Derringer: Primary Carry?

[Ziggy2525]

Hmmmmm. I've never shot anyone, but I spent eight years arresting felons in New Orleans during those pre-Katrina glory years of 435 murders a year in a city of 400,000 people. (For scale, my last duty station in Denver had about 50 murders a year in a city of over 600,000 people). I went into murderer's homes and pointed my gun at them and took them to jail. I didn't bother to keep count, but it had to be at least 500 times. One day, I arrested three murderers before mid-afternoon (all separate murders).

Then I spent 17 years working violent crime on Indian reservations in the wild west. Usually it was me and a tribal investigator in the deep rez hours from help going into someone's house and hauling them out to face the music.

But, I managed not to shoot anyone so it counts the same as writing tickets and handling domestics. Both of which, by the way, can be extraordinarily dangerous.

I do know if I had just been pointing my finger at them instead a Sig .45, I'd be dead.

I respect everyone's experience. But if you get all butthurt when someone asks about yours, it tells me something.

Also, I like derringers.

OT and an "inside baseball" question.

Does the FBI response like you describe depend on the local field office? In my city there's an interagency task force and a regional FBI office. The local LEO's I've known here complain the FBI tends to show up after the fact in their logo'd gear to do press conferences. Their opinion is the guys doing the heavy lifting here are the local SWAT teams and the U.S. Marshals. Not trying to crack on the FBI, just curious if that's a city by city thing or just grumbling.

 

[Ivan the Butcher]

But I like my NAA .22 WMR better than derringers. But this thread has me considering buying one. Dad had a High Standard in his collection when he died, and we sold it. Now I wish I'd kept it . . .

I have a High Standard 22 Mag, and a American 38 special of the same design. I've shot them both lots, but my EDC is a lowly J-frame with a speed strip. When I feel the need my EDC never changes!, but one of my 8 semi auto 45's is carried.

Having said all that, I read about a Vietnam vet that had a HS 22mag. in his pocket. After he was captured and disarmed of his issue weapon(s) he used his HS to kill one captor and disable the other. Not necessarily a bad use for any micro pistol!

My credentials are almost non-existent! But I needed my J-frame twice (but never cleared the pocket before the other guy fled! (It didn't matter if I carried 2 shot or 5 shot!)

Ivan

 

[Mister X]

And if you somehow think 'training,' absent a REAL LIFE adversary, makes you some kinda self-defense expert you are fooling yourself.

Real world experience is definitely beneficial, but it should simply be a verification that your training was conducted properly. I think there are a lot of great instructors out there without much of real world experience. I don't think it unreasonable to think that a well-trained, highly intelligent and highly skilled individual with an analytical mind would likely be a better instructor or even perhaps better prepared for most self-defense scenarios than a dumb guy with a lot of real world experience.


I've never been a police officer, so I've never actually arrested and cuffed anyone "for real", but that didn't seem to matter to most LEO's who sought my instruction on the most efficient manner to accomplish it. I found my training and even competition to both be more demanding than any real world altercation I've been involved in due to the differences in skill of those involved. The same concept applies to armed defense although perhaps to a lesser degree.

 

[Mister X]

I can certainly understand someome determining the odds of needing a firearm are so low that they see no need to carry one. That describes the majority of the population.

Since just having a functional gun, any gun is usually enough to deter most criminals from continuing whatever it is they planned on doing to you, I can also understand why someone would choose to carry a small, lightweight gun rather than a heavy, large one. They are essentially playing the odds, but they are so stacked in their favor that it is not unreasonable to do so. In fact, the effort(as well as physical discomfort and potential long term injury) it takes to carry a larger, heavier weapon for no practical reason could be considered unreasonable.

What doesn't make sense to me is to carry a far less effective weapon(especially if it's less safe) that involves equal or greater effort to carry than a far better one. Plus, kind of like choosing a caliber, is there a minimum threshold as to what constitutes a suitable defensive firearm? I think there is, even if it may be difficult to precisely define.

From my perspective, a derringer simply isn't a logical choice as a primary carry weapon when weighed against other currently available options.

 

[PALADIN85020]

Other than my Army infantry training and reading profusely on self-defense subjects, I have had little self-defense training or actual self-defense experience with a handgun. I have had one confrontation where being armed made the difference.

In that instance, the mere display of a pistol, and jacking a round into the chamber, scared off a truck full of yahoos intent on doing me and a girlfriend harm. This was during my college years. I pulled the gun out of the glove compartment of my car in response to the approach of the truck, and as they bailed out of the truck to approach my car, I was very glad I had it within reach.

It was my very first handgun, a .22 Ruger Standard model. It goes to the saying that no one would like to be shot with anything.

By the same token, I'm way more effectively armed today...

John

 

[Ziggy2525]

Real world experience is definitely beneficial, but it should simply be a verification that your training was conducted properly. I think there are a lot of great instructors out there without much of real world experience. I don't think it unreasonable to think that a well-trained, highly intelligent and highly skilled individual with an analytical mind would likely be a better instructor or even perhaps better prepared for most self-defense scenarios than a dumb guy with a lot of real world experience.


I've never been a police officer, so I've never actually arrested and cuffed anyone "for real", but that didn't seem to matter to most LEO's who sought my instruction on the most efficient manner to accomplish it. I found my training and even competition to both be more demanding than any real world altercation I've been involved in due to the differences in skill of those involved. The same concept applies to armed defense although perhaps to a lesser degree.

I don't think you need experience to instruct in fundamentals. Just look at university professors.

Practical application is different. Someone who's BTDT, in any field, can demonstrate nuances that an instructor that just knows the fundamentals, but without practical experience isn't able to.

That's true in the trades where apprentices attend classes to learn fundamentals, but work with journeymen on the job to learn applications. True in medicine where doc's to be learn fundamentals from academics, but do internships and residencies with practicing docs to refine application. Police also. Police Academy for fundamentals, working with an FTO to understand application of those skills.

 

[sigp220.45]

OT and an "inside baseball" question.

Does the FBI response like you describe depend on the local field office? In my city there's an interagency task force and a regional FBI office. The local LEO's I've known here complain the FBI tends to show up after the fact in their logo'd gear to do press conferences. Their opinion is the guys doing the heavy lifting here are the local SWAT teams and the U.S. Marshals. Not trying to crack on the FBI, just curious if that's a city by city thing or just grumbling.

I was on a Violent Crime/Fugitive Task Force in New Orleans, composed of FBI agents and NOPD detectives. At the time NOPD didn't have a warrant squad - they would get a warrant, put it in the local system, and go to the next murder. We would pull the warrants, open a Preliminary Inquiry UFAP (Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution) case, and then we'd have 90 days to either find them locally, determine they had left the state and get a federal UFAP warrant, or close the case. The agents got NOPD IDs, and the NOPD guys got Special Deputy US Marshal creds. In-between fugitive arrests we did any violent traditional federal crimes like bank robberies, armored car hold ups, and kidnappings. It was the best work to be had in the Bureau.

Each FBI Division has a similar task force (now called Safe Streets) and most also have a Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) thanks to 9/11.

The situation in New Orleans was unique since the city was in a crime free-fall. Most cities have their own warrant squads. I left NO in 1998.

Local cops have complained about the FBI since the FBI was born. It comes with the territory and never bothered me. I would just do my job and try to prove them wrong.

I have always found the most vocal critics of the FBI to be cops who applied and didn't get in.

 

[Mister X]

I don't think you need experience to instruct in fundamentals. Just look at university professors.

Practical application is different. Someone who's BTDT, in any field, can demonstrate nuances that an instructor that just knows the fundamentals, but without practical experience isn't able to.

That's true in the trades where apprentices attend classes to learn fundamentals, but work with journeymen on the job to learn applications. True in medicine where doc's to be learn fundamentals from academics, but do internships and residencies with practicing docs to refine application. Police also. Police Academy for fundamentals, working with an FTO to understand application of those skills.

I agree with you for the most part, but a lot depends on the specific activity and the broadness of application.

If it's an isolated task such as simply controlling and handcuffing an unarmed combative mentally ill individual, I'd bet the farm that first day on the job Brock Lesnar will more effectively accomplish that specific task than a female officer with a decade or two of actual real-world experience. Obviously there are countless potential variables to consider that experience will help in dealing with, but it's spectrum. The interplay of knowledge, skill, ability, training and experience.

The question was what makes someone a "self-defense expert"? A lot depends on your definition. What about someone who lives in a country where firearms are prohibited, so they focus solely on unarmed techniques like Geoff Thompson? Or maybe a gun guy with virtually no ECQ or H2H skills like Grant Cunningham. Is it solely a matter of knowledge and experience or is skill and actual ability also required? Countless different perspectives.

 

[Ziggy2525]

...
Is it solely a matter of knowledge and experience or is skill and actual ability also required?

Depends on if you are or are looking for an instructor, an analyst, or a practitioner. Usually three distinct roles that don't often overlap.

The instructor can teach me a technique for putting on cuffs.

An analyst can tell me what the different cuffing techniques are and how frequently each is used.

A practitioner can demonstrate the techniques they developed to talk the BG into submitting without a fight.

 

[otis24]

Any gun is better than no gun.

But why carry a derringer?

They are almost as big and heavier than an Air Weight J frame and much less effective.

My exact thoughts!

 

[Mister X]

Depends on if you are or are looking for an instructor, an analyst, or a practitioner. Usually three distinct roles that don't often overlap.

Defensive shooting instructor. Who is an expert? Very few have been involved in actual shootings, if that is a necessary criteria. I think most people would label someone like Mas Ayoob more of an expert than numerous guys who may have actually exchanged gunfire. George Zimmerman has more real world ECQ shooting experience than Craig Douglas AFAIK, so who is the real expert there? Chris Kyle was definitely an expert sniper who saw a lot of combat and shot a lot of people, but those skills didn't translate over to civilian self-defense real well. Context figures in a great deal.

 

[The Big D]

Agree...in part.

Hope you did not misconstrue my post. Training most certainly IS hugely important. I have learned a great deal from terrific instructors, and I taught at a major state university for more than twenty years.

Fact is, though, all training incorporates compliance in the end. After all, we don't want to physically harm peers or students. And I have yet to experience a range where someone is returning live fire.

We can learn and teach 'what to do' to account for about 99% of actions. But what happens when the bad guy doesn't do what he/she is told to do? Or he/she attempts to harm you? That is where the real world experiences come into play. And that simply cannot be learned in a classroom, lab, or anywhere other than 'on the street.'

Be safe.

Real world experience is definitely beneficial, but it should simply be a verification that your training was conducted properly. I think there are a lot of great instructors out there without much of real world experience. I don't think it unreasonable to think that a well-trained, highly intelligent and highly skilled individual with an analytical mind would likely be a better instructor or even perhaps better prepared for most self-defense scenarios than a dumb guy with a lot of real world experience.


I've never been a police officer, so I've never actually arrested and cuffed anyone "for real", but that didn't seem to matter to most LEO's who sought my instruction on the most efficient manner to accomplish it. I found my training and even competition to both be more demanding than any real world altercation I've been involved in due to the differences in skill of those involved. The same concept applies to armed defense although perhaps to a lesser degree.

 

[rich5674]

No thanks

I had some range time with a derringer. Single action must be cocked, little hammer, little trigger, little grip, not exactly light, only two shots. I'll take a alloy revolver or a LCP any day. I'd say maybe a backup to a primary hid in a boot or bra holster

 

[max503]

Would a .410 derringer work on quail?

 

[fredj338]

How many times (shots fired or not) have you actually had to defend your self from a criminal?

I didn't ask you how many fights you've been in nor did I ask you how many gun fights you've ever been in.

No smoke you did ask, just for the record.
No I am not telling anyone how they should respond to a potential threat. I can only offer how I would. Same for gear. If someone asks for my informed opinion on gear, I am pretty sure my knowledge of what works & what does not is a lot higher than most LEO or someone who survived an altercation with a drunk. This thread is just that, an opinion of a specific weapon type that should or should not be carried. Your opinion then would be no better or worse than mine, though we have diff experience levels.

 

[fredj338]

...by gunfire. Ditto for any type confrontation. You sound like that would be your sole recourse.

In my crime fighting days if I shot everyone who assaulted me there would be lotsa dead people.

And if you somehow think 'training,' absent a REAL LIFE adversary, makes you some kinda self-defense expert you are fooling yourself.

So what rookie cop gets real life adversaries, but in a controlled training scenario enviro? So is the rookie cop inadequate to defend himself/herself? I think not. Then just because you have training doesn't mean you have developed the skill level to implement it. I see that almost every week. I am not, nor ever have offered my opinion as an expert. I just know how I would react based on my training, skill set & mindset. As all of us should, or like carrying a pocket 2 shot, you really are not ready for your fight.

 

[sigp220.45]

Rookie cops go through a long period with a Field Training Officer before they are allowed to patrol on their own. They get plenty of chances to demonstrate their street smarts and application of training with real offenders under the watchful eye of an experienced officer. Many officers (including my own brother) don't make it out of the FTO phase of training and are terminated. No such system exists that I am aware of in the non-LEO CCW world.

 

[Muss Muggins]

We used to do defensive tactics training at St. Louis County & Municipal Police & Fire Training Academy. There was an elevated track around the gym perimeter. One day we were rolling around on the mats while one of the Police Academy classes was doing classroom instruction. About every five minutes or so, a door would whack open on the track and an instructor would come flying out. Shortly thereafter, two out of breath trainees would follow. They'd do two or three laps trying to catch the instructor and head in. In the classroom, an instructor would walk up behind two trainees, whack 'em in the back of the head, and shout "FOOT CHASE!" You can guess the rest. Stuff like that goes on all the time in the Academy. The general public way underestimates what goes into the making of a law enforcement officer . . .

Rookie cops go through a long period with a Field Training Officer before they are allowed to patrol on their own. They get plenty of chances to demonstrate their street smarts and application of training with real offenders under the watchful eye of an experienced officer. Many officers (including my own brother) don't make it out of the FTO phase of training and are terminated. No such system exists that I am aware of in the non-LEO CCW world.

 

[Imissedagain]

Another plus for the HS 2 shot is:
Next time someone whines about the poor DA pull of a Smith compared to a Python.... let them run 100 thru the Derringer and they'll love getting back on the Smith.

In a bilge or up a stick ....the HS 22Mag was the temporary primary when working on boats decades ago.

Loaded, the HS with the brass grip frame, will weigh twice that of a loaded LCP.
Case harden down the road.

 

[Wise_A]

I'm still popcorning the hell out of this, btw.

Although I have to say--I don't understand the "gray area" odds-playing with respect to the derringer. I always figured, no, I really don't need a gun, but if I'm going to carry one, it might as well be a reasonably useful one. That's why I don't carry a pocket .380: I can't shoot them worth a damn. The incredibly minor increase in inconvenience between that and a subcompact dramatically increases the range, accuracy, shootability, and oomph-factor. It's an efficacy-node--larger guns are only slightly better (in my hands/jurisdiction), smaller guns are hilariously worse.

Unless you're literally just carrying a little derringer to say you have a gun, at which point admit that you're carrying for the novelty of it and that you selected it purely out of convenience, and not because it's actually useful.

And no, "gun > no gun" does not justify such a choice.