Do you feel under gunned with a revolver?

[TheSigmaEnigma]

Do you guys feel under gunned with a revolver? I've always been a little nervous only having 5, 6, or even 7 shots knowing that there's 17 round Glocks out and about. I would have to reload 3 times more then they would. Just to be clear, I'm not trying to start anything here. I just want to hear all of your takes on the subject.

-Enigma

 

[NG VI]

Or shoot them three times better

 

[earlthegoat2]

For defensive purposes, a revolver will do just fine.

In this day and age, a revolver is probably not the best tool for uniformed duty carry.

 

[AKPastor]

No I don't. I carry either a S&W 25-2 or a PT-1911 so the difference is 6 and 8+1

I practice changing magazines (I carry one extra) and moonclips (2 extra) but otherwise, I don't feel under gunned. I have nothing against fellow enthusiasts who prefer more. I just am more comfortable with what I have. I figure that counts for more than total rounds as long as I train.

 

[Big Bill]

With a 357 or 44 mag, I actually feel almost over gunned. The power of revolvers are unequaled in comparison to pistols. IIRC, most 45 ACPs are single stack and don't provide much more capacity than a good 357 six shot revolver. Between the two, I'll carry the 357.

 

[CraigC]

No, because you can never miss fast enough to win a gunfight.

 

[BlackSky]

Do you feel under gunned with a revolver

No.

Hell, when I carry a semi-auto it's a Glock 36 with 6 round magazine. I figure if I can't get out of a situation with 6 rounds of .45ACP or .44Spec then I ought to be running instead of fighting anyway.

 

[mljdeckard]

Like Big Bill says, single-stack .45s aren't much bigger. Plenty of us like those just fine.

When I first started carrying, I wanted hi-cap everything. Over time, I realized a few things. We don't live in MelGibsonLand where you crank through 15 straight shots without having time to reload. If you ever ARE in that situation, it's unlikely that capacity will be the thing that saves your life anyway. If I was ever in that situation, I wouldn't be saying; "Wow, this is intense! It's a good thing my pistol holds a lot of bullets!" No. I would be saying; "I need to get back to my rifle as soon as possible."

Extra magazines isn't about having more shots, it's about being able to clear a malfunction.

On the street, I worry less about the kid with a Glock 17 than I do about the old crook with a 5-shot .38.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

No I don't...

The FBI statics tell us in most guns fights a total of only 3 shots are fired.

Also, why is it that no one ever thought a 1911 with only 7 rounds was too little to carry? (like asked above)

 

[Manco]

Under normal circumstances as a civilian, no, because extremely seldom are more rounds required. Then again, I guess it is better to have them and not need them than to need them and not have them in those rare circumstances. Even a single determined assailant, for example, may take the entire capacity of a revolver to stop, leaving one unarmed until one can reload. Is that a real problem even when it does happen, or is it too rare to be overly concerned about? It's hard to say, and the answer depends on the scenarios that one can envision and subjectively where one's comfort level is.

In my case, being threatened by somebody who is not entirely in control of himself and who has in the past (I just learned) threatened to hire assassins to kill his own sister, I feel a little more comfortable with the higher shot capacity and faster, easier (for me) reloading of autoloaders. I like revolvers, too, and even prefer them in many respects, but my defensive auto has been impeccably reliable, and for the time being that's what I'm going to use primarily (so I guess the answer is currently yes ).

 

[Vigilantis]

There are few men out there who can take a cylinder full of .45 LC to the chest and still be a threat to me.

If it was my job to apprehend dangerous criminals, then I might be inclined to take advantage of a service auto's higher capacity, but as a civilian in a relatively safe area, I don't feel a need for it. I'm more likely to use my weapon against rogue wildlife than I am against a human predator, so revolvers' more powerful chamberings make a lot of sense.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

There are few men out there who can take a cylinder full of .45 LC to the chest and still be a threat to me.

I find it hard to believe someone can take 6 rounds of 45 Colt and still remain standing since that round was designed to kill a horse out from under it's rider. (and will)

Then give them 5 to the chest and save one for the head!!

