Fixed.:cool:
Printable View
I would be undergunned with a revolver because I don't own one and have not put in enough trigger time on them to feel comfortable making one a daily carry gun. Some of you, um, more "seasoned" folks and probably some of the younger guys on here probably started out with either a revolver or 1911 and are quite comfortable and capable with them. I cut my teeth on larger capacity semi autos and prefer them for a lot of reasons that make them the better choice for me. I shoot them better, they carry more rounds, they carry more comfortably, can be reloaded faster by me. That's why I like them over revolvers.
When I hear someone say "all you really need", I translate that to mean "meets the basic minimum requirements for a self defense weapon". Sure, most CCW shootings probably require less than 5 rounds and take place at bad breath distance, but the ones I worry about are the ones where more than 5 rounds are needed and take place at further distance.
There was a time when lever action rifles, single action revolvers and cartridge belts were the norm because they were the best available equipment, and equal or superior to what the bad guys were using. There was a time when a pump shotgun, 5-6 shot DA revolvers and 7-8 round 1911's were the norm because they were the best equipment available, and equal or superior to what the bad guys were using. Nowadays, it seems that AR-15's and 10-18 round semi auto's are the norm because they are equal or superior to what the bad guys are using. The criminal element has been evolving for years. Home invasions typically involve more than one dirt bag, and I can probably predict with a fair amount of certainty that they won't be coming through my door with a J-frame and wad cutters. Car jackings, muggings, and other types of violent attacks take place every day, and are often being carried out by more than one person. We have people planting bombs at marathons, shooting up schools, malls, and Military bases. It makes sense to me that we should, like JoninWA is doing, evaluate ourselves and our equipment from time to time.
You know what this forum really needs? A ten page thread about whether a J-frame is "enough" for CCW, 'cause we've never done that before.
The great thing about these threads, because of the unique nature of pistol-forum, is that folks are allowed not to read them if they don't want to. It's not like your typical gun forum where you're required by law to read every single post. We're just special. It's because we love you guys. :cool:
And while I'll admit we sometimes get knocked astray in threads and they turn into silly "is a revolver enough?" discussions, this thread from the beginning was about the thought process one regular, experienced forum member went through personally when confronted with a situation that forced him to reconsider his previous feelings on the matter. If someone starts a thread about "SIG vs Glock" it's probably going to become a discussion about SIGs versus Glocks.
You sure about that?Quote:
If someone starts a thread about "SIG vs Glock" it's probably going to become a discussion about SIGs versus Glocks.
I'd suggest that maybe that is not a call for more ammo, it is a call for a better stopper, whatever that might be. For instance, a .357 mag instead of a 9mm. I don't fault those that acarry an auto, to each their own. I do someitmes wonder about the reasoning and why folks might consider one item important while discarding other items I think equally important. As I said in other terms though, I don't think it matters much one way or the other.
Well, just as many here seem to think there is a real advantage to the auto because they state it all the time, there is another school of thought. I don't necessarily find all autos better than all revolvers for all situations. I would disagree with your logic for the superiority of the auto, you would disagree with some of myreasonig for the superiority of the revolver.
You're right, it is a tiresome argument. But to me the tiresome part is the regular claim that for CCW purposes the auto is better than the revolver without anything to support the claim. And of course the argument is not quite as you put it, IMO. Blackpowder guns were replaced by solid cartridge guns and SA revolvers were pretty well replaced by DA revolvers when both were used in similar environments. We have not seen that in the context of CCW. The modern autoloader has been around for a long time now and the revolver is still quite popular and seems to do the job just as well. As for nostalgia keeping folks from upgrading...well, there is the 1911 that will not die.:DQuote:
It's a tiresome argument that...like I said earlier can be applied to any weapon and shot down just as easily. Just because so and so used one and lived back in the day doesn't mean it hasn't been outdated. Revolvers were once new technology, just like cartridges, black powder, atlatls, and so on. However, it appears that fighting men throughout the centuries didn't let nostalgia keep them from upgrading.
