Is the revolver enough for defense?

[mokin]

Is the revolver enough for defense?

Yes

 

[General Geoff]

For hundreds of thousands of folks, the answer is a resounding yes!

 

[Tallball]

I shoot revolvers better and feel more confident with them, so they are my preference for SD.

 

[.455_Hunter]

Become proficient and effective with whatever you carry.

 

[ontarget]

I am more confident in my abilities with a revolver, so my answer is yes. If I weren't carrying my M85 UL Taurus I would probably be carrying a micro 380 so round count really isn't a factor in my world. In my line of work a double stack duty size semi isn't an option so I have never spent time training with one. And as I said in a recent thread that I started, semi autos don't provide me with any satisfaction anymore.

 

[Ernie Bass]

I believe their is a movement for many that are actually returning to the revolver. Many that have carried other guns for years, now starting to see the benefits and simplicity of the Snubbie for example. So easy to carry, load, unload, especially day in and day out. Besides they are so much fun to shoot.

 

[Phil from Kansas]

It would be very rare for the number of rounds to matter because there are three groups you need to consider: 1) junkies: they want money for a fix, and seek the path of least resistance. If they see a weapon they are likely to flee, unless they are on a mind altering drug at the time. If that's the case, one large round to the chest will take them down. 2) hardened, organized criminals: these are primarily going to be a threat if you have done something that threatens their organization or if you have something significant they want. The vast majority of us will never interact with them, but shooting one will likely bring reprisal. 3) mentally disturbed: unlike most junkies, a mentally disturbed person may be too disconnected from reality to act to protect their personal safety. A single large round will take them down if there is no other option to defuse the situation. You will have to make a judgement call to determine if the individual is still capable of reasoning or completely detached from reality.

For those in law enforcement or security, rounds on hand becomes much more important. For the rest of us, we're not out to apprehend anyone, just neutralize the threat to protect ourselves and our loved ones and get to safety.

Most of us are compassionate and hate the idea of taking a life, but if you draw your weapon, be prepared to kill. Otherwise all you have done is escalated. There is nothing more dangerous than a wounded criminal, because they have nothing to lose. Once your assailant is down and no longer a threat you cease fire, but you never shoot to wound.

To get back to the original post, rounds available is most likely to be irrelevant. Being willing and able to act appropriately is much more important.

I'm no expert, and am open to listening to the opinions of others.

 

[Hartkopf]

Stop the threat. Killing is not the goal.

Most of us are compassionate and hate the idea of taking a life, but if you draw your weapon, be prepared to kill. Otherwise all you have done is escalated. There is nothing more dangerous than a wounded criminal, because they have nothing to lose. Once your assailant is down and no longer a threat you cease fire, but you never shoot to wound.

I'm no expert, and am open to listening to the opinions of others.

 

[Mr. Mosin]

Mmm. I'd much rather face down some punk thug with a G19 than a trained and competent individual with a S&W 29 or Colt Trooper. If it'll stop a four legged beastie, imagine what it'd do to poor pitiful me. Besides the fact that a S&W 36 in your waistband beats the Beretta 92FS in your safe. I would feel perfectly well armed with a snub .38/.357 Mag. I'd feel better armed with a service .357 Magnum.

 

[FL-NC]

Revolvers have been and still are used for effective self defense since their invention. Also, keep in mind that most firearms of any type that are procured for this purpose will never be used for this purpose. There are many people who can present and fire revolvers with uncanny speed and accuracy. This includes single action "cowboy" type revolvers, 5-shot "snubbies", and so on. I am not one of these people. So, for me, revolvers are a poor option, and this isn't even regarding capacity. I want every advantage I can get in a gunfight, so the best tool for me to show up with will be a Glock, 1911, or S&W shield, since these are what I have and what I shoot well. I have tried just about everything else out there, including various revolvers, over the last 30+ years I have been carrying and using handguns, and the proof is in the pro-timer. Using anything less than what works the best is just dumb.

 

[Mr. Mosin]

Revolvers have been and still are used for effective self defense since their invention. Also, keep in mind that most firearms of any type that are procured for this purpose will never be used for this purpose. There are many people who can present and fire revolvers with uncanny speed and accuracy. This includes single action "cowboy" type revolvers, 5-shot "snubbies", and so on. I am not one of these people. So, for me, revolvers are a poor option, and this isn't even regarding capacity. I want every advantage I can get in a gunfight, so the best tool for me to show up with will be a Glock, 1911, or S&W shield, since these are what I have and what I shoot well. I have tried just about everything else out there, including various revolvers, over the last 30+ years I have been carrying and using handguns, and the proof is in the pro-timer. Using anything less than what works the best is just dumb.

I agree, personally. Is your life worth less than the best your capable of ? For some, they shoot an Autoloader well. For some (like me), I can't shoot a service double stack semi to save my soul. A compact or sub-compact *anything* holds as many, if only one or two more than a S&W 36 or Colt Cobra; and I shoot a revolver better than anything short a 1911 Gov't, so for me... the obvious choice is "revolver".

