Since most on this forum would carry a Revolver

[oldpapps]

"Deltaboy I carry 5 shot Charter Undercover and I Don' t feel under gunned."

I new a Detective Sgt who after returning from a drug raid came to me. He said to me that the S&W Chief he was carrying, just wouldn't do. At that raid, there were more people arrested in one room than he was carrying ammunition. He ended up getting a Browning HiPower (not my choice).

In some places, 5 rounds just isn't going to cut it.

At that time I was carrying a Model 60 in an ankle holster, a Model 67 on my 'Sam Brown' belt and a 1911A1 in the middle of my back. Had to carry the cities Model 67, so I did. But, I wasn't working the nicest districts and could carry anything that I liked as a second/backup weapon. Just needed to qualify with them.

 

[David E]

To switch to an auto-loader, would negate those skills that i have already acquired (with a revolver)!

Only if you're a stubborn unteachable idiot......which I'd bet $1000 that you are not. Learning new things doesn't negate previous skills learned, it adds to them.

The idea of 'mo' bullets, da bettuh to shoot wi'd! Assinine! Insane! Wrong!
It is a rationalization of the good ol' 'pray and spray'. It doesn't cut the mustard, Charlie Brown!

Curiously, revolver proponents seem to think they are immune to "spray and pray" while semi auto users are helpless to resist the urge to do so.

 

[tomrkba]

The primary factor in handgun shooting (not tactics) is trigger control. If you can manage a double action revolver trigger* at speed**, then you can manage just about any trigger on any handgun. Aiming is easy; the tough part is not disturbing the sight picture with the motion of the moving trigger and hand.

* A long, heavy double action ONLY semi-auto trigger is essentially the same thing. The reset must be all the way forward for a duplicate feel. However, the pull is the more important part for scoring a first round hit. Manage the trigger and then learn the reset. You can learn multiple types simultaneously. You can learn manipulations and reloads on different guns at the same time too. It's not tough; you just have to put in the time.

** Speed means rapid fire while maintaining a 4" group or better at common self-defense distances. I would prefer a 4" standard at 25 yards. The reason for 4" is that you'll lose some manual dexterity in a real situation and likely shoot 6" or more. This means you can still score solid torso hits at an angle.

 

[Stainz]

My normal 24/7 EDC is a 642 loaded with five 158gr LHPSWC +P's - in a pocket holster. If I carry a reload, an HKS #36 with the same rounds, it usually resides in my Jeep.

Stainz

 

[Sam1911]

The primary factor in handgun shooting (not tactics) is trigger control. If you can manage a double action revolver trigger* at speed**, then you can manage just about any trigger on any handgun. Aiming is easy; the tough part is not disturbing the sight picture with the motion of the moving trigger and hand.

Certainly true. Sort of.

You can learn multiple types simultaneously. You can learn manipulations and reloads on different guns at the same time too. It's not tough; you just have to put in the time.

Here's the "sort of:" You can learn multiple types of triggers at the same time, but you can't really master multiple triggers at the same time. I shoot multiple competition guns including SA 1911s, and DA 629s, and some other stuff. It takes dedication to one version to really be your BEST with that version. I can pick up any of my guns and shoot "just fine." But not competition-winning "fine." I find it takes me 500-1,000 rounds (which is several weeks or even a couple months) of my regular practice routine until I'm really riding high again after switching platforms. When the DA trigger and revolver reloads are really set back on the mental shelf and my hands instinctively do the auto pistol reload, the SA pull and reset, the TRB, and so forth. (Or vice-versa.)

I understand that many of us shoot for a level of "competence" (can I shoot this safely and accurately under range conditions?) with their defensive weapons, rather than for "mastery" (is this gun an extension of my body? Do I make hits and perform reloads without conscious focus on the mechanical tasks of doing so?) of a competition gun, but I'm not sure that's a something I'm comfortable with. Why is it ok to accept less from ourselves with our life-and-death gun than we'd accept under the pressure of a timer and scorekeeper?

Speed means rapid fire while maintaining a 4" group or better at common self-defense distances. I would prefer a 4" standard at 25 yards. The reason for 4" is that you'll lose some manual dexterity in a real situation and likely shoot 6" or more. This means you can still score solid torso hits at an angle.

