Revolver capacity

For me, my Glock 19 has never had any sort of failure ever, it runs like an absolute champ with every kind of ammo, brass, steel, aluminum, milsurp, Russian crap; I've put about 1,500 through it since I purchased it last May. I'm plenty confident in it's reliability.

So why would I choose to cut my capacity in 1/3 for more weight and no advantage? Because your Glock has malfunctions? It sounds like it might have something wrong with it honestly. I really like shooting revolvers too, and I wouldn't hesitate to use one if I HAD to but modern pistols lose nothing in reliability to the revolver and have many other advantages. Just saying "semi-auto" is disingenuous, guns like Raven, Jennings, Davis, AMT, Bryco, Lorcin, Phoenix, Cobra and Jimenez are simply not comparable in quality to Glock, H&K, S&W, FN...ect.

It seems like you miss the point of CC entirely. How much more likely are you to be attacked by one person than six? The odds are tiny either way. What are you talking about with zombies? What does fantasy have to do with this?

They way to do this right is to carry what you feel comfortable with and shoot the best. If a revolver works for you just go carry one and feel good about it. More than likely being capable of offering resistance will be more than enough to save your skin.
 
Maybe the people who run out of ammo are found dead with an empty revolver in their hand?

So they don't live to tell the tale about fast or slow reloads?

And we only hear about the fact that so-and-so died, but we don't hear about the empty gun...not saying it's so, just saying it is possible.
 
8mm I'm not talking about junk pistols, I've seen three Hi-Points never have a problem. I'm talking good to high quality pistols (and rifles) that I've seen stovepipe, ftf, limpwristed etc. with many shooters. I've had my Glock since '97 and haven't had major problems with it, just enough to make me go hmmm? Now I had a Bersa .380 that I never had a single malfunction with, traded it off ( mistake) and now have the cc version of the same pistol. It's great you've never had a problem with yours, I'm not knocking Glock, just my experience.

The reason I brought up zombies is because it IS fantasy as is a lot of what's bantered about on gun forums. The point I was making is let's keep it in the real world.

Now, missing the point of cc entirely? Where do you get that? I have carried for many years and have had to use it before, I think I get the point entirely.

Basically what I'm getting so far is that yes, on the whole a revolver is more reliable, there really are no stories of them failing during an encounter, and that six rounds has proven enough to do the job.
 
I'm talking good to high quality pistols (and rifles) that I've seen stovepipe, ftf, limpwristed etc. with many shooters.
Click to expand...

I've seen more than a few Colt revolvers lock up for no apparant reason, and I've seen several revolvers fail when the bullets backed out of the cases due to recoil, binding the cylinder

No design is foolproof

Knowing what to do in those situations is more important than worrying over them
 
In the end it all comes down to mathematical odds, and each individual deciding what odds are acceptable to them. I don't know the percentage, but the vast majority of people out there are unarmed, so by just being a strong male in good health, I've drastically reduced my odds of being a victim. By carrying a 5 shot revolver, (or a 6 shot .25), I've further improved my odds by an incredibly wide margin. So when we start getting into how many rounds is enough (or how much killing power a round has) discussions, we are getting into odds that don't really concern me. Every individual will draw that line somewhere, based on their own circumstances, their own logic, and their own emotions. Some will need an AK with a 90 round drum, and still be parnoid. Others will carry a .22 Derringer and be content. If someone is wrong, it will be their own responsibility. Personally, I feel that being killed because I don't have that extra speedloader, or 13 shot autoloader are possible, but the odds are not as high as the odds of getting killed in a car crash on the way to the gun store to buy them, which I don't worry enough about to wear a seatbelt, either. If I'm wrong, my ghost will haunt the forum with posts saying so.
 
Posted by TimSr:
By carrying a 5 shot revolver, (or a 6 shot .25), I've further improved my odds by an incredibly wide margin.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you could explain how you have arrived at that conclusion by sharing with us the assumptions that you would use in lieu of the ones that JohnKSa employed in the analyses linked in Post #73.

Personally, I feel that being killed because I don't have that extra speedloader, or 13 shot autoloader are possible, but the odds are not as high as the odds of getting killed in a car crash on the way to the gun store to buy them, which I don't worry enough about to wear a seatbelt, either.
Click to expand...
Analyzing seatbelt effectiveness has something important in common with the capacity analysis: the decision should be based on what would be needed should the contingency materialize--on the conditional probability.

Seatbelts reduce the risk of injury death by about half. That's enough of a difference for me. It is an "incredibly wide margin", don't you think?
 
Posted by TimSr:
Quote:
By carrying a 5 shot revolver, (or a 6 shot .25), I've further improved my odds by an incredibly wide margin.

Perhaps you could explain how you have arrived at that conclusion by sharing with us the assumptions that you would use in lieu of the ones that JohnKSa employed in the analyses linked in Post #73.
Click to expand...


Quote:
Personally, I feel that being killed because I don't have that extra speedloader, or 13 shot autoloader are possible, but the odds are not as high as the odds of getting killed in a car crash on the way to the gun store to buy them, which I don't worry enough about to wear a seatbelt, either.

