damned spell check!
Is the revolver enough for defense?
- Thread starter 357smallbore
- Start date
- Status
Ernie Bass
member
I doubt these fella's complained much weather Wyatt used a SA Colt of a Glock. I guess we could go back in time to try and win a debate on which gun is better. Custer probably would not have turned down a AR with 30 rd mags. So what? Does not mean I will be carrying one. I carry both the Semi and Revolver. Shoot both well and totally competent in my skills. Someone that shoots competition is not going to change anything for myself. Yes I carry both, but now seem to walk out the door with a Snubbie more all the time.And by the way, the LCR22 cal is by far my favorite plinker.
Bottom line is the picture below. The bad guys are dead and not complaining.And by the way Wyatt was a LE.
Last edited:
The Evangelist Cowboy
Member
You can't take it back... you get to know when the money was hid and I'll know where the money is hid
we could team up like in Good,Bad, and UglyI can come up with Cro-magnon skeletons that forensic anthropologists have determined were killed with a rock. Carry one of those.
Also are you arguing that if you are shot, you will go to a Doc Hollliday type physician for treatment?
Boy, lots of folks are so ego involved here. Carry what you want.
Also are you arguing that if you are shot, you will go to a Doc Hollliday type physician for treatment?
Boy, lots of folks are so ego involved here. Carry what you want.
mcb
Member
In threads like this I think it's somewhat important to make the distinction between sufficient and best/optimal.
The revolver is sufficient. I think most of us would agree, based on all the previous documented examples of modern self-defense that we can read about, that in a very large percentage of those self-defense situations a competent shooter could survive them using a revolver.
The revolver is not the best/optimal. I think it is hard to argue the revolver is more capable than a modern double stack semi-auto, again assuming equal competence with both. Technology has made the revolver obsolete in that sense.
A carburetor is still sufficient to run a car engine on, fuel injectors are more fuel efficient and produce higher performance. The carburetor is obsolete in vehicle size engines
A shaper is still sufficient for cutting steel and have yet become completely replaced by CNC mills in nearly all industry. The Shaper is obsolete in industry relegate to super specialized uses and hobby shops
An ax will still cut a tree down, a chainsaw sure does it better. The ax is obsolete for felling timber relegated to a utilitarian support roll driving wedges and not much else.
I own more axes and revolvers than chainsaws and semi-autos but I have couple of each. I only own a CNC mill but I sure wish I had a shaper (second only to a good lathe).
-rambling!
The revolver is sufficient. I think most of us would agree, based on all the previous documented examples of modern self-defense that we can read about, that in a very large percentage of those self-defense situations a competent shooter could survive them using a revolver.
The revolver is not the best/optimal. I think it is hard to argue the revolver is more capable than a modern double stack semi-auto, again assuming equal competence with both. Technology has made the revolver obsolete in that sense.
A carburetor is still sufficient to run a car engine on, fuel injectors are more fuel efficient and produce higher performance. The carburetor is obsolete in vehicle size engines
A shaper is still sufficient for cutting steel and have yet become completely replaced by CNC mills in nearly all industry. The Shaper is obsolete in industry relegate to super specialized uses and hobby shops
An ax will still cut a tree down, a chainsaw sure does it better. The ax is obsolete for felling timber relegated to a utilitarian support roll driving wedges and not much else.
I own more axes and revolvers than chainsaws and semi-autos but I have couple of each. I only own a CNC mill but I sure wish I had a shaper (second only to a good lathe).
-rambling!
Last edited:
A defensive tool, strategy, or skill-set will either be sufficient, or it will not.
One cannot rely upon that. The statement "a revolver may be expected to be to be sufficient" would be correct.
I don't know the real percentage, but I would not bet my life on "could survive".
shoebox1.1
Member
“What kinda pistols y’all carry? Ma’am we got both kinds “smith” and “Wesson”!
mcb
Member
And yet, given the evidence in this thread, and many similar to it here and on other forums, there are many of us that DO bet our lives on a revolver. I personally carry a revolver and I don't even lie to myself thinking that a revolver is the best choice. I know a good double stack semi-auto 9mm handgun is probably the best I could chose from what is available on the market (still holding out for a phased plasma rifle in the 40 Watt range) and yet I choose the revolver more often than not (the only 9mm I own is a revolver). I don't have a death wish I simply see the odds differently than others (humans are really ****ty at evaluating probability and allowing consequences to skew that bad evaluation even more) and have come to grips with my perception of those risks and am comfortable.
Yes. At one time, gentlemen bet their lives on short bladed weapons. Later, a brace of single shot muzzleloading pocket pistols came into vogue. Later still, repeating pocket pistols were commonly carried.
Those were the best choices available in their respective eras.
Several score years ago, civilian concealed carry became uncommon.
Colt stopped making six shot snubs. GCA '68 drove many small semi-autos off the market. The five shot Smith remained available and was ubiquitous on store shelves. It starred in screen fiction and was well known to the public
When the popularity of concealed carry became popular, many people acquired the familia and assumed-to-be-effective J frame revolvers.
Few of them had any concept whatsoever of how quickly a violent attack will most usually unfold, or about the difficulty of hitting fast-moving targets. Screen fiction had given them a much-exaggerated idea of the "knock-down" effectiveness of handguns, and they assumed one-shot stops to be common. They practiced shooting slowly at stationary targets on the square range.
