illinoisburt
Member
Is it by chance a black powder SAA gun? Guy might be restricted from owning modern guns (ie convicted felon). I've heard of quite a few cases like that in states which don't regulate BP beyond the federal rules.
Opinions on a SAA for carry?
- Thread starter Hokkmike
- Start date
- Status
bdickens
Member
You could drive a Model T an hour and a half down US 290 into Houston for work and then back every day too.
Not really, but i have availed myself of some realistic defensive defensive pistol training.
I respectfully suggest that there are no well-regarded trainers who would disagree.
Just a gentle warning....we have a rule against "drive-by" posts. A post with little apparent meaning unless the attachment is opened differs little.
Surely you don't believe that what I described is a "Words Case Scenario". . Its a classic Tueller scenario,
fireside44
member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,145
A Blackhawk is like a model T with a small block and powerglide stuffed under the hood compared to a standard saa.
bdickens
Member
...That still has a Model T's suspension, steering and seats.
Sorry, I thought it was. "As compared to something considered effective for self defense."
No.
Selecting an effective firearm for self defense--defined in the usual manner of involving self defense agains humans, does not require making any guesses. It simply requires identifying and addressing the possible scenarios.
None whatsoever!
But the OP is abut a "top of the stairs" defensive firearm.
Your advice is good--for such rural carry, a transfer bar should be selected.
Garandimal
member
That's the problem with academics. They ignore the obvious while supporting the minutia.
A little over 1 second from holster for an accurate first round, and then less than a half-second/follow-up shots.
Be one of those knockdown plates and tell us how your day is going?
More a gentle threat - as you don't agree with the vid because it contradicts your narrow opinion on the subject.
In fact, it addresses the OP's question EXACTLY, no comment necessary.
I believe that a little over 1 second from holster for an accurate first round, and then less than a half-second/follow-up shots, will do a very good job of stopping the threat in the SD environment.
What do you think?
GR
fireside44
member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,145
Training. It's all about the wizard, not the wand.
doubleh
Member
Get a Ruger BlackHawk in 357 mag. It will do double duty for defense and helping you get exercise while wagging it around.
Garandimal
member
Garandimal
member
.38 Special
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 7,372
The folks who train with their SA revolvers (SASS shooters and the like) are pretty competent with them. I would put money on one of them to outperform the typical "one trip to the range per month " CCW guy, not to mention the "I took it to the range once after I bought it" home defender.
Of course it obviously is not the "best" gun for defense, but very few of us use the "best" gun anyway - or can even agree on what that might be. Considering that the majority of Americans will never need to defend themselves with a gun, and the majority of those who do will not need to fire a shot, and that the majority of those fights where firing is necessary are over with just a few shots, it seems to me that the objections against the SA are somewhat overblown.
Of course it obviously is not the "best" gun for defense, but very few of us use the "best" gun anyway - or can even agree on what that might be. Considering that the majority of Americans will never need to defend themselves with a gun, and the majority of those who do will not need to fire a shot, and that the majority of those fights where firing is necessary are over with just a few shots, it seems to me that the objections against the SA are somewhat overblown.
Choctaw
Member
There are multiple threads on the same subject throughout the net and they usually end badly, including several here. I hunt with revolvers but for work I carry the most modern, up to date firearm I can get. There is a reason that police departments and military forces worldwide don't carry SAA revolvers for sidearms.
Ya got me!
fireside44
member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,145
To kleanbores credit he got me off my butt and working with my revolver much more frequently. Handling, presentation, dry firing, and weekly shoots with my old lady have been on the cards since reading some of his self defense posts. They kinda prodded me to action. Practice must become like a bad habit regardless of what you carry if you want to get max effectiveness.
I'm happy to have helped!
fireside44
member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,145
I don't want to see the thread closed. People WILL carry SAA style guns so maybe real productivity would be best served by considering what can be done related to carrying one to maximize it's effectiveness. Transfer bar safety. Adjustable sights (because of factory ammo variances). Good grips and holster...
Garandimal
member
It better, because for accurate fire, that's about the best I can do with a GLOCK.
GR
I used to carry a large SA revolver concealed. I do not think it gives nearly so much a disadvantage in fighting as some people suppose it does. However, there is one aspect I would suggest reconsidering and that is the very light single-action trigger once the gun is cocked. We have all heard the advice not to cock a double-action revolver for defensive use. If we understand the pitfalls of startle-response, sympathetic grasp reflex, contralateral contraction and trigger affirmation, we should be wary of very short and light triggers. While the uncocked SA revolver with a transfer-bar is comparatively "safe" with respect to unintentional discharges due to drops, snags, clothing or fingers in the trigger-guard, it is not "safe" at all once the hammer is cocked -- at least not from trigger hazards, it would be safe from drops. A single-action without a transfer bar is an unreasonable risk to carry concealed. With an empty-chamber, and an appropriate open-carry holster and due care, it could be fine. If a jacket flap goes over it, fine, but at some point you're stacking too many cards against yourself.
People will fault the SA for unreasonable faults. On a shot timer, it is practically the same time from the holster to the first shot. For me, that's somewhere around 1.5 +/- 0.2 seconds. Cocking happens when the hands come together at step 3 and finishes at the end of the push-out, step 4. It can also be done one-handed with a little cost in speed. Splits with support-hand thumb-cocking are a little slower than with a double-action, but still about a 1/3rd of a second which is about as fast as we can think. People can dump magazines into a target faster than that, but in a defensive scenario we should not be shooting faster than we can think or continuing to fire when the threat has ceased. Research (Force Science Institute) has shown that it takes about 0.25 to 0.33 seconds to make a decision to start or stop shooting. Besides, how likely is it that 0.1 faster splits will make any difference in a defensive shooting? Reloads are slow, but there's little evidence they ever happen in civilian personal protection incidents. They are certainly not likely. The capacity is low, but I would be more concerned about making first-shot hits than 15th-shot hits -- it will certainly make a bigger difference.
So the real concern for me with the SA is the high probability that we will be in a situation that requires we do not shoot or do not shoot again. This situation is in the "most likely" category as opposed to the need for super-fast splits, high-capacity, and fast reloads which are in the "worst case" or extreme outlier category. The need to "not shoot" is imminent in any lethal-force situation. If the hammer is cocked as we will want it to be if we do have to shoot, then we have made things dangerous for ourselves. Of course, we train to keep the finger off the trigger and outside the trigger guard until we're ready to shoot, but research has shown that even highly-trained people fail to do so without even being conscious of it, especially under extreme stress.
People will fault the SA for unreasonable faults. On a shot timer, it is practically the same time from the holster to the first shot. For me, that's somewhere around 1.5 +/- 0.2 seconds. Cocking happens when the hands come together at step 3 and finishes at the end of the push-out, step 4. It can also be done one-handed with a little cost in speed. Splits with support-hand thumb-cocking are a little slower than with a double-action, but still about a 1/3rd of a second which is about as fast as we can think. People can dump magazines into a target faster than that, but in a defensive scenario we should not be shooting faster than we can think or continuing to fire when the threat has ceased. Research (Force Science Institute) has shown that it takes about 0.25 to 0.33 seconds to make a decision to start or stop shooting. Besides, how likely is it that 0.1 faster splits will make any difference in a defensive shooting? Reloads are slow, but there's little evidence they ever happen in civilian personal protection incidents. They are certainly not likely. The capacity is low, but I would be more concerned about making first-shot hits than 15th-shot hits -- it will certainly make a bigger difference.
So the real concern for me with the SA is the high probability that we will be in a situation that requires we do not shoot or do not shoot again. This situation is in the "most likely" category as opposed to the need for super-fast splits, high-capacity, and fast reloads which are in the "worst case" or extreme outlier category. The need to "not shoot" is imminent in any lethal-force situation. If the hammer is cocked as we will want it to be if we do have to shoot, then we have made things dangerous for ourselves. Of course, we train to keep the finger off the trigger and outside the trigger guard until we're ready to shoot, but research has shown that even highly-trained people fail to do so without even being conscious of it, especially under extreme stress.
I won't argue, for two reasons:
- I don't know what you mean by accurate fire.
- "Less than half second" could be anything less, and I was taking that as a threshold for purposes of answering the question.
Not all, of course.
Regarding speed, two shots per second may suffice. But if three shots are required, it may not--there may not be enough time.
Consider the incident recorded via body cam in the recent thread in ST&T. More than five shots were required.
https://www.full30.com/embed/MDIxMj...84mCjxLNOv_E7S9wJ2gzCG1YMzy3ZTwj9ZtGznwjp4CHE
With an assailant closing at five meters per second squared, two shots per second would likely not result in five to eight hits.
It's a balance of speed and precision.
Look at the shooting at about 3:05 in this video. That's what I try to strive for at close distance
https://www.outdoorchannel.com/show/the-best-defense/videos/1399/12955
Armored farmer
Member
The carryhawk is made for S/A carry
tomrkba
Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,370
Ed McGivern spent several chapters in his book explaining why the double action revolver was superior to the single action revolver. For his purposes, he also presented his case for the double action revolver over the 1911. We are not going to successfully argue against McGivern’s stance in a forum, much less fire tens of thousands of rounds showing the difference.
If you WANT to carry a single action revolver, then do so. However, you should at least train with it with a good instructor and shoot full (or whatever the max is) power loads in cowboy action. You should modify the internals on some guns to make them more durable over higher round counts. I would also only use a gun with a transfer bar safety so you get a full six rounds (see that paper on the significance of the sixth round on this forum)
If you WANT to carry a single action revolver, then do so. However, you should at least train with it with a good instructor and shoot full (or whatever the max is) power loads in cowboy action. You should modify the internals on some guns to make them more durable over higher round counts. I would also only use a gun with a transfer bar safety so you get a full six rounds (see that paper on the significance of the sixth round on this forum)
Last edited:
Garandimal
member
Again, LEO and Civilian SD are different requirements.
And posting those Worst Case Scenario vids will get @Kleanbore locking this thread - They don't do that here at THR.
Statistically, the odds of encountering/drawing/firing more than Six(6) rounds to stop the threat, in a self defense situation? Are about 1/6,000.
...Or, only about 66% greater than the odds of ending up a Highway Fatality that same year. (1/10,000)
So, wear your seat-belt...
GR
Last edited:
- Status
