Why a revolver may be a better choice for most shooters...

[rich2u]

Bottom line is no one knows how there going to react when the sh_t hits the fan. We can practice all you want but when it happens there is one rule that even the experts don't argue & thats the KISS principle. A revolver is about as simple as you can get PULL the trigger

 

[blckthree]

A couple hundred rounds a month for practice... I knew I was doing something wrong. I need to cut back on practice!

Mike

 

[Dienekes]

It's Called Training

Rich2U, I disagree. We CAN be 99% sure of how we will react under pressure. Character plus training plus peer expectations gets the job done if it can be done at all.

The problem is that many folks don't want to do the hard work involved and are looking for an excuse when they can't cut it. ("We're all winners here.")

Jim Cirillo made shooting history with a Model 10 Smith that wouldn't bring $150 at a gun show today. It was the man, not the gun.

We had better remember it in time or we will be carrying water and hewing wood for better men than we are.

Nothing new.

 

[Ankeny]

Talk about thread drift.

Dienekes:

I see you are from Wyoming. I am really curious about who you are. I shot with most of the hot rock revolver shooters from 1970-1985, most of them from law enforcement. Do we know each other?

 

[355sigfan]

For civilian carry I firmly believe 5 or 6 shots is all you need.
END QUOTE

I disagree. 5 or 6 rounds is reported to be all you need for the AVERAGE Gun fight. I contend there is nothing average about a gun fight. 5 or 6 may be enough but what if it is not. Its better to have more than you need than to need more and not have it. Many have explained the various pro's and cons to the revolver and auto weapon systems so I will not got there. I will say that according to sales figures amoung CCW holders and LEO's revolvers are fading into history. They still work fine but people are chosing them less and less. Thats what we call a clue in law enforcement.
Pat

 

[RWK]

A different way to look at procurement data . . .

355sigfan,

With respect, is it possible that revolvers are “fading into history†for LEOs because departmental firearms standards (maintenance and upkeep, mechanical proficiency and understanding, accuracy, mandatory qualification standards, required range time, and so forth) have generally declined with time? Many threads (here, on TFL and elsewhere) have lamented the overall lack of contemporary LEO interest in firearms, especially in comparison to decades past. Under those circumstances, an affordable, high-capacity, tactical -- not target -- accurate, very simple/durable/reliable handgun would be quite sensible, which may (in part, in addition to acquisition cost and marketing) explain law enforcement’s extensive use of Glocks.

 

[355sigfan]

With respect, is it possible that revolvers are “fading into history†for LEOs because departmental firearms standards (maintenance and upkeep, mechanical proficiency and understanding, accuracy, mandatory qualification standards, required range time, and so forth) have generally declined with time?
END QUOTE

I disagree. Training has improved firearms maintence has standarized and improved. Police used to have little in the way of realistic training that is not the case today. For example training used to consist of the FBI crouch and 1 handed bullseye shooting.

Take my State for example. The Anchorage Police Department and the Alaska State Troopers adopted autos in the same time frame. Both upgraded their training with the help of Gunsight. Their respective hit ratios in real gun fights are not in the 90% range. It is true that new officers have less of a gun background now then any time in history. However cops have always been poor about shooting on their own time and maintaining their weapons. Glocks take this abuse better than some other designs.

But the overall training, qualification standards and range time have improved dramatically. The reason hit ratios are low nationally is because they have always been low. Gun fights are stressfull and people do miss. People do fire more rounds now but at least they have the rounds to fire.

Some research was done with the Illinoise State police after they adopted autos. Several shootings were found were officers lived because they had 9 shots available instead of 6.
Pat

 

[DonGlock26]

I think new shooters should start with a .38/.357 3-4" revolver, then progress to a Glock9mm. After gaining skill with the Glock, the shooter can then move on to a .40,.357Sig,or 1911 .45acp. After this phase, the experiened shooter can return to the Glock9mm because they are the best.

 

[valnar]

I agree with the original post on most counts, except needing to shoot about 200 rounds per month. Sometimes I do less, sometimes I go an entire month without shooting at all. Winter in Ohio is cold, and I don't always like to pay for the indoor ranges. I know I am good "enough" without practicing, and sometimes I just like to save the money. However, I like to keep my guns in pristine condition, so I guess that makes me more of a collector than a shooter - even though I don't collect per se.

I get a warm fuzzy feeling just knowing I own most of my guns, not necessarily shooting them!

-Robert

 

[BigG]

I think developing skill with a DA revolver is time well spent. I often shoot for quite a while with a K22 double action only. It's cheap practice and builds skill with any S&W revolver. I also find the snubby j-frames shoot better DAO than thumb cocking due to the small size of grip and other ergonomics. YMMV

With guys like Bill Jordan, Ed McGivern, Jelly Bryce or the NY guy (forgot his name ) it is incredible to think that people will say an auto is a better go to gun.

 

[Ankeny]

With guys like Bill Jordan, Ed McGivern, Jelly Bryce or the NY guy (forgot his name ) it is incredible to think that people will say an auto is a better go to gun.

With guys like Rob Leatham, Todd Jarret, Jerry Barnhart or that French kid (forgot his name) it is incredible to think anyone would even own a revolver.

Shoot what you want to shoot. That's why they make so many different guns.

 

[BigG]

Jim Cirillo is the NY guy. BTW, with the exception of McGivern, all those guys had practical experience with their sixguns - i.e., they proved it in the crucible of armed combat something those other race gun guys Ankeny named probably didn't.

So, shoot what you want but recognize real world experience vs highly controlled gaming.

 

[Ankeny]

I figured the next guy would bring up gaming vs. the real world, or some of that "square range" nonsense. Maybe I should have mentioned names like Sgt. York for you old timers or Gabe Suarez, Clint Smith, etc. for the tactical crowd.

BigG:

Here, I'll help you rob me of all credibility. I am a gamer. Here's a partial listing of the top 10 USPSA revolver shooters from the UPSPSA Website.

1. Jerry Miculek
2. Richard Bitow
3. Jack Graham
4. Ronald Ankeny
....

Yep, just another gamer who is tired of being lectured to about what it's like to shoot a revolver.

 

[BigG]

Ankeny, I was just responding to the spirit of the original post that talked about the average person doesn't maintain his gun, doesn't practice, doesn't get familiar, etc. The revo is a much better choice for those. You bring up a highly structured activity that has all sorts of arcane rules, sorta like comparing Formula 1 race cars and drivers with a cheap reliable car and the average driver. I think it's two different things.

 

[Sean Smith]

Here, I'll help you rob me of all credibility.

Observation: you could probably out-shoot anyone posting on this topic... in any context.

Conclusion: your statements have no merit.

With guys like Bill Jordan, Ed McGivern, Jelly Bryce or the NY guy (forgot his name ) it is incredible to think that people will say an auto is a better go to gun.

Not really. Some guys won gunfights with a sixgun. So what? There are an awful lot of Medal of Honor citations earned with a 1911. Or a cap and ball revolver. Or... see where this is going? Your argument is a non-argument. Bottom line is, it doesn't say anything about if their weapons were better or worse.

Ankeny, I was just responding to the spirit of the original post that talked about the average person doesn't maintain his gun, doesn't practice, doesn't get familiar, etc. The revo is a much better choice for those.

So how are alleged master gunfighters any more relevant to the average person with no talent and no clue than a racegunner is?

 

[Ankeny]

Sorry about the additional thread drift guys. I just really get riled up over the same old debate about ultimate gamer vs. self defense guru. I'll take that elsewhere.

I was just responding to the spirit of the original post that talked about the average person doesn't maintain his gun, doesn't practice, doesn't get familiar, etc. The revo is a much better choice for those.

OK, thanks for clearing things up.

 

[BigG]

Shootin's a big tent. We all got a ringside seat. And Sean Smith, Howinhell do I know? I ain't a guru or a gamer, jes an enthusiast.