Here we have to define what we're talking about . Many, well ... some, a few, can shoot a 4" group at 25 yards. Eventually. But self-defense shooting needs to be at SPEED. That's multiple shots a second. If you can shoot 3-5 shots per second (while moving, with transitions and other self-defense realism thrown in) into 4" at 25 yards, I bow ... I grovel ... at your feet!

Generally, shooting small groups at 25 yards and calling it self-defense practice is like spending days drag racing down the 1/4-mile and saying that's good practice for a road trip across the country. Wholly different skill sets.

And, the idea that under the stress of a violent encounter -- someone else attempting to KILL you -- that your accuracy might drop from 4" at 25 yards to 6" at that distance is WAAAAY optimistic. Try more like a decrease of 75% + of your usual hit rate.

...

Now fortunately MOST violent encounters do appear to be resolved with either just a show of a gun (the unreported thousands of armed encounters that don't end up in DOJ reports) or with a few shots fired at very close range. As we often say, if you're shooting someone at over 20 yards you'd better have an AMAZINGLY good reason. Contact distance to 7 yards is far more of a realistic distance to have to engage a bad guy. And you'll both be moving, it will be dim or dark, you'll be scared and confused and sweating or even hurt already, you'll be fighting to even draw the gun, let alone take an aimed shot.

More like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1zmRNAVayY ... or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkTihgriAqQ

 

[Prophet]

I live near a high-security prison, and two juvenile detention centers that bring troubled young adults in from the big cities who escape into the surrounding territory almost yearly. I have well-known drug dealers on three separate fronts surrounding my residence. I've returned home from work to find troopers and sheriffs running all over the place weapons drawn, awoken to juvy personnel chasing down and tackling a huge kid (whose partners in escape at the time were trying to forcibly enter my neighbors house) who'd been laying in hiding by our house, and looked up from pressure-washing the front walk this past summer to find a sheriff standing in front of me asking if I had seen so and so and so go running by.

For me personally, I have found that I can put more rounds on target faster and more accurately at greater distance with a medium- to service-size auto, and I've never been uncomfortable carrying a bigger firearm despite that I'm a short, small framed guy. I figure I may as well have as many rounds on hand as I can comfortably carry if the extra bulk doesn't bother me.

Other considerations taken into account are relative to my own personal surroundings. If I have to face multiple escapees who've armed themselves with my neighbors weapons, I'm going to want as much ammo as possible. If I have to face a druggie who's psychologically invincible and impervious to pain, I'm going to want as much ammo as possible. If I have to face a spree killer, I want to be armed with whatever platform I am most able to quickly put multiple rounds on target at extended ranges with, and as much ammo as possible.

If you need to shoot someone five times with your ten-shot auto, you won't say "I wish I had less ammo." If you need to shoot someone ten times with your five-shot revolver... you'll have going through your mind what was probably going through Melinda Herman's; BG shot, not incapacitated and right in front of me, I'm out of bullets. Oh, $#!%. Fortunately Mrs. Herman's assailant was not a determined attacker. Considering my area, I'm not willing to bet my life on statistics and conjecture, which is why I will carry as much as I practically can on my person and am also within reach of a long-gun when practical. Not poo-pooing revolvers, for some that is the most they can practically and comfortably carry. To each his own.

In short, you really don't know what you're going to be faced with in a given day, and it's better to have and not need than to need it and not have. Carry as large and as much as you can accurately shoot and practically carry 24/7. Then, train and practice with what you've chosen.

 

[tomrkba]

It is not what the statistics say, but rather what you can do with confidence.

Here is how you get a good feel for your hit ratio in a confrontation against one attacker:

Build a moving target. Get one of those moving carts that is merely a square of wood with four independent wheels. Mount a metal target stand on it. Put 1x2's cut to six feet or so and staple an IDPA target to it. Put eye screws on two sides. Put two pulleys 10 yards apart. Run about 75 feet of rope through each side. The target can now be moved left and right, with one man running each rope.

Start at seven yards. You have no reloads. On "GO", the target starts moving right and left (the ground will move the target randomly). Move laterally left and right while shooting.

I found that a Ruger LCP's ammo goes way too quickly. Making hits with the tiny gun was difficult and I was happy with one hit anywhere on the target. A zone hits were very tough to achieve and forget head shots.

I had better results with the Glock 19. The larger gun made control easier. The capacity helped, but it also meant many more misses. Folks tended to score 10-15% for their first few runs, but they tended toward 20-33% with practice.

