DA/SA revolver for self-defense. Liability concern?

[Malamute]

That's pretty awesome.

I love watching CAS stuff and I often learn from it. I'd shoot it, if you didn't have to play dress up and it had real accuracy requirements.

As it is, I just can't see myself spending time and money playing a shooting game where pageantry is more important than accuracy.

I have had a lot of fun shooting some modern steel plate shoots with single action revolvers. So long as reloads or more than 6 targets werent involved, i was doing OK time wise also. Not going to take home any prizes, but definitely not at the back of the pack. Id far rather use a single action revolver than 1911 for such things. Much more fun and interesting, semi autos for me seem like they require far more work to achieve a lower level of ability. Probably a product of my misspent youth and scads of 22 rounds shot through single action revolvers.

Ive long liked and used the single action revolvers as working or field guns. In the advent of geezerdom, since the single action revolvers are easier on the hands for a given chambering than a DA revolver, they have definite utility as defensive tools. faced with the choice of going down in power as the usual geezer gun plan seems to be, Id prefer to go down in reload speed and not lose the power. Some of my defensive concerns are still larger animals.

[Ed L]

Hi Ed, good to put a face to the username.

Thanks for responding, Mas. I had a great time at both LFI 1 & 2. In checking my records more carefully, I took the classes in the summer of 1986, not 1987 as I originally wrote. With all of the information and training available today, most people cannot imagine how advanced and revolutionary LFI 1 & 2 were at that time in terms of training and information provided with the emphasis on judicious use of deadly force Summer in Goffstown, NH and I am wearing a long sleeve shirt and you are wearing a windbreaker. Four hours south on Long Island, NY, I would have been on a beach in a bathing suit.

I get the argument that for a lot of shooters, a short and light trigger pull is easier for precision shots. At the same time, HCM is right on the consistency factor. At least with a revolver, the long rolling pull gives more of a surprise break -- one does not have to break one's hold to cock the gun and then re-grip -- and on most revolvers there's a slightly shorter hammer fall arc, improving lock time. Those are some reasons so many PPC Masters and High Masters shoot double action at the fifty yard line even though single action is allowed at that distance.

That was my thought. In a typical type situation where I would need to use a revolver for self defense as a civilian, I don't see myself breaking my firing grip to cock the gun and then re-establishing the grip.

Everything is a balance. Now more than ever in today's legal environment, hostile to armed citizens and cops alike in the wake of defensive shootings, I don't care to give my potential opponents a hook upon which to hang an unmeritorious prosecution like the one I watched Alvarez go through.

I think we have to be careful how far we go in this direction because it could deny us effective tools for self defense. I have seen people on the internet mention you and this philosophy and carry it to absurd extremes. If we took the "deny potential opponents a hook upon which to hang an unmeritorious prosecution" to its logical limits we would not use any modern expanding ammunition, because those could be called "people killer rounds" that are banned in combat. We could not use modern high capacity firearms because those are the weapons of mass killers. In fact, if we let them define the terms, anyone who has a CCW permit who is not involved in a high risk profession or a celebrity is someone they would label as "looking for an excuse to shoot someone." Anyone who posts a lot on gun forums or firearm related social media is obsessed with firearms and using them. If you listen to the potential opponents, anyone who owns more than a few guns and few hundred rounds of ammunition is amassing an arsenal. This is why I don't let them dictate my life based on their objections and what they might claim if I have to defend myself.

As much as I love that beautiful D/A only S&W model 25 in .45 Colt that I pictured upthread, and think I could definitely defend myself with it if I had to, it would not be my first choice. Of course to satisfy possible critics I would not be able to use it with hollowpoint ammo. Because the only person I know of who shoots people with a .45 Long Colt revolver with old archaic ammo is Alec Baldwin. Being equated with him would certainly not help me in court.

[OlongJohnson]

I also find myself among those less likely to shank a round when shooting DA than when shooting SA.

I could make a good argument for just buying three or four P250s and getting rid of the rest.

[Mas]

Ed L, I agree with you when you say above, "I have seen people on the internet mention you and this philosophy and carry it to absurd extremes. If we took the 'deny potential opponents a hook upon which to hang an unmeritorious prosecution' to its logical limits we would not use any modern expanding ammunition, because those could be called 'people killer rounds' that are banned in combat."

The cornerstone phrase in what you wrote was "carry it to absurd extremes."

