one shot (about 50 yards) striking the perp in the head. Investigating detective called it a 'lucky shot.'
Are you saying that if I were in a like situation I could/should not use my hump-back S&W Bodyguard 38 in SA mode? At 50 yards I am way more accurate shooting SA. Its an accurate handgun, limited only by shooter skill.
deputy tom
New member
I've been carrying hump-back Smiths since the early 1970s. The main reason is you can shoot thru a coat pocket without hammer-snagging the cloth and still shoot single action if needed. Thin wood stocks with a Tyler T-grip adapter is my favorite set up. Add a speed-strip in the pocket and I'm happy. I hope you get your wife's gun up and running soon. YMMV. tom. 
So, if I understand correctly, "civilians" should not be allowed to own, or at least not be allowed to carry, any handgun with a single action capability since there is no possible way that a "civilian" could ever need or want a light trigger pull for accuracy. Interesting idea; I wonder if the Brady gang has thought of that one?
Jim
Jim
No, you do not understand it correctly. The Second Amendment puts no restrictions on the kind of "arms" a citizen can carry. If you want one, that is your choice...I have no problem with that. My point is that it (shrouded hammer/hammer spur) is of questionable utility in its apparent limited role as a defensive gun. In other words, the ability to cock the hammer is an ingenious solution to a non-existent problem.
Last edited:
Does that happen more while fantasizing than it does in a typical documented self-defense situations?
Four hits, and several misses...in a trailer park (thin aluminum walls, with kids). Where did the misses go? Despite the fact that he is credited with saving the cop, what he did and how he would have been perceived would have been quite different if one of his "misses" had killed some kid asleep in his bed. He lucked out on that one... Also, the rare exceptions of ideal outcome do not make it a smart thing.
Unless the dog is attacking you, that is not a defensive application.
Also, not a defensive application.
Also not a defensive application. I was only referring to concealed carry, defensive use of a double-action and the "essential" feature (shrouded hammer), of being able to use it as a single-action.
Then, agreed.
Under the very specifically limited conditions you define, the ability to choose SA is overwhelmingly likely to be superflous.
When I choose to carry that particular revolver, I do so in order to have more options and in order not to have to carry two (or more) tools which would be better for some other situation, such as defense of my livestock. Admittedly, that happened more in the past than today, but, if I were limited in my choices to one, the shrouded hammer design would make a nice compromise.
I often carry for other than self defense purposes. I'm sure you are not saying that a civilian should be restricted to only self-defense use of a firearm?
W.
Under the very specifically limited conditions you define, the ability to choose SA is overwhelmingly likely to be superflous.
When I choose to carry that particular revolver, I do so in order to have more options and in order not to have to carry two (or more) tools which would be better for some other situation, such as defense of my livestock. Admittedly, that happened more in the past than today, but, if I were limited in my choices to one, the shrouded hammer design would make a nice compromise.
I often carry for other than self defense purposes. I'm sure you are not saying that a civilian should be restricted to only self-defense use of a firearm?
W.
Last edited:
I once read a famous gunwriter describe the double action auto pistol in those exact same words. And, from his point of view, he was right.
I think what is causing some of the confusion in the thread is the slight, subtle difference in our understanding of the term "defensive gun", and the subject of defensive use of a gun.
Some are taking the point that the SA feature (shrouded hammer in this case) has no place in defensive use of a handgun (which I generally agree with) and therefore has no place on a defensive handgun (which I disagree with).
Sure, its semantics, but if we differ in our understanding of semantics, we are not having a meaningful discussion, but rather both sides are just talking to themselves.
As I see it, the defensive handgun is two guns. One, is the handgun optimized for defensive use by its features, or lack of such. And the other is any handgun you have that circumstances require you to use as a defensive weapon.
People who say the SA feature doesn't belong on a defensive handgun are right, in their opinion, provided you also believe that a defensive handgun should only be a defensive handgun, and should not/does not need to have any features that are not essential to that role.
That's fine. There are plenty of guns out there that fill that niche, and do it well. But what we're talking about is guns that still fill that niche pretty well, and do have other features, allowing easier (better?) use for things other than that niche.
Lets look at three guns, nearly identical, with the same primary purpose, defensive use. A small frame short barrel DA revolver in standard configuration, one with a shrouded hammer, and one with a concealed hammer, in .38SPL/.357 Mag. All three share all the same features, except for the hammer.
At a glance, to me, the shrouded hammer gun seems the best of all worlds, and by that I mean providing the greatest range of (potentially) useful options. It is less snag prone than the conventional revolver (but that's only important if your carry mode involves the possibility of a snag on clothing as a significant risk). It allows the use of SA shooting (important? strictly for typical defense use, SA is not important, BUT there is more to handgunning than just defensive use, and having the capability gives you more options).
Do you need more options? That's a personal call. Your living situation plays a really big part there. At home in town, carrying in urban situations is a different thing than living & working in the country.
I don't own a shrouded hammer revolver. Never saw a clear need for one in my life. I don't own a concealed hammer revolver, either. Same reason. If something in my life gave one, or both of them a benefit for me, I would. What's best is a personal matter, different for each of us, sometimes very different. But isn't it nice to have options?