I never ran this drill with cover, though I will try to do so this spring. I will try other variations, such as the target going only right or left and the drill ends at the end of that movement.

Frankly, the results of this drill are disconcerting. The misses with the G19 is ample opportunity for a bullet to hit a bystander. I figure it is much better to shoot fewer times and take more time per shot.

The main goal in my mind is to have a gun. If there is any distance involved, I hope to be able to move to cover and the mere threat of my fire stops the attack. I train with the worst in mind and realize I may have to take bad shots, but I will do my best to avoid doing so.

 

[Sam1911]

Here is how you get a good feel for your hit ratio in a confrontation against one attacker:

You forgot a couple of things:
1) Do this at night.
2) Have the practitioner sprint to the 100 yard line and back two or three times to get their heart rate dangerously high, their breath gone, and their hands shaking.
3) Place on the defender's head a pair of "tunnel vision" goggles.
4) Have the defender place his hands in a bucket of ice water for 2 minutes, timed.
5) Dump 1-1/2 cups of Elmer's glue on the hands before drawing to simulate slimy sticky blood from a wound.
6) Just before the "beep" have one of the other students hit the defender in the stomach with a couple good swings of a 2x4.

Now, the scenario does seem pretty realistic.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by tomrkba: Start at seven yards. You have no reloads. On "GO", the target starts moving right and left (the ground will move the target randomly). Move laterally left and right while shooting.

Three things do not seem to be clear: (1) who says "go", (2) why would you be shooting at someone who is moving left and right, and (3), what happens when the "target" runs at you from seven yards?

I figure it is much better to shoot fewer times and take more time per shot.

Should you have to resort to deadly force, it will do no good to need more time than you have.

Have your moving target rush you from seven yards. When you realize that you are under attack, draw from concealment and try to evade and stop the target. See how much time you have.

Also consider the not unlikely second attacker.

 

[tomrkba]

I know you all want to nit-pick. It's the nature of this forum. People move all about in encounters. I have seen several videos over the years that showed good guys and bad guys moving back and forth in an effort to dodge the other guy's aim.

The point of the exercise is to show the difficulty of shooting and to isolate those variables from everything else. Very realistic scenarios give RO's gray hair and I do my best to avoid that. This exercise shows the individual the actual difficulties involved in shooting moving targets while moving yourself. It underscores several shooting skills that are not usually developed by most people.

Also please consider the limitations of the range and the cost of gear and such. Also consider that some of the suggestions are silly, though doing it at night is viable.

So, yes, I agree that an actual encounter would much more difficult. But, practicality and safety must be considered and this is as far as I can go on the ranges that are available (except low light could be done).

"what happens when the "target" runs at you from seven yards?"

We do the Tueller Drill too, along with variations.

 

[Sam1911]

My purpose there was to illustrate how your predictions of a slight decrease in accuracy were very optimistic.

But, for what it may be worth, all of those things (except hitting the student with a 2x4*) have been done by folks I know in training.

(* 2x4s weren't used. A boxing glove to the face WAS used. A bit more of an intensive training exercise than most, to be sure.)

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by tomrkba: People move all about in encounters.

That is the point that those who squeeze off rounds at a stationary target and worry about group size seem to overlook.

I have seen several videos over the years that showed good guys and bad guys moving back and forth in an effort to dodge the other guy's aim.

If your attackers are rushing around the end of your car or the one next to it to get to you, or around the gas pumps, and if you are moving back and sideways to avoid them, the effect is the same, and that part of the suggested exercise should be worthwhile.

This exercise shows the individual the actual difficulties involved in shooting moving targets while moving yourself.

Yes, but in addition to considering make it tougher, as Sam has suggested, I think you really should include a timer set for a very short interval.

We do the Tueller Drill too, along with variations.

Good. Where that sometimes fails to make the point is if the practitioner should somehow think that he or she has "won" if he or she was able to draw and fire once before the target had covered the distance.

So, yes, I agree that an actual encounter would much more difficult.

Yes, that's true, especially when one figures in (1) the realities of a rapidly moving target and little time; (2) a realistic hit ratio under those conditions; (3) realistic expectations of the effectiveness of handgun bullets in stopping attackers; and (4) the likelihood of having to stop more than one assailant.

One really should take these things into account when choosing one's EDC and train accordingly.

 

[tomrkba]

My purpose there was to illustrate how your predictions of a slight decrease in accuracy were very optimistic.