Most of the people I knew who started carrying concealed fell into that category.
So did I.
I bought a light-weight D/A five shot revolver and a pocket holster.
I was "comfortable"--for a time.
Some realistic training, some knowledge of handgun wounding mechanics, and a lot of reflection eliminated that subjective feeling.
I do carry a revolver from time to time, but it is a six shot firearm with a very good trigger pull, good sights, and sufficient weight to help with controlled rapid fire.
It is not my first choice. I prefer nine shots and an even better trigger pull.
I am risk-averse. We drive a safe car. There are more nan one fire extinguisher on each floor.
I do not expect to have a collision or a fire, and while have been involved in more than one DGU,cI really do not expect to be victimized by violent criminals.
But I do choose readiness.
mcb
Member
If someone with similar training and experience chooses to carry a higher capacity gun than your choosen 9 rd handgun are they more ready than you?
So no? Yes? Maybe?
Sooo many variables.
Sooo much theoretical speculation.
In some scenarios 12 grenades, a rifle and 400 rds of ammunition wont be enough!!
The question is "is the revolver good enough for defense?"
I think it's fairly easy to say (in most cases) Yes.
The answer is yes, period, if one would be satisfied with "in most cases".
For outcomes involving the possibility of death or serious injury , "most" is not acceptable to me.
mcb
Member
I agree the revolver is very frequently good enough and yet we cannot escape the fact that as a self defense handgun technology is basically obsolete. The modern semi-auto pistol offers equal or better performance in almost all the ways that matter for self-defense. But that is OK we can still carry our revolvers, even with that acknowledgement.
But the semi-auto only offers an ever so slightly higher percentage of "most", it does not give you an "all", still just "most..."
Then I would suggest an AR pistol with a 30rd mag, with a full mag in your pocket.
....and a similarly armed bodyguard.
That would take you (successfully) from "most" to "almost all" in any scenario.
Last edited:
Nothing will provide certainty.
But there are varying degrees of likelihood.
"Most of the time, patients survive the procedure without serious loss of function" is not a a very reassuring assessment. Would you go with that?
Medical practitioners are a lot more precise.
For our discussion, there are many variables and little data. On could model the likelihood, but one would end up with tremendous. It wouldn't be worth the trouble.
One might lamely joke that thirty rounds and a reload could take the likelihood of failure to some miniscule number, but it wouldn't--there are practical limitations, such as time available. And round count, which is a major driver in the provability that something critical within the body will be destroyed and effect a physical stop, is but one variable.
In risk management, we characterize the likelihood of risks in such terms as much greater than remote, greater than remote, remote, less than remote, far less than remote, etc.
In this as in many other contexts, a lot of judgment is involved.
What becomes key is the severity of the potential consequences.
If it is the case that a 30% hit rate, which is not unreasonable, and a need for four total hits in an incident, which is not unreasonable either, will afford me a 3% chance of success with five shots, I'm not going to chance it.
I had been doing so, until that was pointed out to me.
By the way, the advantage of six shots over five is greater than might be intuitively assumed.
It goes up from there.
Of course, there is the law of diminishing returns, defined by little things such as time.
I would pefer a capacity of twelve. Rob Pincus recommeds ten plus one for a single column pistol. He knows a whole lot more than I do, but I have accepted nine.
And yet there are those that would claim you are woefully unprepared.
And in certain scenarios, however unlikely these scenarios are, they would be right.
Last edited:
MIOkie
Member
Any advantage is better than none.
I do not like to carry a gun on me. When I am not walking about in one place or another... it gets taken out of the waistband and set down.
Sometimes it gets locked up... depending on whether its legal to carry or not.
Something small and lightweight serves that purpose well... namely a five shot snubby.
For some reason I can’t explain, I do not like semi-autos... I shoot them OK, I just have no fondness for them.
The Wife, on the other hand, despises revolvers (God only knows why), and is all into her semi-autos.
So I roll the dice that my five shots will buy me enough time to get to a bigger gun, or better yet, over to the Wife who has all the bullets.
I do not like to carry a gun on me. When I am not walking about in one place or another... it gets taken out of the waistband and set down.
Sometimes it gets locked up... depending on whether its legal to carry or not.
Something small and lightweight serves that purpose well... namely a five shot snubby.
For some reason I can’t explain, I do not like semi-autos... I shoot them OK, I just have no fondness for them.
The Wife, on the other hand, despises revolvers (God only knows why), and is all into her semi-autos.
So I roll the dice that my five shots will buy me enough time to get to a bigger gun, or better yet, over to the Wife who has all the bullets.
Yep.
Unless the attacker is in your your home, and you were in it at the outset, and h does not depart, "getting to a bigger gun", and if you could do so, would not be helpful--you would not be able to use it lawfully.
And your response to them would be..?
I would ignore them, unless they had presented sometihng in the way of a coherent, fact-based substantiation of their assertion.
Otherwise I would consider it and respond appropriately.
Without knowing their reason, I cannot respond.
So you would ignore them?
Or consider what they said as valid?
So it would depend on what scenario they presented?
Do you feel that members here that carry revolvers may ignore your input?
- Status
Similar threads
