6 Rounds?

Now I'm worried as well like a couple of others who posted. My LCR only carries five . . . . Maybe if I shoot twice as good as the other guy, it will seem like ten?
 
I think it's an over-used mythology that people armed with high-capacity weapons are predisposed to spray the landscape wantonly with lead.

Perhaps.

It's just that I've listened to a fair number of cops who had expended anywhere from several rounds to a couple of mag loads, during a shooting, and relate how they'd realized at some point in their respective incidents they'd needed to start aiming and get accurate & effective hits if they were going to stop their attackers and survive.

As a firearms instructor who's worked primarily with LE, but also non-LE citizens at times, I've seen at least my fair share of folks using hi-cap pistols fire faster than they could either properly index or align their pistols for accurate sighted fire.

I'm not disparaging hi-cap pistols (or even pistols with 7-8 round mags ;) ). I carried an issued hi-cap alloy wondernine back when "hi-cap" merely meant a magazine held more rounds than a Colt Model O pistol (and you could find both the Browning HP and S&W M59 in the hands of both cops and lawfully armed private citizens). Later on I carried an issued hi-cap .40 S&W for some years.

I do, however, miss the days when cops were taught to carefully aim their shots, using DA revolvers, and many were cognizant of having only 6 rounds at hand before reloading was necessary.

I just wish I saw more younger pistol shooters (before the days of service revolvers) making the effort to acquire the same solid handgun foundation skillset that I saw acquired by many revolvers shooters in years past. Nowadays you can ask some folks who have only shot hi-cap pistols to shoot for accuracy at 50 yards, and more often than not they look at you like you're asking the impossible, or speaking gibberish. :eek:
 
I've seen at least my fair share of folks using hi-cap pistols fire faster than they could either properly index or align their pistols for accurate sighted fire.

That has everything to do with the training (or lack thereof) and absolutely nothing to do with whether the gun is a hi-cap pistol or a five-shot snub-nose.

Nowadays you can ask some folks who have only shot hi-cap pistols to shoot for accuracy at 50 yards, and more often than not they look at you like you're asking the impossible, or speaking gibberish.

The same can be said for people shooting revolvers who haven't been made to practice at longer ranges with them. After our department (a rather large one) transitioned from revolvers to semi-autos (Smith third generation variants), our training retained the same regimen in terms of distances. Officers who were required to shoot at the fifty yard range with their "obsolete" revolvers had to qualify at the same distance with their "new" hi-cap pistols. Nothing of significance changed between the revolver and the semi-auto performances in terms of scores at the fifty yard targets.
 
Wily William Hiccup did fine with a Navy 36 caliber and he couldn't reload it very fast no matter how many cylinders or speed strips he carried.

Only one possible solution to the man using a revolver and is afraid he will run out of shots before the bad guy does. Carry more than one gun. May I suggest something like these.

walkerholsters001.jpg


One on each hip, one in a shoulder holster, one in a boot, and one in your briefcase. Better make that brief case 50% larger and bullet proof. You will need something to hide behind while you are drawing another gun... and another...and another...and
 
No doubt , all the smoke given off from the blackpowder revolvers will give you something to hide behind ! :D Aah yes , the stainless Ruger Old Army....why did I sell mine , why , why , why ! :(
 
Quote:
I've seen at least my fair share of folks using hi-cap pistols fire faster than they could either properly index or align their pistols for accurate sighted fire.


That has everything to do with the training (or lack thereof) and absolutely nothing to do with whether the gun is a hi-cap pistol or a five-shot snub-nose.

Yep.

As long as the people actually make the effort to get that training, and maintain it ... and don't rely on the greater abundance of ammunition to offset any lesser amount of skill, training & practice. ;)

I also agree that any lack of longer range shooting for training/quals among the younger shooters using issued pistols is probably the result of a lack of training to make them develop their fundamental handgunning skills in this regard, and then making them practice and demonstrate such skills. I've seen it still taught in the firearm instructor classes, so it's not like we're not capable of continuing to produce instructors that possess the skills and are able to teach them, right?

All this said, the only point proposed is that if newer shooters, who have never been exposed to the revolver's 5 or 6 round ammunition limitation, acquire a type of over-reliance or over-confidence of having hi-cap ammunition capacities at their disposal ... perhaps a segment of them might feel the availability of the increased ammunition capacity would offset any lack of skills development on their part. Definitely a training issue.

Unfortunately, I've even seen it happen with a small number of instructors who transitioned from revolvers to semiautos many years ago.

Having listened to cops express their realization that they needed to take time to make aimed shots during shooting incidents, even using hi-cap service pistols, skills development and maintenance (and mindset) are still important issues for us to address.

Considering I retired out while using an issued 7+1 capacity compact .45 service pistol, and others were using the full-size 8+1 service pistol, I'd not feel under-equipped if I were to return to service and given a 6-shot revolver ... or even one of those lightweight alloy 8-shot .357 Magnum revolvers. ;)

I spent many years of my career carrying either a hi-cap 9mm or .40 S&W issued pistol, too.

