Is the 5-shot .38 snub still enough?

[JohnKSa]

If someone is going to choose a piece of gear that demands more of them, then it behooves someone choosing that gear to be up to the demands of using it.

Absolutely!

In the heyday of the service revolver even those folks who had worked to become sufficiently skilled in shooting their full-size revolvers may not have developed sufficient skills to be able to use the smaller and lighter snubs as well as they could use the larger guns.

I would say it's simply not possible. The very nature of snubs makes them harder to shoot than full-sized revolvers. No matter how good one gets with a snub due to training, they will always be able to shoot a full-sized revolver better with the same loadings.

Of course those who invested the time to become skilled with the littlest snubs were often those who found it benefited their use of their larger revolvers.

Yes--training with a gun that's hard to shoot will definitely improve one's skills and that will transfer over to being able to shoot other guns better as well. In fact, that's the crux of the matter. A rising tide lifts all boats.

If someone can more easily use a .38SPL, must that mean they ought not choose to carry the 'harder' to shoot .357MAG?

It depends on how much performance they are giving up by going to the harder to shoot caliber. I see folks shooting guns at the range and the recoil is making them re-adjust their grip after each and every shot. If they asked me for advice, I would tell them that they need to drop down a power level if they can't maintain a good shooting grip on their gun while shooting it and have to re-acquire their grip after every shot.

TANSTAAFL, including when it comes to choosing a snub over a larger revolver.

Correct. Picking a gun that is harder to shoot well means more training to gain a given level of skill. And in some case, a gun choice can put some things out of reach entirely. For example, choosing a centerfire snub is going to limit a defender to 5 or 6 rounds before reloading. No amount of training can change that.

Instead of 'recommending' a specific gun, I've asked them whether they think their skills and abilities are conducive to the choices they're considering, and if not, were they willing to invest the time to improve their skills and abilities.

People, in general, are not good at self-assessing their own skill level. In particular, it turns out that the less skill a person has, the more likely they are to over-rate their skill level.

I would say that to be really helpful, it would be good to encourage them to test their skills and abilities objectively and see what the results tell them. Hard to argue with hits/misses on targets and timers.

[fastbolt]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Absolutely!I would say it's simply not possible. The very nature of snubs makes them harder to shoot than full-sized revolvers. No matter how good one gets with a snub due to training, they will always be able to shoot a full-sized revolver better with the same loadings.

So? The question arguably (and more practically) becomes one of not whether someone can shoot their full-size wheelies better, but whether they can learn to shoot their little snub wheelie sufficiently well enough for it to become a viable option ... while taking advantage of the snub's smaller size and lighter weight in a particular role.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Yes--training with a gun that's hard to shoot will definitely improve one's skills and that will transfer over to being able to shoot other guns better as well. In fact, that's the crux of the matter. A rising tide lifts all boats.

Yep, which was why it was usually found to be easier to transition successful service revolver shooters over to pistol shooters.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

It depends on how much performance they are giving up by going to the harder to shoot caliber. I see folks shooting guns at the range and the recoil is making them re-adjust their grip after each and every shot.

Indeed. Having to continually readjust a grip between shots often means their grip technique isn't sufficiently developed for their needs.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Correct. Picking a gun that is harder to shoot well means more training to gain a given level of skill. And in some case, a gun choice can put some things out of reach entirely. For example, choosing a centerfire snub is going to limit a defender to 5 or 6 rounds before reloading. No amount of training can change that.People, in general, are not good at self-assessing their own skill level. In particular, it turns out that the less skill a person has, the more likely they are to over-rate their skill level.

Training (and the lack thereof) can abound. There's always going to be a compromise in the influences that drive gear selection, though. Handguns chosen for defensive roles - no matter the caliber, size, weight or capacity - are always going to be a compromise when compared to a long gun. We're (handgunning users/enthusiasts) are merely debating where we want to stand in the dance of compromise.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

I would say that to be really helpful, it would be good to encourage them to test their skills and abilities objectively and see what the results tell them. Hard to argue with hits/misses on targets and timers.

Yeah, the targets never lie. Timers can be good assessment tools, as long as their use doesn't become something that unnecessarily intimidates the person being trained.

[JohnKSa]

So? The question arguably (and more practically) becomes one of not whether someone can shoot their full-size wheelies better, but whether they can learn to shoot their little snub wheelie sufficiently well enough for it to become a viable option ... while taking advantage of the snub's smaller size and lighter weight in a particular role.

