Actually, what happens is the recoil force is directed against the spring and the mass of the slide over a longer distance, reducing the velocity the grip is accelerated to. But this reciprocation actually takes longer and itself involves higher inertial forces than the short rotational movement of the relatively light cylinder of a revolver. Without firing a round at all, we can feel the jerk of just dropping the slide release moves the gun more than rotating the cylinder of a double-action revolver. So the effect you're describing depends on the ratio of recoil force to gun mass. If and only if the recoil force is proportionally high to the gun mass, then the slide reciprocation slows recoil velocity and the result is less felt recoil. What if the recoil force is not proportionally high to the gun mass? Someone firing a .22 LR S&W 617 will not say that it has a lot of recoil or that the recoil is slowing their followup shots. The very short rotation of the cylinder can indeed happen much faster than most handgun slides can reciprocate. Firing the same .22 LR cartridge, generating the same recoil energy, the slide jerking back and forth on a M&P 22 will have more "felt recoil" and slide reciprocation will take noticeably longer than cylinder rotation on a Model 617. This is relevant to service-cartridge revolvers and pistols as well, but the revolver must have enough mass for a given cartridge force. No matter how powerful a cartridge we choose, we can always slow the revolver's recoil velocity to an acceptable level with enough mass (whether the necessary mass is acceptable or not is a different question). But the semi-automatic pistol's slide must always reciprocate at a fairly high velocity or it will be impractical in use.
Revolver or Semi-Auto for EDC?
- Thread starter Texasgrillchef
- Start date
- Status
Actually, what happens is the recoil force is directed against the spring and the mass of the slide over a longer distance, reducing the velocity the grip is accelerated to. But this reciprocation actually takes longer and itself involves higher inertial forces than the short rotational movement of the relatively light cylinder of a revolver. Without firing a round at all, we can feel the jerk of just dropping the slide release moves the gun more than rotating the cylinder of a double-action revolver. So the effect you're describing depends on the ratio of recoil force to gun mass. If and only if the recoil force is proportionally high to the gun mass, then the slide reciprocation slows recoil velocity and the result is less felt recoil. What if the recoil force is not proportionally high to the gun mass? Someone firing a .22 LR S&W 617 will not say that it has a lot of recoil or that the recoil is slowing their followup shots. The very short rotation of the cylinder can indeed happen much faster than most handgun slides can reciprocate. Firing the same .22 LR cartridge, generating the same recoil energy, the slide jerking back and forth on a M&P 22 will have more "felt recoil" and slide reciprocation will take noticeably longer than cylinder rotation on a Model 617. This is relevant to service-cartridge revolvers and pistols as well, but the revolver must have enough mass for a given cartridge force. No matter how powerful a cartridge we choose, we can always slow the revolver's recoil velocity to an acceptable level with enough mass (whether the necessary mass is acceptable or not is a different question). But the semi-automatic pistol's slide must always reciprocate at a fairly high velocity or it will be impractical in use.
There's a reason for that, but there were also reasons why the Army supplemented the Model 1911 with the two Models 1917 rather than with a pocket revolver.
That, of course is the reason for the former.
I have a Model 686+ Smith with a five inch barrel that I really like. I have a good belt holster for it from El Paso Saddlery that works well. But I could never carry it it concealed.
There is no evidence that any defensive weapon will result in a better outcome than any other.
What the "powerful cartridge" of the 686 provides is greater penetration than, say, a .380.
With human targets without armor, only a certain amount of penetration is needed. Premium 9MM loads provide that.
I'm sure that you meant to say that you practice often.
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ts-0f-education-training-and-practice.851671/
At what distances? For what level of precision do you strive? Speed of fire?
this whole thread is getting too orwellian. not only are the moderators telling us what we can and cannot say, they are now telling us what we can and cannot think.
look up the definition of train (not the moderator definition) in a real dictionary. train is what we should all be doing when we shoot a firearm. training requires having a specific goal in mind. practice requires no specific goal, it is a general term. so train, don't practice, imo.
big sister is watching,
murf
look up the definition of train (not the moderator definition) in a real dictionary. train is what we should all be doing when we shoot a firearm. training requires having a specific goal in mind. practice requires no specific goal, it is a general term. so train, don't practice, imo.
big sister is watching,
murf
Restrictions on speech are pretty specific and limited....profanity, flaming others, promoting unlawful activity, copyright violations, political stuff religious bias, indications of ethnic bias, and slander and libel are not allowed.
