When Your J Frame Isn't Enough

[Jon Payne]

It is very convenient to drop that 5-shot revolver into your pocket as you go out for that loaf of bread or gallon of milk. You think to yourself, “I’m just going to the corner store- nothing is going to happen”. What if something does happen? Will 5 shots be enough to get you home?

read more here

[Lawrence]

Interesting article.
I don't know about anyone else. But there is never been a time when I carried my J-frame thinking that "nothing is going to happen." Whenever I carried a gun I had in mind that "today could be the day" when  I may need my gun. I know very well minded people who carry J-frames and know what to do if they need to. The thing is, chances are that if I need more than 5 shots I would regret  not having a gun with more rounds. That being said, I agree our needs changed over the years and it is appropriate to say more rounds are better. On the other hand I can't help but noticing what comes along with the tactical minded approach these days. As I mentioned before in another thread it worries me that people are getting a false sense of self-confidence based on how many rds they have. I don't mean to offend you with what I say, knowing that you are a respectable name on training, but there is an industry out there making people believe that they need more and more equipment to defend themselves. That brings me a question: Based on what you wrote, is  natural for an average guy to go out with a G17 with 2 spare mags to feel safe? How much is enough? As I write this I am carrying a compact Semi-Automatic in .45 cal with 10+1 and no spare mags. Am I in good shape?

[Bob Mayne]

A person carrying a J frame revolver is better defended, than someone who carries no gun at all.  A person who carries a 7 shot, .380 pocket pistol (as I sometimes do) is better than someone who carries no gun at all.  J frames are good guns, no doubt.  My opinion, is, why carry a J frame, when it's just as easy to conceal a Kahr PM9 or similar gun?  Or a Ruger LC9 or many other guns out there,  that are just as easy to conceal?  For example, my Kahr PM9 is extremely reliable, and even if I carry it in my pocket, I've got 7 rounds on board, instead of 5.  Will the extra 2 make a difference?  Who knows for sure.  What I do know, is if I should have to use my gun (hope that never happens) I may be glad I had the extra 2 rounds. 

Some people can carry a Glock 26 or S&W MP9c just as easily as a J frame.  Why would they carry the J frame then?  Firearm technology is so good these days, I really think the days of "unreliable semi-autos" are becoming an thing of the past. 

Most semi auto pistols are easier for people to shoot as well.  A J frame revolver with full power .357mag loads is not very pleasant to shoot.  Therefore, the owners of these guns won't practice with them.  So that brings up another problem.  Your J frame may not be enough, if you haven't practiced with it and you're not very good at using it. 

If you have a J frame revolver, and you've given it a 1,000 round trigger job, or you practice and train with it regularly, you're good to go.  Many trainers (including the Pro Arms team) consider it an "expert's gun."  So for many who carry one and are not "experts" it may not be enough.

[Lawrence]

Well. According to reports, including the NRA's last 2 years publications, the J-frame seemed to work out pretty good for a good number of non-experts.
I like both SA and wheels.
I carry SA's most of the time.
Sent from my X500 using Tapatalk 2

[Jon Payne]

Interesting article.
I don't know about anyone else. But there is never been a time when I carried my J-frame thinking that "nothing is going to happen." Whenever I carried a gun I had in mind that "today could be the day" when  I may need my gun. I know very well minded people who carry J-frames and know what to do if they need to. The thing is, chances are that if I need more than 5 shots I would regret  not having a gun with more rounds. That being said, I agree our needs changed over the years and it is appropriate to say more rounds are better. On the other hand I can't help but noticing what comes along with the tactical minded approach these days. As I mentioned before in another thread it worries me that people are getting a false sense of self-confidence based on how many rds they have. I don't mean to offend you with what I say, knowing that you are a respectable name on training, but there is an industry out there making people believe that they need more and more equipment to defend themselves. That brings me a question: Based on what you wrote, is  natural for an average guy to go out with a G17 with 2 spare mags to feel safe? How much is enough? As I write this I am carrying a compact Semi-Automatic in .45 cal with 10+1 and no spare mags. Am I in good shape?

Lawrence,

Thank you for your comments/feedback.  I do understand what you are saying.  BTW, I do use my TSD Glock 17 as my primary carry pistol and carry an extra spare magazine.  What everyone has to be careful of is getting into the "all I need" mindset as well as the "loaded for everything" mindset, both are extremes.  When it comes to the topic of self-defense often the "always" and "never" answers only apply to beginners.  Once you get more experienced the answers evolve into "sometimes", "maybe", and "it depends".