I agree with your statement. As to the "So?", we've wandered a bit, but I was initially responding to this comment.

"Yes, they're harder to shoot than other handguns. The very attributes that make them practical also tends to make them harder to shoot, especially at speed and under stress. Well, that's realistically a training issue ... not the fault of the snub. "

If their "attributes make them harder to shoot" then that is the definition of it being their fault, and while training can make a person better, and perhaps may even allow them to get to the point that they can "shoot their little snub wheelie sufficiently well enough for it to become a viable option", I see people who seem to struggle with this. Exhibiting issues like the one I mentioned where they are unable to maintain a solid grip on the firearm through an entire string, for example and having to readjust/reacquire a grip after each shot.

I have seen people who can shoot snubbies rapidly and accurately, and if someone like that wants to carry one, and has a realistic view of the capability of the combined system (shooter/firearm/loading), I wouldn't try talk them out of it.

I do think that anyone who plans to carry a snubby (or any handgun for that matter) should get in enough shooting/training--including objective performance evaluation and ideally comparing the evaluation results to their capability with other viable carry choices, before they make their decision. Then they can decide if they need more training, or if the choice they are making and their skill level will actually provide them with the self-defense capability they believe they need.

What I don't like to see is people who have an unrealistic view of what sort of capability they are going to have with their chosen carry weapon--whether it is a snub, a derringer, a full-sized revolver, or a semi-auto.

[fastbolt]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

I have seen people who can shoot snubbies rapidly and accurately, and if someone like that wants to carry one, and has a realistic view of the capability of the combined system (shooter/firearm/loading), I wouldn't try talk them out of it.

I do think that anyone who plans to carry a snubby (or any handgun for that matter) should get in enough shooting/training--including objective performance evaluation and ideally comparing the evaluation results to their capability with other viable carry choices, before they make their decision. Then they can decide if they need more training, or if the choice they are making and their skill level will actually provide them with the self-defense capability they believe they need.

What I don't like to see is people who have an unrealistic view of what sort of capability they are going to have with their chosen carry weapon--whether it is a snub, a derringer, a full-sized revolver, or a semi-auto.

I certainly wouldn't disagree.

I've seen at least my fair share of folks (both LE and private citizens) who demonstrated during increasingly demanding drills that they'd significantly overestimated their skill levels, their abilities and being able to exercise good judgment when rushed.

It's hard work to reach the point where someone can achieve conscious competence, let alone consistently, and that's just for applying their skills in known and unhurried range conditions. Working to reach a point where they can achieve skills allowing them to achieve unconscious competence is far harder.

Then, there's always the potential problem of being able to have the ability to apply that level of skill when they face actual exigent conditions. The hormonal fear response can really play havoc with any of us.

My martial arts pursuits helped me temper my expectations of how technical skills in firearms training, and the hoped for successful application of them in evolving and dynamic situations, might be different. For a variety of reasons, most of which might be unexpected and beyond our immediate control.

TANSTAAFL

[Unclenick]

Yes to all the above.

When I first decided to go to Gunsite, I'd been a bull's-eye competitor for years and thought I was better prepared than most to defend myself. By the end of my first class, I realised two things: One, just how much I didn't know and hadn't even considered when my imagination rehearsed self-defense scenarios, and: Two, that I was probably right that I had previously been better prepared than most, which says a lot about just how ill-prepared folks are if they haven't had any training. Over thirty years later, that has changed somewhat with the proliferation of concealed carry and associated training classes taking up some of the slack. But that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of incompetents still out there to be wary of.

If you get a chance to attend one of David Grossman's lectures (he does a great presentation at each NRA Annual Meeting), one of the things he emphasizes is that not only should you carry, but you should attend training at least once, if not twice, a year. Jeff Cooper told us never to go longer than 2 weeks without pressing a trigger, even if it was just dry fire. Control starts to fade when you go beyond that. Grossman has convinced me that, though it does not deteriorate as rapidly as trigger control, strategic and tactical know-how also needs regular refreshing to become habit. Our retention and muscle memory are not unlimited.

