Does anyone use a revolver as a primary?

[ToddG]

He might be the same guy but I know from personal experience that there is no reliable method to ascertain if "This" guy is the wanted murder suspect or the scared punk who did something stupid and feels he needs to fight it out.

That's exactly the point. He could be either. The fact that there are examples of people who don't need to be shot repeatedly does nothing to disprove the demonstrable fact that there are people who do need to be shot repeatedly, or that there are times when multiple attackers need to be shot.

By your logic, I didn't need a gun yesterday so I won't need one today.

[FotoTomas]

Last item...

Todd you stated "The M4/870 thing is non-responsive. I think all of us would happily carry one if it were practical. Comparing the legal concealed carry of a G19-sized pistol to an M4 is silly."

It might be silly but I have a carbine or shotgun in the car trunk with a bailout bag at all times. I do feel comfortable sometimes with little more than a snubbie in a pocket or two but I also like having an option for more serious tools nearby.

[Tamara]

And I don't argue "just as good", I argue "good enough for the job." If someone can provide something to indicate that after a century of successful use revolvers (or low-cap autoloaders, for thta matter) are suddenly no longer able to the job they have done for the past century, I'm open to it.
Heck, single-action revolvers, many of them cap'n'ball, were good enough to do the job for the century before that. And of course, nobody would claim that single-shot frizzinsparkin' front-stuffers hadn'd done the job for a quarter millennium prior to them.

If you want to argue "good enough for the job because that's what we've been using", that line of reasoning could be extended all the way back to a sharpened chunk of flint, which was keeping guys safe in the Olduvai for a hundred thousand years and is a lot easier to carry in the pocket than a Glock 34, and should be more than adequate for a majority of self-defense scenarios, especially if it's kinda gun-shaped.

[peterb]

Once you've jumped that hurdle and moved into the "unlikely" category of being involved in a private citizen shootout, I think it gets a little silly to start talking about probabilities in terms of firepower, etc.

Agreed. :)

[FotoTomas]

That's exactly the point. He could be either. The fact that there are examples of people who don't need to be shot repeatedly does nothing to disprove the demonstrable fact that there are people who do need to be shot repeatedly, or that there are times when multiple attackers need to be shot.

By your logic, I didn't need a gun yesterday so I won't need one today.

No my logic says I did not need my gun yesterday but I might need one today so best to have one handy in case I do.

Also in ALL of the shootings involving my agency the roundcount was limited and never needed more than 6 or 7 rounds fired. True we might have a terrorist attack tomorrow but in my case tough since we have NO authority to have more serious weapons on hand beyond the issued SIG 229 and 39 rounds of ammo.

Those odds or statistics might be my undoing but then again they are far more prevelent than the high roundcount scenarios. I am still happy with the PM9 or sometimes a 638. Both however have reloads on my person.

[NEPAKevin]

Is there data? Probably not. I don't know anyone who reliably collects information on every single shooting in the country. But I think that's the wrong question to ask on two points.

First -- and this is something we've hashed out here at PF plenty of times in the past -- the distinction between LEO and non-LEO shootings is unfounded. .

If one accepts the amendment that LEO and non-LEO shootings are both relevant to the discussion, then there are numerous cases that were used by departments across the country to justify the switch from revolvers to automatic side arms. I would be surprised if there are not similar cases with civilian shootings where the victims were found with empty revolvers in their dead hands which to my thinking would indicate that capacity at least one factor in their demise. Alternatively, one could argue that the vast majority of people world wide live their lives with out ever touching a gun and that being unarmed is adequate. FWIW, the only case where I can see that a revolver truly has an advantage over an automatic is when mechanical operation is compromised such as when fired from inside a pocket.

[JeffJ]

After 26 pages - this is what I've taken away from this thread

- Most people who carry a revolver do so because they just like it better and are willing to ignore or minimize it's shortcomings in capacity
- In a contact shot situation, a revolver is superior to an automatic
- A revolver is a good choice for those who have a phyisical problem with operating an automatic
- Revolver's make excelllent "woods guns" and are practically required if you are in Alaska
- Able to make reliable multiple shots through pockets or small gunports

Did I miss anything?

[FotoTomas]

You forgot the shooting through a pocket multiple times reliably. :)

[rsa-otc]

Also shooting out of small gunports.

And if you can't find dependable ammo for your auto, revolvers are less ammo sensitive. Although this is less of a problem with today's ammo and guns than it was in the past.

[JeffJ]

And if you can't find dependable ammo for your auto, revolvers are less ammo sensitive. Although this is less of a problem with today's ammo and guns than it was in the past.

Spoken like a true 1911 shooter:D

[NEPAKevin]

A really bizarre event happened recently where an Allentown PD patrolman fired a round and the ejected casing bounced back and landed such that the hammer fall was obstructed by the brass. Won't have that with a round gun.

[JeffJ]

A really bizarre event happened recently where an Allentown PD patrolman fired a round and the ejected casing bounced back and landed such that the hammer fall was obstructed by the brass. Won't have that with a round gun.

Or an SFA gun

[rsa-otc]

Actually my every day duty gun is a wheelie. So I've been watching this thread with interest and at times amusement. :cool:

My IDPA CDP gun is a M&P 45.

[JeffJ]

I don't own a revolver and I've been watching this thread waiting for someone to convince me that I need one. That hasn't happened yet, although the idea of a semi-auto primary with a J-frame in my pocket sounds better and better (I don't currently carry a BUG and would probably go for a little auto so I could carry it in my back pocket - but that is an entirely different thread)

[JodyH]

A really bizarre event happened recently where an Allentown PD patrolman fired a round and the ejected casing bounced back and landed such that the hammer fall was obstructed by the brass. Won't have that with a round gun.
And there are cases where someone grabbed the cylinder preventing a revolver from shooting.
Cases where someone placed their hand between the hammer and firing pin stopping it from firing.
Neither of those can happen with a Glock...

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

[FotoTomas]

I don't own a revolver and I've been watching this thread waiting for someone to convince me that I need one. That hasn't happened yet, although the idea of a semi-auto primary with a J-frame in my pocket sounds better and better (I don't currently carry a BUG and would probably go for a little auto so I could carry it in my back pocket - but that is an entirely different thread)

I have recently been playing with a KelTec P3AT and I have a great back pocket wallet holster for it. Looks like a wallet from the outside, cavalry draw from the right side and it rides sweet.

Another tool in the box to compromise with. :)

[rsa-otc]

Everyone should own a revolver. No really, just knowing how to competently handle the wheel gun is a bonus. :)

But if it's a choice between another gun and training/ammo. Spend the money on training and ammo.

That said, while I have carried a wheel-gun all but 4 years of my career and feel perfectly comfortable doing so in our application; if I were to carry CCW or in another career it would be a higher capacity semi-auto.

[rsa-otc]

And there are cases where someone grabbed the cylinder preventing a revolver from shooting.
Cases where someone placed their hand between the hammer and firing pin stopping it from firing.
Neither of those can happen with a Glock...

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

No just grab the gun moving the slide out of battery and a semi-auto won't fire. :p

[David Armstrong]

Heck, single-action revolvers, many of them cap'n'ball, were good enough to do the job for the century before that. And of course, nobody would claim that single-shot frizzinsparkin' front-stuffers hadn'd done the job for a quarter millennium prior to them.

If you want to argue "good enough for the job because that's what we've been using", that line of reasoning could be extended all the way back to a sharpened chunk of flint, which was keeping guys safe in the Olduvai for a hundred thousand years and is a lot easier to carry in the pocket than a Glock 34, and should be more than adequate for a majority of self-defense scenarios, especially if it's kinda gun-shaped.
Don't have a lot of time before class starts, but in reviewing what had happened here since I got knocked off the air last night this one really caught my eye. So I'll touch on it quickly, then come back later for some other stuff. First, it is a gross misrepresentation of what I have argued. Second, it ignores the fact that unlike cap'n'ball, modern revolvers have operated right along side modern autoladers, so we can see if there is any significant difference in effectiveness in CCW situations. Apparently nobody has been able to show such a difference. And finally, the problem with cap'n'ball is not the platform, it is the process. I would bet that a cap'n'ball revolver would hold it's own rather well with a cap'n'ball front-stuffing autoloader.

[JeffJ]

a cap'n'ball front-stuffing autoloader.

My visully oriented imagination is going through some sort of haywire loop now - thanks:p

[ToddG]

Second, it ignores the fact that unlike cap'n'ball, modern revolvers have operated right along side modern autoladers, so we can see if there is any significant difference in effectiveness in CCW situations.

In what sense? If you mean they're equally safe and sound while out walking about, or equally as scary when pointed at someone who's unwilling to fight in the face of resistance, sure. An airsoft replica would be even lighter, less expensive, require no paperwork to purchase, and could perform those roles, too.

[JeffJ]

I have recently been playing with a KelTec P3AT and I have a great back pocket wallet holster for it. Looks like a wallet from the outside, cavalry draw from the right side and it rides sweet.

Another tool in the box to compromise with. :)

I've been toying with the idea of something similar that also carries a spare Glock mag in my back weak side pocket. My shirt is usually tucked in and while I can handle the primary draw fine from there its a little slower and a spare mag becomes an issue. My thinking with a "wallet gun" would be to have a back up and a spare mag available whether or not my shirt is tucked in and would give me a pistol in the same place that people routinely carry their wallet in a stick-up situation if I don't think I can clear the tucked in shirt and grab my primary fast enough. I've just kinda stalled becuase I don't own a pocket pistol and can't decide whether I want to spring for a small 9mm or just grap a little .380 - so in my indecsion I've done nothing.

[FotoTomas]

In what sense? If you mean they're equally safe and sound while out walking about, or equally as scary when pointed at someone who's unwilling to fight in the face of resistance, sure. An airsoft replica would be even lighter, less expensive, require no paperwork to purchase, and could perform those roles, too.

But if all else failed and you needed it to go bang then the airsoft is out. We are back to packing a "real"
gun of superior or inferior capability. :)

Getting a little silly there boss.

[lcarr]

re: pocket carry

So the justification is that the compromises inherent in choosing a snubbie are worthwhile after you've chosen a compromised carry method? That seems totally backwards to me. Let's not talk about some small difference in draw speed between the snubbie and the semi, let's talk about the huge difference in draw speed between pocket carry and belt carry. You're willing to give up the benefits of belt carry for whatever reason, but then you want to justify a low capacity pistol on the basis of draw speed?

The mentality I keep seeing in this thread is nothing really bad will happen to me if I'm only carrying a snubbie. So basically, it's a talisman not a weapon.

Not all of us are firearms instructors. Some of us work in environments that are so nonpermissive that discovery might mean arrest, loss of livelihood, or the ability to secure future livelihood, all when we have several others dependent upon us. Under such circumstances, concealment is paramount. Pocket carry not only provides utter discretion for such circumstances, it can actually be a faster draw than some other methods of deep concealment, such as belly bands or Thunderwear.

Anyone who says a G26 works just as well as a 640 in conventional slacks makes me think that they haven't actually tried it, at least they haven't practiced a pocket draw in a serious, dedicated way. (I understand that there are certain types of cargo shorts, etc., that might accommodate a G26. I've successfully used a G29 in special slacks, but that's a different argument.)

When under less pressure, I prefer to carry two guns on the belt. However, to argue that there are no--fairly common--circumstances that don't allow a full-size handgun on the belt seems ridonculous.

[David Armstrong]

In what sense? If you mean they're equally safe and sound while out walking about, or equally as scary when pointed at someone who's unwilling to fight in the face of resistance, sure. An airsoft replica would be even lighter, less expensive, require no paperwork to purchase, and could perform those roles, too.
I thought we were talking about in the sense of CCW and self defense. I think that is part of the problem, folks keep trying to discuss all sorts of issues that might be interesting isssues, but they keep avoiding that central premise.

[David Armstrong]

3" Ruger SP101 .357magnum, 5 round capacity, 27oz. weight, 8" OAL
vs.
Glock 32 .357sig, 14 round capacity, 22oz. weight, 7.5" OAL

Go...
:cool:
Thank you, you have proven my point. Changing the gun one wants to compare completely changes the issue. The loaded weight (I assume one would want to carry the gun loaded) BTW is 30 oz.

[Tamara]

I thought we were talking about in the sense of CCW and self defense.

That's exactly what we're talking about. I mean, based on my own experience, an airsoft gun, or one carved out of soap for that matter, will work 66.66% of the time, and the other 33% of the time it could be loaded with blanks.

Come to think of it, my CO2 M&P is a lot lighter than the one on my hip... :p

(re: Frontstuffers and flint axes: Don't you dare try and take my reductio ad absurdum away from me! ;) )


Not all of us are firearms instructors. Some of us work in environments...

This is true, and I sometimes forget that working from home and having my own dress code of mom jeans and untucked chambray shirts gives me a lot of latitude in packing a heater. I never liked the G26 for pocket carry. In jacket or vest pocket I carried a P230 for a few years before going to a 442, and then a 432. I'm seriously considering switching to an XR9S, though. It's flatter and smaller than my 432 and carries seven rounds of 9mm instead of six of .32 Mag...

[Tamara]

Thank you, you have proven my point. Changing the gun one wants to compare completely changes the issue. The loaded weight (I assume one would want to carry the gun loaded) BTW is 30 oz.

Three ounces for nine more rounds? Sold! ;)

[David Armstrong]

re: pocket carry

So the justification is that the compromises inherent in choosing a snubbie are worthwhile after you've chosen a compromised carry method? That seems totally backwards to me. Let's not talk about some small difference in draw speed between the snubbie and the semi, let's talk about the huge difference in draw speed between pocket carry and belt carry. You're willing to give up the benefits of belt carry for whatever reason, but then you want to justify a low capacity pistol on the basis of draw speed?

The mentality I keep seeing in this thread is nothing really bad will happen to me if I'm only carrying a snubbie. So basically, it's a talisman not a weapon.
And what I keep seeing is "stuff that matters on the range must matter in real life." Pocket carry is not a compromised carry method any more than any other carry method is. Speed of draw, like capacity, is only one factor in selecting one's defensive makeup. As for the talisman issue, isn't that what you and others are doing? I have more bullets so I am safer? I find that rather strange, especially given the number of threads and comments about folks who do carry a snub as backup or as a primary at times. Is the snub a talisman for those folks also? Or is it an effective tool that they have chosen after due thought, one they feel will do the job for them when they need it the most?

[David Armstrong]

That's exactly what we're talking about. I mean, based on my own experience, an airsoft gun, or one carved out of soap for that matter, will work 66.66% of the time, and the other 33% of the time it could be loaded with blanks.

Come to think of it, my CO2 M&P is a lot lighter than the one on my hip... :p

(re: Frontstuffers and flint axes: Don't you dare try and take my reductio ad absurdum away from me! ;) )
But that ignores the purpose for carrying CCW, to carry an actual weapon for self defense. If you want to discuss alternatives to fireams and their effectiveness for self defense, I'm all for it, but I think that is a different issue again.


This is true, and I sometimes forget that working from home and having my own dress code of mom jeans and untucked chambray shirts gives me a lot of latitude in packing a heater. I never liked the G26 for pocket carry. In jacket or vest pocket I carried a P230 for a few years before going to a 442, and then a 432. I'm seriously considering switching to an XR9S, though. It's flatter and smaller than my 432 and carries seven rounds of 9mm instead of six of .32 Mag...
I'm sorry, but if I have understood it right only having 7 rounds of 9mm leaves you effectively disarmed because the capacity is too low for any serious social work. ;)

[Tamara]

I have more bullets so I am safer?

Safer? No, just have less chance of running out of bullets, that's all.

And of course it's a compromise between, say, a derringer and a 240 Bravo; but given the space and weight requirements on my belt, and a service caliber, I'm going to go for the more BBs. I fail to find what's so strange about that. A K-frame, 1911, and $PLASTIC_COMMODITY_PISTOL all take up about the same space on my belt. Why shouldn't I fill that space with as much ammunition as possible, given that there's no space or weight penalty for doing so?

[Tamara]

I'm sorry, but if I have understood it right only having 7 rounds of 9mm leaves you effectively disarmed because the capacity is too low for any serious social work. ;)
No, it's cool. Maybe you haven't understood it?

1) It leaves me less "disarmed" than six bullets of a less potent caliber.

