Why don't revolver carriers worry about capacity?

[J.G. Terry]

The reason that many people stay at 7 yards is that you can cover their groups at twenty-five yards with an average screen door.

Added: What if the bad guy is armed at 25 yards with an 870 12ga. with deer barrel with open sights? How about a Mini-14 at that range?

 

[Lohman446]

And just when "isnt" someone shooting at you from 25 yards not a threat? You really do have to wonder where some people's heads are sometimes?

That is a tremendous assertion for someone to have made. Maybe I missed it.

Who made that assertion?

 

[StihlKicking]

@Stihlkicking, interesting anecdote on using a handgun for dealing with putting down large livestock. When I was a kid sometimes we would watch them processing livestock and they always put them down with a single shot 22 RF using shorts and they would drop a cow or hog like a sack of potatoes. They just put the barrel a couple inches from them right between the eyes and that's all it took. My mom would send me there with a quart jar to collect pig blood for making Blood Klub, a Norwegian delicacy which is basically a dumpling made with blood. That's why I was present as things were taking place. They would pop the hog, hang it, slit it's throat and I would just fill the jar as the blood drained. I learned not to be squeamish at a pretty early age.

Yes .22 were used pretty extensively in slaughter houses where animals were to be bled. .22 would render an Animal unconscious then it’s throat would be swiftly cut to allow the heart to pump out as much blood as possible. The .22 was good for this purpose but not so good for cleanly killing an animal. Today the .22 has been largely replaced in slaughter houses with electric shock and the pneumatic hammer.

 

[Real Gun]

Maybe--sometimes.

But--if an attacker is closing at five meters per second at close range, and the small critical body parts are internal, invisible, moving , and will be struck only as a matter of probability and the number of rounds that enter the body, how could a revolver shooter be more "deliberate" and end up standing?

Maybe because he is not counting on so many chances. It can be surprising how fast one can think when firing.

 

[jackmoser65]

They problem is not the guns or how many rounds they hold. It's the mindset they create among those with little or no training. People whose only frame of reference is Die Hard or Call of Duty. Plus, they're fun! No on can deny that it's fun to shoot a 9mm pistol that holds 20 rounds. Then what happens at the range, happens in a violent confrontation. Magazines get dumped, accuracy goes out the window. When you only have five or six rounds you must be more deliberate.

 

[OldMarksman]

Maybe because he is not counting on so many chances.

The defender's expectations will not make any one apparently "good" hit any more likely to be strike a critical body part..

It can be surprising how fast one can think when firing.

Speed of cognition can help recognize the threat and lead to a faster draw, but it cannot make fewer hits more effective.

When you only have five or six rounds you must be more deliberate.

When you have only a second and a half available to you, deliberation is not an option.

 

[Real Gun]

Seems argumentative, more quibbles than compelling points. More important is what a person is willing to carry. I think a miniature semiauto is a disaster about to happen. I recall doing a bug gun stage once, instructed to fire 5 rounds as fast as possible. Having never practiced that, not getting a single hit at 10 feet with a PM40 was an eye opener for a number of reasons.

 

[CDR_Glock]

I understand that there has to be a mindset of situational awareness. Particularly important when it comes to being a concealed carrying citizen. However this all applies to whether one has a revolver or a semiautomatic.

Revolver carriers tend to be older, in my experience, amongst friends (45 and up).

Whatever someone chooses, it’s up to them to be prepared, trained and deal with whatever limitations that they have chosen.

I don’t think anyone should choose a system based upon what someone has posted on the internet. They should choose based upon where they live, what physical abilities or limitations they have, what they can afford financially to buy and train with, and what knowledge that they have.

Those who lack knowledge, training, proficiency, or money need to determine what they can work upon.

For me, I don’t care what people think about how I do it because in the end, I’m the one who will live or die by those consequences. However I’m very confident enough to understand what I can and cannot do.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Lohman446]

In his book "When violence is the answer" by Tim Larkin he shows an illustration of one person choking out another. He says he will ask his students what they would do in the situation. He gets a lot of answers as to how to combat a two handed choke. He goes on to write that after hearing the answers from around the room, some of which get rather inventive, he explains he would continue choking out the other individual which will normally result in their hands going up to your arms, and then step into it and use his legs and knees against an open midsection until he carried the choke onto the ground where it is more practical to crush important pieces in the throat.

Oh? You assumed you were the person being choked? Ehh... that is a problem. Conversely he notes that when he shows the same picture to violent criminal offenders or others where violence is part of the job most of the time the individuals identify with the person doing the choking and seldom see themselves as the victim.

Why is this important? Before I answer that let me be clear. Staying calm enough to be able to think things through, see as much of the situation as possible, and work your way through the issues are valid skills. BUT - your aggressor will already be in action. He or she will have already deliberated and made the decision that violence is the answer and, considering your use of deadly force, is using enough violence or the threat of enough violence to cause severe bodily harm. This is probably not your aggressors first use of violence.

Successful defense against anti-social violence (violence that requires a violent answer and cannot be answered through social means) almost always requires quick, decisive, and violent reaction that is able to overcome the action vs reaction problem present in any defensive situation. There is a very small amount of time for consideration of what action is appropriate.

 

[OldMarksman]

I think a miniature semiauto is a disaster about to happen.

I don't like them either.

