One big plus to a revolver is that you can’t limp wrist them. That said if one decides to carry one with only one working hand I’d definitely carry a spare revolver as a reload if I couldn’t reliably run a semi weak handed.Originally Posted by Zeke38
Is it that easy to limp-wrist a well-designed semiauto?
When I bought my Glock 26, I deliberately tried to limp wrist it as part of my reliability testing. I was unable to do so unless I shot weak hand only, holding the gun with my middle finger only, and with that finger loosely wrapped around the grip.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Any legal information I may post is general information, and is not legal advice. Such information may or may not apply to your specific situation. I am not your attorney unless an attorney-client relationship is separately and privately established.
Good question! We always hear limp wristing as an issue, see this post:
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....l=1#post865290
but I would be interested in hearing the opinion of others if hand strength or injuries are more likely to cause issues with pistols than revolvers.
A lot of very squared away revolver shooters carry 148 grain lead wadcutters in their guns for 2 reason: 1) they usually shoot to the sights, and 2) they penetrate deep enough to get the job done.
Everything else is just angels dancing on pinheads.
So 148 grain wadcutters out of a J frame sized revolver >or = HST or G2 out of a G26 or G19? Not quite sure why you would settle for just penetration when you also have expansion for a better wound channel.
It takes a lot of skill to run a J frame effectively, especially at speed. I'm talking Bolke and Dobbs type skill level.
A lot of folks get married to ideas, and then spend a lot time of seeking validation for those same ideas.
Myself included. I was a huge J frame fan, until I discovered that my 3" K frame fit and carried just as well. And was much easier to shoot, plus, BONUS TIME; opened up a better selection of ammo choices, with an extra round to boot.
Problem is, my G19 and G26 fit anywhere my 3" K Frame did, with even better ammo choices and more capacity.
Unless of course, the FBI is getting ready to dump all those G19M's, and go back to 38 revolvers. In which case the ammo manufactures will be sure to start shoveling money and resources at that caliber to ensure they can get the Fed bid. Like it or not, 9mm is the hotness, and will be the most likely to get that money and resources.
I think that is a far cry from a bunch of "dancing angels"
While your points are valid, .38 ammo like RA38B, (which I carry in my revolvers), or Speer Gold Dot (Short Barrel) are proven rounds.
My revolvers see limited use in that they are reserved for in and around home, and walking distances from home. When I leave that space I'm more comfortable with the notion of having somewhat more capacity, even if the HST rounds out of a G26 are no more effective individually than the Winchesters are out of my 5 shot (or 686+).
Last edited by blues; 06-05-2019 at 04:35 PM.
There's nothing civil about this war.
You’re not “settling” for penetration so much as that’s really the ONLY metric worth counting out of ANY handgun. Expansion speaks to the efficacy of it’s probability to NOT over-penetrate rather than how damaging it’s wounding potential is. The quality of the wound channel in a pistol cartridge is moot as, despite how impressive it may look in gel, is really nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Pistols = hole punchers
Rifles = actually pushing lead fast enough to do some crazy things
Shotguns = delivering shear amounts of mass on target all at once which cannot be ignored
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is one of those things we're just going to argue about forever.
When I carry a gun concealed on my belt in an urban/suburban environment, it's a Glock 19. Most of the time I don't do that these days.
Most of the time I carry a J frame in my pocket in that environment.
I bought a GP100 in October, and ever since have been reaching right past the Glock 20 for the revolver when it's time to head into the woods.
I'm happy.
I was into 10mm Auto before it sold out and went mainstream, but these days I'm here for the revolver and epidemiology information.
So, a handgun bullet that increases in diameter due to expansion doesn't make a larger permanent wound cavity?
It may not be a huge difference, but if I'm waiting for someone to bleed out so the hostilities cease, any fractional advantage is a plus.
Does it make a larger wound cavity? Yes, it does. Is a 9mm expanded JHP measuring at 0.678” making the bad dude deader than if he was hit in the same place with an FMJ bullet at 0.355”? No. Because that’s not how the human body works. It just means you poked a slightly bigger hole than him.
You want to make a bigger hole in someone to make them bleed out faster? Shoot them with a 1 oz. shotgun slug. You want to cause some serious tissue disruption or organ damage with just the wound cavity? Shoot them with a rifle that pushes the bullet really fast.
Handguns suck. We just carry them because they’re smaller, lighter, more convenient, and way more concealable than long guns.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote