[Amadeus]

Oh BOO HOO! I hurt my wittle finger. I know I know. I'm whining. So here's what happened.

It's been too long since I've rolled out my revolvers. I've been running the 9mm as a primary range gun and I wanted to return to my shooting roots. Today's range trip reminded me how visceral an experience it is to shoot wheelies. And how humbling it can be if one is out of practice.

I wanted to keep my kit basic. So I showed up with two revolvers and a Remington 870. The shotgun was so I could get in a little thunder therapy. My friends pulled up with over 2000 rounds of ammo, HKs, ARs, XDs, Glocks, a Saiga, a Winchester pump with side-saddle and fore-arm light and enough kydex to clog a plastic factory.

So here I am with a couple of stainless steel wheelies and an out of the box pump with factory extension, a couple boxes of shells and 200 rounds of .38 special. There they are with side-saddles, headlights, red dot sights and everything looking super-dooper-uber-tactical.

I just wanted to practice a little, get the feel for revolvers again. My companions are running and gunning, pulling multiple target engagement drills, body indexing, 360 degree threat checks and the like. I'm versed in those moves too so I'm not cracking on it. We are all instructors so today wasn't just some pointless testosterone fest. We were all having fun and my friends were actually practicing for.....something. But I was feeling very undergunned.

I was struggling to get re-accustomed to the revolver trigger. I cut my teeth on revolvers. A revolver was my first gun. I was good with them, once. But I was disaster today. I was short stroking the trigger on the reset and I was launching far too many fliers. The recoil felt sharp and uncomfortable compared to the semi-auto I'm now used to using. I couldn't get a consistent grip on the gun and I even made the stupid mistake of grabbing the hot cylinder during a reload resulting in a mildly cooked finger. Well. Not cooked, just a small blister. So by the end of the day I was feeling a little disenchanted.

I really wanted to return to the revolver as my primary self defense gun. I really wanted to rekindle my love for the wheelie, but it kicked my ass and left me feeling very undergunned when compared to the blacktical rackinbangers.

I know deep down a revolver can be effective for defense. But can it holds its own against new technology? Is it worth it trying to regain that connection I had with my revolver? Are the rewards worth renewed revolver practice? Or is the wheelie just no match for 21st century hardware?

I'm going to go ice my finger now.

[BikerRN]

I too started on Revolvers and at work I carry the "bottomfeeder" they issue me.

I have come back to the revolver over the last year for a couple of reasons. One, the ammo range is greater than in any autoloader. Two, It's simple to use but harder to master. I like to master things. :)

The revolver is a "throwback" to another era and I carry them also for nostalgic reasons. If I use a gun Off-Duty it will be in the same capacity as a Non-LEO using one in defense of their life, or life of a loved one. For seeking out and engaging Bad Guys I think the autoloader is a better choice. For defensive purposes I think you are well served with either.

I have found that revolvers "point" better for me and I shoot them just a little better. That is my main reason for packing a pair of wheelies. Also, if I have to go to court I just think a DAO Revolver looks better to a "liberal" jury over a Glock.

Biker

[pinkymingeo]

This topic comes up again and again. IMHO one isn't better than the other. Each has advantages and disadvantages, but they're about equally effective for personal defense in the hands of a trained shooter. Matter of personal preference.

[The_Shootist]

I just find that that its faster to draw from the pocket with a snubby than to clear leather from the belt (IWB) with my 1911 or G19. If tou have a 1-2 opponents and its important to get the first shots in (or...indeed...just present the gun) then a revolver will be fine.

But I guess if Murphy is active and you're in the midst of 3 and up opponents a revolver could be dicey. But it seems like the probability of that for civilian SD purposes is low.

[Stainz]

My years of case-tosser use ended when I bought a Ruger BH .45 convertible to use up my leftover stash of .45 ACP's left by my sale of my G21. It had been an experience - never choked like old 1911's - just felt toy-like, despite the +2 extenders giving the mags 15 rd capacity. It was very dependable - and more accurate than any 1911 I had ever shot. But, it had no character... and it was too big to carry. The disgruntled postal employee I sold it to had a strange, almost evil, smile when he left. A pair of AMT DAO Backups in .45 remained - for a while. It's been over five years since my wife shocked me with my first S&W revolver - a new 625MG in .45 Colt. Life changed... I 'went towards the light'... found the bliss - the purity - of the 'round' gun.

Okay, so I like revolvers! As a civilian, the 5,6,7, or 8 round capacities of mine make little matter to any common threat I am likely to encounter. My pocketed 642 - or 296 (.44 Special) - only carries five rounds. I doubt I would ever need the reloads I carry. As a civilian, the probability of facing hordes of evil-doers is low - and I don't believe in zombies (Okay, there is Mrs. Clinton...). I agree with what biker said... they just feel more natural 'in my hand' - and I certainly am more precise with them, too. Of course, what would you expect here in a revolver sub-forum?

Stainz

[Rexster]

I am more likely to have fliers with autos, and I have cooked myself with autos, so I don't see this as a revolver-vs-autoldoader thing, but as a familiarity thing. Wanna cook yourself? Get an HK P7, shoot a few mags through it, and touch the frame in front of the trigger guard! :eek:

[armoredman]

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b13/armoredman/PICT0257.jpg

I wouldn't feel underarmed with the above Smith 10-8 38 Spl. I can hit whatever I aim at with that revolver. I printed a 3 inch group DA at 25 yards with the Winchester 38 +P LSWCHP rounds I use for SD, so I really don't worry too much.

[pinkymingeo]

I sometimes think we all watch too many "Star Wars" episodes and play too many video games. In the real world, if you're confronted with 3-4 armed BG's, they win and you lose. Doesn't matter how many reloads you have. Unlike in the Westerns, they don't always miss. The good guys lose as often as they win. Real world accounts of gunfights carry the same message. Everything goes wrong. All plans collapse. Spray&pray hurts the furniture, walls and landscape, but does nothing to stop the BG's. A single bullet properly placed will end the fight, pretty much regardless of caliber and fpe. Multiple hits in the wrong places have little effect. For self-defense in the real world, doesn't matter whether you use a semi or revolver. What matters is that you stay calm, aim, and make your first shot count.

[Majic]

Stainless steel revolver shooting .38 spl and the recoil was uncomfortable even comparing it to a 9mm?
Are the rewards worth renewed revolver practice? Or is the wheelie just no match for 21st century hardware?
Sounds like there was nothing wrong with the hardware, but there is some serious problems with the software.

[Walkalong]

but there is some serious problems with the software.

I really like my 3" CDP and I shoot it well and fast, but I would feel almost as good with my 696 on board. Ditto a Security Six with moderate .357 loads.

[FLORIDA KEVIN]

sounds like you have the same problem I have ! It is not the gun it is the loose nut behind the trigger !:D Seriously i have found that I do not shoot my autos as well as I can (at least for a couple of rounds ) when I have been shooting my revolvers! and vice versa ! The manual of arms for each is different the trigger pull is different and the grip is different ! I can or at least feel that I can pick up any of them and defend myself ! If you are carrying either you are in good shape ! enjoy your wheel guns ! and don't sweat the tech !:D

[FerFAL]

Are the rewards worth renewed revolver practice? Or is the wheelie just no match for 21st century hardware?