2) It's intended as a backup to a larger pistol, or for use in (as referenced above) non-permissive environments. If there is any choice at all, it'll be a backup to a belt gun with a lot of BBs.

Further, "having ballistic solutions to a smaller set of problems" != "disarmed".

[David Armstrong]

That does seem to be where this headed. We've already had the small gun vs. large gun disussion. The OP was asking about a "primary" which to me is a belt mounted G19 or larger size weapon - but probably isn't to everybody.
Right. Personally I think it may be that is while there is a stretch to say snubs are no good for CCW/self defense, trying to make an argument that carrying a K or L-frame .357 Magnum, or even an 8-round N-frame won't work for self defense is so obviously ludicrous that most immediately recognize it as a losing proposition.

[David Armstrong]

Safer? No, just have less chance of running out of bullets, that's all.
Which isn't that much of a worry, especially given the concept of reloading the firearm.

And of course it's a compromise between, say, a derringer and a 240 Bravo; but given the space and weight requirements on my belt, and a service caliber, I'm going to go for the more BBs. I fail to find what's so strange about that. A K-frame, 1911, and $PLASTIC_COMMODITY_PISTOL all take up about the same space on my belt. Why shouldn't I fill that space with as much ammunition as possible, given that there's no space or weight penalty for doing so?
Again, just to make sure we are all clear, I'm (and nobody else, AFAIK) not arguing it is strange to want to carry lots of bullets, or that one should not do so. My position is that a revolver works just fine for CCW/self defense purposes. It's like the old car analogy. You might get better mileage or built-in GPS with the new Camry, but the 2005 Taurus will still work just fine for driving around town and getting groceries.

No, it's cool. Maybe you haven't understood it?
I understand it fine. Maybe you missed the little "winky" face at the end, which I intended to represent a bit of humorous sarcasm on my part.

[David Armstrong]

This reminds me of the "CSI effect" that prosecutors see all the time these days.

Is there data? Probably not. I don't know anyone who reliably collects information on every single shooting in the country. But I think that's the wrong question to ask on two points.

First -- and this is something we've hashed out here at PF plenty of times in the past -- the distinction between LEO and non-LEO shootings is unfounded. Violent criminals are violent criminals. They don't become more bullet resistant just because the guy shooting at them wears a badge. The rate of incidence for LEO shootings may be higher, but once someone has decided he's going to face your loaded gun, he's the same guy with the same anatomy and mindset regardless of whether you're carrying a snubbie or a G21.
The problem with that reasoning, as I have pointed out, is that while the BG remains the same the role of the GG changes and that can have quite an effect. The LEO has to continue the fight and take the BG into custody. Lots of BGs fight rather hard to avoid that. The non-LEO just has to convince the BG that he should go bother somebody else.

Second, "data" shouldn't be used as a shield against simple common reason. Do we know there are plenty of situations in which a Good Guy had to shoot a Bad Guy more than five or six times to win the fight? Yes. There you go.
That works both ways, doesn't it? Do we know that there are plenty of situations where the revolver has been successful in winning the fight? Yes. Since there are plenty of situations where the revolver has been successful, even in cases where the BG had to be shot more than 5 or 6 times, it would seem that those arguing it won't be enough should have some obligation to support that. Equally important, IMO, is that they need to be able to show that an auto would have succeeded where the revolver failed.


If you were simply playing the odds, you wouldn't need to carry a gun in the first place.
We are all playing the odds. Some interpret those odds differently.

from different post...
Not being condescending, just honest. The first line I quoted above is no different than "I don't have to put on my seatbelt, I'm just driving a few blocks to the store." You have no idea what situation you may face whether you're on your way home from work or at the mall with the kids. Odds are you'll never need any kind of gun whatsoever. Once you've jumped that hurdle and moved into the "unlikely" category of being involved in a private citizen shootout, I think it gets a little silly to start talking about probabilities in terms of firepower, etc.
But we all do that. If you knew that the one incident that you needed to use your gun to save your life would require 2 more rounds than it currently carries, you would probably change guns. But you don't know that, so you operate on what you feel the probabilites are for you.

[ford.304]

Right. Personally I think it may be that is while there is a stretch to say snubs are no good for CCW/self defense, trying to make an argument that carrying a K or L-frame .357 Magnum, or even an 8-round N-frame is so obviously ludicrous that most immediately recognize it as a losing proposition.

Ludicrous as charged. I carry a 4" GP100. I'm not going to try to defend it as a good choice, but it was the first gun I bought, I'm too attached to it to sell it, and I haven't convinced my wife to let me spend half a grand on another pistol (plus mags and holsters) to get something plastic and higher capacity.

[David Armstrong]

from foto...
I will never deny or try to impune the fact that in modern combat the semi automatic pistol has far more improvements and benefits than the revolver. The point however is the revolver is still much better than most give it credit for and in todays world of concealed carry and pistol combat it still exceeds the requirements of most needs and exceeds them well. Just because the pistol exceeds them better does not make the revolver a poor choice
QFT. I'm not sure why anyone would even attemp to argue it. The revolver has been shown to hold its own at things like NTI, it is close enough to an auto in IDPA that they only penalize it about 5 seconds over 90 rounds, and it has both a recent and a current history of success in self defense situations.

[JodyH]

Willfully obtuse.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

[David Armstrong]

Not all of us are firearms instructors. Some of us work in environments that are so nonpermissive that discovery might mean arrest, loss of livelihood, or the ability to secure future livelihood, all when we have several others dependent upon us. Under such circumstances, concealment is paramount. Pocket carry not only provides utter discretion for such circumstances, it can actually be a faster draw than some other methods of deep concealment, such as belly bands or Thunderwear.

Anyone who says a G26 works just as well as a 640 in conventional slacks makes me think that they haven't actually tried it, at least they haven't practiced a pocket draw in a serious, dedicated way. (I understand that there are certain types of cargo shorts, etc., that might accommodate a G26. I've successfully used a G29 in special slacks, but that's a different argument.)

When under less pressure, I prefer to carry two guns on the belt. However, to argue that there are no--fairly common--circumstances that don't allow a full-size handgun on the belt seems ridonculous.

Strong agreement, Lincoln. Currently I'm in an environment where ANY carry at the waist would cause potential discovery and severe repercussions. So for me it is carry a larger gun off-body or smaller gun in the pocket.

[FotoTomas]

This might be an oversimplification but it seems to me the debate is between those that are worried about when the SHTF and those that worry about the TEOTWAWKI worst case scenario. A revolver is aok for SHTF but maybe not the best option for TEOTWAWKI. :) Did I get it right?

[Mitchell, Esq.]

People are mistaking making a willfull choice for a choice imposed by constraints you have no control over.

Work environment, finances, relationship issues.

They all play a role in what we carry.

I stopped carrying a Glock 19 on dates because I didn't want the girl I was going out with to get freaked out if clothing came off. (I later found her getting turned on by it and being grabby, so i started carrying it again...didn't work out. I think...she says we're just friends....please kill me...)

Anyway...please be honest with yourself. If you are carrying a small, hard shoot handgun with a long/stiff trigger and a manual dexterity intensive reload because it's able the hide better than another option, then you are carrying it because of outside constraints, not because it's a better gun.

[ToddG]

The problem with that reasoning, as I have pointed out, is that while the BG remains the same the role of the GG changes and that can have quite an effect. The LEO has to continue the fight and take the BG into custody. Lots of BGs fight rather hard to avoid that. The non-LEO just has to convince the BG that he should go bother somebody else.

This remains the crux of our disagreements. You continue to hypothesize nothing but quasi-compliant bad guys who will surrender, run away, or maybe die of surprise (?) when confronted by an armed citizen. I, on the other hand, hypothesize the kind of cuckoo that William Aprill talks about in his "violent criminal actors" seminar.

The j and the G17 as both capable of handling your version. The G17 is far better suited for mine.

I guess I just don't see the point in choosing the half measure. Again, if you really believe most bad guys won't need to be shot and you're happy playing the odds, why carry at all?


That works both ways, doesn't it? Do we know that there are plenty of situations where the revolver has been successful in winning the fight? Yes.

David, I respect you far too much to believe you thought that through.

"People have survived car wrecks without seatbelts, so a car without seatbelts is adequate."

:thumbdown:


Since there are plenty of situations where the revolver has been successful, even in cases where the BG had to be shot more than 5 or 6 times, it would seem that those arguing it won't be enough should have some obligation to support that. Equally important, IMO, is that they need to be able to show that an auto would have succeeded where the revolver failed.

Ummm... examples of revolvers doing the job when more than six were necessary, please?

As I said in a previous thread, your logic here is flawed. I don't need to slow an instance where a revolver failed. I only need to show an instance in which a revolver wouldn't have been enough. And you conceded you were aware of instances where more shots were needed than what a typical revolver carries on board.


We are all playing the odds. Some interpret those odds differently.

Obviously. :cool:

[ToddG]

[FONT=Garamond][SIZE=4]Not all of us are firearms instructors. Some of us work in environments that are so nonpermissive that discovery might mean arrest, loss of livelihood, or the ability to secure future livelihood, all when we have several others dependent upon us. Under such circumstances, concealment is paramount. Pocket carry not only provides utter discretion for such circumstances, it can actually be a faster draw than some other methods of deep concealment, such as belly bands or Thunderwear.

First, please don't try to turn my earlier posts into something they're not. I never said that anyone, anytime, under any circumstance could carry a full size pistol. There are times when the only gun in carrying is an LCP. The difference is that I don't pretend it's a good choice. It's simply the only option at the time.

Furthermore, contrary to your belief, there are in fact times where I need to carry more discretely than on the belt. Unlike you, I've found SmartCarry very viable with little loss in speed, accessibility by either left or right hand, and of course the ability to carry substantially more gun...

[DanH]

I'm not sure I understand why this argument is still going after all this time, and seemingly only getting more heated. Any time you have a decision in which multiple factors influence a person's reasoning, different people will reach different conclusions. It doesn't necessarily mean that one or the other is wrong, merely that they assign different weights to the different factors. Some people carry an auto because it carries more ammunition, or they assign greater weight to that factor. Some carry a revolver because they believe it to be better for the factors they believe to be more important.

Or am I out of place to be suggesting that maybe stepping back and realizing that the simple act of carrying places everyone involved in this discussion on the same side? i.e. the side of people who have taken the responsibility for their safety upon themselves, instead of leaving that responsibility with others.

Or maybe because I haven't actually started carrying yet, and don't have a dog in this fight, it seems like much ado about nothing to me. I like revolvers because I think they are beautiful works of engineering art, and I like Glocks for the same reason.

[TGS]

The difference is that I don't pretend it's a good choice. It's simply the only option at the time.


You just hit something big, Todd.

Not saying that anyone in this thread is guilty (I didn't read the thread entirely), but LOTS of gun owners make this mistake.

[David Armstrong]

Ludicrous as charged. I carry a 4" GP100. I'm not going to try to defend it as a good choice, but it was the first gun I bought, I'm too attached to it to sell it, and I haven't convinced my wife to let me spend half a grand on another pistol (plus mags and holsters) to get something plastic and higher capacity.
Soory, ford, mised a key phrase in the cut and paste. It should have read even an 8-round N-frame won't work for self defense is so obviously ludicrous

Noted and corrected.

[David Armstrong]

This might be an oversimplification but it seems to me the debate is between those that are worried about when the SHTF and those that worry about the TEOTWAWKI worst case scenario. A revolver is aok for SHTF but maybe not the best option for TEOTWAWKI. :) Did I get it right?
Could be, although I think you can make a really good argument for a revolver for TEOTWAWKI based on the ammo issue.

[Tamara]

I'm not sure I understand why this argument is still going after all this time, and seemingly only getting more heated.

I don't think it's all that heated? :confused:

It strikes me as pretty abstract, and I'm generally enjoying it. Hopefully there's assumption-checking going on, and I say this as someone who still carries a resolver (or two) as BUGs... :o

[David Armstrong]

People are mistaking making a willfull choice for a choice imposed by constraints you have no control over.

Work environment, finances, relationship issues.

They all play a role in what we carry.

I stopped carrying a Glock 19 on dates because I didn't want the girl I was going out with to get freaked out if clothing came off. (I later found her getting turned on by it and being grabby, so i started carrying it again...didn't work out. I think...she says we're just friends....please kill me...)

Anyway...please be honest with yourself. If you are carrying a small, hard shoot handgun with a long/stiff trigger and a manual dexterity intensive reload because it's able the hide better than another option, then you are carrying it because of outside constraints, not because it's a better gun.
I'm not sure why so many people feel the revolver is so hard to shoot and reload. It is not.

[Tamara]

Could be, although I think you can make a really good argument for a revolver for TEOTWAWKI based on the ammo issue.

If mushroom clouds sprouted all over the country and the dead rose from the earth in search of human brains, I'd be handing out some of my plentiful supply of .38/.357 revolvers to the neighbors, on the assumption that they're still the easiest thing to teach a total handgun novice to load, unload, and operate in ten minutes without putting a bullet in their foot.

If somebody doesn't want a gun, but would rather have a ballistic lucky rabbit's foot to keep in the sock drawer Until That Day, the Model 64 is still hard to beat...

[Tamara]

I'm not sure why so many people feel the revolver is so hard to shoot and reload. It is not.
No, it's not. It's just hard to shoot fast and accurately and reload quickly and without fumbling, at least vis a vis the autochucker. :)

[David Armstrong]

This remains the crux of our disagreements. You continue to hypothesize nothing but quasi-compliant bad guys who will surrender, run away, or maybe die of surprise (?) when confronted by an armed citizen. I, on the other hand, hypothesize the kind of cuckoo that William Aprill talks about in his "violent criminal actors" seminar.
No, I tend to hypothesize what reams of data show....that most BGs flee when confronted with a gun, that over and over we find single digits handles the CCW event, that few BGs push their attack when shot, and so on.


The j and the G17 as both capable of handling your version. The G17 is far better suited for mine.
No disagreement. But there is far more to the CCW equation than just the gunfight, in particular the far outside the realm of probability gunfight.


I guess I just don't see the point in choosing the half measure. Again, if you really believe most bad guys won't need to be shot and you're happy playing the odds, why carry at all?
Because some might need it. The odds of them needing more than I have are probably similar to the odds of winning the lottery twice in two different states in the same two weeks. Can it happen? Sure, but it is a poor way to plan for retirement. As for half measure, I might suggest that ANY compromise point can be considered a half measure based on any other strictly arbitrary and made-up basis.




David, I respect you far too much to believe you thought that through.

"People have survived car wrecks without seatbelts, so a car without seatbelts is adequate."

:thumbdown:
I find it to be just about as poor as the "some fights need more than 6 rounds" argument. As discussed earlier, the fact that I can come up with a shooting where the BG needed more than 15 rounds does not mean the G19 is not a good CCW weapon.


Ummm... examples of revolvers doing the job when more than six were necessary, please?
Really? After a century of gunfights with revolvers you want me to find one where the officer reloaded to finish the job?


As I said in a previous thread, your logic here is flawed. I don't need to slow an instance where a revolver failed. I only need to show an instance in which a revolver wouldn't have been enough. And you conceded you were aware of instances where more shots were needed than what a typical revolver carries on board.
No, you only get to do that if you ignore the fact that guns can be reloaded. Showing an instance where more than 6 rounds were needed no more indicts the revolver than showing incidents where more than 15 rounds were needed indicts the G19.

[JodyH]

I'm not sure why so many people feel the revolver is so hard to shoot and reload. It is not.
In a vacuum the revolver isn't hard to shoot or reload.
Head to head against a semi-auto the revolver loses every time when you total up all manipulations related to defensive handgun use.

btw: I noticed you completely missed the crux of my Glock 32 vs. Ruger SP101 comparison. IDENTICAL guns in size, weight and caliber, yet the pistol has a 9 round capacity advantage. That's over twice the round count with ZERO decrease in performance or concealability. What possible argument can you make that the Ruger would be the superior (or even a comparable) choice?

[NickA]

as someone who still carries a resolver (or two) as BUGs... :o
I see what you (probably unintentionally) did there :)
Sorry, couldn't resist.


Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[Al T.]

Like Tam, I'm enjoying the debate. I have read all the posts. :)

To me, it's a lot like the AK vrs AR debates. IMHO, the AK is right there with the AR for the first 30 rounds and 200ish yards, then the AR pulls ahead.

