Is the 5-shot .38 snub still enough?

[TBM900]

Originally Posted by Swifty Morgan

If the shooters had been able to keep shooting long enough, one of them would probably have hit somebody. On the other hand, if any of them had had 5-round revolvers, they probably would have been killed as soon as they ran out of ammo.

It may be cliche, but true... "It's the Indian not the arrow"

This old timer sporting a 3" 357 Magnum took care of business against two armed scumbags.
One was DRT and the second wounded with a round penetrating both the tailgate and truck cab as he fled.

https://x.com/TheBattlecock/status/1885725229097329010

[Swifty Morgan]

That would almost be a good point if everyone was a good shot who functioned well under pressure, but they're not, so it isn't.

People need a lot of ammunition. An Indian who shoots poorly needs as many arrows as he can carry. That's most people, including most people who shoot regularly.

No one ever exited a gunfight wishing he had had less ammunition. Lots of people have died because they didn't have enough.

[armoredman]

Watch the video of two cops engaging the shooter in front of the Empire State Building years ago, practically at contact distance. One assumed the weirdest walking stance I'd ever seen, like he was trying to ballroom waltz while shooting. They missed 13-16 times, IIRC, and managed to hit bystanders, BUT, that was more likely due to the New York Plus trigger they are required to use. As for regular line LE, most of them are not shooters and will shoot only when required to for qualification. However, those in tactical units such as our TSU or SWAT have to qualify far more often and SHOULD be better shots than the average bear. Some officers I know personally are regular shooters and competitors, and some I'd rather not be anywhere around when they have a firearm in their hands.

[JohnKSa]

One of them is that those who regularly shoot DA revolvers are always "better" shooters than those who only shoot pistols.

I think there's a lot of truth to this. That's because it's a lot harder to shoot a long pull, heavier trigger fast than it is to shoot one that is shorter and lighter.

While training on a DA trigger is, indeed, good practice, a person who is good with a DA trigger will be even better and faster with an SA trigger than they are with the DA trigger.

Where are all of these incidents of law abiding civilians losing their life for no other reason than only having 5 or 6 shots?

First off, I don't think there are just tons and tons of civilians dying in self-defense encounters because they ran out of ammunition. That said, it's pretty hard to collect incident information to prove one way or the other.

1. Some of the data collection is focused heavily, or even exclusively on successes. You won't read of any self-defense failures, for example, in the NRA armed defense stories included in each issue of their publications.

2. It's hard to get good after action data on self-defense failures. I can't think the last time I found one where the number of rounds left in a dead defender's gun was provided as part of the report. The vast majority of the time, we never find out if running out of ammo was/wasn't a factor in a defender's death--in fact we don't even usually find out if they did run out of ammo.

Again, I'm not arguing that it happens a lot, just that we have to be careful about drawing conclusions about how often it happens based on typical reporting. The reality is that the level of information supplied in typical reporting is very rarely sufficient to allow us draw any useful conclusions about whether ammunition capacity is a factor in self-defense failures.

[glider]

How many times someone misses doesn't really matter, 6 misses or 16 misses, the result is the same!! You can't make-up for being a lousy shot with more ammo! Every miss gives your assailant more time to shoot you. So, instead of worrying about how many times you can miss how about working on your marksmanship. This is a silly argument, If the Indian can't shoot it doesn't matter how many arrows he has! It really isn't about caliber or how many rounds you have, it's about bullet placement and no amount of fancy equipment can do that for you!!!

[bamaranger]

Let me clarify that I believe your best SD weapon is your brain. Avoid trouble, and known trouble spots. Stay aware of your surroundings and those individuals around you. Weigh your options, is compliance a better plan?
Fight if you must, but tobe sure, I am not looking to be a hero.

But bad stuff happens to good folks too, and despite your best efforts, you might find yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time. About 10 yrs ago I believe I got cased for a robbery once while traveling out of state to hunt. It was the wee hours of the morning, and a VA metro cop had just stopped me on the interstate and wrote me what turned out to be a $100 ticket for a bad tail light in my 30 yr old Toyota pickup. Annoyed, I stopped at a remote, rural C-store down the road a couple of miles, bought a bulb, and had at it with my Swiss Army knife there in the parking lot, away from the pumps. A car pulled up to the pumps, 3 young adult males, one went in the store, another hung around outside the car, and the third began sauntering towards me. A Glock 17 was in the cab of the truck, but I had the 'Smith M36 in my pocket ( and a turkey shotgun packed in camper shell)! Understand, there was no reason for this guy to cross the lot to engage me. We were worlds apart in age, race and interests. He made no offer to assist, just eyeballing me. I engaged him verbally before he made it half way, making eye contact. "Hey now, I'm good,..... fixin' a tail light. Dang cop just stopped me a wrote a ticket". I don't remember his response, but my message was, ....I see you, the law is near and I don't want you any closer.....he said something and walked away.
Nobody pumped any gas, and the store guy came back out and they drove off. I still think I was cased.