No, there’s not. For defense the wheel gun is no match for a service auto, like it or not. Almost 3x more ammo, shorter trigger pull, shorter bore axis distance that translate into better control during fast shooting drills.
There’s only one Jerry Jerry Miculek out there, the rest of us mortals do better with autos. That’s why most professionals both military and police, almost all students you meet during defensive shooting classes use autos.
I’ll now put on my flame suit and wait for the old farts and nostalgia fans to burn my guts. :D

FerFAL

[Amadeus]

Stainless steel revolver shooting .38 spl and the recoil was uncomfortable even comparing it to a 9mm? ... Sounds like there was nothing wrong with the hardware, but there is some serious problems with the software.

I agree it's a software issue. Nevertheless, I was perceiving a sharper recoil from the revolver compared to the 9mm. Partially because the revolver does not soak up the recoil like a semi-auto does. There is also a higher bore axis on the revolver and lastly, if you look at my original post you'll notice that I was having trouble maintaining a proper grip on the gun simply because I'm no longer used to the ergonomics. I am sure that this contributed to the recoil.

[BullfrogKen]

FerFAL said: For defense the wheel gun is no match for a service auto

Software, not hardware.


Revolvers have advantages. They are more reliable, especially in the hands of those who don't train much, or even at all. They are much more reliable than their short-slided auto-loader counterparts.


A revolver in the hands of a well-trained individual is not undergunned at all. Even up against 3-4 assailants, being outnumbered means nothing without mindset. They've got to be committed. When the fight begins, and its clear the fight is going to turn lethal, only the most committed will stick around.


I'm neither an old fart, nor into handguns for nostalgia. I'm into them for their practical uses.

[Nameless_Hobo]

If I recall correctly, most defense shootings are over within 2-3 shots. Ammunition capacity and reloads matter little, unless you're in pitched combat, and then you should be behind cover, so reload time matters little.

I think we get to caught up in the tactical side of things, the posibility of you having to battle more than 4 bad guys that won't scatter when you put one or two down is very small. If they do choose to fight back, you're screwed if you have a Glock 21 or a S&W.

[FerFAL]

BullfrogKen wrote:
Software, not hardware.


Revolvers have advantages. They are more reliable, especially in the hands of those who don't train much, or even at all. They are much more reliable than their short-slided auto-loader counterparts.


A revolver in the hands of a well-trained individual is not undergunned at all. Even up against 3-4 assailants, being outnumbered means nothing without mindset. They've got to be committed. When the fight begins, and its clear the fight is going to turn lethal, only the most committed will stick around.


I'm neither an old fart, nor into handguns for nostalgia. I'm into them for their practical uses.
Hey, if you can keep cool and shoot each attacker once being completely sure that that lone round will get the job done ( head shot?) with four other guys shooting back at you, you don’t need a fridge because you sure can freeze stuff by touching it! :D
I assume you carry a revolver for SD, do you assist classes with it? Don’t you feel you are undergunned, at least in the firepower department, when compared to those with autos? Last but not least, why did every police department around the world, every country’s military force, from the guy in blue to specialized SWAT or special forces units, why did ALL of them move to autos is they are not the clear better choice?
I like revolvers a lot, posted some pics of my new wheel guns here, and they have a place, mostly in the snub gun category or as house guns ( when dealing with 2 legged critters), not to mention the great service they provide as hunting and trail guns, but I don’t kid myself into thinking that it compares to modern autos when it comes to self defense.

As you say, they are excellent alternatives for people that don’t train much, and an experienced revolver operator is no joke. But all other things being equal, with equally well trained and motivated persons, don’t you think that a high capacity auto, in a respectable caliber ( say .40, which holds even better stopping power than the venerable 357 magnum, according to Ed Sanow’s research), is a better weapon for self defense?
And yes, mindset IS important when facing 3-4 assailants on your own. Odds aren’t very promising but people do manage to fight back ( killing or turning them away) and most of the time high capacity and the ability to put some constant rounds down range, “suppressive fire” if you want, is important in the outcome.
It’s hard to keep a positive mindset when you run out of ammo 3 times faster than the other guys, the 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 odds are bad enough.

FerFAL

[FerFAL]

Nameless_Hobo wrote:
If I recall correctly, most defense shootings are over within 2-3 shots. Ammunition capacity and reloads matter little, unless you're in pitched combat, and then you should be behind cover, so reload time matters little.

I think we get to caught up in the tactical side of things, the posibility of you having to battle more than 4 bad guys that won't scatter when you put one or two down is very small. If they do choose to fight back, you're screwed if you have a Glock 21 or a S&W.That number can vary, has been around for what? 40 years now?, and I’m sure it has varied a LOT in recent years.
These days, at least in my country, the average gunfight ( real gunfights, not some homicide where a single round is fired in the back of a poor guy’s head, or an unarmed person murdered by some burglar, which I don’t consider gunfights) involves from 10 to 15 rounds average. I’m not pulling that number out of my rear end, those are the numbers handled by the guys that train our local Buenos Aires police. The words most witnesses use when interviewed after gunfights are “ It was like a war zone” when describing the shots being fired.

FerFAL

[FerFAL]

BullfrogKen wrote:
Software, not hardware.
Sort of …
You can’t design a building using a 286 personal computer that can barely run DOS. :evil:

FerFAL

[ArchAngelCD]

I carry a S&W Snub nose for SD and when I feel the need for more firepower, like in the woods, I carry a 4" .357 Magnum. I don't feel under gunned when carrying either. A well placed .38 Special +P round will beat 10 .40 S&W Auto rounds if they are shot spray-&-pray. (IMO of course)

[Amadeus]

You can’t design a building using a 286 personal computer that can barely run DOS

Oh. Hm. I guess you're right. But now I'm confused. How did they design and the Taj Mahal, the Empire State Building, the Tower of London, the Vatican and the pyramids?

Software first.

[deputy tom]

Amadeus,you answered your own question in the second paragraph.Get out and practice with your revolver and your confidence will improve along with your ability.You,being an Instructor should know this,right??YMMV.tom.:cool:

[FerFAL]

ArchAngelCD wrote:
I carry a S&W Snub nose for SD and when I feel the need for more firepower, like in the woods, I carry a 4" .357 Magnum. I don't feel under gunned when carrying either. A well placed .38 Special +P round will beat 10 .40 S&W Auto rounds if they are shot spray-&-pray. (IMO of course)

Why is it that the guy with the .40 has to be an idiot that can’t use his weapon properly? How about “well trained 6 shooter user compared to equally well trained high cap. auto user” for a change?

FerFAL

[FerFAL]

Amadeus wrote:
Oh. Hm. I guess you're right. But now I'm confused. How did they design and the Taj Mahal, the Empire State Building, the Tower of London, the Vatican and the pyramids?

Software first.
All marvelous constructions. But that doesn’t change what I said. You cant run CAD software on an old personal computer, hardware limits the software you can run. Same happens with hand tools, some tools are capable of certain things, some are not. While a revolver may be capable of great accuracy and pack a nice punch, a 15+1 big bore auto it is not.

FerFAL

[Prince Yamato]

Just a point of interest.

A 1911 with a standard magazine has 7 shots.

