shouldazagged
Absent Comrade
I'm content with a J-frame and have been for sixteen years. But then in retirement my life is very quiet and I don't get out as much as I used to.
Those that Carry a J...Ever Worry that 5 Isn't Enough?
- Thread starter Nalapombu
- Start date
No, I hadn't thought about it until you brought it up!
Thanks a lot!
Now I'm trying to figure out a shoulder holster for my AR that doesn't make the butt look too big. Not to mention, has pouches on the off side for 5 or 6 30-rounders.
Can't be too careful these days.
Now: Reynolds Oven Wrap for my hat liner and I'm ready for Walmart!
Thanks a lot!
Now I'm trying to figure out a shoulder holster for my AR that doesn't make the butt look too big. Not to mention, has pouches on the off side for 5 or 6 30-rounders.
Can't be too careful these days.
Now: Reynolds Oven Wrap for my hat liner and I'm ready for Walmart!
Adk.IBO
Member
To answer the OP's question: yes I questioned whether 5 was enough and impulse bought a Glock 26 gen4 from my LGS. I dry fired it, broke it down, tried to get to like it but couldn't. My LGS took it back on trade for a Colt Defender in .45acp because it was unfired. This was not so much for the five is not enough question as an ability to reload quickly. The learning curve on the 1911 after 21 years with my J-frame was a bit expensive for this tradesman. I tried for 2 weeks to sell my Defender on GB with one price drop on what I thought was reasonable to begin with and decided to not lose a fortune (to me) on it. I may resume my learning curve later but for now 5 is enough, with 2 speed strips and a NAA .22 mag BUG with it's own speed strip
. I have since paid to much for a used 649-3 that was rode hard and put away wet ( literally as evidenced by the corrosion under the grips). Other issues have me getting a repair shipping label to S&W. I really like this gun and have decided it is worthy of resurrection. Once it comes back I will have 2 J-frames for a real NY reload if I want. Not likely to happen very often as my 640 is a little large for pocket carry, ankle carry maybe? Who knows.
Stay safe, John
. I have since paid to much for a used 649-3 that was rode hard and put away wet ( literally as evidenced by the corrosion under the grips). Other issues have me getting a repair shipping label to S&W. I really like this gun and have decided it is worthy of resurrection. Once it comes back I will have 2 J-frames for a real NY reload if I want. Not likely to happen very often as my 640 is a little large for pocket carry, ankle carry maybe? Who knows.Stay safe, John
cmort666
Member
Against the average mugger or carjacker? No.
Then we started seeing domestic Islamist terrorists plus the moron in South Carolina.
I'm transitioning from my Smith 36 "no dash" to a 3.5" Citadel compact .45.
I felt the need for both more power and more capacity.
Then we started seeing domestic Islamist terrorists plus the moron in South Carolina.
I'm transitioning from my Smith 36 "no dash" to a 3.5" Citadel compact .45.
I felt the need for both more power and more capacity.
cmort666
Member
These days, you're wherever you find yourself, and it's the other guy's choice, not necessarily yours.
If somebody chooses to imitate the Kenya mall massacre, are you going to say to them, "No fair, I only brought my Chief's Special!"
There's a middle ground between a J frame and an .308 AR "pistol".
Let me apologize for what is a long post on a complex topic., then let me start with the fact that I agree with you that practice with the firearm you carry is paramount.
That has to be qualified however with the statement that the range of shooting ability for civilian concealed carry permit holders is at least as large as it is for LEOs, that the average LEO is not a gun person and shoots no more than is required to qualify, and that in my experience shooting practical pistol competition since the 1990s, that I seldom saw many police officers in local matches and of those local LEOs and FBI agents I did see, they all improved substantially over time, and they were by no means the most capable shooters there.
The point here is that you can't assume that any given concealed carry permit holder actively carrying a firearm on a daily basis is more or less skilled than the average LEO. In practice, most people carrying a gun, citizen and LEO alike, have skills that are woefully lacking.
As for the data you cite...
There are a couple truths in government data and statistics.
First, nothing gets cleared that does not fit someone's agenda. Poke around in any government agency, alphabet intelligence agency, law enforcement agency or any other government agency and you'll find file cabinets worth of research, data and statistics that are never going to be released because someone in the building disagree with the conclusions, or because those conclusions don't fit the agenda of the political folks at the top of the agency or the administration over all.
