Reliability, an observation

[Warp]

Do the police have a tendency do get stalked up on and attacked with the element of surprise on their side?

Both police and private citizens are assaulted by attacker who have surprise on [the attacker's] side.

Do criminals assume the police are armed when engaging in violence against them do they make the same assumption when casing a perspective victim?

What are the implications to your answer?

Do the police have a duty to de escalate a situation prior to a threshold for lethal force is met?

The police are absolutely tasked with deescalating situations when possible.

You are not the police. The engagement you are likely to encounter is just as different as if you were citing shootings in an active war zone to support your assertions.

Disagree.

In an active war zone you would likely be facing soldiers who are armed as such.

As has been pointed out, the private citizen and the police officer are likely to encounter the exact same criminals armed in exactly the same way. After all, many times the police don't show up until after the criminals have already preyed upon the private citizen.

 

[R.W.Dale]

So you think that the police are getting robbed, raped, assaulted and car jacked just as often in uniform as civilians?

Are "home invasions" at the police station now a thing?

The difference is basic and fundamental.

An attacker is actively trying to get into your personal space to do whatever they have in mind.

With the police they are trying to get away.

I'm sure that police shootings that DO happen in the manner similar to civillian ones also don't involve a reload and don't have any room for a malfunction.

 

[B!ngoFuelUSN]

Wow, a rapidly degenerating thread. Wasn't this about the relative reliability of revolver versus semi-auto?
B

 

[R.W.Dale]

Wow, a rapidly degenerating thread. Wasn't this about the relative reliability of revolver versus semi-auto?
B

Yes and it needs to get back there but some people here would rather take that opportunity to impress upon the world how correct they are than use it as an opportunity to learn.

 

[Warp]

Irony.

 

[1911Tuner]

Since it's already gone a it sideways, I'll inject a little something else to think about for those who carry a hi-cap auto and two (or more) spare magazines.

Let's look first at the Martin/Zimmerman dog and pony show...and how much was made of the fact that George was carrying "A fully loaded semi-automatic pistol with a *gasp* chambered round."

Both the press and the prosecutor emphasized that fact over and over, and it came pretty close to making a difference. I know that it did in the public court based on some of the conversations I had and overheard.

"Well, if he didn't intend to shoot that boy, why in the world did he have a bullet in the chamber?"

I heard it. I tried to explain it a number of times, but it was no use.

Let's say that you're involved in a righteous shoot. The police show up, and confiscate your weapon...along with all the go-fight gear that you happen to be carrying...and you're carrying two 15-round magazines to reload that "fully loaded with a chambered round locked and loaded and ready to rock" semi-automatic handgun with.

The press will have a field day with it. The public opinion will be formed before a jury is selected. The prosecutor will use it to try to crucify you...and he may be successful.

And if anyone truly believes that it won't matter because a good shoot is a good shoot and a good attorney will handle it...I think that you may be kidding yourself.

It could matter...and it very well might...because they'll paint you as a whackjob walking around with enough ammunition to fight a small war with LOOKING for a reason to shoot somebody.

"Why do you, as a private citizen, feel that you need to carry that much ammunition, Mr. Smith? Hmmm?"

At that point, at least a few of the jurors will be wondering the same thing, and if they skilled in the debating game, they could sway a couple more...and a couple more.

Now, let's look at another angle.

If you stay in the fight longer than it takes to shoot your way OUT of the arena...you'll be viewed less as a defender and more as a co-combatant...and carrying a 45-50-round combat load will lend credence to that assertion.

Remember that you have two fights to win.

Just a little food for thought.

 

[Warp]

"Why do you, as a private citizen, feel that you need to carry that much ammunition, Mr. Smith? Hmmm?"

Much like the Zimmerman case, the victim probably wouldn't take the stand, and wouldn't have to answer this question.

But, the way the world works, that is certainly a possibility. And part of the reason I only carry one spare magazine (for malfunctions)

Of course there are a number of logical, reasonable, easy-to-articulate answers to that question, but I think we all know that path well enough not to have to go down it again right now.

At that point, at least a few of the jurors will be wondering the same thing, and if they skilled in the debating game, they could sway a couple more...and a couple more.

Now, let's look at another angle.