You addressed an important point about equipment.  Do criminals today use the same tools they used 20 years ago?  I think the answer would have to be that bad guys have improved their tactics and equipment.  Some believe the only bad guy they need to be prepared for is an inexperienced drug addict or thief.  I think those kind of folks are short sighted and doing themselves a disservice.  I believe in choosing gear that gives me options.

[Lawrence]

Thank you Jon for taking my point exactly as I stated.
What I worry is that kind of mindset " I will be safe only if..."
I recognise the advantage of having more ammo.


Sent from my X500 using Tapatalk 2

[jeff4423]

in my neck of the woods we carry 2 j frames or 1 k and one j. never leave home with one gun!

[CR Williams]

Well. According to reports, including the NRA's last 2 years publications, the J-frame seemed to work out pretty good for a good number of non-experts.

NRA says their instructors can't use the term 'weapon' in their courses. And they actively discouraged SAF from pursuing certain useful and critical court cases at first, before buying in and advertising their support. (They were against it before they were for it. I've heard variations of that somewhere, I just know I have...) I'm supposed to care what they think about in regards to fighting for my life? Semi-autos are easier to train people to shoot accurately and easier to train people to run than revolvers. You can load a semi and set it ready for your wife or mother other other less-trained person as easily as you can a revolver and they get more capability out of it.

Somewhere around three years back, can't remember if it was more, the FBI annual crime reports indicated that the majority of assaults involved more than one attacker more than half the time for the first time. The trend has continued ever since. Thinking in terms of what it takes to be sure of stopping an attacker, which is more than one round, a J-frame is good for two at most. Using a personal minimum standard of 3-to-5 round bursts, I have a one-guy-gun with a J-frame. (Credit to Chris Upchurch, SI instructor, for the concept of number of bursts more than number of rounds as a concept for capacity in a given weapon or magazine.)

Don't like that. FBI says odds are more than one. What am I going to do for two-and-up?

Even when single-action revolvers were state-of-the-art, you read where gun-carriers often (those on both sides of the law who fought much at all almost invariably) carried at least a brace of six-shooters. Some carried three or more. What did they know that we seem to have forgotten today? Even with an empty chamber under the hammer, that would be ten rounds, a bit over a single load in a 1911. Didn't they think five rounds would be enough? If not, why? What did they know, what did they hear, what did they see, that we don't today, those that are satisfied with that single 'J' in the pocket?

[Bob Mayne]

Well said.  That's why I've maintained that a J frame is an ideal back up gun.  But not a primary carry piece. 

Now, a Glock, XD, M&P, 1911 etc., as a primary and a J frame in your coat pocket or opposite side pocket would be a really good set up in my opinion. 

I will say, I sometimes go with a Kahr pm9 (8 rounds in the gun) as my only gun, in environments where I can't get away with the G19, and an extra magazine with 7 more.  That gives me 15 rounds of 9mm.  Even if I carried 2 J frames I have only 10 rounds.  It's easier in my opinion to carry a Kahr PM9 and an extra magazine, than it would be to carry 2 J frame revolvers.

[Lawrence]

Yes....there was a time when people would go out with three or four revolvers. That was the time when they were waiting or looking for trouble. A time when every man would go out there exposing their pieces. When it comes to "conceal carry world" the picture changes a bit. People carry what they think fit their bill best. It is so comforting to know that that " five for sure" is right there with you. Nothing wrong in carrying a fine, tested, reliable semi-auto just like my Kahr CW9.

[Jon Payne]

In the original article I pointed out advantages and disadvantages of both the compact semi and the snub nosed revolver.  If I'm going "light" most of the time it's going to be with the Glock 26/27.  Everyone has to make their own decision based on their logic.  I think the Glock 26 is more versatile than the Glock 19.  I'm sure there's a few that won't agree with me.

[CR Williams]

Yes....there was a time when people would go out with three or four revolvers. That was the time when they were waiting or looking for trouble. A time when every man would go out there exposing their pieces. When it comes to "conceal carry world" the picture changes a bit.

