Does anyone use a revolver as a primary?

[Long tom coffin]

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.

[Tamara]

Well, there was a three-week stretch back in... '06? ...when I broke the snaps on my Galco Summer Comfort and our wholesaler was out of stock on the Royal Guard I was going to order to replace it, so I went about a month carrying a 3" K-frame, because the only other IWB rig I had at the time was a Bianchi Pistol Pocket for K/L-frame revos.

A couple of times over the last few years, the big steel 1911 IWB would cause lower back pain to flare up on the gun side, and so I'd go for a day or so with the lighter 3" K-frame in an OWB pancake holster until the owie went away. Since I switched to the M&P back in September, though, I haven't had the slightest twinge of back pain, so that may no longer be a problem.

I don't have a problem carrying a revolver. At one point I was toying with the idea of going to my Model 21TR as my everyday CCW piece before I came to my senses. I'm quite confident in my shooting with the DA trigger, perhaps more confident of a fast, first-shot hit than I am with either the 1911 or the M&P, but the knowledge that there are only six beans in the wheel is a little sobering.

[TGS]

Used to. I was trying out the revolver thing and carried a 3" SP101 in an AIWB rig. I decided that while revolvers are cool, a semi-auto is an infinitely better option.

I've also used a S&W J-frame as a primary when on my cave diving trips. Getting undressed/dressed in public several times a day mandated something in a pocket. I decided to try out an automatic as well, but am having trouble finding something in that size range that is both reliable and easy to shoot accurately, quickly.

[Tamara]

I'll add that, in the coldest months of the year, the .32 Mag J-frame I carry in an outside coat pocket is my de facto primary when I'm out and about, as it's easier to access (and with either hand) than the pistol on my belt.

"Don't you want to use the coat check, Tam?"

"No, no, it's cool. I'll just keep it with me and hang it on the back of my chair..."

[jlw]

I carry a revolver when in Class A uniform simply because revolvers are are more classy...

I have also been known to carry a K frame.

[Al T.]

EDC is a S&W 340 in the pocket. When the uniform of the day is shorts and a T shirt, it works.

[Wheeler]

I've been known to carry at least one .38 on occasion. :)

[rsa-otc]

Current duty weapon is the oldest weapon in our inventory, S&W MDL 10 4" pencil nose. I carry it while in uniform on a duty belt in a Safariland Mdl 200 Top Gun holster and when in the office in plain clothes in a Safariland 518 paddle holster. I also have a Ted Blocker LFI IWB holster when I realy want to go low key.

[Long tom coffin]

Well, there was a three-week stretch back in... '06? ...when I broke the snaps on my Galco Summer Comfort and our wholesaler was out of stock on the Royal Guard I was going to order to replace it, so I went about a month carrying a 3" K-frame, because the only other IWB rig I had at the time was a Bianchi Pistol Pocket for K/L-frame revos.

A couple of times over the last few years, the big steel 1911 IWB would cause lower back pain to flare up on the gun side, and so I'd go for a day or so with the lighter 3" K-frame in an OWB pancake holster until the owie went away. Since I switched to the M&P back in September, though, I haven't had the slightest twinge of back pain, so that may no longer be a problem.

I don't have a problem carrying a revolver. At one point I was toying with the idea of going to my Model 21TR as my everyday CCW piece before I came to my senses. I'm quite confident in my shooting with the DA trigger, perhaps more confident of a fast, first-shot hit than I am with either the 1911 or the M&P, but the knowledge that there are only six beans in the wheel is a little sobering.


I've always shot DA/SA revolvers significantly better than semi autos, no matter the type. Something about the grip angles and recoil characteristics of semi automatics seems...off to me. I think that's a byproduct my formative gun experiences being centered around revolvers.


Originally, I felt quite comfortable with my SP 101 and a back up snub with a reload or two. Having 6 (or 5) beans in the wheel doesn't really bug me that much, provided they are the right kind of "bean". I'm significantly more confident of my accuracy with revolvers under time and pressure than I am with my semi-automatics. I'm leaning towards readopting me revolvers, but as I have some additional training courses coming up, I'm giving the semi-automatics a little be longer before I decide exactly what I want to do.

[jetfire]

When I was competing primarily with revolvers, my carry gun was a revolver as well. I just made sense to keep everything the same.

[rsa-otc]

If you shoot "Significantly" better with one platform than another, you should definitely go with that platform. Six hits are many orders of magnitude better than 15 misses. For me I shoot both about then same. There are days I do better with one than the other but not that much. The reason I carry a revolver is based on work related issues, needs and problems. The revolver just fits that role better, like shooting out of a 1.5 x 1.5 gun port.:cool:

[David Armstrong]

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.
I used to carry a S&W Mdl 65 as my primary (and often only) gun, and today often use a 642 for primary carry.

[Little Creek]

S&W M340 130 grain +P strong hand front pocket Galco holster.

[GJM]

All summer long -- a Scandium 329 44 magnum with Garrett Defender ammo.

[ford.304]

I carry Ruger a GP100 4" because it's the first gun I bought, and currently the only one I own. I love the gun, but I don't exactly recommend it as a carry piece. Hiding the grip is not particularly easy, and it's damned heavy.

[Matt C.]

Carried a 3" SP101 for a few years and had no complaints.
All summer I carried a 642 (and a reload)as a primary.
Have a Speed Six project (9x23) near completion and I may carry that also.

[Chuck Haggard]

When I am in the woods, or headed there, I often have a S&W 681 as my primary since 9mm isn't a legal deer round here.

The 642 is still my BUG in that case.


If I lived where really big mean animals ran around I'd likely have a 629 on me instead, with a snub .357 for a BUG.

[JHC]

I used to a lot. Then one night I was involved in a weird pursuit with my car blocking a pursuer from the pursued in what we later surmised was an attempted abduction, robbery or car jacking. The sight of my SP101 scared off the predators but left me totally underwhelmed with having the world turn shitty and having nothing but a 5 shot revolver to depend on. And I love wheelies, grew up with them and shoot them DA quite well. Maybe if I could really pull off carrying two.

[Long tom coffin]

I used to a lot. Then one night I was involved in a weird pursuit with my car blocking a pursuer from the pursued in what we later surmised was an attempted abduction, robbery or car jacking. The sight of my SP101 scared off the predators but left me totally underwhelmed with having the world turn shitty and having nothing but a 5 shot revolver to depend on. And I love wheelies, grew up with them and shoot them DA quite well. Maybe if I could really pull off carrying two.

SP 101 up front and another snub conveniently tucked away somewhere :D. There's a guy at my range who has this interesting IWB rig for the Ruger full size GP series. He stuffs a 4" in it, and the interesting thing about the holster is that it actually keeps the cylinder justly slightly above the belt line. That may sound uncomfortable but apparently it's not; it's also stupidly concealable because I've seen him tuck his shirt in with it and it looks like he's wearing nothing. I need to find out where he gets it from.

[JHC]

In 1981 when I got my first CCW license in WA state, I only owned 3 handguns. A K-22, K-38 and 6" Model 57 (.41 magnum). A local guy made me up a suede clip on IWB for the .41 and I carried it for a good part of a year until I bought my first 1911. Luckily up there those rain parkas where nearly daily wear.

[Al T.]

keeps the cylinder justly slightly above the belt line

Sounds like a Bianchi #3 Pocket Pistol holster.

[Tamara]

I know that my Comp-Tac Gurkha for 3" N-frames positions the cylinder above the beltline.

[ford.304]

I've got a don Hume leather IWB, and it puts the cylinder slightly above the belt. If I'm standing still the gun doesn't print under just a t-shirt, but bend over and you can definitely see the grip if you're looking for it.

[JHC]

I've got a don Hume leather IWB, and it puts the cylinder slightly above the belt. If I'm standing still the gun doesn't print under just a t-shirt, but bend over and you can definitely see the grip if you're looking for it.

For that reason I could never warm to designs that rode the gun that high.

[rsa-otc]

I have a 37" sleeve length (Knuckle dragger from way back). The cylinder even with the belt is about as high as I can go. Much higher than that and I'm contorting my torso to acquire the gun.

[Long tom coffin]

Sounds like a Bianchi #3 Pocket Pistol holster.

Definitely not one of those. I'm very familiar with many mass production (Don Hume, Bianchi, Safariland, Blackhawk, etc) holsters, and a lot of custom holster makers. This definitely looks like it was something towards the custom end of the spectrum. It was an interesting design, really.

[billt]

Revolvers have fallen out of favor because they are not "tacticool". Hi-Cap semi autos are. If it doesn't have at least one Picatinny rail on it, it is not effective in the eyes on the ninja crowd, and no self respecting ninja would be caught dead with it. Police carried revolvers effectively for almost a century. Now if you watch these dash cam videos of cops in shootouts with Hi-Cap semi's, all they do is miss more, and not even know they're doing it half the time. In interviews after shootouts most cops say they believe they fired only half the rounds they actually did. I love semi auto's but the shooter still has to do his part. It seems with semi autos that is becoming a rare occurrence. These cops now have practically a box of ammunition on their belts between a loaded double stack semi, and a couple of extra magazines. They're scoring hits much the same as when they only had 6.

[Tamara]

Revolvers have fallen out of favor because they are not "tacticool".

I like a revolver as much as the next kid, but I carry a semiauto with a bunch of bullets in it because A) Sometimes even bad people have friends they hang around with and do stuff with, and B) Some people take a whole lot of shooting.

I'm not very concerned about how cool it is. Besides, nobody can see it anyway, so whether it's cool or not doesn't really matter. :o

[TR675]

I love revolvers, but they haven't fallen out of favor because they're not "tacticool," they've fallen out of favor because for most people they are harder to shoot well than semi's and the modern semi's hold 2 to 3 times more ammo. Autos are just more versatile, more effective, better tools for most of the jobs we carry handguns for.

My SP101 and M&P 9c are about the same size and roughly the same weight, but one has a ~5.5 lb. trigger, great sights, and holds 13 rounds of ammo. The other has a ~800,000 lb trigger, crappy sights, and holds five rounds of ammo. One of the two is superior to the other as a self-defense weapon...

[billt]

Some people take a whole lot of shooting.

As Bill Jordan once said, "If you need more than 6 you lost."

[JDM]

There is a myriad of reasons why the modern auto pistol has supplanted the revolver in holsters of armed citizens and police officers alike.
Lighter weight, more bullets, and easier to shoot being the big ones. No number of shooting cliches can invalidate those three things.

[billt]

Lighter weight, more bullets, and easier to shoot being the big ones. No number of shooting cliches can invalidate those three things.

You could make the same argument for the M-16 and we've yet to win a war with it. It was supposed to be so much "better" than the Garand or M-14. The guy behind the weapon still has to do his part.

[TR675]

As Bill Jordan once said, "If you need more than 6 you lost."

I would be interested in Mr. Jordan's opinion on whether 6 is equal to any number greater than 6, and if not, all other things being equal, whether 6 would be just as preferable as any number greater than 6.

Mr. Jordan is a little bit hard to get a hold of these days, but until we figure out how to contact him you may have an opinion on this matter in which I would also be interested.

[TCinVA]

You could make the same argument for the M-16 and we've yet to win a war with it.

Umm....I'd suggest that OBL found the M16 family of weapons pretty darn effective in the moment where a 5.56 projectile was emptying the contents of his cranium.


As Bill Jordan once said, "If you need more than 6 you lost."

Bill Jordan was wrong.

You're driving pretty far out into the weeds, man. Firearms technology and our understanding of how best to employ them has evolved over the years...leading to the average soldier in the field being many times more combat effective today than in years past. Yes, the man behind the gun matters more than anything else...but the fact still remains that the best man in the world armed with a flintlock is in pretty poor shape against a clueless amateur with an AK.

[NickA]

As Bill Jordan once said, "If you need more than 6 you lost."

True enough in his day when revolvers were about the only choice. With modern guns if you need more than 6.... well, you've got 'em.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[Le Français]

The guy behind the weapon still has to do his part.

Why does this type of painfully obvious assertion always weasel its annoying way into conversations of this sort? Of course the shooter has to do his part. That is in no way, shape, or form a good argument for fewer bullets, heavier weight, and more difficult trigger and loading procedure. The revolver might be good enough in some cases, but the semi auto is better.

[Le Français]

True enough in his day when revolvers were about the only choice. With modern guns if you need more than 6.... well, you've got 'em.


Well done.

[WDW]

I would say, with a few exceptions, that if you carry a revolver as a primary, you are doing yourself a great disservice. There have been a few good reasons posted here as to why one would carry a revolver, but if you do so solely because you think it's "cool" you're more or less an idiot. Now, if you legitamitely shoot a revolver better than an auto, and you are the exception that is more effective with a wheel gun, then more power to you. Most people however do it because they watched Dirty Harry or Walking Dead.

[rsa-otc]

Back in the early 80's I attended an NRA LEO instructors workshop at Camp Perry immediately prior to the National Matches. One day after that day's session I was wondering around the vendors booths and ran into Mr Jordan as he was setting up his booth. He was gracious enough to talk with me for a couple hours one on one. At that time he was of the opinion that police use of semi-auto's was a passing fad. I have often wondered what his opinion was later on. I have the utmost respect for Bill Jordan and can tell you he was a genuine Gentleman. But on this subject I don't agree with him. I carry a revolver on duty and for many legitimate reasons we issue revolvers to our personnel. I do not feel in our application under-armed. My son is working at becoming an LEO and I definitely see an advantage for him to carry and want him to carry a semi-auto while on duty. For the serious CCW as well as your average LEO, auto's are superior to revolvers.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Bill Jordan was wrong.



Bill Jordan was correct in his context of equiptment.

Paul Weston's book Combat Shooting For Police addressed reloading, and while I don't have the book in my hands right now due to being at work (please kill me...please. Kill me...) he commented on speed loaders as being flimsy, fit only for exhibitions and competitions, but not for duty use.

Paul Weston was a contemporary of Bill Jordan, as Weston's book came out in 1967 (I think...) so I'm pretty sure that Weston's attitudes accurately reflected the thinking of the time - "If you have expended your ammo on board, you have a manual dexterity intensive, time consuming reload process which puts you at a grave disadvantage in the fight"...

Thus, if you need to reload, you <learn a new word> up, and are likely simply <learn a new word>ed.

Additionally, wasn't Bill Jordan using large bore revolvers?
I don't imagine you get many failures to stop with .44 special, .41 magnum or .45 colt.

If the technology paradigm they were raised in was "If you need to reload, it's a fast, efficient process in which your need for manual dexterity is significantly reduced..." then I'm sure the comments would have been different.

(Same as the whole 9mm sucks...if people in the 1950's had been using bonded heavy weight JHP like Gold Dot or Bonded Ranger T, old magazine articles decrying the ineffective 9mm would have sounded a lot different...)

A lot of the "common wisdom" we seem to have regarding firearms, ammo, tactics and so forth is based on certain things that just aren't the case anymore...or were never true in the first place.

Finally, Bill Jordan was a very well trained gunfighter with hands on experience putting lead in the right place when it mattered.

It probably influenced his opinions and writings.

It reminded me of something I read about FMA Grand Master Remgio Amador Presas, the founder of Modern Arnis. He was able to do what can only be described as outlandish <learn another new word> with edged weapons, up to and including using a knife gripped in his toes effectively.

That was him, not the rest of us.

So to with Bill Jordan, Jerry Miculek, Leo Gaje, Morihei Ueshiba.

Skills and performance which would be considered hygiene factors for them would be considered "Holy <learn a new word> <learn another new word>! Dam...I'm good!" performance for the rest of us.

Some people don't need more than 6 shots.

I dam well know I need more than 6.

Who you are influences how you think/write, and we should keep that in mind when we read something written by people who are operating on an entirely different level from most of us.

[billt]

I would be interested in Mr. Jordan's opinion on whether 6 is equal to any number greater than 6, and if not, all other things being equal, whether 6 would be just as preferable as any number greater than 6.

It wouldn't have mattered much to him. He was a Border Patrolman, not a mathematician. That, of course, was back in the days when they would actually shoot at drug dealers.

[billt]

Why does this sort of painfully obvious assertion always weasel its annoying way into conversations of this sort?

Probably because it is true, and it isn't always so "painfully obvious". Watch some of the people at public ranges with their semi autos and you'll see what I mean. I've found most of the individuals who still shoot revolvers know how to hit with them. And most set their targets further than 7 yards when they do.

[NickA]

Bill Jordan was correct in his context of equiptment.

Paul Weston's book Combat Shooting For Police addressed reloading, and while I don't have the book in my hands right now due to being at work (please kill me...please. Kill me...) he commented on speed loaders as being flimsy, fit only for exhibitions and competitions, but not for duty use.

