[StrikeFire83]

I’m not a troll and I’m not here to start a technology war.

The revolver seems to be superior for outdoors/hunting situations, as an extremely potent cartridge can be carried in a package with better long range accuracy and capacity really isn’t an issue.

However, it is my OPINION that the modern service auto (polymer or steel) has surpassed the large frame service revolver for duty and concealed carry. Higher capacity, astonishing reliability (tens of thousands of rounds w/o malfunction), faster follow-up shots, etc. We can quibble about “bottom feeders”, anecdotal failures, and the rest, but well made service auto failures seem to be right up there with binding cylinders, light strikes, incorrect timing, flame cutting, etc in their frequency.

Now I say all this because I think there is one area where the auto HASN’T surpassed the revolver in self defense shooting, and that is small frame pocket guns. I own both a Kahr PM9 and a S&W 638, it just seems that the revolver in this size just feels like a more trustworthy weapon. Capacity becomes moot because pocket guns can’t be double stack, and 7 rounds of 9mm vs 5 rounds of 38 special seems like a wash. I’ve only put about 200 rounds of FMJ through the Kahr, and had a few failures, which I was told to expect during the “break in” period. Hopefully this will end now that the break in is over and I switch over to self defense hollow points.

With the 638 there was no break in period. Glocks and CZs and Sigs don’t have break in periods, anyhow, I digress. The 638 has fired everything with no issues. I don’t shoot perfect groups with it yet, but that’s my problem, not the gun’s. It just seems that it is harder to make a totally reliable semi-auto in j-frame size. Time will tell with both guns, I guess.

Just my opinion.

[Nematocyst]

As a 642 (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=314422) owner, I couldn't agree more.

I'd also add the M&P340 (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=282173), which is my next one.

[StrikeFire83]

I looked hard at the 642, and almost went for it, but I wanted the ability for single action shots, so 638 is was.

I have no logical reason to distrust my Kahr PM9, and I will continue to work with it. The break in period is over, and now I just need to start running JHPs through it. But when I want to pocket carry, right now, I'm reaching for the revolver.

Now I just need to buy some more 38 practice ammo and take it to the range more and get better with it.

[Double Naught Spy]

astonishing reliability (tens of thousands of rounds w/o malfunction)

I am still waiting to see one with astonishing reliability.

and 7 rounds of 9mm vs 5 rounds of 38 special seems like a wash.
40% more ammo is a wash? So you would be willing to carrying 40% less and make the same claim?

[StrikeFire83]

Well, I can't attest to tens of thousands of rounds, but many others have documented...law enforcement and military agencies, private citizens.

What I can attest to, is:

1) Glock 17: 8,250 rounds since 2005, mix of FMJ and JHP, all weights. ONLY 1 malfunction, due to an improperly crimped factory round.

2) CZ-75B: 3,800 rounds since 2007, mostly FMJ with a few boxes of JHP. ZERO malfunctions.

3) XD-45 Tactical. 2,200 rounds, zero malfunctions. Sold it in 2007 due high cost of .45 ammo.

I keep track of my ammo usage on a spreadsheet, and the malfunctions tend to stand out.

So that's almost 15k rounds spread across 3 modern semi-autos, with 1 malfunction that was not the gun's fault. That's pretty damn good, in my opinion.

40% more ammo is a wash? So you would be willing to carrying 40% less and make the same claim?

Well, you can quote percentages all you want, but we're talking about 2 rounds difference. Two rounds might make a difference, but if its an extended gunfight I'm pretty much going to be just as boned with 7 rounds as I would be with 5. Now 18 rounds in a light weight service auto with 34 rounds on tap right on my belt (like my Glock 17) vs. 6 rounds in larger, more cumbersome package IS a lot more significant, to me. THREE times the firepower BEFORE I even reload.

[LTR shooter]

However, it is my OPINION that the modern service auto (polymer or steel) has surpassed the large frame service revolver for duty and concealed carry.

I doubt large frame revolvers were ever popular for concealed carry or even a duty holster. I recall back in the "old days" living in NC many of the law enforcement carrying Smith K-frames like the Model 66 in their holster. The Smith J-Frames or K-Frame snubs were probably more common for concealed use.

[Virginian]

That is because the desirability for many rounds to throw downrage has covered up the lack of accuracy in all governmental uses.

[pinkymingeo]

Extended gunfight? I thought we were talking self-defense. The only area I know where autoloaders have an advantage is the tactical arena, where looks matter a lot more than function. Revolvers are more reliable, insensitive to ammo changes, just pull right through FTFs, come in more powerful chamberings and save handloaders the misery of crawling around between other shooter's legs, looking for brass. Most of my shooting is with moonclipped revolvers. While a 1911 can send 8 rounds downrange faster than I can, I can shoot 12 faster. Not that it matters in civilian self-defense. Some argue that autoloaders are better combat firearms. Could be, but I'm past draft age and care less about combat. Self-defense? That's different. Revolvers shine, there.

[Vern Humphrey]

I am still waiting to see one with astonishing reliability.
Come over and I'll show you my M1927 Argentine and my Kimber Classic Custom.

[Fat Boy]

I would be curious to see a definition of "extended gunfight". According to what I have read historically, most "gunfights" are over in a matter of seconds, with very few rounds fired. In such a situation, a single cylinder full or single magazine would be sufficient. While there are exceptions, in my opinion, they are rare. I would rather rely on trying not to get into an encounter where I actually felt the need to shoot at someone; but focus on getting away from the situation, etc and keep my weapon for the absolute, worst case scenario.

I think most "extended gunfights" are seen in movies like "Public Enemy"...

[OurSafeHome.net]

It has been said (over and over again) that most self-defense gunfights occur at distances of less than 3 yards, are over in about 3 seconds and 3 shots are fired by all the participants.

Our business (http://OurSafeHome.net/?szLP=thr) is teaching women how to shoot to defend themselves. The efficacy of the revolver in a self-defense situation combined with the simplicity of operation make it possible to train a relatively uninterested population in a short period of time.

[Double Naught Spy]

Come over and I'll show you my M1927 Argentine and my Kimber Classic Custom.

Between the Glock v. 1911 and other 1000 round matches hosted by Little Mac and TDSA in Texas and the ISHOT1000 matches I have hosted, I am still waiting to see the astonishing reliability. I have watched several guns break and with the exception of a single Sig entry, every brand and model entered having malfunctioned.

You very well might have an exceptional gun or guns, but notice that they will be the exception. So classifying semi-autos as astonishingly reliable is pushing it a bit.

Don't get me wrong. I am not a revolver guy at all, just a realist.

FYI, the IIISHOT1000 will be allowing revolvers to participate next Spring as well.

[earlthegoat2]

and 7 rounds of 9mm vs 5 rounds of 38 special seems like a wash.

40% more ammo is a wash? So you would be willing to carrying 40% less and make the same claim?


It is probably not really fair to make this claim. Since it is talking about pocket guns when the OP was referring to a 5 shot revolver I know there are exceptions but most carry 380s as pocket guns as the 9mm options are just not as popular particularly due to cost. It didnt stop me though. Anyway it is more like 5 rounds of 38 Special vs 7 rounds of 380 or even 32 more than likely. This may be a wash or it may be an advantage to the revolver.

[Carl Levitian]

Having had the same Smith and Wesson bobbed hammer mdel 60 since 1972, and having put many many thousands of rounds thru it with zero malfuctions in 37 years of shooting, I'll go with a revolver.

One other thing to consider; with the heavier hammer fall of the J frame revolver, there's less chance of a dud round due to light firing pin strike in a striker fired pocket auto.

Is there anyone else here that has had the same handgun for almost 40 years of steady shooting with 0 problems?

[The Lone Haranguer]

Revolvers NEVER malfunction. (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=459916) (whistle)

[Guillermo]

Rule one of a gunfight...bring a gun

Since we mostly have to conceal the best gun is always a compromise. (Yes, I know that some claim to be able to hide an eight inch Smith 29 while wearing a speedo and doing the uneven parallel bars)

I am quite happy with having a PM9 in the pocket of cargo shorts or on a high ride belt holster. As I shoot it better, when conditions allow I prefer a Detective Special. Recently got a Smith 36 and I will see how it works into the rotation.