I think you misread my post. I was stating the average for the first few runs was around 10-15% hits/85% misses. Of those that shots that hit, the majority are peripheral hits. After a few runs, people would generally get up to 20-25% hits for newer shooters and more experienced folks might get 20-33% hits. Again, in most cases, most hits were peripheral hits.

Head shots were generally incidental. Some guys would occasionally stop moving just long enough to aim and fire for a better hit. In those cases, it would have been better to provide them with some "cover" to use for those shots.

"(* 2x4s weren't used. A boxing glove to the face WAS used. A bit more of an intensive training exercise than most, to be sure.)"

Did it work? What did the students say regarding the effects of that on their shooting?


Also...back on topic. One of the points I was trying to make is that SIX rounds goes too quickly. I found I had to really concentrate and work hard to make good use of those six rounds.

We have run the drill with and without a timer. A timer tends to make it more interesting and provides another learning opportunity. It does assist the student in finding the "edges" of their skill and their gun.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by tomrkba: After a few runs, people would generally get up to 20-25% hits for newer shooters and more experienced folks might get 20-33% hits. Again, in most cases, most hits were peripheral hits.

So, let's assume that that performance is either roughly representative of a real world encounter under adverse conditions, or is better than one should realistically expect; let's factor in effectiveness and assume that two or three hits would be required to stop an assailant; and let's consider the likelihood of more than one attacker and that the second may not be willing or will not find it safe to break off the attack.

How many rounds is prudent for one to have in his or her EDC piece?

Forget using your short barreled revolver in an Aurora, CO scenario. Just worry about personal defense.

 

[tomrkba]

I think the answer is to have two copies of at least one handgun, train and compete with them, and have a good attitude. Cirillo talked about what makes a good gun fighter in Guns, Bullets and Gunfights. Most of the discussion was about the man's general attitude, training, competition, and overall moral philosophy. Cirillo did mention that when the fight occurs (paraphrasing) that you'll want the biggest gun with the most ammunition possible.

My thought is to divide the gun's capacity by four and drop fractions. This is how many bad guys I can theoretically handle without reloading. A J-Frame yields one, 1911's are good for two, and a Glock 19 is good for four. This is likely not realistic at all, but it's my best wild guess based upon training. My most pessimistic estimate is 8-10 rounds per bad guy (resulting in 1, 1, and 2). I could hit the "gun fight lottery" and get 16 terrorist scumbags with a G19, but the odds of that happening are only very high on a Hollywood set.

Confidence is a key ingredient. Michael de Bethencourt is confident with two snubbies for everyday carry. If a person does not have confidence with the gun, then I think he or she should consider other options. However, there will be exceptions and merely having a gun is the best that person can do in the situation.

I think a five shot J-Frame is likely sufficient for many types of encounters. It is not good for all encounters. Ed Lovette covers the snubbie's strengths and weaknesses in The Snubby Revolver: The EQC, Backup, and Concealed Carry Standard. I think there are better choices today because of improved technology and design. However, all it may take is one shot to stop the attack. Several mass murders were stopped early because a determined person with a gun resisted. Only in a few cases did the murderer attempt to engage the good guy; many times they fled, surrendered or committed suicide.

I have my carry battery that includes a J-Frame and small pocket autos. I try to keep them out of the primary role, but sometimes wardrobe requires pocket carry. I'd rather have a J-Frame and five extra rounds over nothing. I'll just do my best if a fight occurs.

One compromise that I am willing to make is lower capacity for a larger caliber. This is not to say I won't carry a Glock 19; I do carry one frequently. I prefer 200+ grain bullets moving at 800-900 FPS at 25 yards over the 9x19mm bullet traveling at 1150 FPS (muzzle). My second choice is 357 Magnum or some 9mm variant with very high velocity. But, I prefer the larger calibers. As a result, I'm willing to trade some capacity for the bullet. I do not mind the larger frame either; concealment is not difficult, but it does require some preparation. I do think the Glock mid-frames (and similar guns such as the M&P 45 Compact) offer the best balance between capacity, sight radius and concealment. If a person has no idea what to get, I usually recommend a Glock 19 because of these attributes. If they decide to sell the gun because they dislike it for some reason, they'll get most of their money back.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by tomrkba: I think a five shot J-Frame is likely sufficient for many types of encounters. It is not good for all encounters.