Paul Weston was a contemporary of Bill Jordan, as Weston's book came out in 1967 (I think...) so I'm pretty sure that Weston's attitudes accurately reflected the thinking of the time - "If you have expended your ammo on board, you have a manual dexterity intensive, time consuming reload process which puts you at a grave disadvantage in the fight"...

Thus, if you need to reload, you fucked up, and are likely simply fucked.

Additionally, wasn't Bill Jordan using large bore revolvers?
I don't imagine you get many failures to stop with .44 special, .41 magnum or .45 colt.

If the technology paradigm they were raised in was "If you need to reload, it's a fast, efficient process in which your need for manual dexterity is significantly reduced..." then I'm sure the comments would have been different.

(Same as the whole 9mm sucks...if people in the 1950's had been using bonded heavy weight JHP like Gold Dot or Bonded Ranger T, old magazine articles decrying the ineffective 9mm would have sounded a lot different...)

A lot of the "common wisdom" we seem to have regarding firearms, ammo, tactics and so forth is based on certain things that just aren't the case anymore...or were never true in the first place.

Finally, Bill Jordan was a very well trained gunfighter with hands on experience putting lead in the right place when it mattered.

It probably influenced his opinions and writings.

It reminded me of something I read about FMA Grand Master Remgio Amador Presas, the founder of Modern Arnis. He was able to do what can only be described as outlandish shit with edged weapons, up to and including using a knife gripped in his toes effectively.

That was him, not the rest of us.

So to with Bill Jordan, Jerry Miculek, Leo Gaje, Morihei Ueshiba.

Skills and performance which would be considered hygiene factors for them would be considered "Holy fucking shit! Dam...I'm good!" performance for the rest of us.

Some people don't need more than 6 shots.

I dam well know I need more than 6.

Who you are influences how you think/write, and we should keep that in mind when we read something written by people who are operating on an entirely different level from most of us.

That's pretty much what I was getting at but was too lazy to type and couldn't have said half as well; leave it to a lawyer to turn a sentence into a novel :-)
Well done Mitchell.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[billt]

Additionally, wasn't Bill Jordan using large bore revolvers?

His gun of choice was a Smith & Wesson Model 19 .357 Magnum.

[Tamara]

His gun of choice was a Smith & Wesson Model 19 .357 Magnum.

If Bill Jordan were alive today, he'd be carrying a plastic .40 caliber HK P2000 (or maybe a Beretta 96D) for the same reason that he carried a .357 wheelgun back then.

[billt]

If Bill Jordan was alive today, he'd be carrying a plastic .40 caliber HK P2000 (or maybe a Beretta 96D) for the same reason that he carried a .357 wheelgun back then.

Don't bet on it. He carried a revolver when everyone else in the Border Patrol was carrying double stack semi's. He felt no reason or need to change. He survived every gun fight he was ever in, and their were plenty. You tend to stick with what works.

[secondstoryguy]

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.

[Tamara]

Don't bet on it. He carried a revolver when everyone else in the Border Patrol was carrying double stack semi's. He felt no reason or need to change. He survived every gun fight he was ever in, and their were plenty. You tend to stick with what works.

The Border Patrol didn't stop issuing revolvers until sometime in the '90s, IIRC. I'd wager that the Model 19 is no longer on the list of approved duty sidearms, although I don't happen to have one handy. Ergo, my comment.

[TR675]

How long do we need to beat a dead horse before it gets back up and turns into a dead zombie horse? I know for a fact that revolvers just won't cut it when you're faced with swarms of dead horse zombies. I feel that this is a legitimate argument against continuing this discussion any further.

[Le Français]

Probably because it is true, and it isn't always so "painfully obvious". Watch some of the people at public ranges with their semi autos and you'll see what I mean. I've found most of the individuals who still shoot revolvers know how to hit with them. And most set their targets further than 7 yards when they do.

While your post is quite irrelevant, I frankly have neither the time nor the inclination to explain to you why exactly you are wrong. Good day.

That's what I was going to post, but the study of international law being somewhat tedious, I thought I'd steal a moment to try to elaborate on the misconceptions your post shows.

People who are already very practiced with the revolver and have not reached the same level of proficiency with semi autos would do well, as previously mentioned, to retain as their primary weapon the one they are most familiar and skilled with (at least while they make the transition to pistols). However, this has no bearing on an evaluation of the weapons themselves, based on objective characteristics from which we can define "betterness".

As to your "further than 7 yards" comment, it is important to understand that, when shooting a handgun, different distances to the target are used to practice different skills. Doing all your concealed carry training and practice at 100 meters, although fun, is not going to do you much good in evaluating how fast and accurately you can shoot under realistic conditions.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

His gun of choice was a Smith & Wesson Model 19 .357 Magnum.


Don't you mean he had a 9mm +p++ wheel gun? :p

And as to the issue of carrying the assigned weapon - when you are Bill Jordan, you carry what you <learn a new word> well please.

[billt]

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.

How so? We're still waiting for that "first good skirmish". Our guys don't engage anyone.

[NickA]

How so? We're still waiting for that "first good skirmish". Our guys don't engage anyone.
I'm sure the family of BP Agent Brian Terry would disagree.


Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[billt]

I'm sure the family of BP Agent Brian Terry would disagree.

You're right. I stand corrected. He was armed with semi auto weapons, was he not?

[Tamara]

You're right. I stand corrected. He was armed with semi auto weapons, was he not?
And we have now officially descended into internet gun forum silliness (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?3319-I-don-t-even-know-where-to-begin&p=55944&viewfull=1#post55944).

Are you implying that if the Border Patrol had equipped Agent Terry with a revolver, he'd still be alive?


(PS: You might find the posts by "Barney" in this thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=7390) interesting...)

[Shellback]

Arguing about some guy's opinion of firearms who died 15 years ago. It's like looking at my dad's old Playboys and telling girls today not to trim. The internet is awesome!

[secondstoryguy]

Getting back on track....I think revolvers have there place, specifically in snub-gun back up roles. Past that, autos rule as far as defensive pistols go. People will argue that so and so used revolvers but the fact is every unit...military or otherwise...that has used revolvers doesn't anymore. We all know there are police departments that still allow wheel guns, but how many major departments issue wheel guns? About none. The last military units that used revolvers were probably the SEALs who used S&W 66/686s for SDV/Swimming ops up into the 90s and the French GIGN who used the Manurhin MR 73 .357 up until about the same time. Fast forward a few years and you'll find that both switched to HKs and Glocks. The revolver's time is over. I still love shooting my old S&W 66 though...

[JHC]

Arguing about some guy's opinion of firearms who died 15 years ago. It's like looking at my dad's old Playboys and telling girls today not to trim. The internet is awesome!

HA!!!! That is so awesome! :D This is just nuts. We have blooded gunfighters with more scalps than Jelly Bryce all over SOCOM. Revolvers are cool. They'll get the bottom line done most of the time. They are not to be preferred over the best available semi auto combat pistols.

If all I could carry is a wheelie, I'd rock on with my nickel M19 and a backup j frame and not loose any sleep. I could do that now. But I don't.

[JHC]

Don't bet on it. He carried a revolver when everyone else in the Border Patrol was carrying double stack semi's. He felt no reason or need to change. He survived every gun fight he was ever in, and their were plenty. You tend to stick with what works.

Are you sure Bill Jordan was in a bunch of gunfights? What year did he retire? Border Patrol with double stack semi's in the '50's '60's? Are you sure about that?

[Tamara]

Are you sure Bill Jordan was in a bunch of gunfights? What year did he retire? Border Patrol with double stack semi's in the '50's '60's? Are you sure about that?

I'm sayin'... :|

This whole line of thinking strikes me as an artifact of the late '80s/early '90s, when modern pistol-shooting was in its infancy and the .mil hadn't been in a high-profile gunfight in fifteen years.

There's been a lot of water under the shooting-people-in-the-face bridge since the days of Orange Gunsite, but a buncha folks on the intertubes still seem like flies trapped in the amber of those days.

[Tamara]

It's like looking at my dad's old Playboys and telling girls today not to trim. The internet is awesome!

A comparison of my avatar and billt's makes your post extra special double ironic. :p

[Shellback]

A comparison of my avatar and billt's makes your post extra special double ironic. :p

I love 80's big hair! ;)

[JHC]

And I'm not demeaning Bill Jordan's service to the Nation in the Marines, the Border Patrol and the NRA. I guess it's assumed he saw a lot of combat action in the Marines. Bless him for his service. Just wondering about the BP years. I read "No Second Place Winner" over and over at a youth (in the late '60's I think it was lol) and really don't recall him suggesting he'd personally been in gunfights. Nor does it matter to me either way.

But whatever, those were wheelgun days.

[jlw]

And I'm not demeaning Bill Jordan's service to the Nation in the Marines, the Border Patrol and the NRA. I guess it's assumed he saw a lot of combat action in the Marines. Bless him for his service. Just wondering about the BP years. I read "No Second Place Winner" over and over at a youth (in the late '60's I think it was lol) and really don't recall him suggesting he'd personally been in gunfights. Nor does it matter to me either way.

But whatever, those were wheelgun days.


I don't know if it is true or not, but I read a story about him chasing a bandit across the border back into Mexico with him taking out the bandit along with two of the bandit's compadres. The gunfight was in a cantina.

[LHS]

If Wyatt Earp were alive today, he'd likely be carrying a Glock 17. Technology marches on, and there's no good reason not to go along with it as long as it doesn't prove inferior to older tech. There is literally nothing a service-size .38 or .357 Mag wheelgun can do that a modern high-capacity 9mm, .40 or .45 can't do better. Yes, revolvers can handle larger, more powerful hunting cartridges, but how many people outside a Hollywood movie carry a .44 Mag for defense?

That said, I have two scenarios where I carry a wheelgun as my primary. The first is when hunting, where I carry a 6" 629 in the (thus far) futile attempt to bag a whitetail with an iron-sighted handgun. Even then, I'd say my .308 is my 'primary' weapon and the .44 is the 'secondary'. The second is when my required attire is just plain unsuitable to conceal my primary CCW pistol, which is a rare event, but does on occasion happen. In that situation, I'll pack a 642 as a primary, but I do everything I can to avoid it.

[billt]

Are you implying that if the Border Patrol had equipped Agent Terry with a revolver, he'd still be alive?

He certainly couldn't be any more dead, could he?

[Mitchell, Esq.]

We have blooded gunfighters with more scalps than Jelly Bryce all over SOCOM...

Does anyone know why Bryce didn't use a 1911 way back then?

From what I read, he used a .38 special...was it because that was what he liked revolvers, or was told to use one, and given free ammo...and rather than make a stink about using what he wanted, just of the opinion that skill makes up for any lacking in the platform or ammunition, and <learn a new word> it, if he couldn't have what he wanted, he'd just make do with what he had.

I get the impression that a lot of the older generation like Bill Jordan and so forth really didn't care that much about gear compared to skill.

Sure, they wanted the best the could get...but after a certain point, they just shot a lot of ammo and pushed themselves to the limits of their skill and got fast & accurate to the point it was a moot point arguing about what is better.

[Tamara]

He certainly couldn't be any more dead, could he?

Give me one reason he'd have been better off with a sixgun.

[Tamara]

Does anyone know why Bryce didn't use a 1911 way back then?

From what I read, he used a .38 special...was it because that was what he liked revolvers, or was told to use one, and given free ammo...and rather than make a stink about using what he wanted, just of the opinion that skill makes up for any lacking in the platform or ammunition, and fuck it, if he couldn't have what he wanted, he'd just make do with what he had.

Because automatics "jam", and they have problems feeding anything other than round-nose FMJ, which everybody knows is a lousy manstopper, and if you can't get it done with six shots then you can't get it done, and...

There was a reason for these opinions in 1912, but not in 2012.

[billt]

This whole line of thinking strikes me as an artifact of the late '80s/early '90s.

I love it when people try to "date" revolvers like women's fashion. As if they are, "no longer in style". Give me a break. He is a news flash. If you want to shoot a Magnum pistol cartridge, you're going to do it in a revolver. Unless of course you want to try it in the 45 pound, fully pimped and plated, Desert Eagle. Fortunately man does not live by 9 MM, .40, and .45 ACP alone.

Another thing is, did you ever notice how auto pistol shooters tend to whine more? "The handle is too thick"........."The grip angle is wrong"......."It doesn't have decock"......"It does have decock"........."The bore axis is too high"......."The bore axis is too low"........"The slide gives off too much glare"..........."The adjustable sights grab on my Super SERPA XM-2700 Carbon Fiber Tangent Cross Draw Holster"........"Why did they put the safety on the slide"?........"Why didn't they put the safety on the slide?".....And on and on. About all you hear the revolver guys bitch about is that stupid lock S&W put on their guns. And even guys like Miculek don't bitch about that. By the way, would someone please tell that guy he's shooting a gun that has plumb out lived it's time? I mean really?

[billt]

Give me one reason he'd have been better off with a sixgun.

He sure couldn't have been worse off, could he? Stop acting like the guy made it. HE'S DEAD! Do you want to argue about what he was wearing? Jesus!

[Jay Cunningham]

This is not Romper Room, this is a technical forum.

[LittleLebowski]

I love it when people try to "date" revolvers like women's fashion. As if they are, "no longer in style". Give me a break. He is a news flash. If you want to shoot a Magnum pistol cartridge, you're going to do it in a revolver. Unless of course you want to try it in the 45 pound, fully pimped and plated, Desert Eagle. Fortunately man does not live by 9 MM, .40, and .45 ACP alone.

Another thing is, did you ever notice how auto pistol shooters tend to whine more? "The handle is too thick"........."The grip angle is wrong"......."It doesn't have decock"......"It does have decock"........."The bore axis is too high"......."The bore axis is too low"........"The slide gives off too much glare"..........."The adjustable sights grab on my Super SERPA XM-2700 Carbon Fiber Tangent Cross Draw Holster"........"Why did they put the safety on the slide"?........"Why didn't they put the safety on the slide?".....And on and on. About all you hear the revolver guys bitch about is that stupid lock S&W put on their guns. And even guys like Miculek don't bitch about that. By the way, would someone please tell that guy he's shooting a gun that has plumb out lived it's time? I mean really?

I don't think you understand this forum's members.

[Tamara]

This is not Romper Room, this is a technical forum.

Check. Sorry. :o

[billt]

I don't think you understand this forum's members.

I think my post shows I might understand them a bit too much.

[LittleLebowski]

I think my post shows I might understand them a bit too much.

Yes, of course. Anyway, back on the technical discussion topic.

[randyho]

3 clicks to ignore. Very efficient.

[F-Trooper05]

More bullets = force multiplier. 'Nuff said.

[ToddG]

You're right. I stand corrected. He was armed with semi auto weapons, was he not?

I find that comment offensive beyond belief. The only reason I don't ban you is because three other Staff members have already commented in this thread and I don't want to step on their toes.

You're more than welcome to argue your point of view and opinions regarding the efficacy of revolvers in the modern world.

You are absolutely NOT welcome to use the murder of a sworn U.S. law enforcement officer as some kind of backwards "proof" for your assertions. If you have any questions about my position on this topic, please feel free to PM me. Further discussion of the point in this thread by anyone will be grounds for banning.

I'm genuinely ashamed that this kind of discussion happened at PF.

[396]

A S&W 442 is what I carry now, a Ruger SP101 previously.

[Tamara]

A S&W 442 is what I carry now, a Ruger SP101 previously.
I saw your screen name before I saw your avatar and assumed you carried a taper-barrel 3" AirLite .44 Special. :o
(Which is a pretty cool gun, BTW.)

[Long tom coffin]

Let me be the 3rd, and hopefully last, Staff member to request that we keep things on topic in this thread.

Anyone and everyone should feel free to start a thread in the Romper Room (http://pistol-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?12-Romper-Room) about anything at all (as long as it meets the PF Code of Conduct (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?37-READ-pistol-forum-com-Code-of-Conduct)).

Thanks.

I am genuinely sorry this retardation happened on a thread I created.


As the OP of this thread, would it be possible for me to request that the offending sections be spun off onto a separate thread in the Romper room? There is plenty of good info on this thread, which is currently being detracted from by ~2 pages worth of shit. I'd hate for the real genuine info to be overshadowed by the nonsensical argument that was placed here by an unnamed new member.


Thanks,
LTC

[billt]

*Edited by FredM*

[Shellback]

By "experts" telling everyone Bill Jordan doesn't know what he's talking about....:D

Drop it, seriously. You've been warned by several Mods and the owner of this forum, take that as a clue. Unless you don't want to participate on this forum any longer than have at it.

[billt]

***Content deleted***

Billt, check your PM's. FredM

[Shellback]

You delete my post.....Then turn around and quote it. You don't have a clue. I've had enough of you and your inflated head.

My name's not Fred. Try using a little attention to detail there sixshooter. Due to my respect for the owner of this forum, the mods and the membership here I won't respond in the way I'd like to.

