OldMarksman
Staff
Fantasy, from reading too much fiction.
Why don't revolver carriers worry about capacity?
- Thread starter OhioGuy
- Start date
- Status
Trained police have a 30% miss rate is what I have read. I’m sure civilians have a lower percentage under stress.
The difference is someone is moving, you’re moving and the target is shooting back.
It’s totally different shooting at a stationary target.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
The difference is someone is moving, you’re moving and the target is shooting back.
It’s totally different shooting at a stationary target.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Cosmodragoon
New member
Well, we all hope nobody ever needs to defend themselves from violence. Let's all hope that he'll never have to defend himself against multiple attackers, never have some of those attackers right on top of him to mess up his unmissable aim, never gets injured in the course of defending himself, etc...
I agree it's fool hearty to expect to deal with the gravest extreme with one shot, even though that may indeed be all it takes. Nevertheless, a revolver often has six shots and sometimes more and they can be reloaded quite quickly.
Before I address the points I just brought up further, I want to point out that some FBI reports have asserted the miss rate for law enforcement is 80%, not just thirty. However, instead of embarking on an argument about "gunfight statistics," I want to point out that no civilian can afford that kind of miss rate. In fact, I would assert that we really, truly need a 100% hit rate. We especially need a 100% hit rate with the first shot, which might very well be the one most often missed.
Law enforcement and military have very different goals in the use of force compared to civilians, and they have very different parameters around the justification for the use of force. I'm not going to debate the differences, but I will assert that a civilian is foolish to accept anything but a 100% hit rate in an incident (admitting that survival without it is a better outcome than perishing), and a 100% hit rate in practice. I'm not talking about recreational plinking. If a person is not hitting the target every single time, they need to stop and fix that. They might just need to think about themselves for a moment, or they might need more training.
I realize that not everybody has a convenient means by which to practice diverse skills, but one should certainly attempt to train at moving targets (at least swingers and sliders) and with those that shoot back (Force on Force, simunitions etc.).
I've mentioned it in this thread already, but I believe a gun that gives the best opportunity for first shot hits is more important than one that gives a 10th, 15th, or 18th shot without reloading. That gun is not exclusively a revolver, but a revolver could very well be it, and I will even agree that a Single Action is viable as such but it also has obvious detractions.
The draw from the holster is probably the most time-consuming aspect of engaging a target, but it is not the most difficult to do correctly. The Single Action doubtfully adds any significant time to drawing as the hammer can be cocked one-handed at the #2 position, or by the support hand in #3 and cocking will almost always be completed before position #4 is reached. The most difficult aspect of engaging a target to do correctly is to obtain and maintain the sight or bore alignment on the target through the trigger press. In this, the single action is not at a disadvantage. Two things: first, the single action's lock time is longer and this must be accounted for. Good follow-through is not optional. Second, I still think mastering a double-action trigger is well worth it.
One of the most serious detractions for the SA is the extremely slow reloads. This isn't likely to be a problem in civilian incidents of violence where reloads are exceedingly rare, but it is a serious issue in training where reloads are very, very frequent. I have not found DA revolvers with speedloaders or moonclips to be at any meaningful disadvantage to detachable box magazine pistols in training. I have never seen a reputable school or trainer present a course of fire that a double-action revolver so-equipped could not keep up with.
Before I address the points I just brought up further, I want to point out that some FBI reports have asserted the miss rate for law enforcement is 80%, not just thirty. However, instead of embarking on an argument about "gunfight statistics," I want to point out that no civilian can afford that kind of miss rate. In fact, I would assert that we really, truly need a 100% hit rate. We especially need a 100% hit rate with the first shot, which might very well be the one most often missed.
Law enforcement and military have very different goals in the use of force compared to civilians, and they have very different parameters around the justification for the use of force. I'm not going to debate the differences, but I will assert that a civilian is foolish to accept anything but a 100% hit rate in an incident (admitting that survival without it is a better outcome than perishing), and a 100% hit rate in practice. I'm not talking about recreational plinking. If a person is not hitting the target every single time, they need to stop and fix that. They might just need to think about themselves for a moment, or they might need more training.
