IMO, people should be saying "get used to a stronger round and carry that if it is at all possible. Carrying an inappropriately small round and expecting that you will rise to the occasion and perform well is a real risk."
I've always thought that a top-break revolver in a decent self-defense chambering would be a good choice for self-defense for folks who like revolvers.
You'd need something other than one of the common revolver calibers available today because the cartridges are too long to be ideal.
Something like .38Spl but in a redesigned case no longer than is really required. .38Spl is very long because it was originally a black powder cartridge and that case volume was needed for performance.
that round existed. (note the past tense) It was the 9mm Federal. Was.
Like a lot of other good ideas, it wasn't popular enough to survive the marketplace.
Again, my thought was a revolver that was significantly smaller and lighter than a J frame, but was not hindered by a slow reload with the swing out cylinder, so top break immediately came to my mind. I figured a .22 or .32 or shorter .38 would be best for keeping recoil down to not strain the revolver.The above is absolutely correct except that it isn't just a "risk" but a real probability. Under the stress of being shot at people do not "rise to the occasion", rather their fine motor skills deteriorate significantly. If you shoot nice 3" groups @ 7 yards on the range, in the mean streets you will be lucky to keep most of your shots on a silhouette.
Many years ago Jeff Cooper preached a balance of accuracy, power, and speed, other wise known as DVC (for the Latin translation). An accurate shot that lacks sufficient power or comes too late will fail. A powerful shot that misses or comes too late will fail. A lightning fast shot that is not powerful enough or misses will fail. And what will they fail at...saving your life.
For 10 years after I retired from law enforcement I trained civilians to qualify for concealed carry permits. I was constantly saddened and dismayed at the lack of seriousness the students brought to the subjects of concealed carry and self defense. Threads like this one remind me of those days.
Dave
I think your comment demonstrates a problem in the gun community where we all become such "experts" in things that we forget those who aren't experts, aren't concerned about ballistic data, and are looking for what works best for their needs. For some that's a .22 or a .32 that's as light as an LCP but simpler to operate.
I think your comment demonstrates a problem in the gun community where we all become such "experts" in things that we forget those who aren't experts, aren't concerned about ballistic data, and are looking for what works best for their needs. For some that's a .22 or a .32 that's as light as an LCP but simpler to operate.
As adults, they get to make their own decisions and, as adults, they are responsible for making informed decisions and also for the results of those decisions.If we allow a granny to carry a .22 and give our blessing to it, if she dies, we are partly culpable.
Push someone to buy something they don't want and they won't practice with it or carry it. There's a lot of truth to the old proverb that says a person convinced against their will isn't really convinced at all. And that doesn't even get into the ethics of coercing another adult to do something they really don't want to do.Use a big enough...a life could be saved if the person was carrying a 7 round .380.
It's up to us to provide good information, without drama, and based on all the facts that we can find. It's not up to us to drive people to make decisions that they are unhappy with on the basis of what we think is best for them.They don't know anything about guns or ballistics or so forth, so consequently, they have not the slightest idea what their needs are.
IMO, people should be saying "get used to a stronger round and carry that if it is at all possible. Carrying an inappropriately small round and expecting that you will rise to the occasion and perform well is a real risk.
I'm not advocating that we give people false security or try to make them feel good about picking a caliber that's not generally recommended for self-defense, but we do need to keep some real-world perspective.
As adults, they get to make their own decisions and, as adults, they are responsible for making informed decisions and also for the results of those decisions.
We should provide the best advice we can but the decision is, and should be theirs.
Pushing them to buy a gun that's "a pain" or that they can't use unless they "adapt to it" or that they won't carry because it won't fit the carry method they are willing to employ is far more likely to cost a life than letting someone pick a gun or caliber that they are comfortable with and will use and practice with but that might not be a mainstream self-defense cartridge.
This is a contradiction in terms; there is no such thing as a modern top break. I have a couple of Webleys and love to shoot them, but I don't kid myself that they are modern.Does a modern top break have a place in today's concealed carry world?
Top breaks may not be as strong, but I think the opinion among experts is that shooting whatever you shoot best with, even if it's a weaker ammo (like .22 LR, .32 Long, .38 S&W) because it's shot placement that matters and faster follow up shots is always good.
I don't see any reason why a top break made with modern steel would be considerably cheaper than a swing out made with modern steel.What if the price of such a top break was considerably less than today's J frames and LCR's?
but was not hindered by a slow reload with the swing out cylinder, so top break immediately came to my mind.
Dave T
In addition to the initial certification training for concealed carry permits I did renewal qualifications as required by our state. Most of the renewals were people who had gone through my certification classes. Time and again over 10 years I would have someone proudly tell me they hadn't fired their gun since taking the original class, 4 years before. I always pointed to their target and said I could tell. Most of these had to re-shoot, sometimes more than once, to be qualified.
In all my classes I tried to instill a sense of seriousness and commitment to the idea of carrying a concealed weapon. I doubt if 10% of the over 1400 people I trained ever did so.
In my experience those who want the smallest and lightest gun to carry because a more serious gun is too much trouble, soon get tired of the whole idea. Too much to bother with. I see people on this forum saying things like they will carry a bigger, more powerful gun when they think they need to. My question is always: how do you know when you will need to?
And when I speak of taking it seriously I primarily mean practicing on a regular basis and even getting additional training. A big problem with the tiny guns is they are difficult to shoot well, and in some cases even painful. I offered self defense classes that went beyond what was required for our state's concealed carry permit. The few people who availed themselves of the opportunity for additional training never did well with mouse guns (22s, 25s, 32s). They either switched to a more serious gun or quit.
Dave
One point people will make about the top break is how much "faster" it is ejecting the empties. The top break automatically ejects all the empties at once when you open it, right?
Yes, but only if you do it "right".
9mm Federal failed because Charter Arms went out of business within a year of introducing it. No one else was making a 9mm Federal revolver at the time, so Federal stopped making the ammo and because they stopped making the ammo, no one made a 9mm Federal revolver.
the mass market for such a gun went away decades ago.
Except in India, as I posted.
...but, how many folks who carry a 5 shot J-Frame carry reloads? Tiny guns have a place. For me, as a BUG or times when I can't carry anything bigger.
I've not been a fan of the top break revolver, with one exception: The spur trigger, single action .38 S&W bird head top break by Smith & Wesson from around the turn of the last century. By virtue of being single action, the frame was kept as compact as possible, and that spur trigger eliminated some of the bulk of modern DA revolvers. I believe Merwin Hulbert had a similar revolver, though not truly a top break. It was a "push me-pull you" contraption. But both revolvers were very compact even with four or five inch barrels.
When firing, these nestled low in the hand for very good point-ability.
Yes, but only if you do it "right".