[Kyle Reese]

And now back to our regularly scheduled discussion on the merits / drawbacks of utilizing a revolver as a primary handgun....

[TR675]

I used to fairly routinely carry a j-frame to and from the office because it was easy to pack in and out and could iwb it with some (not all) of my work pants.

I quit doing that once I got an M&P9c set up the way I wanted it. Ok, slightly bigger, slightly heavier, but in a snap-on OWB it goes to and from the office easily and is hidden under a sport coat or jacket very well. But what really confirmed me in my choice - and confirmed everything I already knew but I guess needed to find out in "real life" - was shooting the low-light match at the Polite Society Tac Con this year. The reactive targets we used only responded to a head shot or upper chest hit, and there were multiple bad guys on each stage. The M&P9c easily made head shots at 20yds, held enough ammo to solve all but one stage without reloading, and was just so much easier to use. I cannot imagine how much slower and more frustrating it would have been trying to run that stage with a j-frame. A full size revolver would not have been nearly as easy, either.

Revo's are cool and fun but, other than as a BUG, in my book they're obsolete for SD use. The modern pistol is just that much more capable across the board.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

The next handgun class I do, I want to use a revolver.

I know the revolver is "limited" compared to semi-autos...

I just can't shake the feeling that the "limits" are more overstated than they really are.

Maybe I'll find out the hard way...maybe I'll come away with more appreciation for a wheel gun.

[JAD]

I've thought about switching to a revolver as primary for a while because I'm fairly certain I'd learn something about trigger control. Ironically, one of the things that keeps me from messing with that is an irrational attachment to bore diameter. If they made a 3" air weight true DA/SA five shot k frame .44 special... I'd still talk about it rather than doing it, and remind myself that time-consuming shooting experiments will have to wait until I'm spending less time changing diapers.

[jetfire]

If I were to start competing again primarily with a revolver, I'd go back to carrying one as a primary. But until then, there's not a good reason I can think of to give up the extra 7-12 rounds I get in a modern auto-loading pistol.

[Tamara]

If they made a 3" air weight true DA/SA five shot k frame .44 special... I'd still talk about it rather than doing it, and remind myself that time-consuming shooting experiments will have to wait until I'm spending less time changing diapers.
Model 396 Mountain Lite. The biggest downsides are the sure-snag sharkfin sights and the limits on ammo.

You can replace the rear sight with a C&S Extreme Duty fixed sight, but that front sight is always going to be like the conning tower on a sub because of the tapered barrel. Also, anything heavier than 200gr ammo and the gun turns into a kinetic bullet puller.

[TCinVA]

I just can't shake the feeling that the "limits" are more overstated than they really are.


All I can tell you is that Jim Cirillo...who was in a scrape or two with a revolver...packed two of them. In his book he states that everybody in his squad carried something in addition to the model 10 revolver they were forced to carry. Often that other pistol was a semi-auto and that's the gun they'd pull first.

The "New York Reload"...invented by people who figured out that if you needed more than 6 shots, reloading a revolver was going to take longer than the fight was going to last. In all the hoopla some Luddites make over revolvers being used effectively for however many decades they want to cite, I rarely see them mention that the guys who did the most high intensity interpersonal interaction using revolvers usually made it a practice to carry more than one.

[WDW]

Revolver: heavier, more parts, less capacity, slower to reload, fewer sight options, harder to clear a malfunction

Modern Auto: lighter, fewer parts, 3-4x the capacity of a revolver, extremely fast to reload, endless sight options, easy to clear a malfunction

End of story

[NEPAKevin]

When I have to travel into Maryland (or any other state where I am not legal to CCW), I switch to a 3" model 65 as it is easy and quick to unload/reload at the border.

[JHC]

The next handgun class I do, I want to use a revolver.

I know the revolver is "limited" compared to semi-autos...

I just can't shake the feeling that the "limits" are more overstated than they really are.

Maybe I'll find out the hard way...maybe I'll come away with more appreciation for a wheel gun.

What finally iced it for me was after a number of "action pistol" matches with a G17 which included multiple targets, movement, shooting on the move, shooting movers etc - I ran a match one month with my TRP which was so outstanding I was thinking of returning to carrying it. The limitations of capacity were so massively obvious with the reality of multiple solid hits during these dynamic events that any time I carried a 1911 after that there was a G26 along also. The revolvers which I dearly love, are even more limited, dramatically more limited than the 1911. I'm a romantic and feel the spirit in those classic guns but the efficeincy of the high cap semiauto wins out.

[Long tom coffin]

All I can tell you is that Jim Cirillo...who was in a scrape or two with a revolver...packed two of them. In his book he states that everybody in his squad carried something in addition to the model 10 revolver they were forced to carry. Often that other pistol was a semi-auto and that's the gun they'd pull first.

The "New York Reload"...invented by people who figured out that if you needed more than 6 shots, reloading a revolver was going to take longer than the fight was going to last. In all the hoopla some Luddites make over revolvers being used effectively for however many decades they want to cite, I rarely see them mention that the guys who did the most high intensity interpersonal interaction using revolvers usually made it a practice to carry more than one.



Long, long ago, in another life.... I was a Security Officer with a titanic company in downtown StL. Our security unit was licensed by the local Watchman's organization, and were armed for duty. The vast majority of our staff were either ex-mil (for the full timers) or ex or current LEO's looking for some supplementary work. We had cuffs, vests, mace, batons, even had Tasers before the local PD had them. The only difference was that our Watchman's regs prevented us from carrying anything more than a 4" revolver in .38 +P. We had a huge area to patrol, 3 sq miles of main campus, 10 sq miles of nearby subsidiary buildings also. We were 2 miles down the road from Crime Central in Saint Louis, North City. Muggings, carjackings, rapes, murders, attempted murders, even one would be active shooter, we had our plate full most nights.


And there wasn't a one of us who didn't pray that Watchmen's wouldn't change the regs to allow us to carry semi-automatics. I carried a revolver on duty for nearly 5 years. I trained with them and got very proficient. When I got my CCW, the first thing I carried was a revo, because it was what I had, what I understood, and I couldn't afford more. As soon as the cash started flowing, though, the very first thing I did was buy a semi automatic as my EDC weapon. Not a single regret.

[LOBO]

My EDC is a S&W 640-1 loaded with Corbons .357 mag 125 gr DPX load. I also carry three reloads; one speedloader, and two speed strips.

[LHS]

All I can tell you is that Jim Cirillo...who was in a scrape or two with a revolver...packed two of them. In his book he states that everybody in his squad carried something in addition to the model 10 revolver they were forced to carry. Often that other pistol was a semi-auto and that's the gun they'd pull first.

The "New York Reload"...invented by people who figured out that if you needed more than 6 shots, reloading a revolver was going to take longer than the fight was going to last. In all the hoopla some Luddites make over revolvers being used effectively for however many decades they want to cite, I rarely see them mention that the guys who did the most high intensity interpersonal interaction using revolvers usually made it a practice to carry more than one.

Well said.

To further the point, Jim also advocated automatics in his later years. Read "Guns, Bullets and Gunfights" and he seems pretty fond of Glocks. Remember as well that Cirillo lived in a different era, with different available options. In his day, the M1 Carbine with super-vel JHPs was pretty state of the art, and he was using home-brewed slotted wadcutters in an effort to increase his pistols' lethality, which wouldn't feed in an automatic. With modern handgun-caliber JHPs and the proliferation of ARs, all that has been solved.

Revolvers were gamechanging in their day, but I'm sure people complained about their reliability compared to the good ol' single-shot percussion muzzle loader. And in the earliest days, they may have been right, but eventually the technology matured to the point that only a fool would carry a muzzle loader instead of, say, a S&W 686. The same is true with automatics. We've come a long way from the early 1900s, and automatic pistols are more than reliable enough. We're not using Roth-Steyrs anymore, now we have Glocks, HK P30s and Beretta 92s.

The M1 Garand was the greatest battle implement ever devised... in 1941. I doubt there are many people who would choose to carry one into combat over a properly set up modern AR.

[David Armstrong]

....only a fool would carry a muzzle loader instead of, say, a S&W 686. The same is true with automatics
Got to disagree with that concept. Lots of folks that are far from fools choose to carry a revolver over an autoloader for many situations and scenarios. 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.

[TR675]

The M1 Garand was the greatest battle implement ever devised... in 1941. I doubt there are many people who would choose to carry one into combat over a properly set up modern AR.

billt would disagree...:p


Got to disagree with that concept. Lots of folks that are far from fools choose to carry a revolver over an autoloader for many situations and scenarios. 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.

Operative word being "most." I like what someone, I think Jim Higganbotham, said at this year's Polite Society Tac Con...which paraphrased was that the average gunfight involves three bullets fired within three seconds within three paces. A revolver can handle this just fine. He then went on to say that if you are training to meet the average requirements, you are training to lose 50% of the time.

I've heard Tom Given's "lessons from the street" lecture before, where he breaks down 10 shootings his students were involved in, but made it a point to hear it again this year because the lessons in there are invaluable - if you haven't heard it and aren't inclined to seek it out, suffice it to say that if several of his students had prepared for the "average" gunfight with a revolver instead of training with a high-cap autoloader, they would have severely limited their chances of prevailing.

[JeffJ]

Got to disagree with that concept. Lots of folks that are far from fools choose to carry a revolver over an autoloader for many situations and scenarios. 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.

I guess I just don't understand what those situations and scenarios are. Good revolvers are pretty pricey and aren't really any more concealable than autos so I (emphasis on I) don't know why someone would choose to carry a revo over an auto. I don't doubt that there are some situations that I can't envision, but I certainly can't figure out why I should go buy one.

[GA_Jeff]

I guess I just don't understand what those situations and scenarios are. Good revolvers are pretty pricey and aren't really any more concealable than autos so I (emphasis on I) don't know why someone would choose to carry a revo over an auto. I don't doubt that there are some situations that I can't envision, but I certainly can't figure out why I should go buy one.

There are many reasons that carrying a revolver is better than carrying an XD or a Glock, etc for SOME people, aside from simply personal prefernece. Here's one example. Some people lack the hand strength to pull the slide back on a semi-auto due to age, injuries, etc that have made them weak. A revolver is not only a better option for them, it is their only option if they want to carry.

[David Armstrong]

billt would disagree...:p



Operative word being "most." I like what someone, I think Jim Higganbotham, said at this year's Polite Society Tac Con...which paraphrased was that the average gunfight involves three bullets fired within three seconds within three paces. A revolver can handle this just fine. He then went on to say that if you are training to meet the average requirements, you are training to lose 50% of the time.

I've heard Tom Given's "lessons from the street" lecture before, where he breaks down 10 shootings his students were involved in, but made it a point to hear it again this year because the lessons in there are invaluable - if you haven't heard it and aren't inclined to seek it out, suffice it to say that if several of his students had prepared for the "average" gunfight with a revolver instead of training with a high-cap autoloader, they would have severely limited their chances of prevailing.
I've heard Tom's lecture and I think the key is "they would have limited their chances." That is very different than "they would have lost." And quite frankly if Jim made that statement he is incorrect both factually and mathematically. I think the paraphrasing has missed some important items. If the revolver was truly inadequate for the job I think we would see that problem popping up in the research someplace. AFAIK, we don't.

[David Armstrong]

I guess I just don't understand what those situations and scenarios are. Good revolvers are pretty pricey and aren't really any more concealable than autos so I (emphasis on I) don't know why someone would choose to carry a revo over an auto. I don't doubt that there are some situations that I can't envision, but I certainly can't figure out why I should go buy one.
Price and concealabilty have little to do with whether it can hold its own in various scenarios. As for buying one by all means don't if you don't want to use it. I don't think it really will make much difference for most people which they choose to arm themselves with. But many people find the revolver to be more comfortable to shoot, or like the ergonomics, or the platform, and so on. And they certainly shouldn't be considered fools for selecting the weapon that they are more comfortable with and that will do the job.

[JeffJ]

David, GAJeff

Good answers - I had sort of forgotten that some people have trouble racking the slide (oops)

I don't really care what people carry, I do try to help people who ask to find an answer based on real, legitimate, reasons - not internet folklore or quippy quotes like "if you can't do it 6, you can't do it" etc.

What I have come across with many (certainly not all) revolver carriers is that their decision isn't based on good reasons - its some sort of nostalgic, retro, hipster thing -- or an irrational belief that autos don't work based on the Jennings .380 that always jams on them

[David Armstrong]

It goes beyond racking the slide. Autos are just not comfortable to some people, while lots of folks that pick up a J or K frame revolver go "gee this feels good!" I'm with you, However, in that I don't care much what someone carries. I've just never seen any major differences in outcome that can be traced to weapons platform, caliber selection, capacity, and so on. And just as some might choose a revolver for all the wrong reasons, we find that many will choose an autoloader for all the wrong reasons. Fortunately it rarely matters one way or the other.

[ToddG]

I've just never seen any major differences in outcome that can be traced to weapons platform, caliber selection, capacity, and so on.

You're unaware of any shooting that required more than five rounds to solve? Because those are ALL examples where capacity would have mattered.

[JAD]

Carrying and training with guns is highly inconvenient. It's easier to do it often and well with a gun you really like. When people ask me what they should buy, I say buy what you think is cool. I've noticed that people will work awfully hard to create a rational justification for a gun they own 'cause it's bitchin'. "my gun is cool" tends to propagate towards "my gun is flawless" over our rather lossy transmission lines.

I carry a lightweight commander in 38 super pretty often. I am not comfortable with the equivalency of bore diameter; I suffer from no illusions that I am capable of converting its better cycle time into faster splits; and I don't think that the two extra rounds it offers me over a 45 are likely to matter much. I carry it because I think it's cool. Soon, I think I'll have a .45 commander that is even cooler. When that happens, .45 won't suddenly be easier to control or have better sectional density than super. I'll carry it because I think it's cool(er).

I don't think there's so much wrong with that.

[GA_Jeff]

It goes beyond racking the slide.

I thought I had made that clear in my reply???


There are many reasons that carrying a revolver is better than carrying an XD or a Glock, etc for SOME people, aside from simply personal prefernece. Here's one example.

[LHS]

It goes beyond racking the slide. Autos are just not comfortable to some people, while lots of folks that pick up a J or K frame revolver go "gee this feels good!" I'm with you, However, in that I don't care much what someone carries. I've just never seen any major differences in outcome that can be traced to weapons platform, caliber selection, capacity, and so on. And just as some might choose a revolver for all the wrong reasons, we find that many will choose an autoloader for all the wrong reasons. Fortunately it rarely matters one way or the other.

People who have issues racking the slide of a service auto will often have issues with the heavy DA pull of a revolver.

I don't think that revolvers are bad, per se, but I don't see anything about a service-caliber revolver that a service-caliber semi-auto can't do just as well if not better. For all intents and purposes, the lethality per shot will be roughly the same, and the semi-auto can hold three times the capacity, and be faster to reload when you need to do so. If you like a revolver-style DA trigger, they make DAO autos.

All things being equal, more beans in the gun = better.

Now, 'shootability' is a very subjective quality, and some people may shoot wheelguns better than they shoot autos. That may just be an issue of training and time behind the trigger, which can be resolved. People just have to make their own judgement on whether they feel it's worth the time and effort to train up on a new set of skills and acquire the benefits of a more capable platform.

Revolvers have gotten the job done for over a hundred years. But time and technology march onwards, and now we have better tools. People still drive Model T Fords for fun and nostalgia, but you don't see them as daily drivers, much less NASCAR, because we have developed things that do the job better. Now, nothing says you HAVE to drive a modern car. You're free to drive that Model T. But to say that it's 'just as good' as a more modern vehicle is disingenuous. As FUN, perhaps, and still capable of getting you from point A to point B, but the 2011 Camry will get you there faster, use less fuel, and require less maintenance. If your only concern is getting from point A to point B before someone else does, then the modern car is 'better' in just about every way.

[JeffJ]

And should you get in a wreck in that newer car you have a much higher chance of walking away

[Chuck Haggard]

Jim Cirillo tended to carry three revolvers back in the day, and most often had a long gun as well if he had the chance. His partner carried a shotgun or Carbine, a 1911 and a .38

The last time I got to go to dinner with Jim he, and his son, were carrying Glock 23s.

Just sayin.

More later, gotta get back to class.

[LHS]

I should add, I do see specialty applications where a revolver can shine. My BUG is a 642, for instance, because I find the more bumpy shape prints less in my pocket than a flat, angular automatic, and if I have to use it in a ground situation, I don't have to worry about pressing the barrel out of battery. But with only five shots of a marginal stopping caliber (also known as 'handgun caliber'), a slow reload, a long and heavy trigger, craptastic sights, and a short barrel, I do not want to rely on it as a primary carry gun.

