damned spell check!When? I'd ask where
damned spell check!When? I'd ask where
I doubt these fella's complained much weather Wyatt used a SA Colt of a Glock. I guess we could go back in time to try and win a debate on which gun is better. Custer probably would not have turned down a AR with 30 rd mags. So what? Does not mean I will be carrying one. I carry both the Semi and Revolver. Shoot both well and totally competent in my skills. Someone that shoots competition is not going to change anything for myself. Yes I carry both, but now seem to walk out the door with a Snubbie more all the time.And by the way, the LCR22 cal is by far my favorite plinker.Think if you went back in time to Wyatt and offered him a Glock 19 or some M&P, he would turn it down?
You can't take it back... you get to know when the money was hid and I'll know where the money is hid we could team up like in Good,Bad, and Uglydamned spell check!
A defensive tool, strategy, or skill-set will either be sufficient, or it will not.In threads like this I think it's somewhat important to make the distinction between sufficient and best/optimal.
One cannot rely upon that. The statement "a revolver may be expected to be to be sufficient" would be correct.The revolver is sufficient.
I don't know the real percentage, but I would not bet my life on "could survive".I think most of us would agree, based on all the previous documented examples of modern self-defense that we can read about, that in a very large percentage of those self-defense situations a competent shooter could survive them using a revolver.
A defensive tool, strategy, or skill-set will either be sufficient, or it will not.
One cannot rely upon that. The statement "a revolver may be expected to be to be sufficient" would be correct.
I don't know the real percentage, but I would not bet my life on "could survive".
Yes. At one time, gentlemen bet their lives on short bladed weapons. Later, a brace of single shot muzzleloading pocket pistols came into vogue. Later still, repeating pocket pistols were commonly carried.And yet, given the evidence in this thread, and many similar to it here and on other forums, there are many of us that DO bet our lives on a revolver.
Yes. At one time, gentlemen bet their lives on short bladed weapons. Later, a brace of single shot muzzleloading pocket pistols came into vogue. Later still, repeating pocket pistols were commonly carried.
Those were the best choices available in their respective eras.
Several score years ago, civilian concealed carry became uncommon.
Colt stopped making six shot snubs. GCA '68 drove many small semi-autos off the market. The five shot Smith remained available and was ubiquitous on store shelves. It starred in screen fiction and was well known to the public
When the popularity of concealed carry became popular, many people acquired the familia and assumed-to-be-effective J frame revolvers.
Few of them had any concept whatsoever of how quickly a violent attack will most usually unfold, or about the difficulty of hitting fast-moving targets. Screen fiction had given them a much-exaggerated idea of the "knock-down" effectiveness of handguns, and they assumed one-shot stops to be common. They practiced shooting slowly at stationary targets on the square range.
Most of the people I knew who started carrying concealed fell into that category.
So did I.
I bought a light-weight D/A five shot revolver and a pocket holster.
I was "comfortable"--for a time.
Some realistic training, some knowledge of handgun wounding mechanics, and a lot of reflection eliminated that subjective feeling.
I do carry a revolver from time to time, but it is a six shot firearm with a very good trigger pull, good sights, and sufficient weight to help with controlled rapid fire.
It is not my first choice. I prefer nine shots and an even better trigger pull.
I am risk-averse. We drive a safe car. There are more nan one fire extinguisher on each floor.
I do not expect to have a collision or a fire, and while have been involved in more than one DGU,cI really do not expect to be victimized by violent criminals.
But I do choose readiness.
That would depend upon the event.If someone with similar training and experience chooses to carry a higher capacity gun than your choosen 9 rd handgun are they more ready than you?
So no? Yes? Maybe?That would depend upon the event.
The answer is yes, period, if one would be satisfied with "in most cases".The question is "is the revolver good enough for defense?"
I think it's fairly easy to say (in most cases) Yes.
So no? Yes? Maybe?
Sooo many variables.
Sooo much theoretical speculation.
In some scenarios 12 grenades, a rifle and 400 rds of ammunition wont be enough!!
The question is "is the revolver good enough for defense?"
I think it's fairly easy to say (in most cases) Yes.
The answer is yes, period, if one would be satisfied with "in most cases".
For outcomes involving the possibility of death or serious injury , "most" is not acceptable to me.
For outcomes involving the possibility of death or serious injury , "most" is not acceptable to me.
Nothing will provide certainty.But the semi-auto only offers an ever so slightly higher percentage of "most", it does not give you an "all", still just "most..."
I would pefer a capacity of twelve. Rob Pincus recommeds ten plus one for a single column pistol. He knows a whole lot more than I do, but I have accepted nine.
Yep.And yet there are those that would claim you are woefully unprepared.
And in certain scenarios, however unlikely these scenarios are, they would be right.
Unless the attacker is in your your home, and you were in it at the outset, and h does not depart, "getting to a bigger gun", and if you could do so, would not be helpful--you would not be able to use it lawfully.So I roll the dice that my five shots will buy me enough time to get to a bigger gun
Yep.
I would ignore them, unless they had presented sometihng in the way of a coherent, fact-based substantiation of their assertion.And your response to them would be..?
I would ignore them, unless they had presented sometihng in the way of a coherent, fact-based substantiation of their assertion.
Otherwise I would consider it and respond appropriately.
Without knowing their reason, I cannot respond.