I was in law enforcement for 10 years during the crack epidemic in NYC and carried a revolver and now retired still often carry a revolver, lately a .327 LCR or a Seecamp 25 ACP. I know many retired and active law enforcement who carry a revolver either all the time ( retired) or off duty ( active). Some were even range officers. I'm comfortable with what I carry.
Ruger GP100 44 special
- Thread starter roashooter
- Start date
roashooter,
Spray and pray is gun magazine jargon. It has zero applicability in gunfights.
When cops fire 50 rounds and hits no one neophytes will ascribe something unkind to the cops involved. In contrast, my first question is whether cops survived. If they did, it was a fantastic outcome.
Spray and pray is a cute bromide that is the creed of those who can rationalize dying with bullets in their guns.
Spray and pray is gun magazine jargon. It has zero applicability in gunfights.
When cops fire 50 rounds and hits no one neophytes will ascribe something unkind to the cops involved. In contrast, my first question is whether cops survived. If they did, it was a fantastic outcome.
Spray and pray is a cute bromide that is the creed of those who can rationalize dying with bullets in their guns.
Pond,
So you know one, but not personally. From that flimsy hearsay, you've extrapolated an untenable position.
1 out of maybe hundreds of thousands cops. And you're hustling that as proof of a mysterious six-gun dragon slayer?
I don't care what people carry. Self-defense is a personal issue. What's right for one might be all wrong for another. But hand gunners will lose credibility when they try to hustle BS about revolvers being as good as semiautos.
BTW, I've had two revolvers fail, and I know of other cops who have had catastrophic revolver failures. My P-229 has never failed to fire, and I've put thousands of rounds through it.
I know of not one single law enforcement agency that allows its cops to carry revolvers.
Pond, don't fall into the logical fallacy of trying to disprove a rule by citing a very rare exception.
So you know one, but not personally. From that flimsy hearsay, you've extrapolated an untenable position.
1 out of maybe hundreds of thousands cops. And you're hustling that as proof of a mysterious six-gun dragon slayer?
I don't care what people carry. Self-defense is a personal issue. What's right for one might be all wrong for another. But hand gunners will lose credibility when they try to hustle BS about revolvers being as good as semiautos.
BTW, I've had two revolvers fail, and I know of other cops who have had catastrophic revolver failures. My P-229 has never failed to fire, and I've put thousands of rounds through it.
I know of not one single law enforcement agency that allows its cops to carry revolvers.
Pond, don't fall into the logical fallacy of trying to disprove a rule by citing a very rare exception.
mk70ss,
I personally know a cop who put six .357 Mag man killer rounds in a very bad guy's chest. It didn't faze him. A single round of 00 buck made him property of the coroner.
Those old school guys hold on to myths far too long.
Do you know of any law enforcement agency that issues revolvers? That allows its cops to carry revolvers? I don't. Zip, zero, zilch, Nada.
I personally know a cop who put six .357 Mag man killer rounds in a very bad guy's chest. It didn't faze him. A single round of 00 buck made him property of the coroner.
Those old school guys hold on to myths far too long.
Do you know of any law enforcement agency that issues revolvers? That allows its cops to carry revolvers? I don't. Zip, zero, zilch, Nada.
Pond James Pond
New member
Citing only one does not mean I know of only one.
And what, pray tell, do you interpret my "untenable position" to be?
Just look back at what I've said on this issue and in which context (i.e. your own comments).
I have stated no position. I have merely refuted yours.
Hustling? I don't think answering your very own question is hustling.
You ask if I know any and I gave you a name. And the dragon-slayer hyperbole.... really?
You claim no personal position on this but your very own opening volley on this topic of "Who the hell carries....?" screams personal involvement.
Note I've not said that revolvers are better than semis. Nor has anyone else in this thread that I can think of.
Hand gunners lose credibility when they put words in the posts of others to support their arguments.
So, wait a second... You extole the virtues of not relying on a sample size of one to prove a point (even though that wasn't what I was doing), but you'll happily rely on a sample size of two to prove yours...
There are LEO in Spain who carry them as it happens. Seen them myself. But gun choice in LE is largely about cost, rather than purely about efficiency. A new K-frame is probably much more expensive than the standard issue GlockXX. Your initial point was also about self-defence, not dept issue.
Point 1:
There is no rule here. There is your personal opinion. And mine. And that of others
Point 2:
You make out that only LEOs are in a position to make sound judgment on gun choice. Yet many have far less experience of gun ownership, marksmanship maintenance etc than a good few of forum the people on this and others like it.