Any objections?
There are no restrictions on what people can think.
Most words have more than one dictionary definition. Some are more applicable to certain subject areas than others.
The distinctions among education, training, and practice that I used are rather widely accepted. I chose to discuss the different concepts in a post to put some structure into describing the process of developing and maintaining defensive skills with firearms. The purpose was to improve clarity in communication and discussion in an important subject area.
I agree that training requires having a specific goal in mind. So does practice.
The difference, in this context, is that training involves the teaching of skills, the provision of knowledge, and feedback. Practice involves repetition, to improve and maintain the skills.
In defensive pistol training , one is taught such things as how to draw and present a firearm, probably while moving; one is trained to fire quickly; one learns to quit thinking about group size; one learns how to achieve proper balance of speed and precision for the incident at hand; and probably other things.
Once one has attended a good training session, one need not do it again for some time, when a refresher might help. Of course, one may attend a more challenging course, or one in which a different kind of firearm is used.
It was in that vain that I replied to Jeb Stuart's comment "I train often".
....not to nit pick, but to try to improve the quality of communication.
Of course in some things, such as physical conditioning, people do train often. Different context, and different meaning,
Charles Askins and Jelly Bryce may well have learned all of those things on their own, but they were anomalies. Most people will not gain much in the way of defensive shooting skills without instruction and training.
Once one has been taught the important things--once one has learned them, through training, one should practice, as often as possible.
When I go to the indoor range, I see people standing seven yards from a stationary silhouette target, squeezing off rounds rather slowly but no realizing it, and trying to keep their hits in small areas oof the target.
They are practicing, but they are practicing the wrong thing. And they don't know it.
Neither, until a friend talked me into attending a real training course... a defensive shooting training course and not just a course on how to shoot a firearm well.
It was there that I leaned that the goals I had set in terms of speed and precision were useless, that I had been practicing the wrong things entirely, and that I really had no idea about what to do in the event of a violent ambush at the pump or elsewhere.
I also leaned that my previous reliance on a light weight, five shot, double action revolver had not been prudent for me.
I hope this gets the point across, and I do really urge people to look into putting some time and effort into good training.
It will cost time and money, and probably some travel.
It just might prove to have been a very small investment indeed.
Revolver or semi-auto? It's up to each person to make their own informed decision, based on education, training, and practice.
Last edited:
Jim Rau
member
You lost me on that one!!!! You ask me a question and I answered it for you. What does 'whip them out a measure them' mean or have to do with the subject at hand??????????
No. You just aren't willing to.
This isn't accurate. While this may be what the gel consultants have been selling, it isn't based on fact. We can certainly do more with an extra 500 fps velocity than just drive deeper penetration. In fact, unless we also make the bullet a lot harder, we probably won't drive deeper penetration. Velocity wounds. If it did not, we'd all still be shooting 58 calibers with black powder. But it does. Higher velocity can most certainly increase the diameter of the wound channel.
Styx
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
- Messages
- 3,272
Finally, one of them admits it, and something we all can agree on.. There is no evidence to back their long list of greavences against revolvers, reloads, single stacks, etc with respect to self-defense situations. Now I guess 380 ammo is just as effective as 38+p, 9mm, 40, 45, 357, etc... Seems like they know a lot more than most everyone else in the gun community, and anyone who disagrees is assumed to be untrained, ignorant, or just plan wrong.
I agree with this too and said as much, but even that turned into a debate with the mods... Actually Kleanbore, I surprising can agree with your entire post though I'm not sure about the ammo comment.
Last edited:
No, I am no, not with the way I dress, and the way i have to sit and stand, and where.
Do you have an objective basis for that assertion?
It is based on expert evaluation of test data and on expert medical opinion.
What might that be?
The diameter of the permanent wound channel is that of the expanded projectile.
Medical experts tell us that, at handgun velocities, the temporary channel is not a significant contributor.
It is certainly not intuitively obvious that a firearm that kicks harder, makes more noise, knocks over steel plates with more authority, and has a more impressive impact on a water bottle might not deliver a lot more in terms of handgun wounding effectiveness, but the people in the business tell us that it does not.
