Is the revolver enough for defense?

[WrongHanded]

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.

Zombie horde? No. More than a couple attackers, and hits that don't connect with the CNS? Yes. Because as nice as it may be to think we would perform well under adverse conditions, the truth may not be that way for all of us (or even most of us).

People get caught off guard. People make mistakes under pressure. We would all strive to avoid both these things, but sometimes life just works out the other way. I'd rather have rounds left in my gun, having prevailed, when the shooting stopped.

 

[huntsman]

Yes to the last question

 

[357 Terms]

Of course it is.

Scenarios can be discussed that everything up to a Marine division is inadequate.

For me, the reality is that being confronted by more than 2 attackers (in a public scenario) in a low crime area, is as likely as being hit by a meteorite!

 

[Buzznrose]

Entirely dependent on what "enough" means to you.

Actually, it entirely dependent on the threat he encounters.

But I’d guess a competent guy with a revolver is good to go for the vast majority of defensive situations.

 

[.38 Special]

Revolvers probably are adequate for my situation. For your situation I have no idea, but I figure you are probably competent enough to make your own decision.

 

[Kleanbore]

Very, very few of us will ever be confronted by a gang of multiple determined attackers.

By a "gang"? No.

But the few stats we have had posted here in the last decade indicate that if one is attacked, the attack is at least as likely to involve two or more attackers as one. That does make sense. Having another and eyes and maybe a driver is a lot less risky than undertaking a criminal attack alone.

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.

Actually, no.

Once a violent criminal attack occurs, it is no longer a matter of risk, and what will be required for defense will depend upon what unfolds and how.

At that point, "will" a revolver suffice? Maybe. Probably.

Do you want to bet your life on "probably"?

Aren’t most self defense incidents one maybe two shots.

Never base an important decision on "most".

 

[The Evangelist Cowboy]

I carry both a revolver and a semi auto, took training classes with both and practice when I can. Even with reloads for both I'd rather be carrying a long gone though it's not as feasible in today's world

 

[ThomasT]

Is the revolver enough for defense?

It was until Al Gore invented the internet. Now you must have 15+ shots and deer can no longer be killed with anything less than a 300 Weatherby Magnum.

Just kidding. Its a personal choice. Nothing wrong with a good 6 gun or a hi cap auto. Its the man, not the machine.

 

[shoebox1.1]

I was traveling in ft worth texas once in my clunker Honda Civic on the service road of the highway on a Sunday morning at 1130 a GANg of thugs approached my car at a street light. My drivers window was down and the glass regulator was bad so it would not roll up without a lot of work. The light was green. The kid jumped out in front of my car to stop my travel. I punched it and he dove for his life ( I was going to hit him). Thank god I wasn’t alone (9x18 makarov in car) and the light would have been red. There was like 12 of them. Seedy types.

 

[Rockrivr1]

My typical response to these kinds of questions is that if you end up in a situation where you need more then 5 rounds then you are either very unlucky or your situational awareness seriously sucks. 5 rounds of 38 Special should be more then enough to get you out of 99% of self defense shooting events.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Actually, no.

Once a violent criminal attack occurs, it is no longer a matter of risk, and what will be required for defense will depend upon what unfolds and how.

You are talking about hind sight. Of course something is good enough, until it isn't. The correctness of the decision is obvious at that point.

The OP is asking about a revolver being enough in the present tense, and states he doesn't feel he'd be under gunned. Assurance whether it be internal or from without requires one to consider inherent risk, evidence and assumptions they have and hold on to, their own risk mitigating behavior, and then make a decision they are comfortable with. That's what makes a revolver enough in foresight. The correctness of that decision can only be ascertained by the person asking the question. And that was my point.

That's two different things.

I don't ever feel that I'd be under gunned or short on ammo if I had to defend myself.
Anyone feel you need more than a cylinder full from a revolver for self defense?

Do you want to ber your life on "probably"?

Yes. Every single thing we do is based on risk management and on "probably". Will I crash my truck on the way to work? Probably not, but I wear a seatbelt anyways, and getting paid is worth the risk to me. Will I have a heart attack while doing my exercises today? Probably not, and the risk of a heart attack is not outweighed by the risk that would come from becoming an obese diabetic.