A good number of revolvers are 7 shots (and one S&W has 8).

Given a choice between the two, I'd pick the revolver. Why?

Can anyone recall an actor in a movie from the 1950s or earlier saying, "the gun is jammed?" :D

[mavracer]

How about “well trained 6 shooter user compared to equally well trained high cap. auto user” for a change?
they're both welcome on my team.But, FerFAL is ultamatly correct.I would be curious to know when Miculek last won a stage overall in a major, because as freekishly great he is hes no match for the great ones and their auto chuckers.I still am going to run around my home town with a 5 shot J frame most of the time.but I live in a town just voted by Goodhousekeeping as one of the 10 best places to raise kids.I can't remeber the last time shots were fired.now when I go into the city I carry 2 revolvers or my HK P7 and a seecamp.

[mavracer]

Can anyone recall an actor in a movie from the 1950s or earlier saying, "the gun is jammed?"
thats because its not in the scrip ITS A MOVIE

[springmom]

You know, I think the problem is twofold. One, you haven't practiced with these for a long time. Why did you think that you would be as good today as you used to be when you did it all the time? If you played high school football or basketball, do you think you could get out there now and do just like you did back then? It's been awhile and you're out of practice. Go back and do that 200 rounds three times a week for a couple of months and then come back and tell us if it's still kicking your ass. I bet it won't be. ;)

Second problem....you're comparing apples and oranges. Your feeling "undergunned" had as much to do with the sheer amount of the STUFF they brought as anything. Besides, they had AR's and HK's and such and, um, yeah, if you have to go up against a bunch of guys with AR's and you have a wheelgun, well, yes, you are now officially undergunned. :neener:

You're fine. You just need practice to get back to first rate form with the revolver. That, and friends who shoot revolvers when you do :D

Springmom

[S&Wfan]

I would be curious to know when Miculek last won a stage overall in a major, because as freekishly great he is hes no match for the great ones and their auto chuckers.

Hi,

Jerry won the 1997 American Handgunner World Shoot-Off . . . against all the top 1911 shooters that year . . . using a S&W wheelgun! IIRC, his final opponent was Rob Leatham that year, but it may have been one of the other top two or three from that era.


Like us all, Jerry is getting a year older . . . every year. Still, this was a stunning development on a competition long ruled by the mighty 1911.

T.

[BullfrogKen]

FerFAL said: I assume you carry a revolver for SD, do you assist classes with it?


I carry whatever is appropriate at the time. Its ranged from a completely custom build 1911 in 9x23 or .45 ACP to J frames and Colt D frames. And yes, I assist in classes with it. I've shot NTIs with it.


Don’t you feel you are undergunned, at least in the firepower department, when compared to those with autos?

Nope.

Last but not least, why did every police department around the world, every country’s military force, from the guy in blue to specialized SWAT or special forces units, why did ALL of them move to autos is they are not the clear better choice?

You'll have to ask them. Much of it had to with politics, pricing, service and repair costs, and a whole host of other back door, behind the scenes reasons you'll never see discussed on the pages of American Handgunner or Guns and Ammo.


Since when did an army last fight wars with handguns? Or rifles even? Armies stopped fighting wars with handguns about the same time the mounted calvary units became obsolete. Yeah, revolvers are obsolete in war. So are handguns in general. In my entire time in the Marines I only had a handgun issued to me for a total of about 6 months, and I was an infantryman.


Why would it matter to me what the police, or SWAT, or the military chooses as handguns? Their mission is different. Their needs are different. What is appropriate for them may or may not have any bearing on what it appropriate for me. And besides that . . . almost without exception the individual members of those organizations do not get to choose their own equipment. If you asked them what they wanted, you'd find reponses ranging from highly opinionated to ambivalent - "whatever tool you give me I'll make work".


FerFAL said:But all other things being equal, with equally well trained and motivated persons, don’t you think that a high capacity auto, in a respectable caliber ( say .40, which holds even better stopping power than the venerable 357 magnum, according to Ed Sanow’s research), is a better weapon for self defense?

The differences between calibers are so negligible as to not even matter. All service caliber handgun rounds are marginally effective at best. All of them. So, no. I don't buy into the Sanow research. And no, I think a well-trained, motivated person will focus on how to get the job done, not get wrapped up around the tool he's given to do it.

[RPCVYemen]

In the real world, if you're confronted with 3-4 armed BG's, they win and you lose. Doesn't matter how many reloads you have.

What? Inject reality into a "but I can carry more rounds" argument? :)

Oddly enough, in all the years I have read "Armed Citizen", I don't remember very many where the citizen successfully held off more than one or two armed BGs. My memory must be bad - I forgotten all the successful fire-fights engaged in by citizen homeowners.

Mike

[BullfrogKen]

FerFAL said: You cant run CAD software on an old personal computer, hardware limits the software you can run.

Its interesting you choose that example to bolster your point . . .

Sometimes the tool limits your mind.


I've worked in the engineering industry for a decade. We've seen engineers who've never done any designing on paper, and without AutoCADD, or a similar program, are unable to be productive.


The hardware limits the worldview. If in your mind, the higher capacity of an auto-loader matters that much, then you're going to approach a problem a lot differently than the fella who doesn't care about the tool. You're going to miss opportunities because your mind looks at the world based upon your tool. If you feel that if you don't have that tool with you to solve the problem you're going to be undergunned, you're trained yourself to be dependent upon it.


You've limited your own mind.


There are advantages to revolvers, and disadvantages to auto-loaders. You don't see them because you value ammo capacity highly.

[FerFAL]

In the real world, if you're confronted with 3-4 armed BG's, they win and you lose. Doesn't matter how many reloads you have.What? Inject reality into a "but I can carry more rounds" argument?

Oddly enough, in all the years I have read "Armed Citizen", I don't remember very many where the citizen successfully held off more than one or two armed BGs. My memory must be bad - I forgotten all the successful fire-fights engaged in by citizen homeowners.

Mike
The world I live in is very real, and here many people did in fact defend themselves successfully against large numbers of attackers, 4-6, and managed to either fend them off or even kill most of them.
Chances are of course NOT in your favor, but it’s better than plan B ( curling up into fetal position sucking your thumb and hoping for the best :D ) and under those circumstances having higher magazine capacity may be the difference between life and death.
Saw a guy once walk into a gunshop and put his 357 magnum over the counter, said he wanted to trade for a high capacity auto. He had been in a shooting recently and said that he ran out of ammo too fast, and since he was driving ( chased by bad guys, thieves, would be kidnapers or God knows what) said his gun dried up in a couple of seconds, he was holding an empty gun while the others kept of shooting, probably totting Hi Powers like so many criminals do here.
There was this forensic doctor that was ambushed by some hitmen as he exited a restaurants, 5 or 6 guys. He packed a Glock 22. They killed him, but he managed to kill 4 guys and wound another one.
A kid in Mar del Plata, 18 years old if I remember correctly, grabbed dad’s Taurus .40 S&W when he saw through the window as one of the 3 robbers grab his mother and force their way into the house. The kid killed the 3 of them, who were later found to be cops. I’m sure the extra ammo made the difference.
Things like these don’t happen in your corner of the world ? Hurray for you, but it is in these cases where you see how higher capacity does come in VERY handy.