If you stay in the fight longer than it takes to shoot your way OUT of the arena...you'll be viewed less as a defender and more as a co-combatant...and carrying a 45-50-round combat load will lend credence to that assertion.

Remember that you have two fights to win.

Just a little food for thought.

At what round count does it become a "combat load"?

I have never served, but talking to those that have...they'd laugh their keister off at you if you pretended as though a handgun with 50 rounds constituted a "combat load" (I hear a rifle with 210 rounds is the minimum).

I'm not sure we want to feed into the hysteria by claiming that a handgun and a few mags is something you'd plan to take into combat.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Warp: As has been pointed out, the private citizen and the police officer are likely to encounter the exact same criminals armed in exactly the same way.

Yes indeed.

But the nature of the encounters are likely to be different.

Private citizens do not go into bars to stop fights. They do not respond to calls about robberies or burglaries or domestic violence. They do not make traffic stops.

More importantly, a sworn officer has the duty to pursue and apprehend, or to disable a criminal who is shooting at others, rather than to simply defend himself and cease and desist. Implications pertain to ammunition supply considerations and to the likely maximum distance to the target. The latter would influence how one shout best train.

A police officer is more likely to have both a need to reload and the opportunity to do so than a private citizen acting in self defense.

But since every well known trainer emphasizes the need to be able to clear a malfunction, a defender carrying one extra magazine will be able to bring in expert witnesses to explain why it is the prudent thing to do, if need be, and if the defender can prove prior knowledge.

Two extras? Ayoob relates a case in which that was explained satisfactorily. But I'd rather explain only one.

To the original question (reliability)-- it has already been pointed out that shot-to-shot malfunction stats are but one aspect of the ability of the system to perform as intended.

If one were calculating safety projections for carrier landings, one would look at more than the mean times between failures for the engine and flight controls and the arresting hook, etc. One would also take into account thrust vs weight, pitch rate, fuel reserves, training, and a lot of other things.

Similarly, if one want to decide which firearm is most apt to reliably get one home in the event of a criminal attack, one will consider not only malfunction rates, but ammunition capacity, controllability, penetration, training, and a few other things.

 

[TestPilot]

That line of thought always makes me wonder why virtually nobody wears concealable soft body armour or similar. So much emphasis on shooting the guy who is trying to shoot you, but virtually nothing about protecting yourself from those incoming rounds.

There is not much difference in effort and cost between carrying a Glock 19 and carrying a K-frame revolver

There is a huge difference in effort and trouble betwen wearing a body armor and not wearing one.

Not to mention the cost differnce.

 

[TestPilot]

An attacker is actively trying to get into your personal space to do whatever they have in mind.

If you think that does not happen to police, apply your own advice to yourself, and learn.

I'm sure that police shootings that DO happen in the manner similar to civillian ones also don't involve a reload and don't have any room for a malfunction.

Plenty of cases where they got surprised at close range, and did end up going to reloads.

 

[TestPilot]

Deleted.

 

[TestPilot]

Since it's already gone a it sideways, I'll inject a little something else to think about for those who carry a hi-cap auto and two (or more) spare magazines.

While such things certainly can influence people's judgment, it should be weighed agaist preparation against threat level.

People tend to focus on high profile cases, but cases like Zimmerman is actually an exception rather than the norm. People have killed attackers with much larger guns than Zimmerman and got acquitted or never even charged at all.

We cannot start carrying empty chambered gun becausse some ignorant people thinks carrying loaded means intent to murder.

 

[Warp]

While such things certainly can influence people's judgment, it should be weighed agaist preparation against threat level.

People tend to focus on high profile cases, but cases like Zimmerman is actually an exception rather than the norm. People have killed attackers with much larger guns than Zimmerman and got acquitted or never even charged at all.

We cannot start carrying empty chambered gun becausse some ignorant people thinks carrying loaded means intent to murder.

Unfortunately for many of them it isn't ignorance, but something more sinister.

And if we changed our actions because of them we wouldn't own guns.

 

[jad0110]

While such things certainly can influence people's judgment, it should be weighed agaist preparation against threat level.