Analyzing seatbelt effectiveness has something important in common with the capacity analysis: the decision should be based on what would be needed should the contingency materialize--on the conditional probability.

Seatbelts reduce the risk of injury death by about half. That's enough of a difference for me. It is an "incredibly wide margin", don't you think?
Click to expand...

I don't draw the same conclusion as JohnKSA for the same reason I don't accept your seatbelt statistics. You are both missing critical qualifying data to support the conclusion. Your seatbelt stat is construed to mean that 50% of those who drive without them will die. The stat more likely means (you didn't explain it) that of those died in a car crash not wearing seat belts, 50% could have survived by using them.

John's conclusions are based on the premise that you have to mortally wound some one to stop them. It does not take into account how many are stopped by drawing a gun, how many by firing a gun, and how many by hitting the aggressor without disabling him. It assumes that all agressors with stand their ground and fight to the death.
 
Here's one more statistic:

About 8400 people died from gunshots last year, including the good, the bad, and the ugly. Of those, the number who died because they ran out of bullets is unknown, but I'm pretty sure it's less than the 33,000 who died in vehicle accidents.
 
About 8400 people died from gunshots last year, including the good, the bad, and the ugly. Of those, the number who died because they ran out of bullets is unknown, but I'm pretty sure it's less than the 33,000 who died in vehicle accidents.
Click to expand...

Yet you won't put on a seat belt, which weighs next to nothing .....but will carry a gun, which weighs far more.

:confused:

I don't draw the same conclusion as JohnKSA for the same reason I don't accept your seatbelt statistics. You are both missing critical qualifying data to support the conclusion. Your seatbelt stat is construed to mean that 50% of those who drive without them will die. The stat more likely means (you didn't explain it) that of those died in a car crash not wearing seat belts, 50% could have survived by using them.
Click to expand...

Regarding both seat belts, and guns, it IS, as is so often said, "Not the odds, but the stakes."

Having worked accidents where people were severely injured in even relatively low speed collisions because they were not wearing a seat belt, I firmly believe this.
 
Posteed by TimSr:
John's conclusions are based on the premise that you have to mortally wound some one to stop them.
Click to expand...
No, they are not!

It does not take into account how many are stopped by drawing a gun, how many by firing a gun, and how many by hitting the aggressor without disabling him.
Click to expand...
They are based on assumptions regarding hit rate and how many hits it takes to stop an assailant--or two--if you do have to shoot.

It assumes that all agressors with stand their ground and fight to the death.
Click to expand...
It does not, and I cannot understand what has given you that impression. I'm afraid you misunderstood his analysis altogether.

The chance that a person who has been shot by a handgun will expire is something like one in seven.

Let me add that you should never draw on anyone who is "standing his ground", unless he is about to shoot you.

Yes, the mere presentation of a firearm may dissuade an assailant. And if you shoot and hit him, you may effect a "psychological stop".

Otherwise, you have to hit something vital. That is a set of incredibly small targets hidden within--within, in a three dimensional sense--a larger target; your success will depend largely on chance; and one shot is very unlikely to give you such luck. Consider also that the target will be most likely be moving at perhaps five meters per second and bobbing and weaving and turning unpredictably while you, under stress and having been terribly surprised, try to draw and fire timely and effectively, most probably while you are moving.

How many shots do you think it would take to have a reasonable chance of doing that?

Try this: define what you think would constitute "improvement" by "an incredibly wide margin". Then try different assumptions regarding stopping effectiveness and hit rate and see what it would take to yield that percentage.

I think you will be surprised. I certainly was, and so was John. I carried a Smith and Wesson 442 until I read his analysis.

To understand the realism of any belief that you would likely achieve the hits required, avail yourself of some competent defensive training.

By the way, you will find it extremely difficult to find a top-tier trainer who will address how to defend yourself with a five shot revolver. Claude Werner used to offer such training, but he says there is no demand for it these days.

Of course, a five shot revolver is better than nothing, and it may do the trick.

Or not.

My 642 now serves as backup.

About 8400 people died from gunshots last year, including the good, the bad, and the ugly. Of those, the number who died because they ran out of bullets is unknown, but I'm pretty sure it's less than the 33,000 who died in vehicle accidents.
Click to expand...
That is completely irrelevant.

If you want to question seat belt effectiveness statistics that are widely accepted in the insurance and highway safety communities, be my guest.
 
In the end everyone draws their line differently based on experience and example. My uncle survived many years as a Chicago cop with just his service revolver, one of the more dangerous jobs in this world. I had a neighbor shot dead by a sheriff I've known for years while his wife stood in my front yard, double tap to the chest, done. I've had a gun pulled on me twice, one a cheap chromed .25 auto, the other a rather nice stainless .357 revolver. In both instances it was cowards and I stood my ground, unarmed, and they did the smart thing. Didn't scare me, don't ask why but I know how I react now. I've drawn once, bad guy did the smart thing and walked away.

I will get that revolver and carry it, and I'll carry my autos to, whichever suits the clothes I'm wearing best.
 
