Modern combat revolver?

[SharpsDressedMan]

I just posted the "revolver grab" to make some aware that a person can get lucky and disable a revolver, and that it might be good tactical awareness to keep the revolver in the tight tuck, next to the side, if in CQB with a combatant in arms reach, and be prepared to fire if thee is a grab for the gun.

 

[Gary K]

All good points, whether in ACUs halfway around the world, or in a suit in any big city.

 

[Ed Ames]

Battlefield? Not likely.

In vehicles? Throwing around spent cartridge cases can lead to trouble. Some vehicles have controls that can be physically obstructed (under pedals, jamming bell cranks, blocking levers, etc.), some vehicles have (or may develop) exposed wiring (e.g. behind instrument or breaker panels) that a nice conductive cartridge case can short, and that's not counting the secure footing issue. The more the vehicle is expected to bounce around (light aircraft = a LOT), and the more little nooks and crannies there are for cases to be lost or lodged, the more likely it is to be raised as an issue. If the right people think it's a problem, revolvers will be issued to reduce the risk.

 

[Erik]

I think you overstate the concern re semi autos in vehicles, if it ever was one. Mind you, there's a bit more evidence regarding vehicle mounted fighting in the past few years than, oh I don't know... ever.

 

[AStone]

For military combat, a handgun is an emergency weapon... close quarters self defense...

.38 spl snubs are called "belly guns".

Given a choice, I'll take my .30-30 carbine for SD,
but if push comes to in-my-face, the snub will do fine.

It seems to me that this thread is suffering from too much analysis of details.

Arguments have been advanced that revolvers are inferior because of
1) damaged cranes (when dropped or flicked), and 2) disabled cylinders.

Answer to 1: Don't "flick" a revolver closed like in the movies. Close it smoothly.

Answer 2: Don't let a bg close enough to grab a cylinder. Situational awareness.

In reality, in any situation, there are factors that could disable both revolvers and semis.

Recommendation: Stop sweating the details.

Carry what feels best to you,
study and understand it well,
practice with it diligently.

Chances are, you'll be fine.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

In nearly all military applications, volume of fire wins over pure accuracy or sheer power of one round any day. If you throw more rounds in the direction on the bad guys, they don't have to even all hit them, and they don't have to be all that powerful of rounds; you're still gonna win the fight. A hi-cap 9mm semi-auto is PERFECT for combat purposes. Combat is not a place where you slowly draw your sidearm, assume a proper shooting stance, line up your sights, control your breathing and squeeze the trigger to let loose one well placed powerful shot. Combat is where you are jogging through a dusty building with sweat pouring down your face, your heart pounding at 200bpm, and the adrenaline rush killing your fine motor skills. Your pistol comes into play as you breach into a room, see 2 target bringing their AKs to bear as your M4 jams on the first round. This is when you draw your combat pistol and try to throw as many rounds towards the targets before they can unload on you and your battle buddies. Are all of my pistol rounds going to hit the bad guys? Nope. Are some of them going to hit the bad guys. I sure hope so.

If I'm using my pistol, it's because something is wrong with my rifle RIGHT NOW. And I'm gonna fire 15 rounds. 15 chances to kill the targets before they kill me. Not 5, not 6, and not 8. 15.

 

[Ed Ames]

I think you overstate the concern re semi autos in vehicles, if it ever was one. Mind you, there's a bit more evidence regarding vehicle mounted fighting in the past few years than, oh I don't know... ever.

Naw, you're just limiting your view too much. Broaden your horizon a bit. A vehicle is, "any self-propelled device, for example, an aircraft or a car, tank, or truck, designed to transport people as well as cargo."

The most common vehicle mounted fighting done today is from a few ground vehicles (some of which have to be modified, e.g. by replacing the floors with gratings to allow spent cases to fall through)...not the only, of course, but most. Now move into airplane/helicopter cockpits and other areas not designed for shootin' from. That's what I'm talking about.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Exactly which combat vehicles today have gratings instead of floors? Methinks that if pistol casings can fall through the floor, the blast from an IED shouldn't have much trouble getting in...