My J frame is right there with my G17 for the first five shots and 10ish yards, the the G17 pulls ahead. :eek:

How you define your threat should dictate your gear or as Pat Rogers likes to say, mission drives the gear train. Deciding to carry a certain piece of gear and then defining your threat is, IMHO, cart then horse.

[David Armstrong]

I'm not sure I understand why this argument is still going after all this time, and seemingly only getting more heated. Any time you have a decision in which multiple factors influence a person's reasoning, different people will reach different conclusions. It doesn't necessarily mean that one or the other is wrong, merely that they assign different weights to the different factors. Some people carry an auto because it carries more ammunition, or they assign greater weight to that factor. Some carry a revolver because they believe it to be better for the factors they believe to be more important.

Or am I out of place to be suggesting that maybe stepping back and realizing that the simple act of carrying places everyone involved in this discussion on the same side? i.e. the side of people who have taken the responsibility for their safety upon themselves, instead of leaving that responsibility with others.

Or maybe because I haven't actually started carrying yet, and don't have a dog in this fight, it seems like much ado about nothing to me. I like revolvers because I think they are beautiful works of engineering art, and I like Glocks for the same reason.

I think you are right, it is much ado about nothing, but that is the nature of many internet discussions and firearm discussions. When it becomes a firearms discussion on the internet it probably gets amplified a degree or two. However I would say that the argument has remained remarkably calm and civilized, expecially given the number of posts. Here we are close to #300, and nobody has resorted to the "Jane, you ignorant slut" level. Says a lot for the overall quality of discussion on this forum.

[David Armstrong]

No, it's not. It's just hard to shoot fast and accurately and reload quickly and without fumbling, at least vis a vis the autochucker. :)
The key is the first sentence, "No, it is not." The second sentence is back to a comparison issue rather than a performance issue, and in that I'm not sure the revolver gives up much of anything to the autoloader regarding shooting fast and accurately.

[David Armstrong]

In a vacuum the revolver isn't hard to shoot or reload.
Head to head against a semi-auto the revolver loses every time when you total up all manipulations related to defensive handgun use.

btw: I noticed you completely missed the crux of my Glock 32 vs. Ruger SP101 comparison. IDENTICAL guns in size, weight and caliber, yet the pistol has a 9 round capacity advantage. That's over twice the round count with ZERO decrease in performance or concealability. What possible argument can you make that the Ruger would be the superior (or even a comparable) choice?
The issue isn't a head to head comparison, but even if it were I'd question the idea that capacity should be the only measure.
I don't think I've ever argued that the Ruger would be superior or even comparable. In fact, I would not argue that. I would argue the Ruger is different. And size, weight, and caliber does not make guns identical. Firearms are a combination of factors, and you can cherrypick whatever variables you want to meet your argument. Capacity is only an advantage if it needs to be used.

[Tamara]

I'm not sure the revolver gives up much of anything to the autoloader regarding shooting fast and accurately.
Maybe for you or Jerry Miculek it doesn't, but for me it does. I guess I just need to practice more. :o


Capacity is only an advantage if it needs to be used.
...and yet unused capacity is never a disadvantage, all other factors being equal.

[JodyH]

The issue isn't a head to head comparison, but even if it were I'd question the idea that capacity should be the only measure.
I don't think I've ever argued that the Ruger would be superior or even comparable. In fact, I would not argue that. I would argue the Ruger is different. And size, weight, and caliber does not make guns identical. Firearms are a combination of factors, and you can cherrypick whatever variables you want to meet your argument. Capacity is only an advantage if it needs to be used.
Round and round you go, without saying anything.

[FotoTomas]

Round and round you go, without saying anything.

He said a lot. They are different with advantages unique to each model. They both can solve a problem if wielded well. Your perception of which advantages are more important to you will guide your choice. Same for me.

[TGS]

The issue isn't a head to head comparison, but even if it were I'd question the idea that capacity should be the only measure.
I don't think I've ever argued that the Ruger would be superior or even comparable. In fact, I would not argue that. I would argue the Ruger is different. And size, weight, and caliber does not make guns identical. Firearms are a combination of factors, and you can cherrypick whatever variables you want to meet your argument. Capacity is only an advantage if it needs to be used.

David,

Forgive me if you already wrote this. I obviously missed it if so...

What actual features do you see a revolver as being an advantage to cherry-pick over an auto?

The only one I can think of is the ability to fire/cycle from inside the pocket. Just like you were saying, not a concern for everyone, but can be cherry-picked and used if you so desire. Other than that, I can't really think of what a revolver offers that a quality autoloader doesn't.

[HeadHunter]

I carried my Model 36 to Rosie's funeral service today.

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s91/HeadHunter_album/Snubs/100_0998.jpg

[LHS]

I think we all can agree that SOME revolvers have advantages over similarly-sized autos in SOME situations, but they are the exception rather than the rule. I can't think of any reason to carry a 4" K-frame over a G19, but I can think of a reason to carry a 642 over a LCP. That said, I'd rather have the G19 than any of them, if the situation allows for it. Most of my situations allow for it, as I tailor my clothing choices to my carry guns. I think a 642 is an excellent backup or secondary weapon, but the few times I've had to carry it as a primary, it was due to NPE and I was not happy with it.

As to the capacity debate, I think my experience is pertinent. I started carrying during the AWB, and as a poor college student, I couldn't afford expensive pre-ban hi-caps. So, my choices came down to 8+1 rounds of .45ACP in my 1911, or 10+1 rounds of 9mm in my Beretta. 95% of the time, I chose the 1911, because I had more training time on it, it carried flatter, and I felt that even with the advances in ballistic technology, the .45 had a slight edge on the 9mm that justified a small reduction in capacity. I also found that I was practicing more and more with the Beretta because 9mm ammo was so much cheaper, and eventually I got to the point that I could shoot the Beretta faster than the 1911 without giving up any accuracy. When the ban was lifted and I could afford 15-round magazines, the 1911 was honorably retired and I have carried the Beretta pretty much exclusively ever since. The main reasons I did so were the doubled capacity and the softer recoil impulse, at the cost of having to deal with that DA first shot. By that time I had become pretty well convinced that any advantage the .45 had over the 9mm in terms of mythical 'stopping power' was marginal at best, and easily overshadowed by the controllability and additional capacity of the 9mm.

The best-shooting revolver I've used was a S&W Model 10-8, with a bull barrel and a DAO conversion. That thing pointed well, ran smoothly, and just felt like it belonged in a gunfighter's hand. But you know what? I'd never carry it as long as I had the 1911 or Beretta, for the simple fact that both of those other guns carried more bullets and were faster to reload. It's one thing to weigh competing advantages vs disadvantages, but I saw no advantage in the wheelgun whatsoever as compared to my autoloaders. My autos were about the same size and weight, were just as accurate if not moreso given the better triggers, and held a lot more bullets.

Now, when you get into pocket guns, you have a specialized set of circumstances that changes the calculus a bit. The J-frame's lumpy frame tends to print less in my pants pocket, and autoloaders don't work well when fired from inside a pocket. In that specific scenario, taken in combination with the fact that I had a primary pistol on me for general use, the advantages of the wheelgun overcame its crappy sights, short barrel, long trigger and lack of capacity. It became a specialized tool, rather than a general SD weapon, and in that role it shines. But I would not carry it as a primary unless conditions forced me to do so.

[peterb]

So if tomorrow Glock introduced a 30-round pistol that was the same size and weight as a G19, would the G19 suddenly become inadequate or obsolete?



If I read David correctly, he's not arguing that a revolver is "better" -- he's saying that for the vast majority of civilian self-defense incidents, the difference doesn't matter.

And that's hard to take. We're heavily invested in believing that all this matters-- the right gun, the right training, the right ammunition and gear. So when someone points out that a lot of incidents are successfully resolved by an untrained person with an H&R .32, it can be hard to swallow.

Those things we love to discuss -- shooting 6" vs. 3" groups at 25 yards, shaving 0.1 seconds off a reload, Glock vs. HK -- what are the odds that those things will affect the outcome of an encounter? I know -- "It's not the odds, it's the stakes." But at some point you must say "that's good enough" -- both skill and equipment -- or you'd never walk out your door. What data, what evidence do you use to decide that your standard for "good enough" makes perfect sense, but that somebody else's is wrong?

[Tamara]

Just throwing this out there as a size comparison for those following the thread who haven't had a chance to get hands-on with some of the smaller nines out there today.

Clockwise from top left: 6 rounds of .32 H&R Mag, 6+1 of 9x19, 7+1 of 9x19, 17+1 of 9x19.

The Rohrbaugh is kinda flinch-inducing, but the 342 is no pussycat with hot 100gr SJHPs, either. The Boberg is surprisingly mild-shooting; if it weren't for the annoyance of the frequent mag changes, you could take a two-day course with this thing. Also, it's ammo-sensitive and slow to reload due to the lack of hold-open after the last shot, but so's a scandium .357 Mag J-frame...

682

[Tamara]

So if tomorrow Glock introduced a 30-round pistol that was the same size and weight as a G19, would the G19 suddenly become inadequate or obsolete?

No, but the 30-round pistol would be a better choice since it would be able to solve a wider range of problems. If somebody were to continue to carry the 19 because they were comfortable with it, or they thought it would be good enough, that would be a fair assessment. If they were to carry it saying it was "worse for some things but better for others" than the new thirty-rounder, then they would be kidding themselves. ;)

[LHS]

So if tomorrow Glock introduced a 30-round pistol that was the same size and weight as a G19, would the G19 suddenly become inadequate or obsolete?



If I read David correctly, he's not arguing that a revolver is "better" -- he's saying that for the vast majority of civilian self-defense incidents, the difference doesn't matter.

And that's hard to take. We're heavily invested in believing that all this matters-- the right gun, the right training, the right ammunition and gear. So when someone points out that a lot of incidents are successfully resolved by an untrained person with an H&R .32, it can be hard to swallow.

Those things we love to discuss -- shooting 6" vs. 3" groups at 25 yards, shaving 0.1 seconds off a reload, Glock vs. HK -- what are the odds that those things will affect the outcome of an encounter? I know -- "It's not the odds, it's the stakes." But at some point you must say "that's good enough" -- both skill and equipment -- or you'd never walk out your door. What data, what evidence do you use to decide that your standard for "good enough" makes perfect sense, but that somebody else's is wrong?

But if you have two pieces of equipment, one of which is better in some respects but no worse in any respects, then does it make sense to carry the inferior piece of equipment when the superior one is available, just because the inferior one will be 'adequate' for 'most' situations? What does one gain from this? What benefit accrues from using the inferior piece of gear?

[ford.304]

I think there's a few questions at the core of this.

#1 is at the core of all self-defense preparedness - how should we interpret statistics? What is the correct threshold of risk we should use when evaluating choices?

Most of us will never need a gun. Most of the people who do need a gun could get by with an airsoft replica. Most of the people who couldn't get by with that will need fewer than 6 rounds. Many of the people who need more than 6 rounds can still probably get by without carrying a carbine and a vest full of armored plates around with them everywhere.

Given that we've decided that the last one of those is impractical outside of Afghanistan, and the first two aren't sure enough bets to be worth going unarmed.... what is the relative increased benefit from going between the "reasonable" options? Are we carrying a pistol because a 1:1,000 chance is too high, but a 1:1,000,000 chance is too low, or because it's the "sweet spot" in terms of additional protection relative to life impact?

Assuming we can dress around the gun, and given the reliability of a modern full-sized or compact 9mm (I am curious what Todd's opinion on this could have been back in the days when your semi-auto options were a 1911 or a Hi-Power, given his seeming dislike for both), there seems to be no disadvantage to carrying a gun that can hold more than 6 rounds, even *if* the practical likelihood of exercising that advantage is statistically small. So, win for the semi-auto... although, again, it's kind of hard to quantify how *big* of a win, given that we don't have a reliable judgment on how to interpret our expected need.

#2 is the degree to which we should compromise in our gun choice regarding our lifestyle. Obviously an LCP is not as good as a G19 - but wearing a vest and an M4 over your shoulder would be better than either of those, and we consider that an unreasonable compromise.

There are many jobs and places where the only good way to conceal a G26, as far as I can tell, is AIWB or thunderwear or something similar. Especially given the *huge* safety disclaimer that everyone here gives regarding self-inflicted wounds and AIWB, especially with a gadgetless glock... it seems that this may not be a reasonable compromise for everyone.

If we have made that choice, that our lifestyle is more important than whatever % chance we think we have of running into a problem that 5-7 rounds can't solve, rather than comparing a K-Frame to a G19, we're looking at a LCP and an LCR (or equivalent). In which case the increased reliability of the revolver (or is someone finally making pocket semi-autos that don't suck?), and the decrease in difference of the problem-solving ability of the capacity (from 27/6 to 7/5), seems like it could change the calculation significantly. But again, before we can even start this line of argument, we have to have agreed that it is a reasonable compromise to pick your gun around your dress, and not the other way around.

[NEPAKevin]

I'm not sure I understand why this argument is still going after all this time, and seemingly only getting more heated.

This may be over analyzing, but I suspect that the debate is not just about equipment but also about effectively belief systems. When one makes what often is a very personal choice regarding something as potentially serious as how one protects one self, it should not be surprising that he may feel obligated to defend that choice when someone else questions his decision and its inherent logic. What is undoubtedly frustrating is the situation where one makes compromises, particularly when one's situation limits choices, and then is told that his belief that heis safe in false. OTOH, some people just like to argue.

[TGS]

I think there's a few questions at the core of this.

#1 is at the core of all self-defense preparedness - how should we interpret statistics? What is the correct threshold of risk we should use when evaluating choices?

Most of us will never need a gun. Most of the people who do need a gun could get by with an airsoft replica. Most of the people who couldn't get by with that will need fewer than 6 rounds. Many of the people who need more than 6 rounds can still probably get by without carrying a carbine and a vest full of armored plates around with them everywhere.

Given that we've decided that the last one of those is impractical outside of Afghanistan, and the first two aren't sure enough bets to be worth going unarmed.... what is the relative increased benefit from going between the "reasonable" options? Are we carrying a pistol because a 1:1,000 chance is too high, but a 1:1,000,000 chance is too low, or because it's the "sweet spot" in terms of additional protection relative to life impact?

Assuming we can dress around the gun, and given the reliability of a modern full-sized or compact 9mm (I am curious what Todd's opinion on this could have been back in the days when your semi-auto options were a 1911 or a Hi-Power, given his seeming dislike for both), there seems to be no disadvantage to carrying a gun that can hold more than 6 rounds, even *if* the practical likelihood of exercising that advantage is statistically small. So, win for the semi-auto... although, again, it's kind of hard to quantify how *big* of a win, given that we don't have a reliable judgment on how to interpret our expected need.

#2 is the degree to which we should compromise in our gun choice regarding our lifestyle. Obviously an LCP is not as good as a G19 - but wearing a vest and an M4 over your shoulder would be better than either of those, and we consider that an unreasonable compromise.

There are many jobs and places where the only good way to conceal a G26, as far as I can tell, is AIWB or thunderwear or something similar. Especially given the *huge* safety disclaimer that everyone here gives regarding self-inflicted wounds and AIWB, especially with a gadgetless glock... it seems that this may not be a reasonable compromise for everyone.

If we have made that choice, that our lifestyle is more important than whatever % chance we think we have of running into a problem that 5-7 rounds can't solve, rather than comparing a K-Frame to a G19, we're looking at a LCP and an LCR (or equivalent). In which case the increased reliability of the revolver (or is someone finally making pocket semi-autos that don't suck?), and the decrease in difference of the problem-solving ability of the capacity (from 27/6 to 7/5), seems like it could change the calculation significantly. But again, before we can even start this line of argument, we have to have agreed that it is a reasonable compromise to pick your gun around your dress, and not the other way around.

This:


I never said that anyone, anytime, under any circumstance could carry a full size pistol. There are times when the only gun in carrying is an LCP. The difference is that I don't pretend it's a good choice. It's simply the only option at the time.


Much simpler. :D

[David Armstrong]

Maybe for you or Jerry Miculek it doesn't, but for me it does. I guess I just need to practice more. :o


...and yet unused capacity is never a disadvantage, all other factors being equal.
But all other factors are not equal. That is the key to so much of this. It's a "total package" deal, and really needs to be looked at with all the variables and all the differences rather than focusing on a single variable that seems to be of limited use.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

So if tomorrow Glock introduced a 30-round pistol that was the same size and weight as a G19, would the G19 suddenly become inadequate or obsolete?



No...because the new Glock offering likely wouldn't work...

[David Armstrong]

Round and round you go, without saying anything.
Perhaps the issue is not what I am saying but is with what you are hearing? Firearms are different. You can cherrypick pretty much any two firearms for comparision to prove pretty much any point by cherrypicking just a few variables to focus on.

[Tamara]

No...because the new Glock offering likely wouldn't work...

/thread

[peterb]

I carry a 2-A:10-B:C fire extinguisher in my car.
Anyone who carries a 1-A:5-B:C fire extinguisher is woefully unprepared. :)

[Tamara]

I carry a 2-A:10-B:C fire extinguisher in my car.
Anyone who carries a 1-A:5-B:C fire extinguisher is woefully unprepared. :)
Your use of "woefully unprepared" here is as interesting as David's "effectively disarmed" line a few posts back.

When I'm pedaling down the Monon Trail with a 6-shot J-frame in my fanny pack, I do not feel like I am "woefully unprepared" or "effectively disarmed".

However, I also do not attempt to claim that I am "just as well armed and equally prepared for any eventuality, only differently!" as I am when that J-frame is serving as a BUG to a duty-size pistol.

[David Armstrong]

David,

Forgive me if you already wrote this. I obviously missed it if so...

What actual features do you see a revolver as being an advantage to cherry-pick over an auto?

The only one I can think of is the ability to fire/cycle from inside the pocket. Just like you were saying, not a concern for everyone, but can be cherry-picked and used if you so desire. Other than that, I can't really think of what a revolver offers that a quality autoloader doesn't.
My point there was that I could significantly change the comparison by choosing a 2" Mdl 12 S&W versus a Glock G36, or a versus5 verus a Walther PP, for example. When discussing a broad issue, such as revolver versus auto, to pick 2 specific firearms with very different roles, out of the hundreds available for comparison, strikes me as disingenuousngenous.

As for advantages, again I prefer not to discuss these things in terms of advantages versus disadvantages. I look at differences, as whether a difference is an advantage or disadvantage is very subjective depending on the person and the situation. stackede stakced high capacity magazine may be an advantage to one, but the size and weight may then be uncomfortable and hard to hold for another. So for one pecapacitye capcity is an advantage, but the other person may be better served with a single-stack, or a revolver.

[David Armstrong]

So if tomorrow Glock introduced a 30-round pistol that was the same size and weight as a G19, would the G19 suddenly become inadequate or obsolete?



If I read David correctly, he's not arguing that a revolver is "better" -- he's saying that for the vast majority of civilian self-defense incidents, the difference doesn't matter.

And that's hard to take. We're heavily invested in believing that all this matters-- the right gun, the right training, the right ammunition and gear. So when someone points out that a lot of incidents are successfully resolved by an untrained person with an H&R .32, it can be hard to swallow.

Those things we love to discuss -- shooting 6" vs. 3" groups at 25 yards, shaving 0.1 seconds off a reload, Glock vs. HK -- what are the odds that those things will affect the outcome of an encounter? I know -- "It's not the odds, it's the stakes." But at some point you must say "that's good enough" -- both skill and equipment -- or you'd never walk out your door. What data, what evidence do you use to decide that your standard for "good enough" makes perfect sense, but that somebody else's is wrong?
Thanks, peter, that is an excellent summation of the issue, IMO.

[ford.304]

This:



Much simpler. :D

Simpler, yes, but it's built on a laundry list of assumptions that may or may not be shared (or known by everyone). ;-)

I guess, my thought is, it seems to hinge on the threshold we are using to go from "best choice available" to "a good choice"? There's a whole host of rules and logic and gut statistical evaluation that make the LCP functional but sub par, the G19 logical, but the M4 a little nutty -- that pick what that compromise point is. Because they are all a compromise of some sort. It would seem that the relative likelihood of needing those extra rounds would be very important in deciding what the inflection point is in the compromise between "dressing like a normal person" and "being ready to take on the Bad News Gang (or whatever they call them at the IDPA match) at all times."

Not actually trying to argue *with* Todd or you, just seems people are talking past each other a bit.

[David Armstrong]

Your use of "woefully unprepared" here is as interesting as David's "effectively disarmed" line a few posts back.

When I'm pedaling down the Monon Trail with a 6-shot J-frame in my fanny pack, I do not feel like I am "woefully unprepared" or "effectively disarmed".

However, I also do not attempt to claim that I am "just as well armed and equally prepared for any eventuality, only differently!" as I am when that J-frame is serving as a BUG to a duty-size pistol.
I think that is the core difference. Those who are suggesting the revolver is OK for the issue being discussed also do not attempt to claim they are ""just as well armed and equally prepared for any eventuality, only differently!" Their point is that one is "sufficiently armed and prepared for CCW/self-defense purposes" with a revolver. It sometimes seems as if the two camps are debating totally different issues. "Are autoloaders better than revolvers" is a very different topic than "Are revolvers effective for CCW."

[FotoTomas]

I carry a 2-A:10-B:C fire extinguisher in my car.
Anyone who carries a 1-A:5-B:C fire extinguisher is woefully unprepared. :)


HALON is where it's at! :)

[Robinson]

I carry either a full-size (3" or 4") revolver or a 1911. I have read this entire thread as well as other threads on the forum and I am convinced there are a lot of knowledgeable folks here -- people who study the use of handguns and who I can learn a lot from.

I choose what I carry because I have used them a long time and have come to trust their reliability and my ability to handle and shoot them well. I also see that there are definite advantages to other choices, especially when it comes to capacity. I don't plan to change my choice of carry weapons any time soon. But I fully admit I am making a compromise -- and if that compromise leads to a bad outcome someday it will be the result of my choices. On the other hand, I don't really feel that my guns are inadequate for self defense either.

[ToddG]

No, I tend to hypothesize what reams of data show....that most BGs flee when confronted with a gun, that over and over we find single digits handles the CCW event, that few BGs push their attack when shot, and so on.

"Most" and "few" are, again, the crux of our debate.

I still fail to see how the minimal perceived comfort benefit of a light j-frame overcomes being prepared for the "few BGs (who) push their attack."


No disagreement. But there is far more to the CCW equation than just the gunfight, in particular the far outside the realm of probability gunfight.

Sort of. But if you're not beginning the thought process with winning a fight then why carry in the first place? There are all sorts of things I could carry on my belt that would be more comfortable and even more useful day to day than a Glock or HK. But I don't carry it because it's useful on a daily basis. I carry it because if I need it I'll need it right damn now and my life will depend on it.


I find it to be just about as poor as the "some fights need more than 6 rounds" argument. As discussed earlier, the fact that I can come up with a shooting where the BG needed more than 15 rounds does not mean the G19 is not a good CCW weapon.

I'll bet you with 30 days effort I can come up with ten times more instances of someone who needed to be shot at least 6 times than you can find of someone who needed to be shot more than 16 times. Reductio ad absurdum?


Really? After a century of gunfights with revolvers you want me to find one where the officer reloaded to finish the job?
<...>
No, you only get to do that if you ignore the fact that guns can be reloaded. Showing an instance where more than 6 rounds were needed no more indicts the revolver than showing incidents where more than 15 rounds were needed indicts the G19.

I apologize, as I thought it was understood or at least implied that we were trying to avoid doing a reload under stress, since I believe everyone here agrees that when it comes to reloading the auto has a huge benefit in terms of speed and ease... especially when we talk about realistic reload techniques that can be employed with someone's actual CCW gear. If your argument is that a 5-shot revolver is just as good "if I have enough time to reload," then by logic you're admitting that if there wasn't time/ability to reload, it wouldn't be as good.

[peterb]

I'll bet you with 30 days effort I can come up with ten times more instances of someone who needed to be shot at least 6 times than you can find of someone who needed to be shot more than 16 times. Reductio ad absurdum?

Could be. It makes the whole discussion into one about being prepared for the subset of encounters requiring 6<X<16 pistol shots to resolve.

[ToddG]

Could be. It makes the whole discussion into one about being prepared for the subset of encounters requiring 6<X<16 pistol shots to resolve.

Exactly.

[JodyH]

Every gunfight that required 15 rounds to resolve... required 6 rounds + 6 rounds + 3 rounds.

Every gunfight that required 6 rounds to resolve... leaves the 15 round gun with 9 rounds to spare.


Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

[Tamara]

Every gunfight that required 15 rounds to resolve... required 6 rounds + 6 rounds + 3 rounds.

Every gunfight that required 6 rounds to resolve... leaves the 15 round gun with 9 rounds to spare.
Heck, you could go get in a whole 'nother gunfight-and-a-half without reloading! ;)

[SteveK]

No, it's not. It's just hard to shoot fast and accurately and reload quickly and without fumbling, at least vis a vis the autochucker. :)

I respectfully have to disagree somewhat with this. With the proper practice regimen I find no difference in running a revolver versus an auto pistol. A good, smooth double-action revolver is as easy to operate and just as accurate. The only thing you give up is capacity and a shorter reset. Recoil is not an issue since you can get a much higher grip on a revolver. Reloading is a concern but if practiced, the revolver speed reload comes pretty close to matching an auto. I've seen some who are faster.

[JodyH]

I respectfully have to disagree somewhat with this. With the proper practice regimen I find no difference in running a revolver versus an auto pistol. A good, smooth double-action revolver is as easy to operate and just as accurate. The only thing you give up is capacity and a shorter reset. Recoil is not an issue since you can get a much higher grip on a revolver. Reloading is a concern but if practiced, the revolver speed reload comes pretty close to matching an auto. I've seen some who are faster.
Then a sub 7 second FAST should be no problem for the moderately skilled wheelgunner.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

[peterb]

For the record, I agree with the argument that all else being equal, more capacity is good.

But I'm still curious how folks decide on "enough."

For the example of 6<X<16, most folks seem to be saying "That number is small, but finite, so I choose to prepare for it."

A few folks -- or the same folks under different conditions -- seem to be saying "That number is finite, but small, so I can accept not being prepared for it."

But why not make the same argument for 16<X<33, or any other arbitrary number? How do you decide where to draw the line?


I'm curious because I've been involved in similar discussions in other areas. In whitewater kayaking/swiftwater rescue, for example, I've seen vigorous discussions about throw bags-- another potentially lifesaving tool: Is 50' of 1/4" enough? 70' of 3/8" is better, but is it too hard to carry in a small playboat? How many carabiners do you really need? And so on....

[joshs]

For the example of 6<X<16, most folks seem to be saying "That number is small, but finite, so I choose to prepare for it."

But why not make the same argument for 16<X<33, or any other arbitrary number? How do you decide where to draw the line?

For me, it's just as easy to carry a 16 shot auto as a 6 shot revolver, I don't have to accept any trade-offs by selecting the 16 shot auto. Carrying a 33 shot auto (assuming a service caliber) would require a significant change in the way I carry the gun: I would have to open carry to accommodate the gigantic magazine. I'm not arbitrarily deciding to be capable of dealing with 6<X<17, but if I can gain that extra capability without additional trade-offs, I choose to do so.

[TCinVA]

What Josh said. I love my 3" model 10 with fiery passion...but it's just as easy to pack a P30 or Glock 17 as it is to pack that revolver.

As a scarecrow the 3" model 10 and the P30 will probably be equally effective...but if a situation requires actually firing the weapon the model 10 is markedly inferior in capability.

It's great that using a gun like a scarecrow works in many confrontations...but after looking at things a bit it seems to me like the situations where you need to pull the trigger to make someone cease and desist with obnoxious behavior tend to be pretty darn bad situations. I want more than 6. Or 8. Or 9. As Todd said, it's like needing the gun in the first place. I may not need the gun today...but if I do, I don't have time to go get it. I may not need more than 6, but if I do I certainly don't have time to put more than 6 in the gun.

[JeffJ]

For the record, I agree with the argument that all else being equal, more capacity is good.

But I'm still curious how folks decide on "enough."

For the example of 6<X<16, most folks seem to be saying "That number is small, but finite, so I choose to prepare for it."

A few folks -- or the same folks under different conditions -- seem to be saying "That number is finite, but small, so I can accept not being prepared for it."

But why not make the same argument for 16<X<33, or any other arbitrary number? How do you decide where to draw the line?


I'm curious because I've been involved in similar discussions in other areas. In whitewater kayaking/swiftwater rescue, for example, I've seen vigorous discussions about throw bags-- another potentially lifesaving tool: Is 50' of 1/4" enough? 70' of 3/8" is better, but is it too hard to carry in a small playboat? How many carabiners do you really need? And so on....

It's because in the realm of weapons that can be carried concealed by an average size person in normal attire a compact or full size auto that carries 16-18 rounds is a reality, the product exists and is easily attainable.


So the arguement isn't that 6 is bad and 16 is good - the arguement is that most you can reasonably carry is good - so when we leave the realm of pocket pistols and move into belt carried guns - the options immediatly open up to capacities of 16-18 rounds, which according to my calculator is more than 6 or even 8. If someone came out with a pistol that was reliable, shootable, and easily concealable that held 92 rounds of an effective caliber that didn't pull down your pants or throw your back out - that would be a prudent move. But as for right now, I think we're maxed out at 16-18 (maybe 20 with the XDm) in a normal sized weapon that can be carried by most people in most situations.

So if you can carry a firearm on a belt carried holster - why choose 6, when you can choose 16 at about the same weight and concealability?

[SteveK]

Then a sub 7 second FAST should be no problem for the moderately skilled wheelgunner.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

Yes, especially with a moon clip gun.

[Little Creek]

Some, if not many, if not most, subject matter experts say shoot the center of mass of whatever is showing as long as it is showing until something bigger to shoot is available until you stop the threat. There are those that teach if high in the chest does not work then try the pelvis. If you follow that school of thought then a relavent test with a revolver (or a pistol for that matter) might be to shoot the entire cylinder full in the 8 then reload and put 2 in the 3x5. I know the FAST is a test, not a self defense practice drill. If you practice something all the time then you might find yourself trying to do it in an emergency. Those 3x5s might be moving around during such an emergency.

That is just my opinion.

[rsa-otc]

Then a sub 7 second FAST should be no problem for the moderately skilled wheelgunner.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

Data point:

At my request we ran the FAST drill as part of our monthly match in February. My auto time from under heavy clothing was 5.10, revolver time was 6.82 from under the same clothing. The target's body was covered in a T shirt.

We also ran the Triple Nickel as well, Auto score was 5.54, revolver time was 7.58.

Using Comp 2 speedloaders for the revolver you are talking just under a 2 second disadvantage in reloading time using a revolver.

Differant stage same match; 5 head shots with a auto 4.38; revolver 4.78.

Now last weekend 6 - 8" plates 10 yards. Revolver 4.88, couldn't break 5 seconds with my M&P 45.

Some days I'm better with one than the other, other days it's the reverse.

[JeffJ]

Data point:

At my request we ran the FAST drill as part of our monthly match in February. My auto time from under heavy clothing was 5.10, revolver time was 6.82 from under the same clothing. The target's body was covered in a T shirt.

We also ran the Triple Nickel as well, Auto score was 5.54, revolver time was 7.58.

Using Comp 2 speedloaders for the revolver you are talking just under a 2 second disadvantage in reloading time using a revolver.

Differant stage same match; 5 head shots with a auto 4.38; revolver 4.78.

Now last weekend 6 - 8" plates 10 yards. Revolver 4.88, couldn't break 5 seconds with my M&P 45.

Some days I'm better with one than the other, other days it's the reverse.

So your trade off (just taking this limited set of numbers) is somewhere around .10 second longer splits with the auto vs. 2 seconds of reloading time with the revo - and the revo runs out sooner.

[rsa-otc]

So your trade off (just taking this limited set of numbers) is somewhere around .10 second longer splits with the auto vs. 2 seconds of reloading time with the revo - and the revo runs out sooner.

Actually on that match day my revolver splits were .10 longer than the Auto. Last weekend my auto splits were a tad longer than my revolver splits.

When I look at it, shot to shot they are about the same for me. Some days I'm better with one other days it's the other.

The handicap I have to accept with the revolver is 1.5 to 2 seconds longer in reloading and reloading more often.

For the average person they would be better off with the auto over the revolver (sorry Dave) over a broader range of applications. For limited range of uses (such as firing from small gun ports) the revolver can be superior.