I love my revolvers, don't get me wrong, but in the year 2015 and in the world that we live in, 5-6 just ain't enough. For me personally, 7-8 isn't enough either.

There are numerous cases of CIVILLIANS needing more than the 5 rounds in a J-frame, or more than 6 rounds in a K-L frame etc. etc.

It's the same thing with Law Enforcement. Things like the FBI shootout and the earlier Newhall Massacre were tragedies that could have been avoided if the cops involved had only used automatic pistols instead of revolvers. The six-shooter stuck around in LE holsters for so long not due to power, not due to reliability, but simply due to funding an stubborn ignorant fools who would not give their officers better weapons.

Criminals have access to cheap, effective semi-auto handguns like Glocks with tremendous capacity and reliability. It isn't 1950 anymore, it's not like the gang bangers are all packing wheel guns, they now have more firepower than ever and the armed civilian needs to be able to stop that threat, wherever or whenever it arises. By the time cops switched over to autos, they had already been outgunned for years if not decades. What makes you think things will be different for you? No, you are not a cop, but you could easily find yourself in the same times of situations.

You can't choose what defensive scenario you will be in, therefore it is prudent to use the most effective firearm you can possibly acquire. The most power that is still controllable, the most capacity, the most reliability, all of these are vital in a self defense handgun in this modern age. Frankly, choosing the antiquated revolver vs all the options we have today in advanced semi-auto pistols is tantamount to suicide, or at least tantamount to fighting with one foot caught in a bear trap.

The defensive revolver is a dying breed, and thank God for that. People, go to any gun store and there will be row upon row of automatic pistols like the Glock, XD, S&W M&P, the list goes on and on. They can all be had for under $600 brand new, and the firepower trumps any revolver on the planet. Reliability of these modern pistols is extreme, years of testing and evaluations has proven this. Rounds like the .45 ACP and .357 SIG are the equal to similar defensive revolver rounds like .44 special and .357 magnum, so the whole power advantage of the revolver idea goes out the window. And no, I do not consider .500 S&W a defensive revolver round (against humans).

This is all JMHO and while I am a fan of revolvers, I wouldn't be caught dead with one in my CCW holster or on my nightstand. They are just inferior in every way imaginable to a good modern fighting semi-auto.
 
I'm still searching for a point
Click to expand...

Me too, I have to say.

I've been following this thread due to a personal interest in carrying revolvers, but the OP was trying to find cases of revolver SD examples yet for a large part this thread has morphed into another "revolvers are better than semis are better than revolvers are better than....."
 
Last edited:
I did get to learn that I'm likely going to die in a car crash with an empty revolver. :)

When you open your toolbox, it's best to pick the tool with which you are most skilled to do the job at hand.
 
"I've been following this thread due to a personal interest in carrying revolvers, but the OP was trying to find cases of revolver SD examples yet for a large part this thread has morphed into another "revolvers are better than semis are better than revolvers are better than....."

Yeah PJP, which is exactly what I didn't want because I'm already more than familiar with that dead horse. But I did learn that there really aren't any examples where a revolver wasn't enough to end the argument. I'm afraid people get a bit too caught up in the tactical gun culture and tend to lose grasp of what's really needed, hence the zombie reference. For some this is a lifestyle, but I don't live for the day I may need a firearm again, It's more like a seatbelt to me, something I wear as added protection.
 
Posted by garyl43:
But I did learn that there really aren't any examples where a revolver wasn't enough to end the argument.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you can explain how you have learned that.

There are two small data sets that I know of that list some detail about individual civilian self defense shootings. One is reported in Tom Givens' Lessons from the Street DVD. The other was a sanitized report developed from the first hand knowledge of police officers in another metropolitan area, which I believe to be in Tennessee. Statistics are not generally catalogued except for police shootings, and police shootings involve different sets of circumstances (civilians do not make traffic stops, or respond to calls about domestic violence or robberies or bar fights). Those two data sets list only a couple of incidents in which the defender "lost", and in both cases the defenders were unarmed.

But I know from our local news that armed defenders are killed or injured from time to time. One simply cannot draw conclusions from very limited data.

Nor can one prove a negative. That bears repeating, for anyone who ever tries to do so.

Tom Givens is a recognized trainer, and there were enough graduates from his classes over the years for a few dozen of them to have become involved in use of force incidents. Tom summarized the details of several of those in the aforementioned DVD. It is worth getting.

Among the "lessons" in Lessons from the Street is Tom's admonition to "carry a real gun." He does not recommend relying upon a five shot revolver for primary self defense.

That he is not alone is reflected in the difficulty of finding self defense training for that kind of firearm today.

There is no question whatsoever that the revolver has its advantages. Mine now serves for backup.

For primary carry? No, but I would be okay with two of them.
 
A lot of people have books and videos to sell, I'm really not interested in lining their pockets for something that's statistically so unlikely that I can't even find a couple real examples. It's more likely I'll get hit by lightning than it is I'll need more than five rounds or have a revolver fail when I need it, and I wouldn't buy the book on how to better my odds on that either. I just wanted to see if someone could show me some examples to back up the claims?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top