Point 3:
I merely provided what you'd asked for. A single name. But if that is not enough for you, just look at the revolver forum to see how many own and carry wheel-guns.
Are you now trying to say that, because they are not LEOs they therefore have worthless opinions on the merits of one gun over another?!
Point 4:
Look at the revolver market and how many are still being made, launched and sold. People still buy them. By their 100s of 1000s. As all those buyers ignorant? Are all those who buy semis knowledgeable?
I think you should take your own advice.
I also don't think you should make personal judgements about people purely because they don't share you choices and preferences.
heyjoe,
Your ulterior motive is your affinity for revolvers. But I might be wrong.
I love a good revolver. But the best revolver is a poor self-defense handgun when compared with a Glock 22 or similar handgun. A .357 Mag holds six rounds and takes too long to reload anther 6. A Glock 22 holds 16 rounds of the superior .40 S&W rounds, and it takes far less time to reload another 15.
If you want to carry a revolver to protect your life, I'm good. After all, self-defense is a personal issue. You ought to always go with what's right for you. But it might be wise to keep in mind what were your life on the line, especially by more that one bad guy, a Glock 22 might be a better choice.
Now, can you tell me of any law enforcement agency in American that issues revolvers or allows its cops to carry revolvers. I know of exactly zero. Where I used to work, cops are forbidden to carry revolvers as their primary duty handgun.
Your ulterior motive is your affinity for revolvers. But I might be wrong.
I love a good revolver. But the best revolver is a poor self-defense handgun when compared with a Glock 22 or similar handgun. A .357 Mag holds six rounds and takes too long to reload anther 6. A Glock 22 holds 16 rounds of the superior .40 S&W rounds, and it takes far less time to reload another 15.
If you want to carry a revolver to protect your life, I'm good. After all, self-defense is a personal issue. You ought to always go with what's right for you. But it might be wise to keep in mind what were your life on the line, especially by more that one bad guy, a Glock 22 might be a better choice.
Now, can you tell me of any law enforcement agency in American that issues revolvers or allows its cops to carry revolvers. I know of exactly zero. Where I used to work, cops are forbidden to carry revolvers as their primary duty handgun.
Pond,
You seem to have assumed the role of alpha poster here, omniscient of all things firearms. And you'll attack in a condescending way those whom disagree with you.
Here's my take: you're a gun magazine commando. You've never attended a single professional firearms training course. You don't know of a single law enforcement agency that issues revolvers. You'll make stuff up to support your untenable positions, even resorting to ad hominem rejoinders.
I going with your not personally knowing of a single cop who carries a revolver for self-defense. Cops are exposed to firearms tactics and training in academy and at AOT courses. They know what works best for saving their lives.
I do know cops and retired cops who, at times, will have a Model 60 close by, but their primary self-defense weapon is a semi-auto. And if you know tactical handguns like you think you do, you'd know why. I could reload 15 .40 S&W rounds in a Glock 22 in far less than half the time it'd take to reload 5 or 6 in a revolver.
Remember, Pond, that Rule 1 of surviving a gunfight is to avoid getting in one.
Rule 2: If Rule 1 is unavoidable, don't get shot. And in that last clause is found the importance of suppressive fire. You can't allow a bad guy to take accurate shots at you. If you're in a gunfight, it's because a bad guy (or bad guys) wants you dead. It will do you no good to die with live rounds in your gun.
Rule 3: Never trade your life for a bad guy's life.
Rule 4: Retreat tactically (run the hell outta there) as soon as possible. The longer you engage, the longer you'll place your life at risk.
I have two friends with CCW's. Neither carries a revolver. One doesn't own a revolver. In the courses they had to attend to obtain their CCW's, neither were taught tactical shooting. I had to teach them. Neither had heard of point shooting. I had one scoring direct point shooting hits within ten minutes. Now he knows that he can hit a bad guy while scanning for other threats. That's handy to know if one lives close to LA.
Pond, I'm good with what you believe. And believe me, some of what you believe I believe to be BS. But then again, I've been taught and trained by professionals. And not one time did a professional firearms instructor mention spray and pray. They did emphasize suppressive fire and the vital importance of not getting shot.
If cops fire a hundred rounds at a bad guy, the naive will find fault with the cops' shooting skills. The learned will ask one question: did the cops live? If so, it was good shooting. In fact, I don't care how many rounds a cop has to fire as long as he survives. That's the only tally that matters.