FerFAL

[armoredman]

Yes, FerFAL, those things don't normally happen in the US. Yes, they still could happen. Yes, there could be a situation, like in Tucson some time ago, where someone is facing multiple attackers, and needs much more ammo. And yes, statistically speaking, you are much more likely to not need more than 1-3 rounds. I carry an auto with 15 rounds in it, but I have, so far, not needed one of them. I also have that laser straight thirty eight, and would not feel badly underarmed with a 6 shot wheelgun. I would'nt mind the seven or eight shot wheelie, but with 6, a speedloader or two, and lots of practice with them, (I carried a wheelgun professionally for a few years, and practiced a LOT.), I don't feel badly at all.
To each his/her own, the beauty of a free country, and the hundreds of differant choices available to you.

[BullfrogKen]

If I lived in such a country, and had no way to leave such despicable living conditions, I'd do my best to arrange my life to have a long gun with me, not a handgun - of any type.


In conditions that bad, I'd do my damnedest to get out. Living in an area where I need an auto-loader just to keep up in the weekly firefight is not my idea of "keeping up with the Joneses".

[FerFAL]

BullfrogKen wrote:
Its interesting you choose that example to bolster your point . . .

Sometimes the tool limits your mind.

Yes, this IS very interesting. :D
I’m a few months away ( hopefully less than 6 ) from getting my Architecture diploma. I’ve been using Autocad for almost 10 years, added 3D StudioMax some time ago too. I’m actually using CAD right now, both drawing the plans and making the 1:200 model of a building( cardboard & plastic) at the same time. Sometimes I move something on the model because it looks better and put that into the plans and vice versa.
You have to understand that each tool has it’s place and learn to use the right tool for the right job.
“I've worked in the engineering industry for a decade. We've seen engineers who've never done any designing on paper, and without AutoCADD, or a similar program, are unable to be productive.”
It happens, yes. I’ve been teaching Architecture Representation ( free hand sketching mostly ) for 3 years now, in the same University where I’ll be graduating soon, and I have this same problem. Guys that want to be Architects that cant draw with pen and paper.

“The hardware limits the worldview. If in your mind, the higher capacity of an auto-loader matters that much, then you're going to approach a problem a lot differently than the fella who doesn't care about the tool. “
An operator that doesn’t care about the tool he uses is a poor operator indeed.
“You're going to miss opportunities because your mind looks at the world based upon your tool. If you feel that if you don't have that tool with you to solve the problem you're going to be undergunned, you're trained yourself to be dependent upon it.”
I don’t depend on it, as in depending on 15+1 to actually hit something, 1 out of every 3 rounds fired only hitting the mark. But I also know that if I fire 1 round every second or two keeping some SOB heads down, I know that my Glock will buy me 15 to 30 seconds, while my little Detective will only get me 6 to 12. I know that if I manage to get a good shot at my target, I can afford the peace of mind of shooting each guy 2 or 3 times without worrying about running out of ammo. Just to name a few examples.

“There are advantages to revolvers, and disadvantages to auto-loaders. You don't see them because you value ammo capacity highly.”
Oh, I see them all clearly, including the autos advantages and the revolvers disadvantages.
First, I want to hit what I’m aiming at, with follow up shots being as quick as possible. Personally I can manage this better with autos, as do most people. My revolvers point shoot nicely but I still prefer autos for fast and accurate shooting.
Second, I want the round I’m firing to be powerful. 357 magnum is as good as it gets, 357 SIG and 40 S&W being just as good, even premium 9mm +P would be ok in my book. Since both autos and revolvers are chambered in effective rounds, this point is not worth discussing much.
Revolvers have better reliability when it comes to ammo malfunction, but practicing a few drills makes solving FTF a matter of a second or two.
Capacity? Well, we wont go through that again. Even a 1911 with 8+1 rounds has 50% more firepower than a six shooter. I’m not “blinded” by high capacity in any way, but I choose to prepare for worst case scenarios, which in my case includes car chases and possible kidnapping attempts. Again, it’s a pretty messed up situation with awful odds, but one where I’d rather have 15+1 rounds to help me our rather than just 6.

FerFAL

[FerFAL]

BullfrogKen wrote:
If I lived in such a country, and had no way to leave such despicable living conditions, I'd do my best to arrange my life to have a long gun with me, not a handgun - of any type.


In conditions that bad, I'd do my damnedest to get out. Living in an area where I need an auto-loader just to keep up in the weekly firefight is not my idea of "keeping up with the Joneses".
I’m working on that, but for now I don’t have a choice, and long arms are not an option either. That’s why I have to make the most of my handgun.

FerFAL

[BullfrogKen]

FerFAL said: An operator that doesn’t care about the tool he uses is a poor operator indeed.

The next time I see them I'll be sure to tell those fellas that they're poor practitioners, then.


The majority of us don't get involved in firefights. The majority of criminal initiated encounters don't turn into firefights even when guns get fired.


Can you think of any benefits of the revolver, besides the fact that a failure to fire doesn't stop the gun, and that the feeding step isn't part of the firing process?

[Feanaro]

Jerry won the 1997 American Handgunner World Shoot-Off . . . against all the top 1911 shooters that year . . . using a S&W wheelgun! IIRC, his final opponent was Rob Leatham that year, but it may have been one of the other top two or three from that era.

I saw a video of Jerry winning the 2007 American Handgunner World Shootoff . Just pure shooting skill. Fun to watch.

But Jerry didn't have to reload during his strings and he wasn't using a six-shooter. He shot the 2006 IDPA Nationals in ESR, came in 20-45 seconds slower than the top auto-loaders('cept CDP, about 6 seconds difference). Jerry is very skilled... and one of a kind. The fellow who placed 3rd in ESR was 80 seconds behind him and 20 secnds behind the lowest shooting Master in SSP. The Bianchi Cup, a place where the revolver was a mainstay, is mostly dominated by the autochucker now.

The revolver is clearly inferior unless you don't have to reload, even when wielded by the best revolver shooter in the world. Inferior for gun games, that is. ;) They still serve quite nicely outside of that. Now, I gotta go surf gunbroker so I can drool over some S&Ws.

[FerFAL]

BullfrogKen wrote:
The next time I see them I'll be sure to tell those fellas that they're poor practitioners, then.
Do tell them, please. If he truly “doesn't care about the tool” as you said, he sure is a bad operator, no doubt about that.
The majority of us don't get involved in firefights. The majority of criminal initiated encounters don't turn into firefights even when guns get fired.
Sure, odds of you getting into a gunfight are small, ( though that varies significantly depending on location) even when confronted by bad guys, they choose to leave rather than risk getting shot most of the time, happened to me on several occasions. That does not mean I’ll go around with an empty gun, just because 80% or 90% of the time no shots need to be fired. I prepare for the 10 or 20% where you do need to fire, and out of that 10-20% y arm myself worrying about that other % where more than 6 rounds would be required.

Can you think of any benefits of the revolver, besides the fact that a failure to fire doesn't stop the gun, and that the feeding step isn't part of the firing process?
Indeed. Too many to list now, but being the best option for defense when all you can carry is a handgun is not one of them.
Here's a pic of some of my revovlers http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=305450

FerFAL

[BullfrogKen]

Sarcasm must not come across well outside of the United States . . .


