Magnum Wheel Man wrote:
so the general concensus seems to be to not train in any one pattern... I'm curious the expirience levels of those who recommend that ( I'm not doubting you guys, just trying to return this back to training questions, not about my choice of weapon )...my expirience ( & what is generally taught ), is that under stress we don't think as clearly or remember details as well, & rely more on muscle memory & engrained memory... my thoughts along those lines was, I can train all I want on the acurate use of my weapon, but when someone shoots back, most of your training goes out the window, & you do what comes "naturally"
You’d be right to be suspicious.
Train, have a plan, have a strategy. Don’t just hope to rise to the situation, understand you’ll surely drop to your level of training, as someone say.
You must have a plan, and repeat it frequently enough so that it comes naturally when you react.
2 “hammers” for one or two guys sounds about right, more than that and you want to fire each one once. If you can distinguish between armed and unarmed attackers, of course the closest armed one is the one you want to put down first.
Again, have a plan, don’t expect to improvise. Expect to simply react, so train to react in a certain way.
For example, for a quick unarmed response, I practice right jab to the face, right low kick, left hook to the face.
I practice this mostly because I’m a left handed fighter, and it always gets people off guard when the quick left punch comes.
The first right jab is mostly to get the guard up in that direction. Against someone that isn’t very good that first punch may connect well, though I’m not counting much on it.
The low kick is something most people don’t expect, and if done well it can drop most people to the ground, catching them off guard.
After the quick strikes to the right, someone that knows how to fight will have the guard in that direction and the left hook is very likely to connect nicely.
Same happens with gun fighting, you need to react in a certain way. Reaction is always faster than action, don’t count on stopping, analyzing the situation and then acting. Train so as to react in a certain way.
Answering the question then, double tap wouldn’t be very wise with a5 shot revolver, “hammers” are a better tactic.
David Armstrong wrote:
If 3 or 5 guys are attacking, even if they only have revolvers, your making it through OK is not going be based on how many rounds you have in your gun.
Yes it does, at least for part of the equation ( you having enough ammo to fight back).
When attacked by several social predators three things may occur.
1)You might be unlucky and go down in the first shot.
2)You might be a bit luckier and fight back, taking a few down before they kill you.
3)Or you might be one lucky MF, or one that is very good with guns, has the proper mental attitude and even more important, the lifesaving awareness attitude, combined with a good dose of luck, combined with a greater or lesser amount of skill, along with an adequate weapon, and win against a large group of attackers.
Again, I know of people that saw all those endings. Winning against 3 or 4 determined armed attackers that are ambushing you is improbable, but it can occur. People HAVE done it successfully and that’s reason enough to try, beats the alternative, don’t you think?
No sense in wasting much time with cases 1) and 2), but I take into great consideration number 3), what weapon made the difference? Hi capacity autos.
In all those cases high capacity weapons where used.
A neighbor of mine ( forensic doc) was ambushed outside a restaurant., by 5 attackers. They didn’t want money or to kidnap him, they just wanted to kill him right there.
The good doc fought back with his Glock, and even though he didn’t win, he killed 3 and injured a 4th before going down.
A kid (17 or so) saw how home invaders attacked his mom and forced her into the house. He grabbed his dad’s Taurus .40 and waited for them, as they went upstairs he caught them in the hallway and opened fire, killing them all. They where four bad guys if I’m remembering correctly, and at least one was an active duty cop.
I’ve never heard of anything like that getting pulled with a revolver.
Skill is very important, but superior firepower does even the odds a lot. There’s no use in trying to deny that.
A bad guy walks in front of a patrol car that stopped at a red light. When he’s standing right in front of the car full of armed cops, he pulls a 40 round 9mm SMG and empties it on the car, killing everyone inside.
The best tennis or golf players buy the best rackets and golf clubs money can buy, they don’t use the one that was best 5 years ago, they use they best tool they can get. Doesn’t matter if it’s Tiger Woods you are talking about.
Same happens with weapons.
How many elite military and law enforcement forces carry revolvers these days?
Like it or not, that says a lot.
It says that autos are finally reliable enough that the revolver advantage is not worth it anymore, not when weighted against almost 3 times the capacity, in many cases greater ruggedness and abuse tolerance service autos offer.
There was this shooting instructor I met once that carried a 22 LR revolver for self defense. He said he was very good with it, could hit people in the eye, so that’s what he carried…
He lived in the richest part of town so I doubt he ever used it for defense.
I was at a table with a few of the "top-tier" instructors a while back, taking a break at a conference. The off-duty/CCW gun came up, and one well-known author posed the question: "What are each of you carrying right now?" Of the 6 of us, 5 admitted to having some sort of J-frame as the primary gun.
I know a few instructors myself, most are Bonaerense cops, with many gunfights under their belts.
They all carry high capacity autos, mostly Glocks, and in some cases a backup revolver or smaller Glock.
I’ve slipped my Colt Detective into my pocket on occasions, but I didn’t fool myself. I knew it’s not the best gun for the purpose I intend.
I did it when working around the house, on the front lawn, and thought that I wouldn’t be needing more than that for protection.
If my number was up that day and I happened to need more than 6 rounds, I had only myself to blame.
I wont carry a revolver as my only weapon anymore.
I reasoned it out that if I’m the kind of person that prepares for unlikely events, I’d be an idiot to do so for an unlikely event that falls within my convenient parameters, so I prepare for the worst case scenario, choosing the gun that gives me al the potential that fits into a handgun, to better my odds in such a situation.
Wrote Rob Pincus:
I carry a S&W 642 more often than anything else..... am I not serious about self-defense?
You probably are but your weapon of choice doesn’t show that. You are not picking the gun you would pick if you had to go out that door into a gunfight, and all you could take with you is a handgun.
Ask yourself sincerely, why did you pick it?
Is it because it’s light, comfortable ( rather than comforting , which is what it should be) because it’s simpler to operate ?( more complex firearms present a problem for you? I doubt that very much)
Did you compromise, giving up the % of possible situations where more rounds would be needed, just to be a bit more comfortable?
In a nutshell, why did you choose that gun?
FerFAL
). Plan to do it again with my Colt Cobra. 