Is there ever a need to go smaller than 38 Special?

[duns]

I'm very new to firearms (bought my first handgun in January 2010). I already have 3 guns - Beretta 92FS (home/car), Walther P99C (primary carry), and S&W 340CT (backup carry). Actually, that's not entirely true because the S&W snubbie is often my only carry (so far) because I find I can always conceal it in a front pocket holster in my jeans or my slacks (and when the summer comes, I am sure it will also fit fine in my shorts). Nevertheless, I thought it might be fun to have something even smaller than the S&W 340CT provided it is a serious self defense weapon and not a curio. I would also prefer it to be a US made weapon. As I said, I'm inexperienced but from what I've read the Seecamp LWS series, the NAA Guardian series, the KelTec P3AT etc are cute and convenient but there may be some reliability issues. I'm rather drawn to a mini-revolver such as the NAA Pug. What do y'all think if I want a diminutive gun but yet one that's got some real defensive capability, is reliable, and is not just a curio? It would need to be significantly easier to carry than my SW snubbie or I might just as well carry the latter as my weapon of choice when wearing light clothing.

[carlson1]

Welcome to forum. You might want to try the Ruger LCP.

[PJK]

Here is a link to a discussion about the LCP. People mention a Kahr, Sig and Beretta options.

http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=32062" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[PeteCamp]

I would add a hearty second to the LCP. It is a great little gun. Understand that all of the small autos need a break-in period. And yes, on the hottest days the small auto is more easily carried / concealed than a larger weapon. They can also be finicky about ammo, but any gun you carry should be thoroughly tested by you to determine reliability.

[duns]

Thanks for your suggestion of the LCP. What are your thoughts on the NAA Pug vs the LCP. 5 shots compared to 6+1 but maybe more reliable and smaller? And isn't 22 magnum about the same as 380 for effectiveness?

[MojoTexas]

I like my new Smith&Wesson 442 J-Frame. I picked up a Galco horsehide pocket holster for it, and it's pretty concealable and light and easy to carry. I just don't see myself getting the .380 bug any time soon...38 special is about as small as I want to go.

[Rex B]

I have several pocket pistols, including P3At, LCP, and a NAA Black Widow, which is pretty close to the Pug, except with 2" barrel.
Generally, the .380 is at the low end of acceptable for SD use, and many would not drop below 9mm.
that said, my daily carry is a .380 Sig. Both the P3At and LCP are reliable guns. The KT is a little rougher, and LCP looks more polished, but functionally they are identical.
I chose the Sig because it's all metal, has 1911 controls, is easier to shoot, has a real safety, has real sights, and night sights at that.

But I'm real fond of my NAA Black Widow. Those little NAA revolvers are real works of art. I sometimes carry the NAA, especially around the house, but often out and about also. While 5 rounds of .22mag is nowhere close to even .380, it does put out a fast chunk of lead, attended by an amazing amount of "shock and awe" muzzle blast. Unlike Jeff Coopers quote about being shot with a .22LR, if you shoot at someone within 10 yards with a .22mag pistol, they WILL know they've been shot at!

My policy is to own all of them

[PeteCamp]

Thanks for your suggestion of the LCP. What are your thoughts on the NAA Pug vs the LCP. 5 shots compared to 6+1 but maybe more reliable and smaller? And isn't 22 magnum about the same as 380 for effectiveness?

I'm not much for any handgun with a short barrel. Velocity is your friend and short barrels kill it big time. Lack of velocity is what hurts the .380 and it hurts the 22mag. If the proponents of the .45ACP are correct that "bigger is better", then the little 22mag bullet is less effective than the .380. But that is not the real problem.

The Pug is a single action pistol - requiring you to cock the hammer before each shot. Now I have shot Cowboy Action single action revolvers for years and cocking a SA revolver is an aquired skill. It is easily picked up on a Colt Single Action Army. But the Pug is not a Colt. I cannot imagine how difficult follow-up shots in a stressful situation would be with the Pug. And in a self defense scenario with a marginally powerful handgun, shooting lots of rounds quickly into a vital area of the target is critical.

Couple the difficulty of follow-up shots with the low power levels of these little guns and you might have a recipe for disaster. Here is a fair review, but notice he doesn't mention speed of follow-up shots - for good reason!
http://guidetohandguns.com/2009/06/01/n ... et-rocket/

[Rex B]

You bring up a very good point. I believe a SD pistol should always be double-action.
Even a SA automatic like the 1911, much as I love 'em, should only be carried if the owner has practiced enough to operate it without having to think through it.
With a DA handgun, it's "point 'n click, repeat as necessary".

Having said that, I confess my daily carry is the SA P238, and I'm not as proficient with it as I should be. But my laternate is an LCP, and ALL my home defense weapons are DA or DA/SA

[PeteCamp]

I believe a SD pistol should always be double-action.

Rex B ... Absolutely. I have no problem with the Sig 238 as it is a SA auto. I carry a 1911 frequently. Most often though I carry a Glock. I know a few guys who have carried Colt Single Action Army .45's for SD, but not for very long. I didn't mention that off-hand usage of the little Pug would be a nightmare in itself.

[Rex B]

For the NAAs with the Magnum frame, there is a grip set that is big enough to be acceptable.
It came on the Minimaster, was soft rubber with finger grooves.
I can handle and cock it one-handed with confidence. But I haven't seen many examples
Even so, followup shots would best be described as "deliberate'

[SwimFan85]

I say there's no reason to go smaller if you can conceal a j-frame. If you can't, that's a reason.

[MojoTexas]

I say there's no reason to go smaller if you can conceal a j-frame. If you can't, that's a reason.

I agree, and J-Frames are pretty easy to conceal.

[yerasimos]

I say there's no reason to go smaller if you can conceal a j-frame. If you can't, that's a reason.

also

By my reckoning, whatever time and money you would spend on a .380 ACP semi-automatic or other type of mousegun would be better spent training (both dry-fire and live-fire) with the J-frame you already have.

[MojoTexas]

By my reckoning, whatever time and money you would spend on a .380 ACP semi-automatic or other type of mousegun would be better spent training (both dry-fire and live-fire) with the J-frame you already have.

My tendency is to want to go bigger, not smaller. I recently acquired a J-Frame for around-the-house and hot-weather carry, but given my druthers, I'd rather have one of my .45's or my .357 with its 4" barrel, or even my XDm .40. I can't understand the fascination with the .380 mouse guns...yeah they're easy to conceal, but so is a J-Frame, and my J-Frame just allows me to make the bad guy duck for cover while I make my way back to one of bigger firearms.