Also, for use in hunting, a revolver can deal with high-powered cartridges with less overall bulk than an equivalent semi-auto, none of which have any real capacity advantage over the wheelguns available anyway. But hunting is about single shots, with perhaps a follow-up shot or two. It's a completely different scenario than a CCW weapon.

[David Armstrong]

I thought I had made that clear in my reply???
You did. My comment was in response to JeffJ. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[David Armstrong]

You're unaware of any shooting that required more than five rounds to solve? Because those are ALL examples where capacity would have mattered.
Not really. If the result was a satisfactory outcome then it is questioanble that the capacity really amounted to "any major differences in outcome" which was what was said. Whether capacity would have mattered in some incidents is a different issue entirely, IMO.

[ToddG]

David -- Perhaps I'm just dense, but I'm not following you.

If someone needed to be shot more than five times to get the "satisfactory outcome" then it stands to reason that all else being equal, having less than six bullets would have been unsatisfactory. It seems pretty straightforward to me.

[David Armstrong]

People who have issues racking the slide of a service auto will often have issues with the heavy DA pull of a revolver.
True, but I have found A LOT of my students who had trouble with a slide that did not have trouble with a revolver.


All things being equal, more beans in the gun = better.
The problem, of course, is that in real life all things are not equal, so more beans in the gun becomes only one of many variables to consider.


Now, 'shootability' is a very subjective quality, and some people may shoot wheelguns better than they shoot autos. That may just be an issue of training and time behind the trigger, which can be resolved. People just have to make their own judgement on whether they feel it's worth the time and effort to train up on a new set of skills and acquire the benefits of a more capable platform.

Revolvers have gotten the job done for over a hundred years. But time and technology march onwards, and now we have better tools. People still drive Model T Fords for fun and nostalgia, but you don't see them as daily drivers, much less NASCAR, because we have developed things that do the job better. Now, nothing says you HAVE to drive a modern car. You're free to drive that Model T. But to say that it's 'just as good' as a more modern vehicle is disingenuous. As FUN, perhaps, and still capable of getting you from point A to point B, but the 2011 Camry will get you there faster, use less fuel, and require less maintenance. If your only concern is getting from point A to point B before someone else does, then the modern car is 'better' in just about every way.
I would suggest that by restricting the issues to consider to a narrow set that supports a pre-established position means that one can make anything "better." Using my criteria I might show that a 1976 Porsche 911 is "better" in just about every way than a 2011 Camry. In fact, if one focuses on value as the dominant factor then the Model T can easily be shown to be "better" than the Camry. To me the key is your first sentence: "Revolvers have gotten the job done for over a hundred years." And they are still getting the job done without much difficulty today. That is the difference. You can make a good case the Model T is obsolete to perform the designated task in a modern environment. The revolver is still performing the task qute adequately in a modern environment. So instead of Model T versus Camry maybe it is more F-150 Pickup versus Camry. Both do most of what we expect a vehicle to do for the most part. For some the pickup is better for their needs, for others the car is better for their needs. But either will do the job most of the time.

[David Armstrong]

David -- Perhaps I'm just dense, but I'm not following you.

If someone needed to be shot more than five times to get the "satisfactory outcome" then it stands to reason that all else being equal, having less than six bullets would have been unsatisfactory. It seems pretty straightforward to me.

Not dense, just focusing on different issues I think.
Three guys break into your home. You take a good defensive position with your single shot shotgun and shoot 1, then reload and shoot the second, and then reload and shoot the 3rd. Satisfactory outcome.

Who is better equipped for a defensive encounter, the guy with the 7 round 686 in .357 mag and two speedloaders, the guy with the compact 1911 and 1 spare magazine, or the guy with the Glock 17 and no spare mag? From my perspective it doesn't matter. Different capacities may suggest different tactics, but for basic CCW they are all going to do the job, AFAIK.

[ToddG]

Not dense, just focusing on different issues I think.
Three guys break into your home. You take a good defensive position with your single shot shotgun and shoot 1, then reload and shoot the second, and then reload and shoot the 3rd. Satisfactory outcome.

Um... ok. But since we're just making crazy hypotheticals, I could just as easily say that guys 2 and 3 bum rush me and kill me while trying to reload my silly 1-shot shotgun. Between the two made up stories, we've proven absolutely nothing.

You've not addressed the point I made, though. You're certainly aware of stories where someone needed to be shot more than 5 (but let's say less than 15) times before the fight stopped. In every one of those events, having a 5-shot gun would, almost by definition, have been inadequate. I guess you could further hypothesize that the j-frame wielder might have had time to reload (twice) and might have been carrying (two) spare loads. But certainly you'd agree that having to reload while the threat is still extant, especially in typical domestic US types of fights, is a disadvantage.

[David Armstrong]

Um... ok. But since we're just making crazy hypotheticals, I could just as easily say that guys 2 and 3 bum rush me and kill me while trying to reload my silly 1-shot shotgun. Between the two made up stories, we've proven absolutely nothing.
I think we have. I believe you have just agreed that in order for your concern to be valid we have to resort to crazy hypotheticals<G>. But can you find stories where your hypothetical occurred? I can find many instances where low capacity was sufficient to win. And as it relates to CCW I honestly cannot remember a single incident off the top of my head where a GG lost a CCW self defense fight as the result of running out of ammo and being rushed and overcome. There are a few LE instances, and numerous military, but for the world of civilian DGU it doesn't seem to happen. There may be some, I'm just not aware of them at this time. I can certainly envision a gang warfare scenario in which something like that could play out, but I think most of us won't be gang-banging and slinging drugs in a street war.


You've not addressed the point I made, though. You're certainly aware of stories where someone needed to be shot more than 5 (but let's say less than 15) times before the fight stopped. In every one of those events, having a 5-shot gun would, almost by definition, have been inadequate.
Sure, but I'm also aware of stories where having a 7 shot, or an 8 shot, or a 33 shot gun would have been inadequate given the whle picture. I'm not so sure that indicates an issue with capacity, however. If the GG shoots the BG 8 times with a 1911 and the BG is still fighting would we argue the 1911 is inadeqaute for self defense?? It seems the GG win or loses on a number of issues, but I have not seen capacity as a plaayer in the personal self defense world. I carry a J-frame at times, I carry a Glock 17 at times. I don't feel that either is inadequate for the purpose of self defense. How I would use the two may differ because of the different capacity, but I doubt the outcome will be any different.

I guess you could further hypothesize that the j-frame wielder might have had time to reload (twice) and might have been carrying (two) spare loads. But certainly you'd agree that having to reload while the threat is still extant, especially in typical domestic US types of fights, is a disadvantage.
Aagain it is a difference in focus. You are talking advantage/disadvantage, I am talking outcome. To use a comparison from the past there may be an advantage to using the tactical reload. But nobody seems able to show how that advantage has changed an outcome.

[WDW]

I'm just gonna go ahead and say that if Samuel Colt had been able to invent a modern auto first, the revolver would have never existed. People don't usually invent less efficient ways of solving a problem unless cost/availability is an issue and I have yet to see a quality revolver on the cheap. Model T's are cool and revolutionized automobiles, but obviously there is a reason it is no longer a top seller. There is, with a few exceptions, no good reason to carry a revolver for a primary self-defense gun.

[ToddG]

And as it relates to CCW I honestly cannot remember a single incident off the top of my head where a GG lost a CCW self defense fight as the result of running out of ammo and being rushed and overcome.

That wasn't what I asked. You're changing terms rather than addressing the specific thing I raised:

(a) Are you aware of events where more than five rounds were needed to win a fight?

That's it. "No one has run out of ammo" tells us nothing because for all we know, it's specifically because so many people had more than 5 rounds!



Sure, but I'm also aware of stories where having a 7 shot, or an 8 shot, or a 33 shot gun would have been inadequate given the whle picture.

Again, this is nonresponsive. I'm aware of stories -- let's take Apollo 13 -- where no number of guns would have made a difference. So what? We're not talking about that. The fact that capacity alone won't always guarantee a win doesn't automatically mean it's never an issue. Your statement here simply proposes the former and doesn't address the latter.


Aagain it is a difference in focus. You are talking advantage/disadvantage, I am talking outcome. To use a comparison from the past there may be an advantage to using the tactical reload. But nobody seems able to show how that advantage has changed an outcome.

Seriously, I'm going to change your avatar to a red herring, dude. :cool:

You cannot assess the danger of having less than six rounds by examining cases which include -- and for all we know are predominantly made up of -- examples where the person had more than five rounds to begin with. That's substantially different than the tac load debate, where we can't find any examples in domestic home defense, CCW, or LE where someone actually used the ammo he saved during a tac load or actually needed ammo he left behind because he failed to do a tac load. That's examining outcomes.

Showing examples where people definitely needed more than five rounds to win a fight also examines outcomes, and pretty darn convincingly says that yes, there are times when five isn't enough. Simple as that.

[WDW]

So Todd,

I take it the 2013 Test Gun won't be a 7 shot S&W 686 .357? Because you know stuff like weight, reliability, reload speed, remedial/immediate action, sight options, user level maintenance, and over all effectiveness doesn't really matter when it comes to handguns. Those are more of a luxury feature than a necessity.

[TGS]

So Todd,

I take it the 2013 Test Gun won't be a 7 shot S&W 686 .357? Because you know stuff like weight, reliability, reload speed, remedial/immediate action, sight options, user level maintenance, and over all effectiveness doesn't really matter when it comes to handguns. Those are more of a luxury feature than a necessity.

Gamers. :p

[NEPAKevin]

So Todd,

I take it the 2013 Test Gun won't be a 7 shot S&W 686 .357? .

Has anyone ever completed the two thousand round challenge with a round gun?

[rsa-otc]

I did with my S&W 686 L Frame. Combination of full house reloads and +p factory ammo.

[NEPAKevin]

That is impressive. I would have thought that reloads would have required cleaning under the ejector star and in the chambers to keep the gun from binding up.

[Tamara]

Showing examples where people definitely needed more than five rounds to win a fight also examines outcomes, and pretty darn convincingly says that yes, there are times when five isn't enough. Simple as that.
What intrigues me more is what possible downside can there be to having the extra capacity you wind up not needing? I mean, if I'm carrying a 17-shooter and solve the problem in four rounds, it's not like the Bulgarian judge is going to give me only a 6.2 for having shots left over. Isn't that old "Better to have it and not need it..." saw heard all the time in gun stores? :confused:

[rsa-otc]

Clean burning powder (Bullseye) and Molly lubed or Jacketed slugs work wonders. Shooting raw lead rounds would prove problematic.:cool:

[LHS]

What intrigues me more is what possible downside can there be to having the extra capacity you wind up not needing? I mean, if I'm carrying a 17-shooter and solve the problem in four rounds, it's not like the Bulgarian judge is going to give me only a 6.2 for having shots left over. Isn't that old "Better to have it and not need it..." saw heard all the time in gun stores? :confused:

That's a good point. What do service-caliber revolvers do better than service-caliber automatics that would justify giving up the faster reload speed, easier malfunction clearance and 2/3 of your ammo capacity?

[TCinVA]

If for whatever reason I had superior skill with a revolver and could put a bullet exactly where I wanted it under stress with a revolver where I couldn't with a semi-auto, I'd carry the revolver.

The snag is that anyone who can do that with a revolver can learn to use a decent semi pretty easily and get the same results.

[NEPAKevin]

Isn't that old "Better to have it and not need it..." saw heard all the time in gun stores?

...and usually credited to either Kafka or Ron Jeremy.

[LHS]

If for whatever reason I had superior skill with a revolver and could put a bullet exactly where I wanted it under stress with a revolver where I couldn't with a semi-auto, I'd carry the revolver.

The snag is that anyone who can do that with a revolver can learn to use a decent semi pretty easily and get the same results.

Precisely my point.

[David Armstrong]

That wasn't what I asked. You're changing terms rather than addressing the specific thing I raised:

(a) Are you aware of events where more than five rounds were needed to win a fight?

That's it. "No one has run out of ammo" tells us nothing because for all we know, it's specifically because so many people had more than 5 rounds!
I'll disagree. You have tried to change the terms to focus on a specific thing that has nothing to do with what I said, I keep trying to stay within the issue I was discussing. If yo want to discuss a thread on how many rounds are needed to win a fight I'll be glad to participate, but that is not what this thread has been unless I missed somethign. My position is simple, when it comes to revolvers versus autoloaders in CCW settings, that "I've just never seen any major differences in outcome that can be traced to weapons platform, caliber selection, capacity, and so on." If someone gets shot with more than 5 rounds they have been shot with more than 5 rounds. How the 5 rounds got delivered is irrelevant. I will also point out that I did not mandate a 5-shot capacity. Nothing wrong with a nice 6, 7, or 8 shot revolver.

Again, this is nonresponsive. I'm aware of stories -- let's take Apollo 13 -- where no number of guns would have made a difference. So what? We're not talking about that. The fact that capacity alone won't always guarantee a win doesn't automatically mean it's never an issue. Your statement here simply proposes the former and doesn't address the latter.
Nope. I don't propose anything other than what I have said: "I've just never seen any major differences in outcome that can be traced to weapons platform, caliber selection, capacity, and so on." Some folks keep arguing that capacity makes a firearm inadquate by making up stories and arguing a particular number indictes inadequacy. If needing more than 5 shots indicates a 5-shot revolver is inadequate then having naincident where it takes more than 8 rounds with indicate the 1911 is inadequate.

Seriously, I'm going to change your avatar to a red herring, dude. :cool:
Perhaps the herring is the idea that the term "revolver" should be changed to "5-shots"?:p

You cannot assess the danger of having less than six rounds by examining cases which include -- and for all we know are predominantly made up of -- examples where the person had more than five rounds to begin with. That's substantially different than the tac load debate, where we can't find any examples in domestic home defense, CCW, or LE where someone actually used the ammo he saved during a tac load or actually needed ammo he left behind because he failed to do a tac load. That's examining outcomes.
It is no different than looking at all the outcomes where the revolver did just fine. Again, if this is an issue let's see all the stories in the literature of civilian CCW incidents where the BGs bum rushed them and the CCW went down with an empty gun while the hordes ran over him. It seems somewhere along the line someone has decided "X" rounds is good and "<X" rounds does not work. You seem to have settled on 5 rounds. One can make the exact same argument for any other round count. You cannot assess the danger of having less than 8 (or 7, or 10, or 12, or 15) rounds by examining cases include examples where the person had more than 8 (or 7, or 10, or 12, or 15) rounds to begin with.

Showing examples where people definitely needed more than five rounds to win a fight also examines outcomes, and pretty darn convincingly says that yes, there are times when five isn't enough. Simple as that.
True, but that is simply not what I have argued. Sure, there are times when 5 is not enough. Just like there are times when 6 is not enought, or 7, or 8, or 10, 0r 17 is not enough. If it was impossible to ever carry spare ammo, or if it was impossible to ever reload a gun, then yes, you might could argue that some arbitrary number would not be sufficient in any case where more rounds than that arbitrary number were needed to win. But that is not the case. Round count to win fight is not the same as capacity of firearm is not the same as revolver or autoloader.

[David Armstrong]

What intrigues me more is what possible downside can there be to having the extra capacity you wind up not needing? I mean, if I'm carrying a 17-shooter and solve the problem in four rounds, it's not like the Bulgarian judge is going to give me only a 6.2 for having shots left over. Isn't that old "Better to have it and not need it..." saw heard all the time in gun stores? :confused:
The problem with that old saw is that it makes no sense when carried out and nobody follows it. Everybody compromises on what they carry and nobody carries to address all possible problems. The argument seems to always fall back on "My compromise point is good and your compromise is any different it is bad" rather than "is the compromise appropriate for the individual".

[NickA]

What intrigues me more is what possible downside can there be to having the extra capacity you wind up not needing? I mean, if I'm carrying a 17-shooter and solve the problem in four rounds, it's not like the Bulgarian judge is going to give me only a 6.2 for having shots left over. Isn't that old "Better to have it and not need it..." saw heard all the time in gun stores? :confused:

Or to back up one old saw with another: it's not about the odds that I'll need more bullets, it's what at stake if I DO need them.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[LHS]

The problem with that old saw is that it makes no sense when carried out and nobody follows it. Everybody compromises on what they carry and nobody carries to address all possible problems. The argument seems to always fall back on "My compromise point is good and your compromise is any different it is bad" rather than "is the compromise appropriate for the individual".

What do you compromise by going with a semi-auto instead of a revolver? You're right, if we were truly going for a balls-out defensive posture, we'd all be traveling around in MRAPs, wearing plates, and carrying rifles. Carrying a handgun is a compromise in and of itself, and one that I think we all can agree on (given the threat realities of day-to-day US living in most places). But if a compromise implies trade-off, a gain corresponding with a loss. By losing the benefits of an automatic, what do you gain from the revolver to justify it?