I realize that not everybody has a convenient means by which to practice diverse skills, but one should certainly attempt to train at moving targets (at least swingers and sliders) and with those that shoot back (Force on Force, simunitions etc.).
I've mentioned it in this thread already, but I believe a gun that gives the best opportunity for first shot hits is more important than one that gives a 10th, 15th, or 18th shot without reloading. That gun is not exclusively a revolver, but a revolver could very well be it, and I will even agree that a Single Action is viable as such but it also has obvious detractions.
The draw from the holster is probably the most time-consuming aspect of engaging a target, but it is not the most difficult to do correctly. The Single Action doubtfully adds any significant time to drawing as the hammer can be cocked one-handed at the #2 position, or by the support hand in #3 and cocking will almost always be completed before position #4 is reached. The most difficult aspect of engaging a target to do correctly is to obtain and maintain the sight or bore alignment on the target through the trigger press. In this, the single action is not at a disadvantage. Two things: first, the single action's lock time is longer and this must be accounted for. Good follow-through is not optional. Second, I still think mastering a double-action trigger is well worth it.
One of the most serious detractions for the SA is the extremely slow reloads. This isn't likely to be a problem in civilian incidents of violence where reloads are exceedingly rare, but it is a serious issue in training where reloads are very, very frequent. I have not found DA revolvers with speedloaders or moonclips to be at any meaningful disadvantage to detachable box magazine pistols in training. I have never seen a reputable school or trainer present a course of fire that a double-action revolver so-equipped could not keep up with.
Last edited:
I think it comes down to confidence.
Folks who have carried a familiar heavy caliber wheel gun or perhaps a 1911 aren't so worried about capacity as they have spent enough time with that gun they are dangerous with it.
Don't get me wrong,there is a lot to be said for 15 rds + in hand.
I certainly don't advocate for carrying a Single Action Revolver for self defense.
There are far better choices.
At the same time,if your Blackhawk has spent a lot of time in your holster,if you have fired it a lot, you just might have a lot of confidence in being able to draw,cock and fire ...and hit,very quickly.
While not the ideal combat weapon,a man with a Ruger Blackhawk or a Uberti SAA in his hand just might feel confident.
I get it,under stress,etc everyone is different. Plenty of armed confrontations ,including LEO'sresult in double stack mag dumps ,32 or 48 rounds fired and few if any hits.
But it would be a mistake to deny that some folks become very effective in a crisis. Some folks can hit you hard with a 357,a 44 or a 45 the first time they pull the trigger,and they KNOW they can.
I've experience my large caliber handgun be very effective at putting down big game.
To be sure,there ARE far better choices for conflict than my Super Blackhawk.
or even my 1911
But I'm pretty darn confident I'm armed when its in my hand
Folks who have carried a familiar heavy caliber wheel gun or perhaps a 1911 aren't so worried about capacity as they have spent enough time with that gun they are dangerous with it.
Don't get me wrong,there is a lot to be said for 15 rds + in hand.
I certainly don't advocate for carrying a Single Action Revolver for self defense.
There are far better choices.
At the same time,if your Blackhawk has spent a lot of time in your holster,if you have fired it a lot, you just might have a lot of confidence in being able to draw,cock and fire ...and hit,very quickly.
While not the ideal combat weapon,a man with a Ruger Blackhawk or a Uberti SAA in his hand just might feel confident.
I get it,under stress,etc everyone is different. Plenty of armed confrontations ,including LEO'sresult in double stack mag dumps ,32 or 48 rounds fired and few if any hits.
But it would be a mistake to deny that some folks become very effective in a crisis. Some folks can hit you hard with a 357,a 44 or a 45 the first time they pull the trigger,and they KNOW they can.
I've experience my large caliber handgun be very effective at putting down big game.
