does anybody cc a single action revolver?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I love revolvers, especially the single actions. They are by far my favorite type of firearm. I usually have one handy around the house or when we are on our place. They work wonderfully on deer, bunnies and hogs. However, when I'm working my real job I leave the 19th Century at home and carry a semi-auto because it is the best handgun with which to fight. There is a reason the military and police agencies no longer issue single actions. But man, they are so very cool especially when you have good leather for them! :thumbup:

That being said, if you are proficient with your SA and know your capabilities, you should carry whatever you are comfortable with.
 
Being an average person that does average things I'll stick with my revolver . I'm not into harnessing up with my Glock 17 and two or three extra magazines on an everyday bases. My 642 in my right front pocket every morning, a speed strip in my little thin canvas pouch and I am confident it will do what needs to be done if the inevidable should arise. If not I guess it will be my day to go meet my make.
When they call your number you need to go, all the tea in china can't save you.
 
There is a reason the military and police agencies no longer issue single actions.
But we're not military or police. We're citizens arming ourselves for self defense. A HUGE number of people carry nothing but a J-frame or a pocket .380. How is a six shot .44 or .45 single action such a huge step down from that? It ain't. The first situation I found myself in where I may have to use a firearm to defend myself, I absolutely would've been better armed with a big bore single action than the KelTec .32 in my pocket.
 
But we're not military or police. We're citizens arming ourselves for self defense. A HUGE number of people carry nothing but a J-frame or a pocket .380. How is a six shot .44 or .45 single action such a huge step down from that? It ain't. The first situation I found myself in where I may have to use a firearm to defend myself, I absolutely would've been better armed with a big bore single action than the KelTec .32 in my pocket.

It's a step up, in my opinion. Easier to shoot well with, and chambered in more powerful calibers.
 
But we're not military or police. We're citizens arming ourselves for self defense. A HUGE number of people carry nothing but a J-frame or a pocket .380. How is a six shot .44 or .45 single action such a huge step down from that? It ain't. The first situation I found myself in where I may have to use a firearm to defend myself, I absolutely would've been better armed with a big bore single action than the KelTec .32 in my pocket.
I am and gunfighting isn't an abstract idea for me. I've been there. Craig, I clearly said people should carry whatever firearm they are capable of fighting with. I guarantee you that there are High Roaders very capable of winning a fight with a single action revolver. Also, I would rather be armed with one of my Blackhawks chambered in 45 Colt than anything in .32 caliber. Not sure where that came from.
 
Ruger has a video on Signal-Action Self Defense. Maybe it will give you an idea as to what's involved.

https://ruger.com/videos.html?vid=131266939&cat=3782977


Those Ruger videos done at Gunsite are a very good explanation of technique. They cover weapons manipulation and not any of the other important self-defense topics, but at least the ones that are unique to single-actions.

A lot of people carry or keep a gun for self-defense with the simple mindset of "better to have and not need than to need and not have." In other words, they're persuaded that just by having a gun they're better off than not having one. With that thinking, a single-action is a viable choice -- it's a lot better than nothing. Most people who are willing to put a little thought into their preparation for the defense of themselves should recognize that equipment isn't even the most important choice they'll make. But to stay on the topic of single-action revolvers, many equipment chooser's concerns with them, in particular, are the slow rate of fire, the low capacity, and the slow reloads.

There is not much that can be done about the low capacity and slow reloads. Carrying a second gun might be the best solution. But many people are comfortable with just five or six shots. Again, it's better than nothing. I've carried a J-frame with 5 shots and felt it was sufficient. Who can know? With that j-frame, it's a lot easier to miss than it is with a large single action, which also often has another shot. I wouldn't feel unarmed with one at all.

I've found the rate of fire with the single action can match a double-action provided both hands can be used with an optimal technique. Cocking with the support thumb, I can consistently get splits of 0.20s whereas with a DA I might get 0.17 or 0.18s splits. Under stress, I doubt there would be a difference. But there could be a very substantial difference if I could not use the support hand with the single action. I can cock with one hand quite proficiently, but the rate of fire slows way down.

