Is the revolver enough for defense?

[Ernie Bass]

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?[/QUOTE]

I think I may have misread your post. I guessing that that you are not implying that all that shoot revolvers just shoot at stationary square targets. That can be said for any firearm. And not just limited to revolvers.
Or that anyone that does not sign up for Competition means they do not compete in other ways or inferior to someone that does. I have no desire to sign up for organized competition. Did that years ago. There are a many ways to train without organized competition and I have seen enough really good shooters over the years to know they would do well in competition if that was there thing. And there is nothing wrong with supplementing shooting at square targets at a indoor range. Many drills you can apply to further your development and a enhance the skills you do have. I have spent many a winter day at a indoor range and it was not time wasted.
I will agree with you that this subject and debate goes on and on and seems endless. For many of us we have the experience and maturity to choose what is best for us, the individual. And assumptions are just that assumptions. Each to his own. We are fortunate to live in America and have that ability to choose how we want to train and carry.

 

[mcb]

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?

I'd like to think I am better than many with a Revolver in a "practical setting". I am a B-class (less than 0.5% from A-class if I ever got my butt in gear) in USPSA Revolver division and can do similar in IDPA with a revolver (no longer a member). For as much fun and taunting I like to do when I beat many of the "casual shooters" and "guys that don't practice with their Glocks" at the local matches, when I compare my Revolver scores (using a big 8-shot revolver and moonclips) against the guys of similar skill/classification in the big divisions (hi-capacity) like Open, Limited, and Carry-Optics division I am way behind. Even compared to Production and Single-Stack division (10-rd/8rd magazine limit) where my capacity is less of a liability I really have to have a good day to come out on top of the other B-class Production/Single-stack shooters when I run my revolver.

Yes... USPSA/IDPA is not real life or even real life training. But it does test ones ability to run your chosen handgun to it fullest, testing: draw, accuracy, speed, shooting in awkward position, shooting while moving, reloading, malfunction clearing etc. And after shooting those practical pistol sport in earnest you see just how much a revolver holds back your capabilities compared to the semi-autos. The revolver can almost keep up with all the bottom feeders right up to the first reload and then its all down hill for the revolver shooter, and that reload comes all too soon...

I still carry a revolver, but I do so with my eyes hopefully open to the facts.

 

[Kleanbore]

Yes... USPSA/IDPA is not real life or even real life training. But it does test ones ability to run your chosen handgun to it fullest, testing: draw, accuracy, speed, shooting in awkward position, shooting while moving, reloading, malfunction clearing etc. And after shooting those practical pistol sport in earnest you see just how much a revolver holds back your capabilities compared to the semi-autos. The revolver can almost keep up with all the bottom feeders right up to the first reload and then its all down hill for the revolver shooter, and that reload comes all to soon...

Very good put, mcb.

The revolver that I sometimes carry holds six rounds, and the semi holds nine. That could make a very significant difference.

I have a seven shot L frame with a five inch barrel. I like it but it does not stay on my belt.

Some years before the K6A and the new Cobra were introduced, my wife chose a Ruger SP101 with a three inch barrel. My Shield 9 EZ is no larger, and it holds 80% more ammunition.

 

[GEM]

Ditto. I have trained and competed with semis, revolvers (big ol' ones and Js) and competed with all. I'm a slow old toot but can get through a match with 3 to 5 points down total on a good day. Some days - Meh.

There is no doubt in my mind that for a belt gun, the semi is the way to go. That being said, I love to shoot a revolver in a match. In FOF, with folks on the move - 5 shots go away pretty fast. I like Marty Hayes who says, we train not just for the average but the anomaly. I've seen potential threats of 4 guys in my life.

BTW, I love to shoot an oddball revolver in IDPA as outlaw. It's a SW 632 SS 3 inch comp'ed Fiber optic in 327 mag. I shoot a lesser round though most of the time. Totally not in the official set but this was at a local club match. If Joe bans all those higher cap guns, that would be my belt carry. With a full bore 327 mag, it's a fire breather and kicker. Used the full bore rounds when we had a steel popper as I found the 32 Longs, didn't knock them down.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

That will mean nothing, in the event.

The feeling the OP has on this topic, based on information, anecdotes, data available here and elsewhere, and his personal skills is how he is making his decision on what to carry. Simply stated, that's planning, which again is the context of the thread. Feelings generated based on data, evidence, and of course facts, results in a plan. That plan will result in a decision. That decision will have a direct impact on the results of a defensive event.

If feelings and thoughts do not have a direct impact on the plan and associated equipment choice, and therefore the potential outcome, then I don't understand why these conversations happen.

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

If we are talking about hindsight and the outcome of an event, again, that much should be obvious. That isn't what I was talking about or the theme of the thread. If we are talking about planning, which we are, it's a personal choice, and the correctness of the choice is up to the person making the decision before the event. It's all conjecture, so the individual has to determine if what they are doing is correct, because we can not know the future and the ultimate end result. We are all guessing at what is correct until after the fact.

People have to use conjecture to determine what their likely worst case scenario is, and make their own determination on what is correct.

No.

It should be based on probability and on potential consequences.