After a while, when you've learned how a significant number of LE shootings involve the firing of 1, 2, 5, 6 or even 8 shots ... and that high round count shootings are seemingly among the newsworthy minority of shootings, or the result of multiple officers firing at the same time ... the 6 round capacity of revolver may not be quite so obsolete as some folks might think. ;)
 
That was a good post VictorLouis. I hadn't read that before.

After retiring from my department, where I spent my last 6 years as the chief firearms instructor, I ran my own firearms training business for 10 more years of being an instructor. What I always told all of my students, in uniform or not, was that the best gun in a gun fight is the one you have with you. If you won't carry your 16 shot, full size semi auto, why then it does you no good when the brown stuff hits the air circulation device. If you will only carry a 5-shot snubby, or a 6-shot 32 Auto then that will have to do. The real question is...will you?

Dave
 
If you are a body guard for a drug lord, door man at a biker bar, or guard at a crack house NO. A wheelie won't do the job. Other than that 99.999999999999999999999% you won't need more than 5-6.
 
Based on the concerns listed by the OP in all three of his "not enough rounds" threads, I would have to suggest that he give up on his goal of carrying a revolver as a primary weapon and choose a semi-auto with sufficient capacity to make him feel comfortable in his ability to fend off 5 armed attackers.

The Glock 21 is a fine firearm if you want a high-capacity .45, and then there's also the Glock 17 if you want a full 18 rounds before reloading. As mentioned earlier, there is a 32-round mag available for the Glock 17 which you could carry as a spare in case you exhaust the first 18 rounds and still need to keep shooting.

You might also want to look into similar offerings in the S&W M&P, Ruger SR, and Springfield XD families. All offer rather high-capacity magazines in the full-sized pistols.

Basically - if you feel you are undergunned with an 8-round revolver, then it's really not the right platform for you.

I most often carry a 5-shot J-frame revolver if I carry at all. When I was a police officer for 15 years I carried a 6-shot K-frame revolver. Turns out that was 6 shots more than I ever needed.
 
Why I believe the question of weapon ammunition capacity, which kind of bullet, which caliber and even the type of handgun (revolver vs semi-auto) to use for concealed carry can never be entirely resolved nor can there ever be a right or wrong answer for every person or for every situation:

Revolvers are inherently less complicated to operate, less dependent on the type and quality of ammunition and less prone to malfunction. But semi-autos can carry more ammunition and are faster and simpler to reload.

In terms of ammunition capacity, if you need at least one more round in your weapon to survive a shoot-out, you really need it. But most gun fights are (probably) statistically settled with six shots or less.

Everything else being equal, a more powerful cartridge (i.e., .25 cal. vs .44 Magnum to cite an extreme comparison) will stop an adversary quicker than a less powerful cartridge. But more powerful cartridges generally necessitate being housed in a larger and heavier platform; cost more to practice with; generate heavier recoil and noise, making required quick follow-up shots less quick and reduce ammunition capacity in similar sized weapons.

Carrying a pistol with a high ammunition capacity is especially appropriate when it's necessary for a person to be in a high crime neighborhood or in situations where the likelyhood of trouble (civil unrest following a natural disaster or in a riot situation for examples) is more predictable. But concealing the weapon adequately is compromised by having to hide a larger one; wearing attire dictated by hot weather can make the task of concealing a large handgun even more difficult and there is the argument that people are more likely to carry a lighter and smaller weapon all the time than they are to carry a heavier larger one ever (better to have a .32 cal. Beretta Tomcat in your pocket because it's convenient to carry concealed and be armed than leaving a .45ACP SIG 220 on the shelf at home because it's uncomfortable to carry concealed and be unarmed to, again, pose an extreme example).

Even which kind of projectile (hardball vs hollow-point) to use is debatable. Most people acknowledge that, generally speaking, hollow-points (I use the term generically, as I understand that the word "hollow-point" includes a vast array of choices that offer different performance criteria) are better "man-stoppers" and penetrate less in environs (inside residential homes, in areas crowded with people, inside an airliner, for examples) where less is better. But people advocating FMJ ammunition for self-defense argue that hardball sets the standard for extreme reliability in most semi-auto pistols; that there are times when greater penetration is an advantage (when your adversary is wearing heavy clothing or when he is returning fire from cover like an automobile for instances) and that hardball ammunition is much cheaper to practice with than is the pricey and more esoteric hollow-point ammunition.

People simply have to assess their own circumstances, needs and priorities when deciding on which handgun is best suitable for their unique purpose(s). People who are serious about carrying a handgun for self-defense need to understand that no one else can choose for them and that every choice is, by definition, a compromise. And, because no one handgun will ever come close to covering every base, I'm an advocate of having different ones to choose from so as to best accomodate every practical contingency that I might encounter in my every day life.

