There are a lot of fallacies and misconceptions being tossed around on both sides of the argument here (and in the revolver vs. auto debate in general) and I think we'd all do well to stop, take a deep breath, and consider a few things.
First, there seems to be a lot of back and forth about the statistics regarding the average number of shots fired in a self-defense incident. On the one side, we have a group clinging to the low number and ignoring the fact that defensive shootings involving more than six shots, while rare, can and do happen while on the other hand we have another group assuming that, because there are cases where six shots were not sufficient, that capacity should be an overriding concern. The problem here is over-reliance on statistics and forgetting that different people in different circumstances have different needs. The statistic of 4.7 shots per encounter is the average of all defensive shootings in all areas.
It seems common sense to me that the risk of multiple attackers, and thus the need for higher capacity, would be different depending on the socioeconomic attributes of one's area. For example, it seems obvious that the likelihood of needing a high capacity handgun would be greater in a rough Detroit neighborhood than it would be in a sleepy Tennessee hamlet. Since most of us have never met each other and aren't particularly familiar with each others' areas, I don't see how we can accurately assess where capacity should rank on each others' priority levels when it comes to defensive firearms.
Secondly, we seem to have the bandwagon fallacy come up every time this is discussed. Inevitably, at least one person will pop up and point to the fact that the majority of police and soldiers use semi-automatics as proof that it is the best platform for all the rest of us. Conversely, we also often have someone who touts the fact that a revolver was good enough for Wyatt Earp, Frank Hammer, George Patton, Bill Jordan, or some other historical gunslinger as proof that it should be good enough for the rest of us as well. While it is true that such figures were indeed adequately armed with a revolver, we also have to remember that they lived and worked in different times and places than where we are today and that most of us are not as skilled as the historical figures we remember. While a katana was very formidable in the hands of a samurai in feudal Japan, it would not be my choice of weapon in the urban jungles of 2012.
Likewise, we need to stop and remember that what is needed or preferable in a handgun to a cop or soldier doesn't necessarily always cross over to a private individual's defensive needs. Police and soldiers, by the very nature of their professions, go forth and confront their enemies and thus often use handguns in an offensive role and are more likely to face multiple armed opponents. The private citizen, however, is limited by the constraints of the law to a purely defensive role for his/her handgun. Indeed it would be very foolish, and likely illegal, to go and seek out a street gang, drug cartel, or terrorist cell in order to do battle with them and much safer, both physically and legally, to as little shooting and as much avoiding of trouble as possible.
Also, too many assume that the police and military transitioned to semi-autos solely because of capacity and speed of reloading. While those are almost certainly important factors, they are far from the only reason for which semi-autos have become preferred for uniformed duty. Semi-autos typically generate less recoil for a given power cartridge which is particularly beneficial when you must choose a handgun which a wide array of different people must all be able to use. Likewise, semi-autos are easier and less expensive to build and maintain that a revolver which makes them more attractive to military and LE budgets.
Finally, we must be careful not to assume that the police and military are authoritative sources on all things firearm related. Both the police and military can and have made very poor choices concerning firearms on occasion. For example, the largest police force in the world (NYPD) mandated FMJ and LRN ammunition until the late 1990's out of fear that JHP ammo was politically incorrect and the U.S. military sent soldiers into the jungles of Vietnam with new and unproven rifles without cleaning kits because some political appointees had bought a sales pitch about a "maintenance free rifle." Please don't misunderstand, I'm not saying that semi-autos aren't good defensive firearms, I'm just saying that we shouldn't assume they are just because cops and soldiers use them.
The bottom line is that it's impossible to be well, or even adequately, prepared for every possible situation. No one gun is best, or even particularly good, for every possible defensive situation, so debating what is the best "one-size-fits-all" defensive handgun is pretty pointless IMHO. Both revolvers and semi-automatics have distinct advantages and disadvantages compared to each other and which is best depends on the individual and his/her unique circumstances. The importance of capacity should only be determined on an individual basis after careful examination of your own area, lifestyle, and other pertinent personal information.
First, there seems to be a lot of back and forth about the statistics regarding the average number of shots fired in a self-defense incident. On the one side, we have a group clinging to the low number and ignoring the fact that defensive shootings involving more than six shots, while rare, can and do happen while on the other hand we have another group assuming that, because there are cases where six shots were not sufficient, that capacity should be an overriding concern. The problem here is over-reliance on statistics and forgetting that different people in different circumstances have different needs. The statistic of 4.7 shots per encounter is the average of all defensive shootings in all areas.
It seems common sense to me that the risk of multiple attackers, and thus the need for higher capacity, would be different depending on the socioeconomic attributes of one's area. For example, it seems obvious that the likelihood of needing a high capacity handgun would be greater in a rough Detroit neighborhood than it would be in a sleepy Tennessee hamlet. Since most of us have never met each other and aren't particularly familiar with each others' areas, I don't see how we can accurately assess where capacity should rank on each others' priority levels when it comes to defensive firearms.
Secondly, we seem to have the bandwagon fallacy come up every time this is discussed. Inevitably, at least one person will pop up and point to the fact that the majority of police and soldiers use semi-automatics as proof that it is the best platform for all the rest of us. Conversely, we also often have someone who touts the fact that a revolver was good enough for Wyatt Earp, Frank Hammer, George Patton, Bill Jordan, or some other historical gunslinger as proof that it should be good enough for the rest of us as well. While it is true that such figures were indeed adequately armed with a revolver, we also have to remember that they lived and worked in different times and places than where we are today and that most of us are not as skilled as the historical figures we remember. While a katana was very formidable in the hands of a samurai in feudal Japan, it would not be my choice of weapon in the urban jungles of 2012.
Likewise, we need to stop and remember that what is needed or preferable in a handgun to a cop or soldier doesn't necessarily always cross over to a private individual's defensive needs. Police and soldiers, by the very nature of their professions, go forth and confront their enemies and thus often use handguns in an offensive role and are more likely to face multiple armed opponents. The private citizen, however, is limited by the constraints of the law to a purely defensive role for his/her handgun. Indeed it would be very foolish, and likely illegal, to go and seek out a street gang, drug cartel, or terrorist cell in order to do battle with them and much safer, both physically and legally, to as little shooting and as much avoiding of trouble as possible.
Also, too many assume that the police and military transitioned to semi-autos solely because of capacity and speed of reloading. While those are almost certainly important factors, they are far from the only reason for which semi-autos have become preferred for uniformed duty. Semi-autos typically generate less recoil for a given power cartridge which is particularly beneficial when you must choose a handgun which a wide array of different people must all be able to use. Likewise, semi-autos are easier and less expensive to build and maintain that a revolver which makes them more attractive to military and LE budgets.
Finally, we must be careful not to assume that the police and military are authoritative sources on all things firearm related. Both the police and military can and have made very poor choices concerning firearms on occasion. For example, the largest police force in the world (NYPD) mandated FMJ and LRN ammunition until the late 1990's out of fear that JHP ammo was politically incorrect and the U.S. military sent soldiers into the jungles of Vietnam with new and unproven rifles without cleaning kits because some political appointees had bought a sales pitch about a "maintenance free rifle." Please don't misunderstand, I'm not saying that semi-autos aren't good defensive firearms, I'm just saying that we shouldn't assume they are just because cops and soldiers use them.
The bottom line is that it's impossible to be well, or even adequately, prepared for every possible situation. No one gun is best, or even particularly good, for every possible defensive situation, so debating what is the best "one-size-fits-all" defensive handgun is pretty pointless IMHO. Both revolvers and semi-automatics have distinct advantages and disadvantages compared to each other and which is best depends on the individual and his/her unique circumstances. The importance of capacity should only be determined on an individual basis after careful examination of your own area, lifestyle, and other pertinent personal information.
Last edited:
