D/A revolvers, enough for todays streets?

Many people do not want to face up to the fact that there are certain factors that will not be within your control. I would rather have a (low capacity) handgun that I shoot well...and has a reasonable amount of power...than a large number of rounds that I may never use (or, worse, lend a false sense of security).

Click to expand...

And I might rather have a (high capacity) handgun that I shoot well...and has a reasonable amount of power...than a handgun not having enough rounds to "finish the job".

Just because a person relies on a high capacity pistol for self-defense doesn't mean that he is necessariy afflicted with a "pray and spray" mentality. The right mind-set is predicated on good training and much practice. A trained and practiced person carrying a pistol having high capacity is no more vulnerable to having a "false sense of security" than a person who is convinced that five (or whatever) shots are plenty for any and all occasions.

As I mentioned earlier, no one has a crystal ball that can predict the nature of the armed threat anyone might face and it's patently foolish to assume that your encounter will conform to the statistical "odds" often referenced in terms of the distances involved; the number of adversaries confronted and/or the number of shots required. They are called odds because it's not a sure thing and because there is always a chance (albeit if even an outside one) that your shooting scenario will differ greatly from the "norm".

There is no downside to having too many rounds at your disposal in a gun fight, even if it turns out that you don't need them all. There is a very big downside to needing more bullets and not having them.

While I do frequently carry a revolver, sometimes I feel it may not be enough. Lately around these parts, it seems the bad guys HAVE been working together. Usually, I at least have an 8-shot 9mm.

People should carry what they feel is adequate and they shoot well. If its a revolver, cool. If its a 20 round 9mm, cool.

For instance, I would not be comfortable in south Chicago unless I had an Uzi. Since I don't want to buy or carry an Uzi, I choose to stay out of south Chicago. Been there once. Never again. It's the one place I ever felt the need to wedge a chair up against the hotel room door knob, and stay away from the windows.

I've trusted my life to a S&W model 19 for decades and I doubt that will ever change.

Gun crime is WAY down from what it was over the preceding decades, so I would say you are covered.

There is no downside to having too many rounds at your disposal in a gun fight, even if it turns out that you don't need them all.

Click to expand...

That's a correct statement. However, I think so many people get caught up in that if a gun has a 15-round magazine (for example), then it was developed to hold 15 because 15 is what people need, and therefore other guns that hold only 5 are obsolete and their owners are placing themselves in danger.

Personally, I think the most important factors are how comfortable the gun is to carry and whether you have matched carry-comfort with the largest caliber you can comfortably and accurately shoot.

The logic goes both ways. Let's compare, just for fun, the logic of a handgun for "today's streets" to backpacking supplies for "today's trails."

- I carry a small plastic trowel for digging cat holes. I don't carry a shovel. So small gets the job done in that department.

- I carry extra toilet paper. Now here is an area in which it never hurts to have more than you need. There was at least one hiking trip involving a 3 pound intake of apricots that made me happy I brought extra toilet paper. But then, that was hiker error and not an inherent danger of the trail.

- The backpack has more space than I usually need.

- My sleeping bag is always rated for colder temperatures than what I am camping in.

- I always carry extra water, but I also have the supplies to purify more if I run out.

- Extra food always comes along.

- Extra batteries for the headlamp.

But what about my gun? Just a Ruger LCR with 5 extra rounds. The logic here is different than toilet paper and water. Those are two things I might need more of. But the gun is in the category with my first aid kit: If I need to use it, something bad has happened. It is there to get me out of trouble and then I will get out of the situation if I can.

I need only 5 rounds to shoot an animal... and then I will run away.

Same thing with people. I will defend myself as I leave. I am not sticking around to fight.

But with toiletries and water and staying warm... that's gonna happen and you have to stick around and deal with it so you bring extra stuff.

Doc B -

I like your logic on what to "overstock" and what to have just enough of.

Your post made me smile.

Dave T states:

. . .I have yet to see someone who could shoot double action quickly with a J-frame and get consistent hits.

Click to expand...

Would 5 shots inside 5 inches at 5 feet in 5 seconds be good enough? I've seen that done with an S&W Model 60 with .38 Spcl. standard loads.

