5 shot revolver training... double tap...double tap... single tap ???

Status
Not open for further replies.
At the NTI - in the ATSA village scenarios, we were given 5 shot revolvers and last year we had many discovered gun stages with 6 revolvers and varying number of rounds. As folks said, after stage critiques pointed out that some folks fired rounds as they shooting hicap semis. Guess what - you ran out of rounds (now how would I know that).

I shot my 642 at an IDPA match awhile ago, good practice to running the gun. It isn't really that hard at most distances for a match (well except for one target :o). Plan to do it again with my Colt Cobra.

BTW - with multiple attackers - isn't the standard cant to put one in each, thus you can hit five guys and they will all die, be incapacitated or flee. One thing good about the NTI is those darn reactive targets so you can see when your killer shot leaves the guy standing there. OOPS.
 
Many of the most "serious" guys I know carry a J-frame. They are convenient and they work.
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.
 
While I subscribe to the theory, I had never heard it put into words until one of the other posters did it, . . . and it went something like this:

Just like at momma's table, . . . everyone gets firsts before anyone gets seconds.

That is my training routine, . . . belief, . . . and matches directly with the teaching of Eugene Sockut in his book Secrets of Street Survival-ISRAEL STYLE, Staying Alive in a Civilian War Zone. He makes the case that it has been shown that if you spend enough time on the first two to expend 2 or more rounds, . . . the 3rd guy will nail you before you get to him.

Anyway, . . . that's my $.02

May God bless,
Dwight
 
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
 
"No man in combat has ever wished for a lesser powered weapon nor for less ammo."

Just keep that in mind.

Ayoob has written about ISP troopers that had their Smith 39s stop the BG with the last shot (8 rounds.) I did not say they didn't hit the guy with just one round, but the eight one dropped him.

So the merry-go-round might stop at one shot, or it might stop when you run out of BBs (and turn out badly for you.) It's happened both ways.

If you do carry a J only, I do suggest either spare ammo (very slow to load) or a spare gun as the reload.
 
I carry and favor j-frame as bugs; subsequently I train to use them. Even when I didn't, I trained to use them; they are a very common carry and BUG option.

It is probably no surprisegiven that fact tha I disagree with the notion that somehow a j-frame is not worth carrying, or that someone carrying one is not as serious as the next carrier.

I concur with the posters advocating avoiding "packaged solutons" for given problems, such as X number of rounds per assailant in a set pattern. A viable training excercise, coupled with others, so long as it is thought of as nothing more? Sure.
 
J-frame

I picked a 38 snubby as my carry gun because I consider it the best comprise between power, concealability, safety and ease of use.

Some people seem to forget your CCW does not make you a cop, you dont have to chase down a BG, all you need to do is end the encounter. The most commonly cited stats are 2-3 shots with a encounter length of 2-3 seconds. The average person will never draw their CCW, and the chances of finding yourself in a situaition where you need 10+ rounds of .40 cal even smaller.

Call it a cost benifit anlaysis but the additional effort and discomfort involved in carring a high cap auto vs a j frame 38 when balanced against the need for such a gun, I dont have any problems carry "only" a 5 shot 38 subby.

Course if I found my self living in inner city detroit I might have a different outlook :)
 
Longcoldwinter wrote:

I picked a 38 snubby as my carry gun because I consider it the best comprise between power, concealability, safety and ease of use.

You know you just used the word “compromise” in a life or death matter, don’t you? :)
Some people seem to forget your CCW does not make you a cop, you dont have to chase down a BG, all you need to do is end the encounter.

You are right, you don’t have partner, you don’t have a shotgun or rifle in the patrol vehicle ( good idea to have one in your car, BTW)
You cant call for backup, all of which are even more reason to carry all the firepower and advantage that fits into a handgun.
The average person will never draw their CCW, and the chances of finding yourself in a situaition where you need 10+ rounds of .40 cal even smaller.

According to the NRA, 90% of the time you don’t even need to fire, the mere presence of the gun is enough to sent attackers away.
I believe that statistic to be a pretty accurate one, according to personal experience.
Does that mean you wont carry, or that you wont carry it loaded ( think of how it would completely eliminate AD probabilities!) combine that with the already small percentage of getting attacked at all, and you are already heading to an anti gun logic where you realize that according to %, you really don’t even need a gun, or you just need an empty gun just to scare bad guys.

Those of use that choose to carry do so understanding that ( at least for you guys in USA) needing a weapon is a remote enough possibility, but you still carry. Why then choose to prepare for an unlikely event yet hope that that unlikely incident will fall within the favorable statistic of only 2 or 3 rounds being fired?

