Since most on this forum would carry a Revolver


PDA






gmh1013
December 31, 2012, 01:29 PM
like myself...I carry a Ruger LCR .38 most of the time because of weight.
If I ever found myself in some situation like Aurora Co shooting or any other that makes the news almost every day now.....what would you do knowing you are out "gunned" with 5 or 6 shots against somebody with 100's of rounds....I told my wife Im sure i would get shot but I could not just sit there and do nothing and try to hide.
Im now thinking about moving to an Auto like my Browning BDA 380 just to have 14 rounds on hand and another clip.
Has anybody thinking of changing to an automatic?

If you enjoyed reading about "Since most on this forum would carry a Revolver" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ArchAngelCD
December 31, 2012, 01:33 PM
What does round count have to do with anything? If you can get a well aimed shot off all you will need is one or two rounds to stop the fight. If you can not get a well aimed shot off all the ammo in the world will do you no good.

AND, getting shot will do no one any good, especially you. IMO, if even in a situation like that, take cover and wait for the opportunity to squeeze of a well aimed shot and stop the killing.

Sam1911
December 31, 2012, 01:44 PM
The odds of you ending up facing a spree killer are FAR...galactically far... below the odds of you facing a mugging or other violent assault. Picking a weapon because you're concerned about that is probably not very logical.

Nothing at all -- even your own semi-auto rifle and body armor -- is going to be "enough" if such a thing were to, against all the odds, materialize in your presence. But we practice to be able to respond as best as possible with whatever tools we CAN and WILL carry, every single day.

Having said that, carry the "mostest and the bestest" that you can -- and make sure that whatever weapon you're carrying is the one you can make the fastest and most accurate hits with. A micro auto that you can't run a clean Mozambique drill with in under 5 seconds is a whole lot less useful than a revolver that you CAN.

AFDavis11
December 31, 2012, 02:00 PM
I moved to an auto. I finally came to the conclusion that I was pretty likely, if I got into an encounter at all, that it could be an active shooter with an assault rifle. It was becoming more likely.

Until we address mental illness in this country I think people have two motives, robbery from the economic downturn, and a desire to become an infamous villain.

Revolvers are still very effective weapons though.

I also agree about the accurate shot issue. Clearly appropriate cover will be a high priority.

I don't feel more gunned than before though, simply because I carry more rounds. I had 10 before, 5 + 5. And I have 15 now, 8 + 7. But, having not felt less armed with a revolver, I don't now feel more armed. I think the ability to reload quickly is important, so my revolver never felt like just a five shot.

I sometimes carry a second gun now too, though. I feel a tad silly about it.

AABEN
December 31, 2012, 02:03 PM
I carry a 6 shot S&W or a S&W 40 If I go to a large town I carry my 40.

mesinge2
December 31, 2012, 02:04 PM
I don't feel out gunned with my revolver, but its an 8 shot 357 and I carry two speed loaders.

tomrkba
December 31, 2012, 02:34 PM
You're not outgunned if you kill or incapacitate the attacker with one or two shots.

The problem is the short barrel and low capacity. The short sight radius means you must have excellent trigger control and practice constantly if you want to score solid hits on a moving target. The low capacity only comes into play if you keep missing, get peripheral hits, or your bullets do not cause the enough damage (or proper type of damage). Reloads are slow. Again, frequent practice is necessary.

However, we also know spree killers tend to kill themselves or give up when confronted. Some give up or commit suicide as soon as resistance occurs. Others will move away before trying to fight it out.

As Sam mentioned, your odds of encountering this are very low. This does not mean you shouldn't prepare for it. Doing so can be very challenging, especially if you include distance shooting in your practice regimen. The red dot optic on a pistol does have some advantages in this area (I dislike them for other reasons). However, you can train yourself to perform well with a snub-nosed revolver.

Bikewer
December 31, 2012, 03:24 PM
I've pointed out before that "getting off one or two well-aimed shots" in an actual combat situation is likely to be illusory.

Well-trained police officers have historically only scored about 25% hits in combat. That's hits, not X-ring centerpunches.

Even centerpunch hits with small calibers are not reliable fight-stoppers. No one says that you will be confronted by only one attacker....

It's a decision everyone has to make. Ease of carry as opposed to effectiveness. Come down to the crunch, I'd druther have my duty gun, the Glock 23 with the 12-round magazine.
However, I wouldn't want to stuff same in my shorts on a hot Summer day.

I do, in fact, still have a 2-inch J-frame and a couple of speed strips. I've never been overly comfortable with the little guy, and I'm planning on replacing it with a compact auto as my "retirement" gun.

Sergei Mosin
December 31, 2012, 05:10 PM
There was a really good thread some time back that dealt with the problem of capacity: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=665883

KenW.
December 31, 2012, 05:18 PM
My duty gun is the XDm40 compact, off duty is a XD9subcompact, but I've been known to drop my Bond Arms .410 derriger with 000 Buck in a front pocket when I run down to the corner for a big gulp to mix my rum in.

Until I got a J-Frame, that is.

scaatylobo
December 31, 2012, 05:21 PM
This is all you need to understand in a nutshell.great understanding of the K.I.S.S. principle





The odds of you ending up facing a spree killer are FAR...galactically far... below the odds of you facing a mugging or other violent assault. Picking a weapon because you're concerned about that is probably not very logical.

Nothing at all -- even your own semi-auto rifle and body armor -- is going to be "enough" if such a thing were to, against all the odds, materialize in your presence. But we practice to be able to respond as best as possible with whatever tools we CAN and WILL carry, every single day.

Having said that, carry the "mostest and the bestest" that you can -- and make sure that whatever weapon you're carrying is the one you can make the fastest and most accurate hits with. A micro auto that you can't run a clean Mozambique drill with in under 5 seconds is a whole lot less useful than a revolver that you CAN.

wrs840
December 31, 2012, 05:35 PM
History indicates that these mass shooters tend to off themselves at the first sign of actual resistance, so I wouldn't be too concerned about getting in a sustained firefight with one.

That said, I carry always, and it's a revolver at home and on the farm, so I can change loads easily for the threat at hand (copperhead gets a .38 shotload, rabid skunk gets a .38 LSWCHP, two legged critter might get 145gr .357), in the paved world I carry a full-size 9mm with a 17rd mag, since the environmental conditions aren't as hard on the weapon and the potential threat is not as variable.

45_auto
December 31, 2012, 05:52 PM
I finally came to the conclusion that I was pretty likely, if I got into an encounter at all, that it could be an active shooter with an assault rifle.

How exactly did you come to that conclusion?

Last crime I can remember committed with an assault rifle (a fully automatic weapon) was the North Hollywood shootout in 1997.

About 1% of gun crimes (all of the latest mass killings) are committed with assault weapons (which are semi-auto only).

That means that 99% of gun crimes are NOT committed with assault weapons. Yet you choose to believe that if you do get into an armed encounter, it will pretty likely be with that 1% group?

BigJimP
December 31, 2012, 06:06 PM
You should carry the gun you shoot the best - regardless of capacity....whether its a 6 shot revolver in .357 mag, ..... a 1911 with 8+1 ....or a big double stack with 15 + .....it probably won't matter.

I hang out on the revolver forum, because I collect and shoot a lot of S&W revolvers...not because I exclusively carry a 6 shot revolver...-- although I do once in a while ( K frame S&W a 4" in .357 mag )....my primary carry gun is a 1911 with 8 +1 rds of .45 acp. I rarely carry an extra mag or any reloads for my revolver.

But if you're really worried about it ....you can just drop some loose rounds for your revolver in your pocket...or speed strips or whatever you like.

pezo
December 31, 2012, 06:21 PM
I still carry my Lcr with 158 lhp's. 2 speed loaders and a .22 mag mini in an ankle holster in addition to the lcr. ( Speer gold dots). I'm fine. I do practice the Mozambique and a double tap followed by a quick reload. It's good with me.

Haywood
December 31, 2012, 09:10 PM
I carry Two 357 Five Shooters daily. If I was in that situation I plan to seek cover, take aim, and fire. Well, that's what I say I would do. I have never had to shoot at another person and have never been in combat. If the time comes I hope to have the guts to do what needs to be done. I think I can.

KenW.
December 31, 2012, 09:12 PM
I carry Two 357 Five Shooters daily.

At the same time?

HKGuns
December 31, 2012, 09:58 PM
I need only a single bullet, so most anything will work for me.

FM12
December 31, 2012, 11:04 PM
Of late been carrying an older Colt Agent 6 shot. Light powerful and hides easily in my jeans pocket. But have also started carrying a 4" 686 maggie in a Fobus holster covered by a shirttail.

Loves me some .38 and 357 maggie revolvers!:D

Speed strips hold extra ammo.

Haywood
December 31, 2012, 11:05 PM
To Answer Ken W,
One AIWB and One in the off hand pocket. Reloads for both, Flashlight, Knife, Pepper Spray, Phone, Money Clip Wallet, extra Batteries for light, earplugs, and Keys. T-Shirt and Shorts in hot Summer I carry the same thing. The only time I travel a little lighter is If I have to ware Dress Clothes for a Wedding or what ever.

Rexster
January 1, 2013, 01:01 PM
At the same time?
I frequently do carry two .357 fiveguns at the same time. When I do not, it is usually one .357 fivegun and a .357 sixgun or .45 1911.

As for the OP's question on thinking about changing to an automatic, well, I already carry automatics when it suits me. In a crowded venue, I cannot justify a bunch of misses, so I had better place my shots well, regardless of how many or few shots. I strong believe that the first shot is the most important shot, revolver or auto.

KenW.
January 1, 2013, 01:19 PM
I must live in Nirvana compared to you fellas. I'm a cop, and don't carry two handguns. On the rare occasion I decide to carry a BUG to my XDM40 comapct, I strap my J-Frame to an ankle.

When off-duty and I need to go into the big city I carry an XD9 subcompact and not the 5-shooter.

Kleanbore
January 1, 2013, 01:26 PM
Posted by gmh1013: I carry a Ruger LCR .38 most of the time because of weight. ... If I ever found myself in some situation like Aurora Co shooting or any other that makes the news almost every day now.....what would you do knowing you are out "gunned" with 5 or 6 shots against somebody with 100's of rounds...Im now thinking about moving to an Auto like my Browning BDA 380 just to have 14 rounds on hand and another clip.The Aurora shooting has been discussed ad nauseam, here and elsewhere on the internet. Incidents of that kind are very rare indeed, and they do not make the news "almost every day now."

Should you happen to get involved in something like that, your having selected a five shot revolver over a larger capacity .380 would be very unlikely to be determinative.

There are reasons to consider something with more capacity than that of the LCR: the difficulty of making effective hits in a stressful situation involving fast moving attackers whose threat is in fact imminent; the low effectiveness of any handgun round in making an immediate stop; the not inconsiderable risk of an attack by more than one violent criminal actor; and the prudence of having a reserve.

The very remote possibility that one just might have to face with a handgun a crazed killer armed with a rifle and wearing body armor in a crowded venue is not a viable reason.

Ky Larry
January 1, 2013, 02:31 PM
You can't plan and prepare for every senario.If you did you'd have to carry a primary hand gun, a B.U.G, a tactical shotgun, an EBR, a sniper rifle, and enough ammo for a short war. As was stated above, carry what you can conceal, and what you can shoot the best.

bubba in ca
January 1, 2013, 02:41 PM
Almost all sd/hd shootings are resolved (win or lose) in 0 to 2 shots.
Ergo, hit your target.

David E
January 1, 2013, 02:56 PM
Almost all sd/hd shootings are resolved (win or lose) in 0 to 2 shots.

Except that's not true. :rolleyes:

But you should still hit your target.

Kleanbore
January 1, 2013, 03:01 PM
Posted by bubba in ca: Almost all sd/hd shootings are resolved (win or lose) in 0 to 2 shots.Bubba, the number of shots required only count when the number is greater than zero.

And why would we ever want to consider "lose" scenarios?

So, for those in which the the defender fires and successfully defends himself or herself with one or two shots, what constitutes "almost all"? How many of these incidents involved one attacker? Two? More than two?

Basis for the statistics?

What is the distribution for those that are "resolved" in three or more shots?

Ergo, hit your target.Well, yeah. Targets perhaps.

Also, you should not hit anyone else.

orionengnr
January 1, 2013, 08:15 PM
...if I were to find myself in a circumstance a la Aurora or Sandy Hook...that is to say, me and my puny sidearm against someone with rifle(s), shotgun(s), pistol(s) and body armor, then I am two strikes down before we begin.