Jim Rau
member
I think many of you are missing the point here. I would hazard a guess that most, if not all, of you here are SHOOTERS, right???? The people I am referring to are NON-SHOOTERS. I teach a BASIC ARMED SELF DEFENSE class, it is not a 'marksmanship' class, it is a SURVIVAL class. The vast majority of my students are new to guns and shooting and simply want to learn some BASIC skills and information about using a firearm for SD/survival if they are attacked/victimized. We start by explaining how safe a gun really is, as in today's world the 'public' is being INDOCTRINATED to believe that guns are EVIL/BAD/VERY DANGEROUS, WHICH COULD NOT BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH!!! Then we talk 'safe' gun handling (when and where are the key words). And as MOST of you know most attacks are up close and personal (usually less than 20 feet and often the attack is dynamic and aggressive) so I teach them to begin with point shooting using one hand to 'fend' off the attacker/weapon and shoot with the other. I then transition into the intermediate range, out to about 30 feet/10 yards with a 'snap' sight picture (in a fight front sight). Once they master that we discuss the principles of 'marksmanship' (hitting small targets at longer distances). And it is just common sense that the less complied the 'machine' is to operate the easier it is to teach and learn, thus the recommendation of a revolver for these NON SHOOTERS. Now who here can't see that this is just plan old COMMON SENSE??????
Jim Rau
member
Thank you, I could not have said it better myself!!!! All of the actual shooting data and testing shows that IF you use the best SD ammo available today there is less than 5% difference in the effectiveness of the 9, 40, or 45 at 'stopping the fight'!
Venting?
My statement that here is no evidence that any defensive weapon will accomplaish somehting refers to two things.
One is the fact hat if there is nothing certain. It's all a matter of probability.
The second is that fact is that the firearm is but one part of the system. The ability of the defender to use the firearm to make a sufficient number of hits to provide a reasonable chance of hitting something critical inside the body--timely--is more importance than terminal ballistics, given adequate penetration.
Last edited:
Yes it is.
That would not be my recommendation. One also has to shoot more rapidly han most people can with DA revolver, to have a reasonable chance of stopping an assailant timely.
Jim Rau
member
I some it up by saying that the MOST important thing about surviving an attack/gun fight is HIT PROBABILITY!!!
The one who gets there 'firstest with the mostest' is usually the winner!
Styx
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
- Messages
- 3,272
Yes, I was venting, and again I agree with you 100%.
mcb
Member
Am I the only one that thinks that super novice shooters should NOT be relying on a firearm for self defense? Is it an unreasonable expectation that someone that wants to use a firearm for self-defense would be willing to invest the moderate amount of time needed initially to become proficient and then the additional periodic training/practice time as needed to maintain those skills? Someone that has bare bones safe gun handling skills and bare bone marksmanship should not be relying on a firearm for self defense. These under-trained people are the ones that end up having their own gun turned on them or using lethal force inappropriately. If someone's skill are so rudimentary the the revolver is the only gun not "too complicated" for them, then they should not be expecting to use it effectively for self defense. YMMV
Jim Rau
member
ONLY if they take the time to learn to to 'safe and effective' with their chosen 'tool', which MOST will not. It will take 4 to 5 times as long to teach a person, WHO IS WILLING TO LEARN, to use a SA PROPERLY that it does to teach a person to use a revolver PROPERLY! And as you said, I base my assessment on PROBABILITY not POSSIBILITY, thus the probability of them surviving an attack with a MINIMUM of training is FAR GREATER with the revolver. I encourage them to get more training and to practice as often as possible, BUT FEW DO!
Trunk Monkey
member
ONLY if they take the time to learn to to 'safe and effective' with their chosen 'tool', which MOST will not. It will take 4 to 5 times as long to teach a person, WHO IS WILLING TO LEARN, to use a SA PROPERLY that it does to teach a person to use a revolver PROPERLY! And as you said, I base my assessment on PROBABILITY not POSSIBILITY, thus the probability of them surviving an attack with a MINIMUM of training is FAR GREATER with the revolver. I encourage them to get more training and to practice as often as possible, BUT FEW DO!
I'm sorry but that's when the most ridiculous comments I've ever read
Jim Rau
member
In an 'ideal' world you would be right, but that is not the REALITY here!