Agreed, which is my point. Everyone selects some point to compromise. Others choose other points to compromise. What I find troubling (not just in this context) is the tendency to argue only Point A is worth considering while ignoring the fact that Point B can be just as important.
I suppose we could have the same argument in reverse if I said "I have yet to see some indication that the autolader is inferior to the revolver for most CCW events" if one wanted to focus only on those scenarios where the revolver might be better.:confused: And if I'm carrying a revolver with 8 rounds does that mean a person with an auto that holds 7 rounds is "hamstrung"?
And I would tend to reject that. We still see the pump shotgun in use regularly and it doesn't seem to fail to solve the problem any more than does one of the new autoloaders. And plenty of folks, some whom most consider to be very muvh "in the know" that use the 1911, again without any apparent problem. We don't see that with some of the other things. The lever action was found to be inferior to both the bolt and the auto for fighting purposes, for example. When SA revolvers came up against DA revolvers the SAs were soon relegated to the back of the class. We haven't seen that with revolvers in CCW.Quote:
from Casual Friday:
There was a time when lever action rifles, single action revolvers and cartridge belts were the norm because they were the best available equipment, and equal or superior to what the bad guys were using. There was a time when a pump shotgun, 5-6 shot DA revolvers and 7-8 round 1911's were the norm because they were the best equipment available, and equal or superior to what the bad guys were using. Nowadays, it seems that AR-15's and 10-18 round semi auto's are the norm because they are equal or superior to what the bad guys are using.
Maybe you should translate that to "takes care of the problem" instead.:) I think we've had a discussion or two about basic minimum requirements and couldn't even get close to a consensus, which makes sense to me. You can't know if you have the basic minimum until after the fact. Having 15 rounds of .40 might not cut it, you need 17 rounds of 9, or 5 rounds of .45, and so on.Quote:
When I hear someone say "all you really need", I translate that to mean "meets the basic minimum requirements for a self defense weapon".
A gun is a tool like a wrench there are many sizes to it different head sizes. Pick the tool on what you perceive you will need. But then how many gun fights have we been in lately? and the most likely use for the common ccw will be up close and personal robbery and if the crowd of 50 savages aren't scared away by shots what makes you think they will be scared away be away by 20 shots?
Sure. As long as we keep those guns in mind when we get to talking about weight, size, concealability, etc. And as long as we're talking about .357 Mag recoil. And so forth...
I'd be happy to compare Bill Drill or El Prez times between, say, the gun I'm carrying right now and a nice light compact 8-shot .357 Mag. Where should we meet up? I think we should each do ten of each drill to get meaningful data.
Or would 180 rounds of .357 through a scandium snubby be uncomfortable in an afternoon? :cool:
I think that would be fair...as long as we also keep in mind we are comparing full-size and weight fighting autos to the J-frame when we are talking about size, weight, concealability, etc. I think it should work both ways, don't you?
OK, but I'm not sure why you would think that data from an artificial scenario designed around autoladers would be meaningful to actual CCW encounters. Of course I'm also not sure why you would think you need to stack the deck in your favor by picking what is one of the more difficult to use revolvers. I suppose I could counter-offer by suggesting you bring your current carry gun and we'll see how it does against my Mdl 65 on a couple of drills I pick out.Quote:
I'd be happy to compare Bill Drill or El Prez times between, say, the gun I'm carrying right now and a nice light compact 8-shot .357 Mag. Where should we meet up? I think we should each do ten of each drill to get meaningful data.
If you can show me the CCW gunfight where anyone used 180 rounds in an afternoon we'll discuss it.:pQuote:
Or would 180 rounds of .357 through a scandium snubby be uncomfortable in an afternoon? :cool:
David, in my specific case, and the revolver in the real-life scenario I was in was a conventional 6-shot GP100. Even if I'd had a higher capacity revolver, such as a 7- or 8- shot S&W, my thinking on the subject is unchanged; if attacked by a pack of multiple feral/wild/potentially rabid dogs, in chancy light/shadow, the odds are fairly high that I will have to reload at some point in an encounter. The ergonomics of accomplishing this under stress are far, far better and easier to accomplish with most semi-automatic autoloading pistols-both from an ejection and insertion of fresh cartridges standpoint.