FerFAL
 
He makes the case that it has been shown that if you spend enough time on the first two to expend 2 or more rounds, . . . the 3rd guy will nail you before you get to him.
I think it was Walt Rauch who showed that it didn't matter what you did, the 3rd guy would nail you before you got to him.
 
Yes it does, at least for part of the equation ( you having enough ammo to fight back).
We will agree to disagree. If 5 guys are attacking you, whether you have 5 rounds in the gun or 15 won't matter much to your survival. Your survival will be based on your tactics and their abilities along with a big dose of luck.
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.
So all those rounds didn't make any difference.
I’ve never heard of anything like that getting pulled with a revolver.
Maybe you should look more? There are numerous instances of the revolver armed individual triumphing over large numbers. But again, it rarely is the result of the number of rounds in the gun.
Skill is very important, but superior firepower does even the odds a lot. There’s no use in trying to deny that.
Welll, actually, one can deny that, quite easily.
How many elite military and law enforcement forces carry revolvers these days?
Like it or not, that says a lot.
Only if you consider the role of them the same as the CCW holder, particularly when given the fact that many of those "elite" units choose a low-capacity auto over a high capacity.
 
David Armstrong wrote:
We will agree to disagree. If 5 guys are attacking you, whether you have 5 rounds in the gun or 15 won't matter much to your survival. Your survival will be based on your tactics and their abilities along with a big dose of luck.

Of course, luck ( a lot of it) and skill, no doubt there, but why cant you accept that the tool you choose, it's capacity and traits, may influence the outcome if the situation calls for more than just 5 or 6 shots?

So all those rounds didn't make any difference.

No, but he did come close to making it, closer than if he had a 5 shot snubby.
As mentioned before, some are more lucky and make it.
I know of a politician, guy named Rico, that made it through in a similar situation. He was lucky, had the skill, and he also had the right tool ( Beretta 92).

Maybe you should look more? There are numerous instances of the revolver armed individual triumphing over large numbers. But again, it rarely is the result of the number of rounds in the gun.

I'm pretty interested in this so I do look enough.In most of these situations, where a single person faces many attackers, most of the time the ones that make it fire more than just 6 rounds and use a high capacity auto.
Only if you consider the role of them the same as the CCW holder, particularly when given the fact that many of those "elite" units choose a low-capacity auto over a high capacity.
Yes, 1911s have a rather low capacity.
But you seem to forget that those "elite" units carry a carbine or rifle as a primary.
The handgun is just backup in case the primary goes down.
As a civilian, you dont walk around the street carrying a rifle do you?
That's why it' s even more importnat for you as a civilian to carry a high capacity auto.

FerFAL
 
3 or more attackers

Seems to me that one of the first things they teach in Shoot-Don't Shoot scenarios is make proper use of concealment and cover. IE, while engaging, don't forget to try to move behind objects, or bad guys.

Going back to the MA angle, in randori training, you learn to try to move so that members of the attacking group are placed between you and some of the other attackers. NEVER place yourself where they all have a shot at you, or you will get hit.

This is true vs fists, feet, shinai, bokken and tanto. I'd suggest that it is also true vs firearms.

Limit their sightlines, and try to increase the odds they shoot each other.

Better yet, avoid areas where a group attack is feasible.
 
"No man in combat has ever wished for a lesser powered weapon nor for less ammo."
I think the counterpoint to that is that no man who has been shot ever complained that the person shooting him didn't use enough power or should have shot him more times. It is always a compromise between the various factors.
 
You know you just used the word “compromise” in a life or death matter, don’t you?
You know that all life is a compromise, and the selection of a CCW is always going to be a compromise within the compromise.
Does that mean you wont carry, or that you wont carry it loaded
Not carrying at all is very different from not carrying more than "X" rounds.
Why then choose to prepare for an unlikely event yet hope that that unlikely incident will fall within the favorable statistic of only 2 or 3 rounds being fired?
Again, you have to always compromise. The question becomes one of what point you compromise at. What about the unllikely incident where you will need a .44 Magnum instead of a 9mm? Or the unlikely incident where you will need 20 rounds instead of 17?
 
Of course, luck ( a lot of it) and skill, no doubt there, but why cant you accept that the tool you choose, it's capacity and traits, may influence the outcome if the situation calls for more than just 5 or 6 shots?
Of course I accept it, just as I accept the situation may call for a shotgun, or a major caliber, or any of a dozen other factors. But one needs to decide just how many and how rare a situation one wishes to prepare for.
No, but he did come close to making it, closer than if he had a 5 shot snubby.
You make an assumption that is not supported by the facts. Maybe he would have shot a little better with the snubby. Maybe hhis tactics would have changed. Lots of maybe. What we do know is that having all those bullets didn't make any difference, so using that to support your argument seems a little questionable.
I'm pretty interested in this so I do look enough.
Apparently not, as there are numerous instances available that show just that.
Yes, 1911s have a rather low capacity.
That is a matter of opinion. They might have less capacity than a 16 shot, but less does not equal low.
But you seem to forget that those "elite" units carry a carbine or rifle as a primary.
But you seem to forget that YOU are theone that brought up those "elite" units and what they carried to prove your point claiming that "Like it or not, that says a lot." So now that it now longer proves your point we should not consider it?? Strange.
 