Believe me, there are many in LE who are 'under trained', so when you talk about civilians it is just the world we live in. That said, no one should be REQUIRED to get any training to exercise their RIGHT to be armed!Jim Rau
member
Like I said, common sense is dead in today would. Thanks for your proving it! I truly feel sorry for you.
What empirical evidence to you have from criminological data to support this assertion? Or from the surveys, done by quality national trainers? For example, Tom Givens or Greg Ellefritz would have seen this in their work.
Probability is simple if you have numbers and not speculation. Far greater - a term that can be tested for statistical significance, effect size, risk ratios and various other common measures of such things.
Jim Rau
member
Charlie Martinez
Member
My only handgun suitable for EDC is a 5-shot 357 snub revolver. I have nothing against hi cap 9mm semis, in fact I think I would prefer one over my revolver but that doesn't mean I feel unsafe without one. The idea of having a shootout at 7 yards where the guy with the most bullets is going to win does not agree with me.
I think Doc's Rule No 3 is the key to being effective with any EDC gun. Awareness is the most important factor in winning a potential gun fight. If the bad guy (always the aggressor) has the drop on me all the ammo I can pack into the magazine of a hi cap pistol will not save me unless the other guy is completely incompetent with his weapon & I don't want to have to count on that to survive
At average combat distances of 7 yards or less if you have the drop on your opponent it is possible for any reasonably skilled shooter to fire one or two well placed shots from a 357 and win the fight. However it must happen before the other guy can fire on you because the same principle works against you if the other guy beats you to the punch. Quick draw contests are for cowboy movies not real life.
Bottom line, having 10 shots is great but five shots should be enough for most situations if we are ready before things go south & know how to handle our weapon.
I think Doc's Rule No 3 is the key to being effective with any EDC gun. Awareness is the most important factor in winning a potential gun fight. If the bad guy (always the aggressor) has the drop on me all the ammo I can pack into the magazine of a hi cap pistol will not save me unless the other guy is completely incompetent with his weapon & I don't want to have to count on that to survive
At average combat distances of 7 yards or less if you have the drop on your opponent it is possible for any reasonably skilled shooter to fire one or two well placed shots from a 357 and win the fight. However it must happen before the other guy can fire on you because the same principle works against you if the other guy beats you to the punch. Quick draw contests are for cowboy movies not real life.
Bottom line, having 10 shots is great but five shots should be enough for most situations if we are ready before things go south & know how to handle our weapon.
Yep, unless the defender is able to avoid combat altogether.some it up by saying that the MOST important thing about surviving an attack/gun fight is HIT PROBABILITY!!!
That depends upon what you mean by "use....properly".
If you mean load it and shoot it and perhaps hit somewhere on a large silhouette target at close range while firing slowly, maybe so.
It actually does not take long at all to teach someone how to make a semi-auto function. In fact, to get the Missouri CCW license, everyone must qualify with both types. Not shoot very well, but qualify.
But that's mot enough. To "get there firstest with the mostest" and effect a timely physical stop lawfully in a real DGU incident that does require shooting, the defender will have to hit an area about the size of an upper chest area, probably several times, very quickly, while the assailant is moving, probably at about five meters per second, from close range.
Think firing three shots into the side of a moving box of tissues at ten or twelve feet in perhaps a second and a half , while startled and without having anticipated the need to do so.
For most people, and particularly for people who are not highly skilled, that's very difficult with a revolver.
I can't do it well, and I've been shooting handguns since before the Bay of Pigs invasion.
The primary drawback is the DA trigger pull combined with the light weight of the gun, and there is also the issue of recoil, also weight related.
BTW, some of the very compact 9MM semi-auto 9s with DA-only triggers are no better.
My first firearm for concealed carry was a Model 642.
Light, and I thought small--it would drop into the front pocket of a pair of jeans.
But the trigger pull was awful. That's inherent with the geometry of the workings and the attendant mechanical advantage (some revolvers are much better, but still rather demanding). And the sights--ugh!
Later, I carried a Ruger SR-9c. Much better. And surprisingly, just about the same size.
I do have a Kimber K6, which has a nice trigger, but it's not for primary carry.
Notice that I haven't mentioned capacity. It's important, but it's another subject
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
