on a handgun for CCH carry, and as a quick click over there will attest, there is no shortage of advice. Some of the advice provided so far is solid, most of it fell into the moderately helpful category, and some of it is simply ignorant or irrelevant to the question asked.
What was fascinating about the suggestions made was the overwhelming "conventional wisdom" recommendation of a short-barreled .38 Special/.357 Magnum revolver offered by many of those who responded.
A snub-nosed .38 revolver can be an excellent concealed carry gun—I currently have one in my possession that I've carried recently— but I don't know that I agree with some of the reasoning offered by those suggesting such a revolver for a new shooter with "little girly hands."
The basic snub-nosed revolver has great reliability, is uncomplicated, and in the ever-popular .38 Special, has decent stopping power when paired with modern defensive ammunition. That said the downsides are that it is thick through the cylinder (which can make it harder to conceal), and the short sight radius and heavy double-action trigger pull on most of those coming from the factory can make it difficult to shoot well, particularly for people with "little girly hands."
[FYI, my standard for "shooting well" is roughly defined as being able to put 5 shots in 9-inch paper-plate at 5 yards in less than 4 seconds from low-ready or a retention position, which isn't a very high standard, but is defensively adequate. Many people can do that in half the time.]
In contrast, good DAO semi-automatic subcompact pistols abound, and they can be far easier to learn to shoot to our "shoot well" standard, and often in a shorter amount of training time.
Whether you want to plug the merits of a Kahr, Springfield Armory XD, Glock, Smith & Wesson M&P, Kel-tec or something else is irrelevant to me, but the design philosophy behind these pistols seem to have resulted in numerous advantages over similarly-sized snub-nosed revolvers.
Most of these pistols are thinner than revolvers (at their thickest points), have a longer sight radius, a more manageable (typically longer and lighter) trigger pull, and a greater choice of ammunition (I'm thinking 9mm and .40 S&W in particular)that is less expensive and has a better reputation for stopping fights than the .38, without kicking as hard or with the blinding flash of a .357 Magnum. Semi-autos also offer a distinct advantage in reloading times and capacity, but as most shootings average 3-4 shots, this shouldn't be a deciding factor.
So tell me: why are snub-nosed revolvers so repeated recommended for new shooters, even by people who prefer semi-autos for their own use?
1
I don't carry (or even own) a functional firearm, but if I was going to get one (and I reserve for myself and others the right to do so) I might well consider a revolver (my uncle many years ago had one I think he called a "44-40" that I would like to have--not very concealable unless you ar 6 feet tall).
The reason: Not a semiautomatic or automatic--I see DC still won't issue a permit to Heller because has a "bottom-loader".
Besides, I just like the look of a revolver.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at July 21, 2008 01:21 PM (OmeRL)
2
I now know that .44-40 is a kind of ammunition.
I dunno what kind of a revolver it was, except to the little-kids-eyes my memory has to use, the barrel was in the range of 16 or 18 inches long and the men shooting it ended up pointing it skyward after each shot, and they were shooting a stuff on the far side of a cotton field.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at July 21, 2008 01:44 PM (OmeRL)
3
Might have been mor that 18 inches, it was pretty long.
And nickel (silver? chromium?) plated.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at July 21, 2008 01:45 PM (OmeRL)
4
I believe one of the major reasons is reliability and simplicity. I own both a revolver and an automatic- and anyone can clean and use a revolver easily, whereas dissassembling a semi-auto intimidates a lot of people and most people dont know how they work so if you are just starting out- it's one less item to worry about. just load ammo and squeeze the trigger. I prefer my semi-auto for it's high capacity and it's ease of reload, yet at a glance I can tell everything is working perfectly on my revolver.
Posted by: Scott at July 21, 2008 02:09 PM (P9kuM)
5
One reason is absolute reliability. A Smith & Wesson Chiefs Special is a five shot handy little gun that puts a new cartridge under the hammer with each pull of the trigger. Double action pull on the model 36 is smooth and even. The pistol is light and very accurate. Auto loaders are great for those who practice a lot as if there is a misfire they can quickly cycle the slide, loading a fresh cartridge. Charter Arms and Taurus also make quality stubbies. For my favorite a Colt Cobra at 14 ounces and a six shot cylinder.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at July 21, 2008 02:46 PM (J5AYY)
6
I would agree with the previous posters that reliability and ease of maintenance are in the revolver's favor.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at July 21, 2008 04:36 PM (TUWci)
7
In short, simplicity (primarily) and reliability in a package that can meet some minimal concealment standards and has a track record of being at least minimally effective.
Selecting a handgun for a specific purpose is subject to many constraints (cost, ammunition effectiveness, concealability, etc ad nauseum). Finding the optimum solution is challenging, and a basic snubby meets several criteria at minimal cost. Autoloaders would seem to be technical superior in combat situation (may have higher roundcount, faster reloads, etc), but a mechanical failure when the chips are down could be fatal to a shooter who chose not learn to shoot well or who didn't really bother to learn how the weapon functions.
