Strengths and Weaknesses of a Revolver

[CTGunner]

Hands down the best SD video I have ever seen. Can't imagine being in his shoes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_O_0E8e3h0

This is the first time I have seen this video, if this has already been discussed, please remove it.

In this video the owner of a Jewelery store in NY successfully defends/stops an armed robbery attempt with a 5 Shot Revolver - clearly very effective.

However, in the heat of the moment he THINKS that he has only fired 3 rounds as he prepares/moves in for a counter attack. In reality he has already emptied his weapon and is pointing an unloaded gun at his attackers while he waits for help to arrive.

It's worth noting that the man in the video is a USMC combat vet.

If you read the shooters comments in the comments section following the video they reveal even more details. For example, the man in white was actually shot in the chest. The man in black was also shot but not injured because he was wearing a bullet proof vest.

This is the most remarkable self defense shooting video I have seen and I think it speaks for itself.

LAST: This got me to thinking...maybe there are other videos out there like this one. If you have a video that we can learn from please post it.

 

[Manco]

Obviously our hero was very fortunate that the perp he was holding at gunpoint with an empty gun didn't or couldn't use his own. Revolvers have many strengths and I like them and often recommend them to people, but capacity is not one of their strengths, and this video demonstrates how capacity can be a concern even in self-defense or home-defense scenarios. It's why my primary home-defense pistol is a semiautomatic despite the advantages of revolvers, and I always have at least one full magazine available for a reload in addition. In a case like the one in the video, it would have been wise to perform a "tactical reload" before holding the downed perp, even if you think that you have some rounds left (especially since there were a couple more perps outside waiting in the getaway vehicle). While I think it's true that most incidents require few if any shots to be fired, this is a fine example of why we should be prepared for scenarios that require multiple rounds.

 

[ATBackPackin]

After seeing that video I bet anyone who carries a revolver is buying speed-loaders right now if they don't already have one. Nice to see a victory for the good guys.

Shawn

 

[Crusader103]

There are a lot of lessons to be learned from this video. While I have a great admiration for the revolver, including as a self-defense weapon, I would agree with the statement of Manco that it's greatest, and perhaps sole, limitation is capacity.

Truly, very few gunfights last beyond five or six rounds but there are enough exceptions to address the issue.

Again, while many lessons can be learned perhaps the greatest is that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to have any assurance of the exact number of rounds you have fired in a stressful incident. In my studies I have learned that a large percentage of survivors report having fired ~30-40% more rounds than they first thought.

In one of my own experiences, I fired 12 rounds at an assailant from an AR-15 SP1 but estimated only 7 before learning otherwise from the subsequent magazine count.

If you think you have fired about half of your rounds you are probably almost empty. A tactical reload at the first break in action is prudent regardless of the number of rounds you think you have fired.

That being said, if you are empty continue to bluff anyway. The person you are holding at gunpoint probably doesn't know any better. Perhaps that is a good point to insert Dirty Harry's famous line.

 

[navyretired 1]

This is the perfect example of wrong weapon for the situation, If anything is going to happen in a jewelry store your probably going to need more that 5 shots. That little 5 holer is OK for HD but short on staying power for a job that would normally include at least 2 BG.
I'll say one thing though you can tell he is a combat vet and I have no doubt he was on hill 581 in VN, we lost many Marines on that hill and totally destroyed an effective combat unit. He looked pretty shook-up after the shooting although he did everything he could except check that guy on the ground for weapons.

 

[Crusader103]

he did everything he could except check that guy on the ground for weapons.

Checking your downed assailant for weapons is not always a good idea. If you can maintain the suspect at gunpoint, ready to fire, you will beat the action of the assailant going for the weapon every time. In contrast, if you move in close to a subject you are putting yourself in a very vulnerable situation should the suspect choose to grapple and fight for control of your weapon.

In almost every circumstance (there are exceptions), keep your suspect spread eagle so that you can shoot long before they can ever reach a weapon. Let the arriving police take control of any weapon the suspect may still have on their person.

That advice is based on the fact that you have a loaded firearm ready to fire. While in error, this victim believed his weapon was still ready to fire.

 

[JoeSlomo]

This is the perfect example of wrong weapon for the situation, If anything is going to happen in a jewelry store your probably going to need more that 5 shots.