Pond, my advice for you is to always go with Rule 1. That way you'll be able to stick around and post on forearms forums. Wise professionals live by Rule 1.
It's a whole lot better to be a live witness than a dead hero.
You seem to have assumed the role of alpha poster here, omniscient of all things firearms. And you'll attack in a condescending way those whom disagree with you.
Here's my take: you're a gun magazine commando. You've never attended a single professional firearms training course. You don't know of a single law enforcement agency that issues revolvers. You'll make stuff up to support your untenable positions, even resorting to ad hominem rejoinders.
I going with your not personally knowing of a single cop who carries a revolver for self-defense. Cops are exposed to firearms tactics and training in academy and at AOT courses. They know what works best for saving their lives.
I do know cops and retired cops who, at times, will have a Model 60 close by, but their primary self-defense weapon is a semi-auto. And if you know tactical handguns like you think you do, you'd know why. I could reload 15 .40 S&W rounds in a Glock 22 in far less than half the time it'd take to reload 5 or 6 in a revolver.
Remember, Pond, that Rule 1 of surviving a gunfight is to avoid getting in one.
Rule 2: If Rule 1 is unavoidable, don't get shot. And in that last clause is found the importance of suppressive fire. You can't allow a bad guy to take accurate shots at you. If you're in a gunfight, it's because a bad guy (or bad guys) wants you dead. It will do you no good to die with live rounds in your gun.
Rule 3: Never trade your life for a bad guy's life.
Rule 4: Retreat tactically (run the hell outta there) as soon as possible. The longer you engage, the longer you'll place your life at risk.
I have two friends with CCW's. Neither carries a revolver. One doesn't own a revolver. In the courses they had to attend to obtain their CCW's, neither were taught tactical shooting. I had to teach them. Neither had heard of point shooting. I had one scoring direct point shooting hits within ten minutes. Now he knows that he can hit a bad guy while scanning for other threats. That's handy to know if one lives close to LA.
Pond, I'm good with what you believe. And believe me, some of what you believe I believe to be BS. But then again, I've been taught and trained by professionals. And not one time did a professional firearms instructor mention spray and pray. They did emphasize suppressive fire and the vital importance of not getting shot.
If cops fire a hundred rounds at a bad guy, the naive will find fault with the cops' shooting skills. The learned will ask one question: did the cops live? If so, it was good shooting. In fact, I don't care how many rounds a cop has to fire as long as he survives. That's the only tally that matters.
Pond, my advice for you is to always go with Rule 1. That way you'll be able to stick around and post on forearms forums. Wise professionals live by Rule 1.
It's a whole lot better to be a live witness than a dead hero.
Pond James Pond
New member
Sans Souci: I see you've done as before. Put words in people's mouths to suit your ends.
Still if you feel the need to take that approach be my guest.
My position once again: You imply revolvers are no good for self-defence. I disagree. That's it.
As for condescension; I leave that to you.
You're very good at it.
What did you say I was?
Ad hominem attacks?
Please do look at you posts and mine and see who's been posting character profiles of the other.
What did you refer to me as? A liar, I believe:
This thread is about the .44Spl GP100.
If you want to start a thread solely about how bad revolvers are as SD guns: be my guest.
Post it loud and clear with all the arguments you've offered here.
In fact, I want you to. Would you do that for me?
I promise to not even darken the thread with my comments.
Still if you feel the need to take that approach be my guest.
My position once again: You imply revolvers are no good for self-defence. I disagree. That's it.
As for condescension; I leave that to you.
You're very good at it.
What did you say I was?
All because I disagree with you...
Ad hominem attacks?
Please do look at you posts and mine and see who's been posting character profiles of the other.
What did you refer to me as? A liar, I believe:
and
Again, I'll leave all that to you.
This thread is about the .44Spl GP100.
If you want to start a thread solely about how bad revolvers are as SD guns: be my guest.
Post it loud and clear with all the arguments you've offered here.
In fact, I want you to. Would you do that for me?
I promise to not even darken the thread with my comments.
I found this after a Google search: http://www.tactical-life.com/firear...as-largest-police-departments/#sig-p226-frame
I have no idea of the veracity of this article. But from my direct knowledge, it's assuredly true. While there might be a small population of exceptions, the rule is law enforcement agencies do not allow their cops to carry revolvers as their primary duty handguns.
None of the 10 largest police departments issue revolvers. According to this info, Chicago PD does allow officers to carry revolvers if they were hired prior to 1996. It didn't indicate whether such veterans have retained revolvers for duty use or have retired them for modern handguns.