To be sure,there ARE far better choices for conflict than my Super Blackhawk.
or even my 1911
But I'm pretty darn confident I'm armed when its in my hand
Last edited:
Then you misread your source. It's more likely they said 30% hit rate, meaning they miss 70% of the shots fired in anger.. When I was in that business the hits/shots fired ratio varied from 20% to 25% over 30 years worth of LEO involved shootings I researched. This was for the 1960s, 1970s, & 1980s. They may be better now but I keep hearing about how poorly trained cops are and know that was the case for most agencies when I was wearing a badge.
Dave
2damnold4this
New member
There have been some very thoughtful posts in this thread.
My simple thoughts are that having more ammunition available without reloading is far better than not having enough. While there is likely a diminishing return when it comes to capacity, more is more. The importance of difference in capacity between having a five shot .38 J frame and a two shot .38 derringer is far greater than a fifteen shot G19 and a twelve shot G26. But capacity isn't free and a higher capacity firearm that doesn't get carried isn't as effective as the firearm that is carried.
While a violent attack by a single attacker is more than four times as likely as an attack by multiple attackers, the risk of multiple attackers isn't insignificant. I don't think it's unreasonable for a person to prepare for one attacker as that is by far the most likely scenario but it's also not unreasonable to prepare to defend against two or more attackers.
My simple thoughts are that having more ammunition available without reloading is far better than not having enough. While there is likely a diminishing return when it comes to capacity, more is more. The importance of difference in capacity between having a five shot .38 J frame and a two shot .38 derringer is far greater than a fifteen shot G19 and a twelve shot G26. But capacity isn't free and a higher capacity firearm that doesn't get carried isn't as effective as the firearm that is carried.
While a violent attack by a single attacker is more than four times as likely as an attack by multiple attackers, the risk of multiple attackers isn't insignificant. I don't think it's unreasonable for a person to prepare for one attacker as that is by far the most likely scenario but it's also not unreasonable to prepare to defend against two or more attackers.
Yes, that is what I meant. [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]
I just figure I’d hit people with one shot using this.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
It's a good point that if someone *needs* 10 rounds to end a conflict, then either all 10 went into attackers, or 9 of them went somewhere else -- and those 9 rounds could end up destroying the defender's (legal) life just as much as the attacker could have destroyed his actual life.
I just read an article yesterday through USCCA about how mass shooting incidents prove why it's never enough to carry anything with less than about 10 round capacity, and more if possible, preferably a double-stack gun with 15 rounds and then one OR TWO reloads. Just in case. So on that theory, we could potentially have a defender spraying up to 45 rounds of 9mm in the general direction of a mass shooter. That seems like it could turn the defender into a mass shooter himself!
Given the excellent points about the need for a defending civilian to achieve a 100% hit rate because the consequences of a miss are so high, it seems that the practical usage of any handgun is going to be at very short distances and against direct, immediate threats -- not sniping armed robbers from across the store, or shooters from across the quad.
That doesn't necessarily establish one capacity, caliber, etc. over another, but maybe it does afford us more perspective.
One point: the shooter in Dayton, OH was carrying a rifle and body armor. The whole attack was over in 60 seconds, he was taken down by multiple police, in a coordinated team who shot an awful lot of times -- and in fact, afterwards it turned out at least one civilian had been hit by LEO gunfire.
I don't think a civilian could have stopped that guy with any number of rounds in his single pistol.
I just read an article yesterday through USCCA about how mass shooting incidents prove why it's never enough to carry anything with less than about 10 round capacity, and more if possible, preferably a double-stack gun with 15 rounds and then one OR TWO reloads. Just in case. So on that theory, we could potentially have a defender spraying up to 45 rounds of 9mm in the general direction of a mass shooter. That seems like it could turn the defender into a mass shooter himself!
Given the excellent points about the need for a defending civilian to achieve a 100% hit rate because the consequences of a miss are so high, it seems that the practical usage of any handgun is going to be at very short distances and against direct, immediate threats -- not sniping armed robbers from across the store, or shooters from across the quad.
That doesn't necessarily establish one capacity, caliber, etc. over another, but maybe it does afford us more perspective.
One point: the shooter in Dayton, OH was carrying a rifle and body armor. The whole attack was over in 60 seconds, he was taken down by multiple police, in a coordinated team who shot an awful lot of times -- and in fact, afterwards it turned out at least one civilian had been hit by LEO gunfire.
