Stop saying I should get a semi auto, I love my revolvers!

[2damnold4this]

Having plenty of rounds on tap in a self defense situation without reloading is certainly an advantage. That could be one shot or it could be 15 or more. A Modern autoloader carrying 15 rounds certainly have an advantage over a five shot revolver but I don't think it's as simple as saying it's three times as effective. I think the first few shots in a revolver or autoloader are likely to have more of an impact on a defensive encounter than a tenth or fifteenth shot. Of course, the five shot revolver won't have the option of firing ten shots without reloading but the first five shots probably have more potential to give the defender a positive outcome than the next five even if the defender was using a fully loaded G17.

If someone shoots their five or six shot revolver better than they shoot a higher capacity autoloader, carrying the revolver might be the wiser choice. If someone decides to conceal an Airweight or LCR because it's easier than carrying a full size autoloader, practicing to make those five shots count ought to be a top priority.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by osbornk:

I think many so called "trainers" are either ill informed or misinformed.

Many "so-called 'trainers' ", perhaps, but I am referring to the good ones.

You are much more careful to make sure you shoot accurately when you can't shoot several more quickly.

That may be true at the range, but it has little meaning when one is involved in a defensive encounter and is not afforded the luxury of shooting more slowly.

And when it comes to effecting a quick stop on an attacker, when the defender has no way whatsoever of aiming at vital bones and organs within the body, the stop will be very much a matter of luck; it will take whatever number of rounds it will take.

And there will be only so much time. Maybe a second, maybe less, maybe more, depending upon the situation.

It is a matter of balancing speed and precision.

You will be much more careful with your shots if you have 6 rounds than when you have 16 rounds. Look at your own habits. I waste a lot more ammo with my semi-automatic with 16 rounds than I do with my 6 shot revolver.

Why? I don't.

I also have a higher percentage on target with the revolver (and it is not due to the gun but it is because of my being more careful)

A higher "percentage on target" in a real use of force incident may be partly a matter of "being more careful", but it will also depend upon stress, upon how fast the attacker is moving, and upon other things. And one cannot really plan on being very "careful" when trying to avoid and stop a violent attacker who is closing in at five meters per second with a contact weapon.

Limnophile has provided us with an interesting comparison that is very relevant here:

The FBI reports their agents miss their targets 70-to-80% of the time during shootouts with bad guys. When I was shopping for my first handguns in the early '80s, when almost all LEOs carried revolvers, the reported law enforcement gunfight miss rate was 5 out of 6, ie, 83%. With hit rates of 17-to-30%, one doesn't need to be a statistician to realize that a 6-shot revolver is a suboptimal sidearm.

 

[44 AMP]

The FBI reports their agents miss their targets 70-to-80% of the time during shootouts with bad guys.

I don't doubt this a bit.

But look a bit beyond the obvious...

The FBI, like all other law enforcement groups, and the military are composed of large numbers of people. The majority of which are not firearms enthusiasts. Many don't ever fire a weapon other than periodic qualification courses. And even skilled shooters miss under stress. Add them all together and the group rate for misses is abysmal.

If the miss rate for revolvers is 5 out of 6, how about some balancing information? What is the miss rate for hi-cap autos? 12 out of 15? more? less?

That would be nice to know, I think, just for comparison.

You can find a real world happening, or three to fit virtually any situation. So, yes, there is no argument that people have lost lives when their revolver ran dry. It has happened. It is also possible that in those cases the added rounds of a high cap auto might have made a difference.

We know it happens, sometimes, but I think it happens seldom. Otherwise, we'd hear about it, a lot more than we do. IF it was a constant and common thing, we'd hear about it, constantly. We don't. It is rare.

being killed because your auto pistol jammed, or ran dry happens, too. It is also a rare thing. We go to great lengths to ensure that rare thing isn't us, and for good reason.

OK, a revolver is sub-optimal (by round count) but sub-optimal is not the same as inadequate or ineffective. When the shooter does what they are supposed to do, revolvers still work. And when the shooter doesn't, extra rounds are not a guarantee. Nothing is.

 

[Art Eatman]

The Zimmeran stuff seems way off topic, to me. But I'm too lazy, right now, to do a bunch of editing.

 

[OldMarksman]

What someone can use most effectively is a very personal thing, and advising what someone else should carry is not really very appropriate.

But everyone would best be served to make an informed decision.

I started out with a Smith and Wesson Centennial Airweight. The only real advice I had received was that an external hammer could snag.

I had no knowledge of handgun wounding effectiveness. I had not studied the subject. I had no idea how many rounds I might have to shoot in a defensive encounter. I had received no good training. Why would I need to unload four rounds into an attacker?

I knew that the 642 was by no means the best combat handgun, but I thought that i would be unlikely to ever need to use it anyway, That I should consider the conditional probability rather than the cumulative probability should have been obvious to me, but somehow it was not.

The 642 seemed compact and convenient, but I had not compared the dimensions to several larger-than-subompact semi-autos.

I knew that Colt had once made a lot of fuss about that "all important sixth shot", but I had not considered just how important it might turn out to be.And there are no shrouded Colts available new today.

A traditional-looking snubby revolver just looked better to me han the semi-autos in the store..

Then I attended some training (no small revolvers allowed, and it soon became obvious why). I studied the theory of wounding effectiveness. And I realized that in the end, "a gun is a tool, Marian", even if it does look like a stapler or a glue gun.

I carry a semi-auto. I wouldn't advise anyone to carry the one that i do, because it may not fit, and another person may not like the trigger.

I still have the 642. It serves for back-up. Backup is a good idea, but that's another subject.

 

[Mainah]

I've been following this case because it took place about fifteen miles away: http://www.pressherald.com/2015/04/...f-defense-murder-cases-in-maine-can-be-risky/

The shooter was found guilty, and I don't really have a problem with that. He had two drinks, and went into a heated situation that involved family and business. But what strikes me is that he killed a big man (six four, over 280 pounds) with three rounds from a Ruger .380. And that the fact that he was carrying an extra mag was used by the prosecuting counsel as one means of establishing intent. Those extra rounds came back to bite this guy, but again he made a ton of mistakes.

 

[Armybrat]

A thread about revolvers, and not one picture yet?

I have & carry several semis in my rotation, but wheelguns are lots more fun to shoot. Especially my Rugers:

Smiths tickle my fancy too:

 

[JN01]

Kimball came to the bee farm with a concealed .380-caliber Ruger and an extra clip, knowing in advance that there could be trouble because of a rift between his wife, Karen Thurlow-Kimball, and Kelley’s family. Kimball had drunk two rum cocktails before the encounter. And Kimball could have continued retreating, to his left or right on Honeycomb Drive, after backing up the full length of the bee farm sales shop’s driveway with trees behind him, Assistant Attorney General John Alsop said in his closing arguments.

The prosecutor brought up the fact that he had a reload with him, but we don't know what impact, if any, that it had on the jury. I suspect that the fact that he put himself in a situation he suspected would go bad and did not fulfill the state laws duty to retreat may have been the important factors.

If having a reload actually did give a DA a point to use against you, that would seem to give a 10 round+ auto an advantage over a wheelgun with no reload.

 

[2damnold4this]

Capacity is important but it isn't the only factor. My G26 carries twice the number of rounds that my 642 totes. I shoot the G26 better than the 642. It's easier to reload the G26 than it is the 642. But there are two things the 642 does better for me than the G26. The 642 is much easier to carry and draw from a pants pocket. In circumstances where I am limited to pocket carry, the 642 beats the G26 in both convenience and speed of employment. I can carry the G26 in a pocket but it's much more difficult and slower to employ. If I'm able to carry OWB, then the Glock gets the nod. But for pocket carry, the 642 wins due to speed.

Often while doing my job, I can carry the Glock OWB but most of the time it's pocket carry. That's why I concentrate my practice on the 642.

 

[OldMarksman]

The point on pocket carry is very well taken.

 

[44 AMP]

If having a reload actually did give a DA a point to use against you, that would seem to give a 10 round+ auto an advantage over a wheelgun with no reload.

So it might seem. However, 10+rounds in a magazine is illegal now, in some places, and even where it isn't "carrying enough ammo to kill a dozen people in a single clip!!!" would be "ammo" for that kind of prosecutor, anyway.

Reality is somewhere between "if you only have 6 shots, you'll DIE!" and "since I'll probably never use it, 6 is always more than enough" camps.

Combat and personal self defense are different things. Yes, there is a lot of overlap but they are not generally the same thing. Being equipped for combat, with the thought that it will also suffice for self defense has merit.

One seldom fails due to being over prepared.

However, one can also be well equipped for self defense, and be "combat suboptimal".

there is no winner in this debate, and very little changing of sides, or opinions. The only ones who would are those who very nearly failed with what they had (either kind) and then go with the other.

I do find it a bit curious that the folks who tell you do dump the revolver and get a hi-cap auto never seem tell you to get an auto that only holds 8 or 9 rounds. They are, apparently sub optimal, as well...

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by 44 AMP:

I do find it a bit curious that the folks who tell you do dump the revolver and get a hi-cap auto never seem tell you to get an auto that only holds 8 or 9 rounds. They are, apparently sub optimal, as well...

This post from three years ago, along with this one, told me a lot.

Should one not like the assumptions that John used, one can run the numbers with any set of assumptions.

Shortly after John posted that, I selected a compact 9MM with a capacity of 10+1. I liked the trigger and grip, and it compared favorably to the Model 642 in terms of dimensions.

Last summer, for reasons largely irrelevant to the discussion, I switched to the one I carry today, which holds 7+1.

It may well be "sub optimal"--I recently watched a simulated scenario in which it took a well known instructor ten shots to stop two armed robbers in a laser simulator--but it is my choice, based on what I consider an informed decision.

One of the things I hope, along with the hope that I never need to use it and the hope that I never harm an innocent with it, is that it will do the job.

I would never tell anyone else to get one.

There are those who really, really prefer revolvers to semi-automatic pistols. One possible strategy is to carry two of them.

While that might seem rather extreme at first, I wouldn't rule it out for myself. I think carrying a backup gun is prudent, for a couple of reasons.

 

[44 AMP]

There are those who really, really prefer revolvers to semi-automatic pistols. One possible strategy is to carry two of them

Carrying a "brace" of pistols probably started as soon as the first guy was able to afford two pistols. Two, then four (two on you, two on the horse), then 5 became "combat optimal" (#5 was often a smaller piece, emergency backup, concealed, if practical).

When the revolver arrives, one revolver replaces all these. Carrying a second revolver became the high point of firepower (combat optimal).

(note: I am using the phrase "combat optimal" to express an opinion, not necessarily my opinion. Used and quoted earlier in the thread, I am using "optimal" to refer to carrying the highest amount of rounds possible/practical by gun design. My use of the term is my snarky sarcastic commentary on today's techno-speak, and is not intended as any kind of insult, attack, or anything else on anyone who also uses the term.)

Heroes, villains, and some ordinary folk in the old west often carried two guns. Despite popular fiction, the second gun was most often a "reload". Real two gun mojo (using two pistols, accurately, at the same time) is a rare thing.

Not sure when having a second gun as backup got the name, but I hear it being called a "New York Reload" today.

You can go forth, armed like the hero in a bad post-apocalyptic adventure novel if you want, I won't stop you, nor will I even venture my opinion, unless asked. It's your business. But by the same token, please keep your opinion of my "combat load" to yourself, unless asked.

One of the fictional heroes "combat optimal" load outs was a pair of Detonics Combat Masters, in a double Alessi shoulder rig, a Milt Sparks Six pack (mag carrier), a Colt Python in a flap holster on his hip, and a Colt .38 snub in the small of his back, and a (Sykes-Fairbain?) commando knife. Plus a long gun (usually a CAR-15) and musette bag with spare mags.

His fights became virtual clichés, killing a few dozen bad guys (from spoiler biker gangs to surviving soviet spetznaz) running through all his guns and ammo, plus what he picked up from the downed bad guys, and killing the last two or three with his knife! Now THAT's entertainment!


(If I loaded like that, I probably would barely be able to walk...)