The M36 was a comfort, but had two of them walked over, or worse they pulled in adjacent and piled out, their intent clear with multiple subjects armed, I was out numbered and undergunned. I began to rethink the M36 then, and 10 years of video tape has convinced me I should rely on more gun. The M36 still travels with me there and about (and looks it) but it is no longer primary if I can possibly avoid it.

[Swifty Morgan]

You can't make-up for being a lousy shot with more ammo!

Of course you can.

[JohnKSa]

How many times someone misses doesn't really matter, 6 misses or 16 misses, the result is the same!!

Well, you won't generally get to stand there shooting and shooting in a gunfight. Eventually you will catch a round. But it is certainly true that missing less is better than missing more.

Let's put it this way. Missing 6 times with a 6 shot firearm is equivalent to missing 16 times with a 16 shot firearm. But missing 6 times with a 16 shot firearm is far, FAR better than missing 6 times with a 6 shot firearm.

[skoro]

I've carried a 642 for quite a few years now. But then, I'm an unlikely target and won't be getting into a running gun battle with the cartels. The snub is just about ideal for my needs.

Might not be for yours.

[Mike Irwin]

If it's not, then I guess I died 25 or more years ago holding an empty J frame and surrounded by hoards of Hottentots.

[4V50 Gary]

Everybody's circumstances and conditions are different. There is no one perfect answer to all incidents. Captain Kirk's phaser hasn't been developed.

After humans, the most dangerous thing in my area are snagglepus and yogi. Snagglepus stalked my neighbor who, in climbing uphill, turned around to admire the distant mountain view. Lo! Snagglepus was stalking him and gave up when my neighborr spotted him. He even fired a warning shot but snagglepus didn't even run away. He just walked off.

I would like the CIA's heart attack gun though.

ETA: Exploring on my land and found fresh yogi scat. Hibernation is over.

[fastbolt]

Putting the cart before the horse may look good on paper ... to someone who hasn't actually had to use a horse & cart in real life.

Asking gear preference questions without having some experiential knowledge of the circumstances in which the gear will likely be used risks making 'less-than-optimal' decisions.

Personally, the longer I served as an instructor, the less willing I became to judge the gear choices of others.

Instead, I preferred to offer suggestions regarding their skills and abilities after observing them on the range, watching them perform increasingly difficult drills using whatever gear they had chosen (or were required to use on-duty). Basically, most of the time they wanted to put their focus on their 'gear' being the cause of their problems, until I explained and demonstrated to them how it was actually their inability to effectively manipulate and use the gear. Then we got down to improving their understanding and abilities.

I often carry a 5-shot J-frame snub as a retirement weapon. I returned to my revolver roots (started in LE in the waning days of service revolvers) several years before my retirement. I began replacing the various 9's, .40's & .45's I carried off-duty with a growing collection of new Airweight J's (and a then-new M&P 340). Naturally, that meant investing a lot of range time refreshing and knocking the dust off my DA/DAO revolver skills.

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. Want to blame your tools and gear? Suit yourself.

Capacity? That's a source of 'comfort' to some, and a 'touchstone' to those who may not have confidence in their skills. Suit yourself. I do.

More range time and occasionally revisiting the 'training' issue, and perhaps less time trying to argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I'm more concerned about how well I can effectively make use of the first 1-5 rounds in any gun carried for self defense ... not how many rounds more than that might be carried.

My usual 2 thoughts? First, TANSTAAFL. Second, you may run out of time before you run out of ammunition.

Oh yea, I'll be pocket-holstering one of my 642's today ...

[TunnelRat]

Capacity? That's a source of 'comfort' to some, and a 'touchstone' to those who may not have confidence in their skills. Suit yourself. I do.

Having a firearm with additional capacity over 5 rd and having marksmanship skills aren't mutually exclusive. Whenever this comes up, and I've lost track of how many similar threads have been made in even my time on this forum, someone will inevitably imply that capacity is a concern for those doubtful of their own abilities. It doesn't have to be that way, and there are numerous examples of even single assailants surviving multiple shots with what would be fatal wounds over time, but those wounds not stopping the fight quickly enough to prevent those assailants from continuing to harm others. Subsequent shots were then required. My point is, even good marksmanship doesn't negate the possibility of follow up shots. The question then becomes how much capacity is "enough".