There was a time, the same time as I refer to from my reading of the history of the old-West gunfighters, when experienced fighters were concealing their weapons, multiple weapons I might add, the same way we do now, and for the same reasons we do now. They weren't waiting and looking for trouble then as much as most people that only get their Western history from Western movies and TV think, either. (That consideration is based on the fact that, like our press today, the press of that time published what would get readers, which was stories of the fights and not the avoidance or de-escalations, and coverage of the 'bad boys' on both sides, not the common gun-carrier of the time.) Their issues and their solutions are remarkably similar to ours. Our ability to address those issues and the availability of a choice of solutions is better, yes. Key to consideration is that they all went with the best they could get and the best they could afford of the the best technology available at the time. If Hickok and Hardin could have got them, we would read of them running 1911s at the least and as likely Glocks and xDs out of Kydex concealment rigs, and likely running more than one of them.

They would be able to shoot them just as well, too, because they would emphasize the same principles we do, which is to be able to run what you have and/or what you choose to have to the best of your ability. Because we all recognize that the specific mechanism can help make us more efficient and effective, but no mechanism will give us the necessary skill to win the fight. You buy skill by paying for training and practice. Choice of weapons, however, WILL make the developed skill more productive. My belief is that the same level of skill will get me farther and serve me better with a semi-auto pistol than with an SA or DA revolver, and that others will see the same increase in benefit by moving that direction.

[Lawrence]

CR Williams "Because we all recognize that the specific mechanism can help make us more efficient and effective, but no mechanism will give us the necessary skill to win the fight." That's where we agree 100%.
The System we see pictured in most training schools is focused on healthy, exercise capable student. Real life is different. Try signing up for training in  some of the schools and look at the requirements. That's why I insist in the fantasy minded trainee theory nowadays. If there is an honest intention in teaching regular people to defend themselves, why we do not see training available for the elderly, for the joint sick ones? Because they would mess up with the powerful image the industry has to offer.  It is a problem when you think there is only one way to accomplish a goal. I feel pretty good about racking slides, shooting while running and dealing with magazines. it is so much fun. I can't say the same about my 84 years old uncle, who introduced me to guns about 35 ago. What I stress here is the sense of reality. In this cycle is so natural to refer to back up guns. The combatant mentality does not fit regular people. The role is different. Training do a great job when is focused on teaching how people can defend themselves realistically. We all know students will have the tendency to parrot what they listen from teachers. Careful when you see so much emphasis on physical training on a program. I like the balanced approach of the Ayoob group. There is a lot of shooting, but also lots of thinking. You shared about your belief. I will give you mine. There will be a time, and you can write this down, when all gun nuts like you and I will end up carrying little revolvers in their pockets. And it's going to be just fine.

[Bob Mayne]

Actually Lawrence, there are training courses for beginners and elderly and physically challenged.  Ben and I are teaching a class on June 2, 2012 that will have 3 people who have never shot a gun before!  They are not physically challenged or elderly, but they are novices.  If a physically challenged or elderly person signs up for our class, we will be happy to work with them and help them maximize their potential with the weapon they have.

In fact, one of the newbies will be bringing a Taurus .38 revolver (J frame size) !  We will work with her.

However, if you interview 10 gunshop owners and ask them the question, "what sells the most?"  Even to novices and newbies, I bet at least 9 of them say "semi auto's."  

Ruger and Smith and Wesson are the only manufacturers who have come out with a new gun in the past few years, that has been a revolver (LCR and Bodyguard .38)  I can't think of another manufacturer who has introduced a new technology gun that's been a revolver (in the past few years.)  The vast majority of the new guns coming out now, are semi auto's.  

I have a semi auto (Kahr PM9) that is just as small as a J frame revolver, holds more rounds, and has a better or equivalent trigger.  I can pocket carry it, appendix carry it, hip carry it, etc.  The only things it cannot do, that a .38special J frame can do is fire from a coat pocket or contact shots.  And actually it will fire from a coat pocket, at least for one round.  Then I plan to be able to get away.

I don't agree with the theory that the gun industry is promoting and training for "unrealistic" scenarios. I think the focus is actually designed for the modern times.  Will bad guys be carrying a J frame revolver, or a high capacity semi auto?  If given the choice, I bet they pick the semi auto every time.  They will use whatever weapon they can obtain, but I think the thugs that will confront us will likely have the biggest, baddest gun they can get their hands on.  I intend to respond with the same type of force.