As to whether a snubby is adequate, I'd rather have more gun, both as to capacity and barrel. But, as Cooper also taught, the gun you have is better than the one you don't, so don't stick your nose up at guns that aren't your first choice. Try to be prepared for the worst, but bear in mind what Don Kates found decades ago (if I'm recalling correctly): 80% of armed self-defense incidents are settled by brandishing, and with no shots fired because most gremlins retreat when it looks like they don't have an easy gimmie. In the 20% of cases where the defender fires a gun, about 90% of the time, it is a single shot that misses, but serves as a warning shot that induces even a stubborn gremlin to retreat. So, in 98% of firearm self-defense cases, it doesn't appear to matter what gun you have. It is the last 2% that comprises the worst-case scenarios you train for. The bottom line is that being under-gunned still has a massive advantage over being un-gunned and will be good enough most of the time, so you can carry your snubby or even littler guns with a justifiable sense of security.

[Paul B.]

Interesting video on the .38 Spl. in general, the cartridge and snubbies. I hope the URL works.

https://youtu.be/iI1TbSeTTM8

Paul B.

[gwpercle]

Is the 5 shot 38 special snub J-frame enough ?

It is For Me ... I give that question a big YES !

Gary

[GJeffB]

Well, with nothing substantive to add ... I admit I read through 3 pages with interest. My takeaways:
The absolutely solid consensus is no consensus.
The totality (without doing the math) is everybody has an opinion, and the opinions are surprisingly close to yes and no.
There (to date) has been no thoroughly conclusive conclusion.
Much akin to polyticks [<--intentional], there's the us and them and we (whether us or them) are clearly correct.

And as I post very minimally, I thoroughly enjoy the lively discussions that are clearly unsolvable from the outset. Best takeaway is that there's no best takeaway,

BUT ... thanks for the thorough dissection of the topic

-jb, carries wut he shuutz, shuutz wut he carries

[Bill DeShivs]

Come to Memphis. After a couple of days, you'll be wanting a semi with several large magazines. All my snubs have been relegated to being put in strategic areas of my home and shop.
Here, the thugs travel 3-5 per car. One stays in the vehicle with an AR or AK to cover the others while they are doing their mayhem.

[Shoots Left]

Originally Posted by GJeffB

......I thoroughly enjoy the lively discussions that are clearly unsolvable from the outset. Best takeaway is that there's no best takeaway,

Ha, ain't that the truth!

Like posing a survey asking which color M&M tastes the best.

[bamaranger]

I likely jaundiced this thread by singling out the 5-shot/.38, which immediately took us into discussion on mag capacity etc. To use a phrase from one of my pals, ...."the (in this case .38 snub) is as good a weapon as it ever was". I certainly did not intend to pose a question with no correct answer. I'm not claiming or suggesting the 5/.38 is not relevant.

Perhaps more clearly stated, given what appears to be a trend to multiple armed assailants, some possibly heavily armed, is the 5/.38 adequate? One cannot control what their incident will look like. One threat, three threats, handguns, long guns, edged or blunt weapons, who knows? One can only be adequately prepared and all that includes.

[Outpost75]

At age 76 I am not going hands-on with anyone anymore.

I avoid cities and stick mostly to my rural and small town, low risk areas.

I don't go out at night.

I shun large gatherings and crowds.

Avoidance, situational awareness, my old Spyderco Police Model and a .38 snubby in the pocket all the time, even at home, works for me.

On those rare occasions when I must drive to the outer fringes of a city, a large can of Sabre Red, my Beretta 92 and three mags ride along.

[pete2]

Outpost is a smart feller!

[Erno86]

I heard that firing any pistol caliber larger than a 38Spl in an enclosed space without using earpro could cause your eardrums to bleed.

My primary defensive pistol in my house is my M19 S&W snubbie using 38Spl loads, but it does keyhole full wadcutter bullets.

[Shoots Left]

Originally Posted by Erno86

...but it does keyhole full wadcutter bullets.

I always figured that at close range, like within a house, that keyholing/tumbling is not necessarily a bad thing is such a scenario.

[Unclenick]

Cause your eardrums to bleed? All the past generations of cops who had occasion to discharge their 357 Mag revolvers indoors will tell you your ears ring, but that doesn't usually involve blood. Also, it depends on what you mean by larger caliber. A friend of mine had an AD with his 1911 (in 45 Auto) in a closed room many decades ago, and his comment was that it wasn't all that bad, loudness-wise.

Regarding the wadcutters, hollow base wadcutters (most commercial match ammo) are not intended for short barrels. The shorter the barrel, the higher the muzzle pressure, and that high muzzle pressure from a snubby could easily distort the soft hollow base skirt enough to send it into major initial yaw. If you get some double-ended wadcutters, especially harder cast ones, I think you'll find the keyholing goes away. If you like having it, just keep in mind it adds to drag in gelatin or other medium, which reduces penetration.

