Revolver capacity
- Thread starter garyl43
- Start date
gbclarkson
New member
I should have!
The links I posted again don't show failures in a defensive situation but do show mechanical failures of revolvers. Revolvers are touted for reliability due to their lack of needing to feed ammo to chamber with variations of slide velocity, etc.
Revolvers do rely on mechanical lockwork to revolve the chambers around. A failure to function in revolving the cylinder often takes the fun out of the fight and to a tool bench to fix. An auto, failing to cycle a round or a cartridge failure to fire often just requires cycling the slide.
I'm not trying to change your mind. You stick with what you are comfortable with. It is very highly likely that if a revolver is ever needed it would get the job done. I'm just pointing out that revolvers do fail mechanically as well as fall victim to ammo at times (backed out primers, over flared or under crimped case mouths, etc.).
The only living cases I personally know of where a revolver failed to get the job done was from jury duty, where the accused was trying to shoot his wife. The hand failed in his Rossi .38 and kicked the gun up tight. The other was pretty extreme and j do g know if it really fits this thread. I was drployed to Haiti and we had a Haitian Cop who was shot with his own S&W model 10. The gun was brought. He was brought to the Fleet Hospital with a round in his buttock. The cylinder was locked in the shut position and still had 4 rounds in it. Basically this cop was carrying a revolver that had only the rounds in it and no way to unload it or reload it. But Haiti is a 3rd world country and -CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED- poor. Our armory staff had to empty his gun by firing it into a clearing barrel and then disassemble the gun. I guess he carried it and believed 5 shots could get the job done. He apparently fired one round to prove that it still fired and then carried it for over a year with the other five rounds until he got shot with it.
Revolvers do rely on mechanical lockwork to revolve the chambers around. A failure to function in revolving the cylinder often takes the fun out of the fight and to a tool bench to fix. An auto, failing to cycle a round or a cartridge failure to fire often just requires cycling the slide.
I'm not trying to change your mind. You stick with what you are comfortable with. It is very highly likely that if a revolver is ever needed it would get the job done. I'm just pointing out that revolvers do fail mechanically as well as fall victim to ammo at times (backed out primers, over flared or under crimped case mouths, etc.).
The only living cases I personally know of where a revolver failed to get the job done was from jury duty, where the accused was trying to shoot his wife. The hand failed in his Rossi .38 and kicked the gun up tight. The other was pretty extreme and j do g know if it really fits this thread. I was drployed to Haiti and we had a Haitian Cop who was shot with his own S&W model 10. The gun was brought. He was brought to the Fleet Hospital with a round in his buttock. The cylinder was locked in the shut position and still had 4 rounds in it. Basically this cop was carrying a revolver that had only the rounds in it and no way to unload it or reload it. But Haiti is a 3rd world country and -CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED- poor. Our armory staff had to empty his gun by firing it into a clearing barrel and then disassemble the gun. I guess he carried it and believed 5 shots could get the job done. He apparently fired one round to prove that it still fired and then carried it for over a year with the other five rounds until he got shot with it.
True Doc, when revolvers fail if it's not the ammo, it will probably require service, but odds are as you said, very slim in a SD situation. Autos are much more sensitive to ammo, grip, slide movement etc. and many of them require a trip back to the factory or a gunsmith for repairs also as you know I'm sure.
Thanks for the real world examples, bummer he shot himself...
Thanks for the real world examples, bummer he shot himself...
He didn't shoot himself. He was escorting a prisoner to the court house. He cuffed the prisoner "hands in front". The prisoner grabbed his gun from his holster and got one shot off before the cops partner subdued the prisoner.
Not the finest example of well trained or equipped police.
Oh, and the case where I was on jury duty is s example of a revolver failing in a fight (albeit a criminal act).
Not the finest example of well trained or equipped police.
Oh, and the case where I was on jury duty is s example of a revolver failing in a fight (albeit a criminal act).
This threads beyond ridiculous. 
But then you cite your uncle as an example. Cops tend to be waaay down on the violent crimes commited against them. The backlash of a cops slaying is faaar more intense then a homicide.
That is a complete lie. several members have given you examples of revolvers running out, failing etc... But never to your opinions criteria. Or whatever. A member even gave an example of a loved one he lost when an attacker just doesn't 'give up' at the first sign of resistance or defiance.
Honestly, you just keep repeating the same stuff over and over. No ones trying to convince you of anything. We've sung the praises of both kinds of weapons and you still are convinced that semi autos are bad. If you cant shoot them well or they make you uncomfortable keep your sixgun its perfectly acceptable. No one here cares. But don't come here and tell us WE are wrong because our needs don't fit your ideals.
You are condescending and sneer @ us and use 'zombie' references as if there is something wrong with us or we are foolish for carrying semis or full sized guns.