I don't think a civilian could have stopped that guy with any number of rounds in his single pistol.
Are you utterly defenseless without your firearm, if it fails, or if you run out of ammunition?
If the answer is yes, for more reasons than one, this situation should be remedied if physically possible. The "21 foot rule", which has some interesting discussion in the tactics and training forum that indicate for a CCW holder the distance is actually greater, should be an eye opener and allow people to realize that not every attack is solved with a gun and even those that are may require a secondary skill set just to have time and ability to bring the firearm into play.
Running out of ammo should be inconvenient and may even be deadly. We are, in the end, all mortal. It should NOT result in sudden hopelessness and total inability to attempt to continue the defense.
If the answer is yes, for more reasons than one, this situation should be remedied if physically possible. The "21 foot rule", which has some interesting discussion in the tactics and training forum that indicate for a CCW holder the distance is actually greater, should be an eye opener and allow people to realize that not every attack is solved with a gun and even those that are may require a secondary skill set just to have time and ability to bring the firearm into play.
Running out of ammo should be inconvenient and may even be deadly. We are, in the end, all mortal. It should NOT result in sudden hopelessness and total inability to attempt to continue the defense.
J.G. Terry
New member
"You only need one round.."You guys are a piece of work. One round in the handgun...you gotta be kidding. It was a comment that was not serious. Personally, I can handle a single action with no problem. The ideal five shot revolver is, to me, is a handgun like the Charter Bulldog 44 Special. I have had two of those over they years. Also, I had one of the Charter's in 357 Magnum. There are more guns now like the Charter in the market now. I will stick with my G23.4 as it is reliable and accurate. I'm still looking for a G29 in 10mm.
Last edited:
Funny thing is this is my woods gun because I'm confused about what makes a woods gun and what makes a "urban" gun (my "every day" carry being a J frame). I like 11 rounds of 200 grain Underwood ammo on tap when hiking. Not a hopeless Hail Mary situation for bear (still a Hail Mary) but plenty of rounds should I run into a back of coyote. Interesting thing about the G29 - overall size wise it is EXTREMELY close to a G19.
OldMarksman
Staff
It's an important objective, but it does not really rise to the level of a need.
A defender would not be required to not use deadly force unless there is near certainty that all shots will strike the attacker.
The real reason for that is the beed for lawful justification--and that is a "need".
J.G. Terry
New member
Lousy shot?
The twenty-five yard effectiveness is the distance of a aisle in many stores. That point was made in reference to the recent Wallyworld shooting in this thread. I suspect that many folks who have marksman ship problems with this range, twenty-five yards, are challenged by seven yards.
My feeling are in the case of mass shooting where victims are being stacked up like cord wood is to do the best I can. I really like the way in defensive scenarios the good guy is assumed to be a lousy shot/marksman.
The twenty-five yard effectiveness is the distance of a aisle in many stores. That point was made in reference to the recent Wallyworld shooting in this thread. I suspect that many folks who have marksman ship problems with this range, twenty-five yards, are challenged by seven yards.
My feeling are in the case of mass shooting where victims are being stacked up like cord wood is to do the best I can. I really like the way in defensive scenarios the good guy is assumed to be a lousy shot/marksman.
OldMarksman
Staff
Why do you so suspect?
Personally, while seven yard drills were standard in old LEO shooting practice, I seriously doubt that that is a very realistic distance for lawful defensive shooting.
Take the time it takes to draw and fire one shot. On average, that means that a defender will not draw much before an attacker with a contact weapon is at a distance he can run in a second and a half, or a little more.
Say, twenty-one to twenty-five feet.
Much farther, and the lawful justification for drawing will likely be much in question.
Even an attacker armed with a handgun is unlikely to start shooting at twenty-five yards, or even seven. He is more likely to conduct an ambush from around a car or gas pump--close range--to surprise, and to try to successfully obtain cash or keys or a car.
The question, then, is about the distance at which the defender will start shooting.
Might not seven feet be much more reasonable? Or anywhere between five and ten?
At that distance, with the attacker moving at around five meters per second, the challenge is not really one of "marksmanship".
The challenge is to shoot the attacker as many times as it takes, in perhaps one second or a little more at best, while moving off-line.
Bullseye groups are not the objective--they would indicate that the defender iis shooting far too slowly.
J.G. Terry
New member
Seven Yards?
Oldmarksman, how long since you fired a handgun?
Added: The pseudo legal stuff falls apart when a person is confronted with a black rifle or shotgun. Where do you get some of your legal stuff. A reference would be nice. You are making assumptions that are hard to back up otherwise.
Oldmarksman, how long since you fired a handgun?
Added: The pseudo legal stuff falls apart when a person is confronted with a black rifle or shotgun. Where do you get some of your legal stuff. A reference would be nice. You are making assumptions that are hard to back up otherwise.
Last edited:
OldMarksman
Staff
The "legal stuff" never falls apart in a use of force incident.
In a successful legal defense of self defense case, the defender must meet all--ALL--of the requirements for lawful self defense--period. Fail on one, fail in the defense.
If an attacker employs a rifle, the defender may, depending upon the circumstances, reasonably react in a manner different from what would be reasonable if he or she were attacked by someone who is, or appears to be, carrying a knife or a handgun. And reasonableness is one of the required elements.
Of course, what is reasonable will be decided after the fact, by someone else.
Once the gun is drawn or fired, matters are no longer in the defender's hands
It is not a bad idea to be able to use a handgun at longer ranges, but since the need will arise much less frequently than a close range attack, that is not the scenario in which one would prudently devote much of his or her preparation.
From many sources, but I strongly recommend Massad Ayoob's Armed Citizens Rules of Engagement, a classroom course, and Andrew Branca's Law of Self Defense, a book and a course.
You seem to question the reference to seven yards. Look up Dennis Tueller and read about his work.
That distance has to do with an assessment of potential jeopardy, and it was not intended as a distance at which to shoot.
Rangerrich99
New member
"because you will run out of time before you run out of ammo."
For myself, mostly this.
Most of the time if I'm carrying a revolver, I'm carrying either my GP-100 or my S&W M69 in the woods. And yes, mostly I carry these revolvers as bear/mountain lion protection. And if I'm ever charged/ambushed by one these these animals, the odds of having enough time to draw, aim, and fire more than 5-6 rounds is basically slim and none.
So there's no need for 10+ rounds, or a reload or whatever. Aim as well as you can and put 5-6 rounds on target, and hope it's enough to stop/kill the thing in the 3-4 seconds before it grabs you or just runs you over.
Now, in town, sometimes I carry my dad's old S&W .38 642. And I still don't carry a speed-loader for it. It's my summer/day-time/low-threat environment pocket gun, basically. But yeah, if I were jumped by more than one armed guy, or a guy with a rifle, I'd probably be screwed. But any gun, even a low capacity revolver is still better than nothing. And in the right hands, in the right situations, it can still be very effective as a personal defense weapon. You're just not going to fire a lot of rounds in the process.
For myself, mostly this.
Most of the time if I'm carrying a revolver, I'm carrying either my GP-100 or my S&W M69 in the woods. And yes, mostly I carry these revolvers as bear/mountain lion protection. And if I'm ever charged/ambushed by one these these animals, the odds of having enough time to draw, aim, and fire more than 5-6 rounds is basically slim and none.
So there's no need for 10+ rounds, or a reload or whatever. Aim as well as you can and put 5-6 rounds on target, and hope it's enough to stop/kill the thing in the 3-4 seconds before it grabs you or just runs you over.
Now, in town, sometimes I carry my dad's old S&W .38 642. And I still don't carry a speed-loader for it. It's my summer/day-time/low-threat environment pocket gun, basically. But yeah, if I were jumped by more than one armed guy, or a guy with a rifle, I'd probably be screwed. But any gun, even a low capacity revolver is still better than nothing. And in the right hands, in the right situations, it can still be very effective as a personal defense weapon. You're just not going to fire a lot of rounds in the process.
Last edited:
- Status