Yea, that's what I was thinking.

Maybe not so much about the revolver itself, but having only ONE revolver for defense in a shop that will more than likely have a multi-criminal threat.

I recall another jewelry store encounter where the owner wanted revolvers for defense, revolverS being the key word here. He opted to stick with revolvers for their simplicity in operation and relative reliability, and he bought a few for the store and placed them in positions with easy access. His store was indeed hit, and he prevailed largely due to having access to multiple firearms, and a will to survive.

Personal defense is all about risk management and compromise. A smaller caliber, or lower capacity weapon may very be enough to do the job, however, you do take a risk in coming up short. That's something every individual has to choose for themselves.

 

[CTGunner]

Having watched the video again, here are my observations and learnings:

1. "Trusting your gut" doesn't always work.
2. When decisive action is required, make it decisive. Have a plan ahead of time.
3. Be mentally prepared. This individual clearly had no doubt in his mind about who would win this fight.
4. Your assailant may be just as prepared as you (one was wearing body armor). Both were armed.
5. Even perfect shot placement doesn't guarantee that the guy won't run away, lay down, get back up and run some more.
6. Know what the police are going to look for..notice how he didn't want it to look like he shot someone outside of his store.
7. When bad stuff happens it usually happens really really fast.

To some of the comments made earlier, I have to think that he had multiple weapons stashed throughout the store. My guess is that he went for the closest one.

Final thought. Those dudes picked the wrong store.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

i'd love to hear the thoughts of the two guys who failed robbery 101 that day. when you put a gun in someones face they aren't supposed to shoot you

 

[Crusader103]

Being that the title of this thread is "strengths and weaknesses of a revolver" I would like to point out a few of it's strengths as it applies to strategies and tactics.

The revolver, especially in calibers such as the .357 magnum (I know this was a .38) is a very formidable weapon indeed. It is capable of delivering effective rounds that surpass the abilities of many autoloaders.

Five or six rounds are generally more than adequate, especially in the hands of a capable operator. That brings me to another point. Shooters who select a full size revolver (again, I know this was a compact) like the .357 are quite often very accomplished shooters. This may get me some rebuttals, but it has been my experience that the average revolver shooter is more accomplished than the average autoloader shooter. Perhaps it is our current time in history but most people don't look to the revolver as a first choice. Those that do are often not only nostalgic, but understand the importance of an accurate, solid, and powerful weapon. All that being said, six rounds from a revolver placed solidly on a threat(s) is a lot better than a magazine full of errant shots.

Yes, I know that same capable shooter could select an autoloader but that does not degrade the utility of the revolver in facing a serious threat.

Finally, I am a believer in that revolver shooters tend to place more solid hits on target. Attribute it to the "spray and pray" of some semi-auto shooters in contrast to the making sure hits count of revolver shooters, but I do believe that the hit ratio of many law enforcement agencies went down when they transitioned to semi-autos.

Yes, I normally carry a semi-auto and I still stand by all of that. I do not however, feel undergunned when I carry that model 66. Good tactics go a long way. A part of good tactics is carrying a speedloader.

While many, including me, are quick to point out that this guy ran out of ammo, don't forget that this 5-shot revolver DID get him through a multiple assailant engagement with decisively one sided results.

 

[CTGunner]

Thank you Joshua. You have added a lot of very valuable insight to this thread. I just checked out your site and clearly you have the experience to back up your statements. You are 100% right, he survived and that counts for a lot. Again, great comments.

 

[rim]

Jscott is correct, I really didn't consider a revolver for either of my first 2 handguns, I figured that having more rounds and being more familiar with semi's was a "no brainer" for me to buy semi's.....of course after the shogun late this summer, a revolver is next

 

[Cosmoline]

This may get me some rebuttals, but it has been my experience that the average revolver shooter is more accomplished than the average autoloader shooter.

Based on the past ten years of range observations, I concur. It has nothing to do with semis or revolvers per se, just that the new and inexperienced tend to buy a semi because it seems more serious and "modern." They're used to seeing them carried by police. I wonder if the reverse was true before the 1980's.

 

[Crusader103]

Thank you Joshua. You have added a lot of very valuable insight to this thread. I just checked out your site and clearly you have the experience to back up your statements. You are 100% right, he survived and that counts for a lot. Again, great comments.

