Auto vs Revolver, under 5 feet

[allaroundhunter]

Re: Holding the cylinder of a revolver from rotating.
Anybody try this?
I just did, on my Ruger GP100, and SP101. OUCH!! The flutes catch the skin of one's hand as the cylinder tries to rotate, and the instantaneous natural reaction is to let go! One would need to be on a high to ignore the intense pain of getting skin and flesh ripped off as the flutes of the cylinder drag the flesh under the top strap.
Revolvers rule.

It is easier to hold a revolver's cylinder and keep it from rotating for an extended period of time than it is to keep a slide out of battery. And as far as being on a "high"? In a fight or flight scenario, you will have more adrenaline rushing through your body than you know what to do with. People oftentimes are shot and don't realize it, so I'm pretty sure that I will get over having my hand pinched a little bit.

 

[1911Tuner]

Anybody try this?
I just did, on my Ruger GP100, and SP101. OUCH!! The flutes catch the skin of one's hand as the cylinder tries to rotate, and the instantaneous natural reaction is to let go!

Oh, you'll be holding on hard enough to keep it from turning at all. Believe it.

Just to muddy the waters

Lemme take it a little further down the muddy trail.

If the pistol is of the locked breech variety...and if you can grab the slide hard and deflect the first shot...the slide won't move and the chamber will be holding an empty case. The guy will have to let go of you to manually load another round, giving you the opportunity to knock his runnin' lights out.

 

[Skribs]

If the pistol is of the locked breech variety...and if you can grab the slide hard and deflect the first shot...the slide won't move and the chamber will be holding an empty case. The guy will have to let go of you to manually load another round, giving you the opportunity to knock his runnin' lights out.

Or even take the first shot. Pistol rounds aren't known for their instant stops.

 

[k_dawg]

Of course, if the thug does grab a hold of your weapon he probably does not have the mental acuity to defend against a knife as well.

This is where the one-hand assisted opening knives work well.

 

[Skribs]

Eh, my BUG pocket carried weak-side. If my primary is out of comission, I'd rather go for my secondary before a knife.

 

[1911Tuner]

Or even take the first shot. Pistol rounds aren't known for their instant stops.

I'll go ahead and assume that was a joke.

Even a .22 Short can kill.

 

[hardluk1]

Hot gas's and brass bunceing around would be the least of the worrys and probably not noticed at the time. To many if, ands and may be's going on. How about being more aware and get a round or three off at 4 to 8 feet before you find out a knife would be better.

 

[Skribs]

I'll go ahead and assume that was a joke.

Even a .22 Short can kill.

Wasn't implying you should try to take it. I was saying that even if you take the shot, you are still in the fight.

 

[savanahsdad]

Wasn't implying you should try to take it. I was saying that even if you take the shot, you are still in the fight.

you take a 45acp or a 45acp talon like I carry and you are out of the fight !!

 

[savanahsdad]

so you still think you would be in the fight

 

[Inebriated]

Depends on where you hit him.

 

[Skribs]

That would hurt like hell, but it doesn't necessarily mean someone is down. Even if you hit someone in the heart with that, they can still fight for several seconds if they have the fortitude for it. Hence the whole concept of a psychological stop vs. a physiological stop.

That's not to say I would continue...I don't know if I would or not. All I was saying is that we shouldn't assume the fight is over when the bad guy gets a good hit with a gun/knife. Keep fighting until you can't.

 

[allaroundhunter]

Wasn't implying you should try to take it. I was saying that even if you take the shot, you are still in the fight.

I am not going in with the hope that I can, "take the shot" and still be in the fight. That is a bad, not to mention, false mentality.

If the bad guy gets a good hit with any weapon, then yes, the fight is over, and you have lost. If he gets a marginal hit, then you might be able to keep up the struggle, but again, I am fighting like hell not to take a hit, and I will never let it cross my mind that I will "take the hit". That is like going in knowing you are going to lose.