If it just boils down to 'I like revolvers better and shoot them better', fine and dandy.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

What intrigues me more is what possible downside can there be to having the extra capacity you wind up not needing? I mean, if I'm carrying a 17-shooter and solve the problem in four rounds, it's not like the Bulgarian judge is going to give me only a 6.2 for having shots left over. Isn't that old "Better to have it and not need it..." saw heard all the time in gun stores? :confused:

Have & not need...

But then the other guy says "15 rounds? You plannin on missin a lot, are ya?"

[David Armstrong]

What do you compromise by going with a semi-auto instead of a revolver? You're right, if we were truly going for a balls-out defensive posture, we'd all be traveling around in MRAPs, wearing plates, and carrying rifles. Carrying a handgun is a compromise in and of itself, and one that I think we all can agree on (given the threat realities of day-to-day US living in most places). But if a compromise implies trade-off, a gain corresponding with a loss. By losing the benefits of an automatic, what do you gain from the revolver to justify it?

If it just boils down to 'I like revolvers better and shoot them better', fine and dandy.
To me it boils down to the fact that there is more to carrying a handgun than having lots of bullets in the gun. If capacity was such a big issue there wouldn't be a clamor for single stack small 9s and 40s and .45s, and double stack 9mms would be the only gun worth considering. A revolver is more comfortable to carry for many, it does the job just fine for most. I'm not trying to justify the revolver, I'm pointing out that the idea that only a fool would carry one and the belief that it is inadequate as a CCW weapon is rather questionable. IMO a rather lengthy record of success is all the justification it needs.

[GA_Jeff]

I'm pointing out that the idea that only a fool would carry one and the belief that it is inadequate as a CCW weapon is rather questionable.

And where has anyone said this? It appears like you're creating a fictional position in order to argue against it and prevail. If someone actually said that, then I apologize.

[GA_Jeff]

If for whatever reason I had superior skill with a revolver and could put a bullet exactly where I wanted it under stress with a revolver where I couldn't with a semi-auto, I'd carry the revolver.

The snag is that anyone who can do that with a revolver can learn to use a decent semi pretty easily and get the same results.

And what if someone believes the reliability of S&W revolver (for example) outweighs the risk of needing more rounds? Point being, people use a variety of criteria for choosing a carry gun - some that is valid, some not valid, some that is specific to their environment & not applicable to you, etc.

[David Armstrong]

And where has anyone said this? It appears like you're creating a fictional position in order to argue against it and prevail. If someone actually said that, then I apologize.

"And in the earliest days, they may have been right, but eventually the technology matured to the point that only a fool would carry a muzzle loader instead of, say, a S&W 686. The same is true with automatics. We've come a long way from the early 1900s, and automatic pistols are more than reliable enough."

Given the overall context of the post, I think it qualifies. As for the inadequate part, if everyone agrees the revolver is adequate for CCW then I apparently have not clearly understood their position.

[GA_Jeff]

"And in the earliest days, they may have been right, but eventually the technology matured to the point that only a fool would carry a muzzle loader instead of, say, a S&W 686. The same is true with automatics. We've come a long way from the early 1900s, and automatic pistols are more than reliable enough."

Given the overall context of the post, I think it qualifies. As for the inadequate part, if everyone agrees the revolver is adequate for CCW then I apparently have not clearly understood their position.

And he was the same person who also said...
"I have two scenarios where I carry a wheelgun as my primary."

and...
"I should add, I do see specialty applications where a revolver can shine."

and...
"I don't think that revolvers are bad, per se, but I don't see anything about a service-caliber revolver that a service-caliber semi-auto can't do just as well if not better. For all intents and purposes, the lethality per shot will be roughly the same, and the semi-auto can hold three times the capacity, and be faster to reload when you need to do so."

[Tamara]

A revolver is more comfortable to carry for many, it does the job just fine for most.

As a matter of fact, there is a revolver next to my bed and another in my purse, both for very specific reasons. I own A LOT of revolvers. As a matter of fact, there is a DeSantis IWB for a 4" K/L sitting on top of a stack of books four inches from my right foot as I type this. Let's return to my question: What objective, measurable advantage do the numerous K-frames in my gun safe give me that the M&P9 on my hip does not?

[peterb]

This discussion is orbiting around two different centers.

Most folks are saying "show me evidence that a revolver is better than a semi-auto", and citing capacity, trigger quality, ease of reloading, etc. as evidence of the semi-auto's superiority.

David is saying "show me evidence that those things actually affect the outcome in civilian self-defense situations."

You're talking past each other.

[Joe in PNG]

Went to the safe and pulled out a pair of S&W's- a Model 64 2" and a M&Pc (I love being back in the USA!). Both are made for pretty much the same role as compact versions of full sized service guns. I love shooting both of them. However, the M&P tends to get toted along while the 64 gets used as a dry fire training gun for a lot of reasons- most of which have been already covered. Here's some of mine:

-Carry holsters for K frames are hard to find. Either you go cu$tom, or floopy nylon.

-Ammo is cheaper for 9mm.

-I can get either 12 rounds or 24+ rounds of spare ammo in the same amount of belt space.

-I can replace the sights on the M&P without too much trouble. I'd need a good gunsmith to do that on the 64.

But dagnabit, I still like shooting that round gun!

[Tamara]

This discussion is orbiting around two different centers.

Most folks are saying "show me evidence that a revolver is better than a semi-auto", and citing capacity, trigger quality, ease of reloading, etc. as evidence of the semi-auto's superiority.

David is saying "show me evidence that those things actually affect the outcome in civilian self-defense situations."

You're talking past each other.
To an extent.

A large number, perhaps a majority, of civilian defense situations are resolved without a shot being fired, but I feel safe wagering that David wouldn't endorse carrying an empty gun.

While my K-frame may indeed be adequate, I'm unaware of any downsides to carrying a lighter gun with more bullets that's just as easy to conceal, that's all.

[peterb]

While my K-frame may indeed be adequate, I'm unaware of any downsides to carrying a lighter gun with more bullets that's just as easy to conceal, that's all.

I don't think there is a downside, or that anyone has argued that way.

I think he's making a similar point to your "generic gun" argument -- that obsessing over the "perfect" gun doesn't really matter for most of us. I suspect that it is difficult-to-impossible to look at the data from civilian self-defense situations and see that carrying a HK or Glock consistently results in a different outcome than carrying a Hi-Point or revolver.

[NEPAKevin]

One caveman picked up a stick and another picked up a rock. So it began.

[LHS]

I don't think there is a downside, or that anyone has argued that way.

I think he's making a similar point to your "generic gun" argument -- that obsessing over the "perfect" gun doesn't really matter for most of us. I suspect that it is difficult-to-impossible to look at the data from civilian self-defense situations and see that carrying a HK or Glock consistently results in a different outcome than carrying a Hi-Point or revolver.

I know a fellow who carried a .44 cap-and-ball percussion revolver, as it was the only gun he owned. Better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but hardly ideal. Fortunately, he never had to use it in relatively short time he carried it.

[Tamara]

I know a fellow who carried a .44 cap-and-ball percussion revolver, as it was the only gun he owned. Better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but hardly ideal. Fortunately, he never had to use it in relatively short time he carried it.
I kept one under the counter at a convenience store where I worked third shift when I was 20. I watched the place across the street get jacked up right in front of my eyes one night and went and bought the Colt Navy copy the next day. A few weeks later, I turned 21 and bought a Grendel P-10 in .380. In retrospect, I'm not sure which was the better choice. :D

[LHS]

I kept one under the counter at a convenience store where I worked third shift when I was 20. I watched the place across the street get jacked up right in front of my eyes one night and went and bought the Colt Navy copy the next day. A few weeks later, I turned 21 and bought a Grendel P-10 in .380. In retrospect, I'm not sure which was the better choice. :D

This guy was the night manager at a Radio Shack in Philly and had to take the day's proceeds to the bank. I joked with him that if he ever had to use that thing, he'd get five shots and then have a smokescreen to cover his retreat.

[David Armstrong]

This discussion is orbiting around two different centers.

Most folks are saying "show me evidence that a revolver is better than a semi-auto", and citing capacity, trigger quality, ease of reloading, etc. as evidence of the semi-auto's superiority.

David is saying "show me evidence that those things actually affect the outcome in civilian self-defense situations."

You're talking past each other.
Exactly. I don't deny there is a difference, I question whether the difference matters much in the self defense CCW arena.

[David Armstrong]

-Carry holsters for K frames are hard to find. Either you go cu$tom, or floopy nylon.

Just as a FWIW, almost all the major leather holster manufacturers make multiple carry holsters for the K-frame. If you are having trouble finding something locally you might try their websites and get some ideas of what is available.

[FotoTomas]

Yes...sometimes I use a revolver as a primary. S&W Model 19 Combat Magnum carried strong side behind the hip either IWB or a paddle holster.

Why some might ask? Because I like it, shoot it often in competition, shoot it well and did most of my initial training and LE work with one just like it. Most often I carry the revolver when I am going to or from an ICORE or IDPA match. I tend to continue wearing it for the rest of the days activities. I also keep a backup S&W model 638 in a pocket for that quick reload if necessary and some HKS speedloaders as well.

Is it better or worse than my Beretta 92D Centurion... neither bettor NOR worse. It is different. One way it is better is a Remington .357 Magnum 125 grain JHP coming out of that 4" tube kicks rear end in the power race compared to a 9mm 124 grain Golden Saber coming out of the Beretta. If I only need one shot then that one shot is better with a magnum's power behind it. The trigger action is for all practical purposes the same. The capacity issue is a compromise. The Beretta is superior if you need more bullets. The Beretta is superior if you need to reload AND you have a spare pre loaded magazine. Of course if you have to stuff loose rounds into a magazine before you shoot then give me the revolver every day.

I do NOT believe the revolver is superior, simply better at some self defense tasks. One example is the contact shot. My agency trains for a variety of scenarios and one is close in shooting. I believe we all can agree that "most" self defense shootings occur at short range. Not having my Combat Magnum go out of battery if pushed into a bad guys belly might be a good thing. True, this is not a likely scenario but what the hey. :)

I admit my duty issued pistol is an auto. I admit I stopped carrying my 638 S&W Bodyguard as EDC when I found out how flat and smooth the 9mm Kahr PM9 is. Then again the 638 comes out of a pocket like greased lightning while the PM9 is more of a reluctant friend. I might also add that little pocket rocket .38 is great for shooting through a coat pocket where I have yet to get a semi-auto to give me more than one or two rounds while practicing with old jackets. They are both good, just different.

Today if issued a revolver as my primary I would be happy BUT it is not my every day choice most of the time when I have a choice. Some days however it is the best choice.

As a side note...Bill Jordan has been discussed in this thread and I seem to recall reading one of his pieces where he sincerely believed the revolver was the best choice for Law Enforcement BUT he added having one of those new fangled shoot all day automatics was a right handy thing to have around as a spare in case six was not enough.

[BigT]

I know its become a bit of a cliche. But I've yet to meet anyone who's been in a fight who has ever told me " Golly gee whiskers, I really wish there where LESS bullets in my gun when the shit went down"

[Chuck Haggard]

I kept one under the counter at a convenience store where I worked third shift when I was 20. I watched the place across the street get jacked up right in front of my eyes one night and went and bought the Colt Navy copy the next day. A few weeks later, I turned 21 and bought a Grendel P-10 in .380. In retrospect, I'm not sure which was the better choice. :D

The first choice you made.

Likely more reliable, and more durable, probably has more "stopping power", and you get into the bad guy's OODA loop via combined WTF? flash-bang/Ninja smoke screen effect. It's been awhile since anyone has been routinely shot at with black powder guns, your bad guy will likely not have seen that trick before.

[David Armstrong]

I know its become a bit of a cliche. But I've yet to meet anyone who's been in a fight who has ever told me " Golly gee whiskers, I really wish there where LESS bullets in my gun when the shit went down"
I think the counterpoint to that is that I've yet to meet anyone who has been shot who said "gee whiz, I really wish the other guy would have shot me more times.":cool:

BTW---Howzit?

[Johnkard]

On the same note, I"d been wondering about how consistently the 8 chambered revolvers fire. A FTF at competition is annoying, but hardly life threatening...

[Tamara]

On the same note, I"d been wondering about how consistently the 8 chambered revolvers fire. A FTF at competition is annoying, but hardly life threatening...

I never had an issue with my 627. I even CCW'ed it on rare occasions, although even a 3" N-frame is a pretty serious chunk of steel to hang off a belt.

RE: The topic of the thread.

Don't get me wrong, if gun gremlins crept into the house tonight and boosted my M&P9, I'd just holster up tomorrow with one of the 1911s I carried all those years, and I wouldn't feel unarmed. Similarly, if they took the 1911s too, I'd carry a K-frame or maybe a fixed-sight N and I wouldn't feel naked, but I'd be a lot more careful about always carrying a readily-accessible BUG to serve as a New York reload.

I don't know that I could carry just a 5-shot J-frame and feel armed anymore, though.

[BigT]

I think the counterpoint to that is that I've yet to meet anyone who has been shot who said "gee whiz, I really wish the other guy would have shot me more times.":cool:

BTW---Howzit?


Lekker bru. :) Self?

My counter counter point is that Ive met enough guys who where shot and didn't know it that I want to be able to shoot them lots more.

Here scumbags almost always come en mass. And are often unimpressed that you have a gun or that you are shooting at them. 6 beans and 3 or 4 badguys are slimmer odds than I care for.

[David Armstrong]

Lekker bru. :) Self?

My counter counter point is that Ive met enough guys who where shot and didn't know it that I want to be able to shoot them lots more.

Here scumbags almost always come en mass. And are often unimpressed that you have a gun or that you are shooting at them. 6 beans and 3 or 4 badguys are slimmer odds than I care for.
Ja, no fine, boet.:cool: And true, it is a bit different world where you are. Different style of bad guys and such than most here will encounter as well as a very different public safety environment. If I was stolling Jo'burg I'd feel a lot better with my Glock than my old Webley!

[Johnkard]

As far as the thread topic...:I like my N frame .357, but reloading is a bitch...

I can get off about 30 rounds from my Sig in the time it takes to fire 12 from the N, and reloading is a lot less prone to error with the former.

[David Armstrong]

Thought I was correcting a spelling error and got a whole new post. Darn these fancy machines that take edumacationalizing to work! :mad:

Anyway, "stRolling Jo'burg".

[NickA]

A quick point from something I just remembered : while people can (and do) argue all day about reliability of revolvers vs semiautos, wheelguns shouldn't be exempt from a trial/ break in period. The 642 I bought last year had a problem right out of the box- one of the notches that the hand engages wasn't machined right and that chamber wouldn't line up right. A quick trip back to Smith and all is well, but always function check a new gun.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[JV_]

wheelguns shouldn't be exempt from a trial/ break in period.I agree. Very recently, I tried to help a new shooter with their locked up 442. It was partially loaded and the cylinder wouldn't budge.

[TCinVA]

I believe Joshs bought a I frame fairly recently that disintegrated on him. Unfortunately revolvers are not exempt from the rules of mass produced products.

[JeffJ]

This is true - and it seems that when they go down, they go down hard

[Shellback]

wheelguns shouldn't be exempt from a trial/ break in period. The 642 I bought last year had a problem right out of the box...

I bought a 642 no-lock roughly 2 years ago. Went bang for approximately 8 rounds and click, click, click after that. Multiple different brands of ammo were tried and still got the same results. Sent it to Smith and it seems good to go now but I still have a hard time trusting it.

I read on the internet that the reason they were having problems like mine was due to some CA regulation requiring them to shorten the length of the firing pin and in return they weren't getting consistent ignition. I have no idea if this is true or not but it seemed plausible at the time.

[Tamara]

I read on the internet that the reason they were having problems like mine was due to some CA regulation requiring them to shorten the length of the firing pin and in return they weren't getting consistent ignition. I have no idea if this is true or not but it seemed plausible at the time.
It's true in essence.

The CA drop tests, which have little to no relationship to any plausible real-life scenario, could catch the enclosed-hammer Centennial Smiths, since they did not have a sliding hammer block like the exposed-hammer models. As I understand it, a shorter FP was the answer.

Put a "known-good" FP in your revo and don't worry about it. :cool:

[Long tom coffin]

Let's return to my question: What objective, measurable advantage do the numerous K-frames in my gun safe give me that the M&P9 on my hip does not?


This thread has definitely become my own personal Frankenstein, it's taken on a life all it's own.



I'll input a little bit, considered I have, for several years, carried a Revo as a primary, then switching to an semi auto with a revo BUG. Right now, that's a Gen 2 19 on my hip, and an LCR in my pocket (weather is to hot for pants, otherwise ankle).

I would not feel under armed in the least if I had only the LCR. As a matter of fact, I have done that several times, where necessary.