Second, the context of the data, the sources, and the collection methods are all vital to determining the validity of the data and the validity of the conclusions the data is supposed to support.
I'd love to see the actual studies you are citing, or at least the source data, as I suspect the 4.5 times more likely to be shot and 4.2 times more likely to die conclusions have a long list of constraints and qualification and most likely do not consider the larger picture.
That's from the perspective of a former LEO/investigator turned administrator and data person.
Officer deaths and injuries:
Let's look at what we know about police officer deaths and injuries.
National level data on officer involved shoots are surprisingly hard to come by, unless the officer has been killed or assaulted, at which point it becomes something tracked by the FBI's uniform crime report.
Here's a few things we do know based on the UCR data that you can find here:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/2013
If you look at the data you'll find 511 officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty from 2004 to 2013 (an average of 51.1 per year), with the number of officers killed varying from a high of 72 in 2011 to a low of 27 in 2013.
In 2013, of the 27 officers killed, 26 were killed with firearms, 25 of them were male, 25 of them were white, and their average age was 39 with an average length of service of 13 years.
19 of the officers were wearing body armor and of those 18 were killed with firearms. Of these officers, 18 were killed with firearms, incurring the following wounds:
5 were wounded in the side of the head.
5 were shot in the front upper torso/chest.
4 suffered wounds to the front of the head.
3 were shot in the neck/throat.
1 was shot in the rear lower torso/back.
16 were employed by city police departments 15 were killed in the south - the largest number in any region by a factor of 2 - and only 4 were killed in cities with populations greater than 250,000 people.
6 officers died as a result of arrest situations, 5 officers were involved in ambush situations, 5 officers died as a result of investigating suspicious persons or circumstances, 4 officers who died had responded to disturbance calls, 4 officers were killed as a result of tactical situations (barricaded offender, hostage taking, high-risk entry, etc.), 2 officers were fatally injured during traffic pursuits or stops, and 1 officer was conducting investigative activity (surveillance, search, interview, etc.).
6 officers fired their service weapons, and 3 attempted to fire their service weapon - in other words 18 of them, 67%, never attempted to use their service weapon, suggesting a very sudden onset of unexpected events.
26 of the alleged assailants were male, 15 of them were white, 20 of them had prior offenses, 6 of them were on probation or parole at the time, and the average age was 30.
If you look at the 10 year total of 511 officers slain, 474 were killed with firearms, 345 of those were handguns, 87 were rifles 40 were shotguns and in 2 cases the type of firearm was not reported. 28 officers were killed with vehicles and only 3 were killed with knives - just one more than were killed with bombs.
Where it gets interesting is in the assault data.
In 2013 out of 533,895 officers employed, 49,851 were assaulted - 9.3%. This reflects reports from 11,468 law enforcement agencies covering 78.2% of the nation's population.
Of the 49,851 assaulted, 29.2% were injured in the assault. 31.0 percent of the officers who were attacked with personal weapons (e.g., hands, fists, or feet) suffered injuries, 14.6 percent of the officers who were assaulted with knives or other cutting instruments were injured, 10.9 percent of officers who were attacked with firearms were injured, and 27.0 percent of officers who were attacked with other dangerous weapons were injured.
Consequently, while firearms are the primary mechanism for slaying officers, the injury rates in assaults are low - lower than any other weapon type used.
Looking a little broader, in 2013, 79.8 percent of officers who were assaulted in the line of duty were attacked with personal weapons (e.g., hands, fists, or feet), 13.9 percent of the officers were assaulted with other dangerous weapons, 4.5 percent of the officers were assaulted with firearms, and only 1.8 percent of the officers were assaulted with knives or other cutting instruments.
In other words, for police officers assaults involving firearms account for less than 1 in 20 assaults, and only around 10% of those result in injury.
62.7% of officers assaulted were in single officer vehicle patrols, and 92.9% were responding to disturbance calls.
What we don't know about officer assaults and injuries:
There are some key questions that can'e be answered:
Out of the 573,456 assaults on officers over the 10 year span of the data:
- how many were stopped by the officer or another officer drawing or using his or her service weapon?
- how many of those assaults would have resulted in injury had the officer not been armed?
Of the 21,783 assaults involving firearms, how many would have resulted in injury or fatality to the officer if he or she had not drawn or used a firearm (and consider that fully 2/3rds of the officers killed never fired or attempted to fire their weapon)?
