Will a revolver cut it for self defense anymore??????? (scenarios)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 10thmtn

I hope you realize how condescending your post comes across as.

---

And I hope you are aware of how whiny and childish all the fretting about capacity in and of itself sounds.

It's PART of the equation, not the answer to the problem.

Do you have to fight harder and smarter with a revolver - yes.
Is it the optimal fighting gun - no.

But all the crying about a revolver's insufficiency...

Please.

You want condescending? I'll give it to you right here: The people who are so desperately concerned if their gun is adequate to the situation are probably not adequate to the situation themselves.

The determining factors are awareness, aggression, fitness and the pure viciousness of spirit needed to kill someone trying to kill you, skill and gear.

NOT Gear...and all the rest of that stuff.

If you want to make it about gear to satisfy some deep seated need to satisfy emotional investment in your carry gun, do so.

But it's just sad for people to watch.

While I agree with most of your points, the fact remains that gear does matter at times.

You can be as determined and skilled as you can be, and sometimes it isn't enough if you don't have the right gear.

A Delta operative isn't going to stop a tank with an AR rifle. Motivated, skilled, and aggressive Japanese troops were slaughtered during WWII by our forces, in part due to their inferior equipment.

Anyway, I answered a question that was posted in this thread. Onward to more important things.

:bier:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 10thmtn

A Delta operative isn't going to stop a tank with an AR rifle.

---

I disagree. Royal marines took out an argentine warship with their rifles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 10thmtn

I hope you realize how condescending your post comes across as.

If we were all so "skilled" as to never miss, there would be little need for more than a two shot derringer.

I suppose if you go out camping, one of you stays up and keeps armed watch? You know - for situational awareness? Fact is that, in the real world, you cannot be on guard all the time - especially with kids distracting you.

You can have all kinds of "skill" but when things go hands-on, you cannot predict what will happen - as was the case in this tragic example.

Fact is, in this case, if the father had been using a weapon with more capacity, he might have been able to end things without the need to get the shotgun away from the attacker. We'll never know for certain, of course. But the question was asked - if there have ever been situations involving civilians where the capacity of the revolver was insufficient, and in this case, it was. The fight was not ended with the revolver.

And we know of many, many cases in law enforcement where officers were killed or injured after running their revolvers dry. Which is the reason virtually NO law enforcement agencies issue revolvers anymore.

Again - for most civilian encounters a revolver (preferably two) will be fine. But not always. If you can carry a higher capacity gun instead, I would.

---

10th Mountain.

Sir;

First I thank you for your service. I understand your position, and opinion. I have had enough experience using both revolver, and autoloader in the civilian world to have an opinion that differs. The situation you cite is the exception to the rule. Given the same daynamics but being armed with a high cap auto, the only difference may have been more ammo expended in the camper putting the other passengers at risk. IMO In that situation a revolver should have been the superior weapon in that a contact shot probably would have ended the situation. We probably do agree that the fighting technique with a revolver allows for a few more options, while the capacity of the auto lends better to the extended fight.

And Oh yeah... There are still Officers carrying revolvers... more than anyone would imagine.

There was a study by the NYPD sometime after they switched to Glocks and they discovered that officers were firing more rounds with Glocks compared with similar incidents with revolvers. The outcome of the shootings were the same albeit more lead flying around. I wish I could find the report but it sounded believable enough. Either way I carry a snub after years with both. Perhaps its just age, but I now feel more comfortable with the action of a revolver than an autoloader. This is not to say I wouldn't carry an auto of some type, just not currently.

Saber I have it at work. Avg rounds fired really didn't change. I will post it tomorrow

To the OP, my simple answer is YES (for self defense)
I personally dont carry revolvers just because I never got into that platform (I own a few revolvers but never carry them), that simple...

But in 1994, I was a witness or "potential victim" (nothing happen to me but I was in the house) of a home invasion. Two guys... My uncle shot two times .357 (a revolver)... one of the BG ran/escape so quick that he left one of his shoes and baseball cap in the scene... the other one was not that lucky.

For me the real thing is that no matter what you carry you need to train a lot and when you feel you are good at it then train a little bit more... so that you understand your limitations, etc. But in my experienced my uncle and his revolver did the job and Im grateful for it (I was a teen back then)

Thanks.

kal0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by azchevy

I disagree. Royal marines took out an argentine warship with their rifles.

---

"Warships" today have virtually no armor plate - just kevlar, and only over the vitals. Only aircraft carriers have armor. You still aren't stopping a tank with a rifle. :wink:

My point is that "warrior spirit," while important, will only take you so far. The Japanese had plenty of "warrior spirit" during WWII, but banzai bayonet charges into machine gun and semi-auto rifle fire was still suicidal. The Japanese thought their "warrior spirit" (the bushido code) would allow them to prevail over their enemies, and thus neglected important advances in equipment. They were dead wrong. Might be a lesson there, for those willing to learn from history.

Equipment matters. It is not the end-all and be-all, but it does matter.

And again - I carry two low capacity pistols daily, so I'm not much better than those who carry revolvers. But I don't fool myself into thinking that I wouldn't be better off with my G19.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Secret Spuk

10th Mountain.

Sir;

First I thank you for your service. I understand your position, and opinion. I have had enough experience using both revolver, and autoloader in the civilian world to have an opinion that differs. The situation you cite is the exception to the rule. Given the same daynamics but being armed with a high cap auto, the only difference may have been more ammo expended in the camper putting the other passengers at risk. IMO In that situation a revolver should have been the superior weapon in that a contact shot probably would have ended the situation. We probably do agree that the fighting technique with a revolver allows for a few more options, while the capacity of the auto lends better to the extended fight.

And Oh yeah... There are still Officers carrying revolvers... more than anyone would imagine.

---

Thanks, and thanks for disagreeing in an agreeable way. :bier:

In the situation I described, we'll never know the woulda, shoulda, coulda. All we DO know is that the father ran out of ammo, and the fight was still on. And this was with only one attacker.

I'm sure lots of officers carry revolvers - I doubt there are many departments issuing them, however. There's a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MitchellCT

And I hope you are aware of how whiny and childish all the fretting about capacity in and of itself sounds.

It's PART of the equation, not the answer to the problem.

Do you have to fight harder and smarter with a revolver - yes.
Is it the optimal fighting gun - no.

But all the crying about a revolver's insufficiency...

Please.

You want condescending? I'll give it to you right here: The people who are so desperately concerned if their gun is adequate to the situation are probably not adequate to the situation themselves.

The determining factors are awareness, aggression, fitness and the pure viciousness of spirit needed to kill someone trying to kill you, skill and gear.

NOT Gear...and all the rest of that stuff.

If you want to make it about gear to satisfy some deep seated need to satisfy emotional investment in your carry gun, do so.

But it's just sad for people to watch.

---

Skill with superior gear will always be preferable to skill with inferior gear. Having been in LE for many years, I've seen cases where a couple of shots was sufficient to drop someone, and I've seen cases where a person was still going after multiple hits. All else being equal, more ammunition is better. Period.

Professionals who rely on their handguns overwhelmingly choose semiauto pistols. I haven't seen anyone in this thread say that the revolver is insufficient in all cases, but anyone with a shred of common sense can envision defensive situations when increased capacity may be a desirable trait in a handgun.

What is "sad" is the insistence by those who choose the limited capacity of the revolver that they have figured out exactly how their defensive scenario will play out (2.5 shots fired, contact shot, etc.), and use this clairvoyance as the basis for their handgun selection. The reasonable man prefers to be prepared for ALL possible situations. At least, that's how I see it.

What is condescending is the notion that skill and spirit alone can allow one to completely control a defensive encounter. The bad guy might not run. Your shot placement may be off, even an inch, and not instantly drop your attacker. You may indeed run out of ammo while the fight is still on. Thumping your chest and insisting that skill alone will pull you through is honestly laughable. There is no finer example of the old mantra that arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand. Lethal force encounters are fluid, dynamic, and occur quickly and violently. The failure to recognize that a few more rounds of ammo might be a good thing is based on pure arrogance and ignorance.

Equipment most certainly CAN be a factor in a defensive encounter. To insist otherwise is just nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saber

There was a study by the NYPD sometime after they switched to Glocks and they discovered that officers were firing more rounds with Glocks compared with similar incidents with revolvers. The outcome of the shootings were the same albeit more lead flying around. I wish I could find the report but it sounded believable enough. Either way I carry a snub after years with both. Perhaps its just age, but I now feel more comfortable with the action of a revolver than an autoloader. This is not to say I wouldn't carry an auto of some type, just not currently.