That's the "personal defense numbers game" I was taught years ago. If your revolver's got a 6 shot capacity, change the numbers above to "6." I do that with my Colt Trooper with .38 Spcl. standard loads and S&W Model 19 shooting .38 Spcl. +P or .357 Mag. -P loads. With today's hi-cap semiauto pistols, "13" would be a good example; I do that with my Browning Hi Power.

Many of today's .38 Special and 9mm Luger personal defense ammo's much better than what years gone by had to offer. They'll put more shots "on target" in a hurry than more powerful stuff in the hands and mindset of a lot of people.

My wife's 7 shot 386 Nightguard is a solid defensive revolver representing a medium frame revolver option. Also can get an 8 shot version, I'd feel well armed with either plus a speed loader, but much prefer my P226 (she's the one who likes revolvers).

Hmm. There is a lot of misinformation being put out on this thread as if it were gospel truth. A few points I would like to address.

1. Semi-autos are more ergonomic. NOT TRUE! The grip on a semi-auto is straight, unlike the human hand due to the requirements of the magazine. Revolver grips are far more ergonomic.

2. New shooters shoot semi-autos better. HALF-TRUE. Some folks find the action of the slide moving to be unbearably distracting. These folks are much better with a revolver.

3. A person with a high-capacity gun is safer. Tough Call. In any incident where you are fighting off multiple armed attackers, a higher capacity magazine won't help much. Anything less than a rifle with a 30 round mag isn't going to make much difference. NYPD carried revolvers in the 80's (a much more violent era than today) and they did alright. A person carrying a revolver will do alright too, so long as they don't go looking for trouble.

4. The fact that the odds of being attacked by multiple attackers is slim shouldn't mean you don't prepare for it. FALSE! You should only use what you are comfortable with! You're not likely to be attacked by a bear on 5th avenue, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. Should we all be carrying 338 Win mags as well? Two or three or eight more rounds don't mean squat 99.99% of the time. Use only what you shoot well. If that's a single shot Thompson, you're better off with that than a Glock you can't hit with.

To the semi-auto fans: I hope I haven't caused a tizzy. You guys like your guns and can probably shoot them pretty well. Revolvers have a few centuries of ending gunfights rather decisively, however, so I don't feel in the least bit under-armed should trouble arise. Please stop trying to make the revolver fans feel unmanly or the magnum crowd just might start picking on your 9mms.
Signed-A revolver fan

Gosh, the "is six enough?" bi-annual thread update ... So, not long ago in my area, a couple of our esteemed colleagues (from two different departments) had occasion to ventilate someone sixteen (that's 16!) times; a combination of some pretty good .40 S&W fast-moving JHPs and (leading manufacturer) 9MM 124 grain +Ps ... Wonder of wonders, this man survived (and is in the process of making his family considerably more well-off financially). Some good COM hits on a guy lying in a bed, and he is still around. Good thing he didn't have a gun to try and shoot back ...

My point ... Perhaps whatever you bring might not be enough, even when you bring a lot ...

While I like my revolvers and I always carry a .38 snub in my pack during snake season, it's not a weapon that I will carry for more serious business and I have a few reasons for my selection:

1. The first most common issue I have with the revolver is the capacity or lack thereof. I don't like playing the odds of a single attacker and the average 2-3 rounds fired. That to me is setting myself up for failure by failing to plan for multiple attackers, the doper that just won't go down or just plain missing. "Put them where they count" is always a good idea but having spent time on the 2-way shooting range and these days doing a LOT of force on force training with simunitions in a shoot house as OPFOR, I can say that's not something that always happens.

2. The next issue that crops up is the complex reloading procedures needed with a revolver. Yes, a revolver is pretty simple for that first cylinder, but after that it gets complicated. Sure, it sounds easy on the square range but opening the cylinder, hitting the ejector rod, flipping the muzzle down, getting the rounds in the speed loader into the cylinder, dropping the speed loader then shutting the cylinder is a lot more complex than depressing the magazine release letting it drop free, inserting a fresh magazine and letting the slide go forward. Like I said, on the square range, no problem but when rounds are coming back at you, it's not so easy anymore.