People tend to focus on high profile cases, but cases like Zimmerman is actually an exception rather than the norm. People have killed attackers with much larger guns than Zimmerman and got acquitted or never even charged at all.

We cannot start carrying empty chambered gun becausse some ignorant people thinks carrying loaded means intent to murder.

Emphasis added.

I agree, though it all goes back to the word "should" in your own post. Unfortunately, in many part of the country it doesn't work the way it ought to . I'm sure you understand that though. In the end, it doesn't change the way I carry. Fully loaded (revolver or auto) and 1 spare mag for semis and a max of two speed loaders for the round guns.

I am thankful that I live in gun friendly region of the country, though I still know that even that doesn't guarantee anything.

And if we changed our actions because of them we wouldn't own guns.

Sticking to core principles is a good thing. It should be done in a professional, and High Road manner of course, being that we should all consider ourselves as ambassadors of the 2nd amendment.

Yep, we are getting off topic.

 

[mboylan]

I think someone is FAR more likely to be killed by an empty six shooter than a jammed Glock or other modern pistol. Face it, when fed good ammunition a properly cleaned and lubed Glock is going to be virtually just as reliable as any revolver out there, but the amount of firepower the Glock brings to the fight is so drastically superior to the six shooter that the point is moot as far as reliability goes.

In short, I'm basically saying that in this day and age, any "benefit" of the "more reliable" revolver is simply overplayed. Glocks, Sigs, XDs, they are all almost flawlessly reliable if in good working condition and when using good ammo, but as actual combat (or defense) weapons they simply are on a different plane vs. the antiquated revolver.

Most gunfights on the streets are a few feet away and end in a few shots. Everything happens too fast. Civilian confrontations are very different from law enforcement confrontations.

 

[45_auto]

Most gunfights on the streets are a few feet away and end in a few shots. Everything happens too fast. Civilian confrontations are very different from law enforcement confrontations.

Most civilians never get in a gunfight at all. That's the way to bet if you're playing the percentages, if all you're worried about is what happens most of the time.

 

[razorback2003]

I have had a revolver lock up once. It was a pain getting that gun open. I of course have had semi autos jam.

Revolvers are less sensitive to ammo than semi autos. Semi Autos are easier to take a part and less sensitive to being dropped.

It is a toss up really to me with a little bit of reliability edge to the revolver for a person that just keeps a gun in a night stand.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by mboylan: Most gunfights on the streets are a few feet away and end in a few shots.

There are far, far too few data available to base any decisions on actual occurrences.

The few data we do have place most of the defensive shootings within a distance of five yards. That that is a reasonable assumption for decision-making purposes, and for training, is supported by expert opinion regarding the ability of an assailant with a contact weapon to inflict serious harm.

The number of shots that might be required is another question. How many hits might be needed? How many shots will the defender likely fire before he or she is even able to assess wither the assailant has been stopped? How many shots will likely be needed to score those shots? How many shots would the defender like to have left in the gun? How much of a safety margin would the defender like to have? All are judgment calls.

 

[hemiram]

I've had, sadly, a lot of bad guns. In the early to mid 80's and again in the early to mid 90's, I had runs of mostly brand new guns, with major issues. In the revolvers, I had a S&W 19 with some problems, most of them solved while shooting (Loose screws, ejector, etc), my Python's hand broke, and I had a Dan Wesson 15 that had been modified and was unsafe. All of those problems were totally resolved with a simple repair/adjustment. The bad semiautos were a whole different thing. If it wasn't something like a bad mag, with a follower that was badly molded, or broken, or the mag tune being distorted, the problem was usually bad enough that the gun needed a gunsmith or a "talented amateur" to resolve, if it was resolved at all. A lot of the problem semiautos had what I considered fatal issues and never got to the point I would trust them for use as anything but a range toy. Even for that, a couple of them were, like my brand new Colt Combat Commander, were so annoyingly bad, they were intolerable. Colt worked on it, twice. 2 gunsmiths worked on it, and it was called by both of them "Garbage". There was nothing right on that gun. Other problem semiautos included AMT Back UP and Hardballer Longslide, numerous Erma made .22LR PPK clones sold under many names (I never got a good one), and several others. Once the revolver's issues were resolved, many times just the ejector being tightened up, or something simple like that, it was fixed, and after test firing a couple of hundred rounds, I would trust them. The semiautos were never trustworthy, not one of them. I have 3 revolvers presently, and I would trust all of them.