With a 30% hit ratio, a need for two hits per attacker, and the need to use deadly force on two attackers, the likelihood of success with five shots is 3%--assuming that you have time to shoot all five if necessary, and assuming that you do not waste ammo by shooting the first one more than twice. That's three occurrences out of one hundred. It's a simple, very basic analysis of probabilities.

With one attacker, it would be much, much better, but not optimal.

If the mere display of a firearm proves sufficient, it will be fine.

A J-frame is certainly better than nothing and is likely better than a very small auto, but it is no longer my choice for primary carry. It was, until I understood the foregoing analysis.

Sometimes, however, the ability draw or fire from a pocket if necessary can make all the difference, and that's where the Centennial has its advantage.

Colt used to advertise the advantage of "that all important sixth shot", back when they sold the Cobra and Detective Special. Until JohnKSa ran the numbers here, I had no idea how much that sixth shot just might mean.

Nor did I really appreciate the critical advantage of more capacity.

 

[tomrkba]

I saw John's numbers.

I think I asked him for the data so I could run different scenarios. I'd like to see this run with a 20% hit rate (in line with my moving target drill) against one, two and three assailants. I'd also like to see what happens with both one and two hits.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by tomrkba: I saw John's numbers..... I'd like to see this run with a 20% hit rate (in line with my moving target drill) against one, two and three assailants.

His second chart shows the probabilities of four hits with different hit rates.

One can manipulate the numbers and the assumptions all day long, but I wouldn't try to get too scientific.

In my view they are best case projections, for one simple reason: most of us would be most unlikely to stop shooting at a charging assailant after hitting him a second time; we would likely fire several shots before we can even tell whether we have hit him. Not so on steel plates, but if someone is charging violently with something sharp, "success" may not be as immediately obvious, one will not be trying to conserve ammunition.

 

[Sam1911]

"(* 2x4s weren't used. A boxing glove to the face WAS used. A bit more of an intensive training exercise than most, to be sure.)"

Did it work? What did the students say regarding the effects of that on their shooting?

Well, yeah...though there was a safety issues when some of the protective eye-wear got broken.

 

[Alaska444]

What does round count have to do with anything? If you can get a well aimed shot off all you will need is one or two rounds to stop the fight. If you can not get a well aimed shot off all the ammo in the world will do you no good.

AND, getting shot will do no one any good, especially you. IMO, if even in a situation like that, take cover and wait for the opportunity to squeeze of a well aimed shot and stop the killing.

Absolutely, I went to a movie with my wife a couple of weeks ago and since I carry a 5 shot revolver, that is exactly what I was thinking, take cover and pick your shot. Unfortunately, there was only about 10 of us in the movie theatre so picking a shot in that situation would be a rapid acquisition with so few targets on the shooters part. But take cover and seek a well placed shot is the best strategy no matter what gun you have.

 

[1 old 0311-1]

Been my daily carry for 30+ years and sleep like a baby.

 

[Kleanbore]

...and sleep like a baby.

And so,of course, do many people who do not carry at all. No help to us here.

 

[420Stainless]

I agree with others that this is the least likely defensive situation to occur. I'm also not one to worry about round count (while not a revolver, my standard carry only holds six), but I could easily envision someone getting off a few shots without realizing this type of criminal has pre-planned this demented horror and has prepared with some sort of body armor. At that point capacity might become an issue. If you really do worry about this scenario then, yes, I think it might be a good idea to switch to a platform that allows you the option to have more before thinking about reloading while under fire. Its not for me, but may be more comforting for you.

 

[tomrkba]

Absolutely, I went to a movie with my wife a couple of weeks ago and since I carry a 5 shot revolver, that is exactly what I was thinking, take cover and pick your shot. Unfortunately, there was only about 10 of us in the movie theatre so picking a shot in that situation would be a rapid acquisition with so few targets on the shooters part. But take cover and seek a well placed shot is the best strategy no matter what gun you have.

Just sit behind the "most 3D" person in the theater and you'll have all the cover you need.

 

[Deer_Freak]

Given that the 357 mag stops attackers 97% of the time with the first shot it is my choice of weapons. The 9mm stops attackers less than 60% of the time with the first shot. Six rounds goes a lot further when you don't have to double tap.

Those of you that want to take on someone armed with a rifle with a handgun are suicidal. Then you want to choose a semi auto that lacks the structural integrity to handle a large caliber in weapon you can pocket carry. Sorry, the math just doesn't add up.