This is a verbose way to say that the superior weapon is the one that you can bring with you and shoot best. Due to the bring with you provision...for me sometimes that is a bottom feeder and sometimes it is a wheelie.

[ironvic]

Revolver or auto doesn't matter much to me, it's the shooter, seldom the gun that wins the duel. I normally choose a revolver only because I shoot better with them and enjoy the feel of shooting a cylinder full of fun. I strongly agree with Guillermo.

That said, I've owned several 9mms, .45 Autos and even a .32 caliber mouse gun. They're enjoyable to shoot and I have this Sig P-226 in 9mm that I wouldn't trade for anything, even another wheelgun. Depending on my mood, I might stuff the P-226 in the front pocket one day and the .357 magnum 686+ with the 2 1/2" barrel on another day. Either way, I feel well armed should trouble come calling.

[MMCSRET]

We are back to fire power over marksmanship. I vote for marksmanship and qualification over familiarization.

[snooperman]

A study was done by the NYC police Dept and they found that their officers fired more shots with the semi autos they now carry but the number of hits on the bad guy has not changed. In fact the revolvers used only needed 2.4 shots to settle the matter, not so with the semiauto. Also, in close quarters, where it got physical many semiautos were taken out of battery by the assailant pressing on the slide, causing the semiauto not to fire. This is niot a problem with the revolver.You need to read the data that is out there on this written by who? Police Departments and retired police such as Massad Ayoob who has several books out on conceal carry and personal defense. The fact remains there is absolutely no credible study yet that has been done to refute the use of revolvers for defense. My 2 cents.

[Vern Humphrey]

Between the Glock v. 1911 and other 1000 round matches hosted by Little Mac and TDSA in Texas and the ISHOT1000 matches I have hosted, I am still waiting to see the astonishing reliability. I have watched several guns break and with the exception of a single Sig entry, every brand and model entered having malfunctioned.

You very well might have an exceptional gun or guns, but notice that they will be the exception. So classifying semi-autos as astonishingly reliable is pushing it a bit.

Don't get me wrong. I am not a revolver guy at all, just a realist.

FYI, the IIISHOT1000 will be allowing revolvers to participate next Spring as well.
Which is to say, you have not seen revolvers under the same conditions.

Remember, as John Farnham said, "The most common stoppage encountered in the revolver . . . (and) in the autoloader is running out of ammunition." Put the same requirements on both and give us some feedback.

[David E]

It has been said (over and over again) that most self-defense gunfights occur at distances of less than 3 yards, are over in about 3 seconds and 3 shots are fired by all the participants.

Just because something has been said "over and over again" doesn't make it true. Right off the bat, the "less than 3 shots fired" stat includes suicides, AD's, warning shots, putting down injured animals, etc, skewing the actual number.

In fact the revolvers used only needed 2.4 shots to settle the matter, not so with the semiauto.

This is simply a matter of training. Who would argue that having more ammo in the gun is a bad thing during a shootout?

In close quarters, where it got physical many semiautos were taken out of battery by the assailant pressing on the slide, causing the semiauto not to fire. This is niot a problem with the revolver.

Also a training issue. A cocked and locked 1911 cannot be taken out of battery. A revolver held tight won't allow the cylinder to rotate.

Additionally, consider that revolvers are "point and shoot" guns, allowing anyone with a finger to pull the trigger. Many semi-autos (like the 1911) have levers that must be activated before the gun can be fired. Others have magazine disconnects that won't allow a shot to be fired at all. In the aforementioned close quarters struggle, the good guy can hit the mag release if he thinks he's losing the struggle for the gun. This has saved more than one life.

Revolvers tolerate neglect better than autos, while autos tolerate abuse better than revolvers. Both are still very viable tools for self defense, but one needs to understand the limitations of each.

[.38 Special]

The advent of 8 shot .357 revolvers has made the capacity argument obsolete -- unless you want to argue that the 1911 doesn't hold enough rounds.

I don't buy the argument that autos are capable of "faster follow-up shots". In my experience the double action pull is as fast as the single action pull when any real recoil is involved. Elmer Keith and Ed McGivern noted that it was easier to hit multiple aerial targets DA because the heavy trigger pull helped to pull the gun back onto target.

As far as carry goes, I don't see that one has an advantage over the other when carried openly. Concealed, I'd rather live with the slim auto than the bulky revolver, but that's not a deal breaker.

Overall, I say David E hit the nail on the head: both work just fine -- if you know what they and you are about. Choose the one that speaks to you and learn how to use it.

[wrs840]

FWIW, I had an LEO once tell me there are sometimes SD situations in which it's "better not to leave a trail of little-brass pieces of evidence" all over the ground... Something else to consider.

Les

[StrikeFire83]

38 Special, frankly, I do think that the 1911 has also been surpassed. Personally, if I'm going to try and conceal a gun that large, I want something with more capacity then it has to offer.

I'm with David E, I'd hate to be in a situation that requires more then 3-6 shots...saying to the bad guy "but this isn't a typical SD situation" isn't going to make you any less dead. If I can have three times the rounds on tap before needing to reload in a package that is equally easy to conceal, I'm going to go for it. Anybody who claims that reloading doesn't leave you exposed...well, um, we're not all Jerry M.

I like my Kahr PM9, but I'm not personally convinced that it is as dead nuts reliable as a 5 shot snubbie. That might change in time. I'm totally confident in my Glock 17 in terms of reliability, my ability to shoot it, etc. But in the Texas heat its not always possible to wear a bowling shirt, a baggy polo, or something long enough to conceal a full size weapon. Right now that means I'll be pocket carrying my S&W 638 when attire dictates.

[Guillermo]

in the Texas heat its not always possible to wear a bowling shirt, a baggy polo, or something long enough to conceal a full size weapon

damned straight...the only way I have been able to carry a blued weapon in in a fobus paddle holster that hold it away from the body

[StrikeFire83]

FWIW, I had an LEO once tell me there are sometimes SD situations in which it's "better not to leave a trail of little-brass pieces of evidence" all over the ground... Something else to consider.

So wait, you say you were advised by a LEO that in a SD shooting you should leave the scene without reporting the fight, and a revolver is better because you don't have to pick up your brass?

Sounds like a pretty dumb LEO to me, if that's in fact what he said.

[Oro]

Sounds like a pretty dumb LEO to me, if that's in fact what he said.

Or a very smart and honest LEO, advising a citizen on how to minimize complications because the local prosecutor is an anti-gun zealot. Bottom line, you have no idea what the context was yet you jump to conclusions. You also had no call to insult wrs80's integrity by insinuating he either invented the exchange or misunderstood it. I do not find that an inherently improbably conversation; I've had it myself with trusted friends.

I’m not a troll and I’m not here to start a technology war.

Yes, you are. Check the definition of "internet troll." You were particularly individually insulting to him, and you are engaging in a technology war. Is this the best forum conversation you are capable of conducting? I get am offended when posters insult others without any good reason or basis. Keep in mind this is not "GlockTalk" or Ar15.com.

[Vern Humphrey]

In close quarters, where it got physical many semiautos were taken out of battery by the assailant pressing on the slide, causing the semiauto not to fire. This is niot a problem with the revolver.
In close quarters, where it got physical many revolvers were taken out of action by the assailant grabbing the cylinder, causing the revolver not to fire. This is niot a problem with the semiauto. :D

The lesson is, don't let an assailant grab your gun.;)

[StrikeFire83]

Okay, well, admittedly, I won't be in law school until September, but let me get this straight.

As responsible gun owners/human beings, we are obligated never to draw and fire on a person unless he or she is about to kill us, cause us bodily injury, or cause great bodily injury to a loved one/friend. There are the situations under which we can justify-ably use our concealed handgun out in public. When inside your own home/on your own property, depending on state and locality, these considerations ease somewhat, but not much.

