Is the revolver really a practical defensive weapon?

[LeonCarr]

I hope someone trys the "grab the cylinder" thing. If he is not shot in the fracas, the hot gases from the cylinder gap will eat through the perp's hand, and he will be easier to identify .

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[oneiron]

Yes. It was part of the FBI instructors program for a new police officer on the Savannah Police Department in 1962. There are other ways to handle the automatic beside pushing on the slide. If you have your hand on the slide push the barrel to the left for a right handed fellow and break his finger.
Don't let the perp get inside 20 feet. If you pull your gun shoot.

 

[Sato Ord]

I'm going to wade in on this one. I'll probably say a few things that some folks will disagree with, and that's fine. Just remember, if you can't be nice when you reply, at least try and either make me laugh or call me something new and creative.

As far as fifteen round mags, big deal. Now you can flatten light ammo against the sides of buildings faster than the guy with the revolver. Bullets don't go where you want them to, they go where they are aimed; if you hit your target it doesn't matter how many rounds are left in the mag.

Also, running out of ammo is not the usual end of most civilian fire fights. Most civilian fire fights are over with no more than three to five rounds fired total. Not three to five from each side, but three to five total, and the best placed shots win the contest.

As I've said, I'll leave the high capacity mags to the grunts in the military and law enforcement who have the manpower to soak up the casualties. All I have out there in the street is me. I can't call backup and chances are, if the fight ain't over when the backup arrives, they are just as apt to shoot me as they are the bad guys. I prefer to make darn sure the fight is over, and my weapon is not in my hands when the police get there.

As for combat reload, you most likely won't have to reload: three to five rounds, remember?

As for any other advantage of the autoloader, there are drawbacks also. I just got back from the range. I fired a Sig, my P-38, a 1928 police colt .38 revolver and a .50 Desert Eagle. While you wouldn't want to have been on the wrong end of the range from me with any of those weapons, I, of course, did the best with my own Walther, but, of the other weapons, I did best with the revolver because they were all unfamiliar and the autos were a bit quirky and required more time on the range to get used the individuality of them. The Desert Eagle is just a beast, and it's like throwing a dollar at the target every time you pull the trigger.

The guy in the next firing lane kept ejecting his magazine by accident, effectively shutting down the range as well as his weapon. He may strike you as an idiot, but he was a nice kid, and just wasn't familiar with the weapon. You would probably be amazed at the number of times this has happened in a shoot out. A lot of people have been killed because in the pitched heat of battle they simply tried for too hard a grip and wrapped their thumbs, or fingers too far around and ejected the mag on their colt, or browning; or they simply hit the eject with their off hand. Even if you don't have a magazine safety, not having a magazine means that you no longer have any of that mega ammo you were bragging about.

As I have stated in other posts, my most recent purchase was a .380, and I am looking for a .45 acp. However, I have absolutely nothing against revolvers and I think that using them is a matter of personal preference.

 

[19-3Ben]

Sato, Great post. Well said, on all points.
And I didn't even have to call you names!!!

 

[Seven For Sure]

I'm a revolver fan in my heart and I enjoy shooting them more than autos. I carry autos because they are thinner, smaller, lighter and have a higher capacity. I can shoot them faster. I can reload them faster (even faster than my 646 w/ moonclips). My glock 23 is the same size as my 3" 686+. It has exactly twice the capacity, bigger, heavier bullets. I shoot revolvers for enjoyment and hunting which is enjoyable for me also (I can afford to go to Publix). I'm more accurate with my revolvers, especially after 20 yards. Those are my thoughts and experiences. I usually keep a revolver by my bedside and in my truck because I like to.

It's so nice to have options! Revolvers look and feel so much better IMO.

 

[Timthinker]

One of our members once made an excellent point about this topic last year. That contributor said he would prefer a semi-auto pistol for offense and a revolver for defense. I agree with his outlook. Military and law enforcement officers have a greater need for firepower than civilians as a general rule. True, there are exceptions. But as a civilian, I am quite comfortable with a revolver for self-defense. I also agree with those who talk about the "comfort factor". If you are more comfortable with a revolver, then stay with it.


Timthinker

 

[Guillermo]

The auto loaders that I use are simply tools. Most are plastic framed striker pistols made by Glock, and Springfield. More often than not I carry an NAA Guardian .380. Rarely a day goes by when I don’t handle a pistol. Every one functions flawlessly. If I lost one I would replace it.