I recall doing a bug gun stage once, instructed to fire 5 rounds as fast as possible. Having never practiced that, not getting a single hit at 10 feet with a PM40 was an eye opener for a number of reasons.

That is an extremely important drill to master.

With a BUG? That's tough. It is what led me to retire the snubbie for primary carry and carry a larger firearm with a better trigger.

 

[jackmoser65]

When you have only a second and a half available to you, deliberation is not an option.

Sure it is. You don't think there's a difference between deliberately placing a shot and just spraying bullets wildly? Isn't that why police miss over 90% of the time? There are no timers in gunfights and you can't miss fast enough to win one.

 

[Lohman446]

Sure it is. You don't think there's a difference between deliberately placing a shot and just spraying bullets wildly? Isn't that why police miss over 90% of the time? There are no timers in gunfights and you can't miss fast enough to win one.

Personally I am getting lost on the differences between deliberate action and deliberation. I know the difference and I recognize the rest of you do as well but I think the conversation is failing to consider it. Deliberately placing a shot is far different than standing in deliberation of what course of action is appropriate.

 

[JERRYS.]

Seems argumentative, more quibbles than compelling points. More important is what a person is willing to carry. I think a miniature semiauto is a disaster about to happen. I recall doing a bug gun stage once, instructed to fire 5 rounds as fast as possible. Having never practiced that, not getting a single hit at 10 feet with a PM40 was an eye opener for a number of reasons.

holy Toledo! what were you shooting at, a confession wafer?!

 

[OldMarksman]

Wan option is not .
Sure it [deliberation] is [an option when you have only a second and a half available to you]. I beg to differ.

"Deliberation", in this sence, means acting slowly and carefully.

You don't think there's a difference between deliberately placing a shot..

"Placing a shot " is not a prudent way to attempt a quick stop.

...and just spraying bullets wildly?

Who would recommend that?

Isn't that why police miss over 90% of the time?

No, and they don't.

The point here is that the defender will likely have very little time to strike the critical small targets hidden within the body of a fast-moving attacker.

One good hit might work, but it is ulikely, and the defender does not have the luxury of pausing to see if it worked. Two are better, three still better.... Most trained defenders, civilians and sworn officers alike , know to fire several shots in that second or second and a half, and they understand that not a lot precison will be helpful.

 

[StihlKicking]

Speed of cognition can help recognize the threat and lead to a faster draw, but it cannot make fewer hits more effective.

The only thing that makes fewer hits more effective is if said hits were fired from a heavy loaded magnum. [emoji3]

 

[Real Gun]

holy Toledo! what were you shooting at, a confession wafer?!

Yes, I thought it was pathetic and noted something I would need to work on. Keep in mind that a 40 S&W with the slightest of barrel and grip length is a little beast.

 

[J.G. Terry]

We were shooting two really solid magnum revolvers yesterday, along with other guns, with friends and family. How would you like to carry concealed an N frame Smith? My 29 is a great gun. Second quick shot in a crisis? The Smith 28 is more easily controlled. I'd say the smallest magnum revolver I'd have to do with is a K frame Smith.

My 19-5 is one of the most accurate handguns I have ever had. Starting to load these guns down defeats the purpose of having a magnum. I see tiny magnum revolvers as being no better or worse than miniature automatics.

The kids shot several hundred rounds of factory cartridges from my G23.4 without a bobble during the day. I contend that a quality auto beats a revolver every day for personal defense. It's not about the quality of the guns but the other features. These features, number of rounds carried plus speed of reloading, give the auto and undeniable edge.

 

[CDR_Glock]

We were shooting two really solid magnum revolvers yesterday, along with other guns, with friends and family. How would you like to carry concealed an N frame Smith? My 29 is a great gun. Second quick shot in a crisis? The Smith 28 is more easily controlled. I'd say the smallest magnum revolver I'd have to do with is a K frame Smith.



My 19-5 is one of the most accurate handguns I have ever had. Starting to load these guns down defeats the purpose of having a magnum. I see tiny magnum revolvers as being no better or worse than miniature automatics.



The kids shot several hundred rounds of factory cartridges from my G23.4 without a bobble during the day. I contend that a quality auto beats a revolver every day for personal defense. It's not about the quality of the guns but the other features. These features, number of rounds carried plus speed of reloading, give the auto and undeniable edge.

Shooting a 357 Magnum quickly isn’t hard.

These are my carry guns.

Then again, I can shoot a Ruger Alaskan 454 Casull or S&W 629 3” 44 Magnum quickly, also.

However, I’m also not the average shooter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[J.G. Terry]

Very nice custom revolver. I have shot several magnum revolvers. I stand by what I say about personal defense handguns. It's not about quality. It's about capacity and ease of reloading. Auto's rule. Is a 357 revolver a more or less effective handgun than a Glock 29 for personal defense?

Added: I am very ordinary and an average shot.

 

[CDR_Glock]

Very nice custom revolver. I have shot several magnum revolvers. I stand by what I say about personal defense handguns. It's not about quality. It's about capacity and ease of reloading. Auto's rule. Is a 357 revolver a more or less effective handgun than a Glock 29 for personal defense?

That can only be answered by the one who wields it for SD.

Knock on wood, I’ve never had to use one in my almost 50 years of life.

I have done many competitions and I can say that I remain calm and composed.

I have gotten into many confrontations but never had to draw.

I like to keep it that way, but I am confident of my abilities with such a light recoiling gun as these three.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro