Switched to a revolver for ccw...

[Matthew Clark]

Carry what works for you.

I got nothing against revolvers. Obviously the guys that are adamant about carrying them realize the disadvantage their at with lack of rounds and just dont care.

To each their own.

This is sound advice.
And for the most part correct at least for me.
I simply just do not feel comfortable with any semi-auto while shooting except for a 1911. I could carry that if I wanted but I shoot my 2 7/8" Ruger Speed Six more accurately so I carry it.
I Know my round count to stop a threat in one burst is definitely lower but I hope ability will overcome and balance out in the end. It better because I am counting on it with my life but I practice often with full defense loads in various circumstances to help that balance and build confidence. Not to be cocky but prepared and skilled.
Yes I realize I cannot prepare for every instance but muscle memory in a crisis is better than freezing up.
I am fully aware what I give up to gain and am comfortable with that.
I hope I never have to find out if I chose poorly!

 

[Kleanbore]

I shoot all of my revolvers single action, I train to draw and cock, only finally putting my finger into the trigger guard when I'm on target. during recoil I remove my finger, cock the hammer, reinsert my finger and when I'm back on target I am ready to fire again.

That's great for target shooting, but for a number of reasons, it is not advisable for defensive shooting.

 

[jar]

Carry what works for you.

I got nothing against revolvers. Obviously the guys that are adamant about carrying them realize the disadvantage their at with lack of rounds and just dont care.

To each their own.

But would a lack of rounds be a disadvantage?

 

[WheelGunMan]

But would a lack of rounds be a disadvantage?

Good point. I've watched countless videos of shootouts where a semi-auto was used...in quite a few the spray and pray discipline was used. Maybe knowing that every shot needs to count makes a revolver owner a little more diligent...then again maybe not. I believe consistent and diligent practice is what makes the difference in hitting what you aim at. They say you revert to what you trained for when that moment comes.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

But would a lack of rounds be a disadvantage?

How could it not be?

Seriously, think about that.

 

[jar]

How could it not be?

Seriously, think about that.

Thought about it. So the question remains, "would a lack of rounds be a disadvantage"? The issue is really what is reasonable. I only need the number of rounds necessary in a given situation. Considering the risk factors I face in reality is there any reason for me to think 5 or 6 rounds is a disadvantage?

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Thought about it. So the question remains, "would a lack of rounds be a disadvantage"? The issue is really what is reasonable. I only need the number of rounds necessary in a given situation. Considering the risk factors I face in reality is there any reason for me to think 5 or 6 rounds is a disadvantage?

Without the intention of crapping all over the revolver folks, but how can you possibly know how many rounds "will be necessary"?

My initial reply in this thread said that adamant revolver folks would pick a revolver even though they knew the disadvantage of fewer rounds. Those folks are ok with that, as am I.

I think the the question of why might I need more rounds is not only obvious but side tracking this thread.

 

[Matthew Clark]

Without the intention of crapping all over the revolver folks, but how can you possibly know how many rounds "will be necessary"?

I am a die-hard revolver fan and don't feel crapped on in the least. What you are trying to convey is for me absolutely true. There is no way to know until it happens.
For me, I do care about the loss of rounds available. I just choose to be able to put what I do have available where they need to go better over more of them to scatter onto an assailant's body.
I don't want to convince anyone to follow my path, it's just my choice.
As I already stated, I hope I don't have to find out if I was right or wrong.

 

[jar]

Without the intention of crapping all over the revolver folks, but how can you possibly know how many rounds "will be necessary"?

That is a reasonable question that deserves at least an attempt at a reasonable answer.

First, I'm a civilian. I will not be serving warrants, arresting folk, stopping cars, attacking enemy positions or going into bear and lion and peccary areas (though when I did the latter I most often carried a rifle and a revolver). In general, I will most likely never have to fire a shot in self defense. If I do have to it will most likely be sudden, unplanned and at very close quarters; spitting distance. In such cases I may be able to get off a couple defensive rounds but unlikely many more. In such a situation a small snubby revolver does have some advantages. A big advantage is that there is no slide involved; it's not possible for the assailant to push the slide out of battery or for my body or any other object to slow the recoil cycle causing a miss feed.