I'm not saying that a Jerry Mickulek or any very well practiced and experienced revolver shooter couldn't accomplish a stressful situation reload effectively-I'm merely suggesting that it can be done easier and faster in most likelihood with a semi-automatic box magazine-and, in the guns available to me, with a concurrent far greater magazine capacity. I also think that reloading skills are more quickly acquired, with less relative practice required with a semi-auto versus a swing-out cylinder revolver. That for me is a crucial selection criteria in my use-particularly at night, I think that choosing a semi-automatic pistol is the superior choice.
From an ammunition selection standpoint, I think that the 127gr Winchester +P+ loading that I use in both my Glock G17 and G34 (or the Speer Lawman 124gr +P Gold Dot ammunition used in my Glock 19) is significantly easier and lower-recoiling than contemporary 125 gr .357 Magnum rounds, decreasing the time required for any subsequent additional or follow-up shots-again, more likely with a fast-moving, close to the ground target like a vicious aggressing dog at night.
Interestingly, despite the Glock's shorter trigger pull distance, I've had excellent results with initial and subsequent/follow-up triggerpulls with my revolvers and my DAO Beretta 92D, so in my case the length of triggerpull required with the guns at my disposal isn't much of a crucial selection factor, nor is the length required for respective trigger reset. For others, these factors might be of greater, or crucial significance to be factored in; if so, again in most cases the advantages will fall to the semi-auto.
Best, Jon
I don't disagree with your reasoning, Jon. I think you have made a cogent point based on probabilities as you see them. I see the probabilities differently, thus can come to a different conclusion. As I said, I don't think it matters either way. You do, and you are the one making the decision for you.
Again, no disagreement. My point was (and is) there are other issues that can be looked at also. Given the scenario of a rabid animal attacking I personally would prefer fewer rounds of .357 than more rounds of 9mm. You have looked at the same situation and chosen to emphasize other elements than I have chosen.Quote:
From an ammunition selection standpoint, I think that the 127gr Winchester +P+ loading that I use in both my Glock G17 and G34 (or the Speer Lawman 124gr +P Gold Dot ammunition used in my Glock 19) is significantly easier and lower-recoiling than contemporary 125 gr .357 Magnum rounds, decreasing the time required for any subsequent additional or follow-up shots-again, more likely with a fast-moving, close to the ground target like a vicious aggressing dog at night.
For me nothing gives as quick and controlled second shot than my Mdl 65 except a 1911. Again, differences in training, skills, etc. leading to different solutions to similar problems.Quote:
Interestingly, despite the Glock's shorter trigger pull distance, I've had excellent results with initial and subsequent/follow-up triggerpulls with my revolvers and my DAO Beretta 92D, so in my case the length of triggerpull required with the guns at my disposal isn't much of a crucial selection factor, nor is the length required for respective trigger reset. For others, these factors might be of greater, or crucial significance to be factored in; if so, again in most cases the advantages will fall to the semi-auto.
I didn't realize they made a 7-shot Mdl 65. You did say 7- and 8-round .357's in your previous post that I was replying to, after all. You can't dance back and forth: j-frame when you want to talk about concealability, N-frame when you want to talk about capacity, 357 when you want to talk power, .38 when you want to talk shootability, etc.
Now sure, you could say "revolvers give me all those options." But so do autos... and autos come smaller/lighter than the j-frame, and autos come with higher capacity than the N-frame, etc.
Nope. But being able to practice a couple hundred rounds at a time without suffering injury and pain is important to a lot of folks.Quote:
If you can show me the CCW gunfight where anyone used 180 rounds in an afternoon we'll discuss it.:p
David, I'm 100% good with you saying revolver-XYZ is good enough for you. It's when you keep saying that it's "good enough for CCW" as some kind of absolute that you dive down the rabbit hole.