3. Tying in with the rapid reload is the lack of a good way to do a tactical reload with the revolver. An auto can still be kept in action with a round in the chamber ready to fire (barring having a magazine safety) but a revolver is down until it's been reloaded. Anyways, how do you do a speedy tactical reload? I've seen advocates of pressing up slightly on the ejector so the fired cases stay partially extracted as the unfired rounds fall back into the chamber then you pick out the empties and reload with fresh ammo (from what if you are carrying a speed loader) and other schools of though is to just dump everything like a rapid reload then pick up your unfired ammo off the ground.

4. Do much night firing? Today's autos lend themselves to lights that the revolver just doesn't work too well with. Yeah, S&W had that revolver with a rail you could mount a light on but I'm just not too keep on having to manipulate a switch with my finger by the cylinder gap. Another issue with night firing a revolver is the flash from the cylinder gap. I've tried it with my 586 and Model 19 and the flash is blinding out of that gap. Ever notice there isn't too many options out there for night sights for a revolver? No point to night sights that you aren't going to pick up any time soon after that first round goes off at night.

5. "Six for sure!" That's a pretty common quote and to be sure, revolvers to tend to be very reliable across a wide spectrum of power ranges. That's why my snake gun is a revolver rather than an auto where a second round is a trigger pull away rather than racking a slide. However, since we are in the context of defensive ammo, auto's of decent quality and decent ammunition have in my experience been just as reliable as the revolvers. Matter of fact, my USPs, Sigs and Glocks haven't had a problem at all but I have on 2 occasions had the cylinder on my 586 lock up tight. Now I've seen plenty of cop M9s dry as a bone fail to function (operator error in the maintenance department IMHO) "Tap, Rack, Bang" gets an auto back into action faster than having to take a mallet to the side of the cylinder to get it open. Yes, a bad round is cleared by another trigger pull in the revolver but with fresh, good quality ammo, duds just aren't that common. While in theory, an auto can malfunction more often than a revolver, when a revolver malfunctions, it's in many cases out of action for a while.

6. DA trigger aren't for everyone. They tend to be harder to master than a shorter, lighter SA trigger or trigger like a Glock. In the early days of law enforcement switching over to autos, DAO trigger were supposed to make the transition easier. How many DAO autos do you see today? Beretta used to make the 92D, S&W used to make DAO versions of their 3rd generation autos, and when was the last time you seen a DAO version of say a USP? These versions became an endangered species when Glock, H&K LEM and Sig DAK triggers for example that came up with a technically DAO trigger but one that weighed a lot less than your traditional DAO auto. Can a DA revolver or DAO auto be shot well? Yes, but the learning curve is a lot steeper than other designs IMHO.

Now I know it seems like I'm dogging the revolver but I'm not. Revolvers that I have shot tend to be very accurate, robust and has the advantage of firing a magnum load one shot, then a powder puff or snake shot load the next without missing a beat that the auto just won't do without issues. They can come in very small pocket size revolvers to very large hunting revolvers that don't have grips like trying to handle a 2X6! Out hunting or just working around the yard, sure, I'll grab up a revolver in a heartbeat and if needed will still be as an effective defensive weapon today as they were 100 years ago. However, I look at the issues I've pointed out with the revolver design and for me personally, I will stick with my autos for serious social encounters.

Hmm. There is a lot of misinformation being put out on this thread as if it were gospel truth. A few points I would like to address.

Click to expand...

So, you jump in with your own misinformation.

1. Semi-autos are more ergonomic. NOT TRUE! The grip on a semi-auto is straight, unlike the human hand due to the requirements of the magazine. Revolver grips are far more ergonomic.
...

Click to expand...

This is totally dependent upon grip shape and also the location of the trigger and other controls.

It is an error to say revolver in general have better ergonomics.

Most self-loaders have straight front side and curved rear side. That is the case with my M&P40, and it is the most ergonomic pistol for my hand.

