SA for CCW?

[1911Tuner]

Anti-gunners use this same "argument." Who gets to define "need," anyway? They are wrong, so are you.

No, David. No. I'm not using the "need" argument to determine whether or not anyone should have or carry a gun...and please don't try to twist my meaning. I believe that you should be able to carry a gun for any reason or no reason. Just because you want to is reason enough...and any gun that you wish to carry is fine.

I'm a strong and very vocal advocate of the right to keep and bear arms...and I don't much cotton to the idea of having to beg for permission and pay the High Sheriff a tax for the "privelege" of doing so.

But that's meat for another discussion...probably on APS.

But...

The criteria of need still applies. Most of us don't have a real or pressing need to carry. We do it...again...because we want to and because it offers us comfort in increasingly perilous times.

BUT...

The reasons that most of us carry are abstract. i.e. "Because we never know when we'll be attacked"
Or: "Because we MIGHT need the gun someday."

That doesn't define a need. It defines a wish. A desire. And that's fine. I prefer to be armed. I carry every waking minute...at home and away from home...but not because I have a defined NEED to carry.

 

[Carl]

Can we stay on topic please?

 

[1911Tuner]

I'd love to, Carl. The discussion seemed to go from an argument on the wisdom of carrying a single-action revolver to the uselessness of carrying any gun that's not capable of competing in an IDPA or USPSA match.

My point was that most people carry whatever they comfortably can carry...that any gun is better than no gun...and it went downhill from there.

Anyway...

A single action revolver is a perfectly capable defensive weapon as long as its user is capable of using it to its potential.

Because...

You probably won't need to reload and you probably won't need to even aim because your engagement distance will probably powder burn your assailant.

You likely won't even have to engage multiple assailants...even if there's more than one...because when the first one falls, the other(s) will probably abandon ship with all due haste, leaving their fallen comrade to fend for himself. I mean...face it. Cretins that prey on innocent folk ain't exactly the 82nd Airborne. If they see that they're gonna get hurt...they ain't gonna play any more.

So...Yes. If you like SAAs and you can shoot SAAs well...and you WANT to carry one, by all means...Carry one.

 

[David E]

I'd love to, Carl. The discussion seemed to go from an argument on the wisdom of carrying a single-action revolver to the uselessness of carrying any gun that's not capable of competing in an IDPA or USPSA match.

Where do you get THAT ?

A 2-shot single action derringer is a poor choice for serious defense.

A 5-shot .38 snubby is a much better choice, even tho it won't win an IPSC or IDPA match.

You should carry the gun you're best with that's in a serious caliber. (9mm/.38 or larger)

A full size Single Action revolver is capable of providing adequate defense, but it requires the user to be versed in the techniques that make the SA perform better in a defense situation.

As I've stated, I'll never carry a single action revolver for defense on purpose, but I will carry one for other pursuits, such as hunting/camping/hiking.

Should I need to use it for defense then, I'll be glad I took the time to learn how to get the most out of it.

But my cautionary note would be, put a shot timer on yourself before making any final pronouncements about your ability.

 

[SCBradley]

As far as being able to shoot your SA 2-shot derringer "just as fast" as your Glock, the laws of physics along with an electronic shot timer would disagree with you when it came to the second shot.

Hey, how did you know that? Are you watching me now?

Did you even read those posts? I never said "always" or "everyone."

And if you reread and look at the context of that quote you'd realize that I wasn't talking to you.

I was responding to JImbothefiveth's assertion that SA is always slower because you, "some guy on the interwebs", timed yourself shooting.

A 2-shot single action derringer is a poor choice for serious defense.

If you had read my posts, I never implied that a two-shot derringer is a super killing machine superior to all others. I tried to infer that the Bond is my "gun when I don't need a gun". I carry it and an NAA mini all day everyday, hence regularly.

If I decide to stroll downtown and commune with the crackheads, I'll bring a bigger gun. Okay.

Otherwise, I think I'll be fine making a sandwich carrying the derringer. Or will I... mwuahahahaha

 

[David E]

Otherwise, I think I'll be fine making a sandwich carrying the derringer.

There is a seldom cited advantage of the Derringer is it's versatility: Due to the flat sided barrels, you can also use it to spread the peanut butter on that sandwich !!



.