FerFAL said: he sure is a bad operator, no doubt about that.


I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to suggest such a thing.



Well, when you feel like you have the time to list one or two of them, please return to do so. Before we follow your advice, I'd like to make sure we can say you were fully aware of the advantages you deemed inconsequential when you them gave up for practical uses.


You've expressed quite the "authoritative" pronouncement. I'd like to find out what enabled you to be able to make it. Certainly some event must have made you feel revolvers are obsolete, and abandoned them for their unique advantages.


I happen to be guided by another opinion . . .
"Have no preference in weapons" - Miyamoto Musashi

[boomstik45]

Odds of getting into a gunfight is not part of a smart argument. If it was, then we'd be trying to figure out what percentage of the population would need to carry a gun, not whether to carry a high or low capacity weapon. In fact, that sounds like the kind of foolishness that a democrat would love to hear, seeing as how they are earnestly searching for ways to take our guns from us.

Speaking of that sort of thing, having a revolver is definitely a good thing, regardless of whether you like them or not. Want to guess why? (yep, here comes the conspiracy theory :uhoh:). Just think, if those damned idiots manage to pass some crazy gun law, our auto-loaders would be the most likely first thing to go...right after semi-auto long guns. Then we'd ALL be carrying revolvers! :what::neener:


Okay, okay, seriously I agree with FerFAl. Tactically in a variety of situations, if the user/operator is trained to use the tool, then the auto loader tends to be the better way to go. This is of course not ALWAYS the case, but most of the time, if all else is equal. Having said that, no person with the proper mindset and training is undergunned with a revolver. It certainly beats having nothing...or the proverbial sharp stick. And if you truly want to talk undergunned, then anybody totin' a pistol and having to deal with an adversary with a long gun....well, that's most certainly undergunned, outgunned, and anything else you can think of. And guess what? That means nearly every one of us law enforcement officers out there on our jobs. After all, you don't see us out and about with long guns, do you? Nope, we have pistols. :rolleyes:

And by the way, I love both my S&W MP .40 and my S&W 686 plus .357 magnum. :D Guess which one goes with me in more places? That's right....16 rounds of 180gr. Remington Golden Saber...to start with.

[roscoe]

Since autoloaders are nowaday so reliable, there are only two advantages to a revolver.

The first is that the loads for revolvers are much more powerful and versatile. I have a couple of .357 Rugers because .357 is available in a 200 grain hardcast that is appropriate for bear.

The second is that they are easier to use for people who will not spend a lot of time training. The can be kept in a drawer for years and all the user has to do is pull the trigger, which is easy even for a scared novice.

But, for someone who trains regularly and is gun-competent, the autoloader seems to offer too many advantages. Whether you really need those advantages is another thing, and I routinely carry a SP101 knowing that my neighborhood is safe and peaceful. If I lived in Johanesburg, I would probably carry a Glock 29.

[Regolith]

If I had to chose a gun to take to a fire fight, it wouldn't be an autoloader. It wouldn't be a revolver, either. When it comes down to it, both are under gunned and outclassed by someone who has a repeating rifle or shotgun.

What pistols ARE useful for, are having around when the unexpected happens. There's a saying that goes something like "I have a pistol so that I can fight my way to my rifle."

Which brings the bottom line down to this: use what is comfortable for you to use. Whether that's a 9mm auto or a .44 magnum revolver, it doesn't matter. What counts is that you've practiced with the weapon and are comfortable using it. Software over hardware. Because ultimately, any handgun is NOT the ideal tool to have in a fire fight. What's going to matter is that you are able to hit what your aiming at, and the only thing that can help you with that is practice.

[FerFAL]

BullfrogKen wrote:
Sarcasm must not come across well outside of the United States . . .
Yup, sarcasm was lot in me there. :D
Hey, doesn’t matter if they are Navy SEALs combined with genetically enhanced ninjas, if they don’t care about their gear as you said, then they are mistaken.
"Have no preference in weapons" - Miyamoto Musashi
This Miyamoto Musashi guy is trying to tell you to master them all, ambitious enough, but I very much doubt he’s saying “ What the heck, don’t bother worrying about your gear”
Just for the record, I never said that revolvers are "obsolete", I have many, treasure them, use some of them for certain defensive roles, but revolvers don’t offer the capacity some autos have, and even if it’s just one part of the equation, it’s a significant one when dealing with multiple attacker, something that is very common around here.
I’m sorry if I offended anyone, but I simply can’t see how a service size revolver could be better than my Glock 31, shooting 357 SIG, bottle necked rounds being the most reliable feeder of them all, never had a FTF, with 15+1 125gr projectiles at +1400 FPS which happens to be the best man stopper load 357 magnum has to offer. Revolvers can handle heavier loads, but they are mostly used for hunting, the 125 gr. pill at 1400fps being the best for two legged predators. In a platform that handles better in fast shooting, outstanding combat accuracy, less felt recoil, faster to reload and easier to conceal.
Edited to add: 4 AM here guys. Ken, I'll post the list tomorrow, ok? ;)
FerFAL

[Nightcrawler]

re: "Keeping their heads down"

If you don't have a target, exactly what are you shooting at? Are you simply panicking and unloading your gun as fast as you can? Panicking never helps.

Saw a guy once walk into a gunshop and put his 357 magnum over the counter, said he wanted to trade for a high capacity auto. He had been in a shooting recently and said that he ran out of ammo too fast, and since he was driving ( chased by bad guys, thieves, would be kidnapers or God knows what) said his gun dried up in a couple of seconds, he was holding an empty gun while the others kept of shooting, probably totting Hi Powers like so many criminals do here.

And how many times did this unlucky gentleman actually hit anything while he was trying to fire over his shoulder and drive at the same time?

If you can't hit anything in the first six or seven shots, do you really think you'll be able to hit anything with more?

If you're in a car, by yourself, being chased, you're better off concentrating on driving and escaping than trying to shoot over your shoulder. Unless they get alongside of or in front of you, there isn't much you can do.

As for the Buenos Aries police and their 15-16 shots fired average...how many of those shots hit a target? Perhaps if they expended more ammunition on the range they'd expend less on the street. When the majority of American police officers switched from revolvers to semi autos, the numbers of shots fired by the cops in engagements went up dramatically...as did the number of missed shots.

You can't miss enough times to win a gun fight. Suppressive fire with a handgun doesn't work; it's hard enough to maintain it with a belt fed.

Frankly, FerFAL, you sound like you've seen too many movies. It's like you're imagining a "Die Hard" scenario where you're running around in an active gunfight against multiple armed attackers, armed only with a handgun, instead of running like hell, like you ought to be if you're alone and outnumbered.

Now tell us honestly, how often has that actually happened to you?

Do you carry a backup gun? Do you carry a good knife? Do you wear a vest? Do you carry a long gun in your vehicle? Do you train to shoot on the move? Do you train to utilize cover? Do you train to shoot from a vehicle?

Every single one of these things will get you more than a few more rounds in the gun.

You know what? You're going to die. No matter how many rounds you have in your gun, you can only shoot in one direction at once. They can have Mausers, and you can have a Belt Fed. If you're outnumbered and they're halfway competent, you're boned. You're going to die. No two ways about it.