Is a revolver enough gun to keep me safe? Probably if I am avoiding high crime areas where I'm likely to get jumped by multiple attackers, and not walking down dark alleys.

It's a personal decision everyone needs to make based on their own assessment. Should incidents of self defense be considered? Of course. But it's all conjecture, and not an after action review. So planning is based on an individual's risk assessment and attitude.

The context of this thread is inherently one for planning based on how the OP asked the question.

 

[George P]

My Dad owned 2 handguns in his 93 years on earth ..The first was a S&W pre-model 10 the other was a 3 inch barreled model 36 ..
At my Dads passing my brother got the pre-Model 10 , I got the 36 ... my Dad felt comfortable with his revolvers ...
I can’t say he was a expert.. But he was a pretty good shot .. The Pre -Model 10 was his favorite
He purchased it used in 1945 and the 36 new in 76?

My dad was NYPD from 1950 to 1983 (mandatory retirement at 63), he used a brand new 1950 S&W M&P (pre model 10) and a Colt snub I am still trying to determine the age of - looks to be from late 1920's and is either a first year/prototype DS or someone took a PP and cut it down - he shot expert markman with those for qualification with both. I tried to get him to like some semis before he died, but, like your dad, he went to what he knew and what was comfortable with.

 

[Ernie Bass]

People make a lot of assumptions as well as un

Is the revolver enough for defense?

It was until Al Gore invented the internet. Now you must have 15+ shots and deer can no longer be killed with anything less than a 300 Weatherby Magnum.

Just kidding. Its a personal choice. Nothing wrong with a good 6 gun or a hi cap auto. Its the man, not the machine.

Now that was funny, but so true. Amazing amount of false propaganda comes from the internet. Never seen shoot outs with all these rounds fired from one person. Ridiculous. And least in the major city I am from. For myself, revolver is good enough. And I can shoot it just fine. In fact if I am in the greater majority of all the people I have known in this town since childhood, which have never used a gun in a firefight and will never have to use one anyway. In fact, I have never known one single person other than a few self inflicted wounds.
I enjoy shooting much more than actually carrying a firearm. It is the sport I have been in for decades. I guess some could say the odds are that you need to wear a Helmet while driving to the grocery store in your car.. Actually that makes more sense. Personally do not care what a person wears or carry's for EDC. Just do not care for others trying to preach to me that I need nothing less than 10rds and a couple of spare magazines. Maybe they do where they live. Just not reality for myself.

 

[Pat Riot]

I have never been nor do I ever hope to be in a gunfight.

I am very confident in my abilities with with all my guns, especially my SD guns. My favorite carry guns are both J frame .38 Special revolvers. My 442 and my 36 are great carry guns. I do not feel uneasy carrying them for any reason. If I did I would not carry them.

Now, I am no dolt. If I am going somewhere unfamiliar to me or if I think I should have more protection I grab one or two of my Glocks.

I’m not married to my J frames or any of my guns. I can and do change up as I see fit.
Just because I like revolvers it doesn’t mean I always have to carry revolvers. But if I am carrying a 5 shot revolver I do not feel under gunned. Anyone that does needs to reevaluate their needs and do what is necessary to fix the problem, be it practice or using a different gun.

 

[The Evangelist Cowboy]

My dad was NYPD from 1950 to 1983 (mandatory retirement at 63), he used a brand new 1950 S&W M&P (pre model 10) and a Colt snub I am still trying to determine the age of - looks to be from late 1920's and is either a first year/prototype DS or someone took a PP and cut it down - he shot expert markman with those for qualification with both. I tried to get him to like some semis before he died, but, like your dad, he went to what he knew and what was comfortable with.

I wonder if by chance your father knew Jim Cirillo and Bill Allard of the SOU?

 

[WheelGunMan]

I believe whatever defensive carry firearm one chooses to carry one should be able to handle it well and shoot it accurately. To get to that point one has to practice, practice, practice.

 

[shoebox1.1]

That would be cool

 

[bdickens]

My typical response to these kinds of questions is that if you end up in a situation where you need more then 5 rounds then you are either very unlucky or your situational awareness seriously sucks. 5 rounds of 38 Special should be more then enough to get you out of 99% of self defense shooting events.

Got a source for that?

 

[Rockrivr1]

Got a source for that?

If you actually read the NRA's reports of good person shooting bad guy reports you'll see your answer. I've been reading those stories for years and have yet to run across one where someone had to reload and keep shooting.