My revolvers are somehow different. The Colts and Smiths seem more like friends. If I lost them I would replace them but I would miss the originals.

Is such an attitude logical?

Of course not.

 

[george29]

I carried an FN High Power for ten years in uniform, loved the gun. Three spare mags, all loaded with ten (save the springs) gave me 40 shots. It was a natural pointer and I was very good with it. My first gun was my grampas WW1 Colt 1911, stupidly, I traded it for a 686.
I agree with Florida1098, perps don't work alone, and a semi-auto is probably a more reasonable weapon to carry and I believe the Glocks and the Colts and the Brownings are just as reliable as any revolver, it's just a matter of training usually and anyone who has ever had their revolver cylinder lock up on them knows that in a gunfight that is a death knell, whereas any type of misfire from a semi auto can be cleared using one technique for all of the different misfires and one is back in the fight. Sand will lock up a revolver, not so most semi autos (Army tests not mine).
So why do I carry a revolver? Two reasons, no compressed springs to go bad just when you need it most (and as a regular joe not looking for trouble, I hope to never use my gun in self defense), I love the .44 caliber, slow and lumbersome like a slow moving freight train, and the platform I use goes straight in my pocket.
For all practical purposes of SD, especially multi-perps, a semi auto is probably better.
I once carried a G-17 backed up by a Taurus 905, great combo, I just wanted a better hitter so I got the 44c.

 

[2ndamd]

I have to say this is a very good discussion with many good points.
I was thinking the revolver for defense and auto for offense philosophy just last week. Very well put.

So many others have said well thoughtout responses. Good discussion.

When training new shooters I (we) try to give the statiscal scenario of a gun fight. Needing more than five rounds in a gunfight is about the same chance as your next airplane flight ending in a crash.

We can all recall the Miami/Dade shootout and the North Hollywood shootout. But, that is very far from real world and actually revolvers would have been just fine in each instance (too long to explain). But, we can each remember a famous person (s) being killed in an airplane crash (Buddy Holly, JFK Jr etc....) Statiscally the chances of you being in a gunfight is small. Needing more than five shots in said fight is even smaller.

Statiscally, revolvers are very viable defensive sidearms.

Anecdotally: we can all remember times when more firepower was needed. But, we can remember airplanes going down too. Do you still fly the friendly skies? I do and I carry revolvers.

ps I actually carry 2 snubbies for 10 shots

PSS bring a rifle/shotgun if you "know" you are going into harms way.

psss this is a good discussion.

 

[cowssurf]

I love my 9, and I love my .357. The smooth DA trigger pull is truly a beautiful thing. I think I point my 9 a little better. But it's pretty tough for a revolver not to go bang when you pull the trigger. I know modern semi-autos are pretty dang reliable, but still, the wheelgun is like a swiss clock. Click-bang, click-bang, everytime.

 

[fatguynlittlecoat]

shotty will git er done

 

[bdjansen]

All I want to worry about in a defensive situation is point and pull trigger. I have had FTF's with Glocks, M&Ps, XDs, 1911s, Ruger P series. They are still great guns but I'll take the revolver. I've never had a FTF with a revolver ever.

 

[3 gun]

Yes. I'm sure to be carrying a revolver if I'm somewhere that four legged problems roam. Sure 10mm will handles beasties but I don't have a 10mm.

A 5 shot 357mag in SS with CT grips is my "everyday" pistol about 70% of the time. A 357 will handle anything I'm likely to bump into in N.E.Ohio. I move up to 44mag if I'm in a very rural area. Black bears have been seen, not the time to have a 9x18 Mak with you.

You really have to balance who, what, where and how; when you talk about practical. Revolvers fit into my situation.

 

[Jim March]

We can all recall the Miami/Dade shootout and the North Hollywood shootout. But, that is very far from real world and actually revolvers would have been just fine in each instance (too long to explain).

The short form of this is, sometimes really serious tactical screwups can be salvaged by the application of a metric buttload of fire .

Keep your head and odds are you won't need to salvage things.

 

[Defensory]

Posted by cowssurf
But it's pretty tough for a revolver not to go bang when you pull the trigger. I know modern semi-autos are pretty dang reliable, but still, the wheelgun is like a swiss clock. Click-bang, click-bang, everytime.

Dream on!

I was at the range just last week, and two people had revolvers that failed to fire.