Individual risk type and severity, probability of occurrence, potential consequences, and the mitigation of those consequences are inherent to risk management.

 

[GEM]

That is the point. Folks do not think that they will ever be in a situation where 5 is not enough, are convinced that 5 will be enough.

As far as training outside of classes and not competing - go for it. My point is that we know most carriers never ever have any training, shoot a few rounds on the square range. I doubt they go through the square range drills that you can find, such as Claude Werner's or other sites.

Being stuck in doors, I'm using a SIRT for practice.

 

[Kleanbore]

The feeling the OP has .... Feelings ...

If feelings and thoughts do not have a direct impact on the plan and associated equipment choice, and therefore the potential outcome, then I don't understand why these conversations happen.

That's just it.

"Feelings" are subjective. They may or may not be supported by objective, fact-based analysis. If they are not, they are meaningless.

If we are talking about planning, which we are, it's a personal choice, and the correctness of the choice is up to the person making the decision before the event.

The "correctness" of the choice will not be known until after the event. That is true in all things predictive.

It's all conjecture,...

Well, technically, maybe--conjecture is making a decision based on incomplete data, and strictly speaking, almost all predictions really fall into hat category.

I respectfully suggest that a prediction based entirely upon "feelings", and upon thoughts about same, would involve incompetent conjecture.

How can we do better?

Absent anything else, we could do the following:

• Learn something about wounding mechanics. Learn what is required to effect a physical stop.
• Learn what that would mean in practice, by doing what Massad Ayoob recommends: obtain a copy of Gray's Anatomy, study it, keep it handy, and refer to it.
• Engage in some realistic defensive shooting training, and find out what your hits look like when you are trying to achieve a good balance of speed and precision.
• If you can, kick it up a notch and try FoF training or training in a laser training facility, to add stress and motion in a tactical setting.

Then, combining all of what is learned from doing the above should help objectively tell us something about the following:

• How quickly we will have to draw and fire, and what balance of speed and precision may reasonably be needed.
• Whether our firearm and holster are conducive to success.
• Some idea of the number of wounds--a range of numbers--that we would like to have in our firearm.

For a more preliminary but incomplete insight, we can watch dash-cam and body cam video of real assailants jumping out of their cars and attacking the police officers who have stopped them. Or the one the man walking up the street with knife in hand.

Much better than "feelings" and conjecture" as a basis for structured risk management.

 

[bdickens]

...but 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

The plural of anecdote is not data. If you want to quote statistics you need to have a source. Your backside is not a reliable source.

have yet to run across one where someone had to reload and keep shooting.

Someone posted just such a story here just a few days ago.

 

[mcb]

The plural of anecdote is not data. If you want to quote statistics you need to have a source. Your backside is not a reliable source.

Someone posted just such a story here just a few days ago.

I laughed at the bold part above, very true, thanks.

The story where someone had to reload in a self-defense situation would you mind pointing me to that thread or the story. I would like to read it.

 

[ThomasT]

Very good put, mcb.

The revolver that I sometimes carry holds six rounds, and the semi holds nine. That could make a very significant difference.

I read that point made many years ago in a gun article when the writer stated that when the New Jeresy PD (I think) adopted the S&W model 39 that the extra 3 rounds over the standard issue revolver made a difference in several shootings. So as much as I like my revolvers I know that an auto with a few more rounds can have a definite advantage over a 5-6 shot gun.

 

[.38 Special]

I read that point made many years ago in a gun article when the writer stated that when the New Jeresy PD (I think) adopted the S&W model 39 that the extra 3 rounds over the standard issue revolver made a difference in several shootings. So as much as I like my revolvers I know that an auto with a few more rounds can have a definite advantage over a 5-6 shot gun.

Sure, but what is the limiting principle? Almost none of us carry all the ammunition we possibly could. At what point do we all agree that a person is now adequately armed?

 

[Rockrivr1]

The plural of anecdote is not data. If you want to quote statistics you need to have a source. Your backside is not a reliable source.

Someone posted just such a story here just a few days ago.

Thanks for proving my point.....

 

[Zaydok Allen]

That's just it.

"Feelings" are subjective. They may or may not be supported by objective, fact-based analysis. If they are not, they are meaningless.

I agree. Those feelings, thoughts, and conclussions need to be logical and factually based.

Well, technically, maybe--conjecture is making a decision based on incomplete data, and strictly speaking, almost all predictions really fall into hat category.

I respectfully suggest that a prediction based entirely upon "feelings", and upon thoughts about same, would involve incompetent conjecture.

How can we do better?

Absent anything else, we could do the following:

• Learn something about wounding mechanics. Learn what is required to effect a physical stop.
• Learn what that would mean in practice, by doing what Massad Ayoob recommends: obtain a copy of Gray's Anatomy, study it, keep it handy, and refer to it.
• Engage in some realistic defensive shooting training, and find out what your hits look like when you are trying to achieve a good balance of speed and precision.
• If you can, kick it up a notch and try FoF training or training in a laser training facility, to add stress and motion in a tactical setting.