As a note of comparison: my fastest Bill Drill ever with a wheelgun was 2.12 clean: 0.98/.22/.23/.23/.24/.22
A fast Bill Drill with a modern semi-auto pistol is 1.90 with a Glock 34: 0.97/.18/.18/.19/.18/.20
Now, those times aren't representative of my repeatable times, they're best case scenarios. There's a lot more deviation in my wheelgun times even with the amount of revolver shooting I do each year (10,000 rounds) because it simply takes longer to move the trigger.
I don't feel particularly under-armed with a revolver of any type, but that's my personal risk calculation. However, it's quite telling to me that even when I've spent six months doing nothing but shooting wheelguns, I cannot run the gun as fast as I can a modern semi-auto. The differences in max-speed split times are significant enough that with the Glock 34 I could fire a seventh shot in the time it takes me to fire six shots with the wheelgun.
You could always post a pithy comment with a link to your blog, cause we've never seen that before.:p
That's why I have an 870 and an AR-15...options. :cool: I agree that the 1911 is still and probably always will be a popular choice.
Hey, I'm just here to make wry jokes (or "pithy comments" if you prefer,) and drop links to my blog. ;)
I appreciate Jon's point, having come to a similar conclusion albeit for different reasons.
I've been confronted by vicious/feral/wild dogs at work and play. More recently one of my wee ones and I were stalked by a cougar (four-legged, :() intent on a meal. I've shot bunches of dogs over the years, and got away from the cougar. In those cases, I would have been at a disadvantage with a revolver than the service or CCW pistol I had instead for the reasons others mention.
Were I in bear country or somewhere with large critters requiring more substantial calibers, that mission drives different gear.
I like my wheel guns, but they are fun guns and BUGs.
So, where's your data on the widespread popularity of the revolver for carry? I note that you don't want to run drills against Todd with a snub; what revolver type do you think is being carried most widely? It's all well and good to note that snubs are popular; it's another thing to say they're capable as an auto or conducive to say.....an hour or two of shooting.
My every day carry guns are 1911s and 4" K Frame revolvers. I fully understand the limitations of my choices, but I have my reasons. I have been using these guns for decades, am very familiar and comfortable with their operation, and I feel they are still capable instruments.
Recently a good friend asked me for advice about selecting a handgun. I suggested a certain polymer double-stack striker-fired pistol in a common caliber. He tried one out, liked it, and purchased one. He's very happy with it.
I've decided which guns I prefer to rely on, but I wouldn't assume them to be the right choice for everyone or even most people. I come to this forum to read information and opinions about shooting and related topics in general, and I have found it valuable -- especially reading posts by people clearly more knowledgeable than I. But I guess I really am somewhat set in my ways. But hey I have made progress! Ten years ago I was using strictly the Weaver stance but made the transition to Isosceles and am glad I did.
I'd have no problem running wheel guns if I was forced to. I carried one or two for real for several years before we got semi auto pistols some years ago.
I note that for CCW my Glock 19 is the same size and close to the same weight as my old Colt DS, but holds almost as much ammo in the gun as I had on my entire duty belt "back in the day". The cartridge is also more efficient and with +p gets into low-end .357mag territory ballistically speaking.
In service sized guns I find the pistols more reliable, durable and user friendly than revolvers.
When guns get smaller, into the realm of BUGs, or bigger into the large caliber magnum range, I find this changes. After years of searching I have yet to find a pocket .380 or 9mm that is as reliable as my 642s, and guns like the Deagle are kind of ridiculous compared to something like a good model 629.
That's pretty much my take on the matter. I carry a J-frame as a BUG, a 9mm auto for a primary, and I have a .44 Vaquero for things like hiking in bear country. I have a 3" M66 that is a sweet blaster, but it's basically the same size/weight as my Beretta and holds 1/3 as much ammo. That M66 is awesome to shoot, and I'd never get rid of it, but I don't see it as anywhere near as 'effective' a self-defense weapon as my 92. If the threat only requires 5 shots, it'll be 'as effective'. But if the threat requires 8 shots, 10 shots, 15 shots, then I'm going to be way behind the power curve as I try to stuff a speedloader into it.