So if you've just fired your weapon in self defense, a totally legal and justified act, it is reasonable to turn yourself into a criminal by fleeing the scene and/or trying to conceal evidence of your involvement? Sounds pretty stupid to me. Hundreds of people get away with homicide a year, but thousands more don't. Lots of people see and hear when gunshots ring out, and the police, however inept they can be, often find their way to the bottom of things, at least in some form.

Advocating carrying a revolver because it doesn't leave brass on the ground for when you flee the scene of a good shoot is pretty crappy advice, whether it came from an LEO or not. Yes, you may get a crusading liberal prosecutor who wants to hang you out to dry, and that's why you call the police, give a SINGLE short statement to the police "he was about to kill/maim me or my wife/daughter/son/friend, and I was in fear of my/their life, and I shot to stop the attack. I plan on cooperating fully, but I'd like to exercise my right to counsel at this time." And then SHUT THE **** up. Better to take the right, possibly harder road, then turn yourself into a criminal at the CHANCE things won't come to bite you in the butt.

Come on guys, somebody back me up on this.

[colorado_handgunner]

Or you might just be like me, can't shoot a revolver accurately to save my life. And since my life could one day depend on it, I'll stick to my autos.

[wrs840]

I think it falls under the category of "minimize your statement". I can assure you the guy I was talking to is no Barney Fife, and while I wouldn't plan to "leave the scene", I think I understand his point that, occasionally, "less is more". Like I originally said, it's just something to think about.

And, perhaps take to heart the notion of debating the idea without getting emotional against the person who expressed the idea. It works here, and I suspect probably often works well in a courtroom too.

Regards,
Les

[StrikeFire83]

wrs840, you're right, I should have confined my remarks to the advice, not the man, because I don't know and have never met him.

But I stand by my original statement that it was crappy advice. :cool:

[JImbothefiveth]

We are back to fire power over marksmanship. Not always. A XD or the like has a better trigger than a wheelgun

[mljdeckard]

My Kimber didn't need a break in period.

I agree inasmuch as, I would rather carry a snubby than a Kel-tec or Ruger subcompact. But I would still probably get a subcompact Glock if I wanted a very small option.

[JMusic]

I saw a tuarrus revolver quit one time and I have seen primers back out or bullets go forward to jam a revolver, with that said I carry my 638 mostly. Had to send it back at first shot too far to the right. My PM9 is relieable more so than most from what I hear. My Kimber CDP works like a clock and so does my G17. Nothing is perfect but mine have not let me down.

Jim

[L-Frame]

All I know is what I've seen for myself. I take about 3 or 4 combat classes a year. I have done this for over 5 years. Usually, I'm the only revolver at the class. I can't remember a class where at least one auto didn't jam at some point, and a few have broken. I've never had my revolvers fail in any way. When the semi's would go down, sometimes the instructor would blame the ammo, sometime the gun, sometime the operator, but the fact was they didn't fire. At I'm not talking about junk autos here. I've seen Les Baers stop, Walters, Glocks, etc. I will say, though, that as you make the average shooter do more with the gun the greater the chance of operator error.

Just taking a semi-auto and firing it 500 times doesn't tell you as much as having a person go through all kinds of drills using barricades, close quarters drills. Then you see folks cause their own malfunctions by leaning the slide against a barricade, or in close quarters holding the gun too close to their bodies and short stroking the slide. Whose to say when it hits the fan even a trained person won't do something like that by mistake.

Anyway, I'm a KISS kind of guy and I'll take my wheelguns. Civilian self defense still involves few shots at short distances and I feel more comfortable knowing I have 6 for sure. I'll take my chances on not having enough ammo to do the job if attacked by a gang.

I'm not dissing semi-autos. They are very reliable. I just think the chance of a semi-auto malfunctioning (for any reason) is greater than the chance that I will not have enough ammo with my wheelguns to do the job.

[wrs840]

wrs840, you're right, I should have confined my remarks to the advice, not the man, because I don't know and have never met him.

But I stand by my original statement that it was crappy advice.

Fair enough. In order that I may weight proper credence to your original statement, how many years of employment do you have under your belt in Law Enforcement, Litigation, Jurisprudence, or Public Policy pundancy/creation?

Les

[StrikeFire83]

Fair enough. In order that I may weight proper credence to your original statement, how many years of employment do you have under your belt in Law Enforcement, Litigation, Jurisprudence, or Public Policy pundancy/creation?

Um, zero. I'm a 25 year old guy who will be entering law school in September. I've taken pre-law classes and a CHL class.

I'm more inclined to take the advice of my CHL instructor, Massad Ayoob, et all when it comes to what to do following a justified shooting. Leaving the scene of a shoot, a good shoot no less, is just beyond stupid. You leverage the slight chance that NOTHING will trace the back to the scene against the possibility of getting a prosecutor with an axe to grind. At the best you have to live with being a coward that slinks away from a deadly encounter and at the worst you turn yourself into a criminal in the eyes of the law.

So yes, advice that turns a justified innocent man into a criminal and casts dispersion on you should you get tracked down is...for lack of a better word...stupid.

Ask Harold Fish how making bad decisions similar to your LEO friend's advice made it easier for a prosecutor to turn his good shoot into a prison stay.

[wrs840]

Okie dokie... I won't cast further "dispersion"...

Les

[Hawk]

Or a very smart and honest LEO, advising a citizen on how to minimize complications because the local prosecutor is an anti-gun zealot. Bottom line, you have no idea what the context was yet you jump to conclusions. You also had no call to insult wrs80's integrity by insinuating he either invented the exchange or misunderstood it. I do not find that an inherently improbably conversation; I've had it myself with trusted friends.

It's hard to picture a scenario, even to include Josh Sugarman as DA, where the reported LEO advice shouldn't be called to task. There may be more tactful ways but sometimes tact obscures the point and the point is that the advice seems to be advocating behavior illegal in all 50 states.

The sort of advice that, had it come from the poster rather than 3rd person would get the thread shut down in a heartbeat.

I always wonder about how something will be taken when a noob non-enthusiast butterflies into the forum, reads one piece of advice and remembers it at the most inopportune time.

That's why I don't like "just pull the trigger again" posts (squibs and all that) that aren't qualified and why I was uncomfortable reading that a LEO counseled what appeared to be "sanitize and vacate the area". That's criminal without context and "runaway DA" fails to satisfy. A DGU when your assailant is the Cali Cartel and the police on the payroll, maybe that would work. But it's illegal in this country.

Fair enough. In order that I may weight proper credence to your original statement, how many years of employment do you have under your belt in Law Enforcement, Litigation, Jurisprudence, or Public Policy pundancy/creation?
Speaking only for myself, I would presume that no background whatsoever is needed to comment negatively on advice to conduct oneself as a gangster or double-ought spy on a mission.

[StrikeFire83]

Ugh, feels like I'm taking crazy pills. I need some Strats and Tactics guys to chime in here and back me up that is IS NOT a good idea to slink away from a justified shooting out in public, and to base your firearms choice primarily on what will leave the least physical evidence behind.

Anyhow, I'll continue to use my 638...A REVOLVER...for pocket carry in favor of my Kahr, A SEMI-AUTO, until or unless I'm convinced that my PM9 is totally reliable. And even then, I don't see myself getting rid of the revolver...38 special is such a commonly available caliber is seems foolhardy not to own one.

EDIT: Thanks Hawk.

[wrs840]

"sanitize and vacate the area"

No one advocated either "sanitize" nor "vacate". Back up and read carefully. You won't find it.

Respectfully,
Les

[StrikeFire83]

Methinks the thread is headed towards shut-down land, but I'm a big fan of not allowing people to backpeddle from what they've said.

FWIW, I had an LEO once tell me there are sometimes SD situations in which it's "better not to leave a trail of little-brass pieces of evidence" all over the ground... Something else to consider.

Les

If this isn't sanitize and leave that I don't know what is. If the revolver advantage of not spitting out brass while shooting is a real advantage, then a person would have to vacate the scene otherwise the police will just get the brass when they confiscate your gun anyways. "Advantage" neutralized.

I also remember advice back in the day that you should grind the serial numbers off of all your guns just in case you have to ditch them after a SD shooting. Seems to be in the same vein.

[wrs840]

"Leave a trail" in realtime can be bad strategy for words. Maybe hard-trail sometimes too. That's the only point. That you insist someone advocated other, such as "leaving the scene" which is total fabrication on your part, suggests to me you only want to win an argument you're emotionally invested in, actual facts don't matter to you. How did I get sucked into your fantasy? :D

Les

[StrikeFire83]

Put a fork in me, wrs840, cuz I'm done.

Now lets all go out to the range and shoot some guns.

[MCgunner]

I like guns. Autos are a bit more convenient to carry IMHO, especially the reloads, and autos make more sense to me for concealed carry, but that don't mean I don't have a revolver in my pocket as I type this. One thing about revolvers, I don't have to hunt for the brass when I fire up a cylinder full. The down side to that is there's .45, .40, and 9x19 all over the place at the range for the taking, but never any .38 or .357 or .45 Colt. Bummer. LOL

[Blue Brick]

Isn’t it interesting that the young and inexperienced always have the strongest opinions, yet really have no real knowledge on the subject to back up their opinion.

[mljdeckard]

I responded only to the OP's original post, and it got put in between all of the discussion about sanitization, but two things;

1: On THR, we follow the law, period.

2: Moving your brass after a shooting is evidence tampering. If you are ever in a position where your lawyer is trying to convince the DA to not file charges against you in a legitimate defensive shooting, committing a crime to cover up the circumstances of that shooting is a BAD idea. Even if you would have walked away from the homicide charge, you are now looking at a charge of evidence tampering, obstruction of justice, or both, depending on how your state's laws are written. BAD IDEA.

[StrikeFire83]

Blue Brick, I've also found that assuming age automatically = experience and intelligence to be a fallacy.

But I defer to the old guys a lot of the time. My dad and grandpa are a helluva lot smarter and more knowledgeable then me concerning most things.

mljdeckard, thanks as well. Despite being younger I guess some others agree with me regarding legality and the stupidity of tampering with and or leaving the scene of a justified shooting.

[wrs840]

Who's advocating moving brass? It's in my revolver, like my unspoken words are in my head and also not on the docket. Why is this single subtlety so difficult to comprehend?

les

[StrikeFire83]

Okay, I guess I'm not quite done. :banghead:

I think you're being intellectually facile here, WRS. But moving on.

Would you at least admit that your LEO friend was advocating leaving the scene of a shooting as a viable strategy so as to avoid possible persecution by an anti-gun DA?

Can we at least agree that leaving the scene of a shooting, without reporting it to the police, is in of itself a crime and not the best of ideas?

[.38 Special]

38 Special, frankly, I do think that the 1911 has also been surpassed.

You're a brave one, I'll give you that. Arguing that neither the 1911 nor any revolvers are as good as a Glock for self defense...

Hope your thread works out for you! :neener:

[StrikeFire83]

38 special, as you can see, it aint working out that well, but for different reasons. :D

We should all shoot what we like and what we're best with. In all honesty I should have re-thought the title of this thread before starting it.

Oh well, lesson learned.

[wrs840]

Would you at least admit that your LEO friend was advocating leaving the scene of a shooting as a viable strategy so as to avoid possible persecution by an anti-gun DA?

Absolutely not. Where in the HE double-toothpicks did you get that? Show it.

Les

[SlamFire1]

A J frame revolver is a very compact package. The 38 Special round is just adequate out of a two inch barrel. I cannot think of an autopistol with as powerful a round that fits into a similiar small space.

Now if I was expecting trouble, would I even bother carrying a M1911, a Glock, or some high capacity pistol?

No! I would be carrying my M1a!!!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/M1a%20and%20Garand%20Receiver%20Pictures/ReducedFulllengthM1a195395P62300-1.jpg

But until then, these small J frames are a lot easier to carry than all the above.

That's why I like them.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Smith%20and%20Wesson%20Pistols/ReducedCheifSpecialCentennialBod-1.jpg

[StrikeFire83]

Okay, WRS, this time, I really am done with this.

Hopefully none of us will ever have to fire our weapons in self defense, and all of this will be moot. If we do, you handle it how you want and I'll handle it how I want.

By the way, WRS, I really like that Thomas Jefferson quote, never seen that one before.

[wrs840]

My best to you StrikeFire83, and thanks for your sentiments.

Les

[MCgunner]

Actually, this is how I heard it and who I heard said it, but good thought none-the-less. :D

‘‘Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn’t.’’ Ben Franklin

[wrs840]

Maybe the two jousted witty asides on THR occasionally?

Les

[r3volv3r]

I don't know much about defensive shooting but for recreational purposes the advantage of not having to pick up brass is a big one.

Too many people just leave empty autoloader casings littered around in random places, and that is a selfish/careless/disrespectful habit.

(I'm not talking about your local club/range, they have janitors)

[danbrew]

give a SINGLE short statement to the police "he was about to kill/maim me or my wife/daughter/son/friend, and I was in fear of my/their life, and I shot to stop the attack. I plan on cooperating fully, but I'd like to exercise my right to counsel at this time."

You'll learn this in law school - "I want a lawyer." Period, nothing else.

And while I hate to drag you back into the thread kicking and screaming, the entire discussion about whether you should stick around or hit the road really do depend upon the circumstances. 99% of the time you won't be able to hit the road. The shooting happened in your living room, for example. Where you gonna go? The shooting happened in front of a bunch of witnesses. Be kind of hard to pull off a disappearing act.

Yet... I could think of a few situations in which one might be involved in a self defense shooting in which you could simply walk away. Forensics aside, if one were involved in a justified shooting and knew that the local authorities were unlikely to see his point of view, it's not unreasonable to ask yourself the question "can I just walk away from this?"

You'd have to be prepared to deal with the consequences if it didn't work out, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you'd be convicted of murder.

[StrikeFire83]

danbrew, what have you heard about DAs trying to build a case in the media that people invoking their right to remain silent is a sign of guilt.

[David E]

Or a very smart and honest LEO, advising a citizen on how to minimize complications because the local prosecutor is an anti-gun zealot.

I am not talking about a bad shoot or murder, I am only speaking to a situation where the good guy used deadly force justifiably.

But I'm curious.....what scenario could be enhanced to the favor of the good guy that picks up some of his ejected brass at the scene in order to "minimize complications " by tampering with the evidence where the shooting had just occured?

Many (all?) officials frown on "tampering with evidence," especially the aforementioned anti-gun zealot DA. You tampered with evidence why? The only reason they will consider is that you had something to hide and cover up. What other lies are you telling them?

Using a revolver means nothing in this regard, especially if you perform a reload and fire one or more shots after the reload. Will you pick up the 5-6 cases on the ground? At least they're in one place....:rolleyes:

As it was presented, that advice is stupid, unsafe and naive, not to mention stupid.......(yeah, I said it twice)

If I just shot for blood, the last thing on my mind will be to pick up my brass. Does he have armed friends? Is he really dead/stopped? Hell if I know! So I'm going to top off my gun so I have a full load to handle whatever else may come my way and, if it's safe to do so, call 911 for the cops and an ambulance. The last thing I'd do is pick up my brass in Condition White to "minimize complications!"

[Guillermo]

Not always. A XD or the like has a better trigger than a wheelgun


I love my XD45 but there I do not have a wheel gun that does not have a much better trigger than a spongy striker fire

[wrs840]

But I'm curious.....what scenario could be enhanced to the favor of the good guy that picks up some of his ejected brass at the scene in order to "minimize complications " by tampering with the evidence where the shooting had just occured?

Many (all?) officials frown on "tampering with evidence,"

Good God.

NO FOOGIN' ANYONE said "tamper with evidence" or "pick up brass".

It's just that a trail of uncontrolled words is generally agreed to be something that often WILL come back to bite you. The SIMPLE corollary posited by a seasoned LEO is that sometimes, just sometimes, a trail of brass can bite you too. THAT'S IT. PERIOD. GET IT? No advocacy of anything here. Just a presentation of a subtle nuance to CONSIDER.