Of the 9,820 assaults involving knives, how many would have resulted in injury or fatality to the officer if he or she had not drawn or used a firearm?
Of the 31,603 assaults above, in how many of those assaults would have resulted in injury or fatality if the officer had not been wearing body armor (remembering here that 18 out of 27 slain officers were shot while wear body armor but only 6 were shot in areas that were protected by their body armor (and those officers were most likely shot by rifles).
What we have for hard data on armed citizen encounters:
What do we know about armed citizen self defense shoots?
Not much, because the method in which a potential victim responded to an attempted assault or murder is not consistently reported or collected.
What do we actually know about armed citizen self defense situations where the presence of a weapon, without having to fire it, prevented an assault or death?
Even less, as many of those attempted assaults, perhaps the majority of them, are never even reported.
What assumptions can we make?
We can make some basic assumptions about the differences between armed citizen and LEO assaults and relative percentages shot and killed.
There are distinct differences in hesitancy to shoot.
Armed citizens operate under much tighter constraints of when they can and cannot shoot - and they know it. In comparison, 1 in 5 officer involved shoots involves mistake of fact, where the officer believes the assailant is armed when they are not. The media makes a major fuss over those shoots, but many of them are justifiable shoots where the assailant, even though unarmed, posed what a reasonable person would construe as a credible threat.
The recent shooting of a young black man outside a convenience store has gotten lot of recent play. What's not reported is that the officer responded to a call of a man fitting his description with a gun. The man refused to comply with the officers request to stop, and then turned around with his hand coming out of his waist band, creating what the officer believed was an imminent threat. The backstory here is also not reported - that the man had made some suicidal statements and that it's strongly suspected this was a suicide by cop scenario.
It represents a "mistake of fact" where the officer shooting the assailant is clearly justified, despite the lack of a weapon.
In other cases, the shoot is much questionable.
For example in this shooting in SC the officer shot a young man at a traffic stop for doing exactly what the officer asked him to do - produce his drivers license. The officer failed to ask where the license was located, and failed to specify how the individual should go about getting it, then over reacted when the individual did something unexpected - jumping into the car to get it, and quickly coming back out. As far as I know he was't charged, but I'm pretty sure he's not working as an LEO any longer.
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXmVPxQGTsE"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXmVPxQGTsE[/ame]
The point here is that the courts give officers a great deal of attitude in use of deadly force, and for good reason as we ask officers to respond to dangerous situations and go looking for bad people in dark and scary places. They need to have a lot more latitude in regard to using deadly force.
However, when they screw it up and get it wrong, they'll still have a degree of immunity from prosecution, as the assumption is made (rightly so in most cases) that the officer just made a bad decision on tight time constraints and in potentially dangerous circumstances. That lack of good judgment may well get them fired, but they are probably not going to be charged, and they will have the legal resources and the deep pockets of the department behind them for any civil suit.
An armed citizen enjoys none of that latitude and is 100% on the hook for all the liability attached to each round he or she fires from the time it leaves their firearm until it comes to rest.
Consequently, an armed citizen is more hesitant to fire at an assailant, and no doubt that hesitation results in injury or death in instances where an officer would have fired sooner.
Use of body armor:
Most officers wear at least Level IIIa body armor, in some situations they'll have Level III armor with ballistic plates to provide protection against rifle rounds.
In contrast, most armed citizens do not as it is hot, and even in some of the newer materials it is bulky enough to make concealment less than perfect. And in general, Level IIIa body armor designed for concealed wear under a shirt covers less of the torso than armor designed to be worn over a shirt, something that has become much more common for police officers. If an armed citizen is wearing body armor it's more likely to be level IIA armor covering less of the torso.
When you look at the differences then between armed citizens shot and skilled versus LEOs shot and killed, you have to look at the role body armor plays in preventing officer deaths and serious injuries.
Response to calls versus being the victim:
I'll use an example of a response to a very ordinary officer call for back up. A small town LEO (the only officer on duty in that town) called the SO's office for back up to a domestic disturbance. On arrival we could hear a lady yelling at someone punctuated with an occasional "bong" sound. The officer on the scene indicated he knew the people and that the husband had a history of abusing his wife. He speculated that she'd decided she'd had enough and his guess was she was traits the husbands abusive tendencies with some percussive therapy from a skillet. He'd been there a few minutes and had some time to analyze it.