When gripped for proper recoil control, with rear grip contact of the hand being high as possible, revolvers require the trigger to be lot lower in elevation than self-loaders, resulting in trigger finger that should pull the trigger straight back reaching in more downward angle toward the trigger rather than horizontal. This results in trigger finger motion which is natural to curl toward the base of the index finger pulling the trigger in less than natural motion.

My GP100 feels quite comfortable, but not as quite comfortable as M&P40 which does not require me to tilt the wrist down as much from the neutral position of the wrist for me to have the gun pointed where I want.

This does not mean all self-loaders are more ergonomic than revolvers either. I hate flat main spring housings on 1911 type pistols, and it is less ergonomic, for me, than my GP100.

Also, not all revolvers are equal. My GP100 has good ergonomics, but some old style revolver with grip that has a gap behind the trigger guard that plaeces the middle finger of the gripping hand behind the trigger, making the shoter pull the trigger with the index finger toward the middle finger, makes no ergonomical sense what so ever. That is the reason why steel gap fillers like the picture below became popular.

...
3. A person with a high-capacity gun is safer. Tough Call. In any incident where you are fighting off multiple armed attackers, a higher capacity magazine won't help much.
...

Click to expand...

How does giving up capacity improve that situation?

...
Anything less than a rifle with a 30 round mag isn't going to make much difference.
...

Click to expand...

How so?

...
NYPD carried revolvers in the 80's (a much more violent era than today) and they did alright.
...

Click to expand...

Jim Cirillo of NYPD, and many of his stakeout squad members, carried multiple guns. Cirillo planned on doing "New York" reload.

Majority of cops did not get into a single shootout during their career.It is irrational to base adequacy of an equipment by how it served people who never got to actually use it.

It is evident that people who actually did get to use it felt the need of multiple guns when they were required to have a revolver as a primary weapon.


There is nothing wrong with revolvers. There are plenty wrong with people distorting reality because they just do not want to admit their favorite weapon has a weakness.

Hmm. There is a lot of misinformation being put out on this thread as if it were gospel truth. A few points I would like to address.

Click to expand...

This is true and you kind of made the case for your own allegation. In addition to the points TestPilot made, I have to ask you in what way does this quote have any merit:

4. The fact that the odds of being attacked by multiple attackers is slim shouldn't mean you don't prepare for it. FALSE! You should only use what you are comfortable with! You're not likely to be attacked by a bear on 5th avenue, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. Should we all be carrying 338 Win mags as well? Two or three or eight more rounds don't mean squat 99.99% of the time. Use only what you shoot well.

Click to expand...

You seem to think that someone armed with a high-capacity auto is necessarily uncomfortable shooting it or doesn't shoot well with it because someone else might be more "comfortable" shooting a revolver. You must have a capacity for clairvoyance since you have apparently ruled out any possibility of being attacked by multiple attackers just because the "odds" are that it won't happen. Have you heard of gangs?

Many, if not most of us, live and work in relatively safe neighborhoods, yet we choose to arm ourselves to prepare for the unlikely. If we based our decisions soley on what the odds are of needing a firearm to defend ourselves from an armed attack, we would leave our carry concealed weapons at home. But, no, we are reminded almost daily that bad things like mass shootings happen in the most unlikely places in otherwise "safe" locations (restaurants, schools, theaters, shopping malls and work places, to name a few). So we arm ourselves with the weapon of choice "just in case".

I (and others) have made this point earlier but because you apparently think it falls under the category of "misinformation", I'll make it again: There is no substitute for good training, much practice and accurate shot placement. But things don't always follow the regimen our training prescribed and events don't always conform to likelyhoods. They are called odds because it's never a sure thing and because there is always a chance (albeit if even an outside one) that your shooting scenario will differ greatly from the "norm".

Assuming equivalent (in terms of with a revolver or an auto pistol) proper training and expertise, there is no downside to having too many rounds at your disposal in a gun fight, even if it turns out that you don't need them all. There is a very big downside to needing more bullets and not having them.

I think so. I carry Two 357 Subs every day.

Assuming equivalent (in terms of with a revolver or an auto pistol) proper training and expertise, there is no downside to having too many rounds at your disposal in a gun fight, even if it turns out that you don't need them all. There is a very big downside to needing more bullets and not having them.