I know people that carry 5 shot J frames, and I know people that carry full-size pistols with 4, yes 4, additional magazines. I don't do either and I'm not sure any one person I know, myself included, has the "right" answer. People make their own choices about what is adequate. I had an instructor years ago who used to say, "I won't be in your gunfight, do what works for you."

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. Want to blame your tools and gear? Suit yourself.

I don't think that pointing out that a lighter, smaller handgun with a shorter sight radius and a heavier trigger is harder to shoot than some other handguns is "blaming" anything. That's just the reality of using that gear. Yes, people have to be realistic about what they can expect from their gear, but they also need to pick gear that will work for them. If someone knows that they're not going to put in the training to develop the skill needed to shoot a J frame well, then that's likely not the best choice for them. The real J frame advocate might then argue that such a person shouldn't carry at all, but this is 2025 and there are truly dozens of carry options other than J frame revolvers. A number of those other options are, in my experience, easier to become proficient with than a J frame revolver.

[JohnKSa]

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, as you say, they're harder to shoot than other handguns, then that is actually the definition of it being their fault.

Training can help a person get better at using them, but because, as you say, they are harder to shoot than other handguns, a person who has trained hard to get really good with a snub will be even better when shooting other handguns that are easier to shoot. So it's not really a training issue at all. No matter how hard a person trains, they will always be able to shoot better with a handgun that is easier to shoot.

Capacity? That's a source of 'comfort' to some, and a 'touchstone' to those who may not have confidence in their skills.

As I said earlier in the thread, there's a limit to what capacity can do because in a typical gunfight, a person doesn't necessarily get to stand there shooting until they expend 15 rounds. The longer the gunfight goes on, the more likely it becomes they are going to catch an incoming round, and at that point, all the rounds left in their gun are moot. But that doesn't mean capacity is meaningless.

For example, if the self-defense problem a person is faced with requires 7 very rapid and accurate shots to solve, no amount of skill can turn a 5 or 6 shot gun that's hard to shoot rapidly and accurately and slow to reload into the right gun for solving that problem.

[PzGren]

While I love target shooting with revolvers, I do not carry one. Size/weight to firepower ratio has convinced me to carry a semi auto.
I came to hat decision when I lived in Haiti. If you google Haiti, you will understand that this decision was probably not based on theory.

[glider]

I don't find a j-frame hard to shoot, possibly because I have shot one for 55 years or so LOL. I like a revolver, and I do believe that they are more reliable. That's my opinion and a lot of folks will disagree, doesn't matter it's still my opinion! My pocket carry is a Kahr PM9 because it is easier to pocket carry and holds 7 rounds of hot 9mm. My belt carry is a Kimber Compact 45ACP, 8 rounds of 45 and easy to carry and conceal. My choices and no need to defend them or convince anyone to do the same. Having said all that, I would be perfectly comfortable with a j-frame in my pocket or a 4 inch python on my side!! A 357 has proven to be the most effective man stopper according to stats.

[fastbolt]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

Having a firearm with additional capacity over 5 rd and having marksmanship skills aren't mutually exclusive. Whenever this comes up, and I've lost track of how many similar threads have been made in even my time on this forum, someone will inevitably imply that capacity is a concern for those doubtful of their own abilities. ...

I had an instructor years ago who used to say, "I won't be in your gunfight, do what works for you."

... but this is 2025 and there are truly dozens of carry options other than J frame revolvers. A number of those other options are, in my experience, easier to become proficient with than a J frame revolver.

I don't disagree on any particular point.

Sadly, over the decades I've been dismayed by the number of folks who did voice their belief (hope) that capacity would somehow mitigate their lack of attention to their shooting skills.

I also used to frequently remind some of our folks that I wasn't going to be available to help them - stand beside them and coach them - if they were involved in an OIS.

Yep, 2025 does offer everyone a huge range of options compared to years past, including better J-frame snub options, too. However, I certainly wouldn't think to suggest to someone that a diminutive 5-shot snub is something suitable for everyone, or even a majority of folks who may fall into the 'average' part of the Bell Curve regarding handgun skills.