Wyatt Earp killed a lot of folks with a Colt SAA. Jimmy Cirillo killed a lot of folks with .38 and .44 DA wheelguns. But towards the end of his life, Jimmy advocated Glocks, and I can be pretty sure that Wyatt Earp would have jumped at the opportunity to trade in his Peacemaker for an M9.
I'd still be carrying a G26 on my ankle if the arthritis in my knee wasn't so bad. Reality can be a kitten to deal with.
The last time I had dinner with Jim and Jimmy Jr., Jim was carrying a Glock 27 with a laser on it, Jimmy was carrying the same set-up on a G23. Jim was a big advocate of carrying the biggest, most tactically capable handgun you could get away with. He mainly liked wheeguns because they would feed wadcutters.
To my mind, that right there is the bottom line. The very nature of a "back-up gun" means that, if you have to employ it, things are about at their worst. Contact shots are a real possibility. And we know that a semi-auto is most likely to malfunction after a contact (where the muzzle is against your opponent's body) shot.
But it is truly amazing to see how some folks are seduced by the easier, more convenient carry of a small .380 over a J frame revolver... even folks who should know better. This recently occurred in my old agency. I had tried for years to get the state to buy AirWeight J frames for a back-up piece. It never got much traction then, but just this year the agency bought not only a patrol carbine for everybody, but a "back-up" gun as well. Their choice of the latter? The S&W BodyGuard .380... with attached laser.
I was, like... "WTF????"
I was even more amazed when I learned that the prime mover behind the decision (on which gun to choose for the issue) was a guy who I had worked along side on SWAT, on the state pistol team, and on the range.
Bottom line, it ain't my dog anymore. I won't get one (and don't want one), and I suppose its better than nothing at all for that purpose. And perhaps my dated, conventional mindset is clouding my vision.
Or perhaps not...
.
I think that the Bodyguard .380 autos can be had for very low prices; that might have been a factor.
LE price on a 642 is 340
LE price on a Bodyguard 380 w/ laser is 320
Probably even cheaper if buying for a department
When I suggest a snub I often get the stink eye from new guys, like I just asked them for a date or something.
Revolvers? That's those ancient guns with the spinny thing in the middle, like cowboys carried when they fought the British in the Civil War, right?
Lots of people think the .380s are a better choice because, well, semi auto, and you can reload quicker....... Dunning-Kruger gun knowledge makes baby Odin weep.
Sure I can, just like there is a wide variation among autoloaders being discussed. And just as one can selct from a number of autoloaders with varying capacity, size, weight, power, etc. one can do the same with revolvers. My 65 is 6-shots, of course. If I wanted 7 rounds I'd grab an L-frame, etc. My point was that is is somewhat unfair for one party to both select the course of fire and then also determine the equipment the other party gets to use.
Sure. There are some advantages to autos, there are some advantages to revolvers. As jsut one example, autos that are smaller/lighter than the J-frame are often (not always) difficult to hold and control when shooting. Which advantages do you think are important and which disadvantages do you want to minimize?Quote:
Now sure, you could say "revolvers give me all those options." But so do autos... and autos come smaller/lighter than the j-frame, and autos come with higher capacity than the N-frame, etc.
I'm sure it is. Go practice a couple hundred rounds with a Ruger LCP and let me know how comfortable that is. Again, you seem to be wanting to cherry-pick extreme examples. If being able to shoot hundreds of rounds at a time without pain/injury is important to you don't use a .357 Mag in a LW gun.Quote:
Nope. But being able to practice a couple hundred rounds at a time without suffering injury and pain is important to a lot of folks.
As opposed to saying that any random autoloader is "good enough for CCW" is not diving down the same rabbit hole?? That is what seems to be happening as a core to the discussion for some...any autoloader is always good, any revolver is always bad. I reject that as a generic discussion point.Quote:
David, I'm 100% good with you saying revolver-XYZ is good enough for you. It's when you keep saying that it's "good enough for CCW" as some kind of absolute that you dive down the rabbit hole.