Finally, whichever handgun(s) is/are decided on, there is no substitute for good training and plenty of practice. Far better to be proficient with a .22 revolver and carry it for self-defense than to be packing a 1911 semi-auto pistol that has never cleared leather.
 
In the end, for me (ordinary citizen guy), I think the big issue will be running out of time long before running out of ammo. I prefer revolvers because I shoot them better, and I have more confidence in the ammo in my revolvers than what can be used in a semi-auto. Just me, though.
 
It's not really that I feel like 6 rounds isn't enough, it's just all these people saying it's not enough makes me question myself. If no one said differently I would have never considered that 6 shots aren't enough.



I shoot revolvers vastly better than semi autos and feel more comfortable with a revolver. I'm thinking that carrying a 6 shot revolver with a 10 shot Glock 26 as backup might be sufficient. After all, if after 6 shots of .357 Magnum I don't have enough time to draw my backup, it's probably just my time to go :D
 
Carrying a 5, 6, 7 or 8-shot revolver isn't going to lead to someone questioning my carrying pistols with 6, 7 & 8-shot magazine capacities, right? :eek:

I shoot revolvers vastly better than semi autos and feel more comfortable with a revolver.

That's all well & good, as far as "feeling" goes ... but as someone previously commented, such "feelings" might be best considered against some realistic training and experience.

I've seen my fair share of good revolver shooters experience problems when running them in some different training, drill & qual circumstances. These are the guys and gals that can do fine on a slow-fire, target-style range, taking their time to shoot for accuracy, especially using single action ... but then run into problems when required to use them under some time compression situations, using double action (and I'm not talking about reloading manipulation & speed).

On the other hand, I've also seen some revolver shooters run them very effectively when compared against other folks using semiauto pistols under the same circumstances. Depends on the user.

There's something to consider in the perspective of ammunition capacity possibly becoming a moot point if it can't be employed in a timely, accurate & effective manner before the attacker gets his (or her) shots on-target.

This thread has made me remember some instances where another instructor and I were working with some non-LE, CCW licensee folks who were using both revolvers and semiauto pistols for some classes. In a few instances I remember the other instructor commenting that one or another particular shooter ought to seriously consider using their revolvers for actual carry usage instead of their pistols.

Why?

Because they handled and used their revolvers noticeably more confidently and comfortably ... and they were able to get more rapid and accurate hits than when using their pistols.

Sure, some additional training and frequent practice could probably improve their handling and shooting skills with their pistols, but what are the chances they'd have the inclination, time or money to invest? They already had respectable skillsets with their revolvers, though. ;)

I don't shill guns. I just work with whatever folks want to use, or are required to use.

It's all about the user/shooter to me. The particular handgun (revolver, pistol, capacity, caliber, etc) is just an equipment issue.

Suit yourself. The rest of us do.

Hopefully your reasons/reasoning is applicable to real-world circumstances and conditions. (Just like the rest of us tend to hope. ;) )
 
Posted by PiperSuperCubPilot: I shoot revolvers vastly better than semi autos and feel more comfortable with a revolver.
What do you mean by "shoot better?"

If, as fastbolt sugeests, you are speaking of group size when shooting at a target at the range, slow-fire and firing single action, that's one thing. And six shots are plenty. You just reload.

But if you are speaking of defensive pistol shooing, where rounds available would be an issue, that's another thing. The training I mentioned in Post 30 will require some variation of hitting each of three torso sized targets twice or each of two targets three times at close range, in a total elapsed time of just over a second. Not to mention reloading very quickly.

Are you vastly better at that with a revolver?

Some people are very good with revolvers--Ed McGivern was very good, and Jerry Miculek is, but the vast majority of serious trainers and competitors choose semi-autos.
 
Last edited:
Whet do you mean by "shoot better?"

I 2nd this.

Personally. I can shoot my brothers 6.5" 686 Powerport more accurately at 15 yards than I can my Glock 19 when I am shooting it slow fire. Even in double action.:eek:

But at 7 yards, I can put 6 rounds touching drawing from concealment in less time that I can get 6 shots into a 2" circle with the revolver from low ready.:D

So I shoot my Glock "better" for a concealed carry gun. I shoot the 686 "better" as a target gun.
 
It's not really that I feel like 6 rounds isn't enough, it's just all these people saying it's not enough makes me question myself. If no one said differently I would have never considered that 6 shots aren't enough.



I shoot revolvers vastly better than semi autos and feel more comfortable with a revolver. I'm thinking that carrying a 6 shot revolver with a 10 shot Glock 26 as backup might be sufficient. After all, if after 6 shots of .357 Magnum I don't have enough time to draw my backup, it's probably just my time to go




Bill Jordan, Mr. Revolver to my generation wrote that he believed the revolver was by far the best choice for day to day law enforcement. He also wrote that having a high capacity wonder nine in reserve might be a good idea. :)

I think that is reasonable advice. Six for sure and just in case I need a little more sure...
 
Back
Top