Then again, I'm also not bothered by folks who seem to think that the once ubiquitous snub wheelie is somehow obsolete just because there are some newer subcompact pistols (mostly 9's) that have more rounds shoehorned into them. I also like my well-used small pistols that hold 7-10rds in their magazines when it comes to days I fall back to a belt-scabbarded choice ... but only the LCP's with their 6rd magazines slip into my front pants pockets.

I used to ask folks whether they were really prepared to have to fight with whatever choice they made. They were the only ones who could answer that question.

[PzGren]

I used to ask folks whether they were really prepared to have to fight with whatever choice they made. They were the only ones who could answer that question.

Did you fight with the gun of your choice?

[flyer898]

In California you make your carry choices early on and are stuck with them. Your CCW handguns are listed on your permit by make, model, caliber, and serial number. I live in Sacramento County and only three CCW handguns may be listed on the permit. Changes are only allowed once every two years at renewal.
My longest serving carry gun (since 1999) is a titanium cylinder S&W 337 in .38 +P. It is the gun I carried in court, before I retired. These days it has been mostly supplanted by my 9mm Glock 43X. But sometimes it is primary when ankle carry is required for concealment. Sometimes it comes along as a backup.
My 3rd CCW piece is a S&W 1076 in 10mm - I carry this when I want a more powerful gun.
When I qualified in November 2023, all strings were timed, and some included on the clock reloads. The required course of fire was ill-adapted to a five-shot revolver (one string required six shots in ten seconds).
The published course of fire has changed and no longer requires reloading on the clock.
I wonder if this is in response to the magazine capacity litigation? In my mind, it was a tacit admission by the sheriff that the permitted ten-round maximum magazine capacity was not enough for a CCW holder to counter a threat.

[flyer898]

@pzgren the proof marks visible on the frame tell me that revolver spent some time in Europe. Is there a story here?

[fastbolt]

Originally Posted by flyer898

In California you make your carry choices early on and are stuck with them. Your CCW handguns are listed on your permit by make, model, caliber, and serial number. I live in Sacramento County and only three CCW handguns may be listed on the permit. Changes are only allowed once every two years at renewal. ...

This can vary by the agency issuing the license. The small card only has lines/room for 3 concealable firearms, but that didn't mean more can't be listed (in margins or on the back). Then again, I've also heard of an occasional agency who would limit the number (caliber, type, etc) of firearms to less than 3 on the licenses they issued.

Also, we used to allow licensees to change/replace a firearm on their license before the expiration of the license. There was a statutory $10 fee permitted at the time (unless it's changed), and we'd simply have the licensee come to the range and qualify with the new gun, and then issue a replacement license which include the gun changes (which didn't extend the duration of the existing license).

Kind of like how DOJ has a short list of restrictions (listed on the application), but allows issuing agencies to add whatever additional restrictions (if any) may suit them. I once saw a license issued by one county where they had copied and 'doubled' the size of the license ... so they could add quite a grocery list of restrictions on the back of the license. The number of SO's & PD's in the state can make for a variety of policies for how licenses are handled. I stopped keeping track of these things when I stopped teaching the classes after I retired, and I've been told by a couple former colleagues who took over the training at different times that the laws and policies have continued to change regarding licenses.

[fastbolt]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

If, as you say, they're harder to shoot than other handguns, then that is actually the definition of it being their fault.
...

For example, if the self-defense problem a person is faced with requires 7 very rapid and accurate shots to solve, no amount of skill can turn a 5 or 6 shot gun that's hard to shoot rapidly and accurately and slow to reload into the right gun for solving that problem.

It's harder for many new drivers in this day and age to drive a car or truck with a manual transmission, too, especially under conditions of stress in an exigent situation.

Not quite the same for experienced drivers skilled in using them, though.

The capacity conundrum is what it is, and while the argument might always reasonably be made that having more capacity might be better in situations if they require more capacity (for whatever reasons come along), the rounds wasted to rushed and/or simply inaccurate misses or poorly placed hits are another problem.

Then again, I'm one of those anachronisms who carried issued service revolvers, and then saw the days of being issued 'hi-cap' double stack pistols ... and then ended up carrying a single stack issued pistol at the end of my career (and into my post-retirement service as a reserve and trainer).

Personally, I think folks ought to be able to carry what they wish, for the reasons they wish (within whatever laws and policies prevail). My preference to continue to carry 5/6-shot revolvers in no way is meant to denigrate the choices of others to carry double stack options (and carry more spare rounds on their person than I ever carried on-duty in the days of carrying one or another of the issued double stacks). It's simply my choice at times ... and if I'd not have been a longtime Magnum revolver shooter in my youth, and then as a younger working cop, I might not have developed that opinion of preference.