Please understand I am not just talking about revolvers. When I carry a semi-automatic these days it is most often a small 380 that will only hold 6 or 7 rounds. I have other options available, 17 + 1 round 2nd. and 3rd. generation Smiths, HiPower clones, Browning BDM but what I carry are almost always the smaller, lighter, more easily concealed snubbies and micro-pistols. I am not an "adamant revolver folk", at least for the last quarter century or so and have given the issue of "how many rounds are sufficient" considerable thought. I simply have never been given a convincing argument that my supposed lack of rounds presents a disadvantage.

 

[Kleanbore]

First, I'm a civilian. I will not be serving warrants, arresting folk, stopping cars, attacking enemy positions or going into bear and lion and peccary areas....

Okay.

In general, I will most likely never have to fire a shot in self defense.

That is also true for law enforcement officers.

If I do have to it will most likely be sudden, unplanned and at very close quarters; spitting distance.

That is also true for law enforcement officers.

In such cases I may be able to get off a couple defensive rounds but unlikely many more.

That might be true. But "a couple" may not stop a single assailant effectively. And how about an accomplice?

at least for the last quarter century or so and have given the issue of "how many rounds are sufficient" considerable thought. I simply have never been given a convincing argument that my supposed lack of rounds presents a disadvantage.

Make reasonable assumptions about how many hits from a handgun would be necessary to stop a single assailant effectively, and how many you would need for second violent criminal actor. That will likely open your eyes.

One of our members posted just such a analysis some years ago. I retired my five shot revolver from primary carry immediately, and acquired company twelve shot semi auto as soon as I could.

that post has been posted on a number of occasion since. Here it is:

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/how-many-rounds-to-carry.825825/page-4#post-10678475

 

[Jeb Stuart]

The more I read these Post, the more I am convinced more capacity is over rated for every day EDC by a civilian. And by the way Kleenbore, when I posted about the last two officers shot and killed with just two rounds and you said "Irrelevant" . Sorry, but very relevant to what we are discussing about round count. If you want to carry 12 rounds or 18 rounds and spare mags that is fine. I will say once again, most of us are Not new to the world of shooting. And many of will carry a pocket gun or small revolver with complete faith. I really do not see any more need to discuss this any longer. Carry what is best your you.

 

[jar]

Okay.

That is also true for law enforcement officers.

That is also true for law enforcement officers.

That might be true. But "a couple" may not stop a single assailant effectively. And how about an accomplice?

Make reasonable assumptions about how many hits from a handgun would be necessary to stop a single assailant effectively, and how many you would need for second violent criminal actor. That will likely open your eyes.

One of our members posted just such a analysis some years ago. I retired my five shot revolver from primary carry immediately, and acquired company twelve shot semi auto as soon as I could.

that post has been posted on a number of occasion since. Here it is:

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/how-many-rounds-to-carry.825825/page-4#post-10678475

Even with two assailants I feel 5 rounds will be more than sufficient and honestly, my eyes have been open for well over a half century.

 

[Kleanbore]

Even with two assailants I feel 5 rounds will be more than sufficient...

You "feel"? On what basis?

...and honestly, my eyes have been open for well over a half century.

Maybe, but you obviously have not analyzed the relevant variables.

 

[Kleanbore]

The more I read these Post, the more I am convinced more capacity is over rated for every day EDC by a civilia

Could be---by some people.

And by the way Kleenbore, when I posted about the last two officers shot and killed with just two rounds and you said "Irrelevant" . Sorry, but very relevant to what we are discussing about round count.

Poor shoes of word on my part. I should have said "not meaningful" The number of variables is such that two or a few data points cannot tell us much at all.

And many of will carry a pocket gun or small revolver with complete faith.

Will faith suffice?

 

[Jeb Stuart]

Could be---by some people.

Poor shoes of word on my part. I should have said "not meaningful" The number of variables is such that two or a few data points cannot tell us much at all.

Will faith suffice?

I do not focus on faith, I focus on my training. You go with 12 rounds if you like. But will that be enough? Maybe you should think about 17 rounds? No matter what some guy say's about how many rounds needed for carry, there is always one that say's more. It never ends. And add some spare mags to go with it. There have been plenty of Data Points that show that the majority of gunfights do end in a few rounds. Honestly, I am more afraid of the guy with a Cell phone while driving much more than needing more rounds in my carry.