This thread was originally just asked to see if anyone else has or had carried a revo as a primary on a regular basis. This was not meant to be an argument on the merits or lack thereof of revolver use for modern day CCW use. Primarily because that entire argument is based entirely on false premises.

For military and law enforcement purposes, a double stack semi automatic is the duh choice. That is obvious. For a civilian, however, that is vastly different. A revolver primary with a revolver backup is perfectly acceptable for anything sort of the zombies crawling out of their graves or the Chinese invading.

[Tamara]

For ... law enforcement purposes, a double stack semi automatic is the duh choice. That is obvious. For a civilian, however, that is vastly different. A revolver primary with a revolver backup is perfectly acceptable for anything sort of the zombies crawling out of their graves or the Chinese invading.
So, cops face zombies and Chicoms, but all I have to worry about is criminals? I feel better now. ;)

Seriously, if you're cool with it, fine; for those of us who are not issued our carry pieces, it all comes down to what makes us comfortable. I like my security blanket a little bigger and fluffier, is all. For me, it's no hardship to carry the hi-cap nine, and I won't feel all tore up if I wind up with bullets left over.

[Al T.]

Just as a stretch towards doing more stuff with your handgun than SD/HD, I'd mention that a wheel gun gives you some flexibility in ammo selection that you can't get in a semi.

You can carry snakeshot (may be viable for some semis as well).

You can carry reduced recoil ammunition, say wadcutters or .38s in a .357 if recoil is an issue.

Along those lines (recoil reduction), you can practice with less stress on the shooter and handgun.

Ramping up - if an Alaska fishing expedition is forthcoming, I can crank up my Mountain Revolver with some 300 grain SWCs for bears.

[Tamara]

Ramping up - if an Alaska fishing expedition is forthcoming, I can crank up my Mountain Revolver with some 300 grain SWCs for bears.

If I lived just north of the 54th Parallel instead of just north of 54th Street, then the ability to carry 265gr hard-cast SWC would probably outweigh the ability to carry 18 rounds of 127gr +P+. ;)

(Did I bring that hot-rodded 4" Model 57 to deer camp that time? The one Marko had customized to match his PC13?)

[David Armstrong]

So, cops face zombies and Chicoms, but all I have to worry about is criminals? I feel better now.

It's not so much an issue of who you face, it is what you are doing with them. Cops often have the responsibility of chasing the BG and taking him into custody against his will. All the Non-LEO usually needs is to convince the BG that they need to go somewhere else. Very diferrent concepts. Everybody might face the same criminals, but how we interact with them is not the same.

[Al T.]

Did I bring that hot-rodded 4" Model 57 to deer camp that time?

If you did, I don't recall. Always a bunch of N frames down there. :p

[LittleLebowski]

For a civilian, however, that is vastly different. A revolver primary with a revolver backup is perfectly acceptable for anything sort of the zombies crawling out of their graves or the Chinese invading.

For those civilians that like to train and seek instruction, a revolver is an impediment to training (imagine taking AFHF with one), heavier, and offers no advantages over a modern semiauto.

[Tamara]

It's not so much an issue of who you face, it is what you are doing with them. Cops often have the responsibility of chasing the BG and taking him into custody against his will. All the Non-LEO usually needs is to convince the BG that they need to go somewhere else. Very diferrent concepts. Everybody might face the same criminals, but how we interact with them is not the same.

Yes, I am well aware of that. Usually the bad guy will run away at the sight of the gun (or the sound of the first shot.) At least they have thus far in my own personal experience.

On the other hand, there's the guy in North Cackalacky (I believe it was) recently who ran his G36 to slidelock, 8-for-8, into the dude who busted up into his crib. Since my M&P9 is no heavier or harder to conceal than my Model 19, I'll just go ahead and carry the one with more BBs in the tank. It can't hurt and could possibly come in handy.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

You can carry reduced recoil ammunition, say wadcutters or .38s in a .357 if recoil is an issue.



If recoil is an issue, they make 115 grain 9mm JHP which aren't that bad, like 115 grain Gold Dot or XTP.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

It's not so much an issue of who you face, it is what you are doing with them. Cops often have the responsibility of chasing the BG and taking him into custody against his will. All the Non-LEO usually needs is to convince the BG that they need to go somewhere else. Very diferrent concepts. Everybody might face the same criminals, but how we interact with them is not the same.

To quote Mr. Farnam, "When it's least expected, you're elected!"

You don't get the chose the situation you face.

[Robinson]

For those civilians that like to train and seek instruction, a revolver is an impediment to training

Unless, of course, you train with and seek instruction in the use of a revolver.

[Al T.]

148 grain wadcutters actually kick less than the 9mm 115s and are sort of startlingly effective. That flat meplat is not to be trifled with. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yYYeICHamc

[Long tom coffin]

For those civilians that like to train and seek instruction, a revolver is an impediment to training (imagine taking AFHF with one), heavier, and offers no advantages over a modern semiauto.



I'm going to completely, but respectfully, disagree with everything in that sentence. I can see where you are coming from, but there are plenty of flaws in your line of thinking.

Bear in mind, too, I'm not trying to champion the revolver over the semi-automatic as a superior ccw piece. What I am disputing, however, is that it is an inferior one, and that, all things being equal in the course of an average confrontation that a civilian is likely to face, the semiautomatic and revolver will measure out about the same end result-wise. For example, since CCW became legal in Missouri, there have been several incidents of CCW related shootings in my area. In each case, it took at the most 2 shots to resolve. Also, the half dozen instances that have made it into the news that the weapons of choice for the attacked were split evenly between snub nose revolvers and Glock semiautomatic pistols, either 9mm or fotay.

1) Revolvers are heavier:
My first CCW piece was a ruger sp101, 3". My glock 19 has a weight of ~21 oz. Add a full mag into that, and you are probably somewhere around ~28 oz. 2 oz more than my Sp101. There are also revolvers out there that are larger with more capacity, but are not the solid steel chunks that the sp101 is, so weigh less.

2) Revolvers are an impediment to instruction:
If you are trying to use a revolver to complete a semiautomatic based course of instruction, yes, that is completely true. But then, why would you be taking a snub to a semiautomatic class anyways when the methodology between the two platforms is different? While there are some aspects of revolver and semi use that overlap (sight alignment, trigger press, etc), there are many things that are dissimilar, such as combative application, reloading, retention techniques, and so forth. It is true that there is significantly more training out there that is geared to the semiautomatic, but that paradigm is changing too as more concealed carriers are gravitating towards snub nose revolvers. There are plenty of quality revolver themed training courses out there, and some are exclusively dedicated to the application of the snub. Michael de Bethencourt springs immediately to mind.

3) Advantages: Each platform has it's own advantages and disadvantages, that dead horse has already been beaten aplenty. I'm simply stating that all things being equal, in the terms of average civilian self defense, a revolver or a semiautomatic will serve its owner equally well.

[David Armstrong]

For those civilians that like to train and seek instruction, a revolver is an impediment to training (imagine taking AFHF with one), heavier, and offers no advantages over a modern semiauto.
A number of folks have managed to do fine at places like Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, DTI, and so on with revolvers. I have taken several courses of instruction with the revolver. Never found it to be an impediment.

[David Armstrong]

To quote Mr. Farnam, "When it's least expected, you're elected!"

You don't get the chose the situation you face.
While you may not get to chose the situation, you usually will have options once the situation begins. You do have a choice in if you are going to force an issue and become the aggressor, trying to go after the BG and take him into custody, for example.

[Tamara]

While you may not get to chose the situation, you usually will have options once the situation begins.
What is my option if the situation requires, say, eight 230gr Gold Dots?

That incident, rare as it is, was the final straw that switched me from a single-stack 1911 to a hi-cap nine.

Again: It's no harder (in fact, it's easier) for me to carry the plastic 18-shooter than it was to carry the steel 6-shooter. What do I gain by going back to the six-shooter?

[LittleLebowski]

A number of folks have managed to do fine at places like Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, DTI, and so on with revolvers. I have taken several courses of instruction with the revolver. Never found it to be an impediment.

Like I said, try an AFHF. I've done so and taken Mr Vicker's advanced pistol class.

I'm curious as to what Tom Givens has on stats regarding shots fired in defensive encounters.

I personally don't claim to have the data in front of me in order to claim that citizens would be just as well served with a 6 shot revolver as opposed to say, at least a 15 shot semiautomatic of the same weight. I do feel the need to stack the odds in my favor as much as reasonably can be done and prefer simplicity and ammunition capacity over weight and reduced capacity.

Who knows? Maybe most people would be just as well served with bolt actions over ARs?

[LHS]

Who knows? Maybe most people would be just as well served with bolt actions over ARs?

That's actually a good analogy. Bolt actions are superior to modern semi-autos, but only in limited situations. For example, handling a heavy-recoiling, powerful hunting cartridge. Guess what? Revolvers are the same way. One could also argue that a bolt gun is more inherently accurate than a semi, but that gap has narrowed dramatically over the past few years. The same could be said for wheelguns vs. semis.

[David Armstrong]

What is my option if the situation requires, say, eight 230gr Gold Dots?

That incident, rare as it is, was the final straw that switched me from a single-stack 1911 to a hi-cap nine.
I just find that to be a rather questionable issue. No matter what normal capacity magazine anyone wishes to offer I can come up with a situation where that number was not enough. ANY capacity decision is going to be a compromise on many fronts.


Again: It's no harder (in fact, it's easier) for me to carry the plastic 18-shooter than it was to carry the steel 6-shooter. What do I gain by going back to the six-shooter?
I don't know. You may not gain anything. Somebody else may gain a lot. I would bow to the well-phrased point from long tom coffin, "3) Advantages: Each platform has it's own advantages and disadvantages, that dead horse has already been beaten aplenty. I'm simply stating that all things being equal, in the terms of average civilian self defense, a revolver or a semiautomatic will serve its owner equally well."

It's not from me, but I found an nice analysis of why one guy ended up going with a revolver instead of an autoloader on another forum:
>>Now as far as why I find myself gravitating even more towards revolvers.

1)Super easy to load, unload, inspect etc. No bullet setback issues, no decocking, applying of safeties etc. Easy to wipe down due to ease of unloading and reloading.

2)In my experience super reliable, more so then automatics, especially itty bitty autos. Now all of my autos have been super reliable as well and most have never malfunctioned but the fact remains that in my life I have experienced at least one malfunction with every semi auto brand out there. I have NEVER personally had a malfunction with a revolver. Now I do understand the trade off is that a semi auto malfunction is usually quickly cleared vs. an revo likely being put out of action.

3)Easier for me to carry especially pocket carry and give me more confidence with the long double action pull as far as safety is concerned.

4)The ability to load any kind of ammo under the son from mild to wild from round nosed, to flat nose, to HP, SWC, lead, jacketed, crazy, buttstomping, buffalo killin', cruise missiles etc. I find that my test period is smaller when breaking in a new revolver because of their general lack of ammo sensitivity. Now I realize that there are rare occassions that certain revolvers are sensitive to ammo such as super light guns with super light bullet weights but in general they will just about literally feed rocks.

5)The single action trigger pull on a decent well broken in revolver is absolutely spectacular. I have never shot a semi auto pistol with a better trigger pull. Rifles with set triggers are better but as a rule the single action pull on a revolver is just about the best you are going to get in a normal production, no competition gun.

6)Not held back by the need of an external feeding device. Most semi auto malfunctions stem from either the magazine or the extractor in my experience. Revolvers have numerous charging methods including speed strips, speed loaders, moon clips and loose round feeding. I think this is a very strong point. Now of course this strength is balanced or outweighed by the slower reloading speed. When I say slower reloading speed I am talking about us normal folks not the Jerry Miculeks of the world.

7)In my experience the great majority of modern revolvers made by reputable companies are strong like bull. As in they would make a hell of a hammer or impact weapon. This is not really a huge strength since a good quality auto is also a very strong weapon but revolvers can typically be built to handle much higher pressures.

8)They are easy to learn and teach others to shoot. Full size .357 magnums allow anybody to shoot them due to the fact that they can be loaded with such a variety of ammo. Have a small framed friend who is recoil shy, no problem load up some .38 special. Want to go hunt the great white buffalo no problem load up some of them thar afore mentioned crazy butt stomping rounds. I think this versatility allows for a nice platform to gradually teach new shooters while ramping up slowly over time.

9)NO BRASS TO CLEAN UP. For all of you folks who don't worry about policing your brass......SHAME ON YOU. Clean your brass up and leave the place as clean or cleaner then you left it. For all you reloaders the advantage is obvious.

Now these are just a few of the big advantages I see to practical use of revolvers. As with any tool there are just as many disadvantages to the platform that need to be weighed upon and I have only touched on a couple in the above. Like most tools a personal decision needs to be made as to whether the pros outweight the cons for you personally. For me, average, suburbanite, white, married male, who carries little cash, doesn't do drugs, doesn't sleep with other folks wives etc. the revolver makes alot of sense in an EDC firearm. Were I to be going into harms way my choice would likely change to semi-automatic...............preferably one in a rifle or guage caliber but I digress.<<

I don't agree with everything he posted, but I think it is a good example of how someone can look at both platforms and decide the revolver is better for them. Fortunately, as with so many of these issues, it really doesn't seem to matter much in the long run, so we all can pick pretty much whatever we want and come out OK.

[David Armstrong]

Like I said, try an AFHF. I've done so and taken Mr Vicker's advanced pistol class.
Picking one or two classes, particularly one designed around the autoloader such as AFHF, really doesn't do much to support a blanket claim of suitability. It would be like me arguing that autos are bad because they don't fit the instruction at de Bethencourt's Snub Training class. I've used and/or seen revolvers used at Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, DTI, Shoot-n-Iron, and several other training programs and they have held their own. A number of places specifically offer defensive revolver classes.


Who knows? Maybe most people would be just as well served with bolt actions over ARs?
Perhaps. A lot would depend on the person, their needs, and their situation. IIRC Cooper advocated the Scout Rifle (a bolt action) as the best all-arogeneraleral purpose long gun. And certainly the pump-action shotgun seems to do fine in spite of the advent of the autoloader.

[LittleLebowski]

Yet, semis would do fine at a revolver class, no?

[David Armstrong]

Yet, semis would do fine at a revolver class, no?
It would depend on the class, no? Much like revolvers doing fine at an autoloaders class.

[LittleLebowski]

It would depend on the class, no? Much like revolvers doing fine at an autoloaders class.

I think that most revolver shooters would not be able to truly excel at AFHF or a Vickers class. They might be able to keep up but they'd be starting off with a mechanical disadvantage with regards to reloads. I have trouble imagining a revolver class where a semi in the hands of a decent shooter would be at a disadvantage. I'd certainly like to how a semi would be at a disadvantage at a revolver class currently being taught.

[David Armstrong]

I think that most revolver shooters would not be able to truly excel at AFHF or a Vickers class.
Perhaps not. But I'm not sure what the relevance of that is outside of an AFHF or Vicker's class. IIRC, for example, Todd has said that his class is specifically designed to improve speed and handling of an autoloader.

They might be able to keep up but they'd be starting off with a mechanical disadvantage with regards to reloads.
Not sure why that would be true. Someone who knows how to use a speedloader doesn't give up much to someone putting in a new magazine. Those using revolvers at events like IDPA or NTI, which are a bit more reflective of actual DGU instead of range activites, seem to do OK.

I have trouble imagining a revolver class where a semi in the hands of a decent shooter would be at a disadvantage. I'd certainly like to how a semi would be at a disadvantage at a revolver class currently being taught.
Perhaps that is because you've never had a revolver class? If you have you should remember that a revolver class will often have assorted drills and exercises that are designed around a revolver, just as an autoloader class will have them designed around an auto. I would imagine you'd have a bit of trouble doing immediate action drills for a jammed cylinder with an auto, and reloading from loose rounds might be a bit of an issue.

[LittleLebowski]

Yes, I think a semi shooter would probably not do as well using a semi in a revolver class when doing revolver oriented malfunction drills.

I don't see how you're missing the lacking rounds capacity and greater frequency of reloads, David. I certainly would not want to handicap myself with more frequent reloads of 6 rounds when paying for training. I get that some folks just like revolvers but I don't see you can argue against the points of greater weight, less ammo, and more frequent reloads. Not to mention far greater mechanical complexity.

[David Armstrong]

Yes, I think a semi shooter would probably not do as well using a semi in a revolver class when doing revolver oriented malfunction drills.

I don't see how you're missing the lacking rounds capacity and greater frequency of reloads, David. I certainly would not want to handicap myself with more frequent reloads of 6 rounds when paying for training.
I just don't see it as a handicap, and I don't focus on what is best for range use and training. My concern is CCW and self defense. I certainly wouldn't consider it a handicap if a guy came to class with a Glock 36 instead of a Glock 17, although he would have to reload much more frequently. Heck, one might argue that more reloading during the training is a good thing, as that provides experience and repetition of a useful skill.

