Carrying a gun you like.

[StrykerByte.45]

I agree with everything you said except this and that is because I have the opposite experience. The more I use both revolvers and autoloaders and the more proficient I became with both, the less I want to be holding a revolver if I had to face someone who was even somewhat proficient with an auto loader.

Getting a mag into the magwell is a lot easier than getting a speedloader or even a moonclip into a cylinder. DA revolver trigger pulls are comparitively heavy and long. Bore height is a bigger issue with revolvers. Width of the cylinder works against concealment for revolvers. Bullet jump can be a problem with revolvers. Capacity is always the elephant in the room for revolvers.
The list goes on.

I think I would do fine, but for legal reasons, I wouldn't be "facing" anyone for a gun fight. I thought we were talking self defense.

 

[StrykerByte.45]

I think if you like a gun because you can use it very well, that should be your carry. If you like it because it has sentimental value, or is just a good looking gun, its rare or unique, then maybe you shouldn't carry it unless you have nothing else. You will get your gun back eventually, hopefully, unless you made some legal mistakes. I would choose to train with a gun that is replaceable.
I love my gun, a Glock 30S. It is modified to my benefit, but I can modify another. 30Seses are actually hard to find, it wont get replaced easily, but it's not near impossible. I would want a gun that I have the best advantage with, I probably wont need those advantages just to save my own life, but I am capable of helping others in need and that's where having every advantage I can use will come in handy.
"Saturday Night Special" is a term used for throw away guns. Inexpensive guns that will serve you well when needed but you wont miss when lost or taken. They probably wont be the best performing guns at a competition, but they will fare well on a shootout.
Now, if you are really looking for a fight, for whatever reason. You will want to take your best.

 

[JohnKSa]

...I wouldn't be "facing" anyone for a gun fight. I thought we were talking self defense.

It's extremely common to use the term 'gunfight' to refer to a self-defense situation in which both the attacker and defender are using firearms.

 

[StrykerByte.45]

It's extremely common to use the term 'gunfight' to refer to a self-defense situation in which both the attacker and defender are using firearms.

Oh okay. Well, I guess if I chose to engage an attacker, I would wait for the right moment and end the "fight" with a single shot to the back of the head.

 

[JohnKSa]

That could be legal if you were using justifiable deadly force in defense of a third person. It's not that common to be able to shoot someone who is attacking you in the back of the head, but it is possible that such a situation could exist. I don't think I would want to have that as my main self-defense strategy since it's a lot more common for the attacker to be generally focused on you.

 

[StrykerByte.45]

That could be legal if you were using justifiable deadly force in defense of a third person. It's not that common to be able to shoot someone who is attacking you in the back of the head, but it is possible that such a situation could exist. I don't think I would want to have that as my main self-defense strategy since it's a lot more common for the attacker to be generally focused on you.

Well, if the attacker has a gun drawn on me then there is nothing I can do. And if they took their focus off me, I can't legally attack them. They did not kill me so my life is not endangered. Only if I know for certain that the attacker is going to kill me. For example pull the trigger. The only last resort I can do is draw from the drop. It will likely be very close range.
It seems the question is which gun would I rather die with my gun that I like the most or a Saturday night special?

 

[.38 Special]

I 'envision' defending against a charging attacker at close range, moving at maybe five meters per second, and requiring three or maybe five hits to effect a timely physical stop, with the ability to address a second attacker. That is realistic.

Then finding a dozen or so examples shouldn't be much of a trick.

 

[.38 Special]

Practice SD drills, think 2 silhouettes side by side at 3 yards. Draw, double tap each, retreat 2 paces, move right 2 paces, repeat double taps. What do you need to accomplish this drill?
The days of a SD encounter of a single assailant armed with a knife or cheap revolver in a darker parking lot are about over. New technology, texting, social media, means you may face a flash mob of 20, or 3-4 youths in a coordinated attack. IMHO 10 rounds of 9mm is the minimum in any urban/suburban assault.