Aguila Blanca
Staff
That's the answer. The rest of this discussion is loosely-related trivia.4V50 Gary said:
Okay, James K, Jim Watson & 44 AMP have hit all the high points for the reason the shrouded external hammer snubs still exist, and still sell. 
Being a longtime DA revolver shooter, I found the Centennial-style DAO snubs to be simple & handy. I grew up shooting SA revolvers, but finally started using DA revolvers and learned to shoot well using DA. When I carried a service revolver as a young cop, DA shooting was heavily emphasized. (Once some negligent shootings started to occur when cops cocked their revolvers into SA, we saw the introduction of the DAO conversion for service revolvers.)
I still have an older 649 Bodyguard from those days. I bought it because I couldn't find the S&W M60 I was looking for at the time, so I settled on the 649. Aside from an older 3" M36 HB, rest of my J-frames are DAO (4 Centennial style and a factory M37 bobbed hammer DAO conversion).
The only time I really bother to thumb-cock the 649 into SA is when I decide to occasionally check my skillset basics by shooting out beyond 50yds. I often check my DA trigger control "basics" from 25-50 yds, using my DAO snubs, though.
So, yep, the shrouded/external hammer snubs are still with us for reasons that probably involve more nostalgia and market demand, than any particular practicality for dedicated defensive handguns.
The DAO snubs are faster to get into use and don't involve the complexities of trying to thumb-cock a revolver under stress, and then have a lighter/shorter trigger press.
As much as I enjoy my older Ruger SA revolvers, I suspect that for most folks the little DAO revolvers are probably better suited for defensive application, and the SA/SA-capable revolvers are probably best suited for the CAS, target & hunting venues.
If you've ever seen average folks shooting a non-LE qual course-of-fire (think CCW-type folks) using revolvers that can be thumb-cocked into SA, and watched them try to fire their revolvers in SA, it can be enlightening. Mostly, they either taking a long time to fire their SA shots, and/or they have trouble trying to manipulate/thumb-cock their guns and fire them within a reasonably short time frame. Probably not something most of them would really want to try and do under duress in a real defensive shooting situation.
Just my thoughts.
Being a longtime DA revolver shooter, I found the Centennial-style DAO snubs to be simple & handy. I grew up shooting SA revolvers, but finally started using DA revolvers and learned to shoot well using DA. When I carried a service revolver as a young cop, DA shooting was heavily emphasized. (Once some negligent shootings started to occur when cops cocked their revolvers into SA, we saw the introduction of the DAO conversion for service revolvers.)
I still have an older 649 Bodyguard from those days. I bought it because I couldn't find the S&W M60 I was looking for at the time, so I settled on the 649. Aside from an older 3" M36 HB, rest of my J-frames are DAO (4 Centennial style and a factory M37 bobbed hammer DAO conversion).
The only time I really bother to thumb-cock the 649 into SA is when I decide to occasionally check my skillset basics by shooting out beyond 50yds. I often check my DA trigger control "basics" from 25-50 yds, using my DAO snubs, though.
So, yep, the shrouded/external hammer snubs are still with us for reasons that probably involve more nostalgia and market demand, than any particular practicality for dedicated defensive handguns.
The DAO snubs are faster to get into use and don't involve the complexities of trying to thumb-cock a revolver under stress, and then have a lighter/shorter trigger press.
As much as I enjoy my older Ruger SA revolvers, I suspect that for most folks the little DAO revolvers are probably better suited for defensive application, and the SA/SA-capable revolvers are probably best suited for the CAS, target & hunting venues.
If you've ever seen average folks shooting a non-LE qual course-of-fire (think CCW-type folks) using revolvers that can be thumb-cocked into SA, and watched them try to fire their revolvers in SA, it can be enlightening. Mostly, they either taking a long time to fire their SA shots, and/or they have trouble trying to manipulate/thumb-cock their guns and fire them within a reasonably short time frame. Probably not something most of them would really want to try and do under duress in a real defensive shooting situation.
Just my thoughts.
I sometimes pocket carry a circa 1965 Model 38 Bodyguard, and I very much appreciate the ability to use SA for longer rang shots.
Originally, I got it as a lightweight backpacking gun to be carried for defense against two legged threats. Shots in that situation could easily be required that reach out farther than close range.
At my rifle club, we have steel plates at 40yds, and I find I can hit them easily using the single action feature. With DA at the same range, perhaps minute of chest...
I am amused by those who question the need for a "civilian" to ever need to take a shot at more than bad breath distance.
A friend of mine had a shot at a bad actor at 50yds he didn't take because he had never shot his snub Model 10 that far. When the individual stopped shooting at my friend and fled the scene, the police finally showed up and said they wished he had taken the shot...he did too.
It certainly changed his outlook. He now regularly practices longer range shooting, and has switched to a Glock 34 for his handgun.
Originally, I got it as a lightweight backpacking gun to be carried for defense against two legged threats. Shots in that situation could easily be required that reach out farther than close range.