I get that some folks just like revolvers but I don't see you can argue against the points of greater weight, less ammo, and more frequent reloads. Not to mention far greater mechanical complexity.
I don't argue against or for differences without knowing circumstances. I do argue that for CCW/self defense purposes a revolver will do the job just fine, as will an autoloader.

[LittleLebowski]

I do agree that in properly trained hands, a revolver would probably be fine for SD. I do have a self admitted focus on training and range use as I don't know of a better way for me to become more proficient with firearms and I also very much enjoy said training.

[jetfire]

Someone who knows how to use a speedloader doesn't give up much to someone putting in a new magazine.

Using the shot to shot method of tracking reloads (fire 1, reload, fire 1) gives you a split time that's roughly analogous to your reload time.

When I was shooting revolvers exclusively in late 2010 and early 2011 I primarily used a S&W 686, which reloads from speedloaders. Using a Comp-III, about the fastest speedloader on the planet from an unconcealed ICORE rig, a "good" reload is anything under 3.00 seconds, with 2.5 being a smoking fast reload.

I stopped shooting revos for a number of reasons, but when I switched over to autos, after a couple of practices to re-anchor my reloads, I was immediately able to hit a sub 2.00 second reload from concealment, compared to a USPSA reload with a revolver that was at its best guaranteed to be a half second slower, and usually closer to a full second.

Now, after a bit of practice, my slide lock reloads from an open holster are down to around 1.2 seconds, so I definitely feel like a speedloader gives up a lot of time to an auto. I'm not trying to pile on, because I don't actually care about the whole revolver vs. auto thing; but revolvers definitely give a up a bit to autos in reloads. Just look at the scores from an major IDPA match. The best revolver shooters in SSR (the speedloader division) are almost always slower than the best shooters in CDP, even on stages that are relatively favorable to revolvers.

[David Armstrong]

I do agree that in properly trained hands, a revolver would probably be fine for SD. I do have a self admitted focus on training and range use as I don't know of a better way for me to become more proficient with firearms and I also very much enjoy said training.
I do too, or at least I used tobefore getting crippled up. But frequently things that are a big deal on the range really aren't particualrly significant off the range.

[David Armstrong]

I'm not trying to pile on, because I don't actually care about the whole revolver vs. auto thing; but revolvers definitely give a up a bit to autos in reloads.
No doubt, but whether that matters much in the overall scheme of life is a different issue. I may have misunderstood the post, which wasn't so much "how fast can you reload" as it was "the mechanics of reloading a revolver create a training problem" as I read it. Using your own times as an example taking an extra second to reload won't impact the training schedule and experience much. But yes, reloading an auto is much easier and faster than reloading a revolver.....as long as you have a pre-loaded magazine available.

[jetfire]

I don't think it's a mechanical issue, rather it's an ammo issue. I took Speed Kills and Get SOM last year with a 1911 that held 8 rounds. I was constantly reloading in a class surrounded by people with 15-18 shot semi-autos that were having to reload 1 time for every 2.25 times I had to reload. With a revo, that changes to a 1/3 ratio, which means that while everyone else is shooting the drills and training, the revo guy is STILL loading. And that's assuming he's loading from speedloaders, of which you'd need quite a few.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

2) Revolvers are an impediment to instruction:
If you are trying to use a revolver to complete a semiautomatic based course of instruction, yes, that is completely true. But then, why would you be taking a snub to a semiautomatic class anyways when the methodology between the two platforms is different? While there are some aspects of revolver and semi use that overlap (sight alignment, trigger press, etc), there are many things that are dissimilar, such as combative application, reloading, retention techniques, and so forth. It is true that there is significantly more training out there that is geared to the semiautomatic, but that paradigm is changing too as more concealed carriers are gravitating towards snub nose revolvers. There are plenty of quality revolver themed training courses out there, and some are exclusively dedicated to the application of the snub. Michael de Bethencourt springs immediately to mind.



I took his intermediate class last year, in the 1 day format before he expanded it to a 2 day format.

It was a good look at how the other side lives.

While I learned how to manipulate, feed and appreciate the guns that go round and round...and I would certainly like to develop the skill with them it takes to get fast...

and I know that they can be effective tools...It's a lot more weapon management than a pistol.

I'm not loving them.

They are good tools to know how to use, and good tools to have on hand, but better options exist without making them a bad option.

[David Armstrong]

I don't think it's a mechanical issue, rather it's an ammo issue. I took Speed Kills and Get SOM last year with a 1911 that held 8 rounds. I was constantly reloading in a class surrounded by people with 15-18 shot semi-autos that were having to reload 1 time for every 2.25 times I had to reload. With a revo, that changes to a 1/3 ratio, which means that while everyone else is shooting the drills and training, the revo guy is STILL loading. And that's assuming he's loading from speedloaders, of which you'd need quite a few.
Gosh, it really is interesting to me how views have changed, or perhaps it is how accumulated knowledge has changed, over time. You (generic, not specific) don't need many speedloaders to keep a revolver running, you use loading blocks. Back in the days of PPC the revolver shooters often used to stand around and gripe about having to wait on the auto shooters who were taking so much time to reload their magazines! Folks, this is not an issue. Feel free to gripe about revolvers if you want to, but the argument that you lose too much training time because of reloading is just sort of silly. I'm thinking some of the complaints/worries are the result of lack of familiarity and understanding of how things are done rather than valid issues. Somebody who shows up at the range with the right gear shouldn't slow anything or anyone down much at all, if any. A person who shows up without the right gear will, be it revolver or auto. In fact, if I have 3 speedloaders and a loading block and you have 3 15 round magazines there is a pretty good chance I'll end up waiting on you rather than the other way around.

[Tamara]

Gosh, it really is interesting to me how views have changed, or perhaps it is how accumulated knowledge has changed, over time... In fact, if I have 3 speedloaders and a loading block and you have 3 15 round magazines there is a pretty good chance I'll end up waiting on you rather than the other way around.

Class instructions for AFHF are to bring enough mags so that you can come to the line with 50 rounds ready to go. Those must be some big speedloaders to only need three. ;)

Bear in mind that not everyone in this thread is mystified by the strange archaic wheelguns; some of us may have even owned or carried one or two. :p


But yes, reloading an auto is much easier and faster than reloading a revolver.....as long as you have a pre-loaded magazine available.

During the all the years I spent moderating the Revolvers sub-forum at TFL/THR, I believe I even used this argument once or twice. I stopped, because it's as contrived as the "revolver @ AFHF" one against which you (rightly) protest. Both are contrived environments that have little to do with shooting two jerks trying to jack you up in a dark alley, (a task for which I'd rather not count on a J-frame (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?716-The-quot-new-quot-J-frame), all things considered, and I say that as one who has a 432PD in her coat pocket right now.)

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Class instructions for AFHF are to bring enough mags so that you can come to the line with 50 rounds ready to go. Those must be some big speedloaders to only need three. ;)

Bear in mind that not everyone in this thread is mystified by the strange archaic wheelguns; some of us may have even owned or carried one or two. :p


How do you speed load a cap & ball revolver?

[FotoTomas]

How do you speed load a cap & ball revolver?

With another revolver. In fact I believe it was common to have three or four revolvers available with belt holsters and saddle holsters during the cavalry battles of the civil war.

As I mentioned before...off duty on my time I sometimes carry my S&W Model 19 as a primary and a S&W J frame or my Colt detective Special as the backup. The M19 and Colt DS work best as a team since the spare speed loaders, loaded with .38 Special ammo, work on both.

Semi's are great. I have several and love them dearly. Revolvers are great. I have several and love them dearly.

I will admit that I have yet to pack my brace of Ruger Blackhawks off duty for serious social purposes. :)

[jstyer]

I will admit that I have yet to pack my brace of Ruger Blackhawks off duty for serious social purposes. :)

You mean you don't want people to stop in the street to better absorb your radiating awesomeness? You don't want to never have to pay for a drink for the rest of your life?

Different strokes...

[Tamara]

I carried a 7.5" .45LC Blackhawk in a crossdraw nylon holster behind the counter at the first gun store I worked at a couple times.

God, I was such a dork. I can't believe I admitted that in public. :o

[David Armstrong]

Class instructions for AFHF are to bring enough mags so that you can come to the line with 50 rounds ready to go. Those must be some big speedloaders to only need three. ;)
Just like those are some pretty big magazines (at least 17 rounds) to only need three. But it really isn't a problem to pack extra speed loaders, or use that loading block. And of course, as mentioned, using a course that is specifically designed around autoloaders really doesn't tell us much about using a revolver in other arenas.

Bear in mind that not everyone in this thread is mystified by the strange archaic wheelguns; some of us may have even owned or carried one or two. :p
No doubt, but bear in mind that it is also quite probable that we have folks who have never carried, competed, or trained with a revolver, thus don't understand how easy it is to get around some of the problems suggested.

During the all the years I spent moderating the Revolvers sub-forum at TFL/THR, I believe I even used this argument once or twice. I stopped, because it's as contrived as the "revolver @ AFHF" one against which you (rightly) protest. Both are contrived environments that have little to do with shooting two jerks trying to jack you up in a dark alley, (a task for which I'd rather not count on a J-frame (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?716-The-quot-new-quot-J-frame), all things considered, and I say that as one who has a 432PD in her coat pocket right now.)
True, but that was not the contrived environment under discussion, which was reloading while on the range. In that case it is a valid argument. I agree that has little to do with shooting two jerks trying to jack you up in a dark alley, where both revolver and auto seem to work out just fine.

[Tamara]

I agree that has little to do with shooting two jerks trying to jack you up in a dark alley, where both revolver and auto seem to work out just fine.

Which brings us back around to the initial argument. I don't know what the lighting conditions are going to be like, I don't know what the two jerks are going to be like, I don't know how my shooting will be on that hypothetical date (heck, my strong hand may be in a cast!) It's all variables and hypotheticals. One of the few variables I have control over is how many bullets are in my gun. Don't mind me if I feel like hedging my bets on that count. ;)

As far as I'm concerned, "Did she fire five shots or did she fire six?" can stay a piece of Hollywood jargon.

[David Armstrong]

No problem, I certainly understand hedging bets. You pick a carry-combo compromise based on what you feel is best for your needs. What I have trouble with is folks who want to argue that their compromise is somehow right and all other compromises are wrong.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

As far as I'm concerned, "Did she fire five shots or did she fire six?" can stay a piece of Hollywood jargon.

The correct answer is "Why does it matter, she's got 10 or more left..."

[Pepper]

I carried a 7.5" .45LC Blackhawk in a crossdraw nylon holster behind the counter at the first gun store I worked at a couple times.

God, I was such a dork. I can't believe I admitted that in public. :o

I'm very impressed!!! Guess that makes me a dork too.:(

[ToddG]

Are there cases where having five of fewer bullets is adequate? Yes. Both the j-frame and the G19 will serve.
Are there cases where having six or more bullets is required? Yes... end of argument.

[JodyH]

I cannot even think of a time I'd rather have a J-frame instead of my Kahr PM9, and the PM9 only has a 2 round capacity advantage.
There's no way I'd ever choose my K-frame 66 over the similar sized P30.
I like to shoot my wheelguns every once in a while for the trigger control practice, but that's it.
There is no logical reason to choose a snubbie over something like a Glock 26 as a carry gun.

[David Armstrong]

Are there cases where having five of fewer bullets is adequate? Yes. Both the j-frame and the G19 will serve.
Are there cases where having six or more bullets is required? Yes... end of argument.
If I'm understanding the argument correctly, then if I come up with a case where it required more than 8 rounds then the 1911 will not serve for CCW? Or does a case where more than 15 rounds eliminate the G19? I'm getting confused here. Is the issue revolvers, J-frames, capacity, or suitability for CCW/self defense?

[David Armstrong]

I cannot even think of a time I'd rather have a J-frame instead of my Kahr PM9, and the PM9 only has a 2 round capacity advantage.
There's no way I'd ever choose my K-frame 66 over the similar sized P30.
I like to shoot my wheelguns every once in a while for the trigger control practice, but that's it.
There is no logical reason to choose a snubbie over something like a Glock 26 as a carry gun.
And yet very well qualified people make that decision on a regular basis, so perhaps their version of logical reasons differs from yours?

[JodyH]

Your entire argument is based on the revolver being adequate, not superior... just adequate.
That's a ridiculous argument to hang your hat on.

[Le Français]

If I'm understanding the argument correctly, then if I come up with a case where it required more than 8 rounds then the 1911 will not serve for CCW? Or does a case where more than 15 rounds eliminate the G19? I'm getting confused here. Is the issue revolvers, J-frames, capacity, or suitability for CCW/self defense?

After all the responses you have elicited in this thread, I find it difficult to comprehend how you could be confused on this relatively simple point.

The 15-round gun will allow you to shoot more bad guys without reloading than the 6-round gun will. As a result, all else being equal, you will solve more situations faster with a G19 than you will with a K frame Smith. That does not mean that you will never have to reload the G19.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

And yet very well qualified people make that decision on a regular basis, so perhaps their version of logical reasons differs from yours?

Maybe many of these well qualified people made their carry choices back when the best thing in the size/weight CCW option was a S&W J frame, and perhaps they haven't reexamined their options, or have invested enough time and effort into mastering the J-frame that other options involve more inconvenience than it is worth to them.

[ToddG]

If I'm understanding the argument correctly, then if I come up with a case where it required more than 8 rounds then the 1911 will not serve for CCW? Or does a case where more than 15 rounds eliminate the G19?

I think we'd agree that there will always be possible scenarios in which no pistol will be adequate.

Given, however, that we're forced to choose something then it seems prudent to choose something which has the best balance of capabilities. For example, a G26 is similar in size, shape, and weight for all practical purposes to a j-frame, yet it holds more than twice as many rounds and is easier to reload. On balance, it's very difficult to imagine a benefit of the j-frame over the G26, then. That doesn't make the G26 unassailable as a choice, it simply makes it better than a j-frame.

[David Armstrong]

Your entire argument is based on the revolver being adequate, not superior... just adequate.
That's a ridiculous argument to hang your hat on.
Sorry, I don't think I've said either is superior or inferior. Personally I think that such claims are rather ridiculous. My argument is that the revovler has shown itself to be quite capable of handling the task under discussion, that of CCW/self defense ( I think). I have yet to see anyone make a reasonable presentation that suggests the years of history showing such success have suddenly been rendered moot.

[David Armstrong]

After all the responses you have elicited in this thread, I find it difficult to comprehend how you could be confused on this relatively simple point.

The 15-round gun will allow you to shoot more bad guys without reloading than the 6-round gun will. As a result, all else being equal, you will solve more situations faster with a G19 than you will with a K frame Smith. That does not mean that you will never have to reload the G19.
But all things are not equal. Again, it is not a question of what will do more faster, it is a question of what works for the situation. You will probably solve more situations faster with a G19 than a 1911, but I don't see anyone that would consider that to be a valid argument against carrying a 1911.

[David Armstrong]

Maybe many of these well qualified people made their carry choices back when the best thing in the size/weight CCW option was a S&W J frame, and perhaps they haven't reexamined their options, or have invested enough time and effort into mastering the J-frame that other options involve more inconvenience than it is worth to them.
I'm sure many of them are, but given the on-going interest in revolvers and the large number of people that carry a revolver as their primary, either regularly or on occassion, I think it goes beyond that.

[ToddG]

You will probably solve more situations faster with a G19 than a 1911, but I don't see anyone that would consider that to be a valid argument agaisnt carrying a 1911.

<raises hand>

[JeffJ]

<raises hand>

+1

My message is too short, and too sweet

[David Armstrong]

I think we'd agree that there will always be possible scenarios in which no pistol will be adequate.
Right. That is my point. We all pick a point where we decide it is OK to compromise. I find it rather silly to argue that one point is OK and another is not based on some imaginary number.

Given, however, that we're forced to choose something then it seems prudent to choose something which has the best balance of capabilities. For example, a G26 is similar in size, shape, and weight for all practical purposes to a j-frame, yet it holds more than twice as many rounds and is easier to reload. On balance, it's very difficult to imagine a benefit of the j-frame over the G26, then. That doesn't make the G26 unassailable as a choice, it simply makes it better than a j-frame.
No, it makes it different than a j-frame. But again, is the argument about j-frames, or revolvers, or capacity? FWIW, while a G26 is slightly larger than a J-frame I think you will find a lot of disagreement about the shape and weight being that similar. In fact you regularly find discussions of how well a j-frame fits in a pocket while the G26 does not.

[Tamara]

<raises hand>

Yup. That's why I shelved my 1911s finally and started carrying a disposable plastic 9mm bullet hose. Easier to carry and more BBs if I need 'em.