I've avoided posting on this thread again til now because I realized it was a waste time. But ill be blunt since you seem a bit to dense to pick up what several of us including myself have put in much more polite terms.
But then you cite your uncle as an example. Cops tend to be waaay down on the violent crimes commited against them. The backlash of a cops slaying is faaar more intense then a homicide.
That is a complete lie. several members have given you examples of revolvers running out, failing etc... But never to your opinions criteria. Or whatever. A member even gave an example of a loved one he lost when an attacker just doesn't 'give up' at the first sign of resistance or defiance.
Honestly, you just keep repeating the same stuff over and over. No ones trying to convince you of anything. We've sung the praises of both kinds of weapons and you still are convinced that semi autos are bad. If you cant shoot them well or they make you uncomfortable keep your sixgun its perfectly acceptable. No one here cares. But don't come here and tell us WE are wrong because our needs don't fit your ideals.
You are condescending and sneer @ us and use 'zombie' references as if there is something wrong with us or we are foolish for carrying semis or full sized guns.
I've avoided posting on this thread again til now because I realized it was a waste time. But ill be blunt since you seem a bit to dense to pick up what several of us including myself have put in much more polite terms.
Part of the problem is that there are very few civilian "gunfights" in the U.S. that require reloads from any type firearms...long gun or short, revolver or semi auto. So it is I think hard to find very many instances of the failure of a handgun in the middle of a civilian gunfight of any type and then to accurately see why they failed. It's hard to do that with revolvers or semis. But more so for revolvers. In part because there are many fewer of them being carried for self defense that get in gunfights that are reported accurately. Hard to get figures, or many examples, on that for semis either for that matter.
If you do get a few examples what does it matter, show or prove? Not much from a handful of examples. From the other side what does it get ya if you find few to none? Again not much.
There are several instances I've read of over the years of police officers emptying their service revolvers into a assailant, reloading and emptying again and the assailant escaped to die elsewhere. But they don't count here. I'm also not sure what they prove except that faster reloads and more rounds come in awful handy if you need them. But this shows nothing here.
Folks should carry what they shoot well matched to the needs they have in a carry piece. Doesn't matter revolver or semi if it meets their perceived real world needs.
tipoc
If you do get a few examples what does it matter, show or prove? Not much from a handful of examples. From the other side what does it get ya if you find few to none? Again not much.
There are several instances I've read of over the years of police officers emptying their service revolvers into a assailant, reloading and emptying again and the assailant escaped to die elsewhere. But they don't count here. I'm also not sure what they prove except that faster reloads and more rounds come in awful handy if you need them. But this shows nothing here.
Folks should carry what they shoot well matched to the needs they have in a carry piece. Doesn't matter revolver or semi if it meets their perceived real world needs.
tipoc
Put the gun down Venom...
"If you do get a few examples what does it matter, show or prove? Not much from a handful of examples. From the other side what does it get ya if you find few to none? Again not much."
Exactly what I've been saying Tipoc, but I had to ask the question first to find out there are so few examples right?
"If you do get a few examples what does it matter, show or prove? Not much from a handful of examples. From the other side what does it get ya if you find few to none? Again not much."
Exactly what I've been saying Tipoc, but I had to ask the question first to find out there are so few examples right?
Last edited:
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by garyl43:
And addressing capacity only, if more than six rounds were ever required from a semi-auto, either in actual self defense or in a simulated encounter, would not the conclusion be very directly applicable to a discussion about revolver capacity?
Addressing failure only, why would it matter one whit whether a revolver failed during a "fire fight" or in realistic training or in practice or (in the old days) during police qualification?
But, one more time, there is no comprehensive summary of detailed descriptions of those "hundreds" of cases.
Again repeating, when there is a paucity of actual data, one needs to use other analytical methods--simulation, game theory, projections based on relevant analogies, and so on. That's the way the world works, whether one is evaluating weapon system effectiveness, air combat training methods, anti-submarine warfare strategy, and on and on.
And addressing capacity only, if more than six rounds were ever required from a semi-auto, either in actual self defense or in a simulated encounter, would not the conclusion be very directly applicable to a discussion about revolver capacity?
I tend to agree. But virtually no one uses that alone to choose a defensive firearm those days, nor do any instructors seem to make that the determinant.
I'm trying to keep this simple folks, no war games, no combat simulations, no list of ALL recorded revolver OR auto failures. Just high stress real self defense OR criminal situations where revolvers failed to deliver. Isn't this dragging out enough already? The last thing I want is to broaden the question more and I don't know how to make the original post any simpler.
No need to explain ifs ands or buts, that anything mechanical can fail, that .357 mag kicks, is loud and blinding at night, that revolvers are harder to reload, that they can bind up in dirt, that instructors don't teach revolvers anymore, that there are more autos than revolvers out there etc. etc. etc.. Anyone that's been around the firearm scene for more than a week knows this stuff.