When the rubber meets the road, and the use of deadly force becomes unavoidable to protect against serious bodily injury or death, it's accurately placed hits, in whatever timeliness is required for a successful result, that may save the day.

None of us can predict the number of rounds that may be required ... but not all of us may always feel the need to carry the same number of rounds either on-board in a defensive handgun, nor on our person.

Just like some folks who drive a motor vehicle may always top-off their tank when it drops to being half full, and others may let it wait until their gauge drops to a quarter of a tank, or nudging the E. Choices ...

[JohnKSa]

Not quite the same for experienced drivers skilled in using them, though.

If you're saying that snubbies are actually easier to shoot than other guns for "experienced shooters skilled in using them", that's quite a different argument.

I've never seen any evidence to support such an assertion. It is true that an experienced shooter will shoot a snub better than someone who is a newbie. But snubbies are hard to shoot. The DA trigger pulls are longer and harder than semi-auto triggers, the sight radii are shorter, recoil tends to be sharper for a given power level and weight of handgun. Which means that even someone really good with snubs will almost invariably shoot other guns better.

And notice, all the issues that make snubs harder to shoot are characteristics of the guns themselves--they are not due to a deficit in training. A person can't reduce the recoil of a snub by training more. They can't make the sight radius longer by training harder.

The capacity conundrum is what it is, and while the argument might always reasonably be made that having more capacity might be better in situations if they require more capacity (for whatever reasons come along), the rounds wasted to rushed and/or simply inaccurate misses or poorly placed hits are another problem.

There's no reason a person shooting a gun with more capacity that's easier to shoot can't be just as careful with their shots as someone shooting a snub. I know it's a common argument for those who like low-capacity firearms to assert that having more rounds just means that the shooter will waste them, but I'm not aware of any evidence that indicates people using snubs are any more careful with their shots than defenders shooting guns with more capacity--they just run dry faster.

Personally, I think folks ought to be able to carry what they wish...

I went back and read through the thread trying to find the person(s) advocating that people should be forced to carry guns that they don't like but couldn't find them.

...it's accurately placed hits, in whatever timeliness is required for a successful result...

Of course. I'm sure you understand, then, why some folks choose firearms that they find easier to shoot accurately and rapidly.

[pete2]

I have a G19 that didn't go click. It didn't do anything. Trigger wouldn't pull. They ain't really perfect . I have numerous revolvers, 15 or 20, never had one that didn't fire.
I carry a642, so far 5 shots have been enough, of course, I've never been attacked by a gang of hoodlums.

[fastbolt]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

If you're saying that snubbies are actually easier to shoot than other guns for "experienced shooters skilled in using them", that's quite a different argument.

I've never seen any evidence to support such an assertion. It is true that an experienced shooter will shoot a snub better than someone who is a newbie. But snubbies are hard to shoot. The DA trigger pulls are longer and harder than semi-auto triggers, the sight radii are shorter, recoil tends to be sharper for a given power level and weight of handgun. Which means that even someone really good with snubs will almost invariably shoot other guns better.
...

Not what I was saying.

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.

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. Kind of like how those who only worked to be able to use .38SPL found it harder to run .357MAG with equal controllability, accuracy and aplomb.

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. Not too dissimilar from someone who invested the time and effort to master running a .357MAG to find that shooting .38SPL is always 'easier' for them to do. Or running a .44MAG makes running the same gun loaded with .44SPL easier.

If someone can more easily use a .38SPL, must that mean they ought not choose to carry the 'harder' to shoot .357MAG? I certainly saw my fair share of cops carry .357MAG in their duty guns, but only shoot .38SPL (standard pressure or +P) for training and quals. Then, there were those handgunners who spent the time to shoot .357MAG on their own dime, as it were, so they could keep up their skills to accurately and effectively use the harder-to-shoot Magnum ammo if they ever really needed to use it.

This can also be applied to those snub shooters who prefer steel over lighter aluminum models, or aluminum/steel cylinder models over scandium aluminum/titanium cylinder models ... or those who prefer standard pressure loads over +P loads.

Folks can choose those gear factors which make it easier for them to use the little guns, and they can also work to enhance their skills to use whatever configuration they may choose ... or, they can stick with larger revolvers to make it even easier on themselves. TANSTAAFL, including when it comes to choosing a snub over a larger revolver.

There have always been those folks who have asked me if they ought to carry a snub revolver instead of a larger one, or one of the newer really diminutive pistols instead of their larger one. 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.