---

Here is the study.... totally disproves the whole capacity crowd argument. Although I will be fair and note, this is NYPD statistics. They have radios, backup, and other forms of support that the concealed carrier does not have. The article is from 2008. I would like to see updated statistics some day.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/ny...l?pagewanted=1

Highlights pertaining to this thread:

Quote:

---

In such shootings, the total number of shots fired in each situation edged up to 4.7 in 2006. However, the figure is skewed by the 50 shots fired in the Bell case. Excluding that case, the average would be 3.6 shots.

---

Quote:

---

The average number of bullets fired by each officer involved in a shooting remained about the same over those 11 years even with a switch to guns that hold more bullets — as did officers’ accuracy, roughly 34 percent. This figure is known in police parlance as the “hit ratio.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vaquero 45

Skill with superior gear will always be preferable to skill with inferior gear.

Then why such an overwhelming consern about gear to the exclusion of any consideration of training?

Having been in LE for many years, I've seen cases where a couple of shots was sufficient to drop someone, and I've seen cases where a person was still going after multiple hits. All else being equal, more ammunition is better. Period.

Um...yeah. Revolutionary consept of having enough ammo to prosecute the fight.

Professionals who rely on their handguns overwhelmingly choose semiauto pistols. I haven't seen anyone in this thread say that the revolver is insufficient in all cases, but anyone with a shred of common sense can envision defensive situations when increased capacity may be a desirable trait in a handgun.

When the people doing the envisioning have their head where the sun don't shine regarding the skill acompanying the weapons they are discussing, I don't find much common sense.

What is "sad" is the insistence by those who choose the limited capacity of the revolver that they have figured out exactly how their defensive scenario will play out (2.5 shots fired, contact shot, etc.), and use this clairvoyance as the basis for their handgun selection.

I agree.

The reasonable man prefers to be prepared for ALL possible situations. At least, that's how I see it.

Me too, I just see all the fretting about capacity as an excuse to dismiss a reliable, effective weapon system because someone doesn't understand it or want to put in the effort to master it.

What is condescending is the notion that skill and spirit alone can allow one to completely control a defensive encounter.

Did I ever say anything about completely controling an encounter? I said gear was a less critical part of the encounter than skill.

The bad guy might not run. then shoot him to the ground
Your shot placement may be off, even an inch, and not instantly drop your attacker. dry fire more, do ball and dummy drills, and shoot again
You may indeed run out of ammo while the fight is still on. they have this cool consept - reloading. They let you use speed loaders and speed strips, which people can get quite quick with. Also, carrying a 2nd gun works too

Thumping your chest and insisting that skill alone will pull you through is honestly laughable.
So in the intense focus on equiptment to the backhanded comments about training with a weapon.

There is no finer example of the old mantra that arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand.
You've noticed?
Lethal force encounters are fluid, dynamic, and occur quickly and violently.
Really? I thought they were scripted and moderately paced?!

The failure to recognize that a few more rounds of ammo might be a good thing is based on pure arrogance and ignorance.
The failure to recognize that mindset, tactics and skill will trump a few more rounds of ammo is based on being a gear-centric fool.

Equipment most certainly CAN be a factor in a defensive encounter. To insist otherwise is just nonsense.
Anything CAN matter...but a lot of things are more critical than what party favors you bring to the party.

---

I'm in bold above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vaquero 45

Skill with superior gear will always be preferable to skill with inferior gear. Having been in LE for many years, I've seen cases where a couple of shots was sufficient to drop someone, and I've seen cases where a person was still going after multiple hits. All else being equal, more ammunition is better. Period.

Professionals who rely on their handguns overwhelmingly choose semiauto pistols. I haven't seen anyone in this thread say that the revolver is insufficient in all cases, but anyone with a shred of common sense can envision defensive situations when increased capacity may be a desirable trait in a handgun.

What is "sad" is the insistence by those who choose the limited capacity of the revolver that they have figured out exactly how their defensive scenario will play out (2.5 shots fired, contact shot, etc.), and use this clairvoyance as the basis for their handgun selection. The reasonable man prefers to be prepared for ALL possible situations. At least, that's how I see it.

What is condescending is the notion that skill and spirit alone can allow one to completely control a defensive encounter. The bad guy might not run. Your shot placement may be off, even an inch, and not instantly drop your attacker. You may indeed run out of ammo while the fight is still on. Thumping your chest and insisting that skill alone will pull you through is honestly laughable. There is no finer example of the old mantra that arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand. Lethal force encounters are fluid, dynamic, and occur quickly and violently. The failure to recognize that a few more rounds of ammo might be a good thing is based on pure arrogance and ignorance.

Equipment most certainly CAN be a factor in a defensive encounter. To insist otherwise is just nonsense.

---

I totally agree with everything you stated in your post and for the record IMO, it's spot one in most every respect however, I would like to add just one point that IMO seems too be overlooked, or just plain out right ignored for whatever reason. In almost every thread I read on this forum that involves tactics, firearms, calibers and yada yada yada, is this; in some to most all cases the average Joe that encounters a bad guy will not be facing one of the most badazz dudes around with specialized Seal Team training and what not. It will most likely be some loser that is down on his luck and looking for an easy score. I'm of the opinion that once that loser meets up with someone like the majority of the members on this forum, and regardless of what firearm their sporting that day, it will have a drastic effect on the BG, and in most cases they will try to evade the onslaught that is about to unfold on top of um. Now mind you, I'm not saying it will, or it won't happen, but again, No Navy Seals, no Rangers and so on, just a flat out loser with little to no will in life for making a living, must less fighting to the death over an unknown amount of cash, or whatever. Just the sight, or presence of a firearm will probably defuse the encounter without a single shot being fired. If not, at close range the revolver will do what it was designed to do if the shooter did more than just buy the thing, load it up and stick it in his/her pocket and pretend it's a magic talisman, or good luck charm.:wink:


The gun is just the tool, but it's not the only tool you have. Your will to fight and defend yourself is the most important factor in a fight, whether it's a gun fight, or hand to hand. I choose the revolver because it's about as close as you can humanly get to 100% reliability. I have plenty of autoloaders, but none make me feel the confidence I feel when I'm toting one of my revolvers. If I know I going into a area known for gangs and what not, sure I'll bring the Glock or the M&P, but then again, I think I'd need to examine that for a minute. Why do I need to go into a place like that anyway. :blink: Chances are high that I could find an alternate route that wouldn't put me out, or increase my chances of being attacked.


Anyway, just my thoughts this Monday morning... Carry on.. :bier:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 10thmtn

Motivated, skilled, and aggressive Japanese troops were slaughtered during WWII by our forces, in part due to their inferior equipment.

---

Strange...when I read about WWII it always seemed to me that the IJA fought tooth and nail, causing the Allies to suffer terrifying casualties in almost every conflict, and the thing that won the war for the USA was the fact the Marines & Army troops were equally committed, skilled, agressive and just as tough...

But has a LOT more in the way of supplies, support and manpower.

The figures I read were that the US Troops had 10 times the supplies in terms of support, food, medicine, ammo, transportation and so forth over the Japanese.

If it wasn't for US Industry being so well protected and being so productive, the IJA would have been a much more equal foe - inferior gear aside.

I don't think you'd find a historian who would say it was the IJA's infantry weapons which lost them the war.

The fact they lost the IJN ships, the carriers were hunted down and killed, air superiority was established at hellish cost and stuff like that set the stage for the IJA to be strangled slowly as they Army & Marines hunted them down and fought them one bloody foot at a time.

Mitchell - I realize you are an attorney, and thus make your living arguing. I was using this example as an illustration to make a point. The Japanese were skilled and motivated - but armed with bolt action rifles, bayonets, and unreliable machine guns, their banzai charges usually turned into slaughters of biblical proportions in front of our forces' lines. That was partly due to our use of semi-auto Garand rifles, and reliable Browning machine guns. Elan and spirit can only make up for so much, in the face of fire and steel.

The Zulus were ultimately defeated by the British. You don't get much more fighting spirit than that. But spears against rapid-firing guns? Nope.

Skill and spirit matter. A lot. I was an officer in the Army - you don't need to lecture me on that. But to say that equipment is not also important, is foolish. Which will prove decisive is hard to predict, and depends on the circumstances.

Getting back on topic - carry a pistol AND a revolver. There. Best of both worlds. Argument solved. :wave: