does anybody cc a single action revolver?

Deanimator said:

1. It requires extra, repetitive movements to bring into action.
2. It's INCREDIBLY slow to reload.
3. It requires MUCH greater skill to employ effectively in a self-defense situation, especially against an opponent armed with a modern revolver or semi-automatic pistol.

If I expect to get in a pistol fight at hundred yards, a Super Blackhawk might not be a bad choice. Of course my 6" Model 29-2 would be a BETTER choice, and I'm not going to be getting into any hundred yard gunfights anyway. If I DO, I'll be using my AR15 carbine or my Garand.

Click to expand...

1. The first time it's no different from flicking off a manual safety. After that, it's a matter of muscle memory. If it ain't, you don't do it enough and shouldn't be carrying one.

2. It's quicker than a DA without speedloaders. That said, I think the importance of reload speed is overrated for self defense.

3. Maybe but some people are building that skill anyway. What your opponent is armed with is really irrelevant. You don't have to match them shot for shot, just beat them to the first solid hit.

Corpral_Agarn said:

...Yeah.

But I think that the premise is that a large/service style revolver takes up the same space as a service pistol...

Click to expand...

Maybe, but, there are some folks who were raised on DA revolvers who have little comprehension of the self loading pistol and are much more comfortable with a revolver, DA or SA.

I am a fan of the 45 ACP cartridge from the N frame platform. I have a couple of 1911s but, for me, to t is a struggle if they malfunction. I am much more comfortable with the N frame.

Kevin

Posting error.

StrawHat said:

Maybe, but, there are some folks who were raised on DA revolvers who have little comprehension of the self loading pistol and are much more comfortable with a revolver, DA or SA.

Kevin

Click to expand...

I hear ya.
Pops started all of us in DA revolvers. I find that folks who can run DA revolvers can pretty much shoot anything well.

That DA revolver starts is why I migrated towards a DA/SA semi.

But my post was about the rationale behind criticism of the full size revolver in place of a service sized pistol

CraigC said:

1. The first time it's no different from flicking off a manual safety. After that, it's a matter of muscle memory. If it ain't, you don't do it enough and shouldn't be carrying one.

Click to expand...

You can't add enough complication to a gunfight... said nobody, EVER.

Excuse me if I fail to see the purpose of getting really good at a needless task.

I'm sure that with enough practice you might be able to prevail in a gunfight using a wheel lock pistol against somebody armed with a Stechkin APS. I just don't know why you'd CHOOSE to.

CraigC said:

2. It's quicker than a DA without speedloaders. That said, I think the importance of reload speed is overrated for self defense.

Click to expand...

Why on Earth would I carry a double action revolver WITHOUT at least one speed loader?

A rolling block pistol is faster than a Glock with no magazine too. Why would I choose EITHER?

Reload speed is "overrated"... until you need it. I have not the slightest desire to find myself in a fair fight.

CraigC said:

for shot, just beat them to the first solid hit.

Click to expand...

Unless you don't. Hint, "A Fist Full of Dollars" is fiction.

StrawHat said:

Maybe, but, there are some folks who were raised on DA revolvers who have little comprehension of the self loading pistol and are much more comfortable with a revolver, DA or SA.

I am a fan of the 45 ACP cartridge from the N frame platform. I have a couple of 1911s but, for me, to t is a struggle if they malfunction. I am much more comfortable with the N frame.

Kevin

Click to expand...

I've got an S&W 25-2. I wouldn't hesitate to use it in a gunfight.

I've also got a 7 1/2" Cimarron Frontier in. 45 Colt. I wouldn't CHOOSE to use it in a gunfight in a million years.

I see talk about pistols and DA revolvers and the OP asked about SA. I most of the time carry a SA around the farm and just put on a cover when I leave. For church security I do carry a pistol, but the majority of the time I am not concerned with high round count.

I read a book this week that attributed a quote to an fbi study as saying most (80-90 percent) were 3/3 they called it. less than 3 meters and over in 3 seconds. It was a study of over 400 defensive encounters. Maybe there is confusion there as far as the 3 shots average. It also said that the average rounds was unknown because in the adrenaline most kept firing until the adversary stopped, and didnt even remember seeing their sights.
It also said that amongst police 75-80 percent of shots fired under stress are missed. And remember that's mostly semi-autos with little thought involved in the process of firing. That's 8 misses in 10 by trained people....not great odds for a 6 shooter with someone not as familiar with stress.
Also many are said to be with one hand while the other is occupied, also not ideal with a single action. One handed fire from the hip is awkward at best.
As far as capacity though, how many people have switched to a pocket carry (I dont but it is valid)? Capacity is no better in some of those, and they can be pretty anemic rounds too compared to most single actions. My 27 only holds 9 and it's double stack.
I carry a glock 99% of the time if carrying in public. I have though, while hunting or fishing, cc my 44 or single six under my jacket if running in a store. Purely out of laziness.
I think a SA is about the sorriest choice available aside from 25 Acp or some of those odd choices. But carry what you want. Statistically the odds of using it are astronomically low and with a single shot liberator you would still be better prepared than majority of the population.
Any pistol will suffice if you hit good on the first shot. None will suffice if you miss until your dead

CraigC said:

Sometimes. Only reason I don't do it more often is a matter of convenience, laziness and concealability. A 17oz LC9 is just easier to conceal.

That said, I'm 100% confident in my ability with a single action revolver and believe people put too much faith in capacity, reload speed and the speed with which they can do a mag dump. The difference in platforms for the first six shots is not as significant as people perceive. If I was in law enforcement or the military, I would surely choose something else.

Click to expand...

I'm 85 years old and never had a need for a firearm to protect myself or anyone else and that includes the 20 yrs. and 24 days I spent in the military !!

I think if you are serious about ccw. You are limiting yourself with the ole thumb buster. Im a revolver fan all the way. Carry several in my rotation. But they are double action. My single actions are my plink, woods guns. But if it works fr you., that really all that matters.

Deanimator said:

You can't add enough complication to a gunfight... said nobody, EVER.

Excuse me if I fail to see the purpose of getting really good at a needless task.

Click to expand...

So the only valid use of a handgun is the stringent practice of the best self defense platform, for the most remote of circumstances conceivable? Guess I need to sell 95% of my handguns.

Deanimator said:

I'm sure that with enough practice you might be able to prevail in a gunfight using a wheel lock pistol against somebody armed with a Stechkin APS.

Click to expand...

What is this weird perception people have of running gun fights with multiple reloads? Is John Wick the new John McClane???

Deanimator said:

Why on Earth would I carry a double action revolver WITHOUT at least one speed loader?

Click to expand...

A lot of folks use speed strips or a belt slide.

Deanimator said:

Reload speed is "overrated"... until you need it.

Click to expand...

You could say the same thing about a lot of unnecessary stuff.

Deanimator said:

I've got an S&W 25-2. I wouldn't hesitate to use it in a gunfight.

I've also got a 7 1/2" Cimarron Frontier in. 45 Colt. I wouldn't CHOOSE to use it in a gunfight in a million years.

Click to expand...

99% of the difference between the two is proficiency and perception. Using a timer and reacting to the buzzer, I can draw and fire five shots on target at 5yds in three seconds. Four seconds one-handed. Do you really think platform makes a difference for the first cylinderful?

357smallbore said:

I think if you are serious about ccw. You are limiting yourself with the ole thumb buster. Im a revolver fan all the way. Carry several in my rotation. But they are double action. My single actions are my plink, woods guns. But if it works fr you., that really all that matters.

Click to expand...

Maybe it's a limitation for some. For others, it is not.

Deanimator said:

Excuse me if I fail to see the purpose of getting really good at a needless task.

Click to expand...

For those who enjoy shooting SA revolvers, it's easy to get to where cocking the hammer just happens subconsciously. The mind thinks 'shoot', and the thumb cocks. But if you don't like shooting SA revolvers, then there really is no point you trying to get good at it.

Cocking the hammer between shots seems to do a couple other things. It realigns the gun after recoil, and it creates a short mental pause for focus. This doesn't make it a better choice, but it could be considered a benefit in certain instances. Also, some people find that a heavy barrel out front makes it easier to 'feel' where the gun is pointed during presentation.

But if SAs aren't you thing, I agree that there's no point trying to get good enough with one to carry it for self defense. And likewise, for those who carry a SA and can shoot it with precision and speed, the benefits of getting proficient with a semi-auto are probably not great enough to worry about.

I'm not claiming to be any kind of expert with a SA revolver. But this is how I see it.

It simply comes down to "you pays your money and takes your choice". I'll not tell anyone they are wrong about their decisions on what to carry. I've made my choices and am happy with them.

I shoot single action 99% of the time, and carry one when I do carry (I’m not an every day carry guy.) I know the gun well and shoot it well.

If I were a bad guy, I would not want to find myself staring down the barrel of a SA revolver*. You can bet that the person behind it is extremely competent with it. There are a lot of Glocks (or other handguns of that ilk) that are being used as self defense that rarely, if ever, get practiced with.

*I’d prefer not to be staring down the barrel of anything, regardless of who’s holding it.

Well here’s my last word in this. Why limit yourself? DA revolver does what a SA can do, just better, safer and is more concealable. Easier to reload as well. If want carry a SA, then go for it. But I have very little trust in a SA in life and death situation in this day and age.

I think the most important thing is to carry what you train with. Many studies say you will do what you were trained to do, without thinking, in the blur of a gunfight.

For that reason, I believe you should stick with one carry gun. People who alternate carry guns may be putting themselves at a disadvantage, especially where a different operation is necessary to fire the weapon. If you chose to carry a SA, you should train with it. Train with a semi auto or DA revolver but carry a SA, in a high adrenaline situation you may be trying to continuously pull the SA trigger, uselessly, rather than cocking the hammer.

WrongHanded said:

But if you don't like shooting SA revolvers, then there really is no point you trying to get good at it.

Click to expand...

I enjoy shooting single action revolvers. That's why I just bought one.

I don't enjoy being in deadly force situations. I especially don't like being at a qualitative disadvantage in a deadly force situation.

If you boot a cowboy action match, you go home and practice some more.

If I boot a self-defense shooting, my mother holds a ludicrously extravagant funeral for me that I don't want.

This discussion wasn't about range shooting or cowboy action. It was about defensive carry.

CraigC said:

So the only valid use of a handgun is the stringent practice of the best self defense platform, for the most remote of circumstances conceivable?

Click to expand...

Self-defense was the premise of the OP.

If my life isn't in danger, I'll play with a "handgonne" fired with a heated wire.

donandmax said:

I'm 85 years old and never had a need for a firearm to protect myself or anyone else and that includes the 20 yrs. and 24 days I spent in the military !!

Click to expand...

I'm 62 and I have. I didn't need to shoot them. I needed to be willing and able to shoot them.

That doctor in Connecticut never got beaten half to death and had his wife and daughters raped and burned to death... until they were.

"Insh Allah" has a pretty poor track record in the Middle East and Central Asia. I don't have one bit more of confidence in its efficacy in NE Ohio.