Click to expand...

Well, assuming the gun with the large number of rounds isn't so large you leave it at home.

I treat capacity as a tie breaker, and it is pretty far down on my personal list of priorities. I've got a CZ-75 that I may end up carrying one day (it will hold 17+1), but I don't have enough 9mm ammo on hand to really give it a good reliability test, and at least one of the factory mags has proven to be unreliable. And that is something I've always found more comforting about revolvers. Many (not all) revolver problems can be detected in advance if you inspect them routinely using the revolver checkout. With a semi, you are never quite sure when that magazine or mainspring will loose just enough tension to cause an issue, which in the end is why it is a good idea to replace them often.

Until then, I'll stick to my S&W K Frames (I do carry an N frame at times, as well as a 1911). And even so, I've yet to find a gun I can draw as instinctively from concealment and put rounds on target (point shooting) better than the venerable medium and large frame revolvers. If eventually I can do that as well with the CZ and it is dependable, I may carry it as well.

Then again, I can induce failure in an otherwise reliable auto pretty easily by holding it with a weak arm or holding it at an odd angle, simulating injury. And I've practiced reloading with speed loaders so much that I can reload a revolver nearly as quickly as an auto. And one thing about auto magazines is that I find it fairly easy to stuff 'em in backwards. Oops. Takes talent I guess.

While in theory, an auto can malfunction more often than a revolver, when a revolver malfunctions, it's in many cases out of action for a while.

Click to expand...

Interestingly, I've never had a disabling failure with a revolver. I have with a Semi. A Taurus 908 9mm. The ejector sheered off and became lodged in the slide. It couldn't have been much more stuck if it had been welded to the frame.

Quote:
...
Anything less than a rifle with a 30 round mag isn't going to make much difference.
...
How so?

Click to expand...

I think this was in relation to:

3. A person with a high-capacity gun is safer. Tough Call. In any incident where you are fighting off multiple armed attackers, a higher capacity magazine won't help much.

Click to expand...

If you get jumped by large group of attackers, the high capacity weapon will allow you, in the words of another THR member, to take more of them with you. But if one's plan is to slug it out with superior numbers, it probably won't end well. Being outnumbered three or more to one is a pretty lousy scenario, regardless of the tool you carry. IMHO, you best hope will be to very, very quickly (like instantly) figure out who the leader of the pack is and fire on that person first, with the hope that the rest will scatter when they see their leader go down.

Easier said that done though.

I'm about to start CC using two Ruger KLCRs. I bought one with the Hogue grip a few months ago and have been so impressed with it that I decided to buy another but the second one has a Crimson Trace grip. I've been carrying the KLCR in a Galco holster at 4:30 or in a Renegade Cozy Partner ankle holster depending on the situation. My plan is to carry the CT in the ankle holster and the Hogue on my belt. I don't feel "vulnerable" with one KLCR let alone two!!

Jad0110
Exactly. The FBI can tell you exactly how well six guys armed with high capacity autos, shotguns, and revolvers will fare against one guy with a rifle. The answer is, not very well at all. There's a reason soldiers carry rifles and not handguns.

Testpilot
Higher capacity has been proven to cause a tendency to spray and pray in both police and soldiers. A police shooting not far from me ended last year with cops firing hundreds of rounds to take down one guy. They literally riddled a parking lot full of cars and a building full of upset engineers with bullets, hitting their target twice. Also, you criticize my example of NYPD cops claiming they didn't actually need high capacity as an example of why we, who will be far less likely than them to encounter trouble, should have it? And my argument is irrational?!?

SwampWolf
I'm not clairvoyant. I'm simply a realist. I always go with what the odds (drastically) favor. Virtually no one has the training required to successfully defend them self against multiple armed attackers determined to kill them. And that includes 99.99% of cops.To imply that spending a few hours on the range once a week is enough is self-deception at best.

RE: Revolver reliability

Interestingly, I've never had a disabling failure with a revolver. I have with a Semi. A Taurus 908 9mm. The ejector sheered off and became lodged in the slide. It couldn't have been much more stuck if it had been welded to the frame.

Click to expand...