Go ahead, be a reflexively-defensive auto-nut refusing to digest any ideas that counter the auto's unquestionable uber-perfection. Fine with me.

I love my autos, although there is a 442 in my pocket right now, as is the usual, 'cause that's what works most-of-the-time for my always-concealed-carry life. Do whatever works for you, by all means...


Jeez. Perry Masons everywhere...

Les

[David E]

Ok, let's look at what you DID say:

FWIW, I had an LEO once tell me there are sometimes SD situations in which it's "better not to leave a trail of little-brass pieces of evidence" all over the ground... Something else to consider.

Les

Why don't you do us all the favor of stating WHY it's "better not to leave a trail of little-brass pieces of evidence" all over the ground... when it's a justifiable/righteous shoot.

Try and keep the name calling out of it.....if you can. :rolleyes:

[wrs840]

Sometimes. Sometimes... It can come back to bite. Like words.

Like mine just did.

Sorry about that.

Les

[David E]

Ok............so "little-brass pieces of evidence all over the ground" can come back to bite you?

How?

[weisse52]

I do think that the 1911 has also been surpassed. Personally, if I'm going to try and conceal a gun that large, I want something with more capacity then it has to offer.

Which means you have never tried. A 1911 is a very easy large frame gun to conceal. Flat and thin. Making the draw and hitting the target is the name of the game. Not "spray and pray".

Oh, I also carry a 642 in my pocket even with I do have the 1911 as well.

[wrs840]

Ok............so "little-brass pieces of evidence all over the ground" can come back to bite you?

How?

Minimize your statement. A brass trail is just another statement.

Les

[David E]

Minimize your statement. A brass trail is just another statement.

Dang, if I wanted to pull this many teeth, I woulda been a dentist ! :D

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but what do you mean by "statement?"

Webster's says this:

Main Entry: statement !stAt-munt
Pronunciation: \ ˈstāt-mənt \
Function: noun
Date: 1702
Results

1. 1 something stated: as a. a a single declaration or remark : assertion b. a report of facts or opinions

2. 2 the act or process of stating or presenting orally or on paper

3. 3 proposition

4. 4 the presentation of a theme in a musical composition

5. 5 a summary of activity in a financial account over a particular period of time

6. 6 an opinion, comment, or message conveyed indirectly usually by nonverbal means - monuments are statements in form and space - O. B. Hardison, Jr.


I bolded the parts I thought made the most sense....but it'd be great if you clarified your entire point in one post.

[wrs840]

One's verbal statement at the scene of a SD shoot should be minimal: I don't think anyone here disagrees with that.

A brass trail is just another evidentiary "statement" at the scene of a SD shoot, which, under some circumstances, could benefit from being minimized, so as not to give a misdirected prosecutor some potential to twist it against you. Like I said repeatedly, this is a subtle nuance to consider, only consider, because, unfortunately, it comes into play sometimes. Less can be good... Just like one's words at the scene.

I'm unsure why this point is misunderstood here by those who insist that I'm advocating "tampering", or, incredibly, "vacating"... It's just not here, anywhere, not in my posts or any other members' posts, other than those who are misreading what's actually been written.

Les

[razorback2003]

There are some who have an autopistol who would be better off with a revolver, and that includes some law enforcement. An autopistol is mechanically more complicated and takes a greater skill to safely operate than a revolver. Those who do not want to take the time to learn how to disassemble, clean, and perform clearing drills do not need a pistol. Revolvers do well for folks who like to keep a handgun in a nightstand for years on end. They are also good for people who lack the wrist strength to rack a slide. They are also easier to load and unload for the less experienced. I have seen a few law enforcement officers at indoor ranges who couldn't even load their own magazines!!!! I thought how crazy that they were even carrying and then on top of it they jumped everytime they pulled the trigger....again better suited for a four inch 38 Special than a 40 cal autopistol. Those police that cannot devote the time to master the autopistol should be forced to master the revolver. If they can't master the revolver, then it is time for another line of work.

I myself enjoy both autopistols and revolvers depending on the situation. I shoot at least monthly and am amazed at gunhandling I see at the range!

[David E]

A brass trail is just another evidentiary "statement" at the scene of a SD shoot, which, under some circumstances, could benefit from being minimized, so as not to give a misdirected prosecutor some potential to twist it against you.

Ok, so if I have 6 pieces of brass on the ground, I might have a problem with the anti-gun zealot DA, but if I have 6 empties in my revolver I won't?

Or if I have 12 pieces of brass on the ground, I'm at greater risk of the DA's wrath with the auto than if I reloaded my revolver and shot 6 more times?

I understand that some people have been prosecuted simply because the idiots in charge thought the badguy was shot too many times, but they can do that with less than 6 rds fired....and they have.

Regardless, my first goal is it avoid the gunfight. If that's not possible, then my second goal is to win it. My third is to explain why in court, NOT at the scene. (at the scene, a brief "he tried to kill me, forcing me to shoot" will suffice)

I will shoot until the deadly threat has ceased. If one shot will do it, great. If it takes 31, then that's what I'll shoot, regardless of any "evidentiary trail of brass" concern.

[farscott]

While not condoning tampering, I think I see what wrs840 is trying to address. For the sake of the argument, let's say this was a "good shoot".

After a shooting, the location of "found" ejected brass may be used to say that the shooter was at or near a location. The shooter's account may not put the shooter at or near that location. This could be a difference of feet or yards. For those people who have never seen where brass can fly or for those people who are looking for any little thing to justify making this a "bad shoot", there now appears to be a discrepancy, one that needs further investigation as the evidence appears to contradict a statement.

While an experienced attorney and an expert witness could show that brass does indeed fly far and wide, more money and time would be expended in explaining this, and more doubt would be cast upon the shooter. We need to remember that many people believe ejected brass drops into a little pile right next to the shooter, and that many people have no idea what happens during and after a shooting.

With a revolver, there is no brass location to contradict a statement as suggested in the above. That is not to say there is no other evidence, but the discussion at hand was limited to brass.

[Guillermo]

Gentlemen,

While obviously everyone is trying to stay "high road" about this, we can discuss the issue and still be within the objective that Oleg envisioned.

A shooting, good or bad, can get you into jail. Heck, a malfunctioning gun can get you into jail. Ask David Olofson.

Being right, being innocent and being found not guilty are, in fact, three separate issues. Let us assume that you, the shooter, is both right and innocent.

The goal of being found "not guilty" is about minimizing evidence that can be used against you. Having your gun toss brass around can indeed come back to bite you.

Shots fired, location of the shooter, location of anything that the brass could ricochet off of, where they might be kicked by EMS and/or police personnel, if some are missing, found mysteriously in another room or outside (assuming the incident occured inside). All of these things can be used as the vehicle for the government lawyers (prosecutor) to weave a tale.

While most government lawyers are interested only in finding the truth and seeing that justice is done, some are interested in advancing their careers. With this in mind, the tale that they weave might not be the truth. Giving that type of government lawyer less to work with means a better chance of being found not guilty

[saturno_v]

and 7 rounds of 9mm vs 5 rounds of 38 special seems like a wash

5 rounds of 38 Special vs. 13 rounds (12 + 1) of 9 mm +P in my Kel-Tec P-11 pocket piece is NOT a wash....:rolleyes::D

[ArmedBear]

True.

I'd trust a 5-round J-Frame to actually fire 5 rounds...:rolleyes::D

[L-Frame]

Like I stated earlier, I carry my wheelgun because I believe the chances are greater that a semi-auto will fail in some way, than the chances that I will run out of ammo with my 5 or 6 shot revolvers in a fight. Just my opinion.

[Vern Humphrey]

I'd trust a 5-round J-Frame to actually fire 5 rounds...
And I trust my Kimber Classic .45 to actually fire all 8 rounds in the magazine, plus the one in the chamber -- and have plenty of shooting experience to back that trust up. And it will fire all 8 rounds in the spare mag, after a quick reload.

