5-shot gun again

[Inspector71]

Interesting insight on the 5-shot snubby: https://revolverguy.com/is-the-snubby-enough-gun/

[TGS]

The author makes a lot of good points, but they're all the reasons I've made a habit out of carrying a double-stack auto instead of a snub as a primary.

Exactly because I don't know what that gunfight is going to look like, or how many rounds I'll need, and exactly because there are no magic bullets so I don't want to depend on just 5 to get it done. I'd prefer a gun that takes what I'm carrying out the equation as much as possible.

The same old tired tripe rears it head again with the lines about "you can't buy skill". No shit. The same applies to buying a revolver. Just because someone buys a revolver doesn't mean that they're now a pistolero and will only need the 5 or 6 that are in the gun because they're now that fuckin good...that is pretending that you know what a gunfight will look like and what you'll need. The same individual carrying a revolver is objectively a more capable shooter when carrying a double-stack auto, no ifs ands or buts.

There's lots of good reasons to carry a revolver. There's even more good reasons to carry a double-stack autoloader (for simplicity's sake, I'd consider stack-and-a-half guns like the Shield or G48 in this category too). A revolver leaves a shooter objectively less capable, regardless of it being all that is statistically needed for the majority of fights....and given that it's statistically adequate for most gunfights, I'd never give someone grief for carrying one as an off-duty/CCW piece (I do on rare occasion as well).

Still, I take issue with non-logical arguments that actually speak against the case for carrying a revolver, and I absolutely abhore that vampire herpes bullshit that implies people carrying double stack autos are doing so because they suck and are trying to buy skill, whereas carrying a revolver is evidence that you don't need more than 5 or 6 to get the job done because you're somehow a better shooter.

[BehindBlueI's]

I'm not up for reading yet *another* "is your j-frame enough" article.

I don't see a lot of corpses with j-frames in their hands. For random violence, it's a wash. I've yet to see any compelling statistical evidence that j-frame carriers are losing at rates higher than those of semi-autos. In the untrained or semi-trained individuals hands they are actually doing pretty danged well because there's no safety to forget to take off, they "feed" the cheap-ass ammo they bought, and the lack of maintenance hasn't bricked it. Remembering that, per my stats, more people lose by pulling a non-functioning gun than lose because they missed, that's kind of a big deal for a large segment of the public. One that's really unlikely to be on PF to read this, mind you, but a large segment none the less.

[wvincent]

I'm not up for reading yet *another* "is your j-frame enough" article.

I don't see a lot of corpses with j-frames in their hands. For random violence, it's a wash. I've yet to see any compelling statistical evidence that j-frame carriers are losing at rates higher than those of semi-autos. In the untrained or semi-trained individuals hands they are actually doing pretty danged well because there's no safety to forget to take off, they "feed" the cheap-ass ammo they bought, and the lack of maintenance hasn't bricked it. Remembering that, per my stats, more people lose by pulling a non-functioning gun than lose because they missed, that's kind of a big deal for a large segment of the public. One that's really unlikely to be on PF to read this, mind you, but a large segment none the less.

When you say non functioning, are you referring to mechanical issues, failure to operate safety, or combo of both?
I'm just getting a little lost in your post because you mention both, I'm just curious what the ratio's are on that.

[blues]

When you say non functioning, are you referring to mechanical issues, failure to operate safety, or combo of both?
I'm just getting a little lost in your post because you mention both, I'm just curious what the ratio's are on that.

I think BBI is referring to a gun that fails to go bang, whether it is because of lack of maintenance or mechanical issue.
(Bear in mind, I've been wrong before. )

[wvincent]

I think BBI is referring to a gun that fails to go bang, whether it is because of lack of maintenance or mechanical issue.
(Bear in mind, I've been wrong before. )

Okay, I was just getting a little confused in the details on which was which. Cause to me, failure to de-activate a safety switch is an operator head space and timing issue.

Hence why I went back to Glock from my revolvers, one less thing for me to eff up.

[BehindBlueI's]

When you say non functioning, are you referring to mechanical issues, failure to operate safety, or combo of both?
I'm just getting a little lost in your post because you mention both, I'm just curious what the ratio's are on that.

All of the above. "Presenting a non- functioning firearm" was my label for it. Failure to deactivate safety, pulling trigger on empty chamber, actual mechanical issues, etc.

[Stephanie B]

Well, mostly I carry a revolver because I feel that I can conceal a round-butt revolver better than a semi of any reasonable caliber.

Mostly. A few years ago, there were a few issues in my former town with roaming dogs. I had an encounter with two that didn't result in gunfire, but it was a near thing. I switched for awhile from a 3" Model 60 to a Model 6946. When the dog issue seemed to have been resolved, I switched back. (Though more recently, it's been a 3" Model 65.)

[Chuck Whitlock]

The author makes a lot of good points, but they're all the reasons I've made a habit out of carrying a double-stack auto instead of a snub as a primary.

Exactly because I don't know what that gunfight is going to look like, or how many rounds I'll need, and exactly because there are no magic bullets so I don't want to depend on just 5 to get it done. I'd prefer a gun that takes what I'm carrying out the equation as much as possible.

The same old tired tripe rears it head again with the lines about "you can't buy skill". No shit. The same applies to buying a revolver. Just because someone buys a revolver doesn't mean that they're now a pistolero and will only need the 5 or 6 that are in the gun because they're now that fuckin good...that is pretending that you know what a gunfight will look like and what you'll need. The same individual carrying a revolver is objectively a more capable shooter when carrying a double-stack auto, no ifs ands or buts.

There's lots of good reasons to carry a revolver. There's even more good reasons to carry a double-stack autoloader (for simplicity's sake, I'd consider stack-and-a-half guns like the Shield or G48 in this category too). A revolver leaves a shooter objectively less capable, regardless of it being all that is statistically needed for the majority of fights....and given that it's statistically adequate for most gunfights, I'd never give someone grief for carrying one as an off-duty/CCW piece (I do on rare occasion as well).

Still, I take issue with non-logical arguments that actually speak against the case for carrying a revolver, and I absolutely abhore that vampire herpes bullshit that implies people carrying double stack autos are doing so because they suck and are trying to buy skill, whereas carrying a revolver is evidence that you don't need more than 5 or 6 to get the job done because you're somehow a better shooter.

TGS,
I like your post, and concur, but I take issue with the one sentence I bolded above.
That itself is an assumption which may be true of the majority, but is not necessarily a universal truth. I am specifically thinking of fit issues is which a double stack auto may be too large for a particular individual's hand,and that revolver grips can be tailored to an individual's hand better than a auto's can.

[entropy]

That’s a pretty decent blog with some decent writers. Good comments too.