According To The FBI...

[pairof44sp]

There is an example to support almost every defensive viewpoint.

Locally, we had a LEO killed when her high-capacity 9mm malfunctioned/jammed after just a one or two rounds during the response to a domestic violence call. She was unable to get the weapon functioning again, had no BUG, and ended up being executed while attempting to hide under a vehicle.

Does this mean high capacity 9mms are not appropriate for service? In her case, it wasn't even a "one bad guy gun".

Would there have been a better outcome is she had been armed with a S&W .38 wheelgun? Maybe so.

I am not arguing the above, just pointing out that using one example of an event to justify choices of carry equipment can be problematic.

You are a brave man. Of course, you can afford to be. You know your gun’s not gonna jam!

 

[.455_Hunter]

You are a brave man. Of course, you can afford to be. You know your gun’s not gonna jam!

I am not sure what you mean by the above posting.

 

[pairof44sp]

I am not sure what you mean by the above posting.

Maybe I misunderstood. I thought you stuck up for revolvers because they were more dependable.

I though you were brave to stick your head up on a gun forum and say, “Revolver man here; come at me!”

As a guy who values that revolver dependability over the 1,001 advantages of a semi, I liked it!

 

[.455_Hunter]

Maybe I misunderstood. I thought you stuck up for revolvers because they were more dependable.

I though you were brave to stick your head up on a gun forum and say, “Revolver man here; come at me!”

As a guy who values that revolver dependability over the 1,001 advantages of a semi, I liked it!

I extoll the virtues of both revolvers and automatics for defense. I can be well armed with either.