Given that the premise of the first paragraph of the original post is valid, which I personally believe is a bit of a stretch, how much is switching from a .38 to a 9mm going to help?

More likely to get into a position as a hostage or a bystander to some armed action. Do you not do anything and most likely die, or take a chance and be maybe successful or maybe be dead.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

The Shield has noticably more recoil than the Glock 42, but then being a 9mm as compared to a 380 you should expect that.
My wife has the Glock 42 and it is the softest shooting 380 I know of, but the Shield is ...IMO the ideal concealed carry gun on the market today.

__________________
Stay protected my friends.

I meant no offense. When I used the pronoun "you," I meant that as "you all", not "you" in particular. Admittedly, I should have used the pronoun "one." But when one uses that pronoun, especially when one uses it repeatedly, one begins to sound a bit stilted.

I was merely trying to point out that falling prey to the media histrionics will cause us to eventually lose our way. Our resources (very limited in my case) may be better spent contemplating things that are more plausible that we can actually do something about. An excellent and very succinct synopsis can be found on Claude Werner's site here: https://tacticalprofessor.wordpress....ties-straight/. He presents the point more clearly than I ever could.

Ever since I obtained my CWP, I have tried to carry the largest handgun possible when considering the need to conceal vs what I am wearing vs environment.

Since many times I am in a "less permissable environment" that means needing to go from a larger double-stack to a smaller single stack. Many days I am with a Kahr CW 380 or CW40.

However, starting a couple years ago with the biker vs. SUV incident up in New York, I started trying very hard to carry a larger capacity gun more often.

If at all possible, I'm carrying a M&P9c with the flush mag with the extended mag in my pocket/belt... or an XDMc with flush mag and extended mag as backup.

With that however, there is now almost always a shotgun or AR in the trunk when I am travelling as well. If in the middle of an attack, these may not be able to do anything against a bomber/suicide vest at least against other threats I may now have more options.

How much will switching from the snubby .38 to a Shield, 3913, Sig 239 or M&P9c help?

1. 60-240% increase in round capacity.
2. 5 inch sight radius with real sights vs. a front blade
3. 2 second reloads vs. 5 seconds
4. Single action 6 lb pull vs double action 15 lb pull
5. Reasonable recoil vs YIKES!
6. And lastly, a 20 oz. club vs a 10 oz. club

Maybe a few have complained about the shield but I've read literally hundreds of comments and nobody complains about their carryabiity, comfort shooting, concealability, weight, trigger pull, reliability (some probs but fixable). I heard this so much it made a believer out of me and I bought one myself and yep, it's all true. Now I've only handled an M&P 9mm compact in the store and I'm sure its a great gun that's easy to carry and is surely more comfortable to shoot but I find it to be a bit heavy for something I'd want to lug around. For people that are used to it it's probably an easy gun to carry, but I'm stove up and don't feel up to lugging something heavier than it absolutely has to be. The other end is a Kel tec I've got that's very small and only weighs 11 oz. but it's NO FUN to shoot. The thing hammers you bad and with defense grade ammo it hurts after a few shots. If I was up to carrying something a little heavier than a Shield the 9c would be great.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Also a 9mm has almost a 200 ft/sec velocity advantage over a .38 with a 125 gr. bullet.

If we are talking about a snub we have a 2" barrel with a cylinder gap. A Shield or other small semi has more like a 3" unvented barrel.

A revolver though, has a simplicity advantage over the semi pistol.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

At the moment, I'm contemplating your statement while looking at a loaded Glock 26 and a loaded Smith & Wesson 60-14. I pick either one up and pull the trigger, and they go bang until the rounds are expended.

To reload the Glock, I depress the mag catch, remove the magazine if it didn't fall, replace the magazine, work the slide once and fire.

To reload the Smith, I move the cylinder release forward, switch hands, open the cylinder, depress the ejector rod, clear the rounds that didn't clear, insert a speed loader, activate the speed loader release, close the cylinder, switch hands, and fire . . .

Remind me again, which is simpler?

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

The first five shots out of my j frame are simple and I don't have to worry about misfeeds, FTEs, out of battery, whether or not I need to rack the slide or unlatch a safety (unless you carry ready to fire). All I EVER have to do with a DA revolver is pull the trigger. Now when I have to reload, you have me with your semi, I'll admit. Under real duress I doubt that I'd be able to load a revolver at all without a speed loader and a lot of practice. I'd probably be trying to pick bullets off the ground and putting some empty shells back in.

I was talking more about the simplicity of the mechanisms, not what it took to fire either one.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Muss, that is a complicated revolver loading procedure. Agreed.

Loading a semi is a little easier but the revolver is not as complicated to load as some think.

I've trained with my J this way.

(1) Both hands on the firearm to fire all 5.

(2) I tilt the gun slightly to the right. I'm a righty. I position the second and third fingers of the left hand next to the cylinder.

(3) Right thumb engages the latch. Left second and third fingers push open the cylinder and stay inside that area. The gun pivots with extractor up.

(4) Right hand pushes down on the extractor rod to eject shells. Second and third fingers are still in where the cylinder was and help position the revolver (all done with left hand) to accept the speed loader which was in my right pocket. Put rounds in. Twist the loader.
(5) Close the cylinder with my left thumb and I'm ready for the next 5 shots.

A little longer than it would take me to load a mag but not much longer.

There is no switching of hands. Smooth and slow.

This is how I do it because that's how I was taught. I am not trying to convert anyone to a revolver. It's a personal choice that I made years ago.
Shoot what you want.
Yiogo

I'm a percentage player. I have almost no occasion to go anywhere that I might encounter Daesh or other terrorists. But I think even if I were inclined or required to go into more populous areas I'd still just carry my J-frame and maybe a speed strip, and my cell phone.

I encounter a lot of people, especially on Farcebook, who imply that I really should have a panic button installed in my navel. I smile and shake my head, they go away, and others pop up.

Call me an old Pollyanna if you wish, but I respectfully decline to panic.

I'll be observant and alert. I'll be really good at calling 911 if I see something suspicious or menacing. That's what I do anyway. I see no reason to change it.

__________________
Oh well, what the hell.

I agree one hundred percent. I am still clinging to a pocket S&W 642-1 but I upgraded to a Glock 30 45 caliber and plan
to carry some extra magazines with it. It don't matter to
me what the nay sayers say. It is exactly that to me, letting
all the criminals out of prison, importing a trojan horse, infiltrated with ISIS, the US & Europe under threat, some countries under martial law.

I don't care whether i have a chance or not if that rare unlikely
possibility happens, but i don't intend on being someone that has to wait my turn for a bullet. I do not believe or trust government statistics, especially when changes are made to laws, such as reclassifying terrorism as some other more acceptable crime like workplace violence or depression, or
a drive by shooting. I don't like it when someone decides for example that police won't respond to shoplifting for less than a $50 amount. Such changes cause me to mistrust the
government's statistics, and motives. It seems like I will always need one more handgun. Now that I own a Glock, a 12 gage Shotgun and some Revolvers maybe i will eventually get me an AR 15 too.

So, when you reach for and insert the speedloader with your right hand, which hand is holding the revolver? And then which hand holds the revolver to fire it?

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Left hand holding revolver. See points 2 and 3.
Both hands fire the revolver. Be sure left hand is under cylinder.
BTW speed loader is in right pocket.

Anyway here is a very good video with other revolver loading techniques including the one I tried to describe.

So you do switch hands . . . Apology accepted.

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

So this is turning into I'm right and your wrong when all I'm doing is trying to help?
How can I switch hands if both hands are on the revolver to begin with?
It's more a letting go with one, loading and both hands on again.

Read this slowly, and watch the video . . .

Right hand on grip, left hand supporting, time to reload

Active cylinder release, move gun to left hand to eject cartridges.

Let go with right hand, hold with left hand only and eject cartridges.

Use right hand to load speedloader. (holding gun with left hand only)

Drop speedloader, grab grip with right hand.

As you move your left hand to re-establish a two handed grip, you are at some point holding the gun only with your right hand.


Right hand, left hand, right hand. There are multiple times during this evolution that you are holding the gun with only one hand, and it changes back and forth . . .

Apology accepted (all I'm trying to do is help as well . . . )

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

A very rational perspective from Grant Cunningham...

No, things really haven’t changed: self defense in a post-Paris world. – www.GrantCunningham.com

...