At my rifle club, we have steel plates at 40yds, and I find I can hit them easily using the single action feature. With DA at the same range, perhaps minute of chest...
I am amused by those who question the need for a "civilian" to ever need to take a shot at more than bad breath distance.
A friend of mine had a shot at a bad actor at 50yds he didn't take because he had never shot his snub Model 10 that far. When the individual stopped shooting at my friend and fled the scene, the police finally showed up and said they wished he had taken the shot...he did too.
It certainly changed his outlook. He now regularly practices longer range shooting, and has switched to a Glock 34 for his handgun.
There was a thread a while back, I believe in T&T, where Pax listed a shooting event that occurred in the stairwell of an apartment or rental building. The mother, on an upper landing, had to shoot a BG who was threatening her son on a lower level. Slant range made it close to twenty yards.
Point being, even some interior shots could be longer than five yards. SA as an option is one way to handle such issues. I prefer to just practice a lot of DA.
As far as the concealed hammer types go, I have no interest. I can afford more than one, so I have hammerless for pocket carry, and regular for belt carry. It is not so much an issue of a concealed hammer snagging, but of the slot or channel allowing more potential intrusion of lint, etc, into the action that turns me off to the bodyguard type.
Edit: adding to fastbolt's comments, the other drawback I see (in myself, as well as others) is that when shooting without using the support hand, cocking the hammer typically results in a slight shift in grip on the gun - and that could be very bad for a retention scenario, where the support hand may be striking, fending, or grabbing.
Point being, even some interior shots could be longer than five yards. SA as an option is one way to handle such issues. I prefer to just practice a lot of DA.
As far as the concealed hammer types go, I have no interest. I can afford more than one, so I have hammerless for pocket carry, and regular for belt carry. It is not so much an issue of a concealed hammer snagging, but of the slot or channel allowing more potential intrusion of lint, etc, into the action that turns me off to the bodyguard type.
Edit: adding to fastbolt's comments, the other drawback I see (in myself, as well as others) is that when shooting without using the support hand, cocking the hammer typically results in a slight shift in grip on the gun - and that could be very bad for a retention scenario, where the support hand may be striking, fending, or grabbing.
Plenty of people will argue that there are NO situations in which any firearm should be legal for "civilians" to own, carry, or use. And they use many of the same arguments we have heard here.
While I have never carried a revolver with a shrouded hammer (I don't even own one), I would not deny anyone the right to carry one if he or she chooses. Or insist that there is no reason for them to exist.
Jim
While I have never carried a revolver with a shrouded hammer (I don't even own one), I would not deny anyone the right to carry one if he or she chooses. Or insist that there is no reason for them to exist.
Jim
James K, the more the merrier, whether types of guns or types of owners.
I just think people should look closely at capabilities and limitations, some of which will matter more to some than to others.
Hopefully I didn't come across as attacking owners or buyers of the weapon type...
I just think people should look closely at capabilities and limitations, some of which will matter more to some than to others.
Hopefully I didn't come across as attacking owners or buyers of the weapon type...
"... It is not so much an issue of a concealed hammer snagging, but of the slot or channel allowing more potential intrusion of lint, etc, into the action that turns me off to the bodyguard type..."
I read about that possibility long before I ever owned my Bodyguard...and have read about it ever since.
I suppose it "could" be an issue, if one were to drop the revolver in a messy coat pocket without a pocket holster and forget about it for a month or three.
In my case, I use a pocket holster, and I have always given that area a quick look either when picking up the gun in the morning or putting it away at night.
All I have ever found was the most minor accumulation of dust...nothing that would affect operation.
"...Edit: adding to fastbolt's comments, the other drawback I see (in myself, as well as others) is that when shooting without using the support hand, cocking the hammer typically results in a slight shift in grip on the gun - and that could be very bad for a retention scenario, where the support hand may be striking, fending, or grabbing..."
The ability to cock the hammer is not intended to be used for every single shot....in the situation you describe, the DA is the mode of choice. SA is simply there as an option for an aimed, longer range shot.
I mainly practice shooting my Bodyguard DA, with some SA fire for general fun and familiarization.
I read about that possibility long before I ever owned my Bodyguard...and have read about it ever since.
I suppose it "could" be an issue, if one were to drop the revolver in a messy coat pocket without a pocket holster and forget about it for a month or three.
In my case, I use a pocket holster, and I have always given that area a quick look either when picking up the gun in the morning or putting it away at night.
All I have ever found was the most minor accumulation of dust...nothing that would affect operation.
"...Edit: adding to fastbolt's comments, the other drawback I see (in myself, as well as others) is that when shooting without using the support hand, cocking the hammer typically results in a slight shift in grip on the gun - and that could be very bad for a retention scenario, where the support hand may be striking, fending, or grabbing..."
The ability to cock the hammer is not intended to be used for every single shot....in the situation you describe, the DA is the mode of choice. SA is simply there as an option for an aimed, longer range shot.
I mainly practice shooting my Bodyguard DA, with some SA fire for general fun and familiarization.