Mindset, skillset, toolset. In that order.

 

[Sam1911]

If the bad guy gets a good hit with any weapon, then yes, the fight is over, and you have lost. If he gets a marginal hit, then you might be able to keep up the struggle, but again, I am fighting like hell not to take a hit, and I will never let it cross my mind that I will "take the hit". That is like going in knowing you are going to lose.

Actually, no. That's setting yourself up for a psychological stop of your own! The idea is to fight and fight and fight, no matter what. To prepare your mind to accept no outcome but survival. If your body fails, so be it, but don't let your MIND fail because he got a "good hit."

Remember, 80%+ of gunshot victims survive -- and that includes those shot with Black Talons. Of course you don't want to be shot. But as long as you're conscious, you're still in the fight.

Mindset, skillset, toolset. In that order.

Exactly!

 

[Skribs]

I am not going in with the hope that I can, "take the shot" and still be in the fight. That is a bad, not to mention, false mentality.

First thing I learned in Tae Kwon Do when we started talking about defending against a knife attack is - you WILL be stabbed. It's about who gets stabbed more.

Like I said, I'm not going to try to get hit or be ambivalent towards it, but if I go in with the assumption that "if I'm hit, I'm done" then I've set myself up to lose at the first sign of trouble.

 

[allaroundhunter]

First thing I learned in Tae Kwon Do when we started talking about defending against a knife attack is - you WILL be stabbed. It's about who gets stabbed more.

Knife fights, yes, you probably will not come out unscathed (but you might). But you were talking about gunfights earlier, here is what you said and what I responded to:

Or even take the first shot. Pistol rounds aren't known for their instant stops.

Part of my knife fight training was protecting my vital areas, while only exposing non-vital areas to the attacker's blade. No one wins in a knife fight, it is just a matter of who loses more (blood).

The mentality there though is still not to "take the hit". You still go in with the mindset that your training is good, and that you don't have to take a hit to win the fight.

In your Tae-Kwon-Do, where you taught to try to disarm first? Or "take the hit" first?

 

[Skribs]

You're implying that I'm suggesting a blow-for-blow type fight, and I'm not. I'm not going in believing that I will get hit and thus shouldn't bother trying not to.

What I am saying is this: I am not going in assuming that if I take one hit, I'm out of the fight. That type of thinking, as Sam put it, is preconditioning you for a psychological stop should you get hit.

 

[Revoliver]

Revolver.

Unless the semi auto already has one chambered, and the safety off, it would be a wash.

Even then, revolver.

 

[Skribs]

Unless the semi auto already has one chambered, and the safety off, it would be a wash.

This really doesn't answer my question...especially since
A) The majority of CCWers (75% of posters on here, at least in the polls I've seen) carry one in the chamber and
B) Not all autoloaders have manual safeties, and those that do have the safety swiped off on the draw, meaning regardless of whether or not it has a safety, the auto should draw roughly as fast as a revolver.

You also don't really say why the revolver is better, especially in the given situation.

 

[Revoliver]

This really doesn't answer my question...

Yes, it does.

especially since
A) The majority of CCWers (75% of posters on here, at least in the polls I've seen) carry one in the chamber

Not everyone that carries visits forums, partakes in polls, and tells the truth. I know of people in real life that do not cary with one chambered. Are they wrong for not only doing this and but also not voting in an online poll? Are they the entirety of all carriers?

and B) Not all autoloaders have manual safeties,

I never said otherwise.

and those that do have the safety swiped off on the draw, meaning regardless of whether or not it has a safety, the auto should draw roughly as fast as a revolver.

Also meaning that there's another step to have to train for and worry about as well, unlike a revolver.

You also don't really say why the revolver is better, especially in the given situation.

I apologize for that, I figured this far into the debate, anything I said would have been redundant and just went with preference.

 

[Skribs]

The point was that for someone with a basic familiarity of their weapon platform who carries chamber loaded, the revolver is just as fast. If someone fumbles the safety that's a training issue (instead of a platform issue). If someone carries chamber empty, I will argue that they are playing it overly cautious, especially considering most people carry hammer down on a loaded chamber in a modern revolver.

Not everyone that carries visits forums, partakes in polls, and tells the truth. I know of people in real life that do not cary with one chambered. Arethey wrong for not only doing this and bit also not voting in an online poll? Are they the entirety of all carriers?

Well, I don't have data if they don't vote. Regardless, the only reason not to carry chamber loaded is if 1) your handgun is unsafe to do so (in which you need better hardware) or 2) if you are not safe enough in your handling (in which you need better software).

Again, you're arguing against the slowest draw of an auto, which isn't going to be the case in the majority of situations.

Also meaning that there's another step to have to train for and worry about as well, unlike a revolver.

Unless you're handing someone a 1911 and saying "go forth and defend yourself" this issue doesn't really pertain to this discussion.

I apologize for that, I figured this far into the debate, anything I said would have been redundant and just went with preference.

The question is - based on the scenario of contact distance and either getting the BG off your gun or keeping him off - which will get rounds into him quicker. If your answer is based on preference, then specify that, instead of just blatantly stating "revolver", or say "I think it's the same, but I'd go revolver."

 

[Revoliver]

Skribs, I do not understand why you so desperately wish for an argument. Perhaps you should log off and go to the range for a bit?

If someone fumbles the safety that's a training issue (instead of a platform issue).

Considering it's the platform that the safety is on, no, it is not just a training issue, it is a platform issue and therefore also a training issue for that particular platform.

The rest of what you said is opinion and speculation, much like my previous response.

 

[fireflyfather]

TL,DR

One reason a lot of snub guns (like S&W 642) are hammerless has to do with hammer snagging, or being obstructed. Hammerless designs prevent that problem. The cylinder CAN be gripped hard enough to stop it from turning, but the solution is to TURN THE REVOLVER in the opposite direction while you pull the trigger. That is basically impossible for an opponent to stop. Of course, you have to train differently with a colt than any other revolver for that eventuality...

Also, if they grab a revolver which has a barrel that sits higher, this gives you a longer lever to twist the gun/barrel back into alignment, making aiming the weapon at a grappler easier if they grab the barrel itself, rather than the cylinder.

On the other hand, if they have a weak grip on a semi, you can kind of shred their hand a little with the first shot...

Personally, I find the revolver a better weapon for contact shooting, but opinions vary.

 

[Skribs]

Skribs, I do not understand why you so desperately wish for an argument. Perhaps you should log off and go to the range for a bit?

I disagreed with your post, so I made my comments.

Considering it's the platform that the safety is on, no, it is not just a training issue, it is a platform issue and therefore also a training issue for that particular platform.

Considering that people who are practiced on the 1911 draw (which shouldn't take much effort to commit to muscle memory), it is not a platform issue. If the manual safety was a severe hindrance unless you have months of dedicated training, I would agree with you.

One reason a lot of snub guns (like S&W 642) are hammerless has to do with hammer snagging, or being obstructed. Hammerless designs prevent that problem. The cylinder CAN be gripped hard enough to stop it from turning, but the solution is to TURN THE REVOLVER in the opposite direction while you pull the trigger. That is basically impossible for an opponent to stop. Of course, you have to train differently with a colt than any other revolver for that eventuality...

Interesting, not sure how well it would work in practice but seems somewhat logical.

 

[Revoliver]

Considering that people who are practiced on the 1911 draw (which shouldn't take much effort to commit to muscle memory), it is not a platform issue. If the manual safety was a severe hindrance unless you have months of dedicated training, I would agree with you.

This is not true, it is both a platform issue and training issue. Since the platform has a safety, you must therefore also train in it's operation. Whether the safety is a hinderance or not has nothing to do with whether there is a safety to be operated or not to begin with.