Then, combining all of what is learned from doing the above should help objectively tell us something about the following:

• How quickly we will have to draw and fire, and what balance of speed and precision may reasonably be needed.
• Whether our firearm and holster are conducive to success.
• Some idea of the number of wounds--a range of numbers--that we would like to have in our firearm.

For a more preliminary but incomplete insight, we can watch dash-cam and body cam video of real assailants jumping out of their cars and attacking the police officers who have stopped them. Or the one the man walking up the street with knife in hand.

Much better than "feelings" and conjecture" as a basis for structured risk management.

Now we're cooking with gas!

I agree, I think considering all those factors and educating oneself is a much better approach to the subject than the simple statements made in the OP. I do feel it's up to each individual to asses the info they have gathered and come to a "correct" or rather, what they feel is their best option for them, but in the end that decision may prove fatal. In that case a very clear message of "This was not correct." can be derived, and others can hopefully learn from it.

I think the question itself is somewhat flawed, because one of my personal axioms regarding carry guns is that it should be chambered in a cartridge that has a wide spread track record of ending confrontations effectively with similarly durable attackers, and it should hold as much ammo as is possible without making a gun so large that a person can't effectively conceal it if need be, or carry it comfortably. Balance.

I pretty much only carry a revolver in the woods anymore as there are no pack hunters in my area, but rather individual larger bodied predators.

 

[ThomasT]

Sure, but what is the limiting principle? Almost none of us carry all the ammunition we possibly could. At what point do we all agree that a person is now adequately armed?

The answer to that question is above my pay grade. Lol. But secretly I doubt we will ever all agree on what is "adequately armed". I guess you load up what you feel you need and go from there.

 

[Kleanbore]

Sure, but what is the limiting principle? Almost none of us carry all the ammunition we possibly could. At what point do we all agree that a person is now adequately armed?

Informed judgment.

 

[mcb]

You can never know if you are sufficiently armed until after that fact... The nature of the unknown future.

"You can never have too much ammo, unless you're drowning or on fire."

 

[tubeshooter]

"Is the revolver enough for defense?"

It is for me...

 

[Kleanbore]

"Is the revolver enough for defense?"

It is for me...

Let us hope that you never have to test that, or if you do, you come out okay.

 

[tubeshooter]

Thank you.

I hope you "come out okay" as well if you ever find yourself in a situation.
Whatever you are carrying.

 

[.38 Special]

Informed judgment.

Sounds good, but you seem to be among those who believe revolver carriers are making a mistake. Are revolver carriers simply not well-enough informed?

 

[fastbolt]

Is the revolver enough for defense?

This question is a subset of the question, "Is a handgun enough for defense?"

Just because polite society, local laws and personal choices regarding convenience may not allow a firearm other than a handgun to be carried, that's doesn't necessarily mean a handgun is going to be "sufficient" to the needs of the moment.

It's also a "gearcentric" question. From that perspective, it might further beg the question of whether any particular person ought to be giving more consideration to their ability to effectively use their choice of gear in whatever circumstances are being anticipated.

Granted, pistols can allow more initial ammunition capacity before having to load again, as well as ease of loading as the on-board capacity is exhausted, or if the user feels it prudent to "top off" before it's fully exhausted. Pistols can also allow lighter and shorter trigger pulls compared to DA/DAO revolvers. These influences have certainly driven the selection of pistols over revolvers when it comes to duty weapons carried on the belt.

Does that necessarily mean that 5-8 shot revolvers are now and forever more "obsolete" as suitable firearms selected for dedicated personal defensive options?

Well, that's still the prerogative of the individual, and still arguably an informed decision to be made based upon the individual's best understanding of the many aspects involved in the totality of the "question" being asked. The "capacity" of a chosen handgun may, or may not, be the most critical consideration involved.

We can politely debate "what if's?" endlessly.

How well can any particular person use whatever it is they've chosen (for whatever reasons) to make solid, well-placed hits when experiencing stress and duress? Personally, after having carried a badge of one sort or another (full-time, and then as a reserve post-retirement) for 34 years, and then as someone "fully retired", I'm more concerned thinking about any potential for "multiple misses" than multiple attackers.

Of course, what's considered acceptable as an "informed decision" is likely to be interpreted differently by a lot of folks. TANSTAAFL.

Always ... TANSTAAFL.

 

[Ernie Bass]

-----------------

 

[Kleanbore]

Sounds good, but you seem to be among those who believe revolver carriers are making a mistake.

No.

Are revolver carriers simply not well-enough informed?

Not necessarily.

 

[Kleanbore]

It's.... a "gearcentric" question. From that perspective, it might further beg the question of whether any particular person ought to be giving more consideration to their ability to effectively use their choice of gear in whatever circumstances are being anticipated.

Yes indeed.

Pistols can also allow lighter and shorter trigger pulls compared to DA/DAO revolvers. These influences have certainly driven the selection of pistols over revolvers when it comes to duty weapons carried on the belt.

Yes indeed.

It has been my observation that people tend to realize that in the initial stages of training.

 

[Pat Riot]

If you just carry a J, ever shoot it on the move or

Yes. I don’t move as fast as I used to but, yes.