I forget who stated it, but a forum member on here put forth that a CCW must be:

1. Effective for real world usage, both in caliber and in use-ability.

2. It must be... concealable.

3. It must be something that can (and will) be carried all the time.

4. It must be accommodating of the physical abilities and limitations of the defender.

^(paraphrasing here)^

I forget *who* stated it, but I agree wholeheartedly. Your CCW should meet these criteria.

 

[Kleanbore]

Also, keep in mind that most firearms of any type that are procured for this purpose will never be used for this purpose.

That is meaningless.

The discussion is about effectiveness, not about whether something will ever be needed.

 

[Kleanbore]

there are three groups you need to consider: 1) junkies: they want money for a fix, and seek the path of least resistance. If they see a weapon they are likely to flee, unless they are on a mind altering drug at the time. If that's the case, one large round to the chest will take them down. 2) hardened, organized criminals: these are primarily going to be a threat if you have done something that threatens their organization or if you have something significant they want. The vast majority of us will never interact with them, but shooting one will likely bring reprisal. 3) mentally disturbed: unlike most junkies, a mentally disturbed person may be too disconnected from reality to act to protect their personal safety.

I would never base a defensive strategy on such assumptions.

A single large round will take them down if there is no other option to defuse

Or on that one.

 

[Sistema1927]

Is the revolver enough for defense?

It is, until it isn't.

Of course, the same could be said for a Glock 17 with 30 round mag, a GE mini-gun, or 16" guns on an Iowa class battleship.

I would direct anyone interested to Grant Cunningham's thoughts on preparing for what is probable instead of worrying about what is possible. For the average citizen, a gun, any gun, will meet whatever they might encounter. Very, very few of us will ever be confronted by a gang of multiple determined attackers. Could it happen? Sure. While within the scope of possibility, it will be outside of the range of probability for most of us.

Buy a gun that you are comfortable with, train with it regularly, and carry it always. If you do these three things, then you will be better prepared that the vast majority of your fellow citizens.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I used to carry a 5 shot 357 magnum. I never felt under gunned until I started dating a woman in a city. Now I was out at night in a place where the risk was much higher and you would see vagrants fairly frequently in groups of 3 or more. I felt more ammo was a good idea so I started carrying an 11 round 9mm. I felt it was adequate, and easily concealed.

But now that she and I went our separate ways, I worry less as I live in a low risk environment. So I carry an 8 round 9mm mostly now.

Whether or not a revolver is enough for self defense depends totally on the risk level that your lifestyle presents, and on your personal attitude on the subject. There's lots of people who would tell me my philosophy is wrong and a person should carry the highest capacity gun they can all the time. There are people who would say you should carry in your own home. They are all correct. And they are all wrong at the same time.

I refuse to live that way, and I accept the increased risk I am subjecting myself to by doing so. A threat can come at any time, from anywhere. Your preparedness level and gun choice is solely dependent on your willingness to take on the possibility that you may be wrong.

The stakes are very high. Think it through.

 

[WestKentucky]

Is a hammer enough to drive a nail? It’s been doing it for 200 years and only somewhat recently have people swapped over to pneumatic nail guns. Roofs haven’t gotten any harder, but the pneumatic gun is just faster at putting shingles down. Same for a revolver. Started off that handguns were single shot, then came the revolver which was a faster way to put lead down range. Now there is a way that’s even faster, but it still doesn’t change the fact that it’s doing the same thing that a single shot used to do. I have no qualms with a revolver... I think I’m up to about 30 now.

 

[FlSwampRat]

I cut my teeth shooting 38 Specials, 357 Magnums and 44 Magnums. I love all my revolvers. I really love shooting my 1976 Ruger Single Six.
I currently carry a Speed Six (6 shot) or my Rossi 720 (5 shot) for ccw. I also carry one speed strip for each.
I don't ever feel that I'd be under gunned or short on ammo if I had to defend myself.
I have hi cap semi's and I love to shoot em. But they are not what I prefer to ccw. Although I occasionally carry my S&W Shield in 9mm.
Anyone feel you need more than a cylinder full from a revolver for self defense?

I don't actually carry a revolver for ccw, my primary conceal gun is a single stack .380 so I have a similar number of bad guy pellets in the gun, so I don't feel out of place answering the OP's question. Granted I can, and do, carry a spare mag or two, I don't feel undergunned with just one. My primary home defense firearms are more robust in their ability to repel an invading horde because I think that anyone who is going to try to home invade my castle is not coming in alone and I must be prepared for a small horde of orcs.

 

[whughett]

Wonder why many seem to think they are going to get into a gun battle. Aren’t most self defense incidents one maybe two shots. If the perp gets off the first shot odds are equal it’s over anyway. If the attacker is retreating and one keeps firing self defense starts getting dodgy.
If the situation isn’t over by the time the piece is empty, the situation is dodgy indeed.
Or so it would seem to me.