The problem with this, and with @JohnKSa's response, is that the problem is designed for the solution. It would be just as simple - and just as unrealistic - to design a problem which cannot be adequately met by a modern high-cap auto. And it would be just as foolish to then hold up that scenario as evidence that a modern high-cap auto is a poor choice for personal defense.

 

[adcoch1]

The places I carry a single action are usually out of doors, in a cross draw setup, and it's a 44 or a 22. One for fun, the other for big animal problems. When I was wandering my Montana property and had a free range cow post up at ten yards when I didn't know she was there, that 44 was in my hand before I even thought. Would it be better against multiple attackers than a Glock or my CZ? Probably not, but I can hit whatever I need to faster with that sbh than I can with a Glock, and one shot with a 44 usually does the job. I also love revolvers. I usually carry an auto that I'm proficient with, but if it's open carry I have a revolver on.

 

[JohnKSa]

Well, if the attacker has a gun drawn on me then there is nothing I can do.

I've seen videos of people successfully drawing while a gun is pointed at them. It's not a great strategy and will probably get you shot, but it can be successful.

And if they took their focus off me, I can't legally attack them.

You can't ever legally attack them, you can legally defend yourself against them if they pose an imminent deadly threat. Taking their focus off you doesn't necessarily mean they are no longer a threat. If they are taking their focus off you to leave because the crime has been completed, then shooting them would be legally problematic. If they have taken their focus off you momentarily but a reasonable person would believe that's only temporary and the threat is ongoing then shooting them would likely be justified.

They did not kill me so my life is not endangered.

Incorrect. The fact that an attacker has spared you so far isn't proof that you aren't in deadly danger. It only means you haven't been killed so far.

Only if I know for certain that the attacker is going to kill me.

No, you don't have to "know for certain". You only have to have reasonable belief that your life is in danger. Even if it turns out later that you weren't actually in danger (e.g the attacker's gun was actually a toy) if a reasonable person in your position would have believed they were in deadly danger, then deadly force would be justified.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that it's never justified to shoot someone in the back of the head, I'm just saying that it wouldn't be my Plan A. It's not all that often that a defender will have the opportunity to shoot an attacker in the back of the head.

It seems the question is which gun would I rather die with my gun that I like the most or a Saturday night special?

This is a double strawman.

1. No one is suggesting that anyone carry a "Saturday Night Special", just that the choice of what gun to carry should probably be made on the basis of suitability for the desired task vs on the basis of which one is the favorite gun.

2. The deadly force laws are somewhat restrictive, but they do provide protection for a person who has no reasonable alternative but to shoot in self-defense. Too many people focus on the restrictions rather than on the protections they provide.

It would be just as simple - and just as unrealistic - to design a problem which cannot be adequately met by a modern high-cap auto. And it would be just as foolish to then hold up that scenario as evidence that a modern high-cap auto is a poor choice for personal defense.

It's always easy to create unwinnable situations. That doesn't mean that all self defense tools are useless and it certainly doesn't mean that the choice of tool makes no difference at all.

 

[silicosys4]

The problem with this, and with @JohnKSa's response, is that the problem is designed for the solution. It would be just as simple - and just as unrealistic - to design a problem which cannot be adequately met by a modern high-cap auto. And it would be just as foolish to then hold up that scenario as evidence that a modern high-cap auto is a poor choice for personal defense.

I think anyone that remembers the riots of 2020 or is experiencing the current crime wave that is happening in so many cities...people that live in urban areas overrun with homeless, gangs, and general bad behavior will disagree that more capacity is a good thing, and that there are compromises to everything. In self defense I believe in as few compromises as possible, and I'm always looking for new products that further reduce compromises. The newer high capacity compact 9mm's are a good example of that, like the Sig P365. Now I can have a grip that is far more comfortable than a G26, in a gun thats practically the same size as a Kahr PM9, but with far more capacity.

I love my Kahr K9. I really like my Sig P239. My Remington R51 is surprisingly a very nice shooter. I am indifferent to my G19 and I am not a fan of shooting my G26. I will almost always be carrying one of the Glocks, and I shoot them as regularly as I can even though they are not as fun as most of my other guns. I'm going to start researching the next gen of subcompact 9mm's as there are now better tools for the job than the Glocks. My dedicated carry guns are usually the ones I'm most open to trading back and forth or selling outright as they are meant as a tool and if there is a better one for the job I want it and I'll get rid of a less capable tool to get it. I'd trade my G26 for a P365 in a heartbeat if I didn't have to take a complete bath in doing so.

As I read in someones signature line here, its not the odds of having to face a situation where a revolver will not suffice, its the stakes if you do. The stakes are always high but the odds aren't getting any better lately either.
Heck, I'd open carry an Apache gunship if the government would sell me one for the price of a used toyota and aviation fuel at $0.10/gallon

 

[Tallball]

Wow. Lotsa drama!

I usually carry a revolver. I shoot them better and I'm more comfortable with them.

When I'm holding one of my favorite revolvers, I "know" that I'm going to hit what I'm aiming at. It's like shooting a basketball: the confidence of knowing that your shot is going to go in is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If I stop posting, you will know that I was surrounded by a flash mob of 20 armed youths who all emptied their 15-round magazines into me. Most days they would gross $1 or less apiece as their reward for the dastardly deed.

 

[Walkalong]

Wow. Lotsa drama!

I know right? For instance, I often carry a pistol with nothing in the chamber, boy do I get blasted here for that.

This topic is always contentious, so many opinions, so many different levels of willingness to prepare, differences in level of concern, willingness to do what it takes, etc, etc.

I generally stay out of these threads for that reason, the only one that needs to be comfortable with how I prepare/carry/don't carry/how I carry/what I carry/proficiency level/etc is me.

Asking for opinions on how? A great topic that will get many answers to sift through so you can decide what/when/how/where/etc for yourself.

 

[Kleanbore]

The problem with this, and with @JohnKSa's response, is that the problem is designed for the solution.

That is absurd.

Then finding a dozen or so examples shouldn't be much of a trick.

Take a two day defensive shooting course; The instructors will run the class though a number of different drills. The purpose is not to emulate possible real world scenarios, but to help develop skills for what may happen, and there are an almost infinite variations.

 

[drobs]

I prefer dime a dozen light weight plastic guns with night sights for CCW. I rotate between 2 carry guns, a Ruger LC9s Pro 7+1 with a spare 7rd mag and Glock 43X 15+1 and spare 15rd mag. Both have similar triggers and I can easily hit my 10 inch gongs with both guns at 25yds.

I do like revolvers and single actions though.

Reasons and scenarios I wont carry a single action? I like a having the buffer of capacity or a fast reload. If a defensive situation, I want every advantage I can have. Hamstringing yourself with a 5 or 6 rounds and a slow reload makes little sense to me.

I don't want to find myself in a situation that these women went through:




In a mass shooting type scenario, I believe us gun owners with years of experience, have a duty to engage an attacker to protect the lives of others.
https://www.police1.com/active-shoo...illed-indiana-mall-attacker-1kuEt4LqnK8DroHi/

I'd tell you to go join a Cowboy Action League. If nothing else, it gets you shooting more frequently. I personally don't see much of correlation between Cowboy Action and self defense other than rapid target acquisition and lots of shooting / practice.

 

[DR505]

View attachment 1124195
Slow is smooth, smooth is fast.

I read an interview with Rob Leatham. He mentioned “slow is smooth, and smooth is fast” and said that is BS. Fast is fast, and slow, no matter how smooth is slow.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

Oh okay. Well, I guess if I chose to engage an attacker, I would wait for the right moment and end the "fight" with a single shot to the back of the head.

This is not usually a realistic set of choices.

When seconds are too late, everything is going sideways and people you care about (could be you?) Are about to be attacked or injured, "oh I'll just wait for the perfect moment" is a little... Unrealistic

Maybe in a movie (when the plot demands it)

 

[Kleanbore]

Oh okay. Well, I guess if I chose to engage an attacker, I would wait for the right moment and end the "fight" with a single shot to the back of the head.

What might lead you to "choose to engage an attacker"?

 

[trackskippy]

Take a two day defensive shooting course; The instructors will run the class though a number of different drills. The purpose is not to emulate possible real world scenarios, but to help develop skills for what may happen, and there are an almost infinite variations.