Gun is in both hands. Shots are fired. Right hand releases. Ejects. Loads. Right hand back. Fires.
There is no switching. There is a letting go of the right and a regrasping
It is analogous to loading a semi.

Or the terrorists with AK's, loaded with 7.62x39 steel core ammo, that will penetrate the wall you're hiding behind and will stitch you before you can fire a shot. If carrying a bigger, higher capacity handgun placates your conscience, go for it. Just know that regardless of what you're packing, if it's a terrorist situation, in all likelihood you'll be outgunned.

This article really hits the nail on the head. Everyone who's bothered to post in this thread ought to read it. Thanks, Mister X!

__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

As someone mentioned earlier, your choices may be: fail to engage and die in the subsequent explosion or gunfire, engage and die in the explosion or gunfire, or engage and possibly stop the terrorist before he/she can detonate or kill additional victims with gunfire. Seems like a pretty simple choice to me. Maybe I spent too many years as a cop and don't have the witness only mentality, or the "maybe they won't see me and leave me alone" mentality. Seems to me an armed person has a duty to protect their family first and anyone else that they can reasonably save next.

Insofar as the choice of firearms go, I like both autos and revolvers and often carry one or the other. I maintain my proficiency and feel confident with both. However, no one ever complained about having too many bullets, and the auto will often out-capacity the revolver. Reloads can be fast with either, but with a higher capacity auto, they can be less frequent. Any of the revolver reloading techniques from the video above will work with practice; they just may have to be more frequent in a bad situation.

In my mind, being the most prepared you can be for any situation is preferable to to being of the "good enough" mindset. I'm not suggesting that we deal in fantasy, but being reasonably prepared for the worst-case scenario that you can imagine might be where you want to be in the event that you're forced to protect your family, yourself, and possibly others.

Having said all of that, I don't carry ten magazines with my Glock 19 (although I may carry two spares), I don't wear a bullet-resistant vest while shopping in the malls, and I don't go anywhere with the expectation that there will be a terrorist attack. Nor do I wear a backpack containing all of my survival and armament needs, wear "tactical" pants to do my shopping, or carry a gee-whiz folding carbine/pistol under a vest for concealment, but having been in law enforcement for 37 years, I know there are no absolutes, and that includes safe places.

I don't blame anyone for paying attention and wanting to be more prepared for a potential problem. Those of you who find fault with those who do try to think ahead should step back and take a look at their motivations and concerns, rather than criticize them for their thoughts.

__________________
Dave Frost

HBO recently played a full length documentary. The defenders did a great job of containing the perps and allowing victims to flee. Lucky for them there were no suicide vests and they had effective cover behind mall structures. The police were unbelievably unwilling to engage and almost more of a problem in the end than the attackers...! Learning that people just laid there and bled out was disturbing. No one seemed to have a clue about first aid.

__________________
Piece Keeper

Ladies and Gentlemen,
We have the second amendment for a reason! IMHO every citizen who can lawfully do so should carry as much fire power was they are able. At times like these more so than ever.

The terrorists struck at Paris. Not Tours, Marseilles, Cannes, or Brest. They hit Paris, because that's what would cause the biggest splash. Everyone knows about Paris. Who the hell ever heard of Dijon; if the terrorists hit there, the talking heads on the news would spend time explaining that no, Daesh didn't blow up a mustard factory.

While some crazy-butt lone-wolf might shoot up anywhere, the Pros from Dover in the terrorist game are going to attack places that are known around the world: NYC, Washington, DC, Chicago, Los Angles and San Francisco. They're not going to hit Toledo or Tulsa.

IMO.

I will call them ISIS myself. I tire of the name changes and
the government's reclassification and redefining them to terms
which fits someone in power's agenda. On a smaller scale they
attacked in Garland, Texas, Ft. Hood Texas, Little Rock Arkansas, Knoxville, Tennessee which comparatively are smaller areas than NY or DC. All these cases were not called what they were
but something else, and calling them instead "workplace violence", "drive by shooting", "depression".
I missed the one in Oklahoma that included a beheading.

When the government is busy bringing in criminal illegals or fails to prevent criminals who have long
rap sheets, and multiple deportations, and brings in numerous
refugees that cannot be background checked, but are interviewed by social workers the landscape is changing, and we have to change with it. It has taken me a long time to finally buy a semi automatic since i prefer only revolvers. If I am to be surrounded biker gangs some of which are criminals, criminal illegals, sanctuary cities, and young refugees who are the right age to turn to jihadist activities, I will gun up, not gun down. If i feel the need for an AR 15 I will get one. I don't plan on overcoming a bunch of them like happened in Paris, but if I am to be taken out, i prefer to take some of them with me when I go down.

Think I'll be changing from a Glock 26 to a S&W 638 J-frame .

At the range, I've always favored my larger Smith revolvers over my smaller carry semis for their greater accuracy - I always assumed it was the longer barrels/sight radius and added weight.

The Paris thing pushed me over the edge to buy my first snub nosed revolver, which I had been thinking about for a while. Well, only one day at the range so far, but surprisingly, in my hands, the 638 was significantly more accurate (DA or SA) than my G26, in side-by-side shooting. I also have a G19, which shoots about the same as the G26 for me, and an LCP that I find terrible.

Not exactly sure what it is (crisper trigger perhaps?), and I need more range time, but perhaps I'm just turning out to be a revolver guy.

Tough decision for me now - accuracy/shot placement vs capacity and reload ("spray and pray?").

Yeah, well, you can make the same argument that when a white guy shoots up a place, he's "mentally ill" or a "disaffected loner" or some similar commentary. Killing nine people in a church in the hopes of sparking a race war isn't "terrorism". Black or Hispanic shooter = gang activity; white shooter = crazy person; Muslim shooter = terrorism.

But that's neither here nor there.

All of the ones you cited were pretty much lone-wolf crazies, just like the church-shooting clown in Charleston. Terrorist attacks by organized groups are going to target well-known locations. So if your only fear is terrorism, you're safer in Red Hook than Times Square.

I have not lost anything in Times Square, i am not interested in doing a thing to protect Times Square but i will do whatever i have to do to protect me, my family and Texas. Each one I
mentioned was an act of Global Jihad. Ask the victims at Ft.
Hood and Knoxville. At least there were some patriotic Americans who offered and protected recruiting stations after
the Jihadist attack in Knoxville.

No i will not allow the leader of Jihadist Lives Matter to define
what is a terrorist attack and what isn't. So far I have bought
a shotgun, two semi automatics this year. If i feel the need
I will buy an AR-15. I was behind someone in line buying
a similar gun this morning trying to pick up another Glock
45 caliber magazine.

I just got this in my inbox. Pretty good analysis on the idea of up-arming.

Great line in paragraph 6 (seems to apply to many of us):
"An old dude with a .38 snub could have stopped the Paris theater hostage siege if he was smart and planned his moves well. More guns aren’t the answer; better training and more adaptive thinking is."

?Counterinsurgency? | Active Response Training

__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

I might one day be that "old dude with a .38 snub", but it's wildly unlikely.

I'll make no change for now. The .38, and maybe a speed strip, same as I've done for years. I have only me and a little rat terrier to protect. I spend very little time in crowded places and almost none at high-profile events.

I'll try to be alert and observant, as I always have. I won't make major changes in my routine, and won't live in perpetual Condition Orange. That's no way to conduct a life, at my age.

Unless the buggers are killing people in the next block over, I think I'm going to continue to feel pretty safe.

__________________
Oh well, what the hell.

What ever the round or the weapon I think the need to be able to do head shots at 30 to 50 feet to someone that may be wearing armor !!

Your only chance and maybe the many others around you according to the situation. May hinge on whether you are that accurate .. bad guy's will be wearing armor and when all you have is your pistol accurate headshots from round one is the only way you and others will survive !!

I'm 66. Say I'm walking around carrying a gun for another 20 years.

Suppose there is one San Burnadino type event each year.

And each incident involves 50 people.

Then 1000 people will be involved in this type of terrorist incident over the rest of my life as an armed citizen.

Given about 350 million people in the US, the odds or my being involved in a San Berdu incident are 350,000 to one.

On the other hand, my chances of being mugged, robbed, or inadvertently involved in a store hold up is probably something like 1 in 100 or so.

So I don't think changing anything is required at this point.

If things get much worse, and we have terrorist events happen weekly then my view may change.

This could happen, but seems unlikely.

My numbers above are rough, but my point is "conventional" threats are way more likely to occur than being involved in terrorism.