Is 6 Shots enough?

[dayman]

This seems too subjective to be an answerable question.
Unless you're talking tequila, in which case yes, 6 shots is more than enough.

In all seriousness though, if you're comfortable carrying 6 it's enough, and if you're not it isn't. There are a million situations where whatever you choose to carry is going to be either more than you need or not enough.
Like was said above, it's more important you find something you're comfortable carrying.

As far as answering the OP, if you're uncomfortable enough at the prospect of carrying a 6 shooter that you have to ask about it online than I'd say, for you, the answer is probably no. You need something that you're going to be confidant about.

 

[Skadoosh]

In a statistical sense, six shots IS full leather jacket & pants, gloves, boots and helmet.

 

[MLeake]

No, in a statistical sense, I'd say six shots is a half-helmet, boots, gloves, and a vest over a denim jacket. It'll do the job for lower end collisions, usually.

 

[Skadoosh]

You are more likely to drop your bike than need more than six shots....

 

[mordis]

THis conversation just pisses me off, to no fracking end. Mleake should we just tell all the makers to stop making revolvers then? Since apparently they are to light on capacity to to be usefull in any self defense situation? Why are we just standing still shooting at our zombies hum?? Why arnt we going for cover? Good cover and movement make a difference, not capacity.

Regardless of capacity if you take on multiple assailents then your not likely to come out on top, were not Max Payne..

The mantra of this forum used to be it didnt matter what you carry, just train with it.

Getting tired of the near constant revolver bashing, nothing wrong with a revolver, been killing people for a long time...

 

[MLeake]

Nope, nothing wrong with a revolver. Revolvers work. I own some revolvers.

But they are inferior to other weapons, in some ways.

I carry a J-frame when I can't reasonably carry a compact or full-size auto.

Six shots beats the heck out of no shots; in my case five shots beats the heck out of no shots.

But if somebody is going to carry something as bulky and heavy as a 6-shot (typically K or L frame, or GP 100, or K or L equivalent Taurus), then they could quite practically carry something with more capacity, less recoil, and equivalent accuracy and reliability.

There's a reason police departments, by and large, don't issue revolvers. Neither do most militaries.

So, if the question is simply, "Is a revolver a decent defensive weapon?" then the answer is yes.

If the question is, "Assuming I train equally, and am equally comfortable, with both - is the revolver as good as the semi-auto for personal defense?" then to me, the answer is not really.

 

[MLeake]

Skadoosh, tell that to all the officers in the past few years who've emptied service automatics.

Tell that to the officers killed while attempting to reload revovlers at Palm Bay and Miami.

Statistics are great, until you become one.

 

[Skadoosh]

Ask those same police officers how many motorcycle riders they have scraped up off the road. I will bet my lunch its far more...

 

[MLeake]

Skadoosh, the statistical likelihood of a wreck vs an attack on one's person is kind of irrelevant.

The point is, if conditions allow, the full leather will afford better protection.

Similarly, if conditions allow one to carry, say, a G23, the weapon will provide better protection under a wider array of conditions than will an M13.

When BG's have been known to absorb lots of rounds and keep fighting (I've read of a couple in the last few years who absorbed 7 of .40 or .45, and one who took 33 rounds total, from .40, 5.56mm, and 12ga before they ceased hostilities), it's not unreasonable to think six HITS might not be enough for ONE assailant. Odds are that one or two hits will - due to psychological factors, but the odds are very poor for true, physiological one-shot stops. And sometimes people are mentally quite tough.

Under stress, real people tend to suffer severe deterioration in marksmanship. So, six shots typically does not equal six hits. More like one or two.

I have yet to see a good argument in favor of lesser capacity - assuming conditions allow the carry of the larger capacity weapon.

Conditions that might interfere could be dress code; legality of weapon type; ability of shooter; you name it.

But where I live, such conditions rarely exist.

The only advantages I see to the mid- or large- frame revolvers are:

1) Ability to handle heavy magnum ammo;
2) Ability to handle greater range of power;
3) Ability to handle greater range of bullet types.

But I'd argue that those three characteristics have a lot more to do with hunting than self-defense;

4) Familiarity.

But I'd argue that old dogs quite often learn new tricks. My mother now uses an iPad 3 for all sorts of things.

5) Personal preference.

And that's not truly an advantage - it's a preference. Some people just like revolvers.

I liked my Harley. I like the Triumph cruiser I'm buying. I would not take either up against an Enduro for off-road or dirt road riding, and I would not take either up against a GSX-R for a race.

But do they work as motorcycles? Sure.

 

[Skadoosh]

Your post proves that this thread is pointless.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Skadoosh: You are more likely to drop your bike than need more than six shots....

I believe that you are more likely to drop your bike than to have to draw at all. The question is, what happens if you do have to draw and fire?

I just watched yesterday's program on The Best Defense. The topic was multiple attackers.

In his introduction, Michael Bane said that many people contemplate single attacker muggings but that such incidents are rare. Accept that or dispute it, and make your own risk assessment.

And yes, good cover and movement were part of the drill.