[JohnKSa]

I think it's very unlikely that discharging a firearm indoors would cause one's ears to bleed. That said, I know two people who have discharged a single shot of full-powered .357Mag indoors without hearing protection and both of them have permanent hearing damage as a result.

One mentioned that the smoke detector went off from the discharge smoke but that it was inaudible as a result of the immediate level of hearing impairment. The immediate level of impairment improved dramatically, but left a permanent level of impairment. The other commented that he was unable to hear his wife screaming from the next room and was nearly completely deaf for about 20 minutes after which his hearing improved considerably, but never completely returned to normal.

[glider]

Some of the scenarios given are extremely unlikely. If someone is attacked by multiple assailants that are heavily armed and intent on harming someone, well unless they have a fully auto rifle they are in deep shxt and probably won't survive. Unless someone has gone to war with some gangbangers that will not happen! In the 3 minutes, 3 shots, 3 yards scenario, which according to stats is how most self-defense shootings come down, a chiefs special would be adequate. I personally prefer a 1911 compact in 45ACP that has 7 +1 rounds or for pocket carry a Kahr PM9 that has 7+1 of 9MM. Both are less bulky than a chiefs special which I also have. Most of the time I don't carry anything.

[JohnKSa]

Do you consider a two attacker scenario extremely unlikely?

If we assume a 30% hit rate--that's about what LEOs achieve during gunfights and assume that trainers teach double-taps for a reason, then we can calculate the probability of "success". That is, we can calculate the probability of making 2 hits per attacker with the given hit rate and a certain number of rounds.

Assuming a 30% hit rate, 2 attackers and 2 hits per attacker required for incapacitation, the defender would be expected to fail 10 times out of 10 with only 5 shots at his disposal. The chances of success with those assumptions is only about 3%.

Even assuming a single attacker scenario, a 30% hit rate and 2 hits required for incapacitation, the chances of achieving that with 5 shots is only about even odds--about 47%. A defender would be expected to fail 5 times out of 10.

Obviously improving the assumed hit rate helps. With 5 shots, 2 hits per attacker assumed to be required and a hit rate of 50%, in the two attacker scenario, the defender would be expected to fail 8 times out of 10. At an assumed 70% hit rate, the odds are about even--the defender would be expected to fail 4 or 5 times out of 10.

Those are sort of "best case" calculations. They assume that the defender doesn't waste any ammo shooting an already "incapacitated attacker" after hitting him twice. They assume that the incapacitation of the attacker is instantaneous after two hits are achieved. They also assume that the defender doesn't get killed before using all available shots in the gun.

[Bill DeShivs]

I shot a .30 carbine pistol in a car once. Don't do that! But, my ears didn't bleed.

Any short barrel S&W should shoot even mediocre wadcutter without tumbling. I have shot many dozens of these guns with wadcutter reloads and don't remember even one shot tumbling.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by glider

Some of the scenarios given are extremely unlikely. If someone is attacked by multiple assailants that are heavily armed and intent on harming someone, well unless they have a fully auto rifle they are in deep shxt and probably won't survive. Unless someone has gone to war with some gangbangers that will not happen! In the 3 minutes, 3 shots, 3 yards scenario, which according to stats is how most self-defense shootings come down, a chiefs special would be adequate. I personally prefer a 1911 compact in 45ACP that has 7 +1 rounds or for pocket carry a Kahr PM9 that has 7+1 of 9MM. Both are less bulky than a chiefs special which I also have. Most of the time I don't carry anything.

It sounds like what you’re describing is the “Rule of 3s”, which is generally used as a way to convey that gunfights are often up close and fast (it’s 3 seconds by the way, not 3 minutes). As someone with a statistics background I think this is a prime example of a generalization that people turn into a hard rule. Over the years I’ve heard of a few people that tried to look into the accuracy of this statistic and where it comes from. Chris Baker at Lucky Gunner has a nice video looking at the distance component.