So the question with single actions in self-defense is: are you expecting to be shooting from behind cover at a distant target like when George Patton shot Julio Cardenes at about 60 feet after he fled during an attempted wagon-jacking? Or might you expect to have to shoot an oncoming attacker at 10 feet? We don't trust in the "stopping power" of a single shot from a handgun. That same day Patton shot the horse from under a second adversary at 10 feet, but I believe he was out of his five shots at that point. This is supposed to be the reason he carried two guns thereafter, though he would have hardly been the first to do so. His second gun would address the need for greater volume of sustained fire, but it might not address the slow rate of fire if he were to need to put a charging man down at 10 feet from a compromised position like laying on the ground and if it were to take several shots to accomplish this.
 
I am and gunfighting isn't an abstract idea for me. I've been there. Craig, I clearly said people should carry whatever firearm they are capable of fighting with. I guarantee you that there are High Roaders very capable of winning a fight with a single action revolver. Also, I would rather be armed with one of my Blackhawks chambered in 45 Colt than anything in .32 caliber. Not sure where that came from.
The point is that carrying a five-shot .38 snub or pocket auto is VERY popular and rarely frowned upon but the mere mention of carrying a full sized single action revolver is the proverbial turd in the punch bowl.
 
The point is that carrying a five-shot .38 snub or pocket auto is VERY popular and rarely frowned upon but the mere mention of carrying a full sized single action revolver is the proverbial turd in the punch bowl.

Yep. Unless the shooter has a handicap, I don't see a point in carrying any firearm that is chambered for an under-strength cartridge, I don't care what type of action it is. Years ago I was in a firearms school and the instructor asked us who were deer hunters. With the exception of a couple of weirdos...uh, officers, we all raised our hands. The instructor then went through a list of various calibers and asked if we would be comfortable taking a deer with them. We answered "no" to every cartridge he mentioned. At the end of the exercise he asked why in the world would we not shoot deer with the less-powerful rounds yet most were perfectly fine fighting with them. At that point I became a firm believer in carry enough gun for the task at hand. That belief served me well later in my career.

Yes, a single action in a proper caliber will definitely stop a fight. Mine stops deer (in season) and pigs all the time. It's just not my choice for a fighting handgun but I wouldn't hesitate to use one if necessary.
 
The point is that carrying a five-shot .38 snub or pocket auto is VERY popular and rarely frowned upon but the mere mention of carrying a full sized single action revolver is the proverbial turd in the punch bowl.
Yeah.

But I think that the premise is that a large/service style revolver takes up the same space as a service sized pistol.

I think the thinking is that if you are going to the trouble of carrying something big, may as well get all the benefits of a full size semi.

I don't poo-poo anybody carrying. I have my preferences, they have theirs.

It's all good.
 
I don't, but I could and would.

I grew up shooting a 22 caliber Single Six as a teenager. I carried it around in the woods and fishing at the creek, and plinked a whole lot. I still prefer revolvers to semi-automatics. I shoot SA revolvers better than DA ones. I don't have any small SA revolvers (mine have 6.5" or 7.5" barrels), but if I had a 44 or 45 SA revolver that was smaller, I wouldn't hesitate to carry it.

 
Other than as a hunting handgun, I can't conceive of carrying a single action revolver.

I recently bought a Cimarron Frontier. It's a great gun. The idea that I'd carry it instead of my M1911 (or Glock 19, or BHP, or S&W Model 36 or S&W Model 65) is laughable. I wouldn't carry it for hunting, much less self-defense.

If I want to carry a revolver for self-defense, I've got a safe full of S&W double action revolvers in .38 Special, .357 Magnum, .44 Magnum and .45acp. There's simply no reason to handicap myself.
 
Yep. Unless the shooter has a handicap, I don't see a point in carrying any firearm that is chambered for an under-strength cartridge, I don't care what type of action it is. Years ago I was in a firearms school and the instructor asked us who were deer hunters. With the exception of a couple of weirdos...uh, officers, we all raised our hands. The instructor then went through a list of various calibers and asked if we would be comfortable taking a deer with them. We answered "no" to every cartridge he mentioned. At the end of the exercise he asked why in the world would we not shoot deer with the less-powerful rounds yet most were perfectly fine fighting with them. At that point I became a firm believer in carry enough gun for the task at hand. That belief served me well later in my career.