Figure the odds any way you want, and do what you think helps your chances. I won't pretend to understand the arcana of statistical analysis. I;m a simple guy, and I use simple numbers. In a gunfight, I figure the odds are 50/50. Either you win, or you don't. And to me, that depends more on what you DO than what the gun, caliber or number of rounds carried are.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by 44 AMP:

Not sure when having a second gun as backup got the name, but I hear it being called a "New York Reload" today.

Probably in police circles, don't you think? If the main carry weapon is lost....

I always thought carrying two guns for self defense was a bit over the top, but I started thinking about a second gun last year for two reasons, neither of which has to do with having more rounds; I do not always carry two, but I think is a good idea, if and when it is not overly burdensome.

The first reason (and this is not really in priority order) is accessibility in the driver's seat. I saw a piece in The Best Defense (the subject of which was really about not giving rides to strangers) in which a violent criminal actor hopped into the passenger seat of a car. It occurred to me that I would not be able to access my firearm with the seat belt fastened, and if I could, I would risk losing control of it. In the skit, the defender used his hands and a blade in the second, "successful" scenario. A vest pocket holster on the weak hand side works fore me.

There is a video on the web in which a survivor speaks of having had to defend himself with his handgun in a similar circumstance, said to have been real. He said he was lucky--the armed criminal was left handed, his gun hand was full, and he could not grab the defender's gun.

The second came to me when I was watching a video of a well known trainer demonstrating something about defensive shooting. His Glock pistol offered up an unscripted and unplanned failure to function during the video. He dropped the mag instantly and reloaded. I've trained in doing that, but I am nowhere near as fast. It occurred to me that I could get to a pocket revolver as quickly as another magazine.

Again, I do not do that all the time.

In a gunfight, I figure the odds are 50/50. Either you win, or you don't. And to me, that depends more on what you DO than what the gun, caliber or number of rounds carried are.

I see the odds differently, though I choose to not try to put a number on them, but yes, either you win or you don't, and yes, it depends much much more on the defender than on the gun.

 

[Limnophile]

The FBI, like all other law enforcement groups, and the military are composed of large numbers of people. The majority of which are not firearms enthusiasts. Many don't ever fire a weapon other than periodic qualification courses. And even skilled shooters miss under stress. Add them all together and the group rate for misses is abysmal.

The same applies to the group of civilian handgun carriers. Combat studies have shown time after time that the most important factor in combat success is combat experience, whether that combat be aerial dogfighting or infantry battles. Combat veterans have substantially higher success and survival rates. In lieu of combat experience it has been shown that realistic simulation exercises can impart significant knowledge to increase the effectiveness and survival rates among combat virgins, but there is nothing better than actual combat experience.

The FBI hit rate range of 20 to 30% includes virgin and veteran agents. Civilian self-defense encounters are, on average, likely to be shorter range affairs than law-enforcement encounters, because civilians are not charged with the responsibility of halting fleeing violent felons; but, most law-enforcement gunfights are also short-range incidents, so, in the absence of good data about civilian shootings, law-enforcement data are a credible surrogate.

For a civilian handgun carrier who has combat experience or who is a dedicated ethusiast who practices regularly and taken combat training or participates in combat games, the assumption of a 30% hit rate or better may not be arrogantly or recklessly unrealistic. For someone with no combat or training simulation experience it would be unwise to assume a hit rate better than 20%, and it might be wiser to assume one even lower.

If the miss rate for revolvers is 5 out of 6, how about some balancing information? What is the miss rate for hi-cap autos? 12 out of 15? more? less?

The LEO hit rate of 1 out of 6 (eg, 17%) is something I read in a gun magazine in the early 1980s. Because US law enforcement community began to switch to semiautos in the late 1980s, I believe the FBI-claimed hit rate of 20 to 30% (let's call it 25%) is applicable to semiautos. Actually, I doubt the platform makes much difference. If today's 25% average hit rate is really better than yesterday's 17%, I suspect the improvement is due to better training.

You can find a real world happening, or three to fit virtually any situation. So, yes, there is no argument that people have lost lives when their revolver ran dry. It has happened. It is also possible that in those cases the added rounds of a high cap auto might have made a difference.

We know it happens, sometimes, but I think it happens seldom. Otherwise, we'd hear about it, a lot more than we do. IF it was a constant and common thing, we'd hear about it, constantly. We don't. It is rare.

being killed because your auto pistol jammed, or ran dry happens, too. It is also a rare thing. We go to great lengths to ensure that rare thing isn't us, and for good reason.