[Lawrence]

Thanks Bob for taking time to address to my post.
First of all, kudos to you and Ben on accepting students with J-frames. I wish I was around in Texas to attend to this class (I would probably take my Kahr and my 24/7 Pro).
I think the line you use in many episodes apply to this moment. Do what you can, with what you have, wherever you are. There will be people who cannot deal with the action of a SA. Also it's a fact that there might exist people that are not gun people,  but have enough guts to defend themselves with a gun. And for those a revolver is more natural "grip and shoot" gun. All mentioned above by you guys makes perfect sense to us, I mean gun oriented guys. I sent a friend of mine to CCW class here in Charlotte. Before class starts I took him to the range with 2 Semi- Autos in 9 mm. One single stack and the other being a double stack. He shot a box of 50 and said praises about the guns. Next time I went to the range someone told me he asked another friend's gun to qualify. Can you guess what gun was? A S&W model 10. Here in NC guns are everywhere. Every house in my place has revolvers. Not every body have Semi-Autos. Some have revolvers and SA. There are also the 1911 fans. Chances are that if a neighbor need to pick up something to shoot in SD that gun could be a revolver. I think revolvers are underrated. Maybe because I feel pretty confident with mine. I don't want you to think that I don't like Semi's. I love them. I like the fact that you did not put an end to this discussion and truly respect the honest approach on this issue. BTW I enjoyed the last version of the shooter's club podcast.

[Bob Mayne]

Thanks Lawrence.  Whatever works is what I say.  It will be interesting to note something.  The new shooter we have coming to our class (she owns a .38 special lightweight revolver and has never shot it before) will probably be the only one there with a J frame revolver.  Let's see what she thinks of it after the class (150 - 175 rounds.)  I will put a couple of semi autos in her hands too. 

I'll interview her most likely and play it on my podcast!

[Lawrence]

Thanks Lawrence.  Whatever works is what I say.  It will be interesting to note something.  The new shooter we have coming to our class (she owns a .38 special lightweight revolver and has never shot it before) will probably be the only one there with a J frame revolver.  Let's see what she thinks of it after the class (150 - 175 rounds.)  I will put a couple of semi autos in her hands too. 

I'll interview her most likely and play it on my podcast!

Ouch Bob. I see your point. I thought she had a Taurus 85 in stainless steel. That's why I said if I'd go to your class I would be bringing the semi's. My S&W Airweight is too light for intense shooting. But believe me a 27 oz in  is not so hard to manage. I wish you had the chance to shoot a good stainless just for the fun. The trigger on a 65 or a Colt Detective. I don't mean to change your self-defense gear. Is just that every time I hear you talking about revolvers I see you mention only titanium, scandium and aluminum ones.

[CR Williams]

There will be a time, and you can write this down, when all gun nuts like you and I will end up carrying little revolvers in their pockets. And it's going to be just fine.

I haven't carried a revolver either as a primary or a secondary weapon since I started carrying, actually. The only reason I own revolvers now was so that I could use it in classes with any students that wanted to run them, and neither one that I own is really pants-pocket-sized. (I don't currently own a J-frame-sized wheelgun and it looks likely, unless I can start teaching again, that I ever will.) There is a 'never say never' aspect to this, but I don't foresee a point or time when I will end up carrying a 'little' revolver in a pocket. (Not sure what's so little about even a J-frame, anyway, but that may be because I'm not a large fellow to begin with.)

[Lawrence]

By saying there will be a time in our lives for the revolver in the pocket I meant "a time when arthritis might will be part of our routine"  and the simple fact of having a "just pull the trigger gun" would do the trick. No slides, no mags, no patience needed to wait for the reliability test of semi-autos. When the semi-auto shotguns came on the scene some said "this the end of the pump version." That did not happened. With a pump you have to manually  do the action at every shot. Just like a SA revolver. Pump actions shotguns are alive and well. I rather see revolvers as an viable option and not just as novelty items. A j-frame with uncle Mike's boot grip it is in fact very concealable. A revolver is a time proven self-defense device. Just like the good old 1911 there for more than 100 years.

[Jon Payne]

I will save most of my comments for a podcast (I have a bunch of them).  While I don't dislike a revolver, any revolver....they won't be my first choice for a defensive handgun period.  It's 2012, not 1873  revolvers are old technology and there's no way around that fact.  Somewhere in the distant past someone scoffed at the invention of the wheel because all you need is two feet.