 

[Ed Ames]

IEDs are only a problem for occupying or invading forces. Basically that means Americans and their ilk in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's a small subset.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C73EZOM0nrY

Skip to 6:20.

I've seen videos of other similarly armed vehicles where you could see the road through the floor from the gunner's position.

 

[rogertc1]

Dardick be yours for only $700.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=139747184

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Most BGs will grab the closest piece of weapon to them in a scuffle, and attempt to get leverage and gain possession of the weapon or at least try to control where it points, not reach past the barrel and grab the cylinder.

How do we know this to be true? Are there any reliable statistics? Can we show that BGs are more likely to take an automatic out of battery than to grab the cylinder of a revolver?

 

[Gary K]

"How do we know this to be true? Are there any reliable statistics? Can we show that BGs are more likely to take an automatic out of battery than to grab the cylinder of a revolver?"

I don't know the answers to those questions... I trust the instructors of the CQB and pre-deployment Air Advisors CST courses to know what they're talking about. I doubt they just made it up, it's a rather humorless bunch very serious about their job.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I trust the instructors of the CQB and pre-deployment Air Advisors CST courses to know what they're talking about.

Then do you believe they have the statistics?

And for the record, did they actually say, "BGs will typically grab for the barrel and not the cylinder?"

 

[Gary K]

I don't know what they have for statistics, but typically courses are built off experience from real world ops fed back into the training pipeline. So my assumption is that some statistics from previous wars are used, coupled with analysis of one-on-one scuffles in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The exact words used during courses indicated the bad guys will go for the barrel, the part closest to them with the easiest handhold to gain leverage, to try to remove the weapon from the hand, not further back on the weapon. During breakout sessions later the topic of revolvers came up and instructors dismissed the idea of a BG deliberately grabbing a cylinder with the intent to prevent firing. Things happen too fast when a sidearm is drawn to bypass the easiest to grab part in favor of a less favorable handhold.

As the FNG here I'm not trying to create a ruckus, merely point at that an across the board statement that revolvers have no use in modern combat is too sweeping a statement, there are pockets of specialized use where revolvers may be better suited than the generic M9. Based off discussions with fellow trainees and instructors who deal with these questions on a regular basis it's apparent within the military the use of autos instead of revolvers isn't unanimous in all situations.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I don't know what they have for statistics, but typically courses are built off experience from real world ops fed back into the training pipeline. So my assumption is that some statistics from previous wars are used, coupled with analysis of one-on-one scuffles in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I was in the business myself for many years. I know how urban legends and personal bias can affect instruction.

I maintain there is no evidence or data showing BGs go for the barrel as opposed to the cylinder in hand-to-hand combat. And even if there were, BGs learn and adapt their tactics just as we do -- so if that's what they did in the past and it turned out badly for them, they've probably revised their training by now.

 

[DougDubya]

Yep, in fact you can ruin a good revolver by simply snapping the cylinder shut as they do in the movies.

You can ruin the timing of a revolver, but only if it happens to be a Colt. And you do it regularly because you saw Peter Gunn do it every week with his Detective Special.

 

[crunch14]

Can officers still purchase their own sidearms? If so, are there restrictions? Remember, Patton had his .357 and his SAA as late as 1945.

As of early 2003 when I deployed to Iraq no military personnel were allowed to use personal weapons (my Uncle offered to let me take his GP-100). SF and the like are excluded I would assume but I was a Sapper. Although we were allowed to purchase accessories if so desired. One of our NCO's went on a Tacti-cool buying spree. Bi-pod, 2 100rnd mags, 3-9 counter-sniper scope, desert tan stock and foregrips "professional" shooting gloves. The dude looked like a walking advertisement for The Sportsmans Guide, it was quite entertaining.