https://youtu.be/l81Qs096Nho?si=V4yvpqzVQ30omjx9

I think John outlines a good example of round counts relative to multiple assailants. But even if a person didn’t want to entertain the idea of multiple assailants, round counts over 5 can still happen. Below are two examples I point out when this comes up. This is not me saying these examples are the “norm” (though I think defining a “normal” gunfight is harder than people credit), but that there are examples where higher round counts against single assailants can be necessary. As for the attitude of if higher round counts are needed you probably won’t survive anyway, fortunately in these cases those who were attacked had the capacity to keep fighting. To me, one of the more famous examples of this would be the 1986 FBI Miami shootout. Someone might jump on the fact that in that shootout there were multiple assailants and that one had a rifle. However, critical to that same fight was an assailant, Michael Platt, who over the course of the fight was shot 12 times and while injured managed to wound and kill FBI agents.

https://stories.oakleysi.com/in-the-field/jared-reston/

https://www.police1.com/officer-shoo...BbLYpnqqHxwMq/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout

[FireForged]

Is it enough… probably

There is no guarantee that a persons fight will adhere to statistical norms but most do. Very few rounds fired in a short span of time and against a singular attacker within close range. No hollywood bs and no reloads. I dont carry a snubby often but when i do, i dont fret

[fastbolt]

Originally Posted by bamaranger

...
Perhaps more clearly stated, given what appears to be a trend to multiple armed assailants, some possibly heavily armed, is the 5/.38 adequate? ...

Considering a case of "multiple armed assailants, some possibly heavily armed" begs the question ... is any handgun considered adequate in such a situation?

Handguns remain a compromise. We're really pondering the question of what type and degree of compromise someone is willing to consider 'acceptable' for their perceived risks and activities.

Consider how many LE are authorized to carry smaller size/caliber off-duty and secondary weapons, versus their larger primary duty weapons, and choose to go with the smaller options on their own time (or as secondary weapons). Some agencies still even issue a smaller weapon for such roles (and may restrict cops from choosing other options).

Not everyone is willing to limit themselves to a specific carry method, and often the size/weight of the weapon chosen may limit the carry method chosen. I spent enough decades carrying belt-scabbarded weapons on & off-duty to wish to continue to belt on a 'full-size fighting handgun' (a nod to a description from a few decades ago ).

Nowadays it's mostly a diminutive pocket-holstered option (snub revolver of LCP) for me, although sometimes either a specific heightened risk assessment, or simply a whim to get out one of my well-used off-duty/training weapons, may cause me to belt on something again.

Can I shoot a full-size .38/.357 a bit faster than a really lightweight snub loaded with the same ammo? Sure. Is that fast enough to matter? Maybe, maybe not. I don't see the sun rising and setting in split times, myself.

When I was working with a timer and running rapid shot strings using a snub with full-power carry loads (meaning not the low-powered 130gr Ball or 158gr LSWC), my personal benchmark for an initial 'cold drill' became to get 5 solid and accurate hits (think fist-sized), either 1 or 2-handed, at 3-5yds, in no more than 2 seconds. A variation of the old 5X5X5X5 drill. Will that sufficient? Who knows ... but it seemed an acceptable compromise for me.

Sure, I also could run a compact 9/.40 in similar drills and get full magazine shot strings running within 4 sec, while moving (and often transitioning from 1-2 hands as distances extended beyond 'arms reach'. Was that more of an 'advantage'? Enough to avoid pocket-holster carry? Dunno.

The Magic 8-Ball doesn't offer any definitive answers or guarantees, though.

[Blackhand1917]

It's been many years since I regularly carried a snubby. I carry a sub-compact 9mm now. Even though I don't carry snub-nose any more, I still think that for most applications 2in revolvers are fine for self-defense. The only exception to this would be if I had to visit very bad neighborhoods, where it is more likely that one may have to deal with multiple attackers. In the suburbs and out in the country I think most incidents can be handled with a revolver, if one prefers wheelguns.

[glider]

Hearing loss is better than life loss. A chiefs special really isn't any harder to shoot than a full size revolver all things being equal. Different handguns require a different level of concentration for various reasons, poor sights, stiff trigger etc. but the procedure is the same. I would say that a short barrel revolver with good sights and a good trigger is easier to shoot well than a full size revolver with bad sights and a heavy trigger pull. All my life I have heard that a short barrel is much harder to shoot well and I have never found that to be correct! As to whether 5 rounds is enough, well I suppose that depends on whether or not you can hit what you're shooting at. I think FBI stats are 3 feet ,3 minutes and 3 shots is the time and distance and shots fired in a self defense situation. I have no idea if that is correct. I am sure that 5 rounds isn't enough for a police officer but probably is for a civilian, entirely different deal.