[ArmedBear]

Your Kimber Classic isn't exactly a P-11, though...:)

The thread is about pocket guns, I think, where revolvers still have a level of excellence that semiautos haven't reached.

WRT a full-sized gun, my .45 will go 14 without reloading. It's reliable as hell, too. But it's no pocket gun.

[Vern Humphrey]

While I admit to occasionally dropping a Colt Detective Special in my pocket, I generally carry any gun in an IWB -- cleaner for the gun, and better access.

[ArmedBear]

I can fastdraw a 642 from my pocket holster (DeSantis Nemesis).

I've never found concealed IWB to offer better access. Not even close.

When driving, I often pull the whole Nemesis out and stuff it between the seat and center console. This also allows extremely quick access.

That said, I'd rather shoot .45 ACP than .38 Special, if all other things were equal.

So many options, so many tradeoffs.:)

[Vern Humphrey]

I notice, however, that of all the "practical" shooting games, none of them involve drawing and shooting from a pocket holster. And so far as I know, no serious competitor in any such sport chooses to use a pocket holster.

[saturno_v]

Armedbear

Never had any jamming issue with my P-11 right out of the box and with any ammo and any brands I tried, FMJ, HP, etc....

Revolvers can have their own issues too.

Like with any defense handgun (semi or wheelie) you cannot trust them out of the box...fire several boxes of a variety of ammo before trusting them with your life (testing accuracy, malfunctioning, etc..)

And make sure to use always the same defense ammo your handgun is proven to like...

I trust my P-11 to fire all of its 13 rounds in a flash and, as Vern H said, fire another 12 in a quick reload of my spare magazine.

Who told you that a Kel-Tec cannot be as reliable as a Kimber?? Did you have any direct or observed experience??

Said that, I agree overall with the old adage about a pocket gun....if you cannot get the job done in 5 rounds you better run away....

I may get a snubnose 357 or 38+ one day just for fun..I like them....

[ArmedBear]

I can hold my revolver in my pocket, and nobody knows I have a gun in my hand. A guy slouching with his hands in his pockets doesn't get noticed, either.

If necessary, the first thing an armed assailant will see of my gun is muzzle flash. That's a hell of a tactical advantage in a real-world situation like a robbery, carjacking or the like.

That simply isn't possible with concealed IWB carry.

That has no analogue in "practical" shooting games, and the quotes are quite apt.

[wrs840]

Guys, I apologize to everyone.

Since the title of the thread is:

"For self-defense shooting, the revolver has been surpassed, EXCEPT..."

And since every post in the thread prior to my first post in the thread was weighing revolver vs. auto...

I made an assumption that everyone would understand that my "LEO friend" was simply presenting one point to consider in favor of revolvers when weighing revolver vs. auto for SD carry. Perhaps I was insufficiently clear on that, and that's possibly what set some folks off, and if so, I apologize.

Les

[saturno_v]

can hold my revolver in my pocket, and nobody knows I have a gun in my hand. A guy slouching with his hands in his pockets doesn't get noticed, either.

If necessary, the first thing an armed assailant will see of my gun is muzzle flash. That's a hell of a tactical advantage in a real-world situation like a robbery, carjacking or the like.




Same here

My P-11 stays always in my pocket with its Uncle Mike's pocket holster...

Basically it doesn't print any differently than a blackberry....I use it in my business attire, summer shorts, etc....

I could not conceal it only if I was going around in my underwear but I never do.....:D:p

[ArmedBear]

And make sure to use always the same defense ammo your handgun is proven to like...

Another reason to use a revolver... There's no need to do this. Sure, you need to be choosy if you want target-grade accuracy. But in a pinch, you can stuff any to-spec ammo in a revolver and it will work. I have never had any ammo-related failures in a revolver, except if a round was actually defective. That's a LOT of revolvers, and a LOT of ammo of all kinds, not just one.

It doesn't have to "like" ammo in the way a semiauto does. It doesn't care if you load snake shot (for snakes), LSWCs and JHPs in the same cylinder. And if the ammo drops in cleanly, you don't have to test it to know it will fire, either.

I'm not saying revolvers can't have problems. They can, of course. And ammo can be junk.

But your advice is semiauto-specific.

[saturno_v]

But your advice is semiauto-specific.

Up to a point...I heard of several issues especially in new lightweight pocket revolvers (cylinder binding for example)...the old snubbies were built like tanks and they fired the very low pressure 38 Special standars...in this era of cutting production cost is different...

But you are right that on average, revolvers are more reliable than semi if you do not know previously how that particular gun behave...for example, if you hand me 2 handguns that I'm not familiar with for defense, one is a revolver and the other is a semi..I would trust the revolver more...

My P-11 (and several other semis) do not have problem mixing ammo...but it could be an issue, as general principle.

For defense purpose (humans or dogs) I do not really see the need to mixing ammo....pick the best JHP your can can fire and that's it....9 mm or 38 Spl do not have enough steam for anything else anyway....I would never get in the woods with my P-11....

However the semis are more at disadvantage if you get a dud during firing....there is a need to manually cycle the semi while you just keep squeezing the trigger in a revolver......a defective weak round, if the bullet leaves the barrel (if it doesn't, it's trouble for both) may create a cycling issue in a semi where the revolver doesn't have that problem...however in a well designed and built semi, these are fraction of a second problems....

[Vern Humphrey]

Another reason to use a revolver... There's no need to do this. Sure, you need to be choosy if you want target-grade accuracy. But in a pinch, you can stuff any to-spec ammo in a revolver and it will work. I have never had any ammo-related failures in a revolver, except if a round was actually defective. That's a LOT of revolvers, and a LOT of ammo of all kinds, not just one.

It doesn't have to "like" ammo in the way a semiauto does. It doesn't care if you load snake shot (for snakes), LSWCs and JHPs in the same cylinder. And if the ammo drops in cleanly, you don't have to test it to know it will fire, either.
And that's different from an automatic, how?

I can shoot 185gr semi-wadcutters, 200 grain semi-wadcutters, cast 230 grain round noses, and several brands of factory ammo through my Kimber without a bobble. I also can shoot snake loads. No problem.

With any handgun, you need ammo that is both reliable and shoots to the sights. For defensive use, you use ammo that is tested both for reliability and terminal effect. Regardless of what style handgun you use.

[saturno_v]

With any handgun, you need ammo that is both reliable and shoots to the sights. For defensive use, you use ammo that is tested both for reliability and terminal effect. Regardless of what style handgun you use.

Amen to that!!

[pinkymingeo]

You boys can talk all the trash you like, but when Bertha clears leather everybody, and I mean everybody downrange puts up their hands and says "Sir".
http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t312/6pakawupass/IMG_1766a.jpg

[ArmedBear]

For defensive use, you use ammo that is tested both for reliability and terminal effect. Regardless of what style handgun you use.

How many people have you shot with the ammo you keep in your gun?

I haven't shot any, myself, not with my semi ammo and not with my revolver ammo. It's damned hard to find volunteers.

[Vern Humphrey]

How many people have you shot with the ammo you keep in your gun?

I shot two with the ammo I used in my .357 -- and neither one asked for his money back.

The ammunition I carry in my .45 is used by several police and military agencies, and has a very good reputation among them.

But if actually shooting someone is your criterion, how can you enter the argument if you've never shot anyone?;)

[ArmedBear]

I should elaborate. Obviously, I was kidding about that, but I had a point somewhere in there...:)

Someone in the rifle forum claims to be a cop who was involved in a situation where 2 .45ACP HST rounds just bounced off someone's head.

Not sure if I believe it, but it makes me think that I don't know WHAT to believe unless I see it for myself.

What .357 ammo, BTW? Having no such volunteers, I'd love to know what you used on yours.:)

[OregonJohnny]

I skipped to the end. The OP says in one sentence that the autoloader has surpassed the revolver in concealed carry, then later says the revolver still surpasses the autoloader when it comes to pocket guns. Keep in mind that A LOT of CHL holders use a pocket gun as their primary, or even their only CCW. And a HUGE percentage of those pocket guns are probably j-frame or similar revolvers. So I would say that the "duty weapon" category is the only one that is clearly, without a doubt, dominated by autoloaders. Home defense, range, and CCW categories could be debated equally by either side.