[SteveK]

I don't think anybody is saying that there aren't several areas of defficiencies when comparing revolvers versus auto pistols. However, they are still a viable option as a self-defense weapon. I personally would not feel disadvantaged being armed with a quality revolver and a sufficient number of reloads. In our area the 9 shot Smith and Wesson 45 series pistols were and largely still are the choice of law enforcement so a revolver isn't that far removed.

[FotoTomas]

Then a sub 7 second FAST should be no problem for the moderately skilled wheelgunner.

Seems to me since the FAST is a 6 round test the revolver shooter will simply shoot all 6 THEN reload. :)

[FotoTomas]

Too many people here seem to be wrapped up in why they think "their" choice is best based on "their" reasoning. Then they do not have the ability to see that other people can also reason and arrive at their own answers that are still right but different.

And what truly amazes me is the silliness that one should "not" carry a gun because you do not want to carry a gun with lots'a'bullets for "Whatever" reason.

People...it is not rocket science here...

First rule of a gunfight... Carry a gun! Yeah it's a cliche but there is some logic here. No where does that first rule say what kind or how many bullets. NO ONE HERE should be flippant about that subject no matter which side of the more or less divide you stand. You carry a gun because you MIGHT need to shoot something. The gun you carry is one where YOU feel comfortable with what it does and how well YOU can run it. No matter what someone else says... their reasons are NOT your reasons. I carry a gun to be able to control my immediate space in case I "need" to control it. I carry a knife to cut things that need cutting. I choose the gun and knife based on MY needs, MY perceptions, MY risk analysis and MY world view. There is NO wrong answer here just different reasonings. I do not care if anyone likes or agrees with MY reasons or my choices. They are Mine alone. I am a free man that is blessed with the opportunity to make my own decisions about off duty carry. MY decisions, no one elses. Sometimes I put a "J" frame in my pocket and nothing else. Sometimes I put a PM9 in my pocket and nothing else. Those tools meet my needs and make me happy. They also make me one of the approximatly 2% of the population in this country that carry a gun for defense.

The attitude of "Mine is better than Yours" has NO place in the "First" rule of a gunfight.

After the "First rule" is met then feel free to argue your choice but no matter what, it is still your choice.

More power to them for making that choice to carry a concealed firearm. If they want to make a change...more power to them to change as their needs or desires change.

It is not how many cases you can find or how many bullets you have. It is a desire to take the step to pack some heat to give you an advantage if needed. Carry a gun. That is the answer.

Today I am carrying my PM9.

Yesterday, just to prove a stupid point, I had the G30 on the right hip, G26 on the left hip, Both in "Evil Serpa" holsters, Beretta 92D Centurion "with disconnect" sitting in a Sparks Summer Special in the small of the back, KelTec P3AT in a back pocket, PM9 in a front pocket, S&W 638 Bodyguard in the other front pocket, DeSantis Nemisis holsters for all three, Colt Detective Special on one ankle and a S&W 36 Chiefs Special on the other. Renegade ankle rigs. Smith and Wesson model 19 Combat Magnum in a Bianchi X15 shoulder rig under the right arm, A G36 under the left arm in a Galco Miami Vice rig creatively mated to the X15. The crowning glory was the mini revolver in .22 short around my neck. I wobbled and clanked and had a hard time getting in the car (where the AR15, pair of 870 police magnums, KelTec Sub 2000 and a Henry AR7 were located) to go to the store. But by glory I was ready for armageddon. :)

Yeah it's piling high in here and I am getting silly.

To answer the original post all over again...Sometimes I “Choose” to carry a revolver as primary. :)

[David Armstrong]

"Most" and "few" are, again, the crux of our debate.

I still fail to see how the minimal perceived comfort benefit of a light j-frame overcomes being prepared for the "few BGs (who) push their attack."
Again, can we make some sort of declaration about this just so I can figure out what the argument is? Is the issue "revolver versus auto" or is it "J-frame versus full-size auto"? But in response, I think that is the problem. You apparently do not think a person with a revolver is prepared. I think they are, and history seems to support that viewpoint.


Sort of. But if you're not beginning the thought process with winning a fight then why carry in the first place? There are all sorts of things I could carry on my belt that would be more comfortable and even more useful day to day than a Glock or HK. But I don't carry it because it's useful on a daily basis. I carry it because if I need it I'll need it right damn now and my life will depend on it.
But choosing a revolver doesn't mean you will lose the gunfight. For some the revolver may give the faster first shot, or is more controllable, or whatever else you want to focus on, than a similar auto. Lots of folks chose single-stack autoloaders over double stack for that reason.


I'll bet you with 30 days effort I can come up with ten times more instances of someone who needed to be shot at least 6 times than you can find of someone who needed to be shot more than 16 times. Reductio ad absurdum?

If the argument is going to be based on who has the most numbers I can come up with ten times more instances of the fight being solved in less than 6 rounds than needing more than 16 rounds to solve. Again, if your argument is that showing an incident where more than "X" rounds were needed indicates a gun is not a good choicecommon no comman gun is a good choice because I can find a case wnumberat nnumber was not sufficient.


I apologize, as I thought it was understood or at least implied that we were trying to avoid doing a reload under stress, since I believe everyone here agrees that when it comes to reloading the auto has a huge benefit in terms of speed and ease... especially when we talk about realistic reload techniques that can be employed with someone's actual CCW gear. If your argument is that a 5-shot revolver is just as good "if I have enough time to reload," then by logic you're admitting that if there wasn't time/ability to reload, it wouldn't be as good.
Again, that is not my argument. My argument is rather simple and direct: "While the modern full-size auto seems better than it's revolver counterpart for uniform use, the modern revolver can hold its own for most CCW issues." It seems nobody can come up with an objectively reasonable argument against that, so they keep trying to invent all these other things. I suppose one could say that if you have to resort to the extremely rare to support a position then one is admitting that they can't spositionir positition by discussing the common and normal.

[David Armstrong]

Actually on that match day my revolver splits were .10 longer than the Auto. Last weekend my auto splits were a tad longer than my revolver splits.

When I look at it, shot to shot they are about the same for me. Some days I'm better with one other days it's the other.

The handicap I have to accept with the revolver is 1.5 to 2 seconds longer in reloading and reloading more often.

For the average person they would be better off with the auto over the revolver (sorry Dave) over a broader range of applications. For limited range of uses (such as firing from small gun ports) the revolver can be superior.
No problem, and I agree. My point would be that most folks don't need to worry about that broader range, so the advantages become a little different. The ease of carry might become more important, or the better sights, or the speed of first shot, and so on.

[SteveK]

David, I wholly agree with your point. Most cases of the bad guy needing 3 pounds of lead to anchor him are LE v. drugged up offender who already knows this it. Most self defense encounters requires much, much less. I think alot of times the issue gets clouded defining and seperating the two.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/horror_movies_If1IoTdmgr5zyYbpo2chIL

The Muslim fanatic who killed seven people in France was so proud of his unspeakably evil work that he uploaded sickening video to the Internet showing him executing a helpless, terrified 8-year-old girl, officials said.
Mohammed Merah is seen yanking Myriam Monsenego by her hair — then firing a bullet into her head while he holds her.

Lovely saying about training and such...

Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you.
He is training with minimal food or water, in austere conditions, training day and night.
The only thing clean on him is his weapon and he made his web gear.
He doesn't worry about what workout to do - his ruck weighs what it weighs, his runs end when the enemy stops chasing him. This True Believer is not concerned about 'how hard it is;' he knows either he wins or dies. He doesn't go home at 17:00, he is home. He knows only The Cause.


Just in case anyone was thinking about carrying a weapon that's merely adaquate.

[David Armstrong]

You mean like a merely adequate M-4 instead of a rompin' stompin' M-14?:)
I'm not sure even the True Believer would notice any difference between 2 rounds of 9mm in the chest and 2 rounds of .357 Magnum.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

You mean like a merely adequate M-4 instead of a rompin' stompin' M-14?:)
I'm not sure even the True Believer would notice any difference between 2 rounds of 9mm in the chest and 2 rounds of .357 Magnum.

Believer-tards have friends and move a lot.

If in danger or in doubt, be prepared to kill everyone. Twice.

[David Armstrong]

David, I wholly agree with your point. Most cases of the bad guy needing 3 pounds of lead to anchor him are LE v. drugged up offender who already knows this it. Most self defense encounters requires much, much less. I think alot of times the issue gets clouded defining and seperating the two.
Sure. It is always where do you want to draw the line, what advantages and disadvantages are of the most concern to you, and so on. I think what i find most disturbing about discussions like these it the problems always apply to the other guy's gun, and the same problem never applies to your gun because somehow it is different. Phil Elmore said it well, "Convenience and security will always be natural enemies; we all make concessions to one for the sake of the other, regardless of the directions in which we move."

[Mr_White]

Just satisfying my curiosity here. I've done so before, a tuned SP 101 with .357 DPX in it, and an LCR as back up. Just curious to see if anyone else has ever done so, as well.

No.


Phil Elmore said it well, "Convenience and security will always be natural enemies; we all make concessions to one for the sake of the other, regardless of the directions in which we move."

Just in case anyone is wondering, Street Swords are legal to carry concealed in Oregon (single-edged anyway)...

[JodyH]

In our area the 9 shot Smith and Wesson 45 series pistols were and largely still are the choice of law enforcement so a revolver isn't that far removed.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.


Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

[ToddG]

So the arguement isn't that 6 is bad and 16 is good - the arguement is that most you can reasonably carry is good - so when we leave the realm of pocket pistols and move into belt carried guns - the options immediatly open up to capacities of 16-18 rounds, which according to my calculator is more than 6 or even 8. If someone came out with a pistol that was reliable, shootable, and easily concealable that held 92 rounds of an effective caliber that didn't pull down your pants or throw your back out - that would be a prudent move.

Thank you. You said summed it up better than I have in many, many attempts.


Yes, especially with a moon clip gun.

Which adds yet another issue (fragility) that the semiauto shooter doesn't need to worry about.


If you follow that school of thought then a relavent test with a revolver (or a pistol for that matter) might be to shoot the entire cylinder full in the 8 then reload and put 2 in the 3x5.

I think that's an awesome test. You run it with your 6-shot revolver (which will require a reload) and I'll run it with my 18-shot G17 (which won't require a reload) and we'll compare times. Because using your scenario and test, you will need to reload after just ineffectively shooting a guy six times in the chest while I will immediately be able to transition to the head.

If you just shot someone six times in the chest and he was still an immediate threat, and you got a choice, which would you choose:

(a) to take a few seconds to reload, or
(b) to shoot him in the head right frakkin' now!

AND I'll still have another ten rounds left in the gun when it's over. AND another 17 on my belt. :cool:


But in response, I think that is the problem. You apparently do not think a person with a revolver is prepared. I think they are, and history seems to support that viewpoint.

I don't think "prepared" is a binary condition. Someone with a j-frame is better prepared for a wider range of possible confrontations than someone who is unarmed. Someone with a modern compact semiauto (e.g., G19, SIG P229, HK P30, etc.) is prepared for an even wider range of possible confrontations and, more to the point -- as was stated by others eloquently -- amounts to essentially the pinnacle of preparedness insofar as it relates to practical concealable handguns given modern technology.


If the argument is going to be based on who has the most numbers I can come up with ten times more instances of the fight being solved in less than 6 rounds than needing more than 16 rounds to solve. Again, if your argument is that showing an incident where more than "X" rounds were needed indicates a gun is not a good choicecommon no comman gun is a good choice because I can find a case wnumberat nnumber was not sufficient.

Who is arguing about more than 16? Hell, David, you just proved part of my point: needing more than 16 is such a huge statistical outlier that we'd be hard pressed to think of an instance where ammo capacity was actually the problem at that point. So >16 situations are non-responsive. But >6 situations, on the other hand, are directly on point. And there are a bunch of them.


Again, that is not my argument. My argument is rather simple and direct: "While the modern full-size auto seems better than it's revolver counterpart for uniform use, the modern revolver can hold its own for most CCW issues."

It's that soft word "most" that crushes the argument, though, David. You cannot define it in statistical terms and you've already admitted -- at least tacitly -- that there are instances where the full-size auto would in fact fare better in a CCW situation. Ergo, the auto is superior when it's an option. I've already commented that if circumstances limit you to a pocket-sized gun, then obviously you're stuck with a pocket-sized gun. (though personally, even then, I opt for a higher capacity, faster and easier to reload semiauto)

[David Armstrong]

Believer-tards have friends and move a lot.

If in danger or in doubt, be prepared to kill everyone. Twice.
No disagreement. I think where I would disagree is that this is something new and so untested that what has worked well for so long suddenly no longer works well.

[David Armstrong]

from Todd:
I don't think "prepared" is a binary condition. Someone with a j-frame is better prepared for a wider range of possible confrontations than someone who is unarmed. Someone with a modern compact semiauto (e.g., G19, SIG P229, HK P30, etc.) is prepared for an even wider range of possible confrontations and, more to the point -- as was stated by others eloquently -- amounts to essentially the pinnacle of preparedness insofar as it relates to practical concealable handguns given modern technology.

Then we are back to that ongoing issue of arguing over "my compromise is a good and your compromise is a bad choice because it is a different compromise" which I just patently reject as making any sense. As we've discussed before, is the person who is prepared for 99.99% of the problems really that much better off than the person who is prepared for only 99.9%? And again, there is far more to self defense than capacity and not all revolvers are j-frames.

Who is arguing about more than 16? Hell, David, you just proved part of my point: needing more than 16 is such a huge statistical outlier that we'd be hard pressed to think of an instance where ammo capacity was actually the problem at that point. So >16 situations are non-responsive. But >6 situations, on the other hand, are directly on point. And there are a bunch of them.
>16 is non-responsive based on your arbitrary decision about what point was important and what is not. I don't think you get to have it both ways, Todd. Either numeric comparison is valid or it isn't. It seems you are trying to say that in one instance the outlier proves the case but in another instance the outlier is totally irrelevant.

It's that soft word "most" that crushes the argument, though, David. You cannot define it in statistical terms and you've already admitted -- at least tacitly -- that there are instances where the full-size auto would in fact fare better in a CCW situation. Ergo, the auto is superior when it's an option.
By that same reasoning the G17 is superior to the G19 or the G22 or the HK P30 because it has a higher capacity, even though most of the time that doesn't matter. "Most" does not crush the argument, "most"defines the argument. EVERYONE makes a compromise. Pretty much any of the compromises we have discussed will take care of most of the situations. None of them will take care of all the situations all the time for all the people. Sure there are instances where the full-size auto would fare better in a CCW situation, just as there are times the compact auto would fare better and there are times when the revolver would fare better and there are times the derringer would fare better. There is more to CCW than just how many rounds you can stuff into your firearm.

[FotoTomas]

it seems to me too many people here are obsessing over the tool and not the weapon. :)

[Tamara]

...there are times the derringer would fare better.

I kinda want to hear about that one, if you don't mind.:confused:

[Al T.]

there are times the derringer would fare better.

I'll bite on that one. Often during the day, I wear gym shorts. I have a P32 Kel-Tec that rides along in a pocket holster. Other than wearing a shoulder holster, the only bang-stick I can carry is something about that size and weight.


it seems to me too many people here are obsessing over the tool and not the weapon.

Dude, while you are succinct and correct, it's the internet. :p

[JeffJ]

it seems to me too many people here are obsessing over the tool and not the weapon. :)

Fair enough. But, if you seperate a craftsman from his tools he cannot work.

By the same token - I'm a trim carpeneter and cabinetmaker by trade (I moved into office work a few years ago) - I can do a lot with a hammer and a chisel - but I could make a living with a nail gun and a router

[JodyH]

I'll bite on that one. Often during the day, I wear gym shorts. I have a P32 Kel-Tec that rides along in a pocket holster. Other than wearing a shoulder holster, the only bang-stick I can carry is something about that size and weight.
I can "Smartcarry" a Glock 26 or Kahr PM9 in gym shorts.

[Al T.]

Great, now I have yet another piece of gear that this forum has driven me to purchase. :D

[David Armstrong]

I kinda want to hear about that one, if you don't mind.:confused:
Al T. hits it. Sometimes your clothing or other situation dicatates very restricted carry where micro levels of concealability might be required.