 

[Warp]

I've had, sadly, a lot of bad guns. In the early to mid 80's and again in the early to mid 90's, I had runs of mostly brand new guns, with major issues. In the revolvers, I had a S&W 19 with some problems, most of them solved while shooting (Loose screws, ejector, etc), my Python's hand broke, and I had a Dan Wesson 15 that had been modified and was unsafe. All of those problems were totally resolved with a simple repair/adjustment. The bad semiautos were a whole different thing. If it wasn't something like a bad mag, with a follower that was badly molded, or broken, or the mag tune being distorted, the problem was usually bad enough that the gun needed a gunsmith or a "talented amateur" to resolve, if it was resolved at all. A lot of the problem semiautos had what I considered fatal issues and never got to the point I would trust them for use as anything but a range toy. Even for that, a couple of them were, like my brand new Colt Combat Commander, were so annoyingly bad, they were intolerable. Colt worked on it, twice. 2 gunsmiths worked on it, and it was called by both of them "Garbage". There was nothing right on that gun. Other problem semiautos included AMT Back UP and Hardballer Longslide, numerous Erma made .22LR PPK clones sold under many names (I never got a good one), and several others. Once the revolver's issues were resolved, many times just the ejector being tightened up, or something simple like that, it was fixed, and after test firing a couple of hundred rounds, I would trust them. The semiautos were never trustworthy, not one of them. I have 3 revolvers presently, and I would trust all of them.

In the last two or three decades what semi autos, with a reputation for reliability, have you tried? Any Glocks? M&P?

 

[rskent]

Warp said:

In the last two or three decades what semi autos, with a reputation for reliability, have you tried? Any Glocks? M&P?

Was out at the range last week with my new G26 trying to get the grip figured out. One hundred rounds. Two failure to feeds.
Fixed by whacking the back of the slide to getting it closed. One failure to fire. Nice dent in the primer but no bang.
Dropped the round into my trusty G19, bang.

I am not trashing the gun. I will figure out what is happening here and get it running.

My point is that no gun is infallible and that gun failure drills are a good thing.

 

[hemiram]

I was posting about guns from the past, not ones I own now. As I posted, I had a long run of bad guns, most of them bought new. Presently, I have 5 semiautos that I feel are pretty close to being as reliable as my revolvers are, as long as the ammo is decent. They are:
S&W 5906, it seems to eat anything. Probably my favorite of all.
S&W 4506, same as above.
Tanfoglio TA 90 "Mossad" fullsized 9mm.
Tanfoglio TA 90 "Mossad" compact.
Beretta 84 .380.

These were all bought used.

Past great ones were Beretta 84', 92FS, Browning BDA 380, S&W 6906.

I really have no use for Glocks and M&Ps, or any other polymer guns. Decent carry guns, but they don't appeal to me at all. Give me all steel, preferably. I'm a big boy, and a half pound to a pound more for an all metal gun is meaningless to me, even as messed up as I am physically.

 

[Ky Larry]

Guns are simply machines designed and built by humans. As such, they are less than perfect and will fail. The same is true for ammo. Since we are not perfect, we cannot make a perfect product.

I'm a firm beleiver in Murphy's Law. Anything that can go wrong, will. Just as important is Murphy's Principle. It will go wrong at the worst possible time. I train and use good quality ammo. I keep my weapons, both autos and wheel guns, in good mechanical condition. In the end you pay your money and you take your chances. I hope I never need to find out if I've made the right decisions. Good luck.

 

[peacebutready]

I really have no use for Glocks and M&Ps, or any other polymer guns. Decent carry guns, but they don't appeal to me at all. Give me all steel, preferably.

I wish they still made those steel S&W pistols.

 

[Bezoar]

well for the semi auto favoring folks here, what would you rather have,

a jennings or raven arms 22lr semi auto, and 3 spare magazines or a 32 or 38 caliber revolver of your choice with your choice of load?

both types of weapon use springs. but what you shoot from your semi auto is determined by the projectile, and the amount of force required to make the springs work correctly.