 

[Kleanbore]

For some time, I usually carrie a five shot Centennial revolver. I did not go to dangerous places, and I "felt" --assumed, without really having given it much though--that five shots would be sufficient.

I the attended a couple of good defensive training classes, one of which was conducted by Rob Pincus. The number of shots called for in many of the drills caused me to question my belief in the adequacy of five rounds.

Then, someone here or on The Firing Line asked why I thought that low likelihood of needing a firearm would enter into the capacity discussion at all. Frankly I was a little embarrassed. I once made my living in the field of risk management for some time.

A class with Massad Ayoob cured me of the belief that a handgun would be likely to stop a violent criminal actor timely and decisively with one or two shots.

Then, we started seeing discussion of how one should not assume a single-assailant attack.

The clincher was JohnKSa's analysis, linked above.

I then retired the Centennial from primary carry.

 

[Kleanbore]

You go with 12 rounds if you like. But will that be enough? Maybe you should think about 17 rounds? No matter what some guy say's about how many rounds needed for carry,

Yes, there is a reasonable upper limit. That has been discussed in some depth in various threads about JohnKSa's analysis. There are two pertinent factors--convenience, and the likelihood that if a certain number of rounds has not proved effective, the defender would be able to use more.

It's a judgment call. I settled on 12. I would not question 10.

There have been plenty of Data Points that show that the majority of gunfights do end in a few rounds.

A simple majority? the mean? The mode? The median? The issue is the distribution.

Honestly, I am more afraid of the guy with a Cell phone while driving much more than needing more rounds in my carry.

Good thinking, but what is likely to happen to you and what you might need in defensive encounter once it occurs are two entirely different subjects.

 

[Trey Veston]

Carry what works for you.

I got nothing against revolvers. Obviously the guys that are adamant about carrying them realize the disadvantage their at with lack of rounds and just dont care.

To each their own.

My personal criteria for a defensive pistol is at least 10 rounds of .40 S&W in a pistol that will do 2" 5-shot groups at 25yds. I've looked at the rare shootings in my area and the most relevant one was a schizophrenic who went on a shooting spree in several locations. One was a restaurant that me and my family often visits. The shots required to end the threat in that situation would have been around 40' if I would have stayed behind cover.

There are very, very few "traditional" self-defense incidents in my area in which the attacker is targeting a single person alone for the purpose of robbery and is within a few feet.

A snubby is ideal for those situations. If someone lives in an area that has a large number of those types of robberies, then I can not fault their choice of weapon.

I live in a very low crime area with a lot of college students and millenials. If I'm going to have to use a weapon, it will likely be in an active shooter type of situation. So I carry with that in mind.

I see no downside to be able to engage targets at further distances and have more capacity as long as it doesn't dussuade me from carrying in the first place.

 

[WheelGunMan]

I personally cannot carry a semi-auto pistol. I'm afflicted with a bad case of psoriasis that resides in my hands. This causes the skin on my finger tips to be very thin. Whenever I attempt to pull the slide back my fingers and thumb come away bleeding. I'll give another example...the wife and I went to a driving range the other day. We split a large bucket of balls. I didn't wear any gloves. By the end of the session both thumbs and both index fingers were split open and bleeding. So sometimes a revolver may be the only option for many when it comes to a defensive weapon.

I carry a concealed weapon to defend myself and my family. I have no intention of becoming involved in a confrontation due to vigilantism. I attempt to keep my situational awareness at a high level whenever I am away from home. If I observe something going down that doesn't directly involved me ..I'm heading the other way to a safe distance and will attempt to become a great witness.

The tired old argument of which is the better weapon rages on. If I was to subscribe to all the theories and so called experts...I wouldn't be able to walk because of all the gear I'd be carrying. If someone wants to be prepared for the next apocalypse every time they go out ...so be it. I on the other hand prefer to have the ability to simply defend myself should the need arises.