OK, a revolver is sub-optimal (by round count) but sub-optimal is not the same as inadequate or ineffective. When the shooter does what they are supposed to do, revolvers still work. And when the shooter doesn't, extra rounds are not a guarantee. Nothing is.

The LAPD's 2009 report of officer shots fired that year can be found online. On a per-officer-per-incident basis, the average shots fired was 4.4, and the maximum shots fired was 18. About 24% of the time an officer fired more than 6 shots. Bear in mind these are shots fired per officer per incident. The LAPD patrols in teams of two, so I suspect that when one officer opens up his partner is often opening fire, too. Thus, the total shots fired by the good guys per incident are undoubtedly higher, which argues even more in favor of a high capacity semiauto, because civilians don't always travel in teams.

Whether a given handgun is adequate for the job or not is a function of not just the hit rate, but the effective hit rate (ie, the likelihood of a bullet striking vital tissues), the number of rounds available, and the desired number of effective hits.

 

[Limnophile]

I think the first few shots in a revolver or autoloader are likely to have more of an impact on a defensive encounter than a tenth or fifteenth shot.

The simplest way to model shooting success is to assume each shot is a Bernoulli trial with a fixed success (hit) rate and applying the binomial model with a calculator, such as this one: http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx. In the first box enter the fixed success rate; in the second enter the gun's capacity (number of rounds, with or without reloads, depending on what you want to know); in the third enter the number of successes (hits) you want to achieve. Of the five calculated results, the final box is the one of greatest interest -- the probability of achieving the desired number of hits or more.

Rather than each shot having an identical and independent likelihood of hitting its target, as the binomial model assumes, I suspect you may be right in that the first few shots may be important. In other words, combat shooting may exhibit a Markovian process. In other words, if the overall hit rate across a broad range of trained shooters is the FBI-specified 25% (taking the midpoint of their stated range of 20 to 30%), if the first shot is a miss, the second shot likely has a probability of less than 25% of hitting. Likewise, if the first shot hits, the likelihood of a hit on the second shot is likely greater than 25%. I know of no data to support this hypothesis, but I think it's a reasonable model, albeit more complex than the binomial model.

 

[Deja vu]

I carry 2 revolvers. My Primary is a &W 640 in 357 magnum with a small back up (NAA 22 short) they make a fun pair. I do occasionally have to go to more scary parts of town and that is when I also carry My Coonan in a shoulder rig with 4 back up magazines.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Limnophile:

...if the first shot is a miss, the second shot likely has a probability of less than 25% of hitting. Likewise, if the first shot hits, the likelihood of a hit on the second shot is likely greater than 25%. I know of no data to support this hypothesis, but I think it's a reasonable model, albeit more complex than the binomial model.

I don't think I agree. The target may be moving, and so may the defender.

But does it really matter? The comment was, "I think the first few shots in a revolver or autoloader are likely to have more of an impact on a defensive encounter than a tenth or fifteenth shot."

I can think of many reasons, not all of them objectively based, why I agree that.

Also, in a lawful defensive encounter, it would seem, at least to me, far fetched to expect a "tenth or fifteenth shot", at least in a case involving one or two attackers.

 

[44 AMP]

Just out of curiosity, how do your numbers handle the defensive shootings where a single round, or less than three, say, are fired, and 100% are hits?

And its done by people with little or no formal training?

Because it happens. A lot. Usually doesn't make the national news, unless something else about it catches the vultures' eyes. (like the Zimmerman case).

It is interesting, what people obsess over. One shot stops, overpenetration, magazine capacity, and a host of other things. Some of them are valid concerns for some people, for others, not so much.

There is another reason for having a back up handgun instead of a spare mag or speedloaders. And that is the plausible situation where you could lose control of your handgun. having a second gun, rather than just a reload could be important then.

 

[Limnophile]

the fact that he was carrying an extra mag was used by the prosecuting counsel as one means of establishing intent.

An allegation easily discredited by having a local LEO testify as to how many spare mags he carries daily with no intent of committing murder.