[David Armstrong]

it seems to me too many people here are obsessing over the tool and not the weapon. :)
Yep, that pretty well sums it up, IMO. I would offer that the tool might change the tactics selected for the weapon, but it should not change the outcome.

[David Armstrong]

I can "Smartcarry" a Glock 26 or Kahr PM9 in gym shorts.
I can carry a full size 1911 in gym shorts. Can't do much then, but I can carry it.:D

[Tamara]

Al T. hits it. Sometimes your clothing or other situation dicatates very restricted carry where micro levels of concealability might be required.
No, Al T. said he carries a P-32. I can understand that. But you said "derringer".

If someone needed micro levels of concealment, why would they use a clunky, heavy, two-shooter that needs to be manually cocked for each shot and practically disassembled for reloading instead of a slimmer, lighter .32/.380 autoloader?

Derringers in major calibers are no slimmer or lighter than a host of microcompact 9mm autochuckers, and the minor caliber derringers are heavier and no easier to conceal than most any of the crop of plastic .380/.32s. (Plus, outside of Bond Arms and American Derringer, there hasn't been a one sold in this country since High Standard went toes up that wasn't a cheap piece of poorly cast garbage.)

The derringer is a piece of gear that by any objective measurement is as obsolete as the percussion revolver. The only reason to carry one that I can think of is nostalgia.

[SteveK]

...or being undercover at the beach in a Speedo.

[JodyH]

The derringer is a piece of gear that by any objective measurement is as obsolete as the percussion revolver. The only reason to carry one that I can think of is nostalgia.
But, but, I can show you documented instances of a derringer winning the fight.
Therefore, since it's a proven fight stopper and is easy to carry it's just as good a CCW choice as a Glock 19.
Especially since most defensive gun uses don't require any shots being fired and most gunfights only take one or two rounds to resolve.
And reload speed doesn't matter as long as it can be done within a minute or two and requires minimal tools.

[HeadHunter]

No, Al T. said he carries a P-32. I can understand that. But you said "derringer".

If someone needed micro levels of concealment, why would they use a clunky, heavy, two-shooter that needs to be manually cocked for each shot and practically disassembled for reloading instead of a slimmer, lighter .32/.380 autoloader?

Derringers in major calibers are no slimmer or lighter than a host of microcompact 9mm autochuckers, and the minor caliber derringers are heavier and no easier to conceal than most any of the crop of plastic .380/.32s. (Plus, outside of Bond Arms and American Derringer, there hasn't been a one sold in this country since High Standard went toes up that wasn't a cheap piece of poorly cast garbage.)

The derringer is a piece of gear that by any objective measurement is as obsolete as the percussion revolver. The only reason to carry one that I can think of is nostalgia.

I'm not advocating derringers because they do have the disadvantages you mention. But a .32 derringer (Davis) is noticeably smaller than a Kel Tec P32. And it does work, although I haven't subjected it to the 2000 round challenge. :)

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s91/HeadHunter_album/Pocket%20Pistols/P32vD32.jpg

[FotoTomas]

No, Al T. said he carries a P-32. I can understand that. But you said "derringer".

If someone needed micro levels of concealment, why would they use a clunky, heavy, two-shooter that needs to be manually cocked for each shot and practically disassembled for reloading instead of a slimmer, lighter .32/.380 autoloader?

Derringers in major calibers are no slimmer or lighter than a host of microcompact 9mm autochuckers, and the minor caliber derringers are heavier and no easier to conceal than most any of the crop of plastic .380/.32s. (Plus, outside of Bond Arms and American Derringer, there hasn't been a one sold in this country since High Standard went toes up that wasn't a cheap piece of poorly cast garbage.)

The derringer is a piece of gear that by any objective measurement is as obsolete as the percussion revolver. The only reason to carry one that I can think of is nostalgia.

Tam...the point is not that the derringer is obsolete, merely a choice that might be superior in some circumstances. I had a High Standard DAO two shot .22 Magnum derringer that was carried in a shoot through holster. Was carried in the back pocket and the wallet completely covered the pistol with a hole for the finger. It was the ultimate surprise that was carried in plain sight. This was 30+ years ago and the other gun I carried a lot back then was a Bauer .25 auto. If that was all I had then it too would be the best option for me. There were occasions where it was the only option I had. Did I improve on that situation? Yes I did but until then it was my best option.

Even today I sometimes visit my sister and I fly with carry on only. The only gun in her house is a 16 gauge single shot. Not my best choice for HD and there is nothing to borrow to wear around town. If I had that old derringer at her house to carry I would be a happy camper. Yeah I would prefer the Kahr PM9 or my Glock 26 but hey, beggars can,t be choosers.

The derringer is NOT often the best choice but may be the only choice which makes it the best choice and is much better than a rock. :)

In my town there are a lot of neighborhoods where low cost handguns are needed and sold and the retro derringers are popular wih the clientel. Currently the double barrel 410 models are the big sellers. We might laugh at 'em but others cannot since it is all they have.

[FotoTomas]

Fair enough. But, if you seperate a craftsman from his tools he cannot work.

By the same token - I'm a trim carpeneter and cabinetmaker by trade (I moved into office work a few years ago) - I can do a lot with a hammer and a chisel - but I could make a living with a nail gun and a router

A craftsman can use whatever tools he has available to create fine products. I spent many years working in the professional photography field. Commercial and industrial. The best Hasselblad systems made my Wedding jobs easier but many a bill was paid using a Yashica Mat 124G when I was starting out. The extremes between the best and worst can be compensated for with skill. In our case skill at arms. For all the arguments that more beans are better the fact is a good marksman is better and more beans are a bonus. Some of us simply are happy without as many beans sometimes. That is a choice and is not wrong just different. Today...the PM9 and a KelTec P3AT to back it up. I cheated death again. :)

[LittleLebowski]

Despite tongue in cheek humor about folks looking down upon the superior revolver marksmen and the po' people, the fact remains that on the clock, the semi auto is better. Caleb illustrated this with hard data. It's also far easier to maintain, not expensive, and both more durable and reliable (certain models of course).

I don't disagree that the revolver can still be adequate for self defense. However, I cannot believe the arguments about folks taking range time too seriously in that they worry about their performance on a timer. Shall we discard all metrics and simply whisper to ourselves "Jelly Bryce didn't need no hi cap semi auto and neither do I" or do we stack the odds in our own favor and train hard? When I was in the Corps, we didn't train easier because we just somehow knew we would win and the Corps sure as hell isn't sticking with iron sights because they were good enough for Gunny Basilone.

Jelly Bruce would be using a semiauto and Gunny Basilone would be using an optic.

All that being said; yes, revolvers are still viable for self defense. But "good enough" is simply not good enough for the members of this forum. We like training and pushing ourselves and pushing oneself to earn a FAST coin doesn't warrant a sneer of "it won't matter in the real world."

Some German guy in some desert once said something about sweating in peace and bleeding in war. It didn't read "I've seen combat and good enough whilst ignoring technological advances is OK."

[Tamara]

I'm not advocating derringers because they do have the disadvantages you mention. But a .32 derringer (Davis) is noticeably smaller than a Kel Tec P32. And it does work, although I haven't subjected it to the 2000 round challenge. :)
In my defense, I'll note that:
a) There's all kinds of stuff hanging off that Kel-Tec, and
b) A Davis Derringer lands square in the middle of "outside of Bond Arms and American Derringer, there hasn't been a one sold in this country since High Standard went toes up that wasn't a cheap piece of poorly cast garbage." ;)

Seriously, though, unless you are an anorexic Ethiopian at a naturist retreat, a P32 can be hidden anywhere you can hide a Dillinger, but because of forum guidelines regarding obscenity, I'm not going to draw a picture... :p

I'm going to have to agree with the line my Shootin' Buddy tosses out frequently: "The less somebody knows about guns, the more they want a derringer."

[Tamara]

I had a High Standard DAO two shot .22 Magnum derringer that was carried in a shoot through holster. Was carried in the back pocket and the wallet completely covered the pistol with a hole for the finger. It was the ultimate surprise that was carried in plain sight. This was 30+ years ago...

30+ years ago, it made some sense, because there was no reasonable alternative.

I am reminded of a comment somebody made at my blog about how an older acquaintance of theirs used a High Standard .22 Mag derringer to ward off a pickup full of yayhoos in a roadhouse parking lot by busting off one round into their windshield.

My reply was that it was a good thing they decided to pile into their truck and head off, because if they hadn't, he would have had to save his second shot to put himself out of his misery after the curb-stomping they could have delivered him

[FotoTomas]

I will be happy to stipulate I sometimes handicap myself with a belt carried revolver for my convenience and because I am an old fart that came up through the ranks with wheelguns and shoot them well and often better than my pistols. I accept the limits and will happily admit that semi auto pistols are better in most all things. Sometimes carrying the most efficient and effective tool is not what I want to do.

I mentioned earlier about Hasselblads and Yashicas. I have sold off all the Hasselblads. Still have a Yashica and old Nikon Ftn. I like 'em and use 'em. Same with my Combat Magnum. I like it and feel very comfortable with it. Sometimes at my age I want to slow down and smell the roses. I still bet I can outshoot the vast majority of casual CCW'ers with my wheelie. I have beaten a few better shooters in local club matches competing against those wonder nines.

Skill at arms is the foundation of the results no matter which tool you might use.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Despite tongue in cheek humor about folks looking down upon the superior revolver marksmen and the po' people, the fact remains that on the clock, the semi auto is better. Caleb illustrated this with hard data. It's also far easier to maintain, not expensive, and both more durable and reliable (certain models of course).

I don't disagree that the revolver can still be adequate for self defense. However, I cannot believe the arguments about folks taking range time too seriously in that they worry about their performance on a timer. Shall we discard all metrics and simply whisper to ourselves "Jelly Bryce didn't need no hi cap semi auto and neither do I" or do we stack the odds in our own favor and train hard? When I was in the Corps, we didn't train easier because we just somehow knew we would win and the Corps sure as hell isn't sticking with iron sights because they were good enough for Gunny Basilone.

Jelly Bruce would be using a semiauto and Gunny Basilone would be using an optic.

All that being said; yes, revolvers are still viable for self defense. But "good enough" is simply not good enough for the members of this forum. We like training and pushing ourselves and pushing oneself to earn a FAST coin doesn't warrant a sneer of "it won't matter in the real world."

Some German guy in some desert once said something about sweating in peace and bleeding in war. It didn't read "I've seen combat and good enough whilst ignoring technological advances is OK."

Their is the mentality of "Buying skill" vs the mentality of "Work hard for skill, then steal or buy every advantage you can to get even better!" that people get confused.

Have the skill to do it with a sub-optimal weapon...

Then do it even better with a better weapon.

Most people here would be able to defend themselves more than adequately with a 9mm loaded with ball...given the accuracy and speed that people shoot, they'd put a few rounds into the attacker's head/chest, and that would be that...

They still buy and carry very good JHP.

Is that buying skill?

Many people would be able to do just fine with stock glock sights...yet they still spend $100-$200 on better sights...are they needed?

Can they do without?

Is a set of good sights buying skill and speed?

[FotoTomas]

30+ years ago, it made some sense, because there was no reasonable alternative.

I am reminded of a comment somebody made at my blog about how an older acquaintance of theirs used a High Standard .22 Mag derringer to ward off a pickup full of yayhoos in a roadhouse parking lot by busting off one round into their windshield.

My reply was that it was a good thing they decided to pile into their truck and head off, because if they hadn't, he would have had to save his second shot to put himself out of his misery after the curb-stomping they could have delivered him

It still makes sense today as the ultimate surprise. And your story is more proof that you don't need more... sometimes. :D

Of course today I admit that the wallet derringer would have that Beretta, Combat Magnum or Glock backing it up. :)

[Tamara]

It still makes sense today as the ultimate surprise. And your story is more proof that you don't need more... sometimes. :D

As best I can, I'll not try and bank on the cowardice of my potential foes, but I'll take it if I can get it. ;)

[LittleLebowski]

I will be happy to stipulate I sometimes handicap myself with a belt carried revolver for my convenience and because I am an old fart that came up through the ranks with wheelguns and shoot them well and often better than my pistols. I accept the limits and will happily admit that semi auto pistols are better in most all things. Sometimes carrying the most efficient and effective tool is not what I want to do.

I mentioned earlier about Hasselblads and Yashicas. I have sold off all the Hasselblads. Still have a Yashica and old Nikon Ftn. I like 'em and use 'em. Same with my Combat Magnum. I like it and feel very comfortable with it. Sometimes at my age I want to slow down and smell the roses. I still bet I can outshoot the vast majority of casual CCW'ers with my wheelie. I have beaten a few better shooters in local club matches competing against those wonder nines.

Skill at arms is the foundation of the results no matter which tool you might use.

Casual CCW'ers is not this forum. I've been at several forum staff and friends shoots where everyone was shooting a sub 7 second FAST and routinely managing two second shots from concealment onto steel past 10 yards. I've gotten past worrying about outshooting casual CCW'ers because it's silly and ego forming. As in not good. Sneering at the commoners does nothing but balloon one's head. Outshooting casual CCW'ers is not a test of skill when most of them cannot draw and hit from concealment at speed nor perform a proper reload. Not to mention walk back drills, the FAST, etc...

I would like to see a revolver guy do well at the FAST, purely from an academic standpoint.

[Al T.]

I would like to see a revolver guy do well at the FAST, purely from an academic standpoint.

Define "well". :D

As I luv me some wheel guns, I'll take that challenge. And of course, if you ain't cheating, you ain't winning. I'll be proud to cheat in front of disinterested observers. :)

[LittleLebowski]

Define "well". :D

As I luv me some wheel guns, I'll take that challenge. And of course, if you ain't cheating, you ain't winning. I'll be proud to cheat in front of disinterested observers. :)

Intermediate. Winning a pin. Sub 7 seconds clean.

[FotoTomas]

I have never attempted a FAST drill. I plan to get to the range this week and try it. See where I stand with my 92D Centurion, G26 Baby and M19 Combat Magnum. Sounds like fun.

[ToddG]

Intermediate. Winning a pin. Sub 7 seconds clean.

Sub seven seconds (pin worthy) is Advanced, not Intermediate.

re: all the discussion about "it's skill, not gear" ... <edited for violating obscenity rules>!

I make a living teaching skill. I have a website devoted to preaching skill. I spend hours a week honing skill. I helped create a forum about building skill. And there is absolutely no question in my mind that some gear helps me deliver that skill better, faster, more accurately, and/or more reliably than others.

The fact that exceptional people can do good work with mediocre equipment doesn't change the fact that it's mediocre equipment.

The fact that mediocre people can only do mediocre work with exceptional equipment doesn't change the that that it's exceptional equipment.

Someone brought up photography. If you want an apt analogy, revolvers = film and modern high capacity semiautos = digital. Almost anyone at any skill level is going to be able to do more and better work with digital. Are there still some people who cling to film? Sure. That doesn't change the fact that from the commercial level to the professional, digital dominates the field because it's simply better for what almost everyone wants a camera to do.

[JM Campbell]

Sub seven seconds (pin worthy) is Advanced, not Intermediate.

re: all the discussion about "it's skill, not gear" ... <edited for violating obscenity rules>!

I make a living teaching skill. I have a website devoted to preaching skill. I spend hours a week honing skill. I helped create a forum about building skill. And there is absolutely no question in my mind that some gear helps me deliver that skill better, faster, more accurately, and/or more reliably than others.

The fact that exceptional people can do good work with mediocre equipment doesn't change the fact that it's mediocre equipment.

The fact that mediocre people can only do mediocre work with exceptional equipment doesn't change the that that it's exceptional equipment.

Someone brought up photography. If you want an apt analogy, revolvers = film and modern high capacity semiautos = digital. Almost anyone at any skill level is going to be able to do more and better work with digital. Are there still some people who cling to film? Sure. That doesn't change the fact that from the commercial level to the professional, digital dominates the field because it's simply better for what almost everyone wants a camera to do.

Angels wept and harps rang down from the heavens.....I'm stealing that analogy Todd, well said sir.

[JodyH]

Sub 7 seconds clean.
Don't forget to invite a group of friends to watch. <7 alone on the range isn't the same as <7 in class or in front of peers.
Performance anxiety adds time and fumbles.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

[JConn]

Don't forget to invite a group of friends to watch. <7 alone on the range isn't the same as <7 in class or in front of peers.
Performance anxiety adds time and fumbles.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

If only that wasn't so true...