Here's a typical revolver malfunction at a cowboy shoot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xl92P_mVDM

 

[Defensory]

Posted by WHW
But, in a combat defensive situation, protecting family in a restaurant, or people on the street, the more rounds available, the quicker reload and the easier trigger pull would only lead me to a semi, ( for me nothing but Glock). Almost every encounter where I drew involved multiple bad guys. Most men ( bad guys) from my experience do not act alone. they are not strong enough .The gang mentality of two or more is prevalent now....So I guess what I really am saying is I love revolvers, they still have a place, just from what I am seeing in today's world I myself will try to meet fire with fire and carry and use in a defensive threat situation a semi-auto Glock 45 or 40. I will never forget when one of our cops with his female partner emptied his revolver on a perp in a basement, tried to reload, and the skell walked up on him and shot him in the head while his partner froze and stared....I want to feel good about carrying a revolver, but a semi-auto seems to be the smart bet.

Thanks for your input. Unlike so many of the posts in this thread, yours is based on real life experience.

I agree completely that a semi-auto is the smart bet, especially in an era where multi-perp home invasions are commonplace. If three heavily armed thugs bust in my house, I want more than six rounds before having to reload.

 

[AStone]

Unlike so many of the posts in this thread, yours is based on real life experience.

I see.

So, you've done the stats on this thread,
and can tell us what proportion of posts are based on
conjecture, fiction and other forms of "non" real life experience.

What is that proportion, exactly?

And, of course, you have done a Chi square test to make sure
those proportions of real v fake posts are significantly different, right?

 

[Master Blaster]

Nah, You need an auto loader with at least 17 rounds, 33 is better.
That way if you are ever attacked by the gangs of NY or zombies you will be prepared.


I recommend a Glock 17, 19, or 26.


I usually carry a Smith & Wesson 642 5 round revolver with good ammo and two extra speed loaders, I dont feel at all underarmed.

 

[scottishclaymore]

First, major props to all of the intelligent people here who are contributing their thoughts and ideas. That's what makes these kind of places work.

Until the high-capacity "wonder-nines" and similar guns came out, there wasn't really a whole lot of question as to the effectiveness of revolvers (6 shots on average, 5 for snubbies and 7 or 8 for big frames) or older semi-auto designs (7+1 - 8+1) in combat. They did the job when it counted.

The original question of this thread was: are revolvers still a viable personal defense weapon, or are they outdated? I would have to answer with an emphatic: "Yes, they're still a perfectly viable solution to the problem!"

The major advantage bottom-feeders have over wheelguns is their mag capacity. Personally, that consideration is fairly secondary to me. If I'm going somewhere where I think I'm going to need copious amounts of ammunition, I've got an SKS with 10, 20, 30, and 50 round magazines. Now, if you feel like you need to have 16+1 shots on your hip just to be on the safe side, that's fine.

I would say it ultimately comes down to what you are most comfortable with -- that's why I think the most convincing arguments made in favor of semi-autos are when guys post here and say "Yeah, Revolvers are OK, but I'm more comfortable with the semi-auto." Ultimately, you should shoot whatever you are the most confident with. Having shot plenty of both, I've never found an auto that felt as good in my hand as a revolver did.

I'm not old enough for a CHL permit yet, but you can bet the day that I am my first purchase is going to be a wheelie.

 

[WHW]

Quote --- scottishclaymore

"Until the high-capacity "wonder-nines" and similar guns came out, there wasn't really a whole lot of question as to the effectiveness of revolvers (6 shots on average, 5 for snubbies and 7 or 8 for big frames) or older semi-auto designs (7+1 - 8+1) in combat. They did the job when it counted."


Thanks to scottishclaymore. Of all the intelligent posts, the above is the most salient point of all.

whw

 

[Matt-J2]

Couple points:
1. This would have been better in the general handguns section, as the revolver section is clearly going to be a bit biased. if you post it in general and there's still very few dissenting opinions, then you know it's gold.
2. The cops finding your brass is only an issue if you shoot someone then leave the scene. At that point, you've got bigger issues to worry about, methinks. I'd have to wonder about someone who intends for that to happen, as well.

 

[AStone]

This would have been better in the general handguns section, as the revolver section is clearly going to be a bit biased.

Matt has a good point there.

Could be that if you ask a mod, they might move the thread over to General for you.

 

[RyanM]

One of our members once made an excellent point about this topic last year. That contributor said he would prefer a semi-auto pistol for offense and a revolver for defense.

Best defense is a good offense.