Thank you. You don't have to have my background to have valuable input though. I would say that I learn the most from those who often think they know the least.

 

[devildog32713]

hahaha, I would assume the reverse for sure!! I prefer semi's (glock's at least) because I trust them, don't get me wrong, I like revolvers, the first one I fired was a SA .44 Magnum, boooy that was fun. But still preferred the glock 19 and H&K I got to shoot.

 

[mljdeckard]

I would love to own a few revolvers, and I probably will eventually, but the truth is, the reasons I don't carry one right now would be mostly the heavy trigger pull and capacity.

I'd like to think I'm not a capacity junkie, I carry a 1911. But that still gives me more shots than any revolver option.

If I did carry a revolver, I would probably make a it a 610 and decide if I like .40s or 10mms better.

 

[shockwave]

If you can't solve your problem with 5 rounds of +P .38 or .357, you have a very serious problem on your hands. Here at THR we look at these situations all the time. Constantly.

Many owners here have primary guns, BUGs, 41 rounds on their persons and so forth. They may survive encounters that I would not survive. If so, power to them.

My thinking is that 5 or 6 high-power rounds of good SD ammo ought to be sufficient to effect a resolution to most of the likely situations I might encounter. From the literature, we know that firearm use rarely ends in fatalities. Here's criminologist Gary Kleck:

Despite this stated willingness of gun owners to shoot under certain circumstances, most defensive uses of guns do not in fact involve shooting anyone. Data from the National Self-Defense Survey indicate that no more than 8% of the 2.5 million annual defensive gun uses involved a defender who claimed to have shot their adversaries, or about 200,000 total. The 8% figure, however, should be taken with a grain of salt because it is based on a sample of only 213 cases, 17 of whom reported a wounding, and because the respondants were not asked how they knew they had wounded the criminals. In cases where the criminal escaped, these reports may often have been based on favorable guesses about the shooter’s marksmanship skills.

In other words, that figure is too high. As Kleck says:

Only 3% of criminal gun assaults involves anyone actually being wounded, even nonfatally, and the same is true of defensive gun uses. More commonly, guns are merely pointed at another person, or perhaps only referred to ("I've got a gun") or displayed, and this is sufficient to accomplish the ends of the user, whether criminal or non-criminal.

Now, let me state for utter clarity: I subscribe to Rule Two of firearm safety, which says "Do not point your gun at anything you are not willing to destroy." Nothing in any of the above should be construed as an argument for brandishing, or hoping that the presence of a gun will lead to a happy outcome with no shots fired. Absolutely not. I am not suggesting that at all. If you pull your gun, you'd better be ready to shot and kill.

The argument I am making, however, is that according to statistics on self-defensive gun use, having a gun in and of itself resolves the majority of problems. In the smaller set of cases in which the gun is fired, one or two shots ends the problem. There aren't many cases in the literature that show how a civilian needed 17+ rounds to successfully emerge from an altercation. For police, yes, we do have that data, but for civilians, no.

So the lack of extended firepower is a weakness of the revolver, but it is a weakness that is tested extremely rarely. And the strengths of the revolver truly shine under this analysis: Absolute guaranteed reliability. Simplicity of use.

 

[Old Shooter]

I was gong to mention the ejector rod backing out and binding the Smith & Wesson revolvers but after viewing the video and reading somo of the comments...

For nightstand or concealed carry by the "average" person, a revolver is probably sufficient. There is probably a slight chance of a multiple shot scenerio but you're not looking for troouble and not doing anything to attract attention/trouble to you. IF you consider yourself more likely to be in that sort of situation I would carry (and do carry) a higher capacity auto.

For any business owner or location where cash money or valuable goods are involved, (such as a jewerly store/pawn shop/ quickie mart) it seems more likely to be involved with either multiple assailants or more determined ones and the firepower of an auto would be worh having on tap at all times.

Guns in multiple locations seems a good idea for both types. Perhaps one at the register, one in a back room, another behind the cigarrette display or what ever.

Any yeah, that shop owner had a plan and it worked.

 

[Manco]

I'd like to think I'm not a capacity junkie, I carry a 1911. But that still gives me more shots than any revolver option.

If I did carry a revolver, I would probably make a it a 610 and decide if I like .40s or 10mms better.