My 27 shattered the internal firing pin on the second shot due to dry fire throughout the year it sat in the case at my LGS. I broke the firing pin twice on my 625--and carried it for a day in that condition. I've had several bullets jump crimp. End shake developed in two of my guns, so they worked for two or three cylinders before locking up.

As I stated before, you're not gaining any reliability with a revolver; you're just changing the problems. Every owner needs to know how to check their defensive guns for problems regardless of platform.

If you get jumped by large group of attackers, the high capacity weapon will allow you, in the words of another THR member, to take more of them with you. But if one's plan is to slug it out with superior numbers, it probably won't end well. Being outnumbered three or more to one is a pretty lousy scenario, regardless of the tool you carry.

Click to expand...

Agreed! If you have three or more guys shooting at you while in the open, the odds are you're going to get shot. You may have time to "service" two of them before one gets you. Obviously, this is not set in stone. Movement, body armor, distance, cover, concealment, initiative, location/severity of wounds and bravery (of both sides) all affect those odds. You may prevail if you make fast hits. But, from what my instructors tell me, it's very difficult. Either way, I see no advantage in either platform except for time between reloads. Getting to the point of needing to reload is something I would not count on in that situation.

tomrkba said:

As I stated before, you're not gaining any reliability with a revolver; you're just changing the problems.

Click to expand...

One feature a revolver offers over a semi auto is that it will still work with the muzzle jammed into someone's ribs. Many autos will be out of battery in that scenario. Revolvers aren't picky about ammunition either whether it's bullet geometry or energy, and don't have magazine issues related to springs or feedlips. I picked two "hammerless" revolvers for safety and simplicity. I like the double strike capability too.

Testpilot
Higher capacity has been proven to cause a tendency to spray and pray in both police and soldiers. A police shooting not far from me ended last year with cops firing hundreds of rounds to take down one guy. They literally riddled a parking lot full of cars and a building full of upset engineers with bullets, hitting their target twice.
....

Click to expand...

Shooter mentality problem is somehow a gun's fault?

How is "high capacity cause sparay and pray" any different from socialist fascist saying "guns cause people shooting each other in road rage"?

...
Also, you criticize my example of NYPD cops claiming they didn't actually need high capacity as an example of why we, who will be far less likely than them to encounter trouble, should have it? And my argument is irrational?!?

Click to expand...

Well, your sentence structure or lack of it, which makes it very hard to understand what you are trying to say, do seem to indicate that.

But, if my guess is correct, you seem to be saying regular private citizens need less because NYPD cops allegedly did not need much.
First, it is very evident that NYPD disagrees with you, since they approve 17 shot Glock and 15 shot SIG.

Second, I gave an example of an NYPD experts who saw a need for multiple guns which means they did not think 6 was enough. Who are you going to liesten to? Those who never needed to fire a shot because they got lucky or those who had skills and multiple shootout experience?

Third, measuring the adequacy of an equipment based on how it served people who did not use it, since most NYPD cops retire without ever getting into gun fights, is irrational.

It's like a fire extinguisher. Fire extinguisher capacity should be based no how large of a fire the owner want to be capable of putting out, not how frequent the fire happens.

Would you say a 1 lb car fire extinguisher is enough for a chemical plant because that plant never had a fire in 100 years?

I'm not clairvoyant. I'm simply a realist.
...

Click to expand...

No. You're a defeatist.

... I always go with what the odds (drastically) favor.
...

Click to expand...

No. You're stacking the odds against you to justify your choice.

...
Virtually no one has the training required to successfully defend them self against multiple armed attackers determined to kill them.
...

Click to expand...

You're some sort of self-appointed authority on what trainig is required for self defense against multiple armed attackers?

There are number of people who succeeded. Let's start with this one:
http://thelibertyzone.wordpress.com/tag/lance-thomas/

...
And that includes 99.99% of cops.
...

Click to expand...

Thank you for removing all doubts that you'd fabricate anything to defend your argument.

...
To imply that spending a few hours on the range once a week is enough is self-deception at best.

Click to expand...

Lance Thomas did not have any police of special forces training.

OK, recess time at the Junior high with detention for a few.