Mike Seeklander demonstrated his strategy for defending against multiple attackers. He pointed out that handgun hits that do not destroy something vital are not effective. Unlike what I have trained for, it was to fire until there was indication that the first attacker had been neutralized, and then to fire on the second if necessary. In the demo, he fired four shots into the first, all hits in what seemed like a little more than half a second, and five fast shots into the second. No, six would not have been enough.

Posted by mordis: Regardless of capacity if you take on multiple assailents then your not likely to come out on top, were not Max Payne.

Uh oh, I guess we're hosed.

...nothing wrong with a revolver, been killing people for a long time...

The objective here is to keep from getting killed.

Posted by MLeake: I carry a J-frame when I can't reasonably carry a compact or full-size auto.

So do I.

If the question is, "Assuming I train equally, and am equally comfortable, with both - is the revolver as good as the semi-auto for personal defense?" then to me, the answer is not really.

A revolver sure would not have worked very well at all in the scenario demonstrated by Mike Seeklander.

I started out carrying a j-Frame revolver. I still do when that's all that I can carry, but I've learned enough since then to make a different decision.

 

[MLeake]

Skadoosh, No, my post proves that some people dislike using objective criteria when discussing their favoritest guns.

OldMarksman, sorry, we cross-posted.

To all, does anybody know of any reputable trainers who recommend revolvers over semi-autos, when physical constraints of the shooters are not a factor (IE granny can't work the slide, but can work the cylinder)?

I honestly don't know any self-defense trainer who does that.

 

[Skadoosh]

Posted by Skadoosh: You are more likely to drop your bike than need more than six shots....

I believe that you are more likely to drop your bike than to have to draw at all. The question is, what happens if you do have to draw and fire?

Asked...and statistically answered already.

 

[Webleymkv]

There's really no way to answer this question as which platform is the best choice depends on you and your individual circumstances. For some situations, a high-capacity semi-auto is better and for others a revolver is advantageous. While I cannot answer the question for you, I can describe my own circumstances and the reasoning behind why I feel most comfortable with a revolver.

First and foremost, I live in a comparatively small community (less than 50k people) and violent crime is uncommon with gang activity being almost unheard of. That being said, there is a fairly significant drug problem in my community and the surrounding areas, particularly methamphetamine. Also, there are a good number of what we would describe as "big ol' boys" who are somewhat prone to less than intelligent behavior particularly when under the influence of mind-altering chemicals. I am also aware that the majority of self-defense situations take place at very short distances which are usually better measured in feet than yards.

Because of these factors, I find a revolver to be the best choice for me. First and foremost, I am more trustful of a revolver's reliability should I be forced to take a shot at contact distance or with a less-than-perfect grip. I am fully aware that techniques have been developed to minimize the chance of a semi-auto malfunctioning if used at contact distance, but because I've never had to use a firearm in self-defense and therefore do not know exactly how I would react to such a situation, I am not particularly confident that I would have the presence of mind to remember and employ said techniques "when the balloon goes up." Likewise, while some semi-autos are less sensitive to grip than others, all must have at least a somewhat steady platform from which to operate in order to be reliable while a revolver only requires a firm enough grip to hold the gun and enough strength to operate the trigger.

Secondly, the power, and in particular penetration, that is available in a revolver of reasonable size is advantageous to me. As I mentioned, there are a large number of very big people in my area. Likewise, I'm a fairly large individual myself at 6'4" tall and over 300lbs. It has been my experience in life that, more often than not, attackers prefer victims that are smaller, weaker, or offer them some other advantage. Because of this, I feel that my most likely attacker will be an extremely large person that may very well require the extra power and penetration of revolver cartridges like .357 Magnum and .44 Magnum (both of which are in my rotation of SD handguns).

Now, I am fully aware that my choice of a revolver does not prepare me as well for a multiple-attacker situation. However, it is a worthwhile tradeoff in order to be better prepared for being accosted by one or two very large individuals which is a far more likely scenario for me. That being said, I do not completely dismiss the possibility of being attacked by a larger group nor am I completely unprepared for it. I do always carry at least one reload for my handgun and often two or three. While a revolver does take more time to reload than a semi-auto and will require that practice sooner than most semi-autos, these factors are taken into account in my choice of tactics. It would be very foolish to stand stationary blazing away like Wyatt Earp in the streets of Tombstone if attacked by multiple people and I have no intention of doing that if I can avoid it. I will, if faced with a multiple attacker situation (or even a single attacker one for that matter) make every effort to seek cover or, better yet, get away both of which will increase the time and distance that I have to reload my gun if necessary. Likewise, even if my attackers do not choose to re-evaluate their life choices when bullets start flying, it is a very rare person who will not seek cover themselves or at least hesitate for a moment when a gunfight starts and these behaviors will also increase my time window to reload if necessary.

Now, I do realize that there are situations in which one cannot get away and may be forced to "stand and fight" and the most likely of these situations that I can think of is a home invasion. While I also choose a revolver as my home defense handgun, it is not the only firearm which I keep at the ready for that role. If a six-shot revolver is insufficient to defend my home, I need to be reaching for the pump-action shotgun or the semi-automatic rifle that I also keep at the ready. Finally, if I should find myself backed into a corner armed only with a handgun against multiple armed attackers who are willing to brave gunfire to reach their goal, I'm realistic enough about my skills to realize that I'm most likely sorry out of luck no matter what type of handgun I have in my hand.

