Why NOT to Carry a .38 Snub

I thought the reason cops switched from revolvers to semi-autos was to not be out gunned. I don't worry about round-count if a crack head is threatening me from 18 inches away. All I need is one good boolit.
 
I thought the reason cops switched from revolvers to semi-autos was to not be out gunned. I don't worry about round-count if a crack head is threatening me from 18 inches away. All I need is one good boolit.


the last straw was the Trooper Coates murder. prior to that incident many departments still issued revolvers and the ones that issued body armor did so without side coverage. the lag time for some agencies was finding a semiauto that officers could transition from the revolver. the DAO auto was picked by many. though neither of these would have made the difference in the Coates murder (he was hit in the armpit where vests today still don't cover, and his .357 magnum was loaded with .38 specials)…
 
Well just took the .38 snub (steel k frame) down to the pond to try out on my TacStrike steel. Only too easy to keep all shots on the target at 9 yards shooting double action two handed. I did miss once shooting one handed double action; the 2nd shot i'd ever fired thru the gun. Single action head shots at 9 yards were again, childs play. An impressively accurate weapon. Ammo was 125 grain cast full effort handloads.
 

Attachments

  • 20200509_102154.jpg
    20200509_102154.jpg
    101.1 KB · Views: 38
I think it’s very easy to put too much emphasis on one incident, one quote, and one individual.

IIRC, in one of his books from the 80’s, Chuck Norris mentioned an incident where he dropped an attacker with a single sidekick and it confirmed in his mind the effectiveness of the martial art he was learning. You could point to that incident and his words to say Tang Soo Do Sidekicks are all I need to learn for self-defense and “if it’s good enough for Chuck, it’s good enough for me.” Still, it’s just one incident, one individual and one statement. Chuck went on to have very different viewpoints on martial arts than he did at the time he wrote that book.

In regards to Jim Cirillo, I believe he spent a great deal of time in developing a threat-focused shooting program, so he obviously wasn’t a proponent that using traditional sighted fire was appropriate at all times and understood that different scenarios required a different methodology.

And Cirillo switched to primarily carrying Glock’s in his later years as far as I know. Understandable based on his experience and if I had been in his line of work, I’d definitely carry a high-capacity autoloader or two. A snub is a fantastic personal defense weapon, but an awful police service pistol. But, I’m not a police officer and our needs differ. I simply won’t get into the same kinds of situations as LEO’s unless I choose to intentionally to do so, which I have no intent to do. Same as I wouldn’t use a snub or any handgun if I was a Navy SEAL sniper since the tasks are very different, but that doesn’t mean the snub is ineffective or perhaps even the most efficient weapon for my purposes.
 
...
Another reason why sights, and practicing sighted fire, can be important is because it helps build "muscle memory" for getting the gun aligned on target. Even if you can't see the sights, or focus on them, prior practice will help instill proper alignment and improve your ability to hit the target.

This little nugget is often over looked.

I remember one near-shooting where I thought a partner was about to be killed. Call it a "furtive movement" moment.

One instant I'm standing and scanning for possible officer safety threats from several individuals while we're checking out a suspicious circumstances call where someone had called for help because they feared being attacked by a carload of men. (Who had followed the RP from a scene where several other men, reportedly gang members, had just been arrested in a nearby jurisdiction. Context.)

The next instant one of the men did something he was specifically told not to do, suddenly reaching his hand under the front seat of a car when my partner turned his attention away.

The next instant after that, I had 3 white dots floating in my vision, mildly obstructing my view of the individual who was bringing his hand back up from underneath the front seat, turning to look at my partner. I yelled, and I suddenly saw 5 white spots aligned in my vision (the man turned to look at me when I'd yelled).

Yep, 3 white sight dots and 2 wide eyes, all clustered together. I didn't even realize I'd drawn my service weapon.

No, nobody got shot. The man froze when he realized I was prepared to shoot him. Close, though.

Those white dot sights simply "appeared" where I was prepping the trigger and preparing to put a bullet.
 
Last edited:
In regards to Jim Cirillo, I believe he spent a great deal of time in developing a threat-focused shooting program, so he obviously wasn’t a proponent that using traditional sighted fire was appropriate at all times and understood that different scenarios required a different methodology.

IIRC, he called it Silhouette Shooting. The idea was that you'd use the rear of the gun to cover the target and get the alignment right. If the cylinder was out-of-round or the rear of the slide was out-of-square, you weren't aligned properly. I've experimented with it briefly, but for me I preferred either target-focused sighted shooting or looking over the top of the gun in my line-of-sight.
 
Just repeated my efforts with my little model 60. It was really easy to get kill zone hits on my steel target at 9 yards. Double action, two hand hold. I did miss the single action head shots twice. First time firing this particular all steel J frame. Certainly good enough to carry with confidence.
 
Just to show you my line of thinking. I am almost 300 miles from home in a hotel in Nevada for work getting ready to head up on the hill to do some work in the morning. I do not have my snub with me that I carry almost every single day. There is a time and place for everything. This time I can't avoid SSS so I prepare differently.



IMG-20200507-213830.jpg

SOF-T Wide is a much better TQ or the CAT. They both require less force than the Rat to stop blood flow.
 
SOF-T Wide is a much better TQ or the CAT. They both require less force than the Rat to stop blood flow.

Agreed. I use the SOF-T in my kit, but there's no disputing the compactness of the RATS. If it's a choice between carrying a RATS or not carrying a tourniquet...

Just my opinion.
 
It's almost impossible to reload a double-action revolver in a short-range shootout. Has anybody ever done it?

How much harder to reload a single action!

There you are, poking out the empties one by one, while the Jackboys with their Glock Forties hammer you into the dust.

Nobody's too old to park that single action revolver, and get into a Glock, M&P, P226, VP9, or other modern handgun eminently suited to save your life.

"Ruger Fans" might indeed dispute this now, but you won't find any alive after a gunfight to do any disputin'. They'll be at the morgue.


N.B. to Mtgianni: There was no "conflict" between Oswald and Jack Ruby. Ruby shot an unarmed Oswald restrained by police. I have the autopsy report. The 158 grain bullet turned right and downward and perforated many vital organs.


I been shooting my Ruger for over 50 years and on a man size target I can get 5 center mass hits out of 5 to 50 yards real quick and every time . I can do the same with my N, K and J frames . How am I disadvantaged ? How does that lead to me ending up in the morgue ? I also been known to do the same with the semi autos that I own.

They are no faster and no more accurate . My Ruger will keep me safe, as will my J frame with little chance of needing to reload . Only hits count .:eek:

In other words you are full of ****.
 
Last edited:
A NewYork reload satisfies capacity making it now 10,11 or 12 based on weapon combinations. Have loved my snubs for almost 50 years and have always felt secure carrying them. Over half of all of my handguns are snubs and all of my handguns are revolvers.
 
Back
Top