[kmrcstintn]

just my observation...:scrutiny:

since we have folks from both sides of this never ending and often tedious discussion...it would have been better to post in the "handguns general discussion" section; since it deals with both semiautomatics and revolvers!!!

thank you for letting me rant!!! :cuss:

[Sixgun fanatic]

I agree that modern autos are very reliable. That being said it is still recommended to fire 2-300 rounds of your self defense load before carrying. I own autos but most often end up carrying my 3" adjustable sighted S&W model 60 with 135 grain gold dot +p hp's. I prefer revolvers for the following reasons: 1-Grips can be chosen that fit your hand better than an auto. 2-No need to test fire self defense ammo for reliablity (great for times when ammo is scarce and expensive). 3- If you have to push the barrel of your gun into an attacker at close quarters the gun will fire, autos get pushed out of battery which causes a failure to fire. Autos are faster to reload, but with practice & speedloaders a revolver can be reloaded pretty quickly. I'm not saying revolvers are superior, or that I never carry an auto I'm just more of a fan of wheelguns. 

[StrikeFire83]

I skipped to the end. The OP says in one sentence that the autoloader has surpassed the revolver in concealed carry, then later says the revolver still surpasses the autoloader when it comes to pocket guns. Keep in mind that A LOT of CHL holders use a pocket gun as their primary, or even their only CCW. And a HUGE percentage of those pocket guns are probably j-frame or similar revolvers. So I would say that the "duty weapon" category is the only one that is clearly, without a doubt, dominated by autoloaders. Home defense, range, and CCW categories could be debated equally by either side.

Okay, yes, and that was what I was trying to get at in the original post. In a DUTY size weapon, 4 inch barrel, which many people do concealed carry, I'd rather carry my Glock 17 with a boatload more ammo on tap. I personally have 8,000 rounds through this gun, and am totally convinced at its reliability. But I can only conceal my Glock with an IWB holster and a baggy un-tucked shirt, ie polo, bowling shirt, etc. I don't know about yall, but due to hot weather, work, and social situations it is often not possible for me to dress this way, and as such I cannot always carry my Glock. Often I can't.

Seeing as how I'm not totally convinced about the reliability of my PM9, I don't feel comfortable pocket carrying it yet. So, the S&W 638 gets pocket carried when I need to carry in a pocket.

And for those of you who can fit a Glock 26 in your pocket, you wear baggier pants then I.

[ArmedBear]

But I can only conceal my Glock with an IWB holster and a baggy un-tucked shirt, ie polo, bowling shirt, etc. I don't know about yall, but due to hot weather, work, and social situations it is often not possible for me to dress this way, and as such I cannot always carry my Glock. Often I can't.

Seeing as how I'm not totally convinced about the reliability of my PM9, I don't feel comfortable pocket carrying it yet. So, the S&W 638 gets pocket carried when I need to carry in a pocket.

Exactly.

That was my point about "practical" shooting competition vs. pocket holsters, too. Sure, top competitors don't use pocket holsters. They also wear clothes optimized for drawing quickly from whatever setup they need to comply with "from concealment". There's no rule that says you have to wear clothes you could wear to a meeting with an important client, or while working out, or whatever.

With a pocket holster, I can have the gun in the same place, and deploy it in the same way, whether I'm wearing cargo shorts and going to Lowes, or a suit and going to a theater.

I can put on a rain jacket and still draw it in exactly the same way.

If I put on a long coat, I can stick the pocket holster in the coat pocket, and still draw it in the same way.

That means no fumbling under stress. It means I can keep the gun concealed until I'm ready to fire, without moving my shirt up out of the way or drawing any attention to myself. It means I can ALWAYS have the gun, no matter what I'm wearing. It means the gun will always be in the same place, and the same muscle memory will apply.

That IWB holster might be ideal if you're wearing the specific clothes that are optimized for it. But if it gets cold and starts raining, and you put on a layer and a shell, you've just restricted access to your gun. Put on a long coat, and you've downright buried it.

...which brings me to another "impractical" part of defensive shooting that can't ever be replicated in "practical" shooting competition.

You don't know when or if you might have to use the gun. You might be hot and tired from a day laying tarpaper on the roof, and going to the hardware store for some more nails. You might be dressed up for the theater. You might be on the way to the gym.

If you draw attention to yourself in a group of people during an armed robbery or other attack, you may get a couple bullets in you. If you lift your shirt and expose a gun, you're likely to get a whole magazine. The armed assailant will ALREADY HAVE his gun out, finger on the trigger.

Those are some reasons I figure that real-world routine carry by civilians has a list of criteria and concerns that are different from carry by cops, and from any competition I know of.

[David E]

I can fastdraw a 642 from my pocket holster (DeSantis Nemesis).

The word "fastdraw" is vague and overused on gun forums. After all, it seems that everyone online that owns a gun has a "fast draw".......... 99% of these folks don't know how fast their "fast draw" really is.......only that it is fast.

So, I ask you, how fast is yours? Starting with hand on gun, in pocket, reacting to a start signal, how fast can you pull it out and fire one shot on an IPSC target @ 5 yds, "C" zone or better?

How fast is it when you start with your hand outside the pocket?

I've never found concealed IWB to offer better access. Not even close.

Really? How is the access/speed drawing from your pocket rig while seated? How about drawing the gun with your weak hand only? (if you carry in the front pocket, you're really SOL on that one)

When driving, I often pull the whole Nemesis out and stuff it between the seat and center console. This also allows extremely quick access.

It only allows "extremely quick access" if it's still in the same place it was to start with, and that nothing got put on top of it. In 1986, some FBI agents anticipating a gunfight drew their gun and put it on the car seat for "quick access." That is, until they crashed their cars into the suspect vehicle, sending their gun to places unknown. (They immediately had to go to their backup J frame on their ankle.) The reason they did this was that they did not have enough confidence to make a draw under pressure.

Pocket carry certainly has its place, but it certainly has its share of disadvantages.

[David E]

my "LEO friend" was simply presenting one point to consider in favor of revolvers when weighing revolver vs. auto for SD carry.

Duly considered.............and duly dismissed !

:D

[MCgunner]

Too many people just leave empty autoloader casings littered around in random places, and that is a selfish/careless/disrespectful habit.

Oh, contrare, bite your tongue! I very much appreciate those folks and am only too happy to police their brass for them. For GOD'S sake, throw that .45 colt, .357 Mag, and .38 brass on the ground, too, would ya, PALEEEEEEASE!

[.38 Special]

A while back there was a fellow dumping his .500 S&W brass onto the ground. He was even stepping on it and kicking it out into the dirt. After he left I practically dove in after it. I don't even own a .500, but at 50 cents per case I couldn't just let it lie there.

I suppose I have to buy a .500 now...

[ArmedBear]

How is the access/speed drawing from your pocket rig while seated?

Terrible. IWB is no better, and unless I'm wearing clothes specifically optimized for IWB draw, it's worse. Since I have to wear normal clothes for a normal life, and temperatures change around here, that means it's worse.

See my post above.

It only allows "extremely quick access" if it's still in the same place it was to start with, and that nothing got put on top of it.

When I say "stuff" I mean "stuff". It doesn't move. That's why I put it there.

[David E]

IWB is no better, and unless I'm wearing clothes specifically optimized for IWB draw, it's worse. Since I have to wear normal clothes for a normal life, and temperatures change around here, that means it's worse.

Then I'm curious about your experience in CCW and what gun you're carrying in what brand of IWB holster, as I've not had those problems. Oddly enough, I also wear normal clothes where temperatures change...

I note you side-stepped the "how fast are you" question...;)

[ArmedBear]

Never been timed. Don't have a timer. Don't shoot IDPA. Probably wouldn't use that gun if I did. Can't answer the question accurately.

Am quite aware of what "fastdraw" means, though.

Then I'm curious about your experience in CCW and what gun you're carrying in what brand of IWB holster, as I've not had those problems. Oddly enough, I also wear normal clothes where temperatures change...


When seated, especially in your car?

In what position do you carry the gun?

Do you tuck your shirt into your pants? ("Normal" doesn't mean fat-guy-style Hawaiian shirt.) Use an additional cover garment?

[MCgunner]

You can draw from the pocket quicker than IWB in some ways considering you can walk along with your hand in your pocket on the gun and no one will notice. But, quick target aquisition and accurate shooting is more important.

[ArmedBear]

You can draw from the pocket quicker than IWB in some ways considering you can walk along with your hand in your pocket on the gun and no one will notice. But, quick target aquisition and accurate shooting is more important.

In a situation where concealment is a tactical advantage, IMO that's quite true. Hair stands up on back of neck, hand goes in pocket.

Obviously, hitting the target matters. I've done okay at that, when I've been timed. Won a charity match the first time I was timed (5 12" plates at 8 yards in the 3s as I recall). I've done some Bullseye and some one-handed can bouncing for fun, and I can use the gun one-handed fine, too.

What I am more worried about than my ability to shoot a man-sized target at near-contact range is my ability to keep my head straight when staring down a gun barrel or at a big knife. Can't say what I'd do, unless it happens (hopefully not).

I can get the gun out quickly and unobtrusively, I can acquire a target well enough for the task in question. I sure don't think I'm the best shooter ever, but that's not the part I have major doubts about.

Can I perform as I have to when I'm scared ****less? I'd be a liar if I said I knew.

IWB, or the best OWB holster in the world, wouldn't make me any better or worse at that part.:)

[David E]

Am quite aware of what "fastdraw" means, though.

Everyone else thinks they know what it means, too. The problem is, it means different things to different people. For example, you may think that 3 seconds to react, draw and fire a first shot (on target) is "fast," whilst others would be on their second magazine by then.


Quote:
Then I'm curious about your experience in CCW and what gun you're carrying in what brand of IWB holster, as I've not had those problems. Oddly enough, I also wear normal clothes where temperatures change...

When seated, especially in your car?

In what position do you carry the gun?

Do you tuck your shirt into your pants? ("Normal" doesn't mean fat-guy-style Hawaiian shirt.) Use an additional cover garment?

Yes, while seated.

I carry in a KyTac BraveHeart at about 3:30. Right now, it's a 4" Compact Kimber .45, but I've been known to carry an all steel, fullsize 1911 Govt, as well.

My outter shirts are not Hawaiian and blend in very well. Other times, I use a Polo shirt with a banded hem. If I had to go "shirt and tie," I would use the KyTac tuckable or the 5.11 holster shirt.

In all cases, I'd have a much more serious gun/caliber than a 5-shot .38 snubby.

And I challenge the speculation that a pocket holster is faster to draw from than a good IWB, especially if the start is hand off gun. If you get to start with your hand on the pocketed gun, then I'd get to start with mine on my gun. There were many times as a cop I had my hand on my gun and the suspect had no clue, so it's a valid comparison.

I've happened to time that draw (hand on gun in IWB rig) and it was .39 from reacting to the start signal and hitting the target.

Granted, you can walk around all day with your hand on your gun without attracting attention while I could not, but that's not necessarily a good thing. (you may need gunless hand quickly, say, to keep your toddler from going off the curb in front of the bus)

Now, before dismiss the .39 time, there's a key factor to keep in mind: I'm reacting to the beep, so my reaction time is included in the .39 time frame. Typically, my reaction time to an impending start signal is .18-.20, which means it takes me less than .25 second to draw and fire if I were to self-start.

Why is this important to know? If you can get the badguy to talk to you and you make
your move while he is in mid-sentence, it typically would take him at least .75 to stop talking, recognize something is happening and decide how to react to it. If my first shot is .25, second shot at .40, 3rd shot at .55, 4th shot at .75, the badguy has 4 shots in him before he even realizes something is wrong. (for him)

This is for a scenario where an unabated, all out application of deadly force is required. It's not about threat management.

Bill Jordan, in "No Second Place Winner," covered a similar topic regarding fast draw speed
where someone was killed before the deadman could even get his gun out of his holster. He proved how fast a draw could be done in court to help exonerate his friend.

[SharpsDressedMan]

Whoa!! Not every semi auto comes out of the box "10,000 round reliable". That is kind of a gun to gun thing, being broken in and verified by the owner that it IS reliable for him/her, with the ammo they have chosen for it. Sure, the current breed of semi-autos are far better than they were 30 years ago, but all machines need to be broken in, and run awhile before we say they run just FINE! Revolvers sometimes get "reliable" before semi autos. Keep It Simple Stupid also applies to the simplicity of revolvers. They demand less of the shooter as far as training/familiarization that autos, so they will continue to be the choice for many who do not have the time nor the desire to apply themselves to the manual of arms for semi-autos.

[Vern Humphrey]

Try this -- hand the average man in the street an automatic with a "jam" -- say a typical stove pipe, and then a revolver with a typical jam -- say crud under the ejector star. See which one he can put into action faster. Then ask him to do a fast reload -- given a spare loaded magazine for the automatic, and a speed loader for the revolver.

[sw282]

I am new to HR. Not new to guns. My Uncle Sam introduced them to me at Ft Jackson in the mid 60s. My association ended in 1994. With a reunion in Iraq 2004. I love guns. ALL guns -from cap pistols to Railroad guns. Handguns at the present are my current interest.I own Maybe 30 handguns. Pistols and revolvers. From most Makers except Glock and Ruger. I shoot all of them regularly.
In almost 40 years of handgun shooting I have seen revolvers fail to function Three times. Each because of a handload error.
With autoloaders I have had them ALL fail to function. With handloads and factory ammo. My most reliable autos are a Beretta 92 Compact-Colt Govt Model Series 70-Walther PP-Sig232. My Uncle made me use a 1911 and M9. Altho I got to choose my own in Iraq which was a Sig P225. I have loaded handguns scattered thru the house. The one that is closest to me is a SW MODEL 15 2". Its loaded w/158gr swc Remington. I dont feel undergunned or underammode with 6 rounds.

[Marvin KNox]

VERN,

I've never had a revolver jam from "crud under the ejector". And I carried and shot a Ruger single six for years in Alaska. I plinked for hrs. on end when between flights out in the villages. .22 ammo was quite cheap back then. I put more rounds through that revolver than most people would ever do.

I never cleaned the revolver as long as I owned it. I just shoved it back under the seat of the plane until the next time. I carried and shot it in -70 degree winters and 90 degree summers. It never jammed once for any reason.

I suppose if I had to stop a charge by a hopped up ptarmigan I'da cleaned it occasionally. I just never got around to it. Lazy I guess.

In fact I've never had a revolver jam, clean or not. Heard of it. Just never had one jam.

I've had misfires with reloads. I just pulled the trigger and they always went bang on the next hammer fall. I'm just lucky I guess.

[Vern Humphrey]

VERN,

I've never had a revolver jam from "crud under the ejector". And I carried and shot a Ruger single six for years in Alaska.
That's "crud under the ejector star." The Ruger Single-Six, being a solid frame, single action revolver, does not have an ejector star.

[General Geoff]

Crud under the ejector star is more likely to keep the cylinder from closing at all, than to bind it up between shots...

[Vern Humphrey]

Crud under the ejector star is more likely to keep the cylinder from closing at all, than to bind it up between shots...
Not always -- stick with these forums and you'll read many instances of revolvers "mysteriously" binding up in the middle of a cylinder full.

[Marvin KNox]

VERN,

I'll take your word on that. It's been a long time.

I didn't know a lot about the gun except that it had a spare magnum cylinder that I never used and it shot the heads of Ptarmigan when I did my part.

[m2steven]

I carry both my 642 and my Kahr PM9. I consider both to be 100 percent reliable. I love both guns, but the 642 is not a range gun. It beats my hand to death. Thing is, is very accurate and if recoil were a bit more manageable - it would be a blast to shoot for serious (as serious as a < 2 in ch barrel can be) target work.