It took a long time for me to look at myself squarely in the mirror and admit that I was carrying the 1911 simply because I always had, and for no other real reason.

[David Armstrong]

<raises hand>
Then it would seem your argument is based on capacity rather than the adequacy of the platform, which is a whole different argument, IMO.

[ToddG]

We all pick a point where we decide it is OK to compromise. I find it rather silly to argue that one point is OK and another is not based on some imaginary number.

I find it rather silly to argue that one point is OK when another provides greater benefit with little or no drawback.


Then it would seem your argument is based on capacity rather than the adequacy of the platform, which is a whole different argument, IMO.

Capacity is part of adequacy. And as many people on this board have expressed -- from Tam to Tom Givens -- the reality of modern criminal behavior has made many people realize that capacity is an important factor in adequacy and they have, in fact, abandoned the big heavy low-capacity 1911 in favor of current technology in large part because it gave them more bullets on board.

[David Armstrong]

I find it rather silly to argue that one point is OK when another provides greater benefit with little or no drawback.
But that is the key. There are benefits and drawback for each, and each seems to do the job appropriately. So the issue then becomes one of deciding which benefits and drawbacks are best for each person.

Capacity is part of adequacy. And as many people on this board have expressed -- from Tam to Tom Givens -- the reality of modern criminal behavior has made many people realize that capacity is an important factor in adequacy and they have, in fact, abandoned the big heavy low-capacity 1911 in favor of current technology in large part because it gave them more bullets on board.
But that is a different argument, and only one small part of the issue. Few folks carry around a Calico 50, or a G17 with a 33 round magazine, and so on. And there are also many, perhaps on this board or not, who have reduced their capacity for a more comfortable design, a different caliber, and so on. I agree, capacity is certainly part of the equation, but it is not the only part and I doubt that it is the most important part. Otherwise we wouldn't see such a demand for compact and sub-compact designs.

[ToddG]

The fact that you bring up a Calico or 33rd Glock mag demonstrates just how far at the opposite end of the extreme the j-frame is.

I've stated repeatedly that a 15rd G19 isn't always going to be enough. But it is, by simple math, going to be "enough" in a wider range of possible incidents than a j-frame. Period. Full stop. If you want to gamble that 5 is enough, that's your call. But let's not pretend it's just as good. You've simply decided to compromise combat effectiveness in favor of some other factor.

[David Armstrong]

The fact that you bring up a Calico or 33rd Glock mag demonstrates just how far at the opposite end of the extreme the j-frame is.
Again, I'm not sure why this j-frame keeps popping up. Lots of revolvers are not J-frames, Lots of J-frames are not 5 shots, etc. I would suggest, though, that the J-frame is not that much closer to the opposite end than a G36, or a 1911, or a host of other autoloaders.


I've stated repeatedly that a 15rd G19 isn't always going to be enough. But it is, by simple math, going to be "enough" in a wider range of possible incidents than a j-frame. Period. Full stop. If you want to gamble that 5 is enough, that's your call. But let's not pretend it's just as good. You've simply decided to compromise combat effectiveness in favor of some other factor.
Exactly! We ALL compromise combat effectiveness in favor of some other factors. We all gamble that whatever we have decided to carry that day is going to be enough. 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.

[ToddG]

Again, I'm not sure why this j-frame keeps popping up. Lots of revolvers are not J-frames, Lots of J-frames are not 5 shots, etc.

Because the 5-shot j-frame and its ilk are the most commonly referenced revo when these discussions come up. If you want to talk about a higher capacity revo that is the same size, you're giving up significant terminal performance (let's not get the whole ".22 is good enough" silliness started again). If you want to talk about a higher capacity revo that maintains at least .38+p or better terminal performance, we start to get bigger, heavier, harder to control in recoil, or some combination of all.


I would suggest, though, that the J-frame is not that much closer to the opposite end than a G36, or a 1911, or a host of other autoloaders.

Then I'd respectfully suggest you check your math. An 8+1 1911 has almost twice the capacity of a j-frame, and is substantially faster to reload to boot. And as I've already stated, I and others are not comfortable with the ammo capacity of your typical single stack gun, either.


Exactly! We ALL compromise combat effectiveness in favor of some other factors.

David, why don't you explain what you think are the benefits of a j-frame over, say, a G26.

[David Armstrong]

Because the 5-shot j-frame and its ilk are the most commonly referenced revo when these discussions come up. If you want to talk about a higher capacity revo that is the same size, you're giving up significant terminal performance (let's not get the whole ".22 is good enough" silliness started again). If you want to talk about a higher capacity revo that maintains at least .38+p or better terminal performance, we start to get bigger, heavier, harder to control in recoil, or some combination of all.
In other words, we start talking about a revolver that is more comparable in size, weight, and so on to the large autoloaders that people seem to want to compare with the j-frame. That is my point, in part. Much of this argument has not been "does the revolver work well as a primary carry gun" it has been "my full-size autoloader is better than your compact pocket revolver."

Then I'd respectfully suggest you check your math. An 8+1 1911 has almost twice the capacity of a j-frame, and is substantially faster to reload to boot.
If we are going to start talking reloads versus capacity, that is a different issue again. As for the math, 8 shots or 10 shots are far closer to 5 shots than they are to 33 shots, or 50 shots.

And as I've already stated, I and others are not comfortable with the ammo capacity of your typical single stack gun, either.
And as I've already stated, many people are comfortable with the ammo capacity of a typical single stack gun. Again, I'm not sure why one arbitrary "I like this number" is better than a different arbitrary "I like this number"

David, why don't you explain what you think are the benefits of a j-frame over, say, a G26.
As I am not arguing the benefits of a j-frame over a G26 I'm not sure why I should be tasked with that, particularly given my oft-stated position that I think there are advantages and disadvantages to both epending on the person and their needs. Plus, I would suggest the more accurate comparison would be K-frame versus G26. But one clear difference (let us assume 2" Airweight in .38Spl.) is that the j-frame is lighter. On an opinion basis I find the j-frame to be much more ocmfortable and concealable when utilizing pocket carry (an opinion that seems to be shared by lots of folks). In the FWIW benefit, when training new shooters I'd guess they pick the J-frame over any of the autoloaders 3 or 4 to 1, so I'm assuming they find it easier to shoot.

And lightning storm has jsut come into the area and is wreaking havoc, so I'm shutting down the computer and will pick this back up later!:eek:

[FotoTomas]

The simple fact of the matter is this. Sometimes a small revolver can be better that a high capacity bullet hose. I have a G26 that I shoot well AND have won a couple more guns with in competition. It does NOT fit my pockets as well as my S&W 638 Bodyguard, shrouded Detective Special or my Kahr PM9, all four have a Desantis Nemesis holster for the pocket. Neither the G26 nor the PM9 draw from the pocket as smooth or fast due to the slide "hump" over the grip. The Bodyguard or DS is a much better choice "for me" for pocket carry most of the time.

In addition on those rare Florida cold days where the G30 or Beretta 92D is on the belt...that 638 or DS can be in the windbreaker ready to go with five or six rounds of .38 Spec.+P, in my hand AND reliable to shoot all five or six rounds through the pocket. My PM9 and G26 will not do that.

I too will not argue this is the best option for all or even most but for SOME it is a best option or viable option or even "adequate" solution.

Bottom line is this... handguns suck for personal defense and some suck more than others depending on circumstances and there will always be a situation where one is better than the other any given day. If you want to hedge your bets and are willing to compromise your choices to meet your percieved need then great. I too most often carry a bullet hose. In .45 I too stopped carrying a 1911 and instead went with a Glock 30SF. 10+1 pumpkin balls and a spare 13 round magazine on the belt instead of 8 and 8+1. 24 vs. 17. Maybe the Beretta 92D with a pair of 15 rounders. 30+1 there. None of my autos are reliable in a jacket pocket shoot through and none of them can be drawn as well from my pockets. I am willing to compromise with my shrouded Dick Special or 638 Bodyguard. They are the better choice within my needs.

In life there is rarely only ONE correct answer. I am willing to consider all of my options and chose the best compromise for my activities. Note I said "my" activities.

To each their own for they and theirs must live with their choices.

[JodyH]

In other words, we start talking about a revolver that is more comparable in size, weight, and so on to the large autoloaders that people seem to want to compare with the j-frame. That is my point, in part. Much of this argument has not been "does the revolver work well as a primary carry gun" it has been "my full-size autoloader is better than your compact pocket revolver."
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:

[JFK]

Capacity is part of adequacy. And as many people on this board have expressed -- from Tam to Tom Givens -- the reality of modern criminal behavior has made many people realize that capacity is an important factor in adequacy and they have, in fact, abandoned the big heavy low-capacity 1911 in favor of current technology in large part because it gave them more bullets on board.

This is why I stopped carrying my beloved 1911. With modern bullet and cartridge technology the .45 marginally has the advantage. Weighing the facts that capacity, recoil control, ease of maintenance it is obvious. But the one factor that carried the most weight with me was simply that... to quote Todd... "The reality of modern criminal behavior..." is that it is much more likely that if faced with an unfavorable situation where deadly force is necessary it would likely be with 2+ assailants. (at least in NM) Even with a 1911 and 2 assailents it only give me, lets say two misses before I am holding a paper weight. I will take my 15 rounds in my favor because I have a hard time not dropping two shots on a FAST drill.

[FotoTomas]

I cannot even think of a time I'd rather have a J-frame instead of my Kahr PM9, and the PM9 only has a 2 round capacity advantage.
There's no way I'd ever choose my K-frame 66 over the similar sized P30.
I like to shoot my wheelguns every once in a while for the trigger control practice, but that's it.
There is no logical reason to choose a snubbie over something like a Glock 26 as a carry gun.

There are logical reasons to chose a snubbie over a G26 or PM9. I mentioned some above^ and do it often enough. I do not argue however that for "YOU" there might not be a logical reason to carry a snubbie in lieu of a G26 or P30. Then again maybe you simply have not been exposed to or had a need for a snubbie that you G26 or P30 could not handle. In my case I have and therefore chose the best tool for the job at hand and sometimes that is a snubbie. Sometimes I choose the tool that is more convenient due to a matter of convenience. I am comfortable with those choices based on MY circumstances and perceived threats. My choice, my compromise, my skin.

As Mr. Armstrong has pointed out often in this thread...in real life the differences are not so obvious.

I will also add this to close out my thoughts on the subject. If "I" chose to carry my Model 19 Combat Magnum and a Snubbie for a day after a match or for simple desire, then "I" know that the potential risk of disaster is there if my travels bring me to those two guys in an alley with more than average firepower and extra friends in the shadows. I also know my skills might be tested in ways that a different choice of weapon might not require. I might lose. I might not and I am ok with that since no matter what I have on me is no guarantee of a win and often the extra capability is not needed. Since I know all of this I feel comfortable with my choices and I am vastly better prepared than 95+% of the people on the street.

[ToddG]

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.

[JeffJ]

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.

So, if you throw out the pocket carry weapons, both revolvers and pistols, once you put a belt holster on - where is the advantage of a revolver over a pistol.

I get that some people may "like" revolvers more, and that's fine - carry what you want, but I'm looking for an objective reason - I can't think of any situation where a belt mounted revolver has any advantage over a pistol, and it gives up a lot in capacity

Keeping this to SD situations - hunting/woods guns are a different mission where common SD calibers are considered ineffective - so let's exclude those situations

[peterb]

I think everyone agrees that more capacity is a potential advantage.

Let me ask this: Is there data showing that having more than 5 (or 8) shots available is a significant factor in the outcomes of non-LEO self-defense incidents?

[ToddG]

Let me ask this: Is there data showing that having more than 5 (or 8) shots available is a significant factor in the outcomes of non-LEO self-defense incidents?

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.

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.

If you were simply playing the odds, you wouldn't need to carry a gun in the first place.

[FotoTomas]

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.

So, if you throw out the pocket carry weapons, both revolvers and pistols, once you put a belt holster on - where is the advantage of a revolver over a pistol.

I get that some people may "like" revolvers more, and that's fine - carry what you want, but I'm looking for an objective reason - I can't think of any situation where a belt mounted revolver has any advantage over a pistol, and it gives up a lot in capacity

Keeping this to SD situations - hunting/woods guns are a different mission where common SD calibers are considered ineffective - so let's exclude those situations

Life is a compromise. You play the odds you are comfortable with. The Revolver is not my first choice these days but it is a good choice and will more likely than not beat the odds of most any situation I might encounter that requires the presentation or use of a firearm.

Here is one objective reason. Not the best or most important but it still is legitimate. If I am carrying my Beretta 92D on my belt and I am involved in a tussle that may get dirty involving close contact and ground defense...If I can pull that pistol out and jam it into the attacker to "shoot'em off me" I better not jam it too hard because even with the recoil spring guide rod the slide can push back enough to activate the disconnect and will not fire.

That S&W Model 19 Combat Magnum carried in the same place and involved in the exact same activity will fire with a barrel pressed into the targets body AND that .357 Magnum, 125 grain JHP with attendent fireball is a bonus.

The facts are this...there will ALWAYS be a case where one is better than the other. ALWAYS! The key is whether you and you alone are comfortable with the choice and have trained to an acceptable level with that choice.

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.

I do not carry a handgun off duty because I need one. I carry one because I "might" need one. I also believe my circumstances are such that the "defects" of the revolver will not greatly impede my chances for a succesful resolution to my potential need if I happen to be carrying one that day.

[FotoTomas]

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? ...snip...

It is not backward just reality. I live in Florida. I work for an agency with limited jurisdiction. You and I have talked on occasion for years since you were with Beretta and you are familiar with my agencies requirements and limits. Off duty I do not feel the odds are against me and prefer to carry some potential long distance area control equipment but not always the full monty. Sure the personal 92D or G30 or G26 might be on the hip if I believe the odds or gods might bee against me but not always. I also pick and choose because of circumstance. I do NOT wear the same clothes style everyday and often have occasions where the carry of a bigger shooting iron is not appropriate. In those cases the G26 or the 638 would be in a pocket. When I found and bought a PM9 it split the difference between the 638 and the G26 and became the primary pocket pistol for EDC. It too is a compromise from my 92D but it meets my perceived needs. The revolver option is a convenience issue now days. I like'em and shoot'em often in matches and it is easier to put the Combat Magnum on the belt for the day to shoot the match and carry afterward and I am very comfortable with my ability to use it if necessary. Same with the 638. It is similar to the Magnum AND it is used in the occasional BUG match or stage at the gun club.


re: pocket carry ...snip...

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.

You are being condescending. A talisman is something that has no power other than wishfull thinking. A pocket pistol is vastly superior if needed. It is not as good as my AR15 or Remington 870 or Beretta 92D but it sure beats pepper spray and or a rock. It is a lot more appropriate to carry sometimes as well.

[FotoTomas]

...snip...If you were simply playing the odds, you wouldn't need to carry a gun in the first place.

True but nothing wrong with playing the odds and hedging your bets. Some people wish to simply hedge their bets more aggresively. Completely acceptable behaviour in either case.

[ToddG]

Off duty I do not feel the odds are against me...
<...>
You are being condescending. A talisman is something that has no power other than wishfull thinking.

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.

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.

I spend quite a bit of time in warm climes both when I travel and during the summers here in the DC area where both temps and humidity can easily stay in the mid to high 90's for weeks on end. Plenty of other folks here at PF live in Florida or other areas where it is even warmer. Carrying a normal pistol is not so onerous that we cannot manage it. We make it a priority and dress around the gun rather than expecting a piece of life saving equipment to fit comfortably within our daily lifestyle. You're welcome to fall on either side of that choice, but don't pretend it's anything but a compromise for convenience.

[FotoTomas]

...snip...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. ...snip...

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. Either guy MIGHT be a serious problem needing a SWAT team or a simple show of force. We recently had a shooting where the guy let several rounds off in an office and did not hit anyone then shot at the responding officers and then dropped his shotgun after the responding officer let off two rounds in his direction but missed. In "That" case the BG decided he did not want to play anymore. Potential vs statistical violent response is always a point to consider but you can NEVER be sure what you will get. Back to hedging your bets to the level you are comfortable with.

[FotoTomas]

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.

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.

I spend quite a bit of time in warm climes both when I travel and during the summers here in the DC area where both temps and humidity can easily stay in the mid to high 90's for weeks on end. Plenty of other folks here at PF live in Florida or other areas where it is even warmer. Carrying a normal pistol is not so onerous that we cannot manage it. We make it a priority and dress around the gun rather than expecting a piece of life saving equipment to fit comfortably within our daily lifestyle. You're welcome to fall on either side of that choice, but don't pretend it's anything but a compromise for convenience.

I always make my carry choices based on compromise for my perceived risk and convenience. I also more often than not pack the heavy duty gear with a backup. I choose and compromise and carry on.