Because while you're shooting one guy, what's stopping his friend from shooting you? Luck, if you have it. Nothing else. Again, you can only point the piece in one direction at a time.

If they're not particularly competent or motivated, as most criminals aren't? Then killing one or two will cause the rest to think twice and try to find an easier target. Especially since the longer the shooting goes on, the more likely they are to be intercepted by the cops.

By all means, carry the high capacity autoloader. A lot of folks do. If it helps you mentally justify it to yourself, go ahead and rationalize it with anecdotal evidence and third-hand accounts of engagements. In the end, we have guns that we prefer, and we all make up perfectly logical sounding reasons to use what we like.

Me? I'm more worried about one guy on Meth with a hunting knife than I am a squad of Viet Cong. If someone's coming after you, and they mean it, you're going to get one, maybe two shots off before they gut you like a lake trout; my carry gun is a .44 Magnum. I want those shots to count. That's my rationalization.

Correia carries a 14+1 .45; he shoots faster than me, and will probably get 3-4-5 shots off in the same timespan. That's his rationalization for his gun (well that and his hands are so huge that most guns that aren't double stack .45s don't fit him well). Two means to the same end.

On one hand, you can never have too much ammunition in a gunfight. On the other, a 5-shot 12 Gauge is a hell of a lot more useful than a 20+1 handgun, so capacity is not the most important factor.

Frankly, if you're worried about getting into a gunfight, you're much better off with a friend that has a gun than you are with more rounds in your gun. If I lived in a place so dangerous that kidnappings were commonplace, I'd do everything I could to avoid traveling anywhere alone. What would be a better investment, if I lived in such a dangerous place? Buying a new high capacity autoloader or a body armor vest to protect me from the incoming rounds of all the people that want to kill me?

Here's a challenge: Find me a documented example of a police officer (or other shooter) being killed and/or losing a gunfight because his weapon ran out of ammunition and he didn't have time to reload. Also list the number of shots fired vs. the number of shots missed. If any other tactical flubs on the part of the officer cost him the fight, then the example is nullified. Find me an example of a gunfight where you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that having one or two more rounds in the shooter's gun would've made a decisive difference.

Even if you find one, I'll keep my revolvers, because if you find and dig and research and come up with one, all it tells me that such things are possible (and they surely are) and that they're rare enough to be a statistical anomaly.

Discussing this topic is like arguing politics. It's been done to death, most shooters have their minds made up, and it's a rare person that gets his previously held opinion changed by something he reads on the internet. FerFAL, no one is offended because you prefer automatics. If anything, the only offensive part comes from the fact that frankly, you sound like you're trolling to get people riled up.

Every hour a person spends on the internet opining about how many rounds he needs on him to "feel" safe is an hour better spent at the range practicing.

NOW...all other factors being equal, i.e., training, comfort, weapon fit, mindset, situational awareness, etc. Is the autoloader better than a revolver? Yes, but only in a situation where you need more shots than the revolver can provide (but less than the autoloader of your choice; many Americans prefer 1911s, which hold seven or eight plus one, so there isn't that big of a difference considering the seven and eight shot revolvers out there) and are unable to reload for some reason. So yes, in that scenario, where you need more than six (or seven or eight, depending on the gun) shots but less than fifteen (since you don't have time to reload), your Glock is better than my revolver.

In a scenario where the attacker is on top of me and I have to do a contact shot, with the muzzle up in his guts, my revolver is better than your Glock, because it doesn't have a slide to get pushed out of battery.

If you wanted to, I bet you could make up a scenario where any specific gun you can think of is ideal, but it doesn't really prove anything, does it?

[BikerRN]

This has been a "most entertaining thread. :)

I’m sorry if I offended anyone, but I simply can’t see how a service size revolver could be better than my Glock 31, shooting 357 SIG, bottle necked rounds being the most reliable feeder of them all, never had a FTF, with 15+1 125gr projectiles at +1400 FPS which happens to be the best man stopper load 357 magnum has to offer.

The .357 Sig is a "decent" handgun round, but guess what?

I can't buy it at my local Mom and Pop Grocery Store. I can however buy .357 Magnum rounds from them to get me through the night. Sometimes it has to do with what ammo you can "acquire".

Also, why would I want to shoot a "copy" when I can have the original. I am an LEO. On-Duty I carry what they issue me. On my own time, since Kidnapping Squads aren't common here, nor roving gangs of mauraders, I feel like I am well served by a revolver.

If I have to use a firearm Off-Duty it will be in a purely defensive mode. I will not be laying down suppression/cover fire to keep an opponent's head down. I am responsible for every bullet I fire, and each bullet has a lawyer attatched to it.

I shoot a lot, and shoot both autoloaders and revolvers "pretty well". I shoot a revolver just a "hair" better. So, since I shoot it just a little better, and my speed is "acceptable" until time to reload, shouldn't I shoot that which I am best with?

Now, in a more "Offensive" position, making arrest, multiple opponents and whatnot, I see the advantage of the autoloader. Like I said, I carry what they issue me at work. However, revolver or autoloader, it doesn't matter, Tactics is what wins gunfights.

Biker

[mavracer]

I’m sorry if I offended anyone, but I simply can’t see how a service size revolver could be better than my Glock 31, shooting 357 SIG, bottle necked rounds being the most reliable feeder of them all, never had a FTF, with 15+1 125gr projectiles at +1400 FPS which happens to be the best man stopper load 357 magnum has to offer.
I agree that usualy in a given persons hands an auto is probably better,but the police adminastration picked them because its cheeper to give the average (read non gunney) a 15 round auto to get 2-3 hits than train them to have the ability/disapline to get 2-3 hits with a revolver.
and if you feal so secure in your modern hi cap would you sit acrost the table from harden or hickock with their cap and ball 6 shooters and antaganize them.I don't think so its the man/mentality that makes you survive not the tool.

[armoredman]

Nightcrawler, FerFAl lives in a country which has a much higher incidence of violent crime than the US.

[FerFAL]

Nightcrawler wrote:
Me? I'm more worried about one guy on Meth with a hunting knife than I am a squad of Viet Cong. If someone's coming after you, and they mean it, you're going to get one, maybe two shots off before they gut you like a lake trout; my carry gun is a .44 Magnum. I want those shots to count. That's my rationalization.

Don’t want to piss all over your BBQ, but you’d be better served carrying a 357 magnum revolver loaded with 124 gr. Hydra shocks. :neener::D
It’s not only more controllable, it also has better stopping power against humans, even though it’s technically less powerful. I think it’s something like 93% one shot stops for the 44 mag vs. 96% one shot stops for the 357 magnum, or something in that order. Something about the .44 being too powerful and going through and through without wasting all it’s energy on the target.

FerFAL

[mavracer]

I think it’s something like 93% one shot stops for the 44 mag vs. 96% one shot stops for the 357 magnum, or something in that order.
don't read too much into stopping percentages,all of the 44 loads shown are bullets constructed for hunting.look at speer 200 GD short bbl load

ps.this load is very accurate in my taurus tracker and I would not feel underguned to a BG with a hi-cap auto.

[Amadeus]

Okay, guys. Back to topic please. Thanks.

