I think it was Jeff Cooper who said "If you can't solve the problem with six shots, you probably can't solve the problem".
He's right, six shots should be enough...probably....
I think it was Jeff Cooper who said "If you can't solve the problem with six shots, you probably can't solve the problem".
I don't know, there was a time when I would have agreed with Jeff Cooper, but not any longer.
These days, I still keep a revolver if circumstances dictate that I have to make a compromise, but given a choice, I'll go with an auto that will reload quickly.
No ,I'd rather have a gun that is going to go off without a jam Eveytime I squeeze the trigger. Auto's ?? who knows sometimes they do and then sometimes they don't I'm Not taking the chance . Anything a 9mm or 380 will do ,my .45 L.C. or even my "Little" .357 mag will do better. Your Choice ?
This line of thinking is based upon faulty logic....Wheel guns are the best
One shot , one kill. Wild game hunting of course. No need to defoliate the forest with rapid fire.
If you think that this is true, why do you carry a reload for your revolver?"If you can't solve the problem with six shots, you probably can't solve the problem".
No need to defoliate the forest with rapid fire.
What I see based upon the contents of this thread is a lack to think things through.
When people make statements like:
"If you can't solve the problem with six shots, you probably can't solve the problem".
"It shouldn't take more than 6 shots. Ever."
they are declaring in advance several parameters of their fight.
We do not get to pick our fight.
It could require a strong voice, displaying the gun, one or more shots, some combatives, or something else. Situations are different and the goblins' goals will differ. A mugging will be a very different fight than a home invasion. Predetermining what will be required is a mistake. You may or may not need to reload; but making a statement about the difficulty of winning based upon shots fired does not seem logical to me.
Then: "Accuracy beats ammo capacity for civilian work."
This is a very misleading statement in that it oversimplifies the problem. The goblin gets a say as to whether or not it gets shot!
Combat shooting is very different from target shooting. Most shooters seem to believe otherwise. Movement alone makes accurate shooting very difficult. Cover, adrenaline and so forth increase the complexity. I have seen very few people (compared to the number of people who go to the range) practice shooting while moving at a moving target. The movement I'm talking about is not walking or gun school "crab walking" (sidestepping); it is fast movement with both torsos bobbing around all over the place. Shooting stationary paper targets does nothing to prepare the self-defense oriented person for this type of activity.
It is often said that under stress people will revert to the most basic level of training that has become ingrained, which from what I've seen is most commonly standing square before the target, taking really careful aim, squeezing the trigger slowly (and staging it if that applies), and then gathering oneself up for the next shot (which sometimes involves habitually adjusting one's grip on the gun). While they may (and often do) behave differently in a real shooting, they won't be properly prepared for it beyond the most basic of skills, no matter how tight their groups may be or how many rounds they've shot.
As a combat veteran my basic level of training is exactly the opposite of squaring up, careful aim and squeezing off a round. I'm looking for cover, any cover, I'm making 6'5" into the smallest, thinnist and most invisible package known to man...if I know where my threat is I'll have my primary attention on him but not limited to swivelheading like a $1 hooker at a chili cookoff. Lastly, no matter what weapon I have you can believe I've spent many hours with it and know it's limitations as well as my own. I'd prefer home field advantage but we know the odds of that are slim.
Just to be clear in case I misspoke.QUOTE]
I totally understand where you are coming from. I've taken more than a few handgun classes (NRA and private) where first time students made me more than a little nervous concerning muzzle direction (or lack thereof) and range etiquette among other things. We all had to start somewhere but I highly recommend an NRA or like handgun course for new folks. It certainly reduces the margin for error once a live round is chambered.
Though I prefer a revolver at this point in my life I by no means restrict myself to revolver only carry. I have a Sig P239 that I carry that is an old and trusted friend. I qualified for my original CHL with only one flyer out of 50 using a Norinco 1911A1 because I practiced a LOT, not because I am anywhere close to the caliber of a competitive shooter.
Everyone has their own level of comfort concerning what weapon they feel best suits them and I won't ever lobby in either direction due to the fact that there is no "right answer" there is only "their preference".