[Al T.]

Don't forget to invite a group of friends to watch.

LOL, I can't get my very casual shooting buddies to even hit the range consistently, let alone actually train. I'm the only guy in my training circle. :D

[FotoTomas]

Sub seven seconds (pin worthy) is Advanced, not Intermediate.

re: all the discussion about "it's skill, not gear" ... <edited for violating obscenity rules>!

I make a living teaching skill. I have a website devoted to preaching skill. I spend hours a week honing skill. I helped create a forum about building skill. And there is absolutely no question in my mind that some gear helps me deliver that skill better, faster, more accurately, and/or more reliably than others.

The fact that exceptional people can do good work with mediocre equipment doesn't change the fact that it's mediocre equipment.

The fact that mediocre people can only do mediocre work with exceptional equipment doesn't change the that that it's exceptional equipment.

Someone brought up photography. If you want an apt analogy, revolvers = film and modern high capacity semiautos = digital. Almost anyone at any skill level is going to be able to do more and better work with digital. Are there still some people who cling to film? Sure. That doesn't change the fact that from the commercial level to the professional, digital dominates the field because it's simply better for what almost everyone wants a camera to do.

Being a photographer from the old school I truly understand the benefits of digital. EOS 5d MkII is the current goto camera in the Domke Bag. That being said, there is something about the purity of a silver image that digital will never touch. In todays market the silver imagers command premiums for their skill and expertise while the majority continue with the more modern digital revolution. I shoot film for fun because I am an artist in many ways. My mother was a commercial artist and photographer and passed it on to me. She LOVES digital but still shoots film for "special" projects. I understand film and work it in the darkroom. It keeps me sane in this modern world.

It is a good analogy because digital is a more modern convenience that makes good photography easier not better. A modern Glock gives me a more advanced pistol with enhancements that improve the odds in extreme situations. My combat magnum gives me confidence based on long association and past experience and is my friend. I keep trying to argue that my choice fits me on those occasions I choose to go that way. It is not the "best choice" technically speaking but is the best choice at that time and place for me. Confidence in your weapon system is more than half the battle. Skill at arms with confidence will likely win the day. The extra capability is a plus but often not required and I accept that it is a risk. Just like those rare occasions where you and your LCP are all you have.

For me life is a series of choices that will determine my future and those choices will include using weapons that are old fashioned on occasion. Just like my knife in the pocket. It is not wrong, simply a choice. That choice will meet all of the requirements of a modern weapon but will necessitate superior skill in a worst case scenario where five or six rounds are not enough. I am confident in my skill set. I am willing to bet my life on that skill set.

I understand others might feel the need to maximize their options. Whether that is for the worst case scenario or simply a lack of confidence in their skills, that is their cross to bear.

Final word on this topic for me. Todd your job is to teach this stuff to the best of your ability. You maintain the level of your skill with constant practice to maintain that edge. My job is to enforce the law. The need for shooting a pistol is important and a high liability action but a very rare occurrence. My report writing skills are more important in my daily work as well as a plethora of other duties. I too teach firearms but as a collateral duty to my regular job. As such I strive to be better than those around me but must spend much of my time in other pursuits. Being a medium sized fish in a small pond is fine for me at this point in my life. It gives me balance. Packing a Combat Magnum on occasion also gives me pause to trust the fundamentals of combat shooting. I know that my on board bean count is limited. Shoot straight and hit hard are the maxims I tend to pursue. The Combat Magnum gives me that tool on those rare days it is my primary. The smaller PM9 and 638 Bodyguard give me confidence as well. They are my choices. We will simply have to agree to disagree. :)

[David Armstrong]

No, Al T. said he carries a P-32. I can understand that. But you said "derringer".
The point was not what he said he chose, but what he said about why he chose it.

If someone needed micro levels of concealment, why would they use a clunky, heavy, two-shooter that needs to be manually cocked for each shot and practically disassembled for reloading instead of a slimmer, lighter .32/.380 autoloader?
I think some biases are showing, as that does not describe all derringers. My old High Standard is slim and does not need to be cocked. My mini-derringer is lighter than anything else I've run across. Etc.

The derringer is a piece of gear that by any objective measurement is as obsolete as the percussion revolver. The only reason to carry one that I can think of is nostalgia.
I think the key there is the "that I can think of" phrase, and not just for you, Tam, but others. Sometimes folks have trouble understanding or realizing that not everyone thinks the way they do, considers the same things important, has the same concerns, etc. To me much of this stuff is rather elitist in the "I know better than others what they need" context, some of it is the "my Accord is better than your Taurus" argument, some of it is the automatic versus standard transmission discussion, and a lot of it is at the same level as the 9mm versus 40 S&W versus 45ACP silliness, IMO. If it works, it works. That is the only true method of evaluation that I care about, and so I look at things from that perspective. Tiny differences that may or may not be an improvement, depending on the circumstances, are nice to discuss in the theoretical arena, but the final assessment is "does it get the job done in an effective manner for most." If anyone really thinks the world of CCW statistics would change much (or at all) if everyone suddenly was armed with a revolver I would suggest they rethink that.

[BigT]

Repeartedly the point has been made about the differences between LE gunfights and CCW gunfights. I admit I'm pretty dumb but I'm confused. Do we have two different sets of bad guys in the pool?.

Or is it that when Joe Sixpack pulls a Derringer on our bad guy he runs screaming and when Officer Friendly pulls a service pistol while all jocked upthis selfsame badguy decides to re enact the film Heat.It makes no sense. Its the same set of criminals. They are probably more likely to try it on with some dude strolling around with his family than with an on duty cop. Its a simple case of expected risk.And that cop likely has body armour, access to a long gun and farbetter coms and access to back up than I do when I'm grocery shopping.Yes somehow the perception is that I don' t have the need for great in gun capacity as him even with all the other advantages he has.

Ye the response is that civilians should "shoot and scoot" if it goes to guns where as the police have a duty to stick around. This doesnt take into account situations where as a civilian you can't escape because of family, or bad guys cutting off your exit, or positions where you are cutting off their exit forcing them to push through you. Or simply the twisted group of mofo's who have decided you and yours will be tonights entertainment. This may be more common where I live but I have no doubt it happens where you live too.IIRC Those uber douchbags Platt and Matix attacked a good few civilians in their spree. Any one really think that they Would have not fought it out with me when they where prepared to fight it out when deeply outnumbered.

Having seen badguys completely unimmpressed at being shot at makes arguments about how they will run away "most" of the time little more than static to me..

[BigT]

Sorry about the last line in that post it doesnt make sense. my tablet wouldnt let me change it when typing or fix on editing for some reason. Is one of the stafff could remove that list line of gobeldygook I would appreciate it

[LittleLebowski]

Having seen badguys completely unimmpressed at being shot at makes arguments about how they will run away "most" of the time little more than static to me..

Good info, thanks for sharing.

[David Armstrong]

Repeartedly the point has been made about the differences between LE gunfights and CCW gunfights. I admit I'm pretty dumb but I'm confused. Do we have two different sets of bad guys in the pool?.
No. What we have are two very different sets of dynamics and motivations. Same guys, different motivations/needs. LE gunfights are generally based on trying to take a person into custody, in other words make them do something they do not want to do. Non-LE fights, by and large, we just need to convince the BG that continuing on the present course of action will cost more than it is worth. John Farnams' recent "Quips" has a bit on this:
>>1) VCAs (Violent Criminal Actors) who ply their trade with the expectation of encountering a significant 'fight' represent a minuscule minority. The vast majority are simply looking for an easy score with minimal expose to risk.
>>2) When substantial resistance, particularly gunfire, emanates from an unexpected source (the intended victim), nearly all VCAs voluntarily disengage, immediately, and run away, having no interest in any kind of 'fight.'



Those uber douchbags Platt and Matix attacked a good few civilians in their spree. Any one really think that they Would have not fought it out with me when they where prepared to fight it out when deeply outnumbered.
The reason Platt and Matix are so notable is that they were so unusual. And as a FWIW, a big part of the battle was because the BGs were trapped and could not get away. Platt and Matix notably NEVER engaged in a fight until they were cornered. They ambushed, hit fast, and left the area. The one time that guards for the armored car company shot back the BGs promptly ran.

Having seen badguys completely unimmpressed at being shot at makes arguments about how they will run away "most" of the time little more than static to me..
I haven't seen every BG in the world, but I've run across a bunch, and I've yet to find one (barring inter-BG wars) who would stick around after getting shot if he had the choice of getting shot more or leaving the area. YMMV

[FotoTomas]

Using an analogy, we all recognize that seat belts save lives. We also realize that car accidents are rare but happen suddenly and often close to home so logic dictates we wear the seatbelt. What is often missed in those statistics is how head injury is a significant result of violent car accidents and often result in death. Even if you are wearing seat belts. To protect the head in a car accident a helmet is recommended. For race car drivers in sanctioned events the helmet is required safety equipment. I do not see very many car drivers wear a helmet when driving to the store. They accept the risk of head injury or death if in a severe car accident rather than wear the helmet.

I know that I will probably not get in a gunfight. If I do then I carry some life saving equipment such as a pistol to respond. Most times I simply do not carry extra equipment that would be necessary in a worse case scenario. I feel my carried seatbelt is enough. One day I might have that worst case scenario. I am sure I will miss the bigger gun with more beans if it happens. Even so I am prepared for life's fender benders and crashes just not the rollovers and collapsed roofs and will take the risks.

[TGS]

Once upon a time, some many pages ago, this was a simple discussion on who has or does use a revolver as their primary.

[BaiHu]

A long time ago in a galaxy far away, I started reading this thread and something came to me. Isn't this argument the same as a caliber argument?

The ubiquitous .45 vs 9mm
Carry the heaviest caliber you can handle accurately and quickly.

Revolver vs. Semi-auto
Carry the gun that you can handle accurately and quickly within the attire you need to wear.

[Tamara]

Once upon a time, some many pages ago, this was a simple discussion on who has or does use a revolver as their primary.

So, uh, first time on the internet, then? (KIDDING!) ;)

[David Armstrong]

A long time ago in a galaxy far away, I started reading this thread and something came to me. Isn't this argument the same as a caliber argument?
Pretty much, IMO, and I tried to point that out a few posts back. And much like the caliber argument, no matter how much some argue that it makes a difference, when one looks at what really happens in CCW/self defense the difference either disappears entirely or is so insignificant it just isn't noticeable except on the rarest fringes.

[Long tom coffin]

Once upon a time, some many pages ago, this was a simple discussion on who has or does use a revolver as their primary.



Yes, actually. So long ago that I pretty much forgot I started it. It was just a simple method to satisfy my curiosity: aside from some various questions about revo BUGs, this particular subforum was starting to stagnate, and I wanted to see if anyone here carried a cylinder & hammer on a daily basis outside of BUG status.

[Doc Hudson]

I've carried revolvers for both primary and secondary armament for many years.

I admit that I've not read this entire thread, but I felt compelled to respond to a couple of comments in the thread.

One gentlman took acception to a quote of the late great Bill Jordan one of my long-time personal heroes. I do not remember ever reading the quote: "If it takes more than six rounds, you've lost." However, in his great treatise on gunfighting, No Second Place Winner, Bill Jordan did say quite plainly, "If it takes more than six rounds, one should retire discretely and practice."

As for the question of whether or not Bill Jordan would change his opinion regarding revolvers, I seriously doubt it. He was alive and active in shooting and hunting well into the early years of the plastic gun and high capacity 9mmP craze and the beginning of the .38-40 ACP Fad. While Bill Jordan appreciated and often use semi-autos for sport, he still preferred revolvers for his carry gun. BTW, during his service in the US Marine Corps in the Pacific Theater of operations, Bill carried a thouroughly unauthorized Smith & Wess Registered Magnum rather than the GI issues M-1911-A1, and used it to good effect on Japanese opponents.



Another gentleman claimed that pistols are more versatile than revolvers.

I'm sorry sir, but I most vehemently disagree.

For proper operations, pistols must use ammunition loaded to a very narrow pressure range. If the pressure is to low, the slide will not opeate properly to eject the empty and reload the chamber. If the pressure is too high, the pistol will be beaten to pieces in pretty short order.

On the other hand, if the bullet has enough gas to push it out of the barrel, you can keep shooting your revolver. Just as an example, the .357 Magnum, one of the most versatile calibers in the world, can easily use anything ranging from shotshells for dispatching snakes to 148 grain Target Wadcutters at around 700 fps to 125 grain JHP's at 1300 to 1400 fps or even 180 grain hunting bullets at around 1100 to 1200 fps. A quick glance at a somewhat out of date Guns & Ammo Annual, showed more than 30 different standard loadings in .38 SW Special and .357 Magnum, ranging from shotshells to bullets ranging from 110 grains to 180 grains, and one can even find some old 200 grain "Manstopper" loads if you look hard enough. Gentlemen, if that ain't versatile,m you can revoke my membership in PETA ( People Eaing Tasty Animals)!

I started shooting handguns with revolvers. nearly everyone I knew used revolvers because they didn't trust semi-autos due to their experiences with the grand old M-1911 in World War II or Korea. I pretty well adopted the anti-pistol attitude of my mentors. I resisted the great migration from revolvers for a long time. But after a decade of reading numerous monthly articles claiming the vast superiority of the the pistol over the revolver, i decided to give them a try. My first pistol was Colt Stainless Officers' ACP. I liked it and it became my constant companion for a number of years, on duty as well as off. I also tried the Wonder 9 Tribe in the form of a Taurus PT-92. I found the PT-92 to be totally reliable and very reasonably accurate. I still miss that pistol, even if it was a 9mmP.

I carried that Colt for nearly 10 years, until one day at the range I discovered that five of my six magazines, including the one that had been in the pistol two weeks before when I had to draw it to chase off some muggers. I went back to packing revolvers and will continues to do so as long as I'm able to pack a gun of any kind.

I won't trouble you gents with my rather lengthy argument on the superiority of revolvers in this, my fist post here, but I'm pretty sure you will see it soon enough. BTW, while I admit to being nothing more than an opinionated old gun rank, you can read my bonafides in my profile biography.

Doc Hudson, NRA Life Member, F&AM, SCV, OOGC

[Tamara]

My first pistol was Colt Stainless Officers' ACP.

Yeah, that'd put me off my feed on semiautos, too. :p

[Doc Hudson]

Bill Jordan wasn't facing trained para-military opponents wearing body armor and equipped with the latest weapons technology(AKs, ARs, heavy machine guns, etc). I think his tune would have changed a little after the first good skirmish.

Don't bet on it.

Even in Bill Jordan's Border Patrol days, smuggling involving Mexican soldiers was not un heard of or even un common.

Doc Hudson, NRA Life mamber, F&AM, SCV, OOGK

[rsa-otc]

I carried that Colt for nearly 10 years, until one day at the range I discovered that five of my six magazines, including the one that had been in the pistol two weeks before when I had to draw it to chase off some muggers.

Doc, I'm assuming you had some failure to feed issues?

[LittleLebowski]

Don't bet on it.

Even in Bill Jordan's Border Patrol days, smuggling involving Mexican soldiers was not un heard of or even un common.

Doc Hudson, NRA Life mamber, F&AM, SCV, OOGK

So, does that settle it? Since Bill Jordan wouldn't use a semi auto, does that negate Col Cooper's beliefs or maybe Master Sergeant Blanton (http://rationalgun.blogspot.com/2011/11/interview-with-hero-in-honor-of.html) would have done better not going to slide lock using a 15 round Beretta in Iraq?

It does beat all when folks latch onto one guy's heroics and attempt to base logic off of it.

[WDW]

OMG! This thread is still alive? Someone kill it please! Put it out of it's misery! Here's a good use for a revolver for this thread...http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t3/videoguymf1/Emoticons/SMILIES/suicide.gif

[David Armstrong]

So, does that settle it? Since Bill Jordan wouldn't use a semi auto, does that negate Col Cooper's beliefs or maybe Master Sergeant Blanton (http://rationalgun.blogspot.com/2011/11/interview-with-hero-in-honor-of.html) would have done better not going to slide lock using a 15 round Beretta in Iraq?

It does beat all when folks latch onto one guy's heroics and attempt to base logic off of it.
What is does show is that very well qualified and highly trained individuals can (and do) disagree on what is better for CCW/self defense.