The 610 seems like a good option (super-fast reloads, too), although there are seven- and eight-shot .357 Magnums to be had (e.g. 686+, 627), which somewhat address the capacity issue.

 

[Old Fuff]

Gee guys...

How did anyone ever survive a multi-person criminal attack back in the days before there were hi-cap pistols?

I suspect that the store owner-hero of this story probably had to carry a small handgun in his pocket, and in an urban area probably wasn't into Magnums or 1911 platform pistols like our more tactical members would seem to be. If he was carrying a pistol rather then a revolver under the same conditions it's unlikely the magazine capacity would have been much larger then that offered by the revolver he had. As it was he did pretty well.

I prefer a revolver as a pocket gun because in the smaller sizes they tend to be more reliable, and can be loaded with a wide range of power and bullet styles that offer options which are not available in a pistol. A larger revolver remains as formidable as it was in the past, especially in the hands of someone who can shoot straight. Frequently the location where an incident occurs does not lend itself to spraying bullets around the neighborhood, as several shootings in NYC have shown.

 

[CTGunner]

Gee guys...

How did anyone ever survive a multi-person criminal attack back in the days before there were hi-cap pistols?

I suspect that the store owner-hero of this story probably had to carry a small handgun in his pocket, and in an urban area probably wasn't into Magnums or 1911 platform pistols like our more tactical members would seem to be. If he was carrying a pistol rather then a revolver under the same conditions it's unlikely the magazine capacity would have been much larger then that offered by the revolver he had. As it was he did pretty well.

I prefer a revolver as a pocket gun because in the smaller sizes they tend to be more reliable, and can be loaded with a wide range of power and bullet styles that offer options which are not available in a pistol. A larger revolver remains as formidable as it was in the past, especially in the hands of someone who can shoot straight. Frequently the location where an incident occurs does not lend itself to spraying bullets around the neighborhood, as several shootings in NYC have shown.

I don't think he carried a pocket gun. It looked to me like he dove for a gun near his register. Now, maybe when he leaves at night it goes in his pocket or maybe most of the time that's where it is...who knows. It does seem in this instance that he would have been advantaged by an auto.

I was under the impression that a slow moving .45acp round (in JHP) would be less likely to overpenetrate than many other handgun calibers, though I'm not sure how it compares to .38 special.

 

[TheProf]

I prefer the idea of a high power revolver...backed up by a small pocket semi-auto with mag reloads.

For this store owner in a high risk situation...I would recommend multiple revolvers hidden throughout the store, a snub nose revolver on my person.

 

[Old Fuff]

To the degree that a NYC jeweler is likely to have a gun of any kind, it's most probable it will be a .38 Special snubby. While a large-cap pistol or 1911 .45 pistol might have been a better choice, such a choice was probably never considered. As a rule, urban storekeepers are not into handguns in the manner that many or perhaps most members of this forum are.

Concerning my earlier comments, my worry is not so much over penetration then the likelihood that one will likely empty the contents of a high-cap magazine as quickly as they can, without necessarily hitting the intended person. To see how and when this can happen one needs to look no further then NYC's own police department. Often, especially in urban areas with dense populations, public safety considerations depend on precise fire, not high volume.

Without question, certain pistols offer more cartridges without requiring reloading, but this comes at the cost of greater bulk – which may or may not be an important consideration. Revolvers offer more reliability, and aren’t likely to hang up if the shooter has a case of limp wrist. Again, keep in mind that this discussion is about storekeepers, not the tactical types that frequent Internet firearms forums with a bent toward combat issues.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Again, keep in mind that this discussion is about storekeepers, not the tactical types that frequent Internet firearms forums with a bent toward combat issues.

Word.

 

[Onward Allusion]

Have more than one available

The guy said he went and got his gun... Was that right??? He should be carrying on his body. As for the five-shot -vs- whatever...his situation warrants a S&W 627 or Taurus (yes, I'd said Taurus) 608. In addition to that, always have a backup accessible.

Even me, a middle-aged-white-collar-guy has one in the briefcase, car, and on the body - and that's outside the house! This guy owns a jewelry store and doesn't carry on him???

I guess the most important part is that he came out alive and unhurt, but I hope he learned from it.

CTGunner

Strengths and Weaknesses of a Revolver