[ArchAngelCD]

Originally Posted By: ArchAngelCD
I carry a S&W Snub nose for SD and when I feel the need for more firepower, like in the woods, I carry a 4" .357 Magnum. I don't feel under gunned when carrying either. A well placed .38 Special +P round will beat 10 .40 S&W Auto rounds if they are shot spray-&-pray. (IMO of course)
Originally Posted By: FerFAL
Why is it that the guy with the .40 has to be an idiot that can’t use his weapon properly? How about “well trained 6 shooter user compared to equally well trained high cap. auto user” for a change?

FerFAL
Please tell me where in my post I even hinted that the guy with the .40 S&W was an idiot?

My post was intended to answer the commonly held belief that a 5/6 round revolver is under gunned when up against a high-cap semi-auto. All I was saying is, a well places shot will do the job no matter what type of handgun fires it.

There is no reason to get hostile or assign a different meaning to what I said just because it suits you.

[FerFAL]

Sorry for that, you said. "40 S&W Auto rounds if they are shot spray-&-pray"
Someone shooting and praying for the bullet to achieve sometihng sound like and idiot to me. :)

FerFAL

[ArchAngelCD]

No problem, sometimes I read things quickly and don't grasp the whole picture right a way...

[boomstik45]

I like the idea of having both. The auto loader is on my person, the revolver in my truck (or car, whichever I happen to be driving). Why? Because I'm better with the semi-auto, better than my wife is too. The revolver is easier for her. So the simpler tool is there for her if she's around when something breaks loose.

I don't get into the one-shot stop percentages. Hate to offend anyone here, so please don't take offense. But Marshall & Sanow research has been called into question SO MUCH (for good reason), and while some of it just has to be true, a lot of it is story telling. That, and it's old. As in bullet technology has changed even since then. Not to mention, if you're into one-shot stop expectation, you're crazy. Shoot until the threat is over.

While I agree with getting away safely from a situation, I don't agree that you should run like hell at the first sign of danger. If you can defend yourself, then by all means do so. If you are with your loved ones, and you outrun them trying to get away (I'll bet wife and kids will have a hard time out-pacing you in most situations) then you've just left easier targets for marauders, whatever form they take. How cowardly is that? Though the personal consequences may be great, you'd be better served by trying to get them to safety and manning the defense yourself. Otherwise, why are you carrying a weapon? Wouldn't you run better without it? :rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying stand and deliver against any and all threats, I'm saying what ol' Colonel Cooper used to say : "evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."

By the way, I don't suppose anybody that's not in an official offensive position is LOOKING for a gunfight. And you would be hard-pressed to comfortably and reasonably ccw any sort of long gun (not to mention legally)So all this yapping about carrying a long gun is irrelevant. If it was, then we'd all be carrying rifles and shotguns instead of ccw-ing handguns, right? But we don't, do we? So it's a moot point. Handguns are for self defense, and they work, just not perfectly.

[Amadeus]

Amadeus,you answered your own question in the second paragraph.Get out and practice with your revolver and your confidence will improve along with your ability.You,being an Instructor should know this,right??YMMV.tom.

Thanks, DeputyTom. You delivered a concise, honest and effective response. Even throuugh all the debate that this thread has launched it appears that the general belief is that practicing with the revolver to reacquant myself with the platform IS worth it.

[FerFAL]

”Nightcrawler wrote:
If you don't have a target, exactly what are you shooting at?”
Could be a car full of people shooting back. You don’t take perfect aimed shots, you point shoot as best as you can to the windows while driving. Guy called Rico did than when he was taking his girls to school one morning, and his daughter noticed armed men in a car across the street.
Rico is an ex military guy that overthrew our gov. once and was later elected major of a town. He started shooting at the car right away and the guys took off. No perfectly aimed shots, just fast and sustained shooting to the car. Got the job done, the would be attackers took off. Ammo well spent in my book. You can search for the story if you want on the internet, though you’ll probably find it in Spanish.

“If you can't hit anything in the first six or seven shots, do you really think you'll be able to hit anything with more?”
Maybe yes, maybe no. You never know. :D

“As for the Buenos Aries police and their 15-16 shots fired average...how many of those shots hit a target? Perhaps if they expended more ammunition on the range they'd expend less on the street. When the majority of American police officers switched from revolvers to semi autos, the numbers of shots fired by the cops in engagements went up dramatically...as did the number of missed shots.”
At least regarding American cops, I don’t think its lack of training. Maybe has something to do with both cops and criminals having high capacity autos these days.
“
Frankly, FerFAL, you sound like you've seen too many movies.”
I’ve seen many, yes. Yesterday I saw Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets with my son.:D
“It's like you're imagining a "Die Hard" scenario where you're running around in an active gunfight against multiple armed attackers, armed only with a handgun, instead of running like hell, like you ought to be if you're alone and outnumbered.”
Oh, I’ll run as long as I can, and as long as I’m not leaving my family behind. Running isn’t enough sometimes, that’s why we have these things called self defense weapons.
“Now tell us honestly, how often has that actually happened to you?”
"Die Hard" scenario? Never. That’s not something reality based. Though odds are not good, you can defend yourself against multiple attackers. I know many people that did just that and are still walking around drinking mate and cheering for Boca jrs. each Sunday. Though chances aren’t that good, its better than dropping to your knees begging for mercy, to people that wont have any of it for you and your family. YMMV.
“Do you carry a backup gun?”
Sometimes ( Colt Detective) , sometimes I carry just one gun ( Auto), and sometimes I carry no gun at all. Depends on the situation.
“Do you carry a good knife?”
At all times. Cold Steel El Hombre(serrated), sometimes a large Tanto Voyager. As long as I have pants or shorts on, I have at least one razor sharp fighting folder with me. Came in handy many times, and just like a handgun, on one occasion just opening the shiny Cold Steel blade sent the rats away.
“Do you wear a vest?”
Sometimes, not often but I do wear it when I’m going some place dangerous, dangerous for our standards means it a pretty FU place. On occasions when I meet people of uncertain trust for the first couple of times, I also wear it. I have it in my locker and put it on when I go to inspect some noise. Takes a couple of seconds and it’s terrific insurance, so I have it along with my gun and light.
“Do you carry a long gun in your vehicle?”
No, we can’t carry around loaded box magazine fed semi auto centerfire rifles. I could carry a shotgun or lever action rifle but it would have to go in the trunk.
“Do you train to shoot on the move?”
Yes.
“Do you train to utilize cover?”
Yes.
“Do you train to shoot from a vehicle?”
Not yet. :D
” Every single one of these things will get you more than a few more rounds in the gun.”
You can do all that and still carry a gun with almost 300% more capacity than a 6 shooter. In fact, every single person I met that trains seriously packs an auto, not a revolver. Never met anyone in a defensive shooting class that brought a revolver, at least as a main gun.
“You know what? You're going to die.”
Thanks for the good vibe. Don’t get mad if I try to prove you wrong. :D
“You're going to die. No two ways about it.”
People do manage to fend of multiple attackers on their own, it happens frequently enough for me to try fighting back and not roll over and hope for God to strike them with lightning. :)
“Because while you're shooting one guy, what's stopping his friend from shooting you? Luck, if you have it. Nothing else. Again, you can only point the piece in one direction at a time.”
Guess you’ll have to be better at shooting than the other jerks put together, right?

