Is the revolver really a practical defensive weapon?

[RyanM]

Can always count on people to miss the point.

Keep trying. It's right there! Control your breathing, focus on the front sight, and squeeeeeeeze the trigger slowly. You'll hit the point eventually.

-------------

Funny, the offenders in that exchange were finished off by one man with a six-shot revolver when wondernines and even a 12 gauge shotgun failed to anchor the cop-killers.

But hey, a real life, much-documented firefight isn't preparation for armed Bulgarian gun smugglers looking to rape 8 year-olds in the public bathroom at the mall, right?

Great display of logic! So get rid of the 9mms, get rid of the shotguns, and arm all the officers with 6-shooters from the start. Wait, no! All the officers should be unarmed except the one who used the wheelgun! Just let the guy with the magical revolver get the job done right the first time.

Really, that's basically what you're saying. The revolver worked. So... if that officer'd used a second wondernine rather than a revolver (assuming he didn't shoot one platform better than the other), the results would've been different? Those extra 10 shots would've been detrimental? Obviously then, the solution is to impose not a 10 round magazine ban, but a 6 round one. This will magically make those 6 shots more accurate and more effective, thus leveling the playing field between revolvers and autos.

And really, statistically, as well as according to well-documented real world firefights, 6 shots is all you need. No honest man needs more than 6!

Once again, just to make the bullseye bigger, the point is that additional shots are an advantage. Less is not more when you're talking about ammo. If you want to use a revolver because you shoot it better than an auto, then that's great. That's exactly the right reason to choose either platform, because you shoot it better. But don't try and pretend that the revolver is "better" simply because it's adequate in the statistical majority of cases, while an auto's capacity may be a little excessive in those same cases.

If someone chooses to "spray and pray" with an auto, that is a problem with mindset and training, not the gun. Give the same person a revolver and they'd do the exact same thing, just for a shorter period of time. But then, I guess people love to blame the gun rather than the person, for just about everything.

 

[Wheeler44]

First my answer; an emphatic YES, with the caveat that a revolver is what you practice with.

Now one of the reasons. This weekend I took part in a pistol plate match. I know that it is not as stressful as being shot at but there is definitely more stress than when I'm out shootin' in the woods.
the guys that were shootin' revolvers rarely had to reload, I mean maybe 3 or 4 out of the whole match. On the other hand I saw folks with autos run through multiple mags and still leave plates up. Does this mean wheelies are better shooters? No it just means that the revolver guys had a better percentage of hits than the auto guys. If you can hit with an auto good for you, I seem to be more accurate with revolvers. Of course I was almost 50 before I shot an auto and I've been shootin' wheel guns since I was a kid.

 

[Drail]

You bet your Glock it is!

 

[Brian Dale]

I shoot revolvers better. That's my reason. It's probably because I'm more familiar, comfortable and confident with them.

I didn't run an ANOVA, though, Nematocyst. I suspect heteroskedasticity, and I don't remember how to run a Kruskal-Wallis test.

However, Defensory, my hands and my guns are in the real world. Not in gunfights, so far, and I dearly hope that it stays that way. Still, I must make my choices based on my knowledge of my own proficiency and quirks, rather than on broad, general data or the experiences of those who are sworn to go out and catch bad guys.

 

[2ndamd]

The short form of this is, sometimes really serious tactical screwups can be salvaged by the application of a metric buttload of fire .

Keep your head and odds are you won't need to salvage things.

Well said!

 

[Defensory]

Posted by DougDubya
The Miami Dade firefight was mentioned.

Funny, the offenders in that exchange were finished off by one man with a six-shot revolver when wondernines and even a 12 gauge shotgun failed to anchor the cop-killers.

But hey, a real life, much-documented firefight isn't preparation for armed Bulgarian gun smugglers looking to rape 8 year-olds in the public bathroom at the mall, right?

Your logic is quite weak.

Using your logic, a revolver is a better self-defense firearm and man-stopper than a 12 gauge shotgun.

Those who are actually knowledgeable about the FBI Miami shootout, know that the perps had already been seriously wounded by the 9mm semi-autos of agents Grogan, Dove and Risner---which allowed agent Mireles to approach the perp's vehicle and shoot them both at near point-blank range with his revolver. ANY semi-automatic could also have killed them at near point-blank range.

At the time of the Miami shootout, the .357 revolver was the standard issue sidearm of the FBI. Due to the fact that multiple agents carrying revolvers were involved in the firefight and had significant difficulty attempting to reload while under fire, the FBI shortly after gave revolvers the axe in favor of 10mm semi-autos. The 10mm's were replaced later with .40 S&W semi-autos.

To this day, semi-autos are the standard issue sidearms of the FBI. Now if the .357 "Rambo Revolvers" were so great, why did the FBI choose to replace them shortly after the Miami shootout?

Oh, by the way. The perps involved in the Miami shootout were BOTH carrying .357 magnum revolvers, but they STILL LOST the gunfight! The .357 "Rambo Revolvers" didn't get the job done for the FBI OR the perps!

 

[AStone]

I shoot revolvers better. That's my reason.

'Nuff said.

I didn't run an ANOVA, though, Nematocyst.

Good thing. Proportions are notoriously non-Normal ('scuse me, Gaussian), which violates the assumption for ANOVA.

I suspect heteroskedasticity

That's reasonable. Heteroskedasticity seems to apply here:
the variance gets larger the further out we go on the revolver/semi-auto spectrum.

and I don't remember how to run a Kruskal-Wallis test.

Here's a quick review.

I preferred Mann-Whitney U or the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Both non-parametric.
(Go non-parametric to reduce the number of necessary assumptions.)

And I prefer revolvers, also.
They seem non-parametric.

 

[Defensory]

Posted by WHW
I will never forget when one of our cops with his female partner emptied his revolver on a perp in a basement, tried to reload, and the skell walked up on him and shot him in the head while his partner froze and stared.

The perp could've never walked up on him like that if he'd been carrying a high-capacity semi-auto. The officer's revolver cost him his life.

So much for the old "Six for sure" canard. In this and many other cases, those carrying revolvers have ended up "Six feet under for sure".

Thanks for relating that sad but true story. With multi-perp home invasions being pretty common these days all over the country, a revolver is a dead man's gun.

 

[AStone]

In this and many other cases, those carrying revolvers have ended up "Six feet under for sure".

Unlike those carrying semi-autos, who always survive.

Wonder what the stats are?

 

[Defensory]

Posted by Nematocyst
Unlike those carrying semi-autos, who always survive.

The bottom line is that the cop was killed while trying to reload his revolver, which only gave him six rounds.

If he'd had a 9mm with 16 rounds, the guy couldn't have walked up on him and killed him after he fired six shots, because he would've had ten left to work with.

It's plain common sense.

 

[AStone]

The bottom line is that you have provided no support for a conclusion that revolvers are inferior for self-defense,
only anecdotal statements like this that imply such a conclusion:

In this and many other cases, those carrying revolvers have ended up "Six feet under for sure".

The bottom line is that you need to provide citations to studies based on good data (not just anecdotes) substantiating such implicit conclusions.

In other words, as they say, put up or ...

 

[Brian Williams]

1. This would have been better in the general handguns section, as the revolver section is clearly going to be a bit biased. if you post it in general and there's still very few dissenting opinions, then you know it's gold.

So it is now in General handguns, let the fun begin, Come on you bottomfeedingbrasspukers, show these roundyhandejectinghardtriggers up.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

Whatever the revolver was capable of doing in the past, it is still capable of doing now, so yes, it is a practical self defense weapon.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

"If he'd had a 9mm with 16 rounds, the guy couldn't have walked up on him and killed him after he fired six shots, because he would've had ten left to work with."
If he couldn't hit him with the first six, what makes you think he could with the rest?

 

[Phil DeGraves]

"Great display of logic! So get rid of the 9mms, get rid of the shotguns, and arm all the officers with 6-shooters from the start. Wait, no! All the officers should be unarmed except the one who used the wheelgun! Just let the guy with the magical revolver get the job done right the first time.

Really, that's basically what you're saying. The revolver worked. So... if that officer'd used a second wondernine rather than a revolver (assuming he didn't shoot one platform better than the other), the results would've been different?"

What a bunch of nonsense! That isn't what he is saying. What he is saying and what the question was was is a revolver a practical defensive handgun and the answer is yes, it can be. It does not mean that other firearms can't be used. Come on! What a stupid thing to say!

 

[wheelgunslinger]

It seems pretty elementary to me.

If you can shoot 6 accurately, then you can shoot 17 accurately.

If you're worried by FTF and FTE issues, and every time you close your eyes you see a pistol jamming, then it's likely you'll be happier and more confident with a wheelgun.

If you're worried by little timing components breaking, flames cutting your hands that have been poorly placed, or having a lack of ammo to send at the bad guy, then you'll likely be happier with a pistol.

What the argument really boils down to, for me, is whether I'm comfy and happy with the particular weapon, and whether or not I can hit anything with it.

Statistics, with mad respect to Nematocyst, don't mean jack to me. I could buy a lemony fresh M629 that promptly jammed completely up, shaved lead, or had hit and miss accuracy (tee hee). I could also get a lemony fresh 1911 or Glock or whatever, and have failures galore even if it was NIB or straight off the work benches of cylinder and slide. While the statistical probability is low that these problems might occur, someone has to skew the curve. And, that's usually me.

