Revolver Reloading Hand Preference

[Jim Watson]

I first shot a revolver seriously in PPC. I went with the gun transfer so as to thread those wadcutters into the cylinder with my more dextrous hand. I have not been motivated to change methods for other use.

[HCM]

“My theory is that once the 2X2 pouch, followed by speed loaders arrived on the scene, the earlier practice of transferring your revolver from your dominant to supporting hand continued. Instead of reloading loose rounds from your pocket, an agent would reload from the 2X2 pouch on his belt. That practice evolved into reloading with your speed loader in your dominant hand.
. . .

My reasoning behind my assumption is that it probably is easier to reload loose rounds with a shooter’s dominant hand. Ensuing generations of agents and trainers probably continued the practice when the 2X2 pouches and speed loaders came on scene.”


Bruce,
This is correct. When the Bureau finally adopted speedloaders, it only issued one per agent. On the version of the Possible Course in the late revolver days (based iirc on the Tactical Revolver Course) there was an explicit prohibition on using more than one speed loader and one 2x2 pouch to run the course. The remaining rounds were on your person in your pocket, so you still had to be adept at loading single rounds.

This traces back to Stage 2 of the original PPC of the late 30’s where you started at the 60 yard line loaded with 5 and with 35 more in your pocket and ran the stage in 5 & 3/4 minutes. At the 60 and the 50 you had to reload in the prone position. After all these years I still think the FBI load is the most efficient method from prone if you lack a speedloader and you don’t have to contend with sticky fire-formed magnum cases.

Primitive reloading aids did exist back then and were used by some agents. Pictures of Jerry Campbell’s 12-round .38/.357 belt slide and matching Myers holster for his Registered Magnum can be found via an online search. But to get through the PPC he would have had to wear three of them and it is doubtful he could have reached them all with his strong hand. It was more practical for that Course to put them in the front dominant hand pocket.

Quantico was notoriously conservative about revolver doctrine right up until the switch to autos, and the mark of master pistolcraft to those guys was “shooting your Possible” and getting your name up on the Possible Club board at Quantico. They would have viewed running the course with a bunch of speedloaders as a cheap shortcut that betrayed the achievement of their forerunners, and themselves, who did it the hard way (hence the restrictive limitation).

In my view, Ayoob’s Stressfire revolver stuff was an outstanding contribution to the art, which unfortunately arrived just before the world shifted over to autos, and so it is frequently overlooked. He shifts hands. I think I can do a no-look Stressfire reload with bubbarized Comp IIIs as fast as most speedloading non-shifters, but it requires the muzzle be straight up and then straight down. This can get you DQ’d these days in IDPA. Since I enjoy competing with speedloaders in a 4” .38 in IDPA, I have had to modify my technique to keep the muzzle obviously down range. Which slows things way down, and has me now working on the non-shift-hands reload to try and keep up with the moonclippers.

As a practical matter, whatever loaders I may or may not have on my person from day to day, there is a speed strip of .38 rounds in the watch pocket of the jeans I routinely wear. They are well concealed, secure, and yet require dexterous manipulation. Since these pockets are on the right side of all the jeans I have encountered, having the default ability to load with the right hand remains useful.

The Possible Course is still a thing though it is now shot with autos using four, 9 round magazines.

@Bruce Cartwright the Possible Course would be a good subject for its own thread.

[JRV]

After a lot of dry practice, carry, and a season of matches, I switched from the switch-hand “universal” reload to a support hand load. I came up with several reasons to change.

- It’s a full second faster between my most-warmed-up stronghand reloads, even when cold.

- I gave up on slow strips, which really do benefit from a strong hand load. They’re a convenient means of carry and a garbage means of loading under pressure. I also never saw the benefit of a slow partial reload when a faster full load is available... revolvers, by definition, are very low capacity. I know some trainers like the “reload two and back in play” partial load. I’d rather dump an unspent round or two, if applicable, and have a full gun in less time with less administrative handling. Given that I swapped those out for a Comp-I or JetLoader, there’s no benefit to retain any of the hand-swapping muscle memory.

- “Good” speedloaders (e.g. JetLoaders) are easy to carry on the belt in concealable pouches (I have run everything from IWB CD-2s to custom leather options without losing a loader or rounds). Comp-I loaders work great in a pocket holster, e.g. a ReloadWrap.

- It’s hard enough to establish a good primary grip once under time pressure. I don’t see any benefit to having to do it more than once.