“Me? I'm more worried about one guy on Meth with a hunting knife than I am a squad of Viet Cong.”
That’s fine.
I don’t live in Vietnam in the 60’s . I live in Argentina 2007, which means worrying about multiple attackers, and given the on going situation there a chance of kidnappers attacking too.
“On one hand, you can never have too much ammunition in a gunfight.”
I agree with you 100% on this one.
“Frankly, if you're worried about getting into a gunfight, you're much better off with a friend that has a gun than you are with more rounds in your gun. If I lived in a place so dangerous that kidnappings were commonplace, I'd do everything I could to avoid traveling anywhere alone.”
That would be good, but if you have a friend that is willing to be with you 24/7 working as your body guard along with you, you have better friends than I have. :) Seriously, who’s gonna follow you everywhere you go all day long. Kidnappings don’t occur in “Kidnap Land”, they occur when you come back home after a long day at the office, at a traffic light, when walking the dog, when you expect it the least, shall we say.
“Here's a challenge: Find me a documented example of a police officer (or other shooter) being killed and/or losing a gunfight because his weapon ran out of ammunition and he didn't have time to reload.”
There are many, but I don’t want to waste time looking for something that wont convince you of anything. You seriously think that no one ever died because he empties his revolver and was shot before he was able to reload?
“Find me an example of a gunfight where you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that having one or two more rounds in the shooter's gun would've made a decisive difference.”
What’s the point? You’ll switch to high capacity autos if I do find such a rare (according to your point of view) case in which round number ,7, 8, 9..or 15. stopped the fight for good? Don’t think so.
“
Even if you find one, I'll keep my revolvers, because if you find and dig and research and come up with one, all it tells me that such things are possible (and they surely are) and that they're rare enough to be a statistical anomaly.”
Dude! :) Then why waste my time?
“Discussing this topic is like arguing politics. It's been done to death, most shooters have their minds made up, and it's a rare person that gets his previously held opinion changed by something he reads on the internet. FerFAL, no one is offended because you prefer automatics. If anything, the only offensive part comes from the fact that frankly, you sound like you're trolling to get people riled up.”
I’m not trolling, and I actually convinced many people of that which to me is obvious. All other conditions equal ( training, adequate stopping power, accuracy) having more rounds is always better, specially when you are talking about almost x3 times more. I didn’t invent gunpowder here my friend, its the same conclusion every PD and military force came up with half a century ago.
“NOW...all other factors being equal, i.e., training, comfort, weapon fit, mindset, situational awareness, etc. Is the autoloader better than a revolver? Yes, but only in a situation where you need more shots than the revolver can provide (but less than the autoloader of your choice; many Americans prefer 1911s, which hold seven or eight plus one, so there isn't that big of a difference considering the seven and eight shot revolvers out there) and are unable to reload for some reason. So yes, in that scenario, where you need more than six (or seven or eight, depending on the gun) shots but less than fifteen (since you don't have time to reload), your Glock is better than my revolver.”
For Gods sakes man, then why did you argue so much about it?
My situation is different than yours. If you live in a nice town with almost no crime to worry about, then a 5 or 6 shooter may be all you need. Speaking from the heart, I no longer feel ok about preparing for the occasional drunk or addict. I know I’ll always want to prepare for the worst possible scenario no matter where I live. How much ammo do I “need” ? All that can fit into my gun’s magazine. If someone comes up with a magical 9mm mag that fits 1000 rounds into a weapon I can still conceal well, I’ll want that. But that’s just me.
“If you wanted to, I bet you could make up a scenario where any specific gun you can think of is ideal, but it doesn't really prove anything, does it?”
Depends on how likely that scenario is.

FerFAL

[Nightcrawler]

Good old Marhsal & Sanow. Their "study" has been quite discredited.

Does anyone really think...really...that it's possible to do a scientific study that results in percentages for how likely a bullet is to incapacitate, without shooting a whole bunch of people under very controlled circumstances? The M&S study doesn't take into account range, where the bullet hit, path of the bullet, condition/size/build of the person being shot, etc. These are all critical factors, which if ignored renders your results meaningless. According to M&S, .357 Magnum was a few percentage points behind a 12 gauge shotgun and a .308 caliber rifle in "stopping power".

www.brassfetcher.com will give you more insight into how cartridges perform than a bunch of made up statstics, and even that just gives you a rough idea on performance.

Back on topic...

FerFAL. You have a gun you like, and the one you think is ideal for your situation. What else do you need to know? It's like you're trying to get a bunch of revolver guys to say "wow...you're right...I'd better go buy that Glock!".

The point that you seem to be missing, that BullFrogKen was trying to convey, is that simply having your "ideal gun" isn't in of itself the answer nor the last step in living in a dangerous environment. It may or may not even make a difference. Who knows? You may well run into a situation where stopping to reload a revolver would've gotten you in trouble. You may run into a situation where you just run out of time, fifteen round magazines or no. In any case you can't have too much ammunition!

But getting on the internet arguing that my gun is better than yours is time better spent training and preparing, if indeed you're worried about kidnappers and battles with large street gangs. There's a lot more to surviving in a hostile environment than simply having the gun, and those other factors could be a lot more important in the long run.

The more you improve your other survival skills, the better the chances that the advantages of your "better" gun will come into play.

I apologize if I got snippy, and I mean that. But you have your gun, you're doing the training...what's to be gained from trying to convince a bunch of American sixgun shooters that your Glock is "better"?

You really should carry a long gun in your vehicle. I don't know if it's legal there, but I didn't know carrying a pistol was legal there either.

EDIT: For most of us, our job isn't battling evil. It's going home to your family alive. Much of the time, this will be better accomplished by taking off, if you can do so without exposing yourself (I should've emphasized that last part.) If your family is with you? Then it's on, isn't it? That's why training shouldn't stop with yourself; your spouse and others in your family should be given as much training and armed also, if at all possible.

[boomstik45]

FerFal,

Come on dude. You're smart. You know the deal. Some people want you to be wrong, them to be right, and you to forsake all rights to having an opinion that differs. Oh, and they might want the last word, too. Sooner or later it becomes personal, and this is ridiculous. I like your idea of having a semi-auto and a revolver at the same time. Unfortunately for me, I currently have no snubbies and the revolver I have is a 3" stainless 686 plus. A tad heavy for the ankle. So, it tends to remain in the vehicle if it is brought along.

The way I figure it, anybody willing to attack a 6' 290 lb guy with big arms and legs has got to be crazy, drugged, or supremely confident in their malicious intent. In which case, they need to be shot, not run from. I don't count on a fierce scowl as my defense. Yeah, I'm going to try and find cover when possible, but the fight ain't over 'til they go away or stop what they're doing. So we are in complete agreement on this point as well. I don't envy you your position in South America. If you can get out and want to, I would.

[Correia]

You guys just wait until I build a 6" longslide 10mm STI, packing 20 rounds of hot 200 grain Doubletap, and use the SOT to convert it to 3 round burst. I'll end these stupid best gun arguments once and for all! Robocop ain't got nothin' on me. :D

Nightcrawler, FerFAL, you both managed to hijack the thread without helping the original poster. He was looking for shooting advice, not a my gun is better than yours debate. This one is done.