Plus on top of all that, I have never been a big fan of semi auto's. Especially hand guns. I own one semi auto weapon...a 10/22 Ruger carbine. The rest of my rifle and shotgun collection consists of lever action and bolt action.

Let's not forget that countless people have defended themselves against threats for over a century with the revolver.

 

[Trey Veston]

Let's not forget that countless people have defended themselves against threats for over a century with the revolver.

They've done the same with semi-autos as well. Not sure if that's a relevant argument.

 

[Zendude]

Every time I read this I feel the need to pull my LCR back out and try to make it work, but for whatever reason I just cant like it. Its unpleasant to shoot and I can never get it to shoot how I need it to.

It's not the trigger, I have other DA revolvers and semis that I can shoot just fine, it's not the sights as they are better than those on my Vaqueros, which are tack drivers, it's some nebulous combination of the two I guess.

But i do like to shoot a few cylendars through the LCR to numb my hands up when I'm shooting some particularly punchy .44 mag or 10mm loads, makes them feel pleasant in comparison.

I would just try a different snub. I didn’t care for the 38 LCR either for the same reason. A 38 Charter Undercover was a very different experience despite being only 4 oz heavier than the LCR. Felt recoil is less (for me) and it points more naturally.

 

[WheelGunMan]

They've done the same with semi-autos as well. Not sure if that's a relevant argument.

It's not an argument...a simple statement of fact.

 

[Styx]

They've done the same with semi-autos as well. Not sure if that's a relevant argument.

The argument is that a revolver's capacity is not enough. How does the fact that L.E. and civilians have successfully been using revolvers to defend their lives for over a century against semiautos and most likely multiple attackers armed with with or without revolvers themselves not a relevant argument?

Even in this day and age, plenty of people still carry revolvers. Others carry low capacity single stacks without a back up mag. I'm hypothesizing that there have to be millions of gun owners in this country who fit into this demographic, and other than internet hyperbole, I'm not seeing all the cases and facts to back up the arguments against revolvers. Yes, anything is possible, but is it probable to even any degree that the naysayers claim it is to a point that should deter anyone from carrying a revolver? History, numbers, and facts says no...

 

[Styx]

This kind of reminds me of the arguments thst antigunners use. How they do not want guns in the street because, for just one example, it will be like the wild west. That legal gun owners will end up shooting innocent bystanders. They may even have a anecdotal example or two to back up their argument. Can what they described accually happen? Sure it can. Is it, out of the several million of gun owners who have carried over the years, a reasonably valid concern based on facts and statistics on what is and has accually been happening in reality? No!

The same is true when it comes to citizens carrying revolvers IMHO. Until someone can show me data to the contrary, my opinion will remain the same. I'm guessing that several million have had to or continue to EDC low capacity firearms (revolvers or single stacks w/o reload) since high capacity handguns became the norm. Surely, if the naysayers concerns are based in reality, facts, and statistics, there must be hundreds or at least dozens of examples of revolver carriers being shot, injured, etc as a direct result of running out of ammo? Anyone care to share their data?

I mean S&W, Ruger, Colt, Taurus, Kimber, etc sell thousands of carry snubbies alone each and every year. I'd say it's a safe bet that the overwhelming majority of those who carry them do not also carry a back up gun... Where's the numbers and all the cases to back up the concerns?

 

[Kleanbore]

How does the fact that L.E. and civilians have successfully been using revolvers to defend their lives for over a century against semiautos and most likely multiple attackers armed with with or without revolvers themselves not a relevant argument?

At one time, people had to get by with a brace of single shot pistols. The five shot Paterson revolver proved to be vastly superior, and later the six shot cap and ball revolver was much preferred. People shifted to metallic cartridges as soon as they could,

Things change.

Even in this day and age, plenty of people still carry revolvers

Yes indeed.

I'm not seeing all the cases and facts to back up the arguments against revolvers.

It's not the mechanism, it's the capacity, and the limitation is a fact.

I mean S&W, Ruger, Colt, Taurus, Kimber, etc sell thousands of carry snubbies alone each and every year.

Sales carry revolvers as a proportion of the total have declinedlined, and sales of larger -capacity firearms exceed those of revolvers.

Where's the numbers and all the cases to back up the concerns?

The numbers are in the sales.