On the one hand he wasn't real sympathetic to the husband and felt a delay for back up was not all bad. On the other hand he was also smart enough to recognize that a single officer responding to a domestic disturbance call is placing himself at significant risk, as the "victim" often turns on the officer when he or she realizes their spouse, paramour, bread winner, etc is going to go to jail. You want at least two officers in that situation.
The moral of the story (other than don't beat your wife or you'll find yourself on the wrong end of a skillet some day) is that officers have the ability to wait for backup and thus minimize their risk when resolving a violent situation.
In contrast, if someone were to break into your house or accosts you on the street and try to assault you or kill you, are already at the scene of the crime. Even if you have time to call 911 for "back up" you will still be on your own dealing with the situation for several minutes, and it will most likely be over before an officer arrives. Even then, if there's a known threat, the initial officer arriving on scene probably isn't going to go rushing in to save you - he'll wait until more officers arrive.
Summary:
As I stated in the beginning, it's a complex topic. There are some serious limitations in armed citizens shoot data, but it's also clear that there are similarities and differences with LEO involved uses of firearms.
It's reasonable to assume that the almost total lack of armed citizen body armor results in more armed citizens being shot and killed.
It's also reasonable to assume that being the potential victim, at the scene of the crime when it is perpetrated increases the risk to the armed citizen relative to a responding officer who will more often than not arrive after it's over.
It's reasonable to assume that the great hesitation that an armed citizen has in shooting, given greater potential criminal and civil liability results in armed citizens being shot and killed in circumstances where earlier and more aggressive action by an officer prevents officer injury and death.
However, it's also reasonable to assume that for armed citizens, like LEOs, having and producing a handgun prevents serious injury and death a significant percentage of the time (based on the massive differences in numbers between officer assaults, the low percentage of injuries from those assaults, and the almost very low number of office deaths resulting from those assaults.
The numbers are further skewed by the reality that an attempted assault may go unreported entirely, or if reported will result in crime reports that do not involve data showing that production or use of a firearm prevented serious injury or death.
The statistics showing the number of times a firearm was used in self defense are very low and are often cited by the anti-gunners a proof that CCW permits are a waste of time. However that data ignore the reality that the data collection only includes the very small percentage of encounters where the firearm was used AND the assailant was actually shot or killed. If someone tries to pull you out of your car at gun point and you produce a gun of your own, causing the attacker to flee before you shoot, the pivotal role of your firearm in preventing a rape, kidnapping or carjacking is not going to be reported in any national data base.
Conclusions:
It's impossible, irresponsible and probably politically motivated to imply that the differences in the rates of injury and deaths between armed citizens and LEOs is due to armed citizens carrying guns and/or to armed citizens not having adequate training.
Don't get me wrong, adequate training is vital and I am in total agreement that most people who carry a firearm for self defense don't practice with it nearly enough, but there are a whole host of other variable that better account for differences in injury and deaths between armed citizens and LEOs.
In fact, looking at the data for assault, injury and deaths for LEOS and the role their service weapon plays in greatly minimizing the number deaths, it's reasonable to assume that a concealed handgun has the same potential preventative effect for concealed carry permit holders as well - we just don't have good sources of data to show the positive effects of concealed carry.
And there is of course no political will to show that kind of positive effect data, as it has never fit the agendas of some administrations (including the Reagan administration), and it does not fit the marching orders of police chiefs who are almost always politically appointed and serving a the whim of city administrators many of whom want to project an anti-gun stance.
Can you define please what you mean by running the gun like a service gun?
I can't hold or effectively fire anything larger than a J-frame or a compact M&P with small grips. So I practice with it and reloading and usually use my J-frame to shoot IDPA just to be comfortable with it and with reloading under at least some pressure. I am typically a much better shot at 7-10 yards than I am at 3-5 although our matches do all ranges even as much as 50-75 yards. And yes I have hit steel at distance with my J-frame but I was slow. Accurate, but slow.
With tiny hands, I wear children's size gloves, I need something I can hold and fire first and foremost.
Cal44
Member
Kid44
Member
I wonder if Martha Stewart would approve of the "J-frame lifestyle"?
Shorty 45 MK2
Member
So far it has been fine for me and I try to live the "J frame lifestyle" but feel better with more rounds on board or a gun that's easier to shoot well at speed with SD loads.