Those that carry high-volume 9mms carry rifles too, so I fail to see the point, particularly given that we are discussing the CCW issue, not military and LE fights.
 
Is there some far fetched situation, where having a high cap auto could help you, sure is it ever going to happen to a normal person, no.

Just remember your not rambo, you dont have super human powers to dodge bullets and if you find yourself attacked by a large group of armed men hell bent on killing you, the number of bullets in your gun aint going to matter. If you can't flee using cover your going to wind up dead.

So I'll carry my 5 shot revolver and be comforted with the knowledge that I have enough firepower to see my through any self defence situation I am likely to find my self in.
 
First, military and law enforcement personal all around the world carry autos. When you go to shooting classes, almost everyone (about 9 out of 10, and I’m being generous) has autos.
I’m guessing that you concur with me up to here.
The reason for this is that you do have more capacity, autos are easier for most newbies, and they’ve become reliable enough, that any person that shoots and practices as he should can clear the unlikely dud round or most common FTF in less than a second.
These are basically the reasons why all agencies and military, almost everyone that works in security uses autos.
You say that those that carry high-volume 9mms carry rifles too.
Well, it’s a pretty good idea. To bad they are stuck with FMJ.

My point was that certain units carry 45 ACP because they are great autos, it’s a proven design, you still have 50 % more capacity than a 6 shot revolver, and they also have a rifle so capacity isn’t that important.

Point is, as a civilian all you have on you is your handgun, so you should have the best handgun has to offer.
A snubby isn’t something you’d pick as your only gun if you knew you were going to a fight, you just carry it because it’s convenient.

Does that mean that revolvers are no good? Please, I never said that.

I’m just saying that it’s not the best tool you could conceal in an IWB holster, and if you choose to go that way you should at least be honest with yourself about it.
David Armstrong wrote:
Of course I accept it, just as I accept the situation may call for a shotgun, or a major caliber, or any of a dozen other factors. But one needs to decide just how many and how rare a situation one wishes to prepare for.

Well done! “Major caliber” I forgot that one.
Of course, the handgun should offer all the power you can show proficiency with, that you can still control well enough for fast follow up shots.
That’s why I chose the Glock 31. Simple to use, as powerful as a 124 gr 357 magnum out of a 4 inch barrel 15+1 round, accurate and reliable as no other caliber due to the bottle neck case.
Shotgun? That’s nice but we are talking about handguns here, something you can realistically carry at all times. But you can leave the shotgun or rifle in the car though, sure is a good idea.

You make an assumption that is not supported by the facts. Maybe he would have shot a little better with the snubby. Maybe hhis tactics would have changed. Lots of maybe. What we do know is that having all those bullets didn't make any difference, so using that to support your argument seems a little questionable.
I don’t think so. You have to be a pretty lucky guy to put down 5 guys with a 5 shot 38, specially a 38. Now with 15 rounds of 9mm +P, or better yet, 40S&W or 357 SIG, you have ammo and power to spare, given that you get to use it.
How about 6 guys? My friend, your chances fall to 0% given that you are now 1 round short even if you are the luckiest bstrd in the planet…:)
With more ammo? Maybe you pull it , maybe not, but at least your chances aren’t 0%.

Apparently not, as there are numerous instances available that show just that.

Show just what? People killing 6 guys with a 5 shot revolver? You must throw that little Airlight pretty hard …:)
Hi longcoldwinter
It’s not Rambo stuff.
I understand that my country can be a bit more violent than yours and these things are more common, with kidnappers and more organized crimes, home robberies involving many attackers.
But just as I was trying to explain to Dave, normal people do get to succeed against them sometimes, and in most of them high capacity autos are used.
If you live in a quiet safe place, where there’s no history of violent crimes involving many attackers, than maybe your snubby is fine for what you may end up facing realistically, but that doesn’t make it the best handgun, especially not for situations where a bit more firepower is needed, such as the ones that are common knowledge around here.

FerFAL
 
I think the counterpoint to that is that no man who has been shot ever complained that the person shooting him didn't use enough power or should have shot him more times. It is always a compromise between the various factors

They didn't have to complain david. Plenty of them just keep fighting after being shot. And that is why one keeps a-shooten. And the 5 shooter don't go so far.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top