 

[Kleanbore]

5 rounds of 38 Special should be more then enough to get you out of 99% of self defense shooting events.

If you have a 30& hit probability in a rapidly developing attack by a movint target, your chance of landing two rounds with five shots is less than half.

If you need four hits, your chance of landing them is 3%.

[URL="https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/thoughts-on-multiple-assailants-hit-rate-capacity.665883/"]Thoughts on Multiple Assailants, Hit Rate & Capacity[/URL]​

 

[Kleanbore]

The OP ... states he doesn't feel he'd be under gunned.

That will mean nothing, in the event.

The correctness of that decision can only be ascertained by the person asking the question.

The "correctness" of the decision will not be known until after the fact.

Every single thing we do is based on risk management and on "probably".

No.

It should be based on probability and on potential consequences.

"Probable" failure is far too risky for anything with really serious potential consequences.

Will I crash my truck on the way to work? Probably not, ...

I should hope that the likelihood of a crash would be far less than remote. It is for most of us.

 

[Fiv3r]

If we truly get hung up on the whole "it's not the odds, it's the stakes" thing, then why do we have a revolver forum? Are they just for plinking cans with .22s and breaking our wrists taking big game with heavy calibers? What am I missing? For over 60 years, my grandfather carried nothing more than a piece of junk .22 snub nose. He was 5'4 and tough as nails, but probably 124lbs soaking wet. Lived in a crappy neighborhood with drug deals on most corners. Answered the door with that little gun several times. Warned a punk banging on said door asking to use his phone that he had it more than once. It was enough. When he was 92, he finally shot someone with it. Himself. That was enough too.

My grandfather's story is anecdotal and certainly not empirically significant, I know. But if we are really preparing for the worst and mitigating as much potential threat as possible, lets go ahead and completely skip revolvers...and auto loaders. I would probably even say that rifles and shotguns of the civilian variety can't be relied upon completely should there be multiple attackers that are not only armored but potentially intoxicated on mind altering narcotics. Class III would be the most prudent.

 

[Kleanbore]

If we truly get hung up on the whole "it's not the odds, it's the stakes" thing, then why do we have a revolver forum?

A lot of us own, shoot, and like rvoveres.

Are they the best choice for primary carry without back-up?

That can be discussed. For some people, they are.

I retired my five shot revolver from primary carry years ago.

Six shots? Thet 20% increase that Colt once touted may not sound like much, but statistics are funny things. Depending upon assumptions regarding hits, misses, and hits needed, that one round can make quite a difference.

Revolvers have a number of advantages over semi-autos, particularly for people who are not very familiar with firearms. They also have some disadvantages.

My wife prefers a revolver. So does a good friend of ours, former LEO.

Were I to carry a BUG, it would be a revolver.

I have a bone spur on my left elbow. It can cause severe tendonitis. When it acts up, I cannot readily rack a slide.

I strap on a revolver when that happens.

I can shoot more rapidly combat accuracy with the semi-auto. That is at least as important to me as the capacity, if not more.

 

[George P]

I wonder if by chance your father knew Jim Cirillo and Bill Allard of the SOU?

I do not know and unfortunately, he passed away in 2004............

 

[GEM]

Thus, since probabilities indicate that:
1. You will never need your gun on a daily basis
2. You won't have to shoot it at scares away criminals
3. If you do have to shoot it, you don't need more than 5 in 99% of the cases
4. Higher capacity guns are more likely to be used rampages, massacres and crime.
5. Why don't you support (given #4) a ban on all handguns with capacity better than five? That would make sense as the odds of usage are higher capacity for active shooter usage then in self-defense. Uncle Joe wants to know!

We have gone around this topic many times. There is nothing new to be said. If you carry on the belt, there is no advantage to the revolver if you have a quality semi. It works as a one or two opponent, short time in the fight gun. You play the odds that this will happen. If you are in a more intensive horror show - which does happen, you are out of luck. J frames for bugs and/or NPE, dress restrictions make sense as they are better than nothing but still limited as I said.

BTW, showing a target with holes doesn't mean much. Train with a semi and a revolver, compete with both and see which works better in the more intense scenario. If you just carry a J, ever shoot it on the move or just is it a 7 yard, stationary square range toy?