There is always a situation that will need more rounds or longer range or some other variable. The chance of needed to use a firearm in SD are pretty low but we still carry, it just up to you how "prepared" you want to be. There are some guys I know that are better armed with a revolver than some others with an AR. As long as you can shoot it well and train with it it's better than nothing, but if I ever get in a SD situation I'm hoping for an M1 Abrams and it's 155.
Ya place yer bet and take your chances.
There is always a situation that will need more rounds or longer range or some other variable. The chance of needed to use a firearm in SD are pretty low but we still carry, it just up to you how "prepared" you want to be. There are some guys I know that are better armed with a revolver than some others with an AR. As long as you can shoot it well and train with it it's better than nothing, but if I ever get in a SD situation I'm hoping for an M1 Abrams and it's 155.
Ya place yer bet and take your chances.
ocinsomniac
Member
Not related to J-frames, or revolvers for that matter, but here's a guy (Shield owner) who claims he won't even carry a single stack based on an experience he had -
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwjaPIPG0_s[/ame]
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwjaPIPG0_s[/ame]
You are on the right track. A ton of folks "train" by hitting a gigantic silhouette target somewhere at 3 yards at the range and call it good. We hold our students to the black on a B8 bullseye target. It is much easier to work this with a service size gun (pistol or revolver). All the stuff you need to hit to incapacitate another human is in a fist sized area of the chest or head. That does not change based on what you are shooting. You need to be able to work that fist sized area with whatever you are carrying. You will have to work harder at it with a J frame. Shooting IDPA (even though I have some serious issues with a lot of the habits it instills) is very good practice at "shooting somebody else's problem". Essentially, you are not setting some standard around your J frame, you have to meet the standard for everybody.
Again, nothing wrong with the snub for most, but it is only as good as you are, and you need to be real good with them.
Officerblue
Member
Science news and science jobs from New Scientist - New Scientist. October 2009
Don't have any stats from the police law enforcement Expo I was just there in the audience listening to the FBI spokesman. If my stats are off I'm sorry, I'm not a stat guy...
I would add to the story. If you search the scriptures you will find Goliath had four brothers. David was going to take on all five. One shot, one kill.
Pbchucker
Member
Does this statistic include gangster-on-gangster shootings? After all, gangsters are citizens too.
Let's not assume this stat only applies to "law abidng citizen vs. thug".
..........
Update: Just saw your post saying you do not have the data available. No problem.
I still like the idea of living the J- frame lifestyle.
Last edited:
kthom
Member
"
I would add to the story. If you search the scriptures you will find Goliath had four brothers. David was going to take on all five. One shot, one kill."
Agreed. Just wanted to make the point that he took what he thought he might need, and used only what he needed! Thanks for your comments.
I would add to the story. If you search the scriptures you will find Goliath had four brothers. David was going to take on all five. One shot, one kill."
Agreed. Just wanted to make the point that he took what he thought he might need, and used only what he needed! Thanks for your comments.
S&W SS Revolvers
Member
Unspoken heros in my book. That's a FRONT PAGE story but my money says it was not...
USA made stories , if told , are on the back page in .5 font. I mean really...
Let's know and report "the rest of the story" US Press gun grabbers...
Cal44
Member
OK, I watched that youtube and came to the opposite conclusion.
The robbers took a few people's wallets in the restaurant and then ran away down the street.
If they had threatened one of the patrons carrying a concealed weapon, they would probably have ran out faster without even a shot fired, if the patron pulled his weapon.
After all they ran off even without hurting anyone even without having a gun pointed at them.
In the very worse case, shooting one of the robbers would have ended it. But like I said, it doesn't sound like even that would have been necessary.
The problem comes because the guy making the youtube followed the bad guys and saw them meet up with a couple others for a total of 8 bad guys and then drive off. He was probably worried (and rightly so) about what would have happened if they saw him following them and turned on him.
He was playing cop more than a private citizen should in that situation. Sure if he is thinking in terms of arresting 8 bad guys at once, then he needs more than a 7 shot gun.
IMHO, he was taking unnecessary risks following and tracking them.
If all he wanted was to get them off his back and away without robbing him or his GF, then pointing a 5 shot J Frame at them would likely been enough. And maybe he wouldn't have had to fire at all.
Similar threads