If he notes that I am armed, that may well be Strike Three for me.

As I see it, about the only chance I have for a good outcome is if I see him first, and either get in one good shot or find cover/concealment and try again.

Either way, I think that my having only six-to-eight rounds is likely to be the least of my worries.

Pointshoot
January 1, 2013, 08:30 PM
I don't choose my sidearm based on the hype over mass shooting events that are less likely than being struck by lightening. (Look up the stats for victims of both kinds of events over the last 10 years.)

I like semi auto pistols in addition to revolvers. That said, there's alot to be said for the simplicity of a revolver when in dangerous circumstances. But 'its the craftsman, not the tool that counts most'. Foremost is effective training, practice, and the right attitude.

Deaf Smith
January 1, 2013, 08:31 PM
I'd pack any of my six shooters and never worry a bit (unless a 21 ninja attack came my way.)

And I have a good stable of snub six shooters (and five shooters to!)

Deaf

Pointshoot
January 1, 2013, 08:35 PM
David E said regarding the statement that most SD/HD situations are settled with 1-2 shots: "Except that's not true."

Whats your evidence that civilians in self & home defense situations shoot more than 2 rounds in those circumstances ? (Not talking about police or military.)

And the same question to the poster who said that. Ive heard it repeated many times, but without a source.

Thanks

David E
January 1, 2013, 10:49 PM
David E said regarding the statement that most SD/HD situations are settled with 1-2 shots: "Except that's not true."

Whats your evidence that civilians in self & home defense situations shoot more than 2 rounds in those circumstances ?

And the same question to the poster who said that. Ive heard it repeated many times, but without a source.

Thanks

The source is the FBI.

the reason it's wrong is that it includes ALL incidents where a shot is fired, such as suicides, warning shots, execution style killings, accidental discharges, animal out-downs, etc.

Not all of these are gun confrontations, defense or anything close. All of them typically show one shot being fired. This skews the stat misleadingly downward.

skt239
January 2, 2013, 12:15 AM
I have not given it a second thought. 5 if plenty for me.

Kleanbore
January 2, 2013, 12:36 AM
Posted by skt239: I have not given it a second thought. 5 if plenty for me.I also thought five to be plenty, before thinking about it.

Consider the following:

The percentage of hits you are likely to achieve when firing very quickly under tress at a quckly moving target
The number of hits it is likely to take to stop an assailant effectively
Whether you will need to employ deadly force on more than one assailant, if you have to employ deadly force at all.


Now, if the percentage is 30, if the number of hits required is two, and the answer to the last question is yes--and if you are able to stop shooting after hitting the assailant twice--what do you think your chances would be with five rounds?

Three out of one hundred. That's probably best case, and it is not good.

I no longer carry my J-frame as a primary weapon.

See this (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=6658) for the math.

Pointshoot
January 2, 2013, 06:13 AM
David E said: "The source is the FBI.

the reason it's wrong is that it includes ALL incidents where a shot is fired, such as suicides, warning shots, execution style killings, accidental discharges, animal out-downs, etc.

Not all of these are gun confrontations, defense or anything close. All of them typically show one shot being fired. This skews the stat misleadingly downward."

First of all, this is not to pick on you, at all.

I have an interest in statistics & the way that statistical information is reported. I did a quick search of the FBI website and did not find a report on the number of shots fired in various civilian defensive shooting incidents. But this was a quick search, and likely I have to keep at it.

I've heard the statement "most incidents involve no more than two shots" with no actual sources given for the statement. Saying its from the FBI, Interpol, or whomever isnt adequate, even if true. When was the study made ? In 2012 or in 1960 ? Was it of civilians defending themselves or of police ? Were the shooters trained or not ? Were the shooters everyday Joe civilians or gang bangers doing the 'side-ways hold/spray & pray and who cares who else I hit' types ? Is there any evidence that having more rounds (or fewer) immediately on board a handgun makes any difference in the defensive situations most typical for civilians ?

And if your statement is correct - - - what is the actual number taking this into account ? If it isn't an average of 2 rounds - - - - was it 2.25 or 3, . . or 15 ?

Someone could claim that revolvers are more appropriate for civilian self defense carry because they are shot more deliberately & carefully (often only 5-7rounds on board) and there's a lesser likelihood of extra rounds hitting innocent bystanders. - - - But I don't know of any statistics that back such a statement.

Too often things are repeated and passed on without references so that they cannot be checked out more thoroughly and put in context.

Kleanbore
January 2, 2013, 10:37 AM
Posted by Pointshoot: I have an interest in statistics & the way that statistical information is reported. I did a quick search of the FBI website and did not find a report on the number of shots fired in various civilian defensive shooting incidents. But this was a quick search, and likely I have to keep at it.According to Tom Givens of Rangemaster, there are no comprehensive data collected on the details of civilian defensive gun use incidents only. There are data for law enforcement shootings, as would likely be expected. There are reasons for the collective LEO community to undertake evaluating police shootings, but little reason to do anything more in analyzing an individual defensive shooting than is necessary to determine justification or negligence, and no reason to compile the data.

Tom goes on to say that the latter are really not very useful in terms of drawing conclusions for civilian defensive shootings. Civilians do not make traffic stops in which they encounter dangerous felons. They are not charged with the pursuit and capture of dangerous suspects. The are not summoned to bars to stop fights.

There is an exception: the stats for FBI agents, comprising as small data set, are likely not all that inappropriate for comparison. These involve plain clothes persons who are as likely as any of us to be surprised by a couple of felons at a service station or ATM.

And if your statement is correct - - - what is the actual number taking this into account ? If it isn't an average of 2 rounds - - - - was it 2.25 or 3, . . or 15 ?What would one do with the answer?

Someone could claim that revolvers are more appropriate for civilian self defense carry because they are shot more deliberately & carefully (often only 5-7rounds on board) and there's a lesser likelihood of extra rounds hitting innocent bystanders. - - -Do not confuse shooting at the range with self defense.

Think for a moment. If you are getting into or out of your car and are surprised by a parson ten meters away who runs at you with obvious ill intent at a peed of five meters per second, do you somehow imagine that you will shoot "deliberately and carefully"--no matter what you are carrying? How many rounds would you expect to shoot before you are reasonably sure you have effected a stop? Would you expect to stop after two rounds?

And if you were able to shoot "deliberately and carefully", just what is it that you would provide in the way of evidence to support a claim that the use of deadly force had been immediately necessary to stop an imminent threat?

---But I don't know of any statistics that back such a statement.Of course not, but common sense eliminates the need.

There are some data. In Lessons from the Street, Tom Givens presents an analysis of several defensive shootings involving gradates of Rangemaster in Memphis. The data set is small. The mean number of shots fired, IIRC, was 4.9 rounds. No one fired 4.9 rounds.

And by the way, the FBI's data on incidents involving FBI agents are not inconsistent with those collected by Rangemaster.

A police department elsewhere in Tennessee compiled a set of data involving defensive shootings. These data have been discussed here at length. The data were not inconsistent with the Rangemaster data. What stood out for me was the high proportion of incidents involving two or more attackers.

Again, common sense comes into play. How many violent criminal actors would undertake the risk of attacking someone alone if there were an alternative?

This is not an area in which actual data will prove useful. First, frequency of occurrence is very low. Second, as discussed, the data have not been compiled. And third, a mean value would be of no consequence.

Should one want to base a conclusion on more than common sense, simulation and FoF training is the way to gather useful information. That's also the case in analyzing air combat, and for the same reasons.

One can, however, make some assumptions about the number of hits that might be needed to stop an assailant, and about the number of shots that might be needed to effect hat number of hits. One can then vary those assumptions to his heart's content. And one can run the numbers, and draw his own conclusions.

That would be far more useful than looking for some average.

David E
January 2, 2013, 01:27 PM
I have not given it a second thought. 5 if plenty for me.

And you're right!

Until you need six....or eight....

smkummer
January 2, 2013, 03:28 PM
Most of the time its my Smith model 61 escort in 22LR that is carried but its CARRIED. When going to a bigger public gathering its the Colt 38 agent. I have come to the conclusion that I will return fire long enough to subdue the bad guy so as to finish him off with his gun. Again at least I can return fire. Thanks to you for stepping up to the plate and going through all the requirements to carry and then doing so.

460Kodiak
January 2, 2013, 04:16 PM
Ummmm, I carry to defend myself and loved ones with me from everyday POSSIBLE threats. I carry a revolver at times, I carry an auto sometimes.

On that note, if I saw an opportinity to put a well placed shot on an active shooter, that was not armored and a well placed shot would ACTUALLY be effective, I'd take the shot, no matter what gun I had on me. If I think I'd be adding to the mayhem, I would not take the shot because it would draw attention to myself and possibly get me or a loved one killed.

I carry enough ammo to deal with a realistic threat, not a maniac with an AR or AK. I am not a cop, I am not a soldier, nor am I a coward. I am however, a realist, and if average joe on this forum thinks they will accomplish anything by carrying a load of ammo or be a hero, I encourage those with that mindset to think a little more realistically as well. By the way, has anyone thought about the fact that if there is an active shooter, and you are trying to "help", thecops may assume you are a second shooter, and kill you as well?

Carry what you need to to take care of yourself and loved ones, not what you need to be a cop............ unless you are in fact a cop.

I carry a 5 shot .357 SP101, or a 5 shot .38 S&W 642, or a 6 shot Springfield XDs when I'm out and about.

txgunsuscg
January 2, 2013, 04:46 PM
I find that arguing capacity and needs can get a little ridiculous. Honestly, if it was legal, I would have a B&T TP-9 or a Glock 18 with shoulder stock and 33 round magazines.

However, looking at it from a more practical perspective:

I normally carry a Glock 19 with a standard capacity mag and two backups (I also carry a blowout kit, weapons light, hand flashlight, knife, and survival kit, but that's a discussion for another thread). There are times, though, when I can't effectively conceal a 19, even at 6'4" and 219 lbs. At those times I choose to carry a 442. I tried the compact auto, and I almost shot my thumb off, and induced multiple feeding/extracting failures by unintentionally contacting the slide. My big hands just don't work with the current batch of in vogue micro pistols.

More important that arguing capacity is understanding capacity when planning. As I said, there are times when I can only effectively conceal a 442. At those times, I understand that I have 5 rounds, and it goes into my operational planning. I do not feel "undergunned" as I still have a means of defending myself, if not my optimal means. As an LEO I know put it: "What is the best gun to carry to defend yourself? The one you have on you."

Hammerdown77
January 2, 2013, 04:49 PM
By the way, has anyone thought about the fact that if there is an active shooter, and you are trying to "help", thecops may assume you are a second shooter, and kill you as well?



Yep. Or another CCW holder might shoot you. Almost happened in the AZ Gabby Giffords shooting, when the armed CCW holder came out of the grocery store and almost shot one of the guys in the crowd who had wrestled the Glock from Laughner's hand.

txgunsuscg
January 2, 2013, 04:53 PM
Yep. Or another CCW holder might shoot you. Almost happened in the AZ Gabby Giffords shooting, when the armed CCW holder came out of the grocery store and almost shot one of the guys in the crowd who had wrestled the Glock from Laughner's hand.
A consideration, yes, but it could happen to the undercover or off-duty cop who may be present as well. Its not exclusively a CCW issue.

Kleanbore
January 2, 2013, 05:37 PM
Posted by smkummer: I have come to the conclusion that I will return fire long enough to subdue the bad guy so as to finish him off with his gun.I'm going to say this publicly--once.

We do not allow people to advocate murder or any other unlawful acts on THR.

Posted by 460Kodiak: I am not a cop, I am not a soldier, nor am I a coward. I am however, a realist, and if average joe on this forum thinks they will accomplish anything by carrying a load of ammo or be a hero, I encourage those with that mindset to think a little more realistically as well.Good thinking!

By the way, has anyone thought about the fact that if there is an active shooter, and you are trying to "help", thecops may assume you are a second shooter, and kill you as well?They most surely may--and so might another armed citizen.

Carry what you need to to take care of yourself and loved ones, not what you need to be a cop............ unless you are in fact a cop.Good thinking, again. But the question is, will your assessment prove adequate? Let's hope none of us ever find out otherwise.

Posted by txgunsuscg: A consideration [that one might be shot by mistake], yes, but it could happen to the undercover or off-duty cop who may be present as well. Its not exclusively a CCW issue.Yes, and it has happened.

raindog
January 2, 2013, 06:05 PM
What does round count have to do with anything? If you can get a well aimed shot off all you will need is one or two rounds to stop the fight. If you can not get a well aimed shot off all the ammo in the world will do you no good.

True, but this isn't the range. I'd like to think I'll be a veins-of-icewater smooth operator, but the reality is that I'll be surprised, maybe off-balance, jacked on adrenaline, and in holy-poop-I'm-gonna-die mode. Easy in that circumstance to pop off a bunch of rounds real fast.

That said, I do carry an LCR more than anything else, because it's very easy to carry, and the first rule...

Tcruse
January 2, 2013, 06:19 PM
I question the "Since most on this forum would carry a Revolver" statement (THR site in general). If the word "most" was replaced with "some" then I could agree. I personally would never trust a wheel gun, they probably fail less often, but when they fail the effort to put them back in service is usually a "repair" project. My KISS princiapal gun would be something like a Glock 17/19/26.
If you look at "experienced" and "long time" shooters there are a lot of revolver supporters, but among the "new shooters" a revolver is usually not even considered. In these parts the ranges are just swamped with new shooters taking classes and getting CCW license. The ratio of revolver to Semi-Automatic is about 1 to 100. The more advanced pistol classes generally have requirements that may not be possible with revolvers.

Pointshoot
January 3, 2013, 02:40 PM
Kleanbore - - - thank you for your very thoughtful and informative reply to my last post.

My point is that people often make decisions based on 'facts' that are simply repeated opinion. And my made up argument for a revolver as 'more deliberate' and 'less likely to hurt bystanders" was given as another example of a similiar kind of statement - - one without any basis in hard data (at least that I am aware of).

What to do with all this - - if there isn't relevant data out there ? IMO - - as a civilian, its to use whatever you prefer in terms of a sidearm (revolver or semi-auto) and get proper training and lots of realistic practice in its use. And, to be clear mentally beforehand on what you may be prepared to do, and the consequences of that.

Kleanbore
January 3, 2013, 04:45 PM
Posted by Pointshoot: What to do with all this - - if there isn't relevant data out there ? There are all kinds of decisions that have to be made in the absence of actual data. In some cases the events have not yet happened; in others, they have happened very infrequently; in others, even though there may have been a number of occurrences, the number of variables is so great that definitive conclusions cannot be drawn; and in still others, there may be no one who can describe what happened.

Use of force situations could fall into any or all of the above. That does not mean that we cannot learn a lot about what might be expected under different possible scenarios.

To illustrate the concept, let's go to something I mentioned before: air combat. In WWII there were numerous occurrences, and the biggest problem resided in knowing what had happened when an aircrew did not return. Today, we have very, very little current real experience. But we have to develop and understand--and teach--strategy and tactics anyway. To do so, we rely on analysis, on modeling, and on simulation.

We do the same thing in preparing for nuclear powerplant disaster handling, and for handling of emergencies in a lot of other areas.

People engage in simulation and in FoF (force on force) role-playing in use of force exercises, too. They serve us well, but we do, of course, have to add what has been learned from real world data on wounding effectiveness.

IMO - - as a civilian, its to use whatever you prefer in terms of a sidearm (revolver or semi-auto) and get proper training and lots of realistic practice in its use.That''s fine, as long as "whatever you prefer" reflects a realistic, informed decision, and as long as that "realistic practice" really is realistic. Range shooting is good and it is valuable, but I contend that unless one trains for situations such as reacting to at least two very fast moving targets attacking violently and without warning, that practice is inadequate.

I think it will show anyone very quickly that relying on closure in one to two shots would not be at all prudent.

And, to be clear mentally beforehand on what you may be prepared to do, and the consequences of that.Yes indeed. Consider this (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=678022).

AFDavis11
January 4, 2013, 09:04 PM
Lots of firm opinions.

SFsc616171
January 12, 2013, 11:19 PM
In response to the Op's question: (anyword of reader's imagination) NO!

Think on it ... all visual media entertainment show a stupid black pistol. BG thinks they are maybe get shot, maybe not, according to visual media reporting.

The idea of 'mo' bullets, da bettuh to shoot wi'd! Assinine! Insane! Wrong!
It is a rationalization of the good ol' 'pray and spray'. It doesn't cut the mustard, Charlie Brown!

You, me, all of us, who have chosen to carry a firearm, legally, have made the choice, that, if-and-I-hope-not-ever that we have to use that firearm, to ensure that WE can respond SAFELY, no matter where we find that ugly moment to be. When we do respond, each bullet must find itself, in the intended target, only. In the mall, the chl'er could not, so he did not. In the theater, the theater management voided the citizens' right to self-preservation, creating a perfect environemnt for what happened. As chl'er's, we would have to defer to that voiding, in some cases, by state law, in concurrence with the theater management.

Feeling 'underguned', because I choose to carry a revolver, is NOT a notion I have. I have six cartridges. I have six opportunities to employ my marksmanship skills, and place them deliberately, on the intended target. I had to do this, in order to pass my qual. for my eligibility for my chl, (the rest was entirely up to the sheriff's dept.). To switch to an auto-loader, just because it had a larger-than-six magazine, would be to negate those skills that i have already acquired, with an older piece of technology, that i have become accustomed to using. I would have to learn the intricacies of an auto-loader, the particular ammo necessary to have it function correctly, let alone what the auto-loader "likes". I can't pocket carry an auto-loader with 14, but I can, a J Frame with 5. I can a K Frame with 6, as well. If need be, i can a K Frame, with a four inch barrel. Lastly, revolvers work, without any tap-rack-bang murphy moments. That just might be the last personal murphy moment, on this Earth. No thanks!

Deltaboy
January 12, 2013, 11:33 PM
I carry 5 shot Charter Undercover and I Don' t feel under gunned.

oldpapps
January 13, 2013, 01:00 AM
"Deltaboy I carry 5 shot Charter Undercover and I Don' t feel under gunned."

I new a Detective Sgt who after returning from a drug raid came to me. He said to me that the S&W Chief he was carrying, just wouldn't do. At that raid, there were more people arrested in one room than he was carrying ammunition. He ended up getting a Browning HiPower (not my choice).

In some places, 5 rounds just isn't going to cut it. :scrutiny:

At that time I was carrying a Model 60 in an ankle holster, a Model 67 on my 'Sam Brown' belt and a 1911A1 in the middle of my back. Had to carry the cities Model 67, so I did. But, I wasn't working the nicest districts and could carry anything that I liked as a second/backup weapon. Just needed to qualify with them. :D

David E
January 13, 2013, 01:35 AM
To switch to an auto-loader, would negate those skills that i have already acquired (with a revolver)!

Only if you're a stubborn unteachable idiot......which I'd bet $1000 that you are not. Learning new things doesn't negate previous skills learned, it adds to them.


The idea of 'mo' bullets, da bettuh to shoot wi'd! Assinine! Insane! Wrong!
It is a rationalization of the good ol' 'pray and spray'. It doesn't cut the mustard, Charlie Brown!

Curiously, revolver proponents seem to think they are immune to "spray and pray" while semi auto users are helpless to resist the urge to do so.

tomrkba
January 13, 2013, 03:08 AM
The primary factor in handgun shooting (not tactics) is trigger control. If you can manage a double action revolver trigger* at speed**, then you can manage just about any trigger on any handgun. Aiming is easy; the tough part is not disturbing the sight picture with the motion of the moving trigger and hand.

* A long, heavy double action ONLY semi-auto trigger is essentially the same thing. The reset must be all the way forward for a duplicate feel. However, the pull is the more important part for scoring a first round hit. Manage the trigger and then learn the reset. You can learn multiple types simultaneously. You can learn manipulations and reloads on different guns at the same time too. It's not tough; you just have to put in the time.

** Speed means rapid fire while maintaining a 4" group or better at common self-defense distances. I would prefer a 4" standard at 25 yards. The reason for 4" is that you'll lose some manual dexterity in a real situation and likely shoot 6" or more. This means you can still score solid torso hits at an angle.

Stainz
January 13, 2013, 08:36 AM
My normal 24/7 EDC is a 642 loaded with five 158gr LHPSWC +P's - in a pocket holster. If I carry a reload, an HKS #36 with the same rounds, it usually resides in my Jeep.

Stainz

Sam1911
January 13, 2013, 09:42 AM
The primary factor in handgun shooting (not tactics) is trigger control. If you can manage a double action revolver trigger* at speed**, then you can manage just about any trigger on any handgun. Aiming is easy; the tough part is not disturbing the sight picture with the motion of the moving trigger and hand.Certainly true. Sort of.

You can learn multiple types simultaneously. You can learn manipulations and reloads on different guns at the same time too. It's not tough; you just have to put in the time.Here's the "sort of:" You can learn multiple types of triggers at the same time, but you can't really master multiple triggers at the same time. I shoot multiple competition guns including SA 1911s, and DA 629s, and some other stuff. It takes dedication to one version to really be your BEST with that version. I can pick up any of my guns and shoot "just fine." But not competition-winning "fine." I find it takes me 500-1,000 rounds (which is several weeks or even a couple months) of my regular practice routine until I'm really riding high again after switching platforms. When the DA trigger and revolver reloads are really set back on the mental shelf and my hands instinctively do the auto pistol reload, the SA pull and reset, the TRB, and so forth. (Or vice-versa.)

I understand that many of us shoot for a level of "competence" (can I shoot this safely and accurately under range conditions?) with their defensive weapons, rather than for "mastery" (is this gun an extension of my body? Do I make hits and perform reloads without conscious focus on the mechanical tasks of doing so?) of a competition gun, but I'm not sure that's a something I'm comfortable with. Why is it ok to accept less from ourselves with our life-and-death gun than we'd accept under the pressure of a timer and scorekeeper?

Speed means rapid fire while maintaining a 4" group or better at common self-defense distances. I would prefer a 4" standard at 25 yards. The reason for 4" is that you'll lose some manual dexterity in a real situation and likely shoot 6" or more. This means you can still score solid torso hits at an angle.Here we have to define what we're talking about . Many, well ... some, a few, can shoot a 4" group at 25 yards. Eventually. But self-defense shooting needs to be at SPEED. That's multiple shots a second. If you can shoot 3-5 shots per second (while moving, with transitions and other self-defense realism thrown in) into 4" at 25 yards, I bow ... I grovel ... at your feet! :)

Generally, shooting small groups at 25 yards and calling it self-defense practice is like spending days drag racing down the 1/4-mile and saying that's good practice for a road trip across the country. Wholly different skill sets.

And, the idea that under the stress of a violent encounter -- someone else attempting to KILL you -- that your accuracy might drop from 4" at 25 yards to 6" at that distance is WAAAAY optimistic. Try more like a decrease of 75% + of your usual hit rate.

...

Now fortunately MOST violent encounters do appear to be resolved with either just a show of a gun (the unreported thousands of armed encounters that don't end up in DOJ reports) or with a few shots fired at very close range. As we often say, if you're shooting someone at over 20 yards you'd better have an AMAZINGLY good reason. Contact distance to 7 yards is far more of a realistic distance to have to engage a bad guy. And you'll both be moving, it will be dim or dark, you'll be scared and confused and sweating or even hurt already, you'll be fighting to even draw the gun, let alone take an aimed shot.

More like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1zmRNAVayY ... or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkTihgriAqQ

Prophet
January 13, 2013, 09:58 AM
I live near a high-security prison, and two juvenile detention centers that bring troubled young adults in from the big cities who escape into the surrounding territory almost yearly. I have well-known drug dealers on three separate fronts surrounding my residence. I've returned home from work to find troopers and sheriffs running all over the place weapons drawn, awoken to juvy personnel chasing down and tackling a huge kid (whose partners in escape at the time were trying to forcibly enter my neighbors house) who'd been laying in hiding by our house, and looked up from pressure-washing the front walk this past summer to find a sheriff standing in front of me asking if I had seen so and so and so go running by.

For me personally, I have found that I can put more rounds on target faster and more accurately at greater distance with a medium- to service-size auto, and I've never been uncomfortable carrying a bigger firearm despite that I'm a short, small framed guy. I figure I may as well have as many rounds on hand as I can comfortably carry if the extra bulk doesn't bother me.

Other considerations taken into account are relative to my own personal surroundings. If I have to face multiple escapees who've armed themselves with my neighbors weapons, I'm going to want as much ammo as possible. If I have to face a druggie who's psychologically invincible and impervious to pain, I'm going to want as much ammo as possible. If I have to face a spree killer, I want to be armed with whatever platform I am most able to quickly put multiple rounds on target at extended ranges with, and as much ammo as possible.

If you need to shoot someone five times with your ten-shot auto, you won't say "I wish I had less ammo." If you need to shoot someone ten times with your five-shot revolver... you'll have going through your mind what was probably going through Melinda Herman's; BG shot, not incapacitated and right in front of me, I'm out of bullets. Oh, $#!%. Fortunately Mrs. Herman's assailant was not a determined attacker. Considering my area, I'm not willing to bet my life on statistics and conjecture, which is why I will carry as much as I practically can on my person and am also within reach of a long-gun when practical. Not poo-pooing revolvers, for some that is the most they can practically and comfortably carry. To each his own.

In short, you really don't know what you're going to be faced with in a given day, and it's better to have and not need than to need it and not have. Carry as large and as much as you can accurately shoot and practically carry 24/7. Then, train and practice with what you've chosen.

tomrkba
January 13, 2013, 11:33 AM
It is not what the statistics say, but rather what you can do with confidence.

Here is how you get a good feel for your hit ratio in a confrontation against one attacker:

Build a moving target. Get one of those moving carts that is merely a square of wood with four independent wheels. Mount a metal target stand on it. Put 1x2's cut to six feet or so and staple an IDPA target to it. Put eye screws on two sides. Put two pulleys 10 yards apart. Run about 75 feet of rope through each side. The target can now be moved left and right, with one man running each rope.

Start at seven yards. You have no reloads. On "GO", the target starts moving right and left (the ground will move the target randomly). Move laterally left and right while shooting.

I found that a Ruger LCP's ammo goes way too quickly. Making hits with the tiny gun was difficult and I was happy with one hit anywhere on the target. A zone hits were very tough to achieve and forget head shots.

I had better results with the Glock 19. The larger gun made control easier. The capacity helped, but it also meant many more misses. Folks tended to score 10-15% for their first few runs, but they tended toward 20-33% with practice.

I never ran this drill with cover, though I will try to do so this spring. I will try other variations, such as the target going only right or left and the drill ends at the end of that movement.

Frankly, the results of this drill are disconcerting. The misses with the G19 is ample opportunity for a bullet to hit a bystander. I figure it is much better to shoot fewer times and take more time per shot.

The main goal in my mind is to have a gun. If there is any distance involved, I hope to be able to move to cover and the mere threat of my fire stops the attack. I train with the worst in mind and realize I may have to take bad shots, but I will do my best to avoid doing so.

Sam1911
January 13, 2013, 11:48 AM
Here is how you get a good feel for your hit ratio in a confrontation against one attacker:
You forgot a couple of things:
1) Do this at night.
2) Have the practitioner sprint to the 100 yard line and back two or three times to get their heart rate dangerously high, their breath gone, and their hands shaking.
3) Place on the defender's head a pair of "tunnel vision" goggles.
4) Have the defender place his hands in a bucket of ice water for 2 minutes, timed.
5) Dump 1-1/2 cups of Elmer's glue on the hands before drawing to simulate slimy sticky blood from a wound.
6) Just before the "beep" have one of the other students hit the defender in the stomach with a couple good swings of a 2x4.

Now, the scenario does seem pretty realistic.

Kleanbore
January 15, 2013, 01:15 PM
Posted by tomrkba: Start at seven yards. You have no reloads. On "GO", the target starts moving right and left (the ground will move the target randomly). Move laterally left and right while shooting.Three things do not seem to be clear: (1) who says "go", (2) why would you be shooting at someone who is moving left and right, and (3), what happens when the "target" runs at you from seven yards?

I figure it is much better to shoot fewer times and take more time per shot.Should you have to resort to deadly force, it will do no good to need more time than you have.

Have your moving target rush you from seven yards. When you realize that you are under attack, draw from concealment and try to evade and stop the target. See how much time you have.

Also consider the not unlikely second attacker.

tomrkba
January 15, 2013, 02:46 PM
I know you all want to nit-pick. It's the nature of this forum. People move all about in encounters. I have seen several videos over the years that showed good guys and bad guys moving back and forth in an effort to dodge the other guy's aim.

The point of the exercise is to show the difficulty of shooting and to isolate those variables from everything else. Very realistic scenarios give RO's gray hair and I do my best to avoid that. This exercise shows the individual the actual difficulties involved in shooting moving targets while moving yourself. It underscores several shooting skills that are not usually developed by most people.

Also please consider the limitations of the range and the cost of gear and such. Also consider that some of the suggestions are silly, though doing it at night is viable.

So, yes, I agree that an actual encounter would much more difficult. But, practicality and safety must be considered and this is as far as I can go on the ranges that are available (except low light could be done).

"what happens when the "target" runs at you from seven yards?"

We do the Tueller Drill too, along with variations.

Sam1911
January 15, 2013, 02:49 PM
My purpose there was to illustrate how your predictions of a slight decrease in accuracy were very optimistic.

But, for what it may be worth, all of those things (except hitting the student with a 2x4*) have been done by folks I know in training.

(* 2x4s weren't used. A boxing glove to the face WAS used. A bit more of an intensive training exercise than most, to be sure.)

Kleanbore
January 15, 2013, 03:16 PM
Posted by tomrkba: People move all about in encounters.That is the point that those who squeeze off rounds at a stationary target and worry about group size seem to overlook.

I have seen several videos over the years that showed good guys and bad guys moving back and forth in an effort to dodge the other guy's aim. If your attackers are rushing around the end of your car or the one next to it to get to you, or around the gas pumps, and if you are moving back and sideways to avoid them, the effect is the same, and that part of the suggested exercise should be worthwhile.

This exercise shows the individual the actual difficulties involved in shooting moving targets while moving yourself.Yes, but in addition to considering make it tougher, as Sam has suggested, I think you really should include a timer set for a very short interval.

We do the Tueller Drill too, along with variations.Good. Where that sometimes fails to make the point is if the practitioner should somehow think that he or she has "won" if he or she was able to draw and fire once before the target had covered the distance.

So, yes, I agree that an actual encounter would much more difficult.Yes, that's true, especially when one figures in (1) the realities of a rapidly moving target and little time; (2) a realistic hit ratio under those conditions; (3) realistic expectations of the effectiveness of handgun bullets in stopping attackers; and (4) the likelihood of having to stop more than one assailant.

One really should take these things into account when choosing one's EDC and train accordingly.

tomrkba
January 15, 2013, 03:42 PM
My purpose there was to illustrate how your predictions of a slight decrease in accuracy were very optimistic.

I think you misread my post. I was stating the average for the first few runs was around 10-15% hits/85% misses. Of those that shots that hit, the majority are peripheral hits. After a few runs, people would generally get up to 20-25% hits for newer shooters and more experienced folks might get 20-33% hits. Again, in most cases, most hits were peripheral hits.

Head shots were generally incidental. Some guys would occasionally stop moving just long enough to aim and fire for a better hit. In those cases, it would have been better to provide them with some "cover" to use for those shots.

"(* 2x4s weren't used. A boxing glove to the face WAS used. A bit more of an intensive training exercise than most, to be sure.)"

Did it work? What did the students say regarding the effects of that on their shooting?


Also...back on topic. One of the points I was trying to make is that SIX rounds goes too quickly. I found I had to really concentrate and work hard to make good use of those six rounds.

We have run the drill with and without a timer. A timer tends to make it more interesting and provides another learning opportunity. It does assist the student in finding the "edges" of their skill and their gun.

Kleanbore
January 15, 2013, 04:05 PM
Posted by tomrkba: After a few runs, people would generally get up to 20-25% hits for newer shooters and more experienced folks might get 20-33% hits. Again, in most cases, most hits were peripheral hits. So, let's assume that that performance is either roughly representative of a real world encounter under adverse conditions, or is better than one should realistically expect; let's factor in effectiveness and assume that two or three hits would be required to stop an assailant; and let's consider the likelihood of more than one attacker and that the second may not be willing or will not find it safe to break off the attack.

How many rounds is prudent for one to have in his or her EDC piece?

Forget using your short barreled revolver in an Aurora, CO scenario. Just worry about personal defense.

tomrkba
January 15, 2013, 04:27 PM
I think the answer is to have two copies of at least one handgun, train and compete with them, and have a good attitude. Cirillo talked about what makes a good gun fighter in Guns, Bullets and Gunfights (http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Bullets-And-Gunfights-Modern-Day/dp/0873648773/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358283644&sr=8-1&keywords=guns+bullets+and+gunfights). Most of the discussion was about the man's general attitude, training, competition, and overall moral philosophy. Cirillo did mention that when the fight occurs (paraphrasing) that you'll want the biggest gun with the most ammunition possible.

My thought is to divide the gun's capacity by four and drop fractions. This is how many bad guys I can theoretically handle without reloading. A J-Frame yields one, 1911's are good for two, and a Glock 19 is good for four. This is likely not realistic at all, but it's my best wild guess based upon training. My most pessimistic estimate is 8-10 rounds per bad guy (resulting in 1, 1, and 2). I could hit the "gun fight lottery" and get 16 terrorist scumbags with a G19, but the odds of that happening are only very high on a Hollywood set.

Confidence is a key ingredient. Michael de Bethencourt is confident with two snubbies for everyday carry. If a person does not have confidence with the gun, then I think he or she should consider other options. However, there will be exceptions and merely having a gun is the best that person can do in the situation.

I think a five shot J-Frame is likely sufficient for many types of encounters. It is not good for all encounters. Ed Lovette covers the snubbie's strengths and weaknesses in The Snubby Revolver: The EQC, Backup, and Concealed Carry Standard (http://www.amazon.com/Snubby-Revolver-Backup-Concealed-Standard/dp/1581605714/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358283680&sr=1-1&keywords=the+snubby+revolver). I think there are better choices today because of improved technology and design. However, all it may take is one shot to stop the attack. Several mass murders were stopped early because a determined person with a gun resisted. Only in a few cases did the murderer attempt to engage the good guy; many times they fled, surrendered or committed suicide.

I have my carry battery that includes a J-Frame and small pocket autos. I try to keep them out of the primary role, but sometimes wardrobe requires pocket carry. I'd rather have a J-Frame and five extra rounds over nothing. I'll just do my best if a fight occurs.

One compromise that I am willing to make is lower capacity for a larger caliber. This is not to say I won't carry a Glock 19; I do carry one frequently. I prefer 200+ grain bullets moving at 800-900 FPS at 25 yards over the 9x19mm bullet traveling at 1150 FPS (muzzle). My second choice is 357 Magnum or some 9mm variant with very high velocity. But, I prefer the larger calibers. As a result, I'm willing to trade some capacity for the bullet. I do not mind the larger frame either; concealment is not difficult, but it does require some preparation. I do think the Glock mid-frames (and similar guns such as the M&P 45 Compact) offer the best balance between capacity, sight radius and concealment. If a person has no idea what to get, I usually recommend a Glock 19 because of these attributes. If they decide to sell the gun because they dislike it for some reason, they'll get most of their money back.

Kleanbore
January 15, 2013, 05:01 PM
Posted by tomrkba: I think a five shot J-Frame is likely sufficient for many types of encounters. It is not good for all encounters.With a 30% hit ratio, a need for two hits per attacker, and the need to use deadly force on two attackers, the likelihood of success with five shots is 3%--assuming that you have time to shoot all five if necessary, and assuming that you do not waste ammo by shooting the first one more than twice. That's three occurrences out of one hundred. It's a simple, very basic analysis of probabilities.

With one attacker, it would be much, much better, but not optimal.

If the mere display of a firearm proves sufficient, it will be fine.

A J-frame is certainly better than nothing and is likely better than a very small auto, but it is no longer my choice for primary carry. It was, until I understood the foregoing analysis.

Sometimes, however, the ability draw or fire from a pocket if necessary can make all the difference, and that's where the Centennial has its advantage.

Colt used to advertise the advantage of "that all important sixth shot", back when they sold the Cobra and Detective Special. Until JohnKSa ran the numbers here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8249303&postcount=1), I had no idea how much that sixth shot just might mean.

Nor did I really appreciate the critical advantage of more capacity.

tomrkba
January 15, 2013, 05:14 PM
I saw John's numbers.

I think I asked him for the data so I could run different scenarios. I'd like to see this run with a 20% hit rate (in line with my moving target drill) against one, two and three assailants. I'd also like to see what happens with both one and two hits.

Kleanbore
January 15, 2013, 06:39 PM
Posted by tomrkba: I saw John's numbers..... I'd like to see this run with a 20% hit rate (in line with my moving target drill) against one, two and three assailants.His second chart shows the probabilities of four hits with different hit rates.

One can manipulate the numbers and the assumptions all day long, but I wouldn't try to get too scientific.