If a revolver is a good choice for me and I'm happy with it, then it's a good defensive weapon. If it isn't and I'm not, then it ain't. There really isn't a spoon.

 

[.455_Hunter]

The perp could've never walked up on him like that if he'd been carrying a high-capacity semi-auto. The officer's revolver cost him his life.

So much for the old "Six for sure" canard. In this and many other cases, those carrying revolvers have ended up "Six feet under for sure".

... a revolver is a dead man's gun.

I am sure Officer Beth Haynes in Boulder, Colorado would be glad to know the above information...

http://www.odmp.org/officer/644-officer-beth-haynes

---------------------------------------
Officer Beth Haynes
Boulder Police Department
Colorado
End of Watch: Saturday, April 16, 1994

Biographical Info
Age: 26
Tour of Duty: Not available
Badge Number: Not available

Incident Details
Cause of Death: Gunfire
Date of Incident: Saturday, April 16, 1994
Weapon Used: Gun; Unknown type
Suspect Info: Committed suicide

Officer Haynes was shot and killed while responding to a domestic disturbance call. The suspect had abducted a man in Denver, Colorado, and forced him to drive to Boulder, Colorado, where the victim was able to escape and call police. The suspect intended to kill a woman who did not want a relationship with the man, who was raised in a culture which believes women are less important than men.

Officer Haynes confronted the suspect from behind cover and as she was issuing orders to the man, a bystander walked to a nearby car. The bystander then ignored Officer Hayne's orders to move from the danger area and stood by to watch. As Officer Haynes moved to the bystander in order to offer protection the suspect opened fire, striking her in the hand and armpit, just above her vest.

She was able to return fire, but her gun jammed. The suspect then shot her execution style in the head. Three of Officer Hayne's four shots struck the suspect, one of them fatally. The suspect lost so much blood that he had no strength left to run and committed suicide as officers closed in on him.
---------------------------------


Additional information (this happened when I was a senior in HS) is that Officer Haynes' weapon was a 16 shot Beretta 92 in 9mm. The department had recently transitioned from .38 Special S&W Model 15's to the "New Hotness" of a high-capacity wondernine. As indicated above, Officer Haynes marksmanship was very good, striking 3 out of 4 shots. Unfortunately , instead of "six-for-sure" (M15), Officer Haynes got "four-and-jam" (M92), and ended up getting shot in the head after trying to take cover under a nearby car while despairingly attempting to clear the malfunction...

Would the outcome have been different if she had been carrying the previously issued M15? No one will know for certain, but the two additional rounds prior to "stoppage" could have made a BIG difference. If the M92 malfunctioned due to limp-writing (wounded hand), the M15 would definitely not have succumbed to the same problem.

I am not trying to slam semi-autos. I am carrying two today myself, but to say that they are somehow markedly superior to a revolver is false.

 

[Hawk]

I've had revolvers jam more often and more insistently than my semis could ever muster.

However, honesty would compel me to note that I generally buy revolvers used and without intent for serious social use. My primary semi was not only new but benefitted from a dealer tuning. The results of this disparate treatment are predictable.

As many have noted, one should stick with what one is comfortable with. What's mildly puzzling is that we, as a group, seem to feel a compulsion not only to explain our choice but to sway others to our way of thinking.

There's probably a post-grad thesis in there somewhere.

 

[Coronach]

1. It's a perfectly useful defensive weapon.

2. I prefer a semi.

I also like brunettes and not blondes, and I prefer heavy, large displacement cars to light 4-cylinder rockets. Much as I like my preferences, however, I'm forced to admit that there are lots of fast little cars and sexy blondes.

It will do it's job if you do yours.

 

[Jeff F]

A revolver is my carry gun of choice. Do I feel under-gunned, not one bit. More then likely its going to be over and I will still have a few rounds left if it ever came to having to shoot. I usually carry a reload but sometimes not.

 

[TestPilot]

Short answer: Yes.

It can shoot a decent ammunition comparable to common combat calibers in self loaders just as accurately and just as fast.

I want to address a common misunderstanding here.

Revolver is NOT an easier manual of arms.

I don't understand what's so hard about inserting a magazine and racking a slide. If it's a DAO self loader so common today, such as Glock and SIG with a DAK trigger, that's all it takes.
Compare that with opening cylinder, aligning a speed loader with 5~7 holes, release the rounds to drop it in the cylinder, then close the cylinder. Not to mention that you'll have to hold it at a certain angle so that the rounds would not fall, or having to hold down the cylinder to keep it from swinging. Not that it's so difficult, but no less task than operating a self loader.

Revolver can be rapid fired just as fast as self loaders.

It can be done, and many people under stress emptied the 6 shot cylinder very fast. You won't see as much record split times with a revolver in competition, but that would hardly matter in a fight.

I hope someone trys the "grab the cylinder" thing. If he is not shot in the fracas, the hot gases from the cylinder gap will eat through the perp's hand, and he will be easier to identify .

That only applies when the shooter cocked the hammer to SA mode before the opponent grabs the cylinder. Otherwise, what you mentioned would not happen because the trigger cannot be pulled.

Some people recommend starting with a revolver and "graduating" to a self loader. I see no practical reason what so ever to do so.

 

[Sato Ord]

"As many have noted, one should stick with what one is comfortable with. What's mildly puzzling is that we, as a group, seem to feel a compulsion not only to explain our choice but to sway others to our way of thinking."

It's called herd mentality. People feel more comfortable about their decisions if there are others who have made the same decision.

I personally have carried both revolvers and semis over the years. The one firefight I was in since getting out of the service I was carrying a Redhawk with full magnum loads. I was doing courier work and carrying a very valuable payload. The bad guys fired at me with semis and I fired three rounds. I killed two of them and their car while they flattened ammo against the concrete walls of the parking garage in a spray and pray manner. Three from that Redhawk was enough to convince the survivors that they didn't want me sending any more lead their way.

Now that being said, tomorrow, when I drive to Gainesville to take the dog up to our trusted vet to have some surgery done I will be packing my old P-38 into the car with me. Why? Because right now it is the only pistol I have available (damned ex-wife, I hope her new husband gets his hand caught in the action of my old 1911, or shoots himself in the foot with my old Vaquero).

I looked at pistols today. The two I am looking at for self defense carry weapons are a .44 mag revolver, which I will load with .44 specials, or a Taurus PT 1911. I will most likely go with the Taurus and then custom make a nice cavalry draw holster that will also hold the extra mag. However, I would not feel out gunned by some lowlife who pulls a high cap nine in either case.

We can all spout anecdotes all day long. I can find a lot of instances where some guy with a Highpower or other weapon with a clip safety died because he panicked and accidentally hit the eject with his off hand. Even without a clip safety, that mega-load of ammo won't do you much good if it's lying on the ground instead of in your weapon.

I can find lots of incidents of people getting their clothes so hopelessly fouled in the hammer of their revolver that they might as well have been unarmed and handcuffed.

What it boils down to is practice, both on the range with live fire, and loaded with snap caps for dry fire practice at drawing and aiming. In a panic situation muscle memory will take over and you will do what you have trained yourself to do. If you haven't trained, you'll probably freeze long enough to get yourself seriously injured or killed.

Whether you choose a trusty ol' revolver, or go with a sexy new Glock carrying ammo the "likes of which God has not seen before", all of the firepower in the world won't save your backside if you can't shoot it effectively.

 

[DougDubya]

Defensory, you obviously fail at logic, or even looking up the facts.

The fight was won with six rounds of .38 Special, in a .357 Magnum chambered revolver.

It was the carpenter, not the tools.

If you prefer to reduce your argument to absurd reductionism, then your points have no more validity in my eyes. The fact that so many lightly armed FBI agents SURVIVED against assault rifles pretty much shows that automatic weapons are no real advantage if you don't have the proper training.

 

[Macpherson]

There's a lot of good comments in this thread. I'll add my own:

Most people could reload an auto quite easily in the dark, or with impaired vision with a bit of practice. Not the case with a revolver. There was a good reason for "New York Reloads"; it's much faster to pull out another gun than to fumble with moon clips while under attack, in possibly bad lighting. I don't care if Jerry Miculek can reload a revolver in .05 seconds, that's what he's paid to do (and not while under fire I might add). The average person is going to be able to insert a magazine faster than loading a cylinder.
On the subject of ammo capacity, the old saying that no one ever complained about bringing too much ammo to a gunfight rings true here. Personally it's not even a question if I was in a dangerous situation, would I want to have 6 rounds or 16 rounds. I don't plan on spraying fire all over the place, but I'm not going to bet my life that the BG will know to fall down after 6 shots, or maybe he's got friends that aren't running away. Some folks seem to suggest that 6 shots should enough for whatever may happen, and that's probably true, but thinking that you're going to calmly dot the 10-ring with every shot is fantasy, and every shot missed is a good chunk of total firepower gone. I say all this not to knock revolvers, there are plenty of fine models out there and anything you carry that shoots bullets will hardly serve you wrong, but if I had a choice I would pick an auto any day.

 

[Catherine]

Question from the original poster:

"Is the revolver really a practical defensive weapon?"

My answer:

Yes.

Catherine