I've bought into the all the tactical/commercial/magazine/video/book selling hype before and understand it's to get us to keep spending our hard earned money on the latest greatest. I also know there are fine weapons out there, revolver and auto both. But nothing beats real world situations to get an idea of what works in the real world.
Please, if you have real SD examples of the the type I asked about in the original post, reply, if not, don't get all butt hurt, just don't reply.
Thanks to those that have given those examples!
No need to explain ifs ands or buts, that anything mechanical can fail, that .357 mag kicks, is loud and blinding at night, that revolvers are harder to reload, that they can bind up in dirt, that instructors don't teach revolvers anymore, that there are more autos than revolvers out there etc. etc. etc.. Anyone that's been around the firearm scene for more than a week knows this stuff.
I've bought into the all the tactical/commercial/magazine/video/book selling hype before and understand it's to get us to keep spending our hard earned money on the latest greatest. I also know there are fine weapons out there, revolver and auto both. But nothing beats real world situations to get an idea of what works in the real world.
Please, if you have real SD examples of the the type I asked about in the original post, reply, if not, don't get all butt hurt, just don't reply.
Thanks to those that have given those examples!
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by garyl43:
Well, that may sound reasonable to the layman, but unless one has sufficiently detailed data about a sufficient number of incidents, it simply is not true.
Pond James Pond
New member
Out of curiosity, why just these? I think we can all agree that a gun cannot succumb to the stress of the situation it is in. It is an inert collection of parts. From a gun's point of view it does not know nor does it care if its firing pin is sending bullets are gongs, plates, pins or perps. So why remove all that potential for examples.
You may be needlessly excluding a number of examples from revolver competitions, range visits on Youtube etc from you "data pool". As long as the failure in question occurred with regular ammunition in a regular, untampered gun, the failures would be real and relevant.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by Pond, James Pond:
No aeronautical engineer would ever exclude data from training missions or test flights and address only data from combat missions in any analysis.
Well put.
No aeronautical engineer would ever exclude data from training missions or test flights and address only data from combat missions in any analysis.
More rounds is never a bad thing. As I said before, I carry a ruger LC9-s. And I don't top off the 7 round mag or carry a spare. As a matter of fact, since the gun only comes with 1 mag that's all I had for the first 4 months. Finally picked up a second. I've carried J frames. Like them, but was never that accurate with them. I mean, I could hit a paper plate at 5 yards point shooting as fast as I could pull the trigger, and I guess that's enough for it's purpose, but I'm just more accurate with the Ruger, and it's skinnier. At 15 yards, I could hit that paper plate with the j frame if I slowed down on the rate of fire and smoothly rolled the trigger
But the 642 sure had its benefits. Pocket carrying being number one. Can't tell you how many times I walked through a dark parking lot with my hand on that gun. I do that with the ruger too, but I can't shoot through a pocket with the ruger.
So I comes down to weighing the pros and cons of each. And for ME, reliability and comfort of carry trump capacity and ease of reloads. I just don't see needing more than 5 rounds in a street situation and I know I'm not trained enough to have the presence of mind or the manual dexterity to reload. But just in case the ruger has 2 more rounds and I can always top it off before leaving the house to make it 8. Just too lazy I guess
Now for home defense where comfort and concealibility is not an issue, I have 17 rounds in my ruger SR9.
But the 642 sure had its benefits. Pocket carrying being number one. Can't tell you how many times I walked through a dark parking lot with my hand on that gun. I do that with the ruger too, but I can't shoot through a pocket with the ruger.
So I comes down to weighing the pros and cons of each. And for ME, reliability and comfort of carry trump capacity and ease of reloads. I just don't see needing more than 5 rounds in a street situation and I know I'm not trained enough to have the presence of mind or the manual dexterity to reload. But just in case the ruger has 2 more rounds and I can always top it off before leaving the house to make it 8. Just too lazy I guess
Now for home defense where comfort and concealibility is not an issue, I have 17 rounds in my ruger SR9.
Last edited:
garyl43,
For 6 pages you've been asking that and on each page more than one person has explained that the information you are after does not exist in any number that, if you did get it all together, would mean anything.
It wouldn't be a pool it would just be a damp spot on the floor.
The same is true if you try for the same information on semi-autos. Not enough instances recorded in any way that could be consistently analyzed. It would just be a slightly damper damp spot on the floor.
I gotta say I'm kinda stumped as to the point of this.
tipoc
For 6 pages you've been asking that and on each page more than one person has explained that the information you are after does not exist in any number that, if you did get it all together, would mean anything.
It wouldn't be a pool it would just be a damp spot on the floor.
The same is true if you try for the same information on semi-autos. Not enough instances recorded in any way that could be consistently analyzed. It would just be a slightly damper damp spot on the floor.
I gotta say I'm kinda stumped as to the point of this.
tipoc