- There’s no benefit to stabilizing the cylinder with “good” speedloaders, and my support hand is plenty coordinated enough to index two rounds with two holes. It’s more forgiving than reloading a 1911 without a magwell.

- The loader(s) are not in an inconvenient place if I’m carrying AIWB. Left hip or support side pocket, still convenient.

- Spreading weight to my support side balances the rig for daily carry or competition. I’m a wimp with sciatic nerve issues.

- I shoot USPSA in Production and have decent hand speed to and from my left hip without having to actively think about it.

- I eschew twisty loaders. They are a marginal option only retained in the market because past proliferation, very low cost, and casual shooters not knowing better.

[deputyG23]

I’m an old man, the FBI method was taught when I went through the first academy. 40 years later I’ve tried loading with my left hand but it’s my opinion (we all have them) that if things get sporty I’m better off with the open revolver locked in my left paw while my right more dexterous hand tries to hit chambers bouncing around due to outside influences.

Sounds familiar. Tried the left hand loading method myself and it simply doesn't work for me like the traditional method.
Too many years worth of muscle memory to revise.

[jtcarm]

They will spoil you. Especially if it’s a .45, nothing reloads in a revolver faster that a 230 RN in moons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So far as speed of reloads in competition, yes.

But just like magazines, they don’t charge themselves.

[SCCY Marshal]

- I eschew twisty loaders. They are a marginal option only retained in the market because past proliferation, very low cost, and casual shooters not knowing better.

I'd debate the bolded point, specifically with HKS. They are very easy and intuitive to administratively handle which is a factor I've seen people use to favor them in and of itself. If one's chosen stocks are tight with loaders, they will be servicable well past a Safariland totally failing. If the insertion is botched with an edge overlap and only a couple rounds hit charge holes, the shooter can decide if they have time to correct or just twist the knob and run the partial load. The mechanism is simpler with more mechanical advantage to the user if it gets gritty. The manual release on an HKS also allows some slop in making an iffy fit to an oddball gun serviceable where a Safariland wouldn't reliably insert deeply enough to trip the release.

As someone who currently runs Comp II or Comp III units when speedloaders fit the wardrobe, I'd argue that HKS pattern loaders aren't passé but rather an option with their own strengths and weaknesses. They're inexpensive, rugged, functional, easier/cheaper/quicker for HKS to make ones to fit new models than more intiricate designs, and have survived the test of time on genuine merit.

[jetfire]

They will spoil you. Especially if it’s a .45, nothing reloads in a revolver faster that a 230 RN in moons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would say that 9mm reloads just as fast, but the king champion is 38 Short Colt in a 38 Special gun

[JRV]

I'd debate the bolded point, specifically with HKS.

I like debate! I'll try to do this on merits and without strawmanning any of your points:

They are very easy and intuitive to administratively handle which is a factor I've seen people use to favor them in and of itself.

I get the simplicity of HKS loaders. The lack of spring tension is easier on the hands, and the rounds are either retained or they are loose. There's less opportunity for operator error or frustration in the administrative processes alone. There's no real opportunity for a round to get retained "wrong" and bind up a loader as a result of improper loading.

If one's chosen stocks are tight with loaders, they will be servicable well past a Safariland totally failing.

If stocks are too tight for anything except one brand of loader held at a slight angle, I'm not sure I would consider that a benefit of that loader. That's a design shortcoming of the stocks, and they should be replaced.

If the insertion is botched with an edge overlap and only a couple rounds hit charge holes, the shooter can decide if they have time to correct or just twist the knob and run the partial load.

I'm not really sure I get the benefit of the "inadvertent partial load." If, under stress, I've misaligned a loader, and my options are "twist away and get maybe some rounds in there" or "fidget for a quarter second and have a full gun," I'm fidgeting. There's no guarantee that my first or even second trigger pull after a partial load will make the noise it's supposed to make, unless I take the time to look at the cylinder and close it appropriately. Might as well have a full gun and a faster, certain follow-up shot.

I'm also not entirely willing to concede that inadvertent partial loading would occur with proper technique and a speedloader that retains the rounds firmly. I know anecdote or individual experience is not an excuse for an argument. However, I reload revolvers while running in matches. It's not difficult if you're dry practicing and indexing rounds with a finger or two on the hand holding the loader body.

The mechanism is simpler with more mechanical advantage to the user if it gets gritty. The manual release on an HKS also allows some slop in making an iffy fit to an oddball gun serviceable where a Safariland wouldn't reliably insert deeply enough to trip the release.