Yes, a single action in a proper caliber will definitely stop a fight. Mine stops deer (in season) and pigs all the time. It's just not my choice for a fighting handgun but I wouldn't hesitate to use one if necessary.
That's a bogus analogy. When we venture into the deer woods, if we've done our homework and picked a good spot, we know there is a good chance that we will get a shot at a deer. If we do it enough in a seasons, we may get several. Most people will live their entire lives and never get into so much as a fist fight. Much less a gun fight. We also don't need to do much defensive shooting at 300yds either. They are entirely different purposes with different parameters, needing different equipment and a different mindset. We go looking for deer but avoid a gun fight at all costs. I don't carry a Super Redhawk concealed and we don't hunt with 9mm's or .45's either.

All that said, whether or not it's advisable to carry a snubby or mousegun is irrelevant. The fact and point is that A LOT of people do it. Ruger alone has sold millions of LCP's and LCR's. Look at all the threads about carrying those guns. You'll be hard pressed to find ONE where everybody gang-piles on the idea that it's silly to carry one. Yet it happens in EVERY thread about carrying a single action revolver. In my opinion, this is due to a skewed perception and not reality because very few people bother to learn how to run them fast. Feel free to disagree.


But I think that the premise is that a large/service style revolver takes up the same space as a service sized pistol.
I agree and that's why I usually carry a Beretta 92 when I carry a full sized pistol under a sport coat but that's totally not the point. The point is that as a fighting gun, a single action revolver is clearly superior to any pocket gun but only the idea of carrying a single action revolver is met with such criticism. I'm not even advocating it. I currently have four guns in my concealed carry rotation. A pocket .380 in the form of a S&W Bodyguard, a Ruger LC9 which gets carried the most, a Springfield XDS .45 and a stainless Beretta 92 which gets carried the least. I'm simply saying that if you are skilled in its use, it is not the huge disadvantage many seem to think.
 
My instructor used deer as an analogy because most of us had seen deer shot before so we would have a point of reference as to what to expect from various rounds in a fighting situation. Deer aren't substantially tougher than humans and over the years I have seen quite a few people who have suffered gunshot wounds. From my training, education and experience, I simply believe in carrying a larger caliber weapon and have no problem concealing a service weapon size handgun. Other people like smaller guns which is great because they are lightweight and easier to carry.

I agree with you that as a civilian you should absolutely avoid fighting, any kind of fighting, at all costs. I don't have that luxury.

Craig, I'm not even sure what we are arguing about. lol Again, people should carry whatever they are comfortable and capable with. I don't have to agree with it...and neither do you. But wait, I've said that multiple times before in this thread.

At this point I'm done and will just continue to envy your ownership of the Turnbull Blackhawk.

Feel free to disagree (and I'm sure you will). :rofl:
 
Personally I won’t carry a single action, especially if you need to carry it “ cowboy style “ with one round missing. To me; you’re limiting yourself if that bad day comes up and you need to draw it. So I would be more comfortable with a DA six shooter or an Automatic pistol, but if you want to carry a SA. That’s on you.
 
You all do realize that back in the late 1800's folks carried single actions with all of the chambers loaded. The empty under the hammer is fairly recent invention. Or maybe it's just that folks handled firearms more frequently and had learned how not to drop them.
 
How is a six shot .44 or .45 single action such a huge step down from that?
  1. It requires extra, repetitive movements to bring into action.
  2. It's INCREDIBLY slow to reload.
  3. It requires MUCH greater skill to employ effectively in a self-defense situation, especially against an opponent armed with a modern revolver or semi-automatic pistol.
If I expect to get in a pistol fight at hundred yards, a Super Blackhawk might not be a bad choice. Of course my 6" Model 29-2 would be a BETTER choice, and I'm not going to be getting into any hundred yard gunfights anyway. If I DO, I'll be using my AR15 carbine or my Garand.
 
You all do realize that back in the late 1800's folks carried single actions with all of the chambers loaded. The empty under the hammer is fairly recent invention. Or maybe it's just that folks handled firearms more frequently and had learned how not to drop them.
Not everybody did that and it wasn't uncommon for the ones who did to have negligent discharges, sometimes into their own bodies. An SAA can go off in other ways than being dropped, like having something bump or snag the hammer.
 
I have a Ruger Single Seven in 327 magnum that has been carried on a couple occasions. While driving, the comfort and access provided by a cross-draw holster was surprising. That said, other handguns would fill the need as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top