 

[Skadoosh]

No, my post proves that some people dislike using objective criteria when discussing their favoritest guns.

No, your post proves that you cant actually answer a question that has no right answer. This thread needs to be locked.

 

[MLeake]

Skadoosh, WebleymkV gave good examples of why a revolver works better for him, in his particular circumstances.

Some of the things he cited, such as a requirement for penetration on larger predators, or a need for a weapon that doesn't require a firm grip, are objective and valid.

He also acknowledged that in a variety of SD scenarios, the semi-auto would be better.

Other revolver advocates have not really provided objective rationale for their platform, or acknowledged any possible weakness. That tends to indicate favoritism, not objectivity.

You, meanwhile, haven't even attempted to show how higher capacity and faster reloads are bad things.

If the argument becomes, "Well I shoot better with X," then it's not hard to counter with "How much have you trained with Y?"

Personally, I shoot my primary revolvers and primary autos about equally well.

Now, in my mother's case, with arthritic weakness in her hands, she's better off with a revolver - and that's what she has. She has trouble with slides; she has trouble with stoppages; she has trouble with a firm grip. But she can shoot a revolver ok. For her, the revolver is obviously best, and it's unreasonable to expect her to train away her physical disability.

Most people don't have disabilities, just preferences.

 

[Skadoosh]

Revolvers are generally more simple to use, generally more accurate and generally far less ammo sensitive. Six shots has been statistically proven to be enough for virtually all "civilian" gunfights. Thus, a six shot revolver is "enough". Is that objective enough?

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Skadoosh: Six shots has been statistically proven to be enough for virtually all "civilian" gunfights. Thus, a six shot revolver is "enough".

The mean for the 63 incidents that involved shots fired in the post cited in Post # 27 was 4.7. The minimum could not have been less than one. The maximum is not stated. I'd like a little leeway.

I've forgotten the numbers in Tom Givens' survey, but the maximum was a lot more than six.

 

[MLeake]

Skadoosh, revolvers are generally more accurate?

Huh... and here I thought I shot my carry-sized handguns all about roughly the same. (Probably because when I shoot same-size targets at equivalent distances, I get very similar groups with virtually all my carry guns... except for the 442, but even with it I get pretty good results.)

Target revolvers I might give you, as a general rule, but those tend to be on the large side. Also, I don't believe in thumbing hammers for self-defense use, so I shoot my carry revolvers in DA only.

But, if you want to be objective, then justify your claim that revolvers are generally more accurate.

As far as simplicity of operation, with my M&Ps or PPS, draw, aim or point, pull trigger. With my 442, M13, M65s, draw, aim or point, pull trigger. So I'm not giving you simplicity, either. Not unless you can objectively justify it.

Loading and cleaning/disassembly happen prior to hostilities, and so have no bearing.

Reloading... well, in my experience, a loaded magazine is much simpler and faster than a speedloader (and much more concealable), and is many times faster than a speedstrip.

Bear in mind, I own (and shoot) a fair number of revolvers, and own (and shoot) a fair number of autos.

 

[jimbob86]

There's something that bothers me in imaginary multiple assailant scenarios: that nobody seems to take into account that all of them will attack at the same time. So no, you won't have time to take four-five shots at every one of them under a volley of fire. Unless you have ideal cover, having a 100 shot magazine won't help you if you can't get instant stops, as you'll get shot by the second assailant while you neutralize the first.

You are assuming these assailants are highly trained and organized ..... not likely, because if they had any talent beyond thuggery, they would not be thugs.....

You also assume the target of these multiple assailants would stand there and get shot (assuming the assailants had guns): I thought that was a staple of even the most basic SD course: "MOVE!, because if you just stand there, sombody is gonna put yer head on a stick!"

Statistically, having some basic situational awareness will keep most of us out of trouble ..... if trouble does find us, having a gun, ANY gun would suffice without firing a shot, most of the time ...... only a very small percentage of criminals will continue an attack knowing the person they are attacking is trying to shoot them ..... unexpected gunfire is very often the signal to bug-out- watch security video of shootings sometime- a packed bar or nightclub will be empty in about 3-5 seconds after shots are fired..... Sane, rational people don't want to be shot by anything, and these people will not wait around to discern the shooter's ammo capacity or caliber preference: they'll get the hell outa Dodge....

True, there are plenty of violent drug addled nutcases out there, but these people are not going to the masters of organization, tactics, and or marksmanship....

I'm going to hazard a guess that provided you are not in the wholesale jewelry and coin business, or the recreational pharmacueticals trade, avoid bad neighborhoods and stop and rob stores after dark..... and keep an eye on what is going on around you ...... 5 or 6 shots would be plenty ..... in the extremely unlikely event that you need any gun at all.

Is 6 Shots enough?

For what?

EDC I carry like 40 rounds. Rather have more ammo than I need than not have it!

Statistically speaking, you are more likely to encounter deep water than someone who needs to be shot at 40 times ...... are you buoyant with all that strapped to you?