As to mechanical advantage... JetLoaders and Comp-IIIs. The gun loads itself against all forces natural and man-made. Springs are good, and they make for more positive loading even in dirty guns. Comp-Is and Comp-IIs can be really fast if you pull the revolver while pressing the loader body into the cylinder. However, the weakness of a gravity-powered loader of any make is crud on the rounds or in the cylinders.

As to oddball guns, I don't buy or carry oddball guns. Obviously, someone might inherit or genuinely like weird guns. Some people are hipsters. Again, I don't see shortcomings in gun design or choice, such as incompatibility with market options, as a benefit of a particular loader.

As someone who currently runs Comp II or Comp III units when speedloaders fit the wardrobe, I'd argue that HKS pattern loaders aren't passé but rather an option with their own strengths and weaknesses. They're inexpensive, rugged, functional, easier/cheaper/quicker for HKS to make ones to fit new models than more intiricate designs, and have survived the test of time on genuine merit.

Utility, in the broadest terms, and availability are there own merits, and I'm happy to acknowledge those points. HKS loaders are cheap, and they can provide a utilitarian loading option for weird guns or guns with stocks ill-suited to speedloading. However, for common guns with appropriate fighting stocks, they're one of the worst common options available. They develop rim-jiggle over time that actually inhibits loading with consistency and speed. They require a generally slower technique. They require a step to release rounds beyond "shove round things into round holes." I would stand by my position that market availability, low cost to dealers and distributors, and a low-knowledge/experience buyer base, and not merit, is responsible for their commonality. There may also be a hint of institutional inertia from when departments issued HKS loaders as opposed to more expensive Dade loaders and similar options.

Pro-Mag has been selling magazines that don't work for decades, but that doesn't mean they've stood the test of time on merit alone.

I yield my remaining time to SCCY Marshal and reserve one minute for rebuttal.

[Spartan1980]

I would say that 9mm reloads just as fast, but the king champion is 38 Short Colt in a 38 Special gun

Not my experience at all. I can literally drop a .45 moon from 4" above, seemingly throwing it at the cylinder and it goes home. In .38SC even with Hearthco clips (I own 50 of them and 2K of Starline brass) they don't do that. 9mm I've not messed with.

[SCCY Marshal]

I like debate! I'll try to do this on merits and without strawmanning any of your points:

You sure an earnest discussion belongs on the internet?

If stocks are too tight for anything except one brand of loader held at a slight angle, I'm not sure I would consider that a benefit of that loader. That's a design shortcoming of the stocks, and they should be replaced.

If we lived in a world where the revolving handgun was still king, or at least neck and neck with the automatic, I'd likely agree. But finding the set of stocks in a parched market that simultaneously fits one's hands, application, and selected loading device is a dedicated piece of work in many cases. Despite my proclivities, I also have to keep in mind that the majority of people won't start grinding on equipment until a problem is alleviated or thefe is no more accessory to have a problem. Until we het more stock makers and they pay attention to loader clearance more than.many of their predecessors, compromises must somerimes be made.

I'm not really sure I get the benefit of the "inadvertent partial load."

About once or so a year, I'l totally bugger a reload. I've also seen others do it, however rare. HKS giving the option of an abortive partial load is just something I've noticed. It is vertainly no definitive point for selection but is something a Safariland can't do.

There's no guarantee that my first or even second trigger pull after a partial load will make the noise it's supposed to make

True, even if the odds can be stacked in your favor through practiced technique.

Springs are good, and they make for more positive loading even in dirty guns.

Pistons, too. I love Speed Beez for rimfire snubs. They are a blessing to guns chambered for something that is fiddly and gummy even when squeaky clean.

I don't see shortcomings in gun...choice, such as incompatibility with market options, as a benefit of a particular loader.

I'd have agreed six months ago. But then supply of ideal guns ran out and people started buying or borrowing whatever was reasonably able to press into service. HKS will do well by a fair few of them.

HKS loaders are cheap, and they can provide a utilitarian loading option for weird guns or guns with stocks ill-suited to speedloading...There may also be a hint of institutional inertia from when departments issued HKS loaders...

I'd add new designs to you former point where HKS can quickly and relatively imexpensively react where Safariland and the like need to stand by until a guaranteed return on investment is obvious. Given their discontinuance for N-frame support, it's rare. As for the second point, I absolutely agree.

Opposition rests and apologizes for unwillingness to edit for spelling, syntax, and formatting whilst on a phone.