Well, there are things like the number of firearms sold, the representation of firearms used at CCW classes, the commentary on many gun forums, ammunition sales, reports of firearms used in shootings, etc. In other words, the same place the "data" for the widespread popularity of the autoloader for carry is found.
I didn't want to run those specific drills against Todd with a snub. Very different. Again, you want to give me the choice of drills I'll be glad to do them with a snub. That is the beauty of getting to pick the drills. As for what revolver type is being carried the most widely for CCW? Probable the same type as autoloaders that are beingmost widely carried...small, compact, lightweight, and of limited capacity.Quote:
I note that you don't want to run drills against Todd with a snub; what revolver type do you think is being carried most widely? It's all well and good to note that snubs are popular; it's another thing to say they're capable as an auto or conducive to say.....an hour or two of shooting.
David, I think your shifting from the micro to the macro. The intent when I initiated this thread is that based on a situation I found myself in, I found myself doing a paradigm re-evaluation of the appropriateness of selecting a revolver as my primary defensive carry weapon. Back-up guns are another realm entirely, and one where, as Tpd and others have mentioned where they may well have a preeminent niche today-particularly since a back-up gun almost by definition is going to be a last-ditch, contact-distance weapon, where reloading (and reloadability) is far lower on the list of selection criteria-as is capacity.
I further am evaluating the relative appropriateness and desirability of the selection of a revolver as the primary defensive weapon at night (or, by extension, for conditions of limited lighting or highly inclement weather-conditions which while not necessarily a hindrance to the gun's initial deployment, probably would provide a complicating factor with both expended cartridge extraction and re-loading. Implicit with the re-evaluation is the possibility, particularly at night, of having to engage multiple non-static aggressors.
I am emphatically not evaluating revolvers categorically or sue generis; I have felt, and continue to feel that they are viable defensive weapons. As with most tools, however, their viability and applicability can be situationally dependent-and just because a tool works does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that said tool is the best for a given (or potential) environment and/or application. And, frankly, I'd suggest that analytic applies to all tools/weapons.
I've found that if you become too wedded to a tool, technique, mindset, etc. while you might become highly skilled in such (which is certainly a good thing), you can also be in danger of being rendered obsolescent, or worse, by ongoing changes and differing environments.
In my case, that pretty much has led me to conclude that my revolver use will be constrained to daylight use as a CCW weapon, and as a nightstand weapon at home. I'll also continue to use them on a limited basis as in competition (primarily IDPA); their use there will be in proportion to their use as a carry weapon. I'll continue to use and enjoy them, but within the constraints as I've evaluated them, and within the backdrop that have, in that I have other alternative (i.e., semi-automatic pistol) choices.
If unforeseen circumstances led me to be armed with a revolver at night, I certainly wouldn't feel defenseless; but I would feel that my options could be constrained, with operational/reactive capabilities somewhat compromised-more so than with a higher-capacity semi-automatic pistol.
I appreciate everyone's feedback and contributions to the thread.
Best, Jon
You know, there are previous few instances one would be under gunned with a Python. And fewer still with a 1911. And fewer yet with a G17.
You pays your money, and takes your chances.
Shoot and carry what makes you happy.
Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 4
Of course.
Except I like N frames, P35 s, and 1911s more.
Arguments about caliber and gun type stem from a desire for validation. I don't much care what people think about my carry gun. I don't care if Tams M&P can't mechanically keep all its shots on the A zone at 25. I don't care that my 27 holds 6 rounds and despite the weight, is a beast with full power mag loads. It's my choice, my problem.
There are darn few honest absolutes in this area. Including terminal ballistics, rounds needed, and accuracy needed.
As for the money, I don't care in the least.
I'm mildly concerned with capacity lately, though.
Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 4
To add to that. Everyone needs to remember, you own every bullet you fire. As a result I am more accuracy focused than speed. My choices reflect that. Don't agree? Cool. That's what's so awesome about this country - you don't have to. Rock what you like. Short change revolvers because of capacity, I don't care. Think your 9mm is equal to a full power 357? Ok by me. I'm not going to judge out make fun of you for it.
One last thought - few things in life are linear, including ballistics and muzzle blast per fps.
Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 4