Stay safe all, and stay out of gunfights.
I have no idea of the veracity of this article. But from my direct knowledge, it's assuredly true. While there might be a small population of exceptions, the rule is law enforcement agencies do not allow their cops to carry revolvers as their primary duty handguns.
None of the 10 largest police departments issue revolvers. According to this info, Chicago PD does allow officers to carry revolvers if they were hired prior to 1996. It didn't indicate whether such veterans have retained revolvers for duty use or have retired them for modern handguns.
Stay safe all, and stay out of gunfights.
My sincere advice to survivors is to try to obtain a copy of this: https://secure.calibrepress.com/shop/books/street-survival-tactics-for-armed-encounters/
If Calibre Press won't sell it to you, check your local libraries. A college or university library will almost assuredly have it.
While it's been a while since I've retired from catching bad guy, I might buy the latest edition. I might be an old dog, but I can learn new tricks.
If Calibre Press won't sell it to you, check your local libraries. A college or university library will almost assuredly have it.
While it's been a while since I've retired from catching bad guy, I might buy the latest edition. I might be an old dog, but I can learn new tricks.
Pond James Pond
New member
I think we agree.
And all the best to you.
jackmoser65
New member
I'm quite certain that very few entertain that dilemma, 44 Special vs Glock.
You have some very interesting and very strong opinions but your bias is clear. I suggest that if you want to deride the revolver as a defensive tool, you do it elsewhere. Right now you just look like a troll that no one here agrees with.
With a few exceptions here and there, no police depts. in most countries issue revolvers to their officers or allow them as primary weapons. I think the same is true for the armies of the world. There are occasional exceptions. But that is irrelevant as we aren't speaking of what to issue to leos or armies.
Folks who carry learn over time that we need options for the varying situations of our lives. Where we go, how we dress, the occasion, we asses risks. Sometimes that might be a Glock 22 with two mags, sometimes a revolver with 5, 6, 7 or 8 rounds of 357 Magnum or maybe 5 rounds of 44 Spl. and a speed loader or two, or maybe a small single stack semi in 9mm or .380. There are also personal preferences.
A few times I've been out and about with only a long gun and a Ruger Blackhawk in 45 Colt on me. I would have been at a distinct disadvantage in a "The Hills Have Eyes" situation, or if I ran across "El Chapo" and his boys inspecting an illegal marijuana grow. But those things didn't happen and the risk of it was low, as I knew. I did get a hog.
This is a thread about Ruger's new 5 shot revolver in 44 Spl. and the excitement that it's creating by providing a good strong carry piece in a good and under appreciated and fun round.
The question, a good one, is what are we gonna use such a gun for?
tipoc
Folks who carry learn over time that we need options for the varying situations of our lives. Where we go, how we dress, the occasion, we asses risks. Sometimes that might be a Glock 22 with two mags, sometimes a revolver with 5, 6, 7 or 8 rounds of 357 Magnum or maybe 5 rounds of 44 Spl. and a speed loader or two, or maybe a small single stack semi in 9mm or .380. There are also personal preferences.
A few times I've been out and about with only a long gun and a Ruger Blackhawk in 45 Colt on me. I would have been at a distinct disadvantage in a "The Hills Have Eyes" situation, or if I ran across "El Chapo" and his boys inspecting an illegal marijuana grow. But those things didn't happen and the risk of it was low, as I knew. I did get a hog.
This is a thread about Ruger's new 5 shot revolver in 44 Spl. and the excitement that it's creating by providing a good strong carry piece in a good and under appreciated and fun round.
The question, a good one, is what are we gonna use such a gun for?
tipoc
A book was linked to earlier it describes itself this way...
No doubt a good read that we can learn something from but it may not be directly applicable to our thinking on what to wear to a nephews wedding, a camping trip with small children, a day at the beach, going to a movie, walking the dog, etc. It's not intended for the day to day it appears. I haven't read it someone else may have a different assessment. There are other books out there, and classes, that can help figure things out.
Yeah, as Salmoneye says, it also has a pic of a wheelgun on the cover.
tipoc
No doubt a good read that we can learn something from but it may not be directly applicable to our thinking on what to wear to a nephews wedding, a camping trip with small children, a day at the beach, going to a movie, walking the dog, etc. It's not intended for the day to day it appears. I haven't read it someone else may have a different assessment. There are other books out there, and classes, that can help figure things out.
Yeah, as Salmoneye says, it also has a pic of a wheelgun on the cover.
tipoc