Without knowing the depth of the individual's commitment to training, something that goes "bang" when you pull the trigger (or if not then you pull the trigger again) is an appealing recommendation. It's not an ideal solution: a 155mm howitzer has more stopping power, ninja training would make an Airsoft pistol deadly in 99 ways, and a Desert Eagle 0.50 of Cloaking would be easier to conceal. But a snubby covers many of these bases at a very basic level. It compromises on some, including accuracy, recoil, ammo capacity/reloads, and trigger pull (although single action is an option with hammered models), but finding something that is totally optimized is a null set.
All of CY's technical points are very valid (and align with my own personal views of what is right _for me_). Personally, however, I prefer to recommend snub revolvers for gunless folks new to shooting, especially those I don't know. Better still, IMHO, is for the gun buyer to handle and fire as many different kinds of guns as they can before purchasing their expensive tool.
Posted by: alphacharlie at July 21, 2008 06:05 PM (Ed7LL)
8
This sort of advice is a hangover from the 1970's when there were few semiautomatic pistols on the market, virtually all were full sized pistols, and virtually all had reliability problems. The revolver has always been the historical default handgun in America until the 1980's when semiautomatic pistols (hereinafter referred to as "pistols"), particularly the Glock, began to be available in great numbers. These weapons came, and continue to come in a wide variety of sizes, weights and configurations and are easily as reliable as revolvers.
I recall a gentleman of a prior generation who was advising a state law enforcement agency in the late 70's. His advice for choice of handgun for general issue was a five shot Smith & Wesson "snubby." He also recommended that only four rounds be carried in the cylinder and that the hammer rest on an empty cylinder for safety (!?) reasons. Bad advice for several reasons. I'll get into both shortly, but note that the empty chamber idea was valid for 1890's Colt single action revolvers because the hammer, if struck, could fire a round. Modern double action revolvers all have hammer blocking mechanisms to prevent this sort of accidental discharge.
Here are the facts about "snubbies." They were originally developed because of the obvious deficiencies of full sized revolvers which are large, heavy, hard to conceal, and sized for the hands of full sized American males. Snubbies are much smaller, more delicate in frame and grip, tend to weigh less, and are easier to conceal. However, there are substantial tradeoffs imposed.
Recoil: Recoil is a function of the energy of the cartridge and the configuration and weight of the handgun. There are two types of recoil: Actual and perceived. A given .357 magnum round will produce "X" amount of actual recoil in a given revolver. However, the recoil perceived will tend to be very different for a 200 pound man and a 135 pound woman. All revolvers tend to impart more actual and perceived recoil than semiautomatic pistols because the design of revolvers places the plane of the bore (the barrel) much higher above the hand than pistols. The higher the bore is above the hand, the more recoil will be experienced by the shooter.
Weight: Snubbies tend to weigh considerably less than full sized revolvers, particularly if their frames are made of aluminum or other light weight metals. However, lighter revolvers have less mass and will have more--often substantially more--actual and perceived recoil.
Accuracy: Snubbies tend to have only rudimentary, not adjustable, sights. Their shorter barrels, 2" as opposed to 4" or more on full sized revolvers, also result in less accuracy, particularly at ranges beyond a few yards. Short barrels also do not allow a cartridge to fully burn its powder charge, resulting in large and spectacular muzzle flash, which is a tactical detriment, particularly indoors or in other enclosed spaces. While working for a police agency that required all officers to carry full sized S&W .357 magnum revolvers with 4" barrels, we used to joke that even if we missed the bad guys, they'd be incinerated by the muzzle blast!
Action: Snubbies have double action trigger mechanisms. While safe and reliable, they tend to be heavy and difficult to manage, particularly under stress. Historically, police officers engaging in gunfights with revolvers had only about a 25% hit record, and this is at ranges of 6' and less! The lighter the revolver, the cruder the sights, the shorter the barrel, the more difficult it is to shoot accurately.
Capacity: Snubbies commonly hold only five rounds in .38 caliber. Some models are available with six round capacity, but these tend to be little more than full sized revolvers with 2" barrels and slightly smaller grips.
Reliability: Revolvers tend to be quite reliable. Pull the trigger, they generally go bang. However, they do malfunction (not jam. A jam requires tools to clear. A malfunction can be cleared in the field without tools). A bit of grit under the ejector star, for example, can freeze the action, rendering the weapon useless and can be very time consuming to clear.
Summary: Snubbies, while more concealable than full sized revolvers, tend to hold less ammunition, are harder to shoot accurately, have more recoil and muzzle flash, and while quite reliable, can malfunction and common malfunctions are difficult to clear.
There are those who argue that revolvers require less training than pistols, but this is inaccurate. Revolvers and pistols have differing manuals of arms. While pistols require more training initially, particularly in malfunction clearance, double action revolvers require substantially more training than pistols in trigger control. Yet, all common malfunctions in pistols can be cleared in four seconds or less. The same cannot be said of revolvers. And remember that 25% hit probability for cops? With pistols, it's 75%+.
One should not discount revolvers entirely for all people and all applications, but contemporary pistols are as accurate, and often more accurate due to longer barrels, better triggers and better sights. They are light, flat and concealable, have greater ammunition capacity and can be reloaded much more rapidly, it's easier to carry extra ammunition for pistols, they have less muzzle flash and recoil, and are not only as reliable as revolvers, but when they do malfunction, can be returned to service in the field within seconds. Oh, and they're much easier to clean than revolvers.
The bottom line? Choose an effective firearm/cartridge combination, receive competent initial and continuing training, practice regularly, and carry it. The old maxim that the man with one handgun is to be feared more than the man with many is true.
Posted by: Mike at July 21, 2008 06:17 PM (xm8w/)
9
New shooters get caught-up on the idiosyncracies of a semi-auto: safety, hammer drop, mag release, etc. Invariably they forget which is which.
That being said, any shooter should become well competent with their chosen firearm before deciding to carry it anywhere. Pick the gun that feels best, research it well (as this person is wisely doing) and then go with it and be comfortable in your choice.
Posted by: Fargo Refugee at July 21, 2008 11:01 PM (MQVqX)
10
"Hand guns are one thing. I think that it varies significantly for the individual. A woman would want a gun with a grip that is small and a profile that would conviently fit in a purse."
Purse carry is just about worthless. What is likely to be the first thing a bad guy takes? Guess what, if he was not armed, he is now.
Not purse carrying also gives you options.
Posted by: Matt at July 22, 2008 04:12 AM (rHW2R)
11
Semiautomatic handguns are more difficult for new shooters to use reliably and safely, as Manson disciple Squeaky Fromme learned when her .45 did not fire at President Ford, despite all her pulling on the trigger (she had not chambered a round after loading the magazine in the pistol). Snubbies on the other hand are harder to hit the target with, at more than conversational range.
The tradeoff between reliably firing, but maybe missing, with a snubbie wheelgun, versus the more complex requirements for gun handling before the bang occurs with a semiauto, is often resolved in favor of the more reliable "bang."
Practice practice practice....
Posted by: Mikee at July 22, 2008 09:34 AM (zN7nu)
12
Simplicity. New shooters may be intimidated by the mechanics of a semiauto. You can't get much simpler than a revolver. No magazines to deal with, just insert rounds into the cylinder. No slide to pull back to chamber a round, just squeeze the trigger (assuming your revolver is double-action).
Posted by: Eric at July 22, 2008 02:26 PM (BZsWa)
13
I don't recommend revolvers for new shooters - I recommend what feels good in the hands, is caliber enough for the use it will be put to, is able to be held and aimed so that it *can* be used for that use, and doesn't cost a fortune to buy or maintain (e.g. ammo cost).
All that said, if the buyer wants a revolver, fine! I have a S&W .357 revolver. But it's not what I would carry; for that I'm carrying one of my semi-autos. This is because of the sentimentality attached to the firearm, but even moreso is I have only a cheap nylon pancake holster that, while it has a thumb-strap, I wouldn't really want to carry the revolver in other than to the range and back.
Posted by: Lysander at July 22, 2008 04:43 PM (ShW/G)
14
Whatever you decide to carry, take it to the range, get competent training, and practice, practice, practice. There was a story in our local paper recently about a confrontation between an armed holdup man and a seasoned sheriffs deputy. The deputy fired several shots at close range and missed every one. Fortunately the skell didn't do any better but he did get away. Practice, practice, practice.
Posted by: glenn at July 22, 2008 06:27 PM (zp+Xy)
15
Matt,
You need to get to know more women. Most of the women in our area that carry keep the weapon in the purse. That is the only place available to a woman. As to taking the purse. A bad guy will certainly do that if he can get close. A good Southern woman will have her hand on the gun long before he is any where near.
Posted by: David Caskey at July 23, 2008 09:54 AM (H44J6)
16
"Matt,
You need to get to know more women. Most of the women in our area that carry keep the weapon in the purse. That is the only place available to a woman. As to taking the purse. A bad guy will certainly do that if he can get close. A good Southern woman will have her hand on the gun long before he is any where near."
Then you need to educate them as to the tactical disadvantage they place themselves at. And please do not tell me it is the only place they can carry.
Stress is a major factor regardless of the level of training they receive, and should someone get their purse away from them before they can react, they are done and over with. There are many other viable explanations as well. But I really do not care to go into them unless you feel you need the explanation.
Posted by: Matt at July 23, 2008 07:32 PM (rHW2R)
17
For an unsophisticated to average shooter: the snub-nosed revolver is still the best alternative. Light-weight, uncomplicated = reliable, EASY-TO-USE (without a huge amount of practice), and accurate (enough). Suggestions: Smith & Wesson 638/342, Taurus 851CIA, Charter-Arms Bulldog.
For a sophisticated shooter: A semi-auto would be a viable alternative. Many alternatives exist -- but initial and on-going practice are critical -- especially with double-action weapons.
Posted by: deMontjoie at July 27, 2008 06:44 PM (D4bPm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