In any case, though, I think some people are underestimating the number of rounds that may be required.

Good article that's sorta on the subject, by the FBI. One of my favorites to link to, when discussing realistic load choices and capacities. http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2004/oct2004/oct04leb.htm#page_15

In the authors’ ongoing study of violence against law enforcement officers, they have examined several cases where officers used large-caliber hand guns with limited effect displayed by the offenders. In one case, the subject attacked the officer with a knife. The officer shot the individual four times in the chest; then, his weapon malfunctioned. The offender continued to walk toward the officer. After the officer cleared his weapon, he fired again and struck the subject in the chest. Only then did the offender drop the knife. This individual was hit five times with 230-grain, .45-caliber hollow-point ammunition and never fell to the ground. The offender later stated, “The wounds felt like bee stings.”

In another case, officers fired six .40-caliber, hollow-point rounds at a subject who pointed a gun at them. Each of the six rounds hit the individual with no visible effect. The seventh round severed his spinal cord, and the offender fell to the ground, dropping his weapon. This entire firefight was captured by several officers’ in-car video cameras.

In a final case, the subject shot the victim officer in the chest with a handgun and fled. The officer, wearing a bullet-resistant vest, returned gunfire. The officer’s partner observed the incident and also fired at the offender. Subsequent investigation determined that the individual was hit 13 times and, yet, ran several blocks to a gang member’s house. He later said, “I was so scared by all those shots; it sounded like the Fourth of July.” Again, according to the subject, his wounds “only started to hurt when I woke up in the hospital.” The officers had used 9-millimeter, department-issued ammunition. The surviving officers re ported that they felt vulnerable.

They wondered if they had done some thing wrong that caused their injury or placed them in the proximity of physical danger. They also wondered if they would react differently if faced with a similar situation.

These types of occurences may not be all that rare, either. People do all kinds of crazy things when fatally wounded. I believe the actual statistic is that about 40%-60% of people who are shot will flee, fall down, surrender, or otherwise be psychologically incapacitated, regardless of the severity of the wound.

Roughly 50/50 are not betting odds. The only way to definitely stop a threat is to take out the central nervous system. Either directly, with a bullet to the brain or upper spine, or indirectly through blood loss. More holes means more blood loss. More holes also increases your chances of tagging something major.

It might take only 1 round of .22 LR to stop a 300 pound crackhead. It might legitimately take 20 shots of .44 magnum to stop an 80 year old granny who decided to take pot shots at you for no reason.

"Statistics" are irrelevant to choosing a firearm. You want to prepare for the worst scenario you possibly can without overly inconveniencing yourself, while hoping for the best.

Now, if you do better with revolvers, by all means, go for it. You'd only be handicapping yourself, using a platform you're not as good with. Shooting well always takes priority over number of shots. But don't count on 5, 6, 7, or 8 shots "statistically" being enough. The limited capacity of a revolver is a disadvantage. Hell, the limited capacity of an 18 shot automatic is a disadvantage compared to a 30 shot EBR.

And regardless of how many shots you have, make every single one count. The parable of the archer never holding a second arrow in his off-hand is a lie. You can shoot just as accurately with a wondernine as with a T/C Contender, if the mechanical accuracy of the weapon is up to it. Concentrate on firing each shot individually. Have the mindset that every single shot is the shot that matters, because it is.

 

[DougDubya]

The Miami Dade firefight was mentioned.

Funny, the offenders in that exchange were finished off by one man with a six-shot revolver when wondernines and even a 12 gauge shotgun failed to anchor the cop-killers.

But hey, a real life, much-documented firefight isn't preparation for armed Bulgarian gun smugglers looking to rape 8 year-olds in the public bathroom at the mall, right?

 

[littlegator]

Well, my auto holds 17+1, which are used thusly (in choronological order):
1) fire a shot across the bow to warn the perp;
2) fire another shot across the stern in case the first shot wasn't noticed;
3) shots 3 through 8 are fired into the chest area, taking into consideration the moving target and possible misses;
4) shots 9 through 12 are fired at the head in order to stop the person in case the 9mm bullet overpenetrates and misses all vital organs as it is wont to do;
5) shots 13 through 16 are because I don't practice enough and it's always good to practice;
6) shot 17 is shot in the air in a victory discharge;
7) shot 18 is to wound myself to make it look like self defense (hoping the forensics team misses that one...)

Now how in the world am I going to be able to pack all that in with a wheely?