 

[kdave21]

I could see how police would like a hi cap auto, because there is always that chance that you could be dealing with more than one bad guy and you may just literally need the rounds. And for the common officer, it may be easier to reload fresh mags than it would be to pull out a speedloader. But in general I agree with the sentiment that shot placement is much more important than number of rounds shot. 15 rounds that miss dont count as much as one that does.

I am reading Lee Silvas book on Wyatt Earp, and he does a section on gunfighters. Silva states that most of the old timers (including Earp), were big believers in taking just that extra, minute bit of time to correctly acquire their target, and that the man who could calmly do that would likely be the last man standing. Along those lines, the man who fanned his revolver wildly didnt generally hit much.

 

[nalioth]

I could see how police would like a hi cap auto, because there is always that chance that you could be dealing with more than one bad guy and you may just literally need the rounds.

I'm not sure how the police'd carry around such a beast. .



Come on, folks, it's not a "hi cap" if it was designed with the capacity it was shipped/issued with.

 

[Stainz]

Zombies. Gotta be ready.



A .223 ammo box holds five layers, separated by hardboard, of 21 loaded moonclips of .45ACP ball ammo. A bit heavy, but the 630 rounds held are reassuring. I have two such boxes full - and 30 more clips in food containers used for range bag carry - 240 clips - 1,440 rounds before I have to reload clips. How many rounds do most rude case-tossing/evil bottom-feeders keep loaded?

In all seriousness, when I feel threatened, five is usually enough. If not, there is always an 8-shooter! All I need are revolvers.

Stainz

 

[bikerdoc]

NO, I dont.

A 5 shot S&W 649 .357 is enough as is my full size 1911 9mm with 9.

Situation awareness, Avoidance and shot placement training trump round count.

As for facing more than 5, well you made a lot of bad decisions way before it comes to that

 

[CajunBass]

If I did, I wouldn't carry one.

 

[Redlegvzv]

No I don't...

The FBI statics tell us in most guns fights a total of only 3 shots are fired.

Also, why is it that no one ever thought a 1911 with only 7 rounds was too little to carry? (like asked above)

Exactly. The most likely scenario is one bad guy with one gun. In a defensive situation six shots is going to be enough in almost any imaginable scenario, and my revolver is a Ruger GP100 6/inch barrel and it is pretty doggone accurate. The 357 round will put any bad guy down short of a grizzly bear.

Failing that, I keep 9 speedloaders full of ammo.

Failing that, I have a Mini-14 with two ten round clips handy.

 

[oldfool]

5 to 7 rounds is all that I require for my own peace of mind, in any handgun
(pretty much the same can be said of any rifle, for that matter, and just two will do in any shotgun)

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I think it depends on the caliber of the handguns, and the ability to shoot them straight under stress, right? I don't feel undergunned with a .40, a 9mm, or a .38+p bullet launcher..., those that I own and carry vary from 5-shots to 7-shots, to 15-shots. Now if I had my grandpa's .32 long, or grandma's .22 Beretta, yeah I'd feel "undergunned."

LD

 

[dogngun]

Not at all. I have been a revolver fan for over 4 decades,

and I carry a Rossi 462,a stainless 6 shot .357 mag, loaded with .38 Spl +P's, plus 2 speedloaders, giving me 18 reliable shots. I am comfortable carrying an auto as well, but I like revolvers and have no qualms about carrying one...unless I was going into a war, inwhich case, I'd want something like an old BAR.

mark

 

[EMC45]

Nope. Carry a revolver all the time. A couple 158gr. FN cast bullets through the nasal cavity or into the heart area will change your attitude. Quickly.

 

[JFrame]

To answer the OP question: No.

.

 

[DM~]

If you don't have the confidence in yourself to get it done with 6 shots, perhaps you should practise more? Cause spray-n-pray isn't the answer...

DM

 

[slicksleeve]

I carry a revolver about all the time when I'm off work. One of two K-frame .357s. In the winter or when I can dress around it, I even carry my Smith and Wesson 657 in .41 magnum.
Somehow it seems to me like the guy with Glock 17 would be the one who is undergunned in that picture.