In my view they are best case projections, for one simple reason: most of us would be most unlikely to stop shooting at a charging assailant after hitting him a second time; we would likely fire several shots before we can even tell whether we have hit him. Not so on steel plates, but if someone is charging violently with something sharp, "success" may not be as immediately obvious, one will not be trying to conserve ammunition.

Sam1911
January 15, 2013, 07:43 PM
"(* 2x4s weren't used. A boxing glove to the face WAS used. A bit more of an intensive training exercise than most, to be sure.)"

Did it work? What did the students say regarding the effects of that on their shooting?Well, yeah...though there was a safety issues when some of the protective eye-wear got broken.

Alaska444
January 15, 2013, 07:47 PM
What does round count have to do with anything? If you can get a well aimed shot off all you will need is one or two rounds to stop the fight. If you can not get a well aimed shot off all the ammo in the world will do you no good.

AND, getting shot will do no one any good, especially you. IMO, if even in a situation like that, take cover and wait for the opportunity to squeeze of a well aimed shot and stop the killing.
Absolutely, I went to a movie with my wife a couple of weeks ago and since I carry a 5 shot revolver, that is exactly what I was thinking, take cover and pick your shot. Unfortunately, there was only about 10 of us in the movie theatre so picking a shot in that situation would be a rapid acquisition with so few targets on the shooters part. But take cover and seek a well placed shot is the best strategy no matter what gun you have.

1 old 0311-1
January 15, 2013, 08:49 PM
Been my daily carry for 30+ years and sleep like a baby.

http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n489/kcq1/P1020135.jpg

Kleanbore
January 15, 2013, 09:17 PM
...and sleep like a baby.And so,of course, do many people who do not carry at all. No help to us here.

420Stainless
January 15, 2013, 09:37 PM
I agree with others that this is the least likely defensive situation to occur. I'm also not one to worry about round count (while not a revolver, my standard carry only holds six), but I could easily envision someone getting off a few shots without realizing this type of criminal has pre-planned this demented horror and has prepared with some sort of body armor. At that point capacity might become an issue. If you really do worry about this scenario then, yes, I think it might be a good idea to switch to a platform that allows you the option to have more before thinking about reloading while under fire. Its not for me, but may be more comforting for you.

tomrkba
January 15, 2013, 09:53 PM
Absolutely, I went to a movie with my wife a couple of weeks ago and since I carry a 5 shot revolver, that is exactly what I was thinking, take cover and pick your shot. Unfortunately, there was only about 10 of us in the movie theatre so picking a shot in that situation would be a rapid acquisition with so few targets on the shooters part. But take cover and seek a well placed shot is the best strategy no matter what gun you have.

Just sit behind the "most 3D" person in the theater and you'll have all the cover you need.

Deer_Freak
January 16, 2013, 06:59 PM
Given that the 357 mag stops attackers 97% of the time with the first shot it is my choice of weapons. The 9mm stops attackers less than 60% of the time with the first shot. Six rounds goes a lot further when you don't have to double tap.

Those of you that want to take on someone armed with a rifle with a handgun are suicidal. Then you want to choose a semi auto that lacks the structural integrity to handle a large caliber in weapon you can pocket carry. Sorry, the math just doesn't add up.

tomrkba
January 16, 2013, 07:15 PM
Those of you that want to take on someone armed with a rifle with a handgun are suicidal. Then you want to choose a semi auto that lacks the structural integrity to handle a large caliber in weapon you can pocket carry. Sorry, the math just doesn't add up.

Please stop and think this through.

The reason you would take on a man armed with a rifle is because you are in a situation where you have no other choice. In the case of a mall or movie theater shooting, the pistol has more than adequate range to hit the murderer. There will be chaos with people running around. It may or may not be dark. We carry handguns because they're concealable and people are so weak minded today that they panic over the sight of a slung rifle.

Additionally, consider that the vast majority of people are untrained with firearms. I frequently see people with $2,000 AR-15s proceed to shoot 12 inch groups at 50 feet. Compare the number of shots fired to the number of killed and wounded. The hit rates are low.

I believe people should try to stop the murderer if possible. It is the right action to take, rather than the selfish action of caring only for one's family. However, this must be accomplished in a pragmatic way. If the murderer is on the other side of the mall, then there is no reason to go looking for trouble. But, if the murderer is right there, take the shot if you can. You may not be able to take the shot if there are too many people in the background or are running around in front of you. This is why we study tactics so we can quickly figure out how to change the angles.

Here is a case that supports my point:

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/armed-citizen-in-tx-stops-shooting-spree-and-saves-cop-by-making-150-yard-shot-with-a-pistol/

Look at this:
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/analysis-of-five-years-of-armed-encounters-with-data-tables/

Finally, on stopping power. 357 Mag is one of the better ones, but it's not as good as you say.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/handgun-stopping-power

Deer_Freak
January 16, 2013, 07:18 PM
"Deltaboy I carry 5 shot Charter Undercover and I Don' t feel under gunned."

I new a Detective Sgt who after returning from a drug raid came to me. He said to me that the S&W Chief he was carrying, just wouldn't do. At that raid, there were more people arrested in one room than he was carrying ammunition. He ended up getting a Browning HiPower (not my choice).

In some places, 5 rounds just isn't going to cut it. :scrutiny:

At that time I was carrying a Model 60 in an ankle holster, a Model 67 on my 'Sam Brown' belt and a 1911A1 in the middle of my back. Had to carry the cities Model 67, so I did. But, I wasn't working the nicest districts and could carry anything that I liked as a second/backup weapon. Just needed to qualify with them. :D
First I want to thank you for your service.

There is no way I would have entered a dwelling on a drug raid with a handgun. I would have had a shotgun or whatever long gun the department issued. There is no way an officer should be put into a position were he/she is likely to be outgunned. Criminals like their guns. In that situation it would be to easy for an officer to end up facing an AK or sawed off shotgun with a handgun.

Kleanbore
January 16, 2013, 07:27 PM
Posted by Deer_Freak: Given that the 357 mag stops attackers 97% of the time with the first shot it is my choice of weapons. The 9mm stops attackers less than 60% of the time with the first shot.FBI studies tell us that a wound channel of the same diameter that hits in the same place at the same angle and penetrates in the same way will have the same effect whether it is made by a 9x19, 9x23, .38 Special, .357 Magnum, or .38 Super.

With appropriate loads all of them are effective--and frankly, equally effective, with one exception. A single shot by any one of them that does not damage a critical part of the body would effect a stop only through psychological means. A single shot by any one of them that destroys the central nervous system will likely stop the attack rather quickly.

It is important to not confuse the boom and blast at the muzzle with wounding effectiveness.

The exception has to do with the possibility that the bullet may have to penetrate plate glass, an auto body, or body armor. The .357 and .38 Super do have an edge in that regard.

This (http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf) should shed some light on the subject.

Deer_Freak
January 16, 2013, 08:09 PM
Finally, on stopping power. 357 Mag is one of the better ones, but it's not as good as you say.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/handgun-stopping-power

For personal protection, the full power .357 Magnum is the most effective of all handgun calibers. According to the police shooting results research conducted by Marshall and Sanow and published in their seminal book Handgun Stopping Power, the various 125 grain JHP Magnum loads from the major manufacturers achieved "one shot stop" percentages of about 93%-97%. It just doesn't get any get any better than this. These loads drive a 125 grain bullet at a MV around 1450 fps and ME of 583 ft. lbs.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/most_versatile_handgun.htm

If you lump in ineffective loads and the 357 sig you get different results. The 357 sig isn't much more than a glorified 40 cal. Hunting and target loads aren't man stoppers. Virtually all self defense articles and books I have read recommend a 125 gr hollow point for the 357 in self defense situations.

bsms
January 16, 2013, 11:14 PM
If the bad guy is moving and you are moving, why are you shooting?

If the bad guy is moving, why not wait until he stops to take a shot? If he's moving away, you may not need to. And while he is moving is a great time for YOU to move.

Cops have different requirements. Your job in a self defense scenario is to get you & your family away without injury or death, if possible.

A lot of the problem of folks missing is because they think their gun is a shield. They think the sooner they fire and the more they fire, the less likely they are to be hit. But you can shoot a guy in the heart with a 44 mag, and he still has the capability to shoot back for 10-30 seconds. So if it takes you an extra second to take a good shot...take the extra second. Yes, you may be hit - but that is probably true anyways. Take a decent shot, then move. Shoot again if needed. Make sure your family knows that if you start shooting, they start running away.

I plan on shooting single action, because I shoot better that way. I also plan on running if the opportunity arises. The one time I've pulled a gun, it was a 22 revolver. My plan was to shoot the closest guy in the face. Having already fired 10,000 rounds thru it, I'm sure I would have hit. In any case, the other guys - 8 of them - didn't feel like finding out. Left the area without a shot. One data point. Take it FWIW.

Sam1911
January 16, 2013, 11:58 PM
If the bad guy is moving and you are moving, why are you shooting?Have you spent much time watching videos of actual gunfights? You are both most certainly likely to be moving AND firing -- pretty much regardless of what you might have practice to the contrary. The best way to keep him from getting a good shot at you is to shoot HIM. As one trainer I knew said, "hide behind the wall of bullets."

If the bad guy is moving, why not wait until he stops to take a shot?'Cause he might just stop the moment AFTER he shoots ME. Shooting while moving is a VITAL defensive skill.

If he's moving away, you may not need to.Certainly true!

And while he is moving is a great time for YOU to move.Always! "Get off the 'X.'"

A lot of the problem of folks missing is because they think their gun is a shield. They think the sooner they fire and the more they fire, the less likely they are to be hit.Actually, that is true. No one reacts well to being shot. It doesn't do good things for a bad guy's aim, concentration or determination.

A halfway decent shot made in half a second is a WHOLE lot better than a PERFECT shot made 2 or 3 seconds later. He who hits first often wins. He who doesn't shoot, can't hit. He who waits for perfection (if he has the superhuman fortitude to do so) probably won't get the chance.

But you can shoot a guy in the heart with a 44 mag, and he still has the capability to shoot back for 10-30 seconds. Um, well no. There are more effective fight-enders than a heart shot, but getting hit in the heart with a .44 Mag isn't something you're going to fight through. If nothing else, there are a lot of other REALLY important bits around and behind the heart that a .44 is going to damage. The same really holds true for a .45, 9mm, .40S&W...

And none of us are training for ONE shot anyway. A decent pistol shooter can put 4-5 aimed shots into the center of a threat in one second. Multiple hits vastly decrease the bad guy's ability to fight on. Hit early, hit often!

So if it takes you an extra second to take a good shot...take the extra second. Yes, you may be hit - but that is probably true anyways.I have to disagree. Again, a "decent" hit fast is a whole lot better than a "perfect" hit slow. You're playing a game of fractions of a second and the first to catch a bullet is very probably going to get the short end of the stick.

Take a decent shot, then move. No, no! Move AND shoot. You can do both at the same time. You really NEED to.

Deer_Freak
January 17, 2013, 12:55 AM
The difference between a wild shot and a good shot is maybe a half second not 2 or 3 seconds. In 2 or 3 seconds most proficient shooters can shoot a button off the attackers shirt. You just need to hit a 8 inch area where the vitals are located. By the way, a drug crazed or very determined attacker will carry on the fight until he drops dead. I sure would like to know were all these places that are better to hit someone that are better than the heart. I know a brain shot is better but where are all these other places?

bsms
January 17, 2013, 01:14 AM
I haven't seen any videos of gunfights where folks were running around - not SELF DEFENSE gunfights. Self defense is not the same as cops shooting it out.

But according to the FBI, you can shoot someone in the heart and they still can shoot back, and sometimes have. A shot to the heart doesn't empty the brain of blood & oxygen, so the person can still shoot back, if determined.

Can highly trained shooters shoot rapidly and hit? Yes. Can most shooters? Judging from police shootings, the answer is no. Too many cops have fired a half dozen rounds from a few feet away and missed the guy entirely.

If you can shoot and hit accurately in 0.2 seconds, great. Very few of us will practice enough to do that. Shots that miss, or hit thighs or guts, MAY stop the other guy because there are guys who will stop just at the sound of someone shooting back. But to be certain of stopping, even within a minute, you need to hit something vital. For most of us, that means taking a little extra time to settle and fire - an extra half second or so. If you, or I, get shot in the brain in that half second...guess God decided to take us home then.

But there isn't one out of 20 CCW carriers that I'd trust to shoot very quickly and hit anything. And hitting what you need to hit is more important than getting off a fast shot.

This is self defense we're talking about, not clearing a room a la the US Army or USMC. By definition, when you pull a gun, you are already in deep doo-doo. If you aren't, you aren't justified in pulling the gun out. So yes, you may be shot too. Deal with it. If you survive, hope you have better SA than to get in that hole to begin with.

Nor does everyone need to plan on panicking. Lots of folks don't. I've been shot at in combat. Mostly, I felt annoyed. Doesn't mean I wouldn't panic tomorrow...we don't ever know the future. But all this stuff about how you'll be near blind with panic is bull pucky. The one time I pulled a gun in self-defense, I was really annoyed. I've met others with the same reaction.

The mentality of shooting as quickly as possible is why so many shootings end up spraying bullets all over without effect. If the other guy is running, run in the opposite direction. Or wait until he stops, then shoot. Tell your family that if you start shooting, they start running. At least they will get away.

bsms
January 17, 2013, 01:17 AM
Deer Freak, I'm not saying a heart shot is bad. But no, a heart shot doesn't guarantee he won't shoot back for another 10-30 seconds. Unless you DO shoot him in the head, NO SHOT will be certain of stopping him immediately. Might as well accept it. You gun isn't a shield. It won't stop you from being shot.

oldpapps
January 17, 2013, 08:35 AM
"Quote:
Originally Posted by oldpapps View Post
"Deltaboy I carry 5 shot Charter Undercover and I Don' t feel under gunned."

I new a Detective Sgt who after returning from a drug raid came to me. He said to me that the S&W Chief he was carrying, just wouldn't do. At that raid, there were more people arrested in one room than he was carrying ammunition. He ended up getting a Browning HiPower (not my choice).

In some places, 5 rounds just isn't going to cut it.

At that time I was carrying a Model 60 in an ankle holster, a Model 67 on my 'Sam Brown' belt and a 1911A1 in the middle of my back. Had to carry the cities Model 67, so I did. But, I wasn't working the nicest districts and could carry anything that I liked as a second/backup weapon. Just needed to qualify with them.
First I want to thank you for your service.

There is no way I would have entered a dwelling on a drug raid with a handgun. I would have had a shotgun or whatever long gun the department issued. There is no way an officer should be put into a position were he/she is likely to be outgunned. Criminals like their guns. In that situation it would be to easy for an officer to end up facing an AK or sawed off shotgun with a handgun."

You are welcome.
The drug raid was the normal inter-agency process that we had a lot of back then. And Bill was only showing a presences as the street cops and first level dicks did all of the real work. The city, at that time, had a rack of Winchester model 92s in 32-20 and all shotguns were Rem 870s and assigned to patrol cars. It wasn't too long before we got a new chief.... he made changes and got rid of the old rifles. No he did not replace them. I think if he had his way he would have gotten rid of the issue revolvers. (I had him do practical night firing one moonless night, he put a crease in the hood of his car :eek: That was covered up.)

In my FBI Firearms Instructor training, one of the training processes was to take a person that had never fired a weapon and get them firearms qualified to meet the requirements for a 'Private Guard' licensee. I ended up with a novice, clean record, stupid.... His brother was under indictment for a shooting of a boy who was taking out trash at a restaurant and caught him/them breaking into cars. My opinion is these low life creeps just don't have the commitment to learn how to do much.

Sam1911
January 17, 2013, 09:16 AM
The difference between a wild shot and a good shot is maybe a half second not 2 or 3 seconds.That of course depends on your definition of "good" and "wild." But I agree that taking a fraction of a second longer to make sure your front sight is on the bad guy's COM is the best thing to do.

However, having seen what even trained shooters do in force-on-force scenario stuff (when both shooters know it isn't even real!) taking one deliberate shot just doesn't happen. There is a LOT of movement, often in directions and ways the participants didn't plan for or even realize they were doing.

By the way, a drug crazed or very determined attacker will carry on the fight until he drops dead. That's a VERY broad, blanket statement. There certainly have been instances of attackers continuing to fight with a bullet hole in their heart. That's VERY rare. We should prepare for such eventualities, but do so the same way we prepare for all other attacks -- make as many hits as we can, as fast as possible.

I sure would like to know were all these places that are better to hit someone that are better than the heart. I know a brain shot is better but where are all these other places? The upper thoracic triangle is usually said to be "best." (The triangle between the nipples and throat. Read here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=558988) Any CNS hit will do the job faster than a heart shot, per se, but if you hit the heart, the spine is likely to be impacted as well. Win-win!

Sam1911
January 17, 2013, 09:54 AM
I haven't seen any videos of gunfights where folks were running around - not SELF DEFENSE gunfights.And yet, that's what happens. Shooters tend to empty their gun without realizing it (you WON'T count shots) and move instinctively and erratically trying to avoid being shot. Even when pressing an attack.

But according to the FBI, you can shoot someone in the heart and they still can shoot back, and sometimes have. A shot to the heart doesn't empty the brain of blood & oxygen, so the person can still shoot back, if determined.Right. Read the link I posted.

Can highly trained shooters shoot rapidly and hit? Yes. Can most shooters? Judging from police shootings, the answer is no. Too many cops have fired a half dozen rounds from a few feet away and missed the guy entirely.You HAVE to learn to shoot rapidly and hit. Because you're GOING to be shooting rapidly. There's very little you can do to prevent that reaction, aside from leaving the gun home! :)

If you can shoot and hit accurately in 0.2 seconds, great. Very few of us will practice enough to do that. That's really nothing magical. Even a fairly average shooter should be able to make those hits in 0.3-0.4 sec, which will seem like a lifetime.

Shots that miss, or hit thighs or guts, MAY stop the other guy because there are guys who will stop just at the sound of someone shooting back.Now you just lumped being shot in the gut or thigh with a MISS. That's hardly realistic. Yes, there are the whacked-out high attackers we all use as out basic worst-case model, but for MOST people under MOST conditions, getting shot in any part of the body is a very traumatic experience, and likely to both diminish the will to continue an attack, and make their ability to focus and perform a good shot at you greatly reduced. I don't in any way advocate gut or thigh shots. But the first person to get shot SOMEWHERE is at a grave disadvantage. It is VERY important to get that first hit.

But to be certain of stopping, even within a minute, you need to hit something vital. For most of us, that means taking a little extra time to settle and fire - an extra half second or so. If you, or I, get shot in the brain in that half second...guess God decided to take us home then.There is really no "certain of stopping" in a gunfight. Shoot as many times as you can as fast as you can make hits. If that means you "zipper" up from the thigh across the chest -- so be it. Even if the drug freak you're facing is one of those precious few who will keep fighting with a hole in his heart, he is far less likely to keep fighting with three or a half-dozen holes through his torso, and you can do that in a second or two.

But there isn't one out of 20 CCW carriers that I'd trust to shoot very quickly and hit anything.Sheesh, that's pretty bad, but I don't train to and I don't advocate being one of those. That's a poor model for success.

And hitting what you need to hit is more important than getting off a fast shot.Yes, but there's no either-or here. Hit what you're aiming at and do it as quickly as possible. And do it again and again and again until the threat stops. (You'll find this to be a natural, and probably irresistible, response anyway.)

This is self defense we're talking about, not clearing a room a la the US Army or USMC.Don't draw distinctions that are fallacious. A gunfight is a gunfight. You train to do the most effective thing whether you're the USMC or a practitioner of defensive shooting.

By definition, when you pull a gun, you are already in deep doo-doo. If you aren't, you aren't justified in pulling the gun out. So yes, you may be shot too. Deal with it. If you survive, hope you have better SA than to get in that hole to begin with.Uh...what? Does this support or detract from one of our arguments?

Nor does everyone need to plan on panicking. Lots of folks don't. I've been shot at in combat. Mostly, I felt annoyed. Doesn't mean I wouldn't panic tomorrow...we don't ever know the future. But all this stuff about how you'll be near blind with panic is bull pucky. The one time I pulled a gun in self-defense, I was really annoyed. I've met others with the same reaction.Who's talking about panicking? Panic and rapid decisive action are two different things.

The mentality of shooting as quickly as possible is why so many shootings end up spraying bullets all over without effect.Actually, that's just reality. People shoot and shoot quickly and often. High stress and danger degrade accuracy by ~75%. The less trained and accurate you are (and yes, there are lots of cops and even average citizens who fall into that category -- which is not something to strive for!) the more likely you are to miss than hit.

If the other guy is running, run in the opposite direction.Absolutely! Unless he's running AT you...

Or wait until he stops, then shoot. Wait until he stops? Stops where? Over your corpse? 25 yds off? I'm having trouble visualizing this. ... And then shoot him? That's not very good tactics and sounds like an unjustified shooting in the making.

Sam1911
January 17, 2013, 09:55 AM
Might as well accept it. You gun isn't a shield. It won't stop you from being shot.Certainly so, however (absent secure hard cover that he can't flank...) shooting the other guy IS the best way to keep from being shot yourself.

Kleanbore
January 17, 2013, 10:05 AM
Posted by Deer_Freak: According to the police shooting results research conducted by Marshall and Sanow and published in their seminal book Handgun Stopping Power, the various 125 grain JHP Magnum loads from the major manufacturers achieved "one shot stop" percentages of about 93%-97%. It just doesn't get any get any better than this.Those works have been discussed here at great length in the past; use the search function. The conclusions are much worse than suspect.

If you want to understand why yourself, reflect Pages 13 through 15 ("THE ALLURE OF SHOOTING INCIDENT ANALYSES") from the link to the FBI study that I provided earlier. It should be quite convincing to the most casual reader, even without any substantiating data at all.

The difference between a wild shot and a good shot is maybe a half second not 2 or 3 seconds.A half second may prove sufficient in some encounters, but I wouldn't count on it.

In 2 or 3 seconds most proficient shooters can shoot a button off the attackers shirt.You are confusing the defensive use of force with target shooting, and apparently assuming that the "attacker" is for some reason standing still.

You just need to hit a 8 inch area where the vitals are located. You may choose to labor under that misconception if you so desire, but do not pass it on for others.

Read the conclusion from the work cited:

Physiologically, no caliber or bullet is certain to incapacitate any individual unless the brain is hit. Psychologically, some individuals can be incapacitated by minor or small caliber wounds. ...

Barring a hit to the brain, the only way to force incapacitation is to cause sufficient blood loss that the subject can no longer function, and that takes time. Even if the heart is instantly destroyed, there is sufficient oxygen in the brain to support full and complete voluntary action for 10-15 seconds....

Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding.

It would then be useful to consult Gray's Anatomy and see if you can find any "eight inch area where the vitals are located." Look for major blood vessels, the brain stem, tendons or body structure or nerves critical to continuing the attack, whatever. You won't find one.

Physiological topping effectiveness will depend upon what you hit, and when deadly force is immediately necessary, that will be largely a matter of chance. You can improve that chance considerably by firing more shots.

bsms
January 17, 2013, 10:10 AM
Force on force scenarios are very different from self-defense scenarios. Force on force is something the military does, or cops may need to do. My only experience in something like that was a couple of days of training at an Army MOUT site. Happily, I've never had to do that for real.

My son-in-law did a lot of it for real during 2 tours with the Marines in Iraq. Someone asked him what he would do if he was about to enter a really bad part of town. He replied, "Turn around!" That isn't an option for everyone. If someone's work requires them to go into very dangerous parts of town or to actually do real-life force on force stuff, that is a whole different ball game from what I'm discussing.

"As one trainer I knew said, "hide behind the wall of bullets."

For force on force situations, that is fine. But anyone who mentions after a self-defense shooting that they were trained to do that is going to be in a heap of trouble. I suspect someone who empties a 17 round magazine, and still has 2 more loaded magazines on him when the cops arrive, is going to have some explaining to do. If you are carrying over 50 rounds of ammo in your daily life, you appear to be someone who is looking for trouble. If you serve warrants for work, folks will understand. But if your work doesn't require doing dangerous things, then most will not.

People need to decide for themselves how much risk they are willing to take, and how to deal with it. But people also need to remember that self defense is very different from clearing a house, and that your tactics and weapons may need to be adjusted as a result.

"shooting the other guy IS the best way to keep from being shot yourself"

True. It may be part of my thought is based on my imperfections as a shooter. I shoot around 1500 rounds a year. That is more than some, but far less than others. Since I'm not likely to start shooting 10,000+ rounds a year, I've adjusted my plan to accept some of my limitations.

"Don't draw distinctions that are fallacious. A gunfight is a gunfight. You train to do the most effective thing whether you're the USMC or a practitioner of defensive shooting."

I obviously completely disagree. If I'm going to clear a house, I won't be taking a handgun to do it. My son-in-law had a machine gun. And in combat, collateral damage is accepted under the laws of war. If you think there is no difference between being a Marine infantryman in combat and a civilian walking in a mall, you are grossly out of touch with reality.

tomrkba
January 17, 2013, 10:23 AM
Force on force scenarios are very different from self-defense scenarios. Force on force is something the military does, or cops may need to do. My only experience in something like that was a couple of days of training at an Army MOUT site. Happily, I've never had to do that for real.

I learned more about self-defense fighting in 30 seconds of force on force in SouthNarc's ECQC course than I did in several two day handgun courses. Those courses prepared me to do the FoF more successfully, but you learn your body in those few seconds. You may THINK you can draw quickly, and the timer may show it, but your gun will feel glued in that holster when a guy charges you, pins your arm to your side, and knocks you down. Believe me when I say I learned even more while in the air and on the ground fighting over that training gun.

Sam1911
January 17, 2013, 10:29 AM
Force on force scenarios are very different from self-defense scenarios.I'm talking about SELF-DEFENSE force-on-force. Not military exercises. FOF is an important part of defensive training and practice. It helps disabuse folks of fanciful notions about how a gunfight will look and feel, and how they'll have time to draw and place well-aimed shots when the attacker stops and presents a good target. :rolleyes:

bsms
January 17, 2013, 10:29 AM
"Actually, that's just reality. People shoot and shoot quickly and often. High stress and danger degrade accuracy by ~75%. The less trained and accurate you are (and yes, there are lots of cops and even average citizens who fall into that category -- which is not something to strive for!) the more likely you are to miss than hit."

I call that panic. Sorry, but there are many accounts of grandmothers who remain steady and calm while shooting in self defense. If you plan on panicking, you are more likely to panic. Darn it, grow a pair and take good shots. If a grandmother can do it, why can't you?

"Absolutely! Unless he's running AT you..."

If he is running at you, the target is getting bigger. Be thankful he wants to give you an easier shot.

"Wait until he stops? Stops where? Over your corpse? 25 yds off? I'm having trouble visualizing this. ... And then shoot him? That's not very good tactics and sounds like an unjustified shooting in the making."

As I said, if he is running AT you, he is becoming a better target. George Adamson was asked how to shoot a charging lion. He replied, "Wait until 10 yards. Don't miss."

But if he is running sideways, then most shooters have two viable choices: wait until he stops, then shoot before he does (and most guys who have just run will need a second to get off a decent shot while you are just waiting to take one), or run a different direction. If your family started running when you started shooting, then in most cases, option 2 is better. You are not a cop. You don't HAVE to take the guy. You just need to get away, hopefully in one piece. And if you managed along the way to put a round in COM, the guy will be easy for the cops to find.

bsms
January 17, 2013, 10:31 AM
"I'm talking about SELF-DEFENSE force-on-force."

There are almost no cases of self-defense force on force. Please describe a scenario of self defense combined with multiple shooters on both sides fighting it out.

Kleanbore
January 17, 2013, 10:31 AM
Posted by bsms: I haven't seen any videos of gunfights where folks were running around - not SELF DEFENSE gunfights.What videos you may or may not have seen means nothing.

Consider an encounter in which a violent criminal actor with an edged weapon decides to surprise and overpower you at your car. Might you not reasonably expect him to be running?

Can highly trained shooters shoot rapidly and hit? Yes. Can most shooters? If they have participated in any relevant defensive pistol shooting training, they have been shown how. Whether they would be able to do so under stress remains to be seen, but their survival might very well depend on it.

If you can shoot and hit accurately in 0.2 seconds, great. Very few of us will practice enough to do that.Training to shoot five controlled rounds in about a second is highly advised.

But there isn't one out of 20 CCW carriers that I'd trust to shoot very quickly and hit anything. I have no comment on that.

And hitting what you need to hit is more important than getting off a fast shot.Hitting what you need to hit timely is vitally essential if you need to shoot at all.

The mentality of shooting as quickly as possible is why so many shootings end up spraying bullets all over without effect.The objective is to learn how to shoot as quickly as necessary.

If the other guy is running, run in the opposite direction.

Retreat, if retreat is safely possible, is always a good idea.

Or wait until he stops, then shoot.Why would he stop?

I strongly suggest that you avail yourself of some training in which a rapidly charging target is used. See how quickly you must recognize that an imminent threat is in fact presented; how fast you must draw; how quickly you must fire to get three or four hits; and how it might well be necessary to move to the side and perhaps strike the attacker while it is all going on.

Sam1911
January 17, 2013, 10:37 AM
If you think there is no difference between being a Marine infantryman in combat and a civilian walking in a mall, you are grossly out of touch with reality.YOU'RE the one bringing clearing urban areas with a machine gun into the discussion! I'm saying that you should fire as many shots as you're able, as accurately as you can manage, until the threat stops. That's all. It might indeed only take one or two. Or it might take a mag-full. (Whether you've got 50 or 7 on your person really doesn't enter into it.)

"Hide behind the wall of bullets" simply means you can create "virtual cover" by shooting the guy quickly and frequently as you move. Moving is very important -- it helps you create space and be harder to hit. Shooting while moving is even more important -- it helps dissuade your attacker from pursuing you, or shooting you while you move, and hopefully ends the threat sooner.

Kleanbore
January 17, 2013, 10:40 AM
Posted by bsms: There are almost no cases of self-defense force on force. Oh, come now. If the other guy is not threatening you with deadly force, it is not self defense.

Please describe a scenario of self defense combined with multiple shooters on both sides fighting it out.Forget the idea of "fighting it out". The mission is to stop the attackers.

Two or more attackers are not at all uncommon, and if they are not armed or do not present a clear disparity of force, what is it that provides you with justification?

Sam1911
January 17, 2013, 10:41 AM
There are almost no cases of self-defense force on force. Please describe a scenario of self defense combined with multiple shooters on both sides fighting it out.WHAT? Are you misunderstanding this term? Force-on-force training is simply putting Simunitions guns (or airsoft) in the hands of a role-playing "attacker" (or two, or three) and a "defender," and letting them work though a violent encounter to be exposed to and learn the dynamics of lethal force events. And it teaches both the participants and observers what things are vital to practice and what things are largely irrelevant or erroneous beliefs.

It is a vital part of many defensive trainers' programs. Craig Douglas ("SouthNarc") is probably now the best known for this style of training but many use it.

bsms
January 17, 2013, 11:14 AM
Force on force training doesn't describe one on one. Maybe your definition differs.

If I'm walking out to my car at night and there is some guy hanging around near my car, I'll move in a different direction, at least long enough to get my hand on my gun. I don't live in a big city with crowded parking. If a guy starts sprinting toward me with a knife, my decision to pull the gun and shoot or turn and run will depend on the situation. Like most CCW holders, getting a gun out when caught flat footed and getting a shot off within a second isn't going to happen.

And even if I could pull my gun from concealment and get a shot off in under a second, it won't prevent him from stabbing me. Therefor, in MANY cases, running is the best option. Or forgetting the gun, and going for a gunless fight to control the knife so I won't get stabbed, or stabbed as bad.

A GUN IS NOT A SHIELD. It doesn't prevent the other guy from doing anything during the next 5 seconds - not unless you shoot him in the brain.

Two or more bad guys is not uncommon. Two or more bad guys who want to get shot IS uncommon. My one self defense encounter was with 8 guys, and I had a 6-shot 22. Not ideal, but I was out hiking. Back in the late 70s, most hikers didn't go armed at all. But when it was clear I was ready and willing to shoot the closest guy, they stopped.

They didn't have to. They could have shouted, 8-6=2, we can take you. They could have rushed me. The closest guy would have been shot in the face at close range. The rest would probably have killed me. I had just finished a long, hard hike and wasn't up to running away. But I wouldn't have died alone. As it turned out, no one wanted to be the one guy who died first, so I ended up driving away a couple of minutes later.

I'm NOT the one acting like I need to kill 8 attackers. If you are rushed by 8 guys, you won't have time to shoot more than 2-3, tops. I'm not the one who said that a gunfight is a gunfight. They are NOT all the same.

In the 35 years since I pulled a gun, I've managed to live without needing to pull one. I keep at least 1/3 tank of gas, so I won't have to stop ANYWHERE for gas. I keep a look around me. I don't go to high crime areas. I don't go out after 9PM on Friday or Saturday. On the rare times I do, I'm picky about where I go and what I carry and how I carry.

My most likely self-defense scenario is at home. I prefer a 44 mag rifle with 44 specials loaded. Backed up by a 686+ and a Ruger Vaquero. I don't think I'm likely to need more than 23 rounds of 44 & 357. But I've got them, if needed.

I find the idea of hiding behind a wall of lead both stupid and immoral. You are responsible for the rounds you shoot, unless you are a cop. Then you can probably shoot darn near anyone and get away with it. But someone who shoots 17 rounds and hits with 3 may have a lot of trouble caused by the other 14 shots. And if that person is found to have written that they will hide behind a wall of lead, then anyone injured by those 14 missing shots will have a GREAT case against him.

No one can be certain they will behave bravely in any future event. I've been shot at and not panicked, but I might wet myself with fear the next time. But I do not understand PLANNING to be a coward. When you carry a gun in public, you assume a duty to consider the public in your tactics.

Sam1911
January 17, 2013, 11:25 AM
Force on force training doesn't describe one on one. Maybe your definition differs.Force-on-force is the commonly used term to describe ANY training where two or more participants are practicing using simulated force (fists, impact weapons, blades, guns) on each other. I understand a military context where it may describe pitting two armed FORCES against each other, but that's not what we're talking about here and that's not how the term is used in the defensive training world.

We can call it whatever you want if it help make the point. Simulations, scenarios, role-play actions, etc.

When this stuff is put into practice, in earnest, various educational points are discovered time and again. Such as, the need to shoot quickly, multiple times, and at whatever target you have in the moment.

Your points about situational awareness are spot-on, and I agree wholeheartedly. However, when one practices for drawing and employing a deadly weapon, one is practicing what happens when your situational awareness has failed or been defeated.

If S.A. was the whole game, NONE of us would ever need the guns we carry.

Kleanbore
January 17, 2013, 12:09 PM
Posted by bsms: If I'm walking out to my car at night and there is some guy hanging around near my car, I'll move in a different direction, at least long enough to get my hand on my gun.Sounds good, if you can do it.

I don't live in a big city with crowded parking.Criminals are very mobile these days. And crowded parking is just one reason to expect to be at risk near your car.

If a guy starts sprinting toward me with a knife, my decision to pull the gun and shoot or turn and run will depend on the situation.Personally, I cannot begin to imagine choosing to try to depend upon speed and endurance for survival when attacked by a violent criminal attacker with a knife, and when using a firearm is possible.

And even if I could pull my gun from concealment and get a shot off in under a second, it won't prevent him from stabbing me. ...which is precisely what some well designed Tueller training would show you.

Therefor, in MANY cases, running is the best option.Whenever retreat is safely possible, it is the best option.

Or forgetting the gun, and going for a gunless fight to control the knife so I won't get stabbed, or stabbed as bad.Not very prudent, I'm afraid.

A GUN IS NOT A SHIELD.That's excellent advice, and it's something that people who fantasize about traipsing around their houses with gun in hand looking fora burglar should keep in mind.

It doesn't prevent the other guy from doing anything during the next 5 seconds - not unless you shoot him in the brain.It may or it may not.

Two or more bad guys is not uncommon. Two or more bad guys who want to get shot IS uncommon.No one wants to get shot. But I would not count on the belief that a second attacker who cannot escape without your car, or who cannot safely disengage after you have started firing, or who is not rational, or who does not yet realize that it is you who has fired, will not continue to present an imminent threat.

In the 35 years since I pulled a gun, I've managed to live without needing to pull one.My last defensive gun use occurred in 1968, but as they say, past performance is no guarantee of future results.

I keep a look around me. I don't go to high crime areas. I don't go out after 9PM on Friday or Saturday. On the rare times I do, I'm picky about where I go and what I carry and how I carry.Good.

I find the idea of hiding behind a wall of lead both stupid and immoral.Who suggested such an impossible tactic?

You are responsible for the rounds you shoot, unless you are a cop. Then you can probably shoot darn near anyone and get away with it.eYour understanding of the concept of community indemnification of law enforcement officers is seriously flawed.

When you carry a gun in public, you assume a duty to consider the public in your tactics.No one should ever forget that.

bsms
January 17, 2013, 12:20 PM
Post 81: "As one trainer I knew said, "hide behind the wall of bullets."

Kleanbore
January 17, 2013, 01:39 PM
Posted by bsms: Post 81: "As one trainer I knew said, "hide behind the wall of bullets."Missed that. I would not have used those words, but but let's not take them out of context:

The best way to keep him from getting a good shot at you is to shoot HIM.

A halfway decent shot made in half a second is a WHOLE lot better than a PERFECT shot made 2 or 3 seconds later. He who hits first often wins. He who doesn't shoot, can't hit. He who waits for perfection (if he has the superhuman fortitude to do so) probably won't get the chance.

A decent pistol shooter can put 4-5 aimed shots into the center of a threat in one second. Multiple hits vastly decrease the bad guy's ability to fight on. Hit early, hit often!

Again, a "decent" hit fast is a whole lot better than a "perfect" hit slow.

None of that is "stupid and immoral." It's just basic self preservation.

And it's a whole lot smarter than waiting until an attacker stops attacking before shooting him; choosing to grapple with an attacker with a knife when you have a gun; or taking "an extra second" to make a "good shot" when someone is trying to shoot you.

And by the way, we strongly recommend against shooting a double action revolver single action in a use of force encounter unless you happen for some reason to be shooting at long range.

bsms
January 17, 2013, 01:54 PM
^^ Yep, we disagree. But I never said to wait until an attacker stops attacking to shoot. If the attacker is moving toward you, feel free to shoot. If he is moving sideways or away, then use the time to increase the distance rather than taking a low Pk shot at him. And if a guy rushes you with a knife from 15 feet, you feel free to draw your gun and shoot. Odds are, you'll be stabbed. I'll focus on NOT getting stabbed as my top priority. And when shooting, I'll take whatever time I think I need to get a hit. But you do what you think is best, and I'll do likewise.

Kleanbore
January 17, 2013, 02:42 PM
Posted by bsms: Yep, we disagree.Is it with Sam's statement

"The best way to keep him from getting a good shot at you is to shoot HIM", or with

"A halfway decent shot made in half a second is a WHOLE lot better than a PERFECT shot made 2 or 3 seconds late", or with

"He who hits first often wins. He who doesn't shoot, can't hit. He who waits for perfection (if he has the superhuman fortitude to do so) probably won't get the chance"?


I do not see how those points can be disputed.

And if a guy rushes you with a knife from 15 feet, you feel free to draw your gun and shoot. Odds are, you'll be stabbed. I'll focus on NOT getting stabbed as my top priority.If he charges from 15 feet, I will certainly have to move, evade, and if at all possible, put something between me and him (car, car door, lamp post, shopping cart, before drawing and firing. From 25 feet, I can draw and hit multiple times, but I would probably not prevent him from getting to me without moving or putting something between me and him or both, while drawing and firing. In either instance I might well end up using my Blackthorn. I most certainly would not think, even for a fraction of a second, about "going for a gunless fight".

And when shooting, I'll take whatever time I think I need to get a hit.That makes sense, but you had better be able to get several hits in a fraction of a second. If not, you had better start training for it.

Don't think group size. Think paper plate size. And when you can hit every time, shoot faster. Steel plates are useful for real-time scoring. Use a timer.

Deer_Freak
January 17, 2013, 09:06 PM
Deer Freak, I'm not saying a heart shot is bad. But no, a heart shot doesn't guarantee he won't shoot back for another 10-30 seconds. Unless you DO shoot him in the head, NO SHOT will be certain of stopping him immediately. Might as well accept it. You gun isn't a shield. It won't stop you from being shot.

I am not the fastest shot. In fact, as I age I shoot slower all the time. But the last IDPA match I shot I cleared a course of 16 steel plates in 38 seconds. That is drawing my pistol from concealment. firing, showing my gun is clear and holstering my weapon. I can shoot the same course even faster in real life situation. When I carry my gun for self defense the decocker is not engaged. It's just draw and fire. Instead of messing with the decocker I can actually cock my gun so I can get the first shot off in single action.

CPLofMARINES
January 18, 2013, 09:10 PM
I don't believe so. Sometimes I carry a J-frame. However
I think if one is packing a small wheel gun, said individual
Needs to look at things a little more clearly. Although
Sometimes I like to carry my 29 4" with hot specials, ie .
Double Tap or Buffalo Bore.
Whether a wonder nine or wheel gun, practice.............

Semper Fi

CJW
January 19, 2013, 12:35 AM
I think we sometimes tend to over-think all the scary possibilities of life, but the truth is you just can't be prepared for everything. All of us have a much greater chance of being hit by a drunk driver than facing a crazed gunman. All you can do is drive carefully, be aware, and not worry about it. That said, I am prepared to defend myself in the most likely scenarios with a gun that is convenient enough for me to carry everywhere I go. Most crooks are just looking for an easy score and not looking to get into a gunfight, and that being the case, my J-frame is likely all the deterrent I will ever need. If I actually do find myself faced by multiple shooters or a maniac with an AK-47, I will be outgunned no matter what pistol I'm carrying. I would do my best, I hope, but I'm not going to go through life worrying about being prepared to shoot weak-hand, covered in blood, reloading on the run, against a machine gun wielding madman. I've got a lot more likely contingencies to worry about. So, I carry a 5-shooter with no worries. I practice with it regularly, have great confidence in it, and it carries nicely in my pocket so it is always with me. That's just my .02

bsms
January 19, 2013, 12:15 PM
"The best way to keep him from getting a good shot at you is to shoot HIM"...

Not really. It is true that if you shoot him and kill him right away, then that has worked. But if you trade shots with him, and you put 3-8 rounds center mass, he can still be shooting back at you. And there is no guarantee that any of your 3-8 rounds center mass will stop him from shooting. There have been a lot of cases where the bad guy continues shooting back even after being repeatedly hit in the chest & stomach.

And if ONE of his return shots hits you in a vital spot, you die. So no, shooting at him "halfway decent" will not save you. Unless you are lucky.

OTOH, one very good shot from 10 feet, into the face, with a decent caliber, will almost certainly stop him. And at modest ranges like 15-20 feet, running sideways so he has to pull lead will give you decent odds of survival. Opening up a gap, finding cover, then seeing if he is following (and shooting if he is) may make more sense. But a plan of hiding behind a wall of lead isn't a very good plan. Suppressive fire isn't a term MOST self-defense plans need to use...or most District Attorneys want to hear!

"A halfway decent shot made in half a second is a WHOLE lot better than a PERFECT shot made 2 or 3 seconds late"...

Define halfway decent? Hits the BG somewhere, anywhere? Then according to the FBI, you have about a 50% chance of ending the fight with a halfway decent shot. And a 50% chance it will go on. Most of us will need more than 0.5 seconds just to access our weapons. I don't walk thru downtown Tucson with a gun on my thigh.

Getting your arm up and letting your arm aim the gun takes about 0.5-1 seconds longer than shooting from the hip. My best guess is about 0.5+ seconds. That delay goes a long way to ensuring a hit rather than a miss.

"He who hits first often wins. He who doesn't shoot, can't hit. He who waits for perfection (if he has the superhuman fortitude to do so) probably won't get the chance"?

One of the reasons I like shooting single action is that it forces me to take a little bit longer than firing double action from the hip. For me, that difference translates to about 90% hits at 30 feet vs about 25-30%. Each person will have a different rate of success. Do what works for you. Shooting from the hip with a Ruger Vaquero, my son-in-law probably is close to 100% hits at 30 feet. Shooting with a subcompact semi-auto, neither of us can hit squat shooting from the hip. Folks need to think about what it takes for THEM to get a decent hit rate, and adjust either their tactics or training accordingly.

I don't know of any ranges around where I can practice running and shooting. If I tried it out in the desert, I'd probably trip and fall on a cactus. And my budget for ammo emphasizes 22 LR, and about 50 rounds of centerfire ammo a month. Someone willing to spend the bucks to shoot 2,000 rounds/month can use different criteria because they will shoot better than I will.

I met a guy who practices a minimum of 30 minutes a day on his fast draw. Did I mention he isn't married? His criteria probably differ from mine, and I'm NOT going to start practice a quick draw 30+ minutes a night! So I need to adjust to what my lifestyle supports.

Kleanbore
January 19, 2013, 10:35 PM
Posted by bsms, in reponse to ""The best way to keep him from getting a good shot at you is to shoot HIM": Not really. It is true that if you shoot him and kill him right away, then that has worked.

Let's make it perfectly clear: your objective is not to kill him. One more time: your objective is not to kill him.

But if you trade shots with him, and you put 3-8 rounds center mass, he can still be shooting back at you. And there is no guarantee that any of your 3-8 rounds center mass will stop him from shooting. There have been a lot of cases where the bad guy continues shootinIg back even after being repeatedly hit in the chest & stomach.I think Sam's point was that if you do not shoot soon enough, you will not be able to shoot at all. Nothing about any recommendation to "trade shots."

And if ONE of his return shots hits you in a vital spot, you die. So no, shooting at him "halfway decent" will not save you. Unless you are lucky.The point was that if you do not shoot quickly enough, you will be in a world of hurt.

OTOH, one very good shot from 10 feet, into the face, with a decent caliber, will almost certainly stop him.Sure, but anyone who has had any relevant training at all, and anyone who has read the FBI report linked above, knows that such a shot would be a matter of pure luck.

One of the reasons I like shooting single action is that it forces me to take a little bit longer than firing double action from the hip. For me, that difference translates to about 90% hits at 30 feet vs about 25-30%.That's fine, for hunting, target shooting, or shooting tin cans or snakes. However, shooting single action is a very poor idea when it comes to self defense, and the fact that it takes "a little bit longer" and may result in the defender's being shot first is only one reason to not shoot single action. No one recommends it.

12gaugeTim
January 19, 2013, 10:44 PM
If your plan in an encounter where yourself and the opponent party are both armed is to shoot in single action to take more time on your shots, it's probably time for a reality check.

RandyC
January 20, 2013, 11:56 AM
Once you've digested all the data at hand, made an informed choice as to your sidearm, and come up with a Plan A for a most likely scenario ... be ready to immediately switch to Plan D, E, F, or just getting the heck out of Dodge.

asia331
January 21, 2013, 02:17 AM
I sometimes carry a second gun now too, though. I feel a tad silly about it.
AFDavis11 is offline Report Post Quick reply to this message

Funny; I normally carry two, a Self-loader auto and a revolver back-up and feel silly when I only have one.

Clark
January 21, 2013, 01:08 PM
I carry a single AA battery flashlight in one shirt pocket and a 380 in the other shirt pocket... and an SOG spec elite mini in my front pants pocket.

But next to the bed, I have a big mag lite flashlight [read club] and a 357 magnum.

bsms
January 21, 2013, 09:17 PM
I'll leave rapid shooting for highly trained SWAT teams...71 shots fired in 7 seconds. 22 hits. Multiple bullets going thru the house...some going into other houses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP0f00_JMak&feature=youtu.be

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Guerena_shooting

Sam1911
January 21, 2013, 09:40 PM
I'll leave rapid shooting for highly trained SWAT teams...71 shots fired in 7 seconds. 22 hits. Multiple bullets going thru the house...some going into other houses.
Funny, in a sad kind of way, but not to the point. What a team of law enforcement officers (who honestly tend not to train much or well from what most of us have seen) might do in a dynamic entry against an armed suspected drug dealer has little relevance to how a well-trained and practiced armed citizen should shoot when confronted by an attacker.

Without getting into cop-bashing territory, anyone who holds up police training as a gold standard is ... scary.

BLB68
January 21, 2013, 11:51 PM
You gun isn't a shield.

Well, my gun is a Shield. :evil:

David E
January 22, 2013, 12:01 AM
OTOH, one very good shot from 10 feet, into the face, with a decent caliber, will almost certainly stop him.

Which would never be taken if he's been shooting at and hitting you during the 3-5 seconds you're taking to make the "perfect shot."

And at modest ranges like 15-20 feet, running sideways so he has to pull lead

"Pull lead?" You mean, he'd have to aim in front of you to hit you? IE; he's placing his shot in anticipation of where you'll be...at a distance of 15-20 feet??!. Well, maybe if he's using a blow gun...

One of the reasons I like shooting single action is that it forces me to take a little bit longer than firing double action from the hip.

Who is promoting hip shooting as the answer here? You can shoot double action quickly and accurately without shooting from the hip.

I'm NOT going to start practice a quick draw 30+ minutes a night! So I need to adjust to what my lifestyle supports.

How about dry firing 5-10 minutes a week?

If you enjoyed reading about "Since most on this forum would carry a Revolver" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!