[LittleLebowski]

What is does show is that very well qualified and highly trained individuals can (and do) disagree on what is better for CCW/self defense.

So, folks are saying the revolver is better as opposed to "still viable?"

[David Armstrong]

So, folks are saying the revolver is better as opposed to "still viable?"
Yes, some people argue that things are better for them, and I think that is a legitimate response within their own needs and situation. I prefer to discuss most issues in terms of difference as opposed to better or worse as there are almost always advantages and disadvantages to everything, but I can certainly conclude what I feel is better for me in any given situation based on what advantages best meet my particular needs while minimizing the disadvantages.

[TR675]

Did ECQC this last weekend, and damn if my M&P didn't fail to go into battery four times during retention shooting, almost certainly because of drag on my clothes.

I won't trade it in for a k-frame, but that malfunction wouldn't have happened with a revolver.

Just a data point.

[Doc Hudson]

Yeah, that'd put me off my feed on semiautos, too. :p

Tamara, it actually made me a believer in flatguns until it scared me nearly to death.

To shorten a usually long story, I had to draw my Colt to convince four punks that the fat old man with the cane was not prey. When they hauled freight toward the far side of town, I did not try to stop them.

A week or two later, I went to the range with a friend. I had six magazines with me. Five of them, including the one in the magaine when I faced those would be muggers had taken a set and would not feed. I nearly puked when it dawned on me that I'd face four punks with what amounted to being a single-shot pistol. I went back to six-guns and have never looked back.

But no, I won't sell or give you my Officers' ACP. I still enjoy shooting it, but I don't trust it for defensive carry.

Doc Hudson

[Doc Hudson]

So, does that settle it? Since Bill Jordan wouldn't use a semi auto, does that negate Col Cooper's beliefs or maybe Master Sergeant Blanton (http://rationalgun.blogspot.com/2011/11/interview-with-hero-in-honor-of.html) would have done better not going to slide lock using a 15 round Beretta in Iraq?

It does beat all when folks latch onto one guy's heroics and attempt to base logic off of it.

All in the world it settles is that lawmen facing organized and trained enemies is nothing new.

If I were forced to darry a flaat gun by my employer, I'd not be happy, but i'd shoot that derned thing until I could build up trust in both my ability to hit what I was shooting at, and at the speed with which I could access my back-up revolver.

But as a private citizen, I can carry whatever I please, and have th opportunity to attempt to convince others that my choice is not only a viable weapon but a danged good one.

When pushing and shoving come around, there is absolutely no question about it. The choice of weapon or caliber are a derned sight less important than the skill of the crank yanking the trigger, and his determination to not only survive the encounter, but to win it. Now I don't know any of you gentlemen and don't know how well y'all shoot. But I guarantee y'all, i'd rather face any two of y'all at close range with your choice of weapons than to have my old friend Bryant Grace shooting at me from 100 yards away with his pet .22. Yep skill and determination are the important parts.

Arguing about weapon or ammunition choice is just entertainment.

Doc Hudson

[JHC]

All in the world it settles is that lawmen facing organized and trained enemies is nothing new.

If I were forced to darry a flaat gun by my employer, I'd not be happy, but i'd shoot that derned thing until I could build up trust in both my ability to hit what I was shooting at, and at the speed with which I could access my back-up revolver.

But as a private citizen, I can carry whatever I please, and have th opportunity to attempt to convince others that my choice is not only a viable weapon but a danged good one.

When pushing and shoving come around, there is absolutely no question about it. The choice of weapon or caliber are a derned sight less important than the skill of the crank yanking the trigger, and his determination to not only survive the encounter, but to win it. Now I don't know any of you gentlemen and don't know how well y'all shoot. But I guarantee y'all, i'd rather face any two of y'all at close range with your choice of weapons than to have my old friend Bryant Grace shooting at me from 100 yards away with his pet .22. Yep skill and determination are the important parts.

Arguing about weapon or ammunition choice is just entertainment.

Doc Hudson

Hey Doc! Unreconstructed Union boy here but now virtually a neighbor. ;) A lot of these guys here have "sick" marksmanship skills so the choice might not be as simple as it first seemed. Are you a wheelgunner then? I was raised on them; been shooting about as long as your profile indicates. What is your primary choice to pack? Welcome.

[Doc Hudson]

Hey Doc! Unreconstructed Union boy here but now virtually a neighbor. ;) A lot of these guys here have "sick" marksmanship skills so the choice might not be as simple as it first seemed. Are you a wheelgunner then? I was raised on them; been shooting about as long as your profile indicates. What is your primary choice to pack? Welcome.


JHC,

I live way down in South Alabama. There is only one county between me and the Florida line. FWIW I have some relatives in Georgia, but mostly down in South Georgia. They've been there since shortly after The "45, when George II shipped them over in chains.

These days i generally don't carry a belt gun, but my S&W M-640 is always in a pocket or sporran. hen I carry both a belt gun and the Always Gun, the belt gun varies. Sometimes it is a 4" S&W M-686. sometimes it is a 4.75" italian peacemaker in .44 S&W Speciaal, and once in a long while it is an ancient Charter Arms .44 Bulldog, which was the first centerfire handgun I ever bought, and sometimes it is a 3" Cimarron Model 1851 Navy Colt with the Mason Richards Conversion in .38 S&W Special.

Don't get me wrong, I don't recommend SA revolvers for everyone to use for defense. But I've been shooting SA revolvers for 45 years. I am very comfortable with the SA, and can hit what I point it at. Don't bother to say anything about the slowness or reloading under fire. I don't even carry spare ammo for the Peacemaker, if I need a reload, i'll just drag out the Always gun and give them a taste of .357 magnum blast.

Doc Hudson

[jetfire]

706

I suppose you carry a .357 because it has really good one-shot stops, right?

[Jay Cunningham]

I am going to bring the hammer down if this thread devolves any further.

[Long tom coffin]

JHC,

I live way down in South Alabama. There is only one county between me and the Florida line. FWIW I have some relatives in Georgia, but mostly down in South Georgia. They've been there since shortly after The "45, when George II shipped them over in chains.

These days i generally don't carry a belt gun, but my S&W M-640 is always in a pocket or sporran. hen I carry both a belt gun and the Always Gun, the belt gun varies. Sometimes it is a 4" S&W M-686. sometimes it is a 4.75" italian peacemaker in .44 S&W Speciaal, and once in a long while it is an ancient Charter Arms .44 Bulldog, which was the first centerfire handgun I ever bought, and sometimes it is a 3" Cimarron Model 1851 Navy Colt with the Mason Richards Conversion in .38 S&W Special.

Don't get me wrong, I don't recommend SA revolvers for everyone to use for defense. But I've been shooting SA revolvers for 45 years. I am very comfortable with the SA, and can hit what I point it at. Don't bother to say anything about the slowness or reloading under fire. I don't even carry spare ammo for the Peacemaker, if I need a reload, i'll just drag out the Always gun and give them a taste of .357 magnum blast.

Doc Hudson

At the risk of offending Jay and bringing down the hammer of the Forum Gods, I have to ask: A sporran? As in, you wear a kilt?

[Jay Cunningham]

It has nothing to do with offending me.

[LittleLebowski]

Now I don't know any of you gentlemen and don't know how well y'all shoot. But I guarantee y'all, i'd rather face any two of y'all at close range with your choice of weapons than to have my old friend Bryant Grace shooting at me from 100 yards away with his pet .22.

Perhaps you could take a look at some of our match times, scores, and progress in shooting skills as publicly listed on this forum before using bluster about a friend's shooting prowess to insult us en masse or are generalized insults of people you do not know accepted where you're from?

[Tamara]

Man, I'd forgotten about this one (http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/988015_My_CCW_Shooting_AAR__Now_with_Moar_Graphic_ Pics_on_pg_29_and_30.html).

While the "Armed American" column in National Rifleman is full of incidents where Mrs. Edna Blascowicz waves her deceased husband's service revolver at the masked intruder like a rabbit's foot, causing him to flee in terror, they rarely include the stories where the good guy and bad guy exchange gunfire, both get hit and stay in the fight, the good guy gets all shot up and has to clear a malf, and the bad guy only flees when he shoots his revolver dry, getting several "clicks" on spent chambers before bolting out the door. I'll bet the good guy in this incident is glad the bad guy only had the six shots. (And that he had a pistol that didn't require an uninjured grip to work, but that's yet another thread...)

[TCinVA]

As for the question of whether or not Bill Jordan would change his opinion regarding revolvers, I seriously doubt it.


He started out with a Peacemaker.

Bill Jordan was awesome...but let's not pretend he wasn't a product of his time. When he started double-action revolvers were new-fangled contraptions that his fellow officers didn't fully trust because the Peacemaker had done plenty well for them for X years. Then later Jordan goes on to practically design a lighter double action revolver in a smaller caliber. He may have gone into his golden years thinking that the DA revolver was "good enough"...but the guys who retired before him thought that the Peacemaker was good enough with 5 on board.

Obviously at some point Jordan departed from their hard-won wisdom based on his understanding of the world.


Man, I'd forgotten about this one (http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/988015_My_CCW_Shooting_AAR__Now_with_Moar_Graphic_ Pics_on_pg_29_and_30.html).

While the "Armed American" column in National Rifleman is full of incidents where Mrs. Edna Blascowicz waves her deceased husband's service revolver at the masked intruder like a rabbit's foot, causing him to flee in terror, they rarely include the stories where the good guy and bad guy exchange gunfire, both get hit and stay in the fight, the good guy gets all shot up and has to clear a malf, and the bad guy only flees when he shoots his revolver dry, getting several "clicks" on spent chambers before bolting out the door. I'll bet the good guy in this incident is glad the bad guy only had the six shots. (And that he had a pistol that didn't require an uninjured grip to work, but that's yet another thread...)

The bad guy there actually only had 5 shots. He brought a J frame to the fight and when he realized he'd had his five and the other guy was still shooting, he beat feet...but not before taking a round as a goodbye gift.

The bad guy having an extensive criminal record thought a J frame would be "enough". Wink.

[Byron]

Now I don't know any of you gentlemen and don't know how well y'all shoot. But I guarantee y'all, i'd rather face any two of y'all at close range with your choice of weapons than to have my old friend Bryant Grace shooting at me from 100 yards away with his pet .22

http://byrong.com/misc/this-thread-just-went-full-retard.jpg

[ToddG]

Now I don't know any of you gentlemen and don't know how well y'all shoot. But I guarantee y'all, i'd rather face any two of y'all at close range with your choice of weapons than to have my old friend Bryant Grace shooting at me from 100 yards away with his pet .22.

Ok. I pick SeanM for my team.

[VolGrad]

A week or two later, I went to the range with a friend. I had six magazines with me. Five of them, including the one in the magaine when I faced those would be muggers had taken a set and would not feed. I nearly puked when it dawned on me that I'd face four punks with what amounted to being a single-shot pistol. I went back to six-guns and have never looked back.
Sounds like a weapons maintenance issue to me, moreso than a reason to abandom semi-autos.

That's just me though. Heck, what do I know. At yesterday's IDPA match I was wondering why so many guys were shooting revolvers. I mean really, revolvers? :p

[jetfire]

Ok. I pick SeanM for my team.

/thread

[markp]

Just satisfying my curiosity here. I've done so before, a tuned SP 101 with .357 DPX in it, and an LCR as back up. Just curious to see if anyone else has ever done so, as well.

back before we had the ccw permit process, I carried a 686 in an Alessi 'pull-through' holster with a couple of safariland comp-2 speedloaders on the off side.

Out of the 6 ,the first 4 rds up were 38+P and the last 2 were 357Mags.
Speedloaders were 357 also.

[David Armstrong]

The bad guy there actually only had 5 shots. He brought a J frame to the fight and when he realized he'd had his five and the other guy was still shooting, he beat feet...but not before taking a round as a goodbye gift.

The bad guy having an extensive criminal record thought a J frame would be "enough". Wink.
I may have misread it, but if the GG would have had a J-frame it would have been enough, since he only used 4 rounds to solve the problem. Who knows, if he had been using a revolver he might not have had the problem with the grip safety.:D

[Tamara]

Who knows, if he had been using a revolver he might not have had the problem with the grip safety.:D

Gosh, it's almost like I had referenced that in my post! :rolleyes:

[David Armstrong]

Gosh, it's almost like I had referenced that in my post! :rolleyes:
And worth pointing out again!:cool:

[BaiHu]

We need a headbanging emoticon or a 'beating the dead horse' emoticon....in six-shot :p

[Long tom coffin]

We need a headbanging emoticon or a 'beating the dead horse' emoticon....in six-shot :p

Disagreed. Considering this site awards pins and coins for excellence, so I advocate paper awards for stupidity.



http://dansideas.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/beat-a-dead-horse.jpg?w=635

[BaiHu]

Lmao! Nice!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk

[billt]

And here we are, 40 odd pages, and over 350 posts later, and we still have auto pistol lovers coming over to the revolver forum to try and convince anyone and everyone who will listen, how horribly under gunned they are if they prefer to carry a revolver. What I'm not getting is that if you feel as auto pistol lovers, you need to conduct this mutual admiration society, why not do it in the auto pistol forum instead of here? You wouldn't go on a Toyota forum if you drove a Silverado, why this then? What you are forgetting is that most revolver owners own plenty of autos. It's not as if they don't know they exist, and require you to educate us about them. They PREFER carrying a revolver. Why the difficulty in getting over that fact?

[TCinVA]

And here we are, 40 odd pages, and over 350 posts later, and we still have auto pistol lovers coming over to the revolver forum to try and convince anyone and everyone who will listen, how horribly under gunned they are if they prefer to carry a revolver. What I'm not getting is that if you feel as auto pistol lovers, you need to conduct this mutual admiration society, why not do it in the auto pistol forum instead of here?


***sigh***

Speaking as member number 4 of Pistol-Forum.com (my account having been created after the site administrator's account, ToddG's account, and Jay's account) and having been involved in the creation of the forum:

The revolver forum here was never intended to be a refuge from divergent opinions. It doesn't belong to any particular group or philosophy. It was created so that people would have a place to discuss wheelguns, whether they are used for carry, competition, collecting, or general merriment. Whether or not the revolver makes sense as a primary carry gun is a perfectly legitimate topic of discussion. People weighing in with their views on that topic is precisely the sort of activity we want at PF.com. I may not always agree with the opinions expressed, and I may even challenge assertions made on the topic...

...but that's exactly what we want to happen.

PF.com as a whole was created to be a place where people can exchange and scrutinize ideas and equipment and maybe...just maybe...learn something.



You wouldn't go on a Toyota forum if you drove a Silverado, why this then? What you are forgetting is that most revolver owners own plenty of autos. It's not as if they don't know they exist, and require you to educate us about them. They PREFER carrying a revolver. Why the difficulty in getting over that fact?

This is a firearms forum...and revolvers are firearms.

If you prefer to carry a revolver, then by all means carry a revolver. Nobody in this discussion who has questioned the practical limitations of a wheelgun is going to show up at your house and slap the J or K frame out of your hand. What you choose to carry doesn't matter to me in the least.

...but at the same don't get offended if you state a preference for a wheelgun and somebody comes along and points out the practical limitations of wheelguns as a tool of personal defense. You may have considered it fully and may have made an informed decision, but I guarantee that there are others out there who have not weighed all the factors, considered the practice from all angles, and made an informed decision. I can make that guarantee because I run into people who make choices in weapons and equipment that they don't fully understand all the time. If one wishes to prove that fact to themselves they need do nothing more than look at sales of the Taurus Judge.

So we then come to the other side of the coin:

If you've made the decision to carry a revolver because you estimate that it's just fine for what you need, why not simply state that and move on rather than getting offended that people who have come to a different decision question the practice? If their opinion is irrelevant to you, so be it. Why expend all sorts of effort trying to justify your practice if it requires no justification? At a certain point in a discussion when it's evident that people are going to have to agree to disagree, participants are going to have to decide that they've said all they need to say and move on to the next thing.

That's certainly preferable to popping into a thread that hadn't seen a response in a week and taking another swing at a horse you seem to recognize is plenty dead already.

This thread has remained open as long as it has because while there is some silliness in it, there is also some excellent discussion people could learn from if so inclined. It seems, however, that it's impossible for it to remain open without attracting attempts to beat the dead horse until there's nothing left but a greasy red smear in the pavement. So, sadly, I'm left with no choice but to lock it.