 

[shoebox1.1]

I like what Clint smith said..” every bullet has a lawyer attached to it”. I would think a 5 shot 38 revolver is going to do better in court than a tacticool 20 round something with optics on it! I know a couple guys with red dots on CCW pieces. I’ve also shot my undercover at the range and picked up several compact modern guns and can shoot them ok but they don’t feel good— not bad guns just not for me

 

[John Joseph]

I spent 18 years with a revolver on my hip---never felt outgunned. The last years were with a 1911 so add a paltry two more "pills" and still didn't feel outgunned, then I downsized my ccw from a 6 shot Detective Special to a 5 shot Centennial because I felt I'd be more likely to run out of time before running out of ammo judging by the types of attacks going on in my town.
I really think it depends on one's individual situation---terrain & situation---as the S2 would suggest.

 

[bdickens]

Any gun is enough.

Unless it isn't.

If I pull my NAA .22 and the bandit beats feet, the gun was enough.

If I open up from my Ruger P95 and expend two magazines on a gang of invaders, and at least one keeps coming, the gun wasn't enough.

Bingo!

 

[bdickens]

1) junkies: they want money for a fix, and seek the path of least resistance. If they see a weapon they are likely to flee, unless they are on a mind altering drug at the time. If that's the case, one large round to the chest will take them down

Yeah, maybe.

3) mentally disturbed: unlike most junkies, a mentally disturbed person may be too disconnected from reality to act to protect their personal safety. A single large round will take them down if there is no other option to defuse the situation. You will have to make a judgement call to determine if the individual is still capable of reasoning or completely detached from reality

Yeah. Maybe.

I'd much rather face down some punk thug with a G19 than a trained and competent individual with a S&W 29 or Colt Trooper.

Why no one ever considers the possibility of the G19 owner being trained and competent is beyond me.

I would think a 5 shot 38 revolver is going to do better in court than a tacticool 20 round something with optics on it!

Totally unwarranted assumption.

 

[bassjam]

This is an internal discussion I have with myself from time to time. I already know I'm not going to carry a double stack handgun just because it's uncomfortable to me, so right there I'm already limiting myself to 7-8 rounds in a semi-auto. I've also learned that IWB carrying at 4:00 makes my back hurt after a couple hours, but I can comfortably carry AIWB for an entire day. And, I'm mentally much more comfortable with a revolver "down there" than a semi-auto because of the long DA trigger pull. So, I'm not really giving up much going from 7-8 rounds down to 5-6 to carry a revolver, especially since it means I'm much more likely to carry to begin with.

So when I leave the house it basically boils down to, do I want my LCP in my pocket or a .357 revolver in my waistband? I'm confident either is "enough" for a situation a civilian is likely to encounter.

 

[mcb]

Love revolvers shoot them a lot, use them for CCW, woods-carry, competition, and hunting.

The revolver is enough for self defense, but are you enough for the revolver?

The revolver is sufficient but it exact a heavier toll from its users. For a given level competency for a self-defense situation with the handgun the revolver will require more time invested in training and practice than the semi-auto will. Compared to modern semi-autos, a revolver is harder to shoot quickly AND accurately. It is slower to reload. It is heaver for a given capacity. Nearly everything you would do with a handgun the revolver takes more effort/focus than the semi-auto will. JMHO.

 

[TonyAngel]

I love revolvers and carried one for years. I carried an SP101 and didn't feel like I needed anymore than what was in the cylinder. The main reason that I got away from it is because I'm small and it was uncomfortable to carry IWB. For a short time, I tried a Glock 19, but again, too fat. I landed on a Kahr and carried one of those for a LONG time.

For just a self defense role, I think that revolvers are optimal. They are likely the safest handgun one can own. You pull the trigger, it goes bang. If you don't, it won't. It's the perfect tool for use in a high stress situation when you cognitive abilities are likely going to be taxed. Many don't appreciate the complexities of an auto. I know LOTS of people that carry and auto and they all say, "yeah, I practice." But practice what? Going to the range and spitting bullets at a piece of paper or a steel plate? I know of very few that took the time to take any sort of course or practice misfire drill, jam drills, reloads, off hand shooting or shooting against a wall. When the **** goes down, many don't even know if their auto is in condition 1, 2 or 3.

Everyone has that image in their head of a zombie hord or half a dozen bad guys coming at them and they just need that 15+1 plus another 15 or 30 in a backup mag, but the reality is that a good five or six shooter is more than sufficient. In a self defense role, I believe that if you can't get it done with 5 or 6, odds are that you didn't bring enough no matter what you're packing. Of course, I'm not adverse to an SBR in the trunk, just in case the zombies do show up.

For lack of a better word, revolvers are idiot proof. EVERYONE that I know that asks me what gun to get for self protection gets told the same thing. Go to the gun store and buy the biggest and heaviest Smith in .357 that they can comfortably handle and will suit their needs. What this usually winds up being is some flavor of 4" K or L frame or J frame in .38; although I do recommend the SP101 for ladies. The trigger is a little rougher than the Smith, but it's about the size of a J frame and has some heft but can also be carried in a purse. I've found that guys are more sensitive to trigger quality and women are better natural shooters.