I think this is lost on a lot of people.

 

[Kleanbore]

I think this is lost on a lot of people.

Apparently so. Shooting at a stationary target in front of you when you have planned to do so is one thing.

Detecting a surprise threat at some other angle at a range from ten feet to fifteen, turning toward it, drawing while moving offline, and putting several rounds into the upper chest area, all in about three seconds max, is another. ... and then addressing the other guy. immediately...

That can even be needed in one's own living room.

 

[Craig_AR]

Detecting a surprise threat at some other angle at a range from ten feet to fifteen, turning toward it, drawing while moving offline, and putting several rounds into the upper chest area, all in about three seconds max, is another. ... and then addressing the other guy. immediately...

John Murphy's Street Encounter Skills class includes this very exercise with a variable decision on whether the approaching (yes moving, not stationary target) stranger is a threat, and of what level. I highly recommend the class.

 

[Kleanbore]

John Murphy's Street Encounter Skills class includes this very exercise with a variable decision on whether the approaching (yes moving, not stationary target) stranger is a threat, and of what level. I highly recommend the class.

Thanks, Craig.

I am no longer fit enough to do that, but those who can should strongly consider it.

A couple of videos should serve as real eye-openers for the square range crowd.

 

[.38 Special]

That is absurd.

Then it should have been a simple matter for you to have explained why.

Take a two day defensive shooting course; The instructors will run the class though a number of different drills. The purpose is not to emulate possible real world scenarios, but to help develop skills for what may happen, and there are an almost infinite variations.

You just got through telling us that "realistic" training would prove single action revolvers inadequate for personal defense. Now you are claiming that realism is not really the purpose of training anyway, but rather that unrealistic training is necessary to develop skills for dealing with reality. And that, apparently, is why single action revolvers are unrealistic choices.

I remain unconvinced.

 

[trackskippy]

Since the choice of gun has little to do with what you get (you get what you get, and the choice normally isnt up to you), perhaps running a couple of courses of fire that relate more realistically to things like what you "might" get, would give you a better idea. Drawing, moving, and quickly shooting, more than one target, moving while you shoot, etc.

The gun really doesn't matter until you see that it does matter. But you wont ever know that, until you've actually tried things to know.

How do you normally shoot your SA revolvers in this sort of practice? Do you shoot them in that sort of practice? Or are you basing things on something else?

 

[Old Hobo]

And where is the carry weapon to be carried?

The posts in this thread have evinced much knowledge about weaponry amongst members. Great stuff.

As we read in the news, many urban areas are being taken-over by criminal gangs. When attacking -- let's say a carjacking -- many of these gangs have as many as four perpetrators loaded up in one vehicle for the assault. Once upon a time, most carjackings involved a felon pulling a weapon on a driver and saying, "Get out of your car and leave the keys in it!" Nowadays, the bad guys are simply shooting the driver. Zero reason. Pure cruelty. Mayhem writ large.

I could provide a stack of videos to prove my point, but everybody knows what I'm talking about. One doesn't want this to be true ... nevertheless ... can't pretend it away.

Given the above, if one is carrying in a high crime area, that individual will require many rounds for their defense. I love revolvers, yet in these situations, one is forced to have available a semi-automatic with a high capacity magazine. Extra magazines could well be needed to escape from multiple armed aggressors.

Me, my default answer concerning carrying a weapon you like would be, "Carry that with which you are most comfortable"; however, given the dark days in which we live, the choice of weaponry may just be imposed on an individual, like it or not. One is going to have to put in a bunch of practice with the needed weapon and become comfortable with it. Select an automatic that fits very well in your hand. Reject any weapon that "just doesn't feel right".

Being at home versus being forced by circumstance to be out in some dangerous territory are two different worlds. In your vehicle, you may only have a handgun for defense. At home, carry whatever makes you feel good. Your handgun will buy you the time to get to your defensive long-gun.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...arjackings-philadelphia-first-two-weeks-2022/

https://www.foxnews.com/us/philadelphia-reaches-1000-carjackings-first-time-ever
.