The "evil killer dum-dum bullets" bullshit has been with us since at least the 1970s, and is still with us after being refuted every time it comes up, at least in the cases I've been involved with. We win there because we can show multiple reasons why the expanding bullet is safer for the shooter, other intended victims of the criminal who forced the defendant to shoot him, bystanders, etc. The strongest proof positive is not that the police use it (though that's a helluva good point for our argument), but that we use it for the exact same responsible reasons the police use it.

So, thanks for pointing out the people who try to extrapolate the argument to the absurd extremes you spoke of. Absurd extreme arguments carry no weight, unless they are made to uninformed people and are not refuted by responsible people who understand the given issue and its history.

That's very much different from the topic of this particular thread. There is a long and strong history of police AVOIDING cocking revolver hammers because of the dangers involved. (And also, the point so many want to avoid even in this thread, because of the danger of credible-sounding wrongful false allegation of same.)

Ed, you hopefully still have your notes from the eighty hours you spent with me so long ago. You may remember my saying, "Don't do anything you can't explain." (Particularly to twelve people selected at random from the community who don't know what you know.)

With anything that could be life-changing (such as, oh, a Murder charge in criminal court or a Wrongful Death claim in civil court), I think we're all smart enough to do a cost/benefit analysis. I've personally been involved in multiple "hair trigger" cases, and there are MANY more than the ones I've been involved in. Cases involving a precision shot with a handgun, in which the shooter would have been likely to miss with a double action shot but would have saved the day with a single action shot...not so often.

[Ed L]

I also find myself among those less likely to shank a round when shooting DA than when shooting SA.

I could make a good argument for just buying three or four P250s and getting rid of the rest.

Now let's not get crazy here.

As a matter of fact, the NYPD is going from its 12 lb NY2 trigger to a standard Glock trigger for new recruit classes to combat the accuracy problems that they encountered in police shootings. People can talk all they want about "training issues," and I agree that there is inadequate training and practice out there. But I think it is unrealistic to expect every police officer or armed citizen to shoot like a high level IDPA or IPSC competitor.

[Ed L]

Ed, you hopefully still have your notes from the eighty hours you spent with me so long ago. You may remember my saying, "Don't do anything you can't explain." (Particularly to twelve people selected at random from the community who don't know what you know.)

Yes, I still have the notebook and look over it from time to time. I marvel at how cutting edge it was for the time, and I would still give it a solid 93 for today. I scanned some of the notes I took regarding your coverage on the Alvarez case and am posting a relevant paragraph. To clarify my notes, you were saying that the guy who Alvarez shot had already told Alvarez that the bulge that Alvarez felt while frisking him was a gun, and then the perp reached for it in an arm motion consistent with drawing a gun that Alvarez had seen thousands of times in training.

[Rex G]

For what it is worth, when I was in a grand jury room, the major things that took some serious explaining were why I used a firearm to defend myself, when my opponent had contact weapons, (a knife, and an SL20 light that had just been snatched from a fellow officer,) and, why I had to use a firearm to defend myself from a physically smaller person.

My take-away: Be READY to explain this.

Perhaps most notably, I got a strong feeling that my having fired only ONE shot was a strong point in my favor.

My take-away: Shoot fast and accurately, but, at what we now call “assessment speed.” I did assess, rather than reflexively fire a second shot. I was able to explain this, to a grand jury. (This was long before I heard Darryl Bolke and Wayne Dobbs using the term “assessment speed,” and I may have used neither word, in that grand jury room. Years later, when I read or heard DB and Wayne Dobbs using “assessment speed,” I knew that we had been on the same page, long before I knew of their existence.

Thanks, so very much, @Mas , for providing the knowledge that enabled me to end my case at the grand jury level.

I do not remember being asked to explain why I used a Federal Hi-Shok 125-grain Jacketed Hollow Cavity .357 Magnum cartridge. Of course, this was at the grand jury level, NOT a trial jury or civil jury.

Well, time to wrap this post, and take an elderly neighbor to an appointment. Please forgive any proof-reading errors.

[Lost River]

One can also add in 50-60 year+ vintage TTP's from Israel, the SAS, Shanghai, Spetsnaz, ad nauseaum. It's still the firearms version of the Weaboo who thinks his Chinesium katana is a lightsaber.

The honest truth is that when it comes to dirt napping bad guys with the application of bullets, the USA is still the place with the most real experience.

Mostly...

I trained some Brazilian dudes a while back who came from various units, including GOE (counter